SCOTTISH TRANS RIGHTS AND THE FUTURE OF THE UNION

 

 SCOTTISH TRANS RIGHTS AND THE FUTURE OF THE UNION

 

Joshua Rosenberg KC is one of the leading legal affairs journalists and his sub- stack articles are usually worth reading from a lawyer’s point of view.  However like many practicing lawyers he is quite a literalist about legal issues and does not seem to be able to give much insight into the political moods behind the process of legislation.  He has however written an interesting article which does set out the mechanics of the situation very well.  For those who do not get his sub-stack here is the text:-

 

“Scottish gender recognition: who decides?

 

Members of the Scottish parliament voted by 86 votes to 39 on 22 December to approve the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. That completed what the parliament calls stage three of its legislative journey, the equivalent of a third reading at Westminster. But the bill needs royal assent before it can become law.

Members of the Scottish parliament applaud the vote on 22c December

The Scottish bill would amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004 as it applies in Scotland. By removing the need for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, the bill would make it easier for trans people who were born in Scotland or who live there to obtain a gender recognition certificate. It also lowers the minimum age for applicants to 16 and reduces the time required for the applicant to live in an acquired gender from two years to three months — or six months for those aged 16 and 17. There is also a three-month reflection period.

A section 35 order?

However, the UK government may try to stop the bill becoming law. Alister Jack, the secretary of state for Scotland, said on 22 December:

We share the concerns that many people have regarding certain aspects of this bill and, in particular, the safety issues for women and children.

We will look closely at that, and also the ramifications for the Equality Act 2010 and other UK-wide legislation, in the coming weeks — up to and including a section 35 order stopping the bill going for royal assent if necessary.

Before looking at section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, it’s helpful to consider the history of this provision.

The Royal Commission on the Constitution, which reported in 1973, envisaged that UK ministers would retain a power to block legislation passed by a devolved administration:

However unlikely this may be, circumstances could arise in which a veto would have to be considered, whether to ensure compliance with international obligations, or to safeguard some other essential British interest, or to prevent adoption of policies considered to be inconsistent with the maintenance of the essential political and economic unity of the UK.¹

That approach was followed by the Labour government when it introduced devolution legislation in 1998.

Sections 28 to 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 deal with the powers of the Scottish parliament and rulings that may be given by the UK Supreme Court on its legislative competence. The Scottish parliament cannot legislate on matters that were reserved to the UK parliament under the devolution settlement.

However, as the UK government explained in explanatory notes at the time the Scotland Act was passed, there are certain limited circumstances where the UK government can exercise a policy control or veto over what legislation is enacted by the Scottish parliament, even although it is within its competence.²

[Section 35] defines what those circumstances are.

The thinking behind section 35

To understand the thinking behind section 35, it’s a good idea to look at the parliamentary debates on what became the Scotland Act.

In the Commons on 12 May 1998 (at column 267), the then secretary of state for Scotland Donald Dewar said:

We have a situation in which there is a division of responsibility as between reserved and devolved powers. If one takes a simplistic view, one might say that the writ of the Scottish parliament runs in devolved areas and that there will be reserved areas with which the Scottish parliament cannot meddle and where its writ does not run…

However, the world of politics and of legislation is not as neatly divided as that — there are no exact demarcations or neat barriers that cannot be crossed — so legislation in a devolved area of responsibility will often have implications for reserved areas and reserved functions…

Almost any legislation in Scots private law could have an impact on reserved powers, Dewar suggested. Without further protection, it would be too easy to challenge acts of the Scottish parliament.

I was not prepared to take the rather narrow view that, if there were a reaction, that legislation would probably be called incompetent or would be open to challenge. We therefore sought a balanced way to ensure that the competence of the parliament — its range of responsibilities — would be exercisable and at the same time would not give rise to abuse.

We have struck an important balance in the clause. The secretary of state will have recourse to the power, but it will be subject to a number of important safeguards. The first is that he or she must believe that there would be an adverse effect on the operation of an enactment as it applied to reserved matters. Secondly, the reasonableness test is built in. There is also the important safeguard that if the power is to be used, a majority in this house must be in favour, and that would not be given lightly.

An important safeguard… is that the decision would be open to judicial review. In my view, it would be open to judicial review in the Scottish courts. The courts would have to consider the adverse effects of such an order and apply the reasonableness test…

I stress that the process of government is a process of negotiation and discussion; it is a matter of bilaterals and discussions at an official level… Common sense dictates, consensus emerges and agreement is reached 999 times out of 1,000.

