The Scots are a funny lot, with large chips on their shoulders.
Last week, after The Sun columnist John Gaunt did his weekly preview of the day's newspapers on Sky News one morning, he attacked Scotland over its release of the Lockerbie bomber.
When he appeared on the show again yesterday, some angry Scots emailed into the Sky News to attack him. One of those angry Scots said: "England doesn't make the UK rich." Another said: "England isn't the economic powerhouse of the UK."
But England has 84% of the UK's population, and makes up 90% of the UK's economy. England's capital city, London, alone generates 30% of the UK's GDP, and has an economy larger than the whole of Scotland. I think it's fair to say that England DOES make the UK rich and it IS the UK's economic powerhouse.
Needless to say, Scotland needs England far more than England needs Scotland. Economically, the English would barely notice a change, economically, if Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and their tiny economies, all became independent.
And if Scotland became independent, then it will put an end to the bilions of pounds in subsidies (£22 billion last year) that the generous English taxpayer gives the Scots every year (incredibly, the Scottish Nationalist Party, which wants independence for Scotland and is the minority government in Scotland, said that it doesn't want a political union with England but still wants a "social" union - which means they want Scotland to be an independent nation but still receive subsidies from England).
The Scottish nationalists have banged on for years about how Scotland can manage quite well without being in a Union with England. However, when the credit crunch struck earlier this year, crippling several Scottish banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, they had to be bailed out by English taxpayers at a cost which was higher than the total GDP of Scotland! An independent Scotland wouldn't have been able to afford the amount needed to bail out its banks. If Scotland were an independent nation, then its banks would have collapsed, with no English money propping them up (of course, England has always been much richer than Scotland. Just what Braveheart to see a well-trained English army with smart uniforms taking on poorly-trained paupers fighting for Scotland wearing blue facepaint).
To top it all off, Scotland's leader, the nationalist Alex Salmond, has repeatedly said that Scotland as an independent nation would model itself on what he called "the arc of prosperity" (which consists of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) and the "Celtic Tiger". Then what happened? Iceland is hit by an economic crisis after its three largest banks collapse and the economy of the "Celtic Tiger", the Republic of Ireland, is predicted to shrink by over 9%, which would be one of the highest economic contractions of any western economy since World War 2.
Simon Heffer says the Lockerbie fiasco is only a pothole on the road to Scottish independence and, he says, the sooner we are rid of the troublesome Scots, the better....
England pays through the nose for the luxury of Scottish values.
The Lockerbie fiasco is only a pothole on the road to independence – and it can’t come soon enough, says Simon Heffer
By Simon Heffer
01 Sep 2009
The Telegraph
Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland Photo: PA
We should admire the rubber-shielded qualities of Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland. Last week he had to manage a furore created by the decision of his minister of justice to send home to Libya the supposedly dying man convicted of blowing up an aeroplane over Lockerbie 20 years ago. He did what anyone in his situation would have done, and announced that he would be putting a bill through his assembly to enable a referendum on Scottish independence.
This ever-lovable subject had been quiescent for the last year, following the collapse of the Scottish banking sector. It was not just that big employers were in trouble; it was that a potential source of earnings from home and abroad was crippled by almost incomprehensible debt. What now would be the economic powerhouse of an independent Scotland? The whisky manufacturers? The porage industry? The Loch Ness Monster? No wonder things went quiet.
A blow to Scottish nationalists: English taxpayers have had to bail out Scottish banks, a total cost which was higher than the entire GDP of Scotland. If Scotland were independent, these banks would have collapsed
But Mr Salmond, who knows a thing or two about gambling, understands how to read opponents and potential supporters. On the long road to Scottish independence there are never, for him, more than just a few potholes.
The financial embarrassments of the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS are trifles compared with the chronic financial embarrassment of Scotland itself. As far as one can tell – and a trawl of databases reveals most of all a reticence about the real figures – the subsidy from other parts of the Kingdom (ie, England) to Scotland is currently at least £22 billion a year. If Mr Salmond and his friends have long been able to contemplate independence while trying to work out an alternative source of income to replace that subsidy, then Sir Fred Goodwin's imploding is hardly going to make any odds to them.
My Scottish friends tell me, and I am sure they are right, that this diversionary tactic of a referendum will come to nothing. A plebiscite to repeal the 1707 Act of Union requires a law to be passed. The Scottish National Party does not have an overall majority at Holyrood (the Scottish "parliament").
Those who from time to time collude in enabling the party to govern Scotland will not do so in a measure such as this. I doubt that would disappoint Mr Salmond. His own bona fides – he went to the polls in 2007 promising such a vote – would be intact. He could point to obstructive forces in other parties who would be refusing to let him keep his word. He could dismiss them as lackeys of the occupying power, or with some such rhetoric. It would go down exceptionally well with his clientele. It would also mean that the nightmare of actually having to govern a seriously poor country like Scotland could be postponed for a further while yet.
UK's economic powerhouse: The English constitute 84% (the Scots 8%, the Welsh 5% and the Northern Irish 3%) of the UK population and England constitutes 90% of the UK economy
However, this expected failure would not be the end of it. We have a general election to look forward to. The Labour Party in Scotland is particularly tribal, but the tribe is declining. Labour was already viewed as having done badly for Scotland, which was why it was booted out in May 2007. It is now viewed even among the tribe as having done a poor job for what still passes for the United Kingdom; something with which many English, Welsh and Northern Irish would agree.
Scotland has 59 Westminster seats. At the last election Labour won 41, the Lib Dems 11, the SNP 6 and the Conservative Party just one. The polls suggest that the SNP could win 15 or so seats next time, all at the expense of Labour. Mr Salmond, never one to engage in understatement, has said he believes his party could win 27. That is unlikely to happen. However, even the most rabid unionist concedes that a Tory haul of more than two or three seats would strain the limits of
optimism. And then?
Mr Salmond, if his party cleans up at Labour's expense, and if Labour (as seems likely) is defeated nationally, would be cock of the walk. He would be powerfully placed, too, to say to his people that the traditional enemy – the Conservative Party – was back in power in London. It wouldn't matter what Mr Cameron did or did not promise to do for Scotland: the SNP propaganda machine would go into overdrive. A year after the general election, Mr Salmond and his assembly will be up for election again. A Tory government would be his strongest campaigning tool.
A referendum bill might fail now, but it would not necessarily fail after May 2011.
So Mr Salmond will see that a two-phase plan – finish off Labour locally, and hope for a Tory victory at Westminster while Scotland comprehensively rejects Conservatism – is his surest route to independence.
Apparently, Mr Cameron and his advisers are still putting together the detail about what to do with Scotland. Far be it from me to offer them advice, but I would like to suggest a couple of considerations.
First, a semi-detached part of the United Kingdom that Labour has progressively driven towards independence since 1997 wishes not to be ruled by Westminster but is happy to take (at least) £22 billion in subsidy each year. How fair is that on the English taxpayer?
Does Mr Cameron feel he might want to make representations on behalf of the people who, should he get to Downing Street, will have put him there?
And, important though the subject of money is, what about the democratic deficit? The party's website promises that a Tory government will address the West Lothian Question and give English MPs a "decisive say" in matters that affect only England. I am not entirely sure what that means, but it sounds promising.
It has been suggested in the past that the Speaker be asked to certificate Bills as affecting only England and that those sitting for non-English seats be denied the privilege of voting in such divisions. Leaving aside the constitutional and technical problems of achieving this laudable aim, what would this do for Mr Salmond? How would he represent it to the people of Scotland? What would their response to the removal of this monstrous unfairness be? How will what Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, sanctimoniously calls "Scottish values" regard such an act of equity?
I suspect that when and if a Conservative government did that – and it should – a rubicon would be crossed not in the minds of the Scottish political class, but in the minds of the Scottish people. Mr Salmond and his friends would (cantingly) represent this as a definitive act of rejection by Westminster. So be it. I just hope Mr Cameron will not get cold feet, but would agree with Mr Salmond about the advantages to all concerned of Scotland's leaving the club.
This is not the time to consider the difficulties of what would come next. An ordinary provincial solicitor – for that is what Mr MacAskill is – found himself in the international spotlight for freeing Megrahi. Seldom had one seen and heard a man so out of his depth. That is, for the most part, Scotland's governing class, and Scotland had better get used to it. And the Government in London could then stop interfering, and stop soiling itself as it did in the episode of the bomber; and we could each withdraw to the comfort of our own "values", and see how happy that makes us.
telegraph.co.uk
********************************************
English tax payers will pay for Scottish bank bail-out
13 March 2009
The people of Halifax and Leeds should be concerned about the present banking crisis on England's economy because post-devolution politics is clearly designed to advantage Scotland at England's expense.
Before becoming a bank the Halifax was the largest building society in the UK, becoming even larger with its acquisition of the Leeds Permanent Building Society.
Then came the infamous "merger" with the Bank of Scotland and inevitable transfer of senior management and kudos to Scotland.
Leeds is the largest financial services centre outside London and dwarfs Edinburgh.
How was it the Royal Bank of Scotland, a relatively puny bank, was allowed to take over Nat West, one of England's largest high street banks, without even a counter-bid being made by Nat West?
The subsequent frenzied RBS acquisition of ABN AMRO and other institutions seemed less to do with sound business sense, than with the hegemony, hubris, egoism and vainglory that seemingly typify Scottish mentality, especially since Scotland regained its own parliament.
England comprises 85 percent of the UK's population and a greater proportion of the UK's GDP. Therefore, the bailout of RBS and HBOS (now Lloyds) will fall on English taxpayers.
What will happen to RBS and Lloyds if and when the current recession ends? The present Anglophobic attitude of our Scots-led government will manipulate re-privatisation to ensure RBS and Bank of Scotland return to Scottish ownership, even if this means giving them to the Scottish Government as nationalised banks.
Meanwhile the subsidiaries, like the Halifax and Nat West, will assuredly be sold to foreign institutions – "in the interests of competition."
Therefore, the English will be left without the assets, but saddled with the bailout debt.
Leeds and Halifax folk need to make their erstwhile useless MPs (all MPs in England are useless to their constituents) fight for the retention of English financial institutions and the maintenance of Leeds as a major financial centre.
Scotland has its own parliament to do its fighting. England needs the same because Gordon Brown promised to "make the interests of the Scottish people paramount" when signing the Scottish Claim of Right.
halifaxcourier.co.uk
Last week, after The Sun columnist John Gaunt did his weekly preview of the day's newspapers on Sky News one morning, he attacked Scotland over its release of the Lockerbie bomber.
When he appeared on the show again yesterday, some angry Scots emailed into the Sky News to attack him. One of those angry Scots said: "England doesn't make the UK rich." Another said: "England isn't the economic powerhouse of the UK."
But England has 84% of the UK's population, and makes up 90% of the UK's economy. England's capital city, London, alone generates 30% of the UK's GDP, and has an economy larger than the whole of Scotland. I think it's fair to say that England DOES make the UK rich and it IS the UK's economic powerhouse.
Needless to say, Scotland needs England far more than England needs Scotland. Economically, the English would barely notice a change, economically, if Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and their tiny economies, all became independent.
And if Scotland became independent, then it will put an end to the bilions of pounds in subsidies (£22 billion last year) that the generous English taxpayer gives the Scots every year (incredibly, the Scottish Nationalist Party, which wants independence for Scotland and is the minority government in Scotland, said that it doesn't want a political union with England but still wants a "social" union - which means they want Scotland to be an independent nation but still receive subsidies from England).
The Scottish nationalists have banged on for years about how Scotland can manage quite well without being in a Union with England. However, when the credit crunch struck earlier this year, crippling several Scottish banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland, they had to be bailed out by English taxpayers at a cost which was higher than the total GDP of Scotland! An independent Scotland wouldn't have been able to afford the amount needed to bail out its banks. If Scotland were an independent nation, then its banks would have collapsed, with no English money propping them up (of course, England has always been much richer than Scotland. Just what Braveheart to see a well-trained English army with smart uniforms taking on poorly-trained paupers fighting for Scotland wearing blue facepaint).
To top it all off, Scotland's leader, the nationalist Alex Salmond, has repeatedly said that Scotland as an independent nation would model itself on what he called "the arc of prosperity" (which consists of Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) and the "Celtic Tiger". Then what happened? Iceland is hit by an economic crisis after its three largest banks collapse and the economy of the "Celtic Tiger", the Republic of Ireland, is predicted to shrink by over 9%, which would be one of the highest economic contractions of any western economy since World War 2.
