Scotland and England together on equal terms!

I was pondering Tony Blair's handwritten note on the front page of a copy of the Scotland Act. It reads...

To Donald,
It was a struggle, it may always be hard : but it was worth it. Scotland and England together on equal terms!
Tony Blair

I agree with this statement! England and Scotland should be on equal terms. If no major party will support an English Parliament, I therefore propose the following...

> We create 30 additional seats in the Scottish Parliament
> These additional MSPs will be returned from English constituencies
> The First Minister and Finance Minister will be selected from these English MSPs
> The First Minister will not be validated by an election: he would be there because he thinks "it’s his turn”
> The Finance Minister will be appointed because because he is the First Minister’s mate
> The First MInister and Finance Minister will sign a solemn oath swearing to hold England’s "interests paramount” in all their "actions and deliberations"

These powerful individuals will be sure that every measure they proposed for the Scottish people would have an automatic 20-odd% of votes in their favour, courtesy of the 30 non-Scottish MSPs.

Then, and only then, will Scotland and England be together on equal terms!

Do you think anyone would mind? No? Let's do it!

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to all our members and supporters.

Not in the interests of the many

Last week’s PMQs (PMQ 17/6/09) saw Gordon Brown launch his latest campaign which is summed up by the sound bite “not in the interests of the many, but the few”.

He challenged Cameron “They [the Tories] should go back to their constituencies and explain how many police, how many nurses, how many doctors, how many teachers they would cut for policies that are in the interests not of the many but in their case in the interests of the few.”

It sounds like a fair point, except that if Brown was to do the same, his constituents would tell him he doesn’t represent them (ergo no mandate) for any of these issues. In fact he doesn’t represent ANYONE in these areas!

Partial devolution has created two classes of MP at Westminster. There are those that represent their constituents in all matters put before them (1st Class) and those who are excluded from representing their constituents when it comes to Health, Education, Housing, Sport and Arts, Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing, Emergency Services, Planning, Social Work, Heritage, some Transport and Tourism (2nd Class).

Brown, like Darling and roughly 20% of the House belong to this second tier. He CAN’T go back to his constituents and tell them “how many police, how many nurses, how many doctors, how many teachers” HE would cut, because it’s none of his damn business!

I wrote to Tom Harris MP for Glasgow South who is a first class blogger and second class MP (in the above sense) and asked him if he felt his public service had been devalued since devolution. I haven’t had a reply, so the email must’ve got lost in the ether.

What I don’t understand is why Cameron didn’t nail him with this one. I realise that Cameron considers England to be full of “sour little Englanders”, but he’s also a politician and they have been known in the past to use anything at their disposal, why didn’t he use this?

“…a nation with a single political identity which it has maintained for at least as long as Scotland’s”

The Calman Commission (pic left) has published its report.

The fact it is called “Serving Scotland Better” and Brown said it is “bold and realistic” immediately set my teeth on edge. Despite this and in the interests of academic thoroughness, I sat down and read it.

It contained much that I expected although my blood pressure steadily rose as it ducked and dived the issues that cause the greatest harm, viz…

Barnett: “it is not for us to judge whether the present level of public spending in Scotland is appropriate or not” (37)

Asymmetrical devolution: “It is not our job to say whether this should change” (16)

The West Lothian Question: “is a matter for the UK Parliament, not a matter for the Commission” (4.92)

So, I wasn’t expecting much meat to be found on these bones. I was however expecting to read about “nations and regions” and regional assemblies for “the rest of the UK”, but to be fair, they mentioned the ‘E’ word often throughout the whole report.

Then I read something that the Lib/Lab/Con trick alliance won’t be happy about …

2.12 “…there is no equivalent of devolved institutions for England.”

2.13 “It is not for us to discuss where or how power might be decentralised or devolved in England – whether, as has been proposed in the past, to regional level, or by giving more power to local institutions."

Here we go. Not power devolved to England, but IN England. Sounds like the hated regionalist policy to me, but then it goes on…

“But, however such ideas might be pursued, they will not affect the fact that England, though larger than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, will remain a nation with a single political identity which it has maintained for at least as long as Scotland’s.”