Later, Dewar confirmed:

The judicial review would be taken in the Court of Session in Scotland. It would be a challenge from Scotland and would be dealt with by the Scottish courts.

The bill was amended before it was debated in the House of Lords on 28 July 1998. Lord Sewel, for the government, explained (at column 1391) what the provision would do:

While, for the Scottish parliament to have a workable legislative competence, its legislation for devolved purposes needs to be able to have ancillary effects upon reserved matters, the government recognise that there need to be safeguards in cases where acts of the Scottish parliament could have adverse effects on the law as it applies to reserved matters. For example, legislation about housing or local taxation could possibly have an impact on the operation of social security legislation.

Clause 33 [which became section 35] therefore empowers the secretary of state, by order, to prevent a Scottish bill from being submitted for royal assent in certain circumstances…

These powers of intervention are of course meant to be long stops. Their use would require to be justified and would be liable to be scrutinised by judicial review. The amendments establish a series of tests which limit the extent to which legislation by the Scottish parliament can affect reserved matters. But the powers of intervention provide essential balance to ensure that there is a sensible outcome in relation to reserved matters.

Their existence should be sufficient to ensure consultation between Whitehall and Edinburgh so that there may be no need for them to be used. But there should be no doubt that this government will be willing to use the powers of intervention if it became necessary.

What section 35 says

Alister Jack’s reference to a section 35 order clearly envisages an order under subsection (1)(b): he is suggesting he reasonably believes the bill “would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters”.

The UK government is understood to be concerned about the potential impact of people with gender recognition certificates moving from Scotland to other parts of the UK, where where applicants for a gender recognition certificate must be 18 or over and have had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Jack also appears to be arguing that the bill might breach the Equality Act, which is a reserved matter.

The Scottish government’s justice secretary, Shona Robison, said “the legislation makes no change to the reserved Equality Act 2010 and that principle is enshrined in the bill”.

However, Kemi Badenoch, the UK government’s minister for women and equalities, took a different position:

What next?

It’s clear that the UK government wants the Scottish government to think again. It’s equally clear that the Scottish government is unwilling to do so. So we are facing, for the first time, what ministers believed in 1998 would be a rare occurrence. A more recent Cabinet Office memorandum of understanding confirms that the power to prevent a bill from becoming law is seen “very much as a matter of last resort”:

The UK government and the administration concerned will therefore aim to resolve any difficulties through discussion so as to avoid any action or omission by the devolved administration having an adverse impact on non-devolved matters.

We see from subsection (3) of section 35 that a secretary of state has four weeks from 22 December to decide whether to make an order. Any order would be subject to the negative resolution procedure in parliament.

As Dewar confirmed in 1998, an order made under section 35 can be challenged in the Scottish courts. We can expect the Scottish government and the UK government to disagree over whether the bill would have an adverse effect on reserved matters.

Any section 35 order would remain in force — and Scotland’s gender recognition legislation would remain on hold — unless and until the order is overturned by the courts. Regardless of who won the earlier rounds, you would expect a challenge brought by the Scottish government against the UK government to end up in the UK Supreme Court.

Is there another option?

Section 33 of the Scotland Act allows the UK government — acting through the attorney general or the advocate general for Scotland — to “refer the question of whether a bill or any provision of a bill would be within the legislative competence of the parliament to the Supreme Court for decision”. There is a four-week deadline.

Subsection (3)(c) of section 35 extends the normal deadline if a bill is referred to the Supreme Court under section 33 of the act. The secretary of state has four weeks after the court has delivered its ruling to make an order under section 35.

Since section 33 is mentioned within section 35, parliament must have envisaged a reference to the Supreme Court in the case of a bill that the secretary of state reasonably thinks would have an adverse effect on reserved matters.

So it looks as if the UK government could refer the issue to the Supreme Court instead of making an order under section 35 and waiting for it to be challenged by the Scottish government. Section 32 of the act says the presiding officer must not submit a bill for royal assent until all this has been sorted out.

On the other hand, section 33 is intended to deal with disputes over whether a bill is within legislative competence. The UK government would find it difficult to deny that the Scottish parliament has the competence to pass the gender recognition bill. The dispute is over whether that bill would have an adverse effect on other laws.

That may not be the sort of dispute that section 33 was intended for. On the other hand, the Supreme Court took a very pragmatic approach to its devolution jurisdiction last month when considering the Scottish government’s proposed independence referendum.

If the UK government can choose between being taken to the Court of Session by the Scottish government and referring the gender recognition bill to the Supreme Court itself, which should it prefer?

Obviously, it would be quicker to go straight to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the UK government may be in no hurry to resolve the issue. The Scottish government would no doubt prefer the question to be considered by the Court of Session.

What would happen to the bill?

If the Supreme Court decides that the gender recognition bill would not be within legislative competence of the Scottish parliament — or if an order is made by the secretary of state under section 35 — section 36(4A) of the Scotland Act provides for the parliamentary proceedings to be re-opened and the bill to be amended.

But then the UK government could start the whole process again.

Statutory construction is difficult at the best of times and this is uncharted territory. I will be happy to update this piece further if I have got anything wrong.

1

Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969–1973 (the Kilbrandon report 1973), Cmnd 5460, para 765.

2

Emphasis added”

 

As a solicitor experienced in dealing with Judicial Review cases that article, I think, makes clear that there is a real risk attached to challenging this legislation by the “Conservative” Government.  There is a likelihood of the challenge failing and therefore the legislation being upheld by the Supreme Court as being within the powers of the Scottish Parliament. 

 

That leads to a conundrum for the “Conservative” Government.   If they do not challenge it, they will look weak; If they do challenge it and loose the case it will damage their credibility and also further damage the Union. 

 

If the legislation is not upheld then Nicola Sturgeon has a clear argument that the UK constitutional structure interferes with Scottish independence of action.

 

A further interesting development is that Sir Kier Starmer, the Labour Leader, has now come out in favour of extending Nicola Sturgeon’s “Trans” rights throughout the UK. 

 

I am sure in ideological terms this is opportunistic. It is howeveralso worth considering what impact his approach has on bridge building with the SNP.  Starmer is probably calculating that, after the next General Election; in January 2025, Labour may well be the largest party in the Westminster Parliament without having an overall majority and will therefore need to have the support of the SNP to get Starmer into Downing Street!

 

You may ask whether that has any impact on the future of the Union.  I would reply by asking what the electoral politics were behind the passage of the Home Rule Bill for Ireland before the First World War?  The answer is that the Liberals needed the support of the Irish Nationalists in order to retain power and the price of that support was Home Rule!

 

 

WHAT’S THE SNP PLAYING AT OVER BREXIT?

WHAT’S THE SNP PLAYING AT OVER BREXIT?

Ever since its foundation, in 1927, the Scottish National Party has been loudly dedicated to getting Independence for Scotland from the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 

During the heady days of Alex Salmond’s leadership it looked as if it might actually achieve that ambition, but with Nicola Sturgeon it would appear that the SNP have lost their way. 

Rather like the questioning about why Theresa May was making such a poor job of Brexit (was it incompetence or duplicity?); we now have to ask the same question of Nicola Sturgeon and her leadership of the Scottish National Party about Scottish Independence and Brexit.

On Thursday last week Scottish Nationalist MPs proposed a resolution in the House of Commons to try to trigger Article 50 being revoked and thus to abort Brexit altogether.

This is a strikingly ironic and an apparently irrational thing for national ‘independence’ campaigners to do.  Not only are they trying to use Westminster parliamentary tricks to block the English Nation’s popular vote for independence from the EU, but also they are voting to block Scottish independence also. 

This last point needs explanation.  

During the Scottish Independence referendum, the then head of the European Commission, Mr Barosso, confirmed what numerous other EU figures had been saying, which was that Scotland leaving the UK would make Scotland automatically outside the EU.  

It follows that if the UK is kept within the EU Scotland cannot become independent of the UK without leaving the EU.  However if the UK leaves the EU and Scotland then leaves the UK, Scotland could apply to become an “Accession State” to the EU.  

Instead the SNP are now trying to block the UK leaving the EU which shows either a startling degree of incompetence, or that their policy on Scottish independence is mere duplicity. 

In weighing up which you think it is, it may be worth considering Nicola Sturgeon’s remarks in saying that she doesn’t like the word ‘national’ in Scottish National Party’s name, to see whether you think that the Scottish National Party is still sincerely committed to Scottish independence or whether it is just parasitically hag-riding the support of duped Scottish Nationalists as yet another Internationalist, Leftist party. 

Here is the BBC report of what Nicola Sturgeon said:-

“Nicola Sturgeon has said she wishes she could turn the clock back and change the Scottish National Party's name.

The SNP leader admitted the word "national" could be "hugely problematic" during a debate at the Edinburgh International Book Festival.

She was speaking with Turkish author Elif Shafak, who said the word had a "negative meaning" to her.

However, the first minister insisted her party was about self government and was not insular.

Ms Shafak, who was wrongly accused of public denigration of Turkishness for her novel The Bastard Of Istanbul, told the audience at the sold-out event: "Coming from Turkey, seeing the experiences there, not only in Turkey, across the Middle East, the Balkans, for us for instance the word nationalism is, for me personally, has a very negative meaning because I've seen how ugly it can get, how destructive it can become, how violent it can become and how it can divide people into imaginary categories and make them lose that cultural coexistence.

"Whereas when I come here, I hear the word nationalism being used in a different way and I felt that, can nationalism ever be benign? Can it ever be a benevolent thing? So there is a part of me that doubts that very much."

In response, Ms Sturgeon admitted: "The word is difficult."

She said: "If I could turn the clock back, what 90 years, to the establishment of my party, and choose its name all over again, I wouldn't choose the name it has got just now, I would call it something other than the Scottish National Party.

"Now people say why don't you change its name now? Well that would be far too complicated. Because what those of us who do support Scottish independence are all about could not be further removed from some of what you would recognise as nationalism in other parts of the world.

"Two things I believe that I think run so strongly through the Scottish independence movement are firstly that it doesn't matter where you come from, if Scotland is your home and you live here and you feel you have a stake in the country, you are Scottish and you have as much say over the future of the country as I do. And that is a civic, open, inclusive view of the world that is so far removed from what you would rightly fear.

"Secondly one of the great motivators for those of us who support Scottish independence is wanting to have a bigger voice in the world, it's about being outward looking and internationalist, not inward looking and insular.

"So the word is hugely, hugely problematic sometimes for those of us who ...but Scottish independence is about self-government, it's about running your own affairs and making your own mark in the world.

"So yes words do matter but I think we can't change the connotations that the word has in other parts of the world, what we have to do is just demonstrate through words of our own, through deeds, through actions, through how we carry ourselves, that we stand for something completely different to all of that."

Here is a link to the original report>>>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40975105

So what do you think?  Is the SNP's policy on Brexit incompetent or duplicious?

IS A UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ("U.D.I.") THE WAY TO GO FOR SCOTTISH NATIONALISM?

IS UDI THE WAY TO GO FOR SCOTTISH NATIONALISM?

Over the last week or so we have been entertained by the spat over the Scottish Referendum between Nicola Sturgeon and Theresa May. Andrew Marr's programme had it commented that it was “handbags at dawn”! 


Nicola Sturgeon has been saying that she wants to call another Scottish referendum before Brexit is complete, i.e. in about 18 months. Theresa May has been saying that she does not want it called for at least 6 years!


The process is that the Scottish Parliament will vote on the issue this week. Given the political balance in the Scottish Parliament of SNP and the Scottish Greens, it is inevitable that the resolution will be passed.


The resolution will then be formally submitted to the British Government, in accordance with the legislation which was passed by Westminster when it was agreed between David Cameron and Alex Salmond on holding the first referendum.


An interesting and real question will be whether Theresa May actually has legal power to refuse or delay a resolution made by the Scottish Parliament which fully complies with the legislation?


It may therefore be that in the drumroll of press releases one of them will be an Application by the Scottish Government for Judicial Review! If Theresa May loses such a Judicial Review, after her fiasco over the BREXIT case, she, and the British Government, will be utterly humiliated.


Whereas if Nicola Sturgeon were to lose the Judicial Review it could be useful to her as part of the case for the Scottish Parliament to go ahead and hold its own referendum (as an act of non-violent civil disobedience), unregulated by the British State. This would be in opposition to the British State, on much the same footing as Catalonia has held a referendum in which there was a majority for Catalonian independence, but which the Spanish State has sought to quash.


Unlike Spain, Britain no longer has a sizeable army that could be deployed to crush a rebellious civilian population and consequently there will be nothing practical to stop a Scottish Government, which having won an unofficial referendum then declare a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (“UDI”)!


Indeed from the Scottish Nationalist point of view I can see very good reasons to do so which will gel nationalists support into an even harder block of determined supporters than it currently has in Scotland, with Scottish nationalists being literally ready to fight in order to protect Scottish independence.


Much the same process occurred in the early 20th Century in Southern Ireland but then the British State had the whole might of the imperial British army to try to hold down the population of Ireland against its Will. Even so this proved to be an utterly futile and bloody exercise.

BRIT-SCOT MINISTER THREATENS TO BLOCK SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE VOTE!

BRIT-SCOT MINISTER THREATENS TO BLOCK SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE VOTE


The ‘Brit-Scot’ who is the current British Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon, has threatened to block any further right for the Scottish Parliament to have a further Scottish Independence referendum.


Michael Fallon is the Tory MP, "representing" an English constituency, who was appointed by David Cameron as the Minister to be involved in transferring the last of English shipbuilding from Portsmouth up to Scotland - when the Cameron Government closed the docks near Portsmouth.


This was done just before the Scottish Independence Referendum with a view to making it more difficult for the ‘Yes’ Campaign to win in Scotland.


At that point it looked as if the Clydeside ship workers might be considering voting for independence. This electoral bribe was to encourage them to vote ‘No’ to keep their jobs. It carried the implied threat that, if Scottish Independence won, the Ministry of Defence’s ship building contracts might go elsewhere!


Now that the "Supreme Court" has ruled that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Parliaments/Assemblies and Governments have no legal or constitutional role directly in Brexit. This ruling has, of course, ramped up the Scottish Nationalist rhetoric about going for Scottish Independence. Michael Fallon has now waded into this controversy suggesting that Westminster may refuse to authorise a further Scottish referendum.


I also think Westminster would be within it constitutional legal rights to refuse to authorise a further Scottish referendum and that would mean that it couldn’t legally be held. The effect would be to call Nicola Sturgeon’s bluff.


When you call someone’s bluff you have to bear in mind that there are two possible consequences. One is that they will back down and go off quietly having been humiliated. The other is that they will fully “go for it”!


In this context if Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP were to “go for it”, they would be holding a referendum that was technically illegal. They would also have to ignore all rulings by the courts to the contrary. In that scenario it is not unlikely that they would win, just as happened in Catalonia! If they did that they might well feel entitled to use any methods, including those outside the law, including violence.


Michael Fallon may hold an apparently grand office within the British State as Secretary of State for Defence. He may sit in an office once occupied by titan’s from the days of British imperial power, but he is by comparison the equivalent of the dwarfish wizard of Oz sounding very impressive and frightening, but without the real power that the title once gave.


Michael Fallon is after all the Secretary of State for Defence whose main job from the moment of appointment has been to slash the British Defence budget to the point where the capabilities of the British armed forces have been drastically reduced. It must now be extremely doubtful that the British military would be willing to obey orders to suppress Scottish nationalism.


In those circumstances calling the SNP’s bluff might well be the equivalent of pulling the trigger that blows apart the United Kingdom of Great Britain!


Here is the article which reports Michael Fallon’s comments:-

Michael Fallon: Westminster will block new Scottish independence vote

The UK Government will block any attempts by the SNP to hold a second independence referendum, Michael Fallon has said.


In a further sign of the tensions between Holyrood and Westminster, the Defence Secretary said the Scottish government should "forget" any plans to stage another vote.


Mr Fallon hit out in an interview with The Herald ahead of a visit to the Royal Marine base near Arbroath today.


Constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster, so the UK Government must give permission to the Scottish Parliament if it wants to hold another referendum.


Asked if ministers would facilitate a fresh vote on Scotland leaving the UK, the Defence Secretary said: “No, forget it. The respect agenda is two-way.”


He added: "She [Ms Sturgeon] is constantly asking us to respect the SNP government but she has to respect the decision of Scotland to stay inside the UK in 2014 and the decision of the UK to leave the EU. Respect works two ways."


Scots voted by 55% to 45% in favour of staying in the union in 2014, but Ms Sturgeon has repeatedly mooted the idea of a rerun following the Brexit vote, in which Scotland overwhelmingly backed Remain.


The Defence Secretary said the SNP government did not have a mandate for a second referendum, because it failed to secure a majority at the last Holyrood election.


He said: "We may well have seen peak SNP. They lost the referendum, they lost seats. There are other voices in Scotland now, not least Ruth Davidson's."


But Ms Sturgeon accused Mr Fallon of “backpedalling” after he refused to repeat his comments when interviewed on the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme.


When asked whether UK ministers would block a vote, he said: “We don't see the need for a referendum - this is a diversion.


"What the Scottish government should be focusing on is what it was elected to do, which is to improve schools standards, get to grips with the problems in Scottish hospitals and reverse the serious rise in unemployment."


The First Minister tweeted in response that such a block would be “disastrous” for the UK Government.


Theresa May's official spokeