Barnett Formula - a haircut for English Taxpayers?

The Barnet Formula Explained?

As the possibility of a Scottish “Yes” vote for independence approaches, I am noticing that some people are focussing more and more on the question of the Barnet Formula.

The Barnet Formula is named after the former Labour Minister, Joel Barnett, now Lord Barnet, who devised it, he says: “Not so much on the back of a ‘fag packet’ but on the back of a ‘match box’.” It was originally intended by him to be a one year kick-start to the Scottish economy back in the 70’s. It is however significant that the political situation at the time was that the Scottish National Party were making serious headway in Scotland and therefore Labour’s agenda was to try to buy Scottish votes with English money! The extra Barnet funding of course therefore started before a single barrel of North Sea oil came ashore, but already the Scottish National Party were making wild claims that all of the North Sea Oil was “our oil”!

I have already blogged on this subject before that, in fact, on normal International Conventions, perhaps half of North Sea oil is in fact English oil and not Scottish oil. The English oil includes virtually all the North Sea gas that falls under what are now British waters. It is perhaps also relevant that, with the three British Establishment political parties being dyed in the wool Europhiles, the European Union is in the process of making a claim not only to all our fishing stocks, but also all our mineral rights as well, including all of North Sea oil. Needless to say that none of the Lib/Lab/Con careerists are to be trusted with preserving “our oil”!

The effect of the Barnet Formula is to give the Scottish people not only a subsidy from English taxpayers (the proportion of that subsidy depending on the view take of who owns the North Sea oil), but an additional subsidy over and above what would be spent in England for equal need. Every Scottish man, woman and child receives State spending of just over £2,000 each more than would be spent on the average English man, woman and child.

Even the poorest parts of England receive less public spending than the richest parts of Scotland.

For as long as the Scots are within a single State this is grossly unfair regardless of where the money comes from. To this extent whether Scotland pays its way or not is irrelevant to the unfairness of extra Government spending that is occurring unrelated to need. In fact if North Sea oil is taken out of the equation, the Scots are currently receiving a subsidy from England in the order of £32 billion a year. It is only if you attribute almost all of North Sea oil to Scotland that Scotland appears to break even on its spending and that, of course, is only for as long as oil prices remain high.

There are two reports which are well worth reading for anyone who wants the detail of how the Barnet Formula works. The first one that I would recommend is the Taxpayers Alliance Report, which I had a hand in commissioning with Matthew Elliott. It was done by a much respected economist who bent over backwards to be “fair” to Scottish arguments. The Labour Government itself described what Scotland was getting from the English taxpayer as a £12 billion a year “union dividend”, so you can be sure that, if anything, the amount of money given by English taxpayers is vastly in excess of even the headline comments made in the Taxpayers Alliance Report. (You can find the Taxpayers Alliance Report here >>> http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/unequalshares.pdf).

There is a further report that is worth reading, it is of course much more in depth, as it is the Cross Bench (independent) Report from the House of Lords in 2009. For anyone who wants to know the details of exactly the extent of cross border subsidy from England, then this is the report for you. It is however lengthy and detailed. It is nevertheless a highly inconvenient report to those so-called Unionists whose idea of a United Kingdom is that the English shut up and pay for everyone else. That is why it is rarely mentioned in the British press! (You can find this House of Lords report here >>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/13902.htm)

Stephen Goldspink for Cambs Police Commissioner!

Stephen Goldspink (in the dark blue shirt) is standing for Cambridgeshire Police Commissioner in the November Election and needs support, help leafleting and inevitably money! If you can help please email him on Cambridgeshire@EngDem.Org

Here is a letter that he has got published in both the Hunts Post and Peterborough Today:-

Yet again people who live in England suffer at the hands of a Government who have not the slightest inclination to support the people of England, inflicting a rail fare rise of the rate of inflation plus and extra 3% - making a whopping 6.2% rise! That’s a huge increase, but in Scotland, the rise is only inflation plus 1%.

Why is this? Because the Scots receive a bigger share of the UK’s income per head and the Scottish Government stick up for the people of Scotland. Thus neither they, nor those people who live in Wales and have an assembly to speak up for them, pay prescription charges, but the people of England do – and how - £7.65 per item!

All of the countries in the UK have a separate assembly to stand up for their citizens, except England. As a result, those who live in England are continually exploited and discriminated against by Governments of all colours, mainly led by Scots (Brown), those with Scottish roots (Cameron) and those who simply won’t see the problem (Clegg).

If England was fairly funded, there would be more money for our local Government, our health service and our police. We’re not asking for favours, just fairness. Isn’t it strange how there are laws preventing discrimination against people for all sorts of reasons, but also laws that promote direct discrimination depending upon which country of the UK you live in, rubber stamped by British Establishments parties who deliberately refuse to see the double standards.

According to Government statistics Scotland gets over £2,600 for every man, woman and child than England's "Eastern Region".

November 15^th 2012 sees elections for Police and Crime Commissioners across the UK, and I am standing in Cambridgeshire. I offer sound business and police related experience and an excellent track record in representing people, against a background of standing up for England. Please don’t vote by simply by colour – think about who you want to effectively represent you, and send a message about inequality and unfairness in England to the complacent and disinterested major parties.

England victorious!!

499 years ago!
As the SNP are building up to huge celebrations across Scotland, of the 800th anniversary of the defeat of an invading English at Bannockburn, spare a thought for the anniversaries of the many battles fought to defeat invading Scottish armies.
9th September is the anniversary of the Battle of Flodden Field when one of the last of many invading Scottish Armies was smashed, in 1513. Here is a link to the wikipedia account which is worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Flodden
Next year will be its 500th anniversary. What should English nationalists do to mark the occasion?

A guest article

Some of the readers of this blog kindly send me articles to publish. Here is one by 'Leon Legend' which is interesting, thoughtful and thought-provoking but is based of course on his opinions. See what you think.

He has called it 'ISLAM'
In order to understand the rapid demographic transformation of Britain and especially England it is important to understand the context in which these changes have taken place and this means that we must go back to the post war period and look at the developments that took place in the following decades.
After the 1939-45 war the British economy was in need of reconstruction. There was a shortage of labour due to the number of war dead and it was assumed by politicians at the time that if any meaningful post war reconstruction was to take place then those labour shortages would have to be filled. The invitation was given to start a campaign to encourage West Indians into the country to fill vacancies in the health services, transport and manufacturing. Initially thought of as a temporary arrangement this immigration eventually took on a dynamic of its own as family members came to the country to join those already working here. The British people did not like or want this as they began to see their historic places of abode demographically transformed in a very short period of time. Enoch Powell sensed the unease of the nation and warned the political establishment and the country in his now famous 'Rivers of Blood' speech that if this process of immigration continued there would be social and racial conflicts as the demographic profile of the country continued to change. Powell was a visionary whose demographic projections have turned out to be perfectly accurate e.g. he told his audience in his Rotary Club speech that 4.2 million immigrants would be settled in Britain by 2002. The ethnic population of Britain in 2001 was 4,635,296. Mocked and ridiculed by Liberal/left politicians Powell stands out as a man of integrity and honour compared to the intellectual pygmies of the traitorous Liberal / Left that so despise our history and heritage today.
During the 1970s immigration took on more impetus with the arrival of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who came to work primarily in the cotton mills of England. Again it was argued that these workers were needed to fill gaps in the labour market and to ensure the survival of northern industries. Places such as Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Rotherham saw significant arrivals of cheap labour into these areas and within a decade the demographic profile of these areas had profoundly changed. As it happened these arrivals only enabled a temporary reprieve of these redundant industries and many were forced into unemployment as the mills closed down. As these new arrivals settled evidence of racial and cultural conflicts began to emerge and people were increasingly uneasy with the levels of immigration into England. There had in fact been violence and conflict between whites and West Indian immigrants in the late 50s and 60s.
Although many in the country deeply opposed the levels of immigration into England it must be recognised that many people today have come to accept the views of the European and British elite opinion formers. I believe that the wounds of racism and fascism were still wide open even into the 70s and 80s and that popular misgivings about immigration and particularly Islam were easily quashed by official 'anti-racist' doctrine and politically correct intellectual fashion. Another factor that is often ignored is that the threat from the Soviet Union during the Cold War seemed very real and the European elites were preoccupied with the materialist ideologies of the Cold War. This preoccupation with the Cold War meant that the collective eye was taken off the radical Muslim ball as it was during this time that the Muslim world was reawakening and becoming bellicose and aggressive and this was precisely the time Britain allowed many from Pakistan to enter the country.
Continuing with this theme I think that Post war exhaustion and the collapse of the British Empire gave rise to a post war flagellatory guilt. The humiliation of the Suez crisis in 1956 impressed upon Britain and the world that she was no longer the major force that she had been. The dominant moral mood of post war Britain and indeed Europe was one of repentance for two historic misdeeds; Colonialism and Nazism. Post war Europeans and the British in particular felt a sense of moral illegitimacy that deepened as the decades passed in relation to immigrants and ethnic groups. Driven by postcolonial guilt and the loss of Empire, the collapse of a world role Britain's elites have decided that England's identity and values are largely racist and discriminatory.
Nationalism and patriotism, especially English patriotism is dangerous and incompatible with the emerging post war world. During the 70s and 80s as these feelings of guilt increased the need to transform a national culture into a society based on diversity and multiculturalism gained strength. Majoritarian values and the idea of the patriotic nation are now viewed as illegitimate and a source of shame. This of course explains why Britain has become enmeshed in the E.U. as it allows the liberal left elite to promote the doctrine of universalism expressed through, for example, Human Rights laws and transnational organisations such as the U.N. and the International Criminal Court or the European Court of Justice. The deligitimisation of the nation state and the undermining of patriotism are necessary conditions for the emergence of a multicultural and diverse Europe governed by transnational elites. All national cultures must be viewed with suspicion and this is why our children are no longer taught their national story or their history. They must be denied a sense of historic place, a sense of belonging to a specific people with a specific history and culture; they are denied their rightful heritage, robbed of it, so that they can be ideologically manipulated to be citizens of a new multicultural order. This is what the social engineers of the new world order must do to our children to make them citizens of the new Europe! Mass immigration is a strategy the political elites use to undermine nationalism and patriotism as it weakens national cultures and fragments society. This is underpinned by the concept of cultural relativism.
Cultural relativism dictates that all cultures are equally moral and valuable, though in practice western culture is often presented as inferior to others, stained as it is supposedly by racism and imperialism. If all cultures are equal then the State cannot promote any specific culture as being dominant, even those of its own people. The cultural relativists of the left deny that immigrants should assimilate since that by definition suggests that there is a dominant culture to assimilate into that is more valuable than ethnic cultures. Cultural relativism is gradually destroying English traditions and cultural identity, but of course that is the whole point of it. English culture, what's left of it, is simply one of many and no longer has any special status or significance. It is no more valid than any Pygmy culture!
The increasing unease the working class felt about the rapid demographic changes taking place were ignored by most politicians and indeed those who raised the loudest protests were deemed to be racists and xenophobes. By the 1980s the levels of post war immigration had reached significant proportions and it had become a major issue for the Left. It was clear that sinister developments were taking place on the Left of the political spectrum as they abandoned the working class for its failure to achieve its historic mission of transforming society from a capitalist to a socialist utopia. The working class remained stubbornly patriotic and did not share the liberal elite's love of diversity. The working class went from being the salt of the earth to the scum of the earth as the Left salivated over its new agency of social transformation i.e. immigrants from the Third World.
These neo-Marxists continued to use the Marxist model of capitalism which argued that there is a conflict between two main groups; the working class and the capitalist class with the capitalist class exploiting and oppressing the working class. Now the new oppressive class is the heterosexual white middle class male and the oppressed and exploited are the new victim groups: Blacks, women, Gays, Muslims and any other designated group that does not support the so called white middle class hegemony! Same Marxist model; new actors! These new victim groups have replaced the working class as the vehicle of social and economic transformation so desired by the Left due to their hatred of western civilisation. Such was the new agenda and politics of the 80s.
The greatest betrayal of the working class of course was yet to come. In 1997 the country elected Tony Blair's New Labour Party and during Blair's term of office the levels of immigration skyrocketed and changed the demographic profile of England forever. More immigrants came into the UK (mainly England) between 1997- 2010 than arrived on these shores between 1066-1997; some 3.7 million arrivals and an unspecified number of illegal immigrants that could number anything up to a million. New Labour politicians deliberately lied about the numbers coming in and the alleged benefits these immigrants brought to the country.
The impact that these levels of immigration have had on the English working class have been well documented by Migration Watch UK: workers priced out of the job market by cheap immigrant labour, depressed wages for those in the lowest income brackets, English people pushed to the back of the housing queues, whites reduced to minority status in their towns and cities, difficulties getting their children into local schools and nurseries, white children reduced to minority status in their schools with the subsequent promotion of every culture but their own and the working class treated with contempt and seen as being beyond the pale because they wouldnt subscribe to the cult of multiculturalism and political correctness in the way the political elites would have liked them too. The working class have been punished by the Left liberal elite for their failure to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism; they have been abandoned and left to rot on stinking run down council estates with their anxieties and concerns simply ignored. The New Labour project did not need them for they found a new proletariat in the Third World immigrants to realize their new vision of multicultural utopia.
Writing in Prospect magazine Professor Coleman, a leading Oxford University demographer, warned the huge numbers of foreigners landing on our shores will transform the U.K. He said official projections estimate that the U.K.'s population will rocket to 77 million by 2051 and 85 million by 2083.
The expert went on: 'On those assumptions the 'white British' population would decline to 45 million (59% of the total) by 2051. He states that; 'Were the assumptions to hold, the white British population would become the minority after 2066'. 'It's a milestone that would be passed much earlier in younger age-groups'.
Worrying as these demographic projections are it is clear to any objective observer however that the immediate danger to the people of these Islands is the existential threat posed by militant Islam. Melanie Phillips in her book 'Londonistan' argues that; ' London has become a major global centre of Islamist extremism-the economic and spiritual hub of production and distribution network for the most radicalised forms of Islamic thinking which pumps out an ideology of hatred for the West and recruits soldiers and raises funds for worldwide terrorist Jihad
In January 2008 Michael Nazir Ali the Anglican Bishop of Rochester declared that the ideology of Islamic extremism had succeeded in turning already separate communities into no-go areas where people of a different faith or race risked threats, abuse and even violence if they accidentally stumbled into these no-go zones. Of course it was fitting that a Pakistani convert to Christianity exposed these areas of segregation as any member of the white indigenous population would have been called a racist for pointing out the obvious! This is the situation now in Britain and particularly England that only people from ethnic minorities are able to discuss issues that most whites would like to discuss but are afraid to do so openly because governments Hate Laws.
The Bishop is of course correct in his observations, Muslim enclaves are just that: areas of separate development which are not integrated with the rest of a town or city-just below the surface in these communities exists a low level form of warfare between Muslims and their neighbours which occasionally explodes in rioting and violence. Of course the liberal elite in Britain do not refer to these areas as Muslim but refer instead to them as 'Asian' areas blaming the cause of the conflicts and tensions on racism or discrimination. The issue of religion is carefully avoided.
The terrorist attacks in London in 2005 by 'British' Muslims should have demonstrated to the Left / Liberal elite appeasers that a bellicose and aggressive Islam with a religious agenda had embedded itself in Britain and was part of a world-wide resurgence Of Jihad against the West. Instead our cowardly politicians blamed socio-economic factors and or alienation among young Asians who were vulnerable to Jihadist propaganda. Every excuse was mustered and every rationalisation used to avoid the obvious conclusion that these attacks, like every other Islamic attack, were religiously inspired and therefore part of the global Jihad against the West.
Islamic immigration continues relentlessly into Britain and Europe our politicians have abrogated any responsibility to ensure the safety, well-being and security of the British people. The creeping Islamisation of Britain continues apace with many parts of the country now taking on an Islamic character. Areas that were once white and proudly working class now resemble parts of Pakistan and Bangladesh. These are largely no go areas for non-Muslims and the police have effectively given up policing these places for fear of being accused of racism or Islamophobia. If the demographic projections are correct the Muslim populations will continue to grow and with their higher fertility rates we can expect over the next 20 to 30 years more and more of our cities taking on an Islamic character with more concessions made to Muslims by cowardly politicians keen to win the Muslim vote. It is very likely that a Muslim Party will form and that Sharia will become more evident in British culture. There is no question that it will be promoted and practiced in Muslim segregated areas. The future looks grim indeed for Britain and Europe, according to many.
It is my belief however that we can stop these processes and reverse these trends. People do not want to be subject to population replacement because they feel attached to the civilisation their ancestors created and they don't want it exchanged for a society in which they are forced to adapt to the culture of Islam. However our freedoms and our civilisation will disappear unless we fight to preserve them. Freedom is not a right passed from one generation to the next. Each generation must be vigilant and fight to maintain freedom. Our children will not forgive us if we don't.

ENGLAND’S REGIONALIST ENEMIES AT IT AGAIN!

It has been interesting, in the last couple of weeks or so, to see England’s Brit Nat enemies carrying on with other angles of trying to undermine the unitary sense of English National Identity.

First we had the story that “Visit Cornwall” had banned the mention of England or that Cornwall is a county not a country. (click here for this story >>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/9461394/Visit-Cornwall-bans-references-to-England.html).

Also, as part of the Olympic hype, we have been repeatedly told that if Yorkshire was a country then it would have got more gold medals than Australia (click here for this story >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184030/Olympics-2012-If-Yorkshire-country-higher-medal-table-SA-Japan-Australia.html).

Whilst the Yorkshire gag is a more humorous point, nevertheless anyone that puts forward either idea at all seriously needs to be told - in no uncertain terms - that both Cornwall and Yorkshire are traditional counties within the oldest nation state on earth – England!

Interestingly an antidote to the Team GB hype came from Peter Hitchens who points out that"If you believe that Olympic glory makes a nation great, just remember the USSR"! (click here for this story >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2187046/If-believe-Olympic-glory-makes-nation-great-just-remember-USSR.html).

Even more startlingly contrary to the Team GB mythologising is Robert Henderson's analysis which shows that:- "The picture is clear: England would suffer no disadvantage and might well gain by appearing as an independent team: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be reduced, at best, to the status of a Norway or Slovenia." (click here for this story >>> http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/the-olympics-england-and-the-celtic-fringe/).

So the battle goes on. Ideas from anyone on how to graphically demonstrate a picture of England’s unity would be very welcome! Any suggestions please?

England's 33 Olympic Gold medals

Here's the BBC's own antidote to the 'Team GB' hype

BBC - Radio 4 More or Less - How to lose money, fast Click here >>>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/b01ljwmx Item starts at 0:12:36

Olympic Gold Medals (@ Friday am)

Scotland: 6
England: 33
Wales: 3
NI: 0

PS As GB or Great Britain is only Scotland Wales and England - what are our Olympic masters telling us has happened to Northern Ireland and the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'? I expect Sinn Fein are happy!!

Interesting correspondence

One of the readers of this Blog has sent me the correspondence below and authorised me to publish it for him. It is worth reading but is in the usual order for email correspondence trails. I would like to thank him for sharing this with me (and you!). Many of his points regarding the Ethnic English apply to all those that reside in England whatever their ethnicity.


Hello Robin,

I apologise for the delay in replying to your email I have been ill.

Robin you ask can you put a copy of my correspondence up on your blog?

The answer is yes, but please ensure that my name, postal address and
email address are removed. And post as anonymous.

I have had check through to remove them., but could you double check
please and remove them if you find them?


Yours sincerely

x


----- Original Message -----
From: RobinTilbrook@aol.com
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: UPDATE : Ways to start to alleviate ethnic English
resentment about Scottish devolution

Dear x


Thank you for this. Did you see this link to what I said about the WLQ
Commission?
(Click here>>>
http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/mckaywlq-commission.html).
I attach their transcript of my evidence.


Can I put a copy of your correspondence up on my Blog? If so, do you
want to be anonymous?


Yours sincerely

Robin Tilbrook,
Chairman,
The English Democrats,
Quires Green, Willingale, Ongar, Essex, CM5 0QP
Tel: 01277 896000
Fax: 01277 896050
Mobile : 07778 553395
Blog: http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/
FaceBook Profile: http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook
Party Tel: 0207 242 1066
Twitter: @RobinTilbrook
Party Website: www.englishdemocrats.org
English Democrats' FB Page:
http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/www.EngDem.org
Chairman's FB Page:
http://www.facebook.com/robin.tilbrook#!/Robin.Tilbrook.English.Democrats





In a message dated 28/05/2012 15:17:16 GMT Daylight Time

Dear Robin I recently sent you an email in the strictest confidence
(see below original email for details).

I now send you this follow up email in the strictest confidence in the
hope it may be of use?


I have since received a reply from my MP Elizabeth Truss and Mark
Harper Minister for Political Constitutional Reform.
................................................

Their reply:


ELIZABETH TRUSS MP
Constituency Office: The Limes

32 Bridge Street Thetford

Norfolk IP24 3AG Tel: 01842 757 345



Westminster Office: House of Commons

Westminster

London SW1A OAA

Tel: 020 7219 7151

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SWIA OAA




May 2012

Dear

Please find enclosed a reply from Mark Harper MP, Minister for
Political and Constitutional Reform, regarding your concerns about
various devolution matters. I note that the Government has established a
Commission to consider how the House of Commons might deal with
legislation that affects only part of the UK, following the devolution
of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern
Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. You can find
details of the Commission at: http://tmc.independent.gov.uk.

Elizabeth Truss MP

Email: elizabeth.truss.mpffparliament.uk: www.elizabethtruss.com


　

Mark Harper MP

70 Whitehall

Telephone 020 7276 5866

London Fax 020 7276 0514

Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform

SW1A 2AS Email psrnarkharper (o7cabinet-office.asi.clov.uk Web
www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk




Our Ref:


Elizabeth Truss MP

House of Commons

London SW1A OAA



May 2012



Dear Elizabeth


Thank you for your email of 12 April to the Minister for the Cabinet
Office, on behalf of your constituent, who has asked about various
devolution matters. I am responding as Minister for Political and
Constitutional Reform.


Mr ..... comments that there is growing anger among the English which
will ultimately result in England supporting Scottish Independence and
the break up of the United Kingdom. I should like to state from the
outset that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister strongly
believe that like other members of the Union, Scotland benefits from
being part of the UK and the UK benefits from Scotland being a part of
it. This Government believes that devolution within the United Kingdom
provides the right balance between responsibility, accountability and
representation and we will work vigorously to maintain this position.


Mr ....... mentions discrimination against England because Scotland
has its own Parliament. Whilst devolution has created separate and
distinct representative bodies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,
the UK Parliament still legislates for the whole of the UK on a range of
matters, including economic policy. Under existing arrangements,
different political parties are currently in government across the
devolved administrations and the UK Government, without having entirely
separate governments for each territory within the UK. The existing
devolution settlements were designed to meet varying needs, so that
local decisions could be made to respond to local problems, resulting in
different policy approaches which best meet the needs of different parts
of the UK.


As devolution has evolved over the past decade, questions about
fairness and balance in the consideration of legislation by the House of
Commons have increased. Mr....... has commented on MPs who do not
represent English seats voting on English laws. These questions to which
there are no straightforward answers, not least because there is no
definition of what a solely English matter is, need to be addressed. It
is for this reason that the Government has established a Commission to
consider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation which
affects only part of the United Kingdom, following the devolution of
certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern
Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.


The Commission has started its work and will make its recommendations
to the Government during the course of the next Parliamentary session.
Mr....... may wish to make representations directly to the Commission,
details of which can be found at htt://tmc.independent.gov.uk.


I note Mr ..... concern that the current system of devolution funding
is a factor that encourages English resentment towards devolution. As
set out in the Coalition Programme for Government, we recognise that
there are concerns about the current system, including those expressed
by the Holtham Commission. However, at this time the priority must be to
reduce the national deficit and any changes to the current system must
await the stabilisation of the public finances.


I hope that you and your constituent find this reply helpful.


MARK HARPER

.........................

Robin I personally believe as sole Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish
policies and matters have been identified, hence their having their
assemblies and parliaments, then there is no reason why solely English
policies and matters cannot be identified. I also find it insulting that
Mr. Harper says that reducing the national deficit has priority over
making changes to the current system of devolution funding i.e. The
Barnett Formula. This again is wrong as the governments spending
policies at home and abroad prove that reducing the deficit is not their
priority.

Kind Regards




----- Original Message -----

To:
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:18 AM
Subject: Scottish Devolution and a way to start to alleviate ethnic
English resentment


Dear Robin,

I send this in the strictist confidence, in the hope it may be of help
with any of your further talks with the Commission on Devolution. I
apoligise that I did not send earlier but was unaware of or dates.
Hopefully it may be of use in some areas?

Below are my emails with Elizabeth Truss MP and my original email.
Though I have asked her to forward this to Francis Maud, she has 'taken
the matter up' with him. So it seems she may been selective in what she
has taken up?


Elizabeth Truss MP
Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk
The Limes
32 Bridge Street, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 3AG
01842 757345

Dear

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding Scottish
devolution. I have taken up this matter with Francis Maude MP, Minister
for the Cabinet Office. I will contact you again as soon as I receive a
response.

Best wishes,

Elizabeth Truss MP



Sent: 05 April 2012 09:07
To: TRUSS, Elizabeth
Subject: Scottish Devolution and a way to start to alleviate Ethnic
English resentment
Importance: High


Date: 5th April 2012


Dear Elizabeth Truss MP,

A few months ago you informed me that the policy regarding my concerns
appear to be the responsibility of the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
Therefore may I ask you as my local Conservative MP if you could please
send my below letter to the Rt Hon Francis Maud MP.

Kind regards

Mr

.....................

Date: April 2012



To: Rt Hon Francis Maud MP

Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General

　
Ways to start to alleviate ethnic English resentment Scottish
Devolution

　

Dear Rt Hon Francis Maud MP,

I have been advised to contact you by the European Parliament. And have
been informed by my local Conservative MP Elizabeth Truss, that the
policy regarding the below concerns on accepting ethnic English
ethnicity is the responsibility of the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

　
I would like to draw your attention to the growing anger of the ethnic
English concerning Scottish independence and the devolution of powers of
Wales and Northern Ireland. And the lack of recognition of the ethnic
English.

The national media and many MPs have quiet rightly high-lighted ethnic
English anger and resentment at the double standards and discrimination
at play against them. Scotland has it own parliament and devolved
powers. Scotland receives a huge yearly payment in the form of the
Barnett formula. Scottish MPs can vote on English only matters, as can
Welsh and Northern Irish Mps. Yet the English cannot vote on these
countries matters.

The ethnic English do not have their own parliament as Scotland does,
nor devolved powers, and less money is spent per head on people in
England by the state than in Scotland. An average of £1,600 a year less
is spent on them. Why all the above? This is surely a case of
discrimination.

The Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistics recently projected UK
Government annual spending per person as £8,588 in England – and £10,212
in Scotland.

The ethnic English not only receive a raw deal because of all the above
they receive a raw deal from the state because it is still is refusing
to accept the ethnic English as people and England as a country in their
own right. ..Which is ludicrous because the ethnic English go back
nearly two thousand years and England is certainly the oldest country in
the UK and probably older than most in Europe.

In fact this anger at being treated unfairly has meant most ethnic
English people (who are the majority population within England) now
support Scotland’s march to independence.

Scotland’s independence would mean the break up of the UK, as Northern
Ireland and Wales would follow suit and the ethnic English would also
support them. Because the ethnic English increasingly no longer care
about the UK, because they believe themselves not accepted or supported
in any way and denied on all areas by the Government and state. From
being refused the right to state and write that they are ‘Ethnic
English’ on forms, to England being denied devolved powers that are
equal to the devolved powers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(One sensible brake through was in the ONS 2011 Census where ethnic
English were allowed to write down they were/are ethnic English).

Only by the Government and state accepting the ethnic English identity
(the majority population within England) can the UK remain intact. For
without the ethnic English supporting full devolution for Scotland the
attempt would fail.

A recent poll by the think tank IPPR, and Cardiff and Edinburgh
Universities showed almost six out of ten ethnic English say that they
do not trust the UK Government to work in the best long-term interests
of England.

The IPPR Director Nick Pearce urged England’s mainstream political
parties to adopt Englishness with a sense of urgency and seriousness,
and take necessary steps so that it finds political expression.
Discussing about England and Englishness is misconstrued by some as
seeking to weaken the union, noted Pearce, but this is absolutely
baseless. “The longer this debate is ignored, or worse, denied, the more
likely we will see a backlash within England against the UK”.


Most ethnic English support Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
becoming independent. And daily that ethnic English support grows
because the ethnic English have had enough of being denied their
ethnicity, voice, country and devolved dowers. Of being denied equality.

And in the long run there is certainly nothing any government can do in
preventing the brake up of the UK from eventually happening, unless,
they start to fully accept ethnic English ethnicity and identity, and so
alleviate the growing anger and fury that is mounting and so prevent an
irreversible political backlash from the ethnic English.

It is this lack of acceptance and representation of the ethnic English
(the English are an ethnic group so have their own group ethnicity, as
do all ethnic groups throughout the UK. The difference being all other
ethnicities are accepted by the UK Government and state as having equal
human rights) ..that is causing discontent and anger and the widespread
realization of injustice and discrimination against the ethnic English.


The Government and states present non acceptance of the ethnic English
population throughout the UK could even be seen as Government and state
backed racism, discrimination and bigotry. And the ethnic English are
starting to see it that way.

The prime minister once said to Andrew Marr “I’m a Cameron, there is
quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins” in acceptance
of his own ethnicity.

All peoples belong to various ethnic groups and the ethnic English are
also an ethnic group, and just as all other ethnic groups are accepted
in this country as having equal human rights. Isn’t it about time the
ethnic English were are also accepted as having equal human rights?

In many areas throughout the UK the ethnic English are increasingly the
Minority Ethnic Group and this trend is set to continue, and these
people feel abounded and let down by the state. So it is only right that
the Ethnic English should have available to them the considerations,
resources, support and equality that are afforded to all other
ethnicities.

This is of great importance to the ethnic English of population, as
many of its young are suffering from further education being placed
beyond their reach, the elderly retired and sick struggling for support,
resources and to be heard. And for those through no fault of their own
are being made redundant or are already unemployed.

By accepting the Ethnic English, and accepting them as having equal
human rights along with all other ethnicities, this will go a long way
to ease increasingly high racial tensions that are becoming rife
throughout England and the rest of the UK. As the state’s present non
acceptance of Ethnic English ethnicity is major contributing factor in
this area.

MPs have informed me they accept the ethnic English in their own right
and as a people. This is only right and how it should be in a democratic
country that prides itself on equality.

We can hardly say we want the United Kingdom to remain together for the
benefit of all, and equality is the right off all, when we ignore and
fail to accept a constituent part of the UK’s make up, those of English
Ethnicity. …What confusing message does that send out?

　

The ONS (Office of National Statistics - which consults and provides
information to national and local government, etc). The EHRC (Equality
and Human Rights Commission - Section 3 states the EHRC has a general
duty to work towards the development of a society where equality and
rights are rooted). And The Charities Commission.

..All accept the ethnic English (indigenous English ethnicity), and
accept them as having equal human rights along with all other
ethnicities.

　

The United Kingdom is member of the European Union (EU) and one of its
founders.

The European Parliament has contacted me stating

Thank you for your message to the European Parliament concerning
"English ethnicity". The European Parliament accepts people of all
ethnicities as possessing equal human rights. It would appear that it is
particularly a matter for the government of the UK to ensure that all
ethnicities within the UK are equally treated and respected and so I
would suggest that you write to UK Members of Parliament or indeed to
the Prime Minister.

In addition, I should point out to you that the Court of Human Rights
in Strasbourg is not an organ of the European Union, but of the "Council
of Europe", which encompasses many more states than the EU and which was
set up shortly after the Second World War, largely to ensure that the
kind of persecution of populations on the basis of race, creed or
ethnicity should never again happen in Europe.

Sincerely,

G. R. Chambers,

Citizens' Enquiry Service,

European Parliament.

　

　

The United Kingdom was one of the drafters and adopters of the

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR).

Convention on Civil and Political

Article 16

‘Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person
before the law.’

Ethnic English persons are not recognised everywhere before the law
because their ethnicity is yet to be accepted by a UK Government. Ethnic
English persons are not recognised everywhere before the law because
when they complete any official form (bar the partial ONS recognition)
and write or state they are Ethnic English, their ethnicity is not yet
accepted.

　

Article 19 parts 1 and 2

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right
shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in
print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Ethnic English persons do not have a right to hold opinions without
interference because their ethnicity is not yet to be accepted by a UK
Government. This means someone who is ethnic English cannot hold
opinions and express them as an ethnic English person because they are
not accepted as an ethnic English person. So when they try to state the
opinions they hold as an ethnic English person, those opinions are
questioned and not accepted by officials and so interfered with by
officialdom because the Government does not yet recognise the ethnic
English and ethnic English persons.

Ethnic English persons do not have the right to freedom of expression
and all this includes, because their ethnicity is yet to be accepted by
a UK Government. And so they cannot express themselves on all official
forms and as a group, as can all other ethnicities within the UK.

Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the
law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal
and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
national or social origin, property, birth or other status.


Ethnic English persons are Not equal with other ethnic persons before
the law and entitled without any discrimination to equal protection
before the law. Because ethnic English persons are yet to be accepted by
a UK Government. So ethnic English persons are not guaranteed equal and
effective protection and nor their human rights.



　

This is why it is essential that for the UK to remain intact and for
equality to prevail their needs to be Government acceptance of the
ethnic English and ethnic English persons, to reassure those whose
ethnicity is indigenous English that they are accepted just as all other
ethnicities are. And that Government accepts that they along with all
people of all ethnicities as possessing equal human rights.

In recognising the ethnic English and ethnic English persons the UK
Government as a member of the European Union will be complying with its
obligations, lawful duties and responsibilities as set out within -

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Treaty of
Lisbon.

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.

The European Convention On Human Rights.

The Council of Europe.

Note: Concerning the Lisbon Treaty

In addition, the Treaty of Lisbon guarantees the enforcement of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights. The EU therefore acquires for itself a
catalogue of civil, political, economic and social rights, which are
legally binding not only on the Union and its institutions, but also on
the Member States as regards the implementation of Union law.

How does the Charter of Fundamental Rights improve the rights of
European citizens?

The Treaty of Lisbon makes a cross-reference to the Charter as a real
catalogue of rights that the EU believes all citizens of the Union
should enjoy vis-à-vis the Union's institutions and the Union's law
binding guarantees. The six chapters of the Charter cover the following
aspects: individual rights related to dignity; freedoms, equality,
solidarity, rights linked to citizenship status and justice. These
rights are drawn essentially from other international instruments, like
the European Convention on Human Rights, giving them legal embodiment in
the Union.

The institutions of the Union must respect the rights written into the
Charter. The same obligations are incumbent upon the Member States when
they implement the Union’s legislation. The Court of Justice will ensure
that the Charter is applied correctly. The incorporation of the Charter
does not alter the Union’s powers, but offers strengthened rights and
greater freedom for citizens.

A Europe of rights and values, freedom, solidarity and security,
promoting the Union's values, introducing the Charter of Fundamental
Rights into European primary law, providing for new solidarity
mechanisms and ensuring better protection of European citizens.

* Citizens' rights and Charter of Fundamental Rights: the Treaty of

Lisbon preserves existing rights while introducing new ones. In

particular, it guarantees the freedoms and principles set out in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights and gives its provisions a binding legal
force. It concerns civil, political, economic and social rights.

　



Mr Maud could you please answer the following questions


1. Does the UK Government accept ethnic English people together with
people of all ethnicities as possessing equal human rights? Yes or No

2. Does the UK Government accept ethnic English Ethnicity being
accepted as all other ethnicities are within the UK? Yes or No.

3. As with all other ethnicities, are/will the ethnic English and
ethnic English persons be able to state and write that they are ethnic
English on all Government, NHS, Educational, County Council, and all
other official forms etc? Yes or No.

4. When the those of English ethnicity write or state they are ethnic
English persons/person will they be accepted and recorded as being so,
without any refusal to accept them, or alteration of their entry, or
their entry being recorded differently by those who are requesting form
completions and those asking questions, and by other interested parties.
Yes or No?

5. Does the Government believe in equality for all and accept that all
have the right to recognition everywhere before the law as a person, and
that people of all ethnicities and ethnic persons possess equal human
rights (this includes the Ethnic English) ? Yes or No

　

If all the answers to all the above questions are yes, then equality
shall prevail and those people of ethnic English ethnicity will be
finally accepted and respected just as all other ethnicities within the
UK. And they will then be part of the Prime Minster’s Big Society and be
able to participate in it fully and equally. And as mentioned the UK
Government as a member of the European Union, will then be complying
correctly with its obligations, lawful duties and responsibilities as
mentioned above, including the Treaty of Lisbon. And as stated by the
European Parliament.

(European Parliament states ‘The European Parliament accepts people of
all ethnicities as possessing equal human rights’ ... ‘it is
particularly a matter for the government of the UK to ensure that all
ethnicities within the UK are equally treated and respected’ …)

　

Can I say that if the Government claims it is not the Government’s nor
Civil Service responsibility, remit, policy or duty to accept a
particular ethnicity nor particular ethnic persons. …Then it is not the
Government’s nor Civil Service responsibility, remit, policy or duty to
accept any particular ethnicity or particular ethnic persons.

This means the Government’s commitment and requirements on Ethnicity
Monitoring, Ethnic Quotas’ Race Relations and Equality would be null and
void. As all these can only be implemented and achieved by Government
and Civil Service accepting and recording of particular ethnicities and
ethnic persons.

So it is a case of the Government accepting all people of all
ethnicities within the UK, and accepting they all possess equal human
rights. Or the Government accepting none, which means the government
does not accept people of all ethnicities as possessing equal human
rights, nor accepts them as ethnic persons.


　

I look forward to your reply

Yours Sincerely

Mr

English Disclosures in Wales

In the last few days we have seen an interesting disclosure about Tony Blair’s government’s approach to looking after the constitutional interests of England. This issue is usually referred to, within the media and Establishment as the “West Lothian Question”.

Although the issue was first raised by Tam Dalyell, the then MP for West Lothian, by calling it the West Lothian Question the media and Government disguised the fact that this question isn’t at all about West Lothian, but is entirely about England and England’s place within the constitutional framework.

Many questions have been asked in the past about why it was that England was left out of Labour’s devolutionary scheme, when Labour was considering devolution for Scotland and Wales. When he was a Minister, Jack Straw used the National Interest/Security exemption to refuse to release the Cabinet papers on this decision and thus to avoid the ruling of the Information Commissioner ordering their production.

All Jack Straw’s efforts have now come to nothing with the answers given by Kim Howells to this Coalition Government’s West Lothian Question Commission under the Chairmanship of Sir William McKay, which I gave evidence to earlier this year (here is a link to that evidence >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/my-evidence-to-mckaywlq-commission.html ). Kim Howells in the BBC website article below frankly confesses that, knowing that the English question was difficult to answer except by creating an English Parliament, the Labour Cabinet deliberately set about trying to avoid dealing with the question at all.

Now that the cat is out of the bag on this particular issue, it is interesting to see that one of the chief architects of Scottish Devolution, the capo di capi of Labour’s Scottish Mafia, Gordon Brown, will come out at this week’s Edinburgh Literary Festival, with a speech no longer using his old expression of “The Nations and Regions of Britain” (where the regions were England), but now he is talking about “Scotland and the UK” separate entities!

So I wonder if we will find that, after all the huge financial transfers from England to Scotland organised by Gordon Brown; and the transfers of whole Government offices to Scotland, such as the UK’s tax collectors; and the use of untold billions of the Defence budget spent in Scotland, not only in doing the vast investment in the infrastructure of Faslane but also the current building of two aircraft carriers in Scotland instead of on Tyneside; after all this, are we now to find that Gordon Brown was a Scottish Nationalist after all?

Here is the BBC article on Kim Howells’ disclosure:-
24 July 2012

McKay Commission: Labour 'avoided devolution questions'

Labour made a "conscious decision" to stay away from the West Lothian question, Kim Howells says
The previous Labour government decided to avoid dealing with the "very difficult" questions created by devolution, says a former minister.

Kim Howells said Labour opted to "stay well away" from the implications for MPs' voting rights.
The former Pontypridd MP gave evidence to the McKay Commission meeting in Cardiff into the West Lothian question.

The question asks whether Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs should have a vote on English-only matters.

'Small anomaly' It was first posed in the 1970s by Labour MP Tam Dalyell, whose constituency at the time was West Lothian. Dr Howells, whose ministerial posts included time in the Foreign Office and education, was on the cabinet committee that drew up the post-devolution settlement after the Labour landslide at the 1997 general election.

He told the commission that the then Labour government made a "conscious decision" to "stay well away from" the question.

He said: "We never discussed it. We had all heard of the West Lothian question.

"We all knew Tam Dalyell and knew the questions Tam was asking were very difficult questions."
Since the creation of the Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies, and the Scottish Parliament, Dr Howells said he could not see an alternative to the creation of an English parliament - although he added: "I'm not in favour of one by the way."

Creating a grand committee of English MPs would be "just another way of avoiding the West Lothian question" and would "generate a demand for an English parliament", he said.

Former First Minister Rhodri Morgan told the commission: "On a scale of anomalies I would call it a pretty small one."

Mr Morgan posed an alternative "West Glamorgan question", citing the example of English Conservative MPs who rebelled against local government re-organisation in their own constituencies, but voted for it in Wales.

Most bills which pass through parliament affected public spending, he said, making it difficult to ring-fence English-only votes.

Asked if that meant all MPs should be allowed to vote on bills with resource implications, he said: "I can't see how they can be excluded."

England Awake! Issue 2 - Out Now

England Awake Issue 2

The English Democrats and I are pleased to announce that issue 2 of our magazine 'England Awake!' is now out. All our members and supporters should receive their copy this week as our party prepares for our annual conference on 22nd September in St Albans.

Click here for the story >>> http://www.voteenglish.org/the-english-democrats-democratics-latest-news-headlines/501-england-awake-issue-2.html