Wow! I have read and re-read this paragraph and they seem to be saying that England is a nation with "a single political identity at least as long as Scotland's!!" Does Gordon know about this? He'll be furious!

It continues…

“It is of course possible to divide the UK into “standard regions” for administrative and statistical purposes. Scotland is one of those regions, as are Wales and Northern Ireland.”

Yeah but they’re also nations as well as administrative ‘standard regions’.

“But the standard regions in England do not have the same sort of political identity as
Scotland.”

Are they saying that regions will never have the same political identity as Scotland because they are a subset of the nation of England? Have I read this correctly? I hope so because it concludes…

“ This fundamental aspect of the Union will always remain, and must not be ignored in its territorial constitution.”

Are they saying England is a nation and this fact must not be ignored in its constitution (and logically) any future constitution?

If this is the case, then Calman has delivered something I didn’t expect and I don’t think Gordon will be happy about the “regions” being recognized as the nation of England. Especially by a bunch of lackys he’s paid to do a snow job on Barnett!.

I like this report a great deal more than I thought I would.


BTW as we have a Government commited to “fairness for all the UK” I thought I’d google “Serving England Better” and I got this…

No results found for "serving england better".”, so there were no surprises there.

A Guide to the Barnett Formula

I’ve been running with the hoodies of blog steerage (as a Scottish journalist once coined) for a few years now and the same arguments keep coming up time and again.

So, I’ve decided to create a ‘cut out and keep’ guide to the Barnett Formula. I’ll do the same for an English Parliament, but first...

1. Does Scotland actually receive more money than Wales and every English region, without having to pay a penny extra in taxes?

Yes, here are the facts.

2. Isn't it based upon need and if Scotland have greater need, shouldn't they have a greater share?

It's not based upon need and Scotland don't need it.
As Alistair Darling pointed out, Scotland has the highest income per head in the UK, outside London and the South East. So why does the third richest "region", out of twelve, get the second highest handout? More importantly, why don't English MPs challenge Brown when he lies to Parliament that Barnett is based on need?

3 Someone once told me that London gets more than Scotland, is this true?

It is possible to show London gets more if you include “invisible” expenditure. How ANY taxpayers’ money should ever be allowed to become invisible in the first place is a separate question, but a (not exhaustive) list of invisible spending can include such items as civil servants' wages, army, navy and air force top brass, the Queen’s frocks, Gorbal Mick’s expenses, MPs second homes, plasma teles and the deputy Prime Minister’s dinner bills. None of this goes to people in the form of services (as in Scotland). It just means more well paid people, higher house prices, more Michelin starred restaurants and a lower standard of living for ordinary people. A double whammy as someone once said.

4. Would it make any difference if such largess was reigned in?

David Cameron said “I always say to English audiences …do not believe that there's some pot of gold here…Get it in perspective."

OK Dave (may I call you Dave?), let’s do that. In the ten years following devolution, Scotland received almost £60bn more than England

That’s a lot of money when spread between 5m people, but in England (ten times Scotland’s size) it is enough to pay for the entire schools and universities budget. This also translates into better pay for nurses, teachers, smaller class sizes, life saving cancer drugs (not available in England), free tertiary education, sight saving drugs etc etc.

5. Does oil have anything to do with it?

No, if Scotland is part of the UK it is UK oil and its benefits should be distributed on the basis of need. This may be a good argument for independence (see below) but not for special (ie unfair) treatment.

6. Does England subsidise Scotland, or is it the other way around?

Tony Blair puts England’s contribution at £10bn and the Scotsman Newspaper recently put it at £20bn. The McCrone report stated 30 years ago that Scotland’s surplus would be “embarrassing” if they were an independent nation. The truth is, no one knows because successive Government departments have obfuscated the facts. Maybe Scotland subsidises the rest, maybe England, maybe not…who cares?

The point is WE ALL PAY EXACTLY THE SAME TAXES, BUT SOME BRITONS GET A LOT MORE BANGS FOR THEIR BUCKS (See 3 above) and this is THE problem with Barnett.

7. Should Scotland be “fiscally independent”?

No, this phrase suggests a special treatment within the Union (see 3 above) they should either be “in” or be “out”… makes yer choice!

8. Should Scotland be independent?

I’d vote for it, but that’s my opinion. Your opinion should be based on more factors than money though.

9. Is the Union dead?

I can’t see England putting up with this situation for much longer, can you?

Who's kidding who?

Last Saturday's episode of Dr Who, broadcast on BBC1, had a scene which portrayed the English as racists by using the phrase "England for the English" in the context of someone being sent to a labour camp.

Dr Who is made by BBC Wales and they have been consistent in their use of “Britain” and “British”, until now. Rather than use the better known and older phrase "Britain for the British", they changed it somewhat. Why? And how did this come about?

I imagine a room somewhere in BBC Wales, two writers are working their way through their creative block...

...how about "British Jobs for British People"?

... No, that wouldn't work, the author is Scottish

...OK, how about "Britain for the British"? It was the title of a book written in 1902 by a socialist and was adopted as a theme by the then fledgling Labour Party. It was also a popular theme for the National Front in the 1970s and is commonly used by the BNP today.

...No, that wouldn't work either, because it includes Scots and Welsh. We've got to think of a way to slag off the English whilst leaving the Welsh and the Scots squeaky clean.

...I know, I know! How about we change the word "Britain" to "England" and then change "British" to "English"? So, "Britain for the British" becomes "England for the English"!

... Brilliant! That way we can liable the English and leave a subliminal message in the minds of the viewer

... Yes, but will it work? Surely people will realise that English national sentiment has only arisen since devolution and if anything they're the most tolerant nation in these islands.

... God no, they'll realise nothing! The tellie is often the only source of information for these plebs and we ARE THE TELLIE!

... are you sure they'll forget so easily?

... they're like bloody goldfish! Most are so dumb they won't remember the phrase "Britain for the British" was ever used by the time the programme has finished.

... Got it! So, if we say it often enough and no one complains, it'll become received knowledge and everyone will only associate such a negative phrase with England and English!

... EXACTLY!

... Well now we've put that one to bed, let's go and thump an English horse!

"...we need to make a transition to democracy as soon as possible"

How long will the international community sit on its hands whilst this man refuses to legitimise his Government with a fair election? This bigot refuses to accept the democratic will of the people he governs! He thumbs his nose at every principle and moral obligation, whilst desperately clinging to power. A power he knows would be taken from him, if he ever dared hold an election.

Democratic plebiscites are swept aside, if they don’t go his way. If he thinks he'll lose an election, he simply refuses to hold it!

Some of his citizens are actually dying because he has agitated tribal differences and openly diverts money from the majority of people in order to give his own people preferential treatment. The principle of "One Man, One Vote" has been swept aside so that his tribe can wield a disproportionate amount of power.

Every democratic indicator shows the majority are thirsty for the same democratic and fiscal privileges as "his people" but he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge their calls.

Bare-faced lies are his only justification for such measures and the opposition are too timid to challenge him. There are some brave dissenting voices, even amongst his own ranks, but such dissent is ruthlessly suppressed by an individual ominously referred to as "the Chief Whip”.

The title of this post quotes Brown addressing the summit launching the 43-nation Union for the Mediterranean, in Paris. He was referring to Zimbabwe when he said "We should not lessen the pressure on this regime,I believe we need to make a transition to democracy as soon as possible."

Well Mr Brown, at least Robert Mugabe (pictured) has led his party to democratic victory at least once! You can’t even claim this moral authority, never mind justify the continuance of Barnett and the lack of an English Parliament!

Letter in the Sunday Times

England's Health Apartheid was summarised in the Sunday Times with this cartoon by Heath.It shows a scot in the "top tier" looking healthy giving a thumbs up sign, whilst in the "bottom tier" is a sick looking patient in the "UK" bed. OK it didn't say "England" but it is a start.

There is also an article reporting "MPs tell Brown to purge his Scots" opposite another "NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay". I don't mind how many Scots there are in the UK Government, they should be selected on merit. What I do object to is Scots Ministers/Prime Ministers failing to address the democratic and funding deficit in order to feather the nests of their kith and kin in the North.

Devolution is not a matter of life or death. Oh wait, IT IS!

My blogs are often light hearted, but here is a story that demonstrates the extent of this Government’s discrimination against England and how a lack of an English Parliament really can be a "life or death" matter.

Englishman Jack Hose has paid National Insurance (at the same rate as those in Scotland) for fifty years. He now has cancer and was sent home by the Royal Bournemouth Hospital "to die”. He then discovered a cocktail of drugs (including Cetuximab) that has managed to stabilise his condition.

Guess what? The drug Cetuximab is not available on “the NHS” according to the Sunday Times. Guess what else? It is freely available to the likes of Brown, in Scotland… well thank God for that!!

The odious slimeball that is the ENGLISH Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, had the breathtaking, blood pressure soaring, homicidal inducing gaul to say this victim shouldn’t be allowed to PAY FOR IT HIMSELF because it would create a “two tier NHS”.

WELL Mr. GOVERNMENT “WE ARE LISTENING” MINISTER …A TWO TIER SYSTEM WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE FOUR TIER ONE YOU’VE CREATED! By the way, guess which nation has the bottom tier (in terms of spending?) ...of course, England!

Please write to Johnson and the Times. For some reason I’ve never been able to leave comments on the Times pages (anyone know why?), but please leave your comments there.

"Now I don't think you wanted to do that, did you?”

It is possible to bury bad news on a day full of bad news. This is a day full of bad news for Gordon Brown (right), so I would like to record this little nugget that may have passed him, and most of us, by.

Firstly, a little background on the workings of our illustrious leader…

Gordon Brown is not a Unionist. Gordon Brown is a Scottish partisan who has recently embraced the union in order to prevent (divert) the majority of Britons from threatening the privileged status that he himself has organised for his fellow countrymen. Brown has ensured, and continues to ensure, that Scotland’s interests are “paramount” in all his “actions and deeds” as he solemnly swore he would do, when he signed the Scottish Claim of Right in 1988.

The Plan
Brown was a major architect of the devolution settlement. It was designed to promote and protect two things dear to his heart, 1 Scotland and 2 the Labour Party. His design was to put Scotland beyond the reach of the Tories and take the wind out of the nationalists’ sails, thus making Scotland forever Labour. Hurrah!

This is why power was devolved to the Celtic (Labour) nations when national division made little sense. However, the national settlement could not be extended to England (no English Parliament for you laddie) so he planned to carve out other Labour strongholds on a regional level who could also be given assemblies too. These Assemblies would have less power than the Scottish Parliament thereby neutering England AND the Tories by putting vast areas of the UK beyond their reach. The man’s a genius!!

The Result
What a politician! What a Machiavellian giant who would forever be remembered across the centuries as the man who saved the Tories in Scotland! (Huh? surely saved Scotland FROM the Tories??). No! Read that again... Gordon Brown is the man who saved the Tories in Scotland!

It's true! According to Angus McLeod of the Times, the Tories were a spent force in Scotland by the 1990s, but “…the Scottish Tories have been left thanking God for devolution ever since. That, and probably that alone, has saved them from complete decline in Scotland.”

Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together? As Oscar Wilde once said, (referring to the death of Little Nell in Dickens’ Old Curiosity Shop) “you would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh”.

If this is your epitaph Gordon, I recommend you take another look at the Crewe and Nantwich bi-election results, just to cheer yourself up a bit.

Brown Knows!

Sometimes, campaigning for a cause that lacks the backing of any major political party or national newspaper, feels like flicking grains of rice at a bulldozer that’s about to squash us into oblivion.

But other-times, you get a chink of light that shows it actually does some good. A sign that all our letters, blogging, lobbying and arguing in cyber space actually does get through to those in power. One such time was yesterday when Gordon Brown said “There is also an English lobby for a separate English parliament.”

He used it in the context that giving England what he has granted his fellow countrymen would somehow be damaging to the Union. (This is the Union that he himself has destabilised more than any other person in history and the same Union that an English Parliament would actually serve to save.) Anyway, as Jack Straw should have said (according to Secret Person) “I am wholly in favour of an English parliament. If you stay on the current route, there would be little advantage seen by those in England for maintaining the Union, because the argument would be, what exactly is in it for us?”

Well said secret person, but let’s just bask for a moment in the knowledge that we’ve managed to pierce Brown’s ivory tower… "An English lobby for a separate English Parliament!"

Does he mean us? I think he does, you know? He knows! Brown knows!

Give us a Poll Straw!

Jack Straw (left) has once more stated that an English Parliament would destroy the Union. He told the Justice Committee:…

…an English parliament would be a disaster …blah, blah…Wales and Scotland would demand independence …blah, blah… EVoEL would effectively create an English parliament …blah, blah… current arrangements are to the advantage of every section of the UK …blah, blah… no serious sentiment” in England for an English parliament …blah, blah, ad nauseum

I could nail every one of the above falsehoods, but we’ve been here before and it would make little difference. Straw himself knows these statements are false, so there’s little point stating why.

How do we know this? Well, here is a handy ‘cut out and keep’ guide to referenda, their constitutional value and use by the Labour Party…

1. Labour are the only party to use them
2. Labour only use them if they are sure people will vote in accordance with Labour policy
3. The result is then used to suppresses opposition (inside and outside the party) because “the people have spoken”
4. Labour don’t have to implement the result if it doesn’t agree with “2” above

So, here are some examples of this policy in action…

1975: UK join the EEC?...
Labour policy = Yes: Result = Yes = THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!

1979: Devolution?...
Labour policy = Yes: Result = No = "ay? sorry, I'm sure this isn't what you meant, so we'll ask again later"

1997: Devolution?...
Labour policy = Yes: Result = Yes =THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!

2004: Regionalisation?
Labour policy =Yes : result = No = "don't be silly! We know what you meant, we'll give it to you anyway (who the bloody hell decided to ask the people to speak on this one? Prescott, you make me sick!)

2007: Lisbon Treaty?
Labour policy = Yes: Expected Result = No = "Don’t anyone dare suggest we ask these plebs what they think, because THEY DON'T!"

2008: Scottish Independence?
Labour policy = No: Expected Result = No, er Yes, er...: therefore “Bring it on!, er no, leave it, ooh, er!"

One sunny day: English Parliament?
Labour policy = No: Expected result = Yes = "Don’t ask these plebs what they think! (unless they're Scottish, in which case keep asking)

So, this is how we know Straw’s doesn't believe what he is saying! If he did think there is “no serious sentiment for an English Parliament”, we’d have a vote tomorrow!

We’re not all “right” Jack and never were!

I’m going to speak at a St George’s Day dinner for a local branch of Rotarians, so I thought I’d set my stall out by pointing out that you don’t have to be racist just because you’re standing up for England. I then read Jack Straw’s article in the Mail and thought, “no dammit, I’m not going to apologise for something that doesn’t need an apology”.

Some politicians, especially those of the centre-left, often attempt to smear any expression of Englishness by making an association with the far right. If there is no connection, they make one up and Straw’s article is a classic example.

He purported to tell us to celebrate St George’s Day but began by telling a story about meeting a BNP (it's “buh” for Britain Jack, not “eh” for England) thug on a doorstep. He somehow managed to weave in the murder of Stephen Lawrence and spent much of the article banging on about St George being “one of them” (Jack’s words not mine) because he was a Persian who wandered around the middle east before dying in what is now Turkey. So what Jack? You’ll be casting doubt on the validity of the Dragon next.

So, why point out George’s ethnicity? Is he trying to make us more “inclusive”? England is one of the most (the most?) inclusive nations in Europe and certainly the most ethnically diverse in these islands. Maybe he expects us to recoil in horror, then seek out a more racially acceptable saint? (How about St. Patrick? He’s English). No, I think he was just slinging mud by making associations where none exist.

In short, we don’t have to claim Englishness from the far right because they’ve never had it.

I’ve rewritten my opening sentence and it now reads “I am a member of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but I am NOT a 280 Pound Easter Bunny”.

By George I think they’ve got it!

Happy St George’s Day!

The lead up to today has had its fair share of fascists trying to tell everyone else what to do (eg Bradford police/council), but far less than normal. There has also been real cause for celebration.

Google has always celebrated everyone’s national day except England, but wait, what's this?… who is that bloke at the top of the hill? Could it be? Yes it is! OK, a foreigner would be forgiven for thinking it is Dragon’s day, given the prominence of the dragon… but as someone once said, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Well done Google images!!!

Having recovered from this gesture of inclusiveness, I thought I’d Google St George and I found THIS! Gordon “Britishness” Brown is going to fly the Cross of St George from No. 10! A Downing Street spokesman said, "The prime minister's view is that of course we should celebrate our Britishness, but celebrating our Britishness does not mean we cannot also celebrate our Englishness, Scottishness, Welshness or Northern Irishness."

He said Englishness (by proxy, but nonetheless…) and he put it ahead of the other nations.

Is the wall beginning to crumble after all these years of banging our heads against it?

Murphy’s Law

A while back I blogged about the Welsh Health Minister wanting to make the English jealous over free prescriptions and introducing measures to stop Health Tourists (English) from taking advantage. However, when the shoe’s on the other prosthetic limb, a host of UK politicos lined up to say it’s not a problem if the Health Tourists are Welsh.

According to Christine Russell (Chester, Lab) “20% and perhaps even more of its beds were occupied by patients from the Welsh side of the border”. This is causing English Health Trusts to lose “tens of millions of pounds”. Yet she had “no absolutely objection to patients who live in Wales actually being treated at the Countess of Chester Hospital - it is their local hospital."


Paul Murphy (Welsh Secretary) left, said “the NHS, a UK-wide service, should not be affected by cross-border issues.”

However, Darren Millar,(AM Clwyd West, Con) recently pointed to 3 million patients registered with GPs in a country of 2.9 million said: “These shocking figures, when read alongside the fact there is a 5% increase in the number of NHS prescriptions issued in Wales over the last 12 months, shows that there is a serious problem. The Assembly Government must tackle prescription tourism sooner rather than later.”

So...
Welsh Health Tourists blocking 20% or more English beds = "absolutley no problem"
English Health Tourists taking 3% of Wales’ prescriptions = “a serious problem”

GOT IT? Well, you can be sure you'll get the bill!

This is a serious problem. In the absence of a minister with responsibility for England, I’ll ask the Wales Secretary to sort out these people who seem to think that the NHS is NOT a UK-wide service. Watch this space.

CEP stands up for English university students

Press Release: CEP stands up for English university students while the NUS lets them down

The CEP carries on with its opposition to the Government’s policy of discrimination against English university students.

The Campaign for an English Parliamen has deplored the decision of the National Union of Students last week to end its opposition to the tuition and top-up fees which are being imposed upon English university students.

‘We want every English student to know’, stated Mrs Scilla Cullen, Chairman of the CEP, ‘that the Campaign for an English Parliament will not stop campaigning against the fees New Labour has inflicted on English students while sparing Scottish and Welsh students. English students are being hit with immense debts while Scottish students are not.

In England university students have to pay £3145 each year of their university life. Students loans then have to be repaid at 4.8% interest rates after graduation.
Welsh students don’t have anything like the fee burden English students have.Their fees are only £1255 pa.’

However, in Scotland university students have no fees to pay. What’s more, the Scottish parliament has also made grants up to £2510 available to Scottish students coming from families on low incomes, which are not available in England. To make the discrimination even worse English students at Scottish have to pay their fees, while EU students do not; and Scottish students, and indeed Isle of Man students, at English unviersities pay no fees. What is quite grotesque about the whole situation is that, at the same time as the Scottish Parliament was legislatiing to relieve its students of fees, the vote in the UK Parliament to impose top-up fees on English students was carried only by the Scottish MPs in Westminister voting for them to give New Labour its majority in the vote in the House.The majority of English MPs voted against them.

‘The only way forward out of this discrimination’ says Mrs Cullen, ‘is for England to have its own parliament just as Scotland has. The UK government is just seeing England, which provides 85% of its whole tax revenue, as a milch cow from which Scotland and Wales benefit at the expense of the people of England. All the MPs who have imposed these fees upon English students got their university education completely free. The injustice to England is grotesque; and it is time that of the 660 Westminster MPs the 550 who are English start to stand up for their country. England should matter as much to them as Scotland does to the Scottish MPs both at Westminster and Edinburgh. They should stand up for their constituents. I can assure English students that is what an English Parliament will do.’

All students are invited to the CEP National Conference taking place at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, Holborn London on Saturday April 26th from 10:30 to 4:30. It is free and open to everyone.

No End in Sight

Yesterday’s "Darling I Love You" April fool spoof about the Government scrapping the Barnet Formula was trumped by Brown’s own efforts. Speaking on April Fool’s Day, the Prime Minister, insisted that public expenditure would continue to be decided by the demonstrably unfair mechanism.

Without a shred of shame or irony AND on the same day that Scotland decreased prescription charges whilst England was forced to raise theirs, he said "We are pretty clear that we have been fair to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by it."

We're pretty clear about that too, but how can he fail to mentioned England? I know this would make the above statement nonsense, but HOW can he say it without some journo, opposition MP or civic minded citizen pulling him up?

Darling I Love You!

Gordon Brown first denied any knowledge of what was happening in his own Government. A little more fudge was thrown around when Darling insisted that it was not a "review" but rather a "factual paper". Then, in an attempt to pass the hot potato around the House, all parties were invited to partake in the erm, factual paper.

Finally, in a remarkable turn of events, Alistair Darling announced today the Government will scrap the Barnett Formula! This Formula is the mechanism through which Scotland is gifted more money for welfare spending than Wales and EVERY English region, despite there being no need and them not having to pay a penny extra in taxes.

For this to be announced by a minister from a Scottish constituency, on Brown’s watch, is nothing short of remarkable. It flies in the face of their constituents’ interests and it is contrary to their solemn oath to ensure Scotland’s interests “are paramount”. Critics have labelled this announcement a cynical attempt to stop Labour’s slide in the polls; but Jack Straw vehemently denied this saying “I think Gordon has finally decided to do the decent thing by making welfare funding fairer for everyone and not just feathering the nests of his kith and kin up north”.

The SNP said that it would oppose any attempted "smash-and-grab" raid on Scottish spending, but Labour's Wendy Alexander was in a conciliatory mood. The Leader of the Scottish Parliamentary Party commented “to be honest, I think we did well to get away with it for so long. We’ve got so much money swilling about up here it’s getting embarrassing, but you’re no getting any back!”

The Government has not indicated if Scotland will be asked to repay the £69Bn overspend since 1998, but it is thought unlikely. The full details behind this story can be read here.

Brown's Britishness in the Telegraph

Great Simon Heffer article in the Saturday Telegraph, where he simply states “Gordon Brown needs the Union…but do we?”

We are familiar with the arguments, but my favorite bits are…

Our Prime Minister's lucubrations in this newspaper earlier in the week about the Union, and why he loves it, demonstrated what politicians feel they have to do when they become desperate. Happily, since our readers are so intelligent, they spotted this at once, and our letters pages have been full of their measured, but understandably angry, responses to this piece of opportunism.

Good to know all that letter writing makes an impact, but he goes on to say…

Large amounts of English taxpayers' money is now spent in Scotland without the benefactors having any say in how it is spent. Nor were the English consulted about whether they wanted this arrangement.

Finally…

The final insult is that Scottish MPs at Westminster vote on matters that affect only the English. The Union has had it, and Mr Brown knows it. It is a state of affairs for which the term "democratic deficit" could have been invented.

Fantastic. Well said Simon!

NuLabour, NuSpeak

George Orwell predicted in “1984” that the Government would limit thinking by forcing the populous to use “newspeak” words. One term of newspeak was “unperson”, where a person would be eliminated from history by erasing all references to them. His prophesy was wildly inaccurate. If only he had thought 50 million times bigger, changed unperson to “unengland” and the date to 1998, he’d have been bang on the money.

I, like many, was insulted when some jack booted recruitment officer from the Manchester Constabulary rejected a recruit because he had “England” tattooed on his arm. In order to report this fascist, I decided to write to the CRE’s Trevor Philips. You may remember Trevor who once sensibly said “…for young people in this country, the sight of the Cross of St George being flown for a winning England team is a cause for widespread rejoicing”. Clever Trevor!

Guess what? The CRE has been replaced by something called the “Equalities and Human Rights Commission”. So, as a human looking for equality, I decided to drop them a quick email asking if they could put a stop to this nonsense. They have three email addresses, namely…

wales@equalityhumanrights.com
scotland@equalityhumanrights.com
and
info@equalityhumanrights.com

…there are many, many other examples, but for some reason this one just sapped my strength.