Simon Heffer says the Lockerbie fiasco is only a pothole on the road to Scottish independence and, he says, the sooner we are rid of the troublesome Scots, the better....
England pays through the nose for the luxury of Scottish values.
The Lockerbie fiasco is only a pothole on the road to independence – and it can’t come soon enough, says Simon Heffer
By Simon Heffer
01 Sep 2009
The Telegraph
Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland Photo: PA
We should admire the rubber-shielded qualities of Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland. Last week he had to manage a furore created by the decision of his minister of justice to send home to Libya the supposedly dying man convicted of blowing up an aeroplane over Lockerbie 20 years ago. He did what anyone in his situation would have done, and announced that he would be putting a bill through his assembly to enable a referendum on Scottish independence.
This ever-lovable subject had been quiescent for the last year, following the collapse of the Scottish banking sector. It was not just that big employers were in trouble; it was that a potential source of earnings from home and abroad was crippled by almost incomprehensible debt. What now would be the economic powerhouse of an independent Scotland? The whisky manufacturers? The porage industry? The Loch Ness Monster? No wonder things went quiet.
A blow to Scottish nationalists: English taxpayers have had to bail out Scottish banks, a total cost which was higher than the entire GDP of Scotland. If Scotland were independent, these banks would have collapsed
But Mr Salmond, who knows a thing or two about gambling, understands how to read opponents and potential supporters. On the long road to Scottish independence there are never, for him, more than just a few potholes.
The financial embarrassments of the Royal Bank of Scotland and HBOS are trifles compared with the chronic financial embarrassment of Scotland itself. As far as one can tell – and a trawl of databases reveals most of all a reticence about the real figures – the subsidy from other parts of the Kingdom (ie, England) to Scotland is currently at least £22 billion a year. If Mr Salmond and his friends have long been able to contemplate independence while trying to work out an alternative source of income to replace that subsidy, then Sir Fred Goodwin's imploding is hardly going to make any odds to them.
My Scottish friends tell me, and I am sure they are right, that this diversionary tactic of a referendum will come to nothing. A plebiscite to repeal the 1707 Act of Union requires a law to be passed. The Scottish National Party does not have an overall majority at Holyrood (the Scottish "parliament").
Those who from time to time collude in enabling the party to govern Scotland will not do so in a measure such as this. I doubt that would disappoint Mr Salmond. His own bona fides – he went to the polls in 2007 promising such a vote – would be intact. He could point to obstructive forces in other parties who would be refusing to let him keep his word. He could dismiss them as lackeys of the occupying power, or with some such rhetoric. It would go down exceptionally well with his clientele. It would also mean that the nightmare of actually having to govern a seriously poor country like Scotland could be postponed for a further while yet.
UK's economic powerhouse: The English constitute 84% (the Scots 8%, the Welsh 5% and the Northern Irish 3%) of the UK population and England constitutes 90% of the UK economy
However, this expected failure would not be the end of it. We have a general election to look forward to. The Labour Party in Scotland is particularly tribal, but the tribe is declining. Labour was already viewed as having done badly for Scotland, which was why it was booted out in May 2007. It is now viewed even among the tribe as having done a poor job for what still passes for the United Kingdom; something with which many English, Welsh and Northern Irish would agree.
Scotland has 59 Westminster seats. At the last election Labour won 41, the Lib Dems 11, the SNP 6 and the Conservative Party just one. The polls suggest that the SNP could win 15 or so seats next time, all at the expense of Labour. Mr Salmond, never one to engage in understatement, has said he believes his party could win 27. That is unlikely to happen. However, even the most rabid unionist concedes that a Tory haul of more than two or three seats would strain the limits of
optimism. And then?
Mr Salmond, if his party cleans up at Labour's expense, and if Labour (as seems likely) is defeated nationally, would be cock of the walk. He would be powerfully placed, too, to say to his people that the traditional enemy – the Conservative Party – was back in power in London. It wouldn't matter what Mr Cameron did or did not promise to do for Scotland: the SNP propaganda machine would go into overdrive. A year after the general election, Mr Salmond and his assembly will be up for election again. A Tory government would be his strongest campaigning tool.
A referendum bill might fail now, but it would not necessarily fail after May 2011.
So Mr Salmond will see that a two-phase plan – finish off Labour locally, and hope for a Tory victory at Westminster while Scotland comprehensively rejects Conservatism – is his surest route to independence.
Apparently, Mr Cameron and his advisers are still putting together the detail about what to do with Scotland. Far be it from me to offer them advice, but I would like to suggest a couple of considerations.
First, a semi-detached part of the United Kingdom that Labour has progressively driven towards independence since 1997 wishes not to be ruled by Westminster but is happy to take (at least) £22 billion in subsidy each year. How fair is that on the English taxpayer?
Does Mr Cameron feel he might want to make representations on behalf of the people who, should he get to Downing Street, will have put him there?
And, important though the subject of money is, what about the democratic deficit? The party's website promises that a Tory government will address the West Lothian Question and give English MPs a "decisive say" in matters that affect only England. I am not entirely sure what that means, but it sounds promising.
It has been suggested in the past that the Speaker be asked to certificate Bills as affecting only England and that those sitting for non-English seats be denied the privilege of voting in such divisions. Leaving aside the constitutional and technical problems of achieving this laudable aim, what would this do for Mr Salmond? How would he represent it to the people of Scotland? What would their response to the removal of this monstrous unfairness be? How will what Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, sanctimoniously calls "Scottish values" regard such an act of equity?
I suspect that when and if a Conservative government did that – and it should – a rubicon would be crossed not in the minds of the Scottish political class, but in the minds of the Scottish people. Mr Salmond and his friends would (cantingly) represent this as a definitive act of rejection by Westminster. So be it. I just hope Mr Cameron will not get cold feet, but would agree with Mr Salmond about the advantages to all concerned of Scotland's leaving the club.
This is not the time to consider the difficulties of what would come next. An ordinary provincial solicitor – for that is what Mr MacAskill is – found himself in the international spotlight for freeing Megrahi. Seldom had one seen and heard a man so out of his depth. That is, for the most part, Scotland's governing class, and Scotland had better get used to it. And the Government in London could then stop interfering, and stop soiling itself as it did in the episode of the bomber; and we could each withdraw to the comfort of our own "values", and see how happy that makes us.
telegraph.co.uk
********************************************
English tax payers will pay for Scottish bank bail-out
13 March 2009
The people of Halifax and Leeds should be concerned about the present banking crisis on England's economy because post-devolution politics is clearly designed to advantage Scotland at England's expense.
Before becoming a bank the Halifax was the largest building society in the UK, becoming even larger with its acquisition of the Leeds Permanent Building Society.
Then came the infamous "merger" with the Bank of Scotland and inevitable transfer of senior management and kudos to Scotland.
Leeds is the largest financial services centre outside London and dwarfs Edinburgh.
How was it the Royal Bank of Scotland, a relatively puny bank, was allowed to take over Nat West, one of England's largest high street banks, without even a counter-bid being made by Nat West?
The subsequent frenzied RBS acquisition of ABN AMRO and other institutions seemed less to do with sound business sense, than with the hegemony, hubris, egoism and vainglory that seemingly typify Scottish mentality, especially since Scotland regained its own parliament.
England comprises 85 percent of the UK's population and a greater proportion of the UK's GDP. Therefore, the bailout of RBS and HBOS (now Lloyds) will fall on English taxpayers.
What will happen to RBS and Lloyds if and when the current recession ends? The present Anglophobic attitude of our Scots-led government will manipulate re-privatisation to ensure RBS and Bank of Scotland return to Scottish ownership, even if this means giving them to the Scottish Government as nationalised banks.
Meanwhile the subsidiaries, like the Halifax and Nat West, will assuredly be sold to foreign institutions – "in the interests of competition."
Therefore, the English will be left without the assets, but saddled with the bailout debt.
Leeds and Halifax folk need to make their erstwhile useless MPs (all MPs in England are useless to their constituents) fight for the retention of English financial institutions and the maintenance of Leeds as a major financial centre.
Scotland has its own parliament to do its fighting. England needs the same because Gordon Brown promised to "make the interests of the Scottish people paramount" when signing the Scottish Claim of Right.
halifaxcourier.co.uk
Last edited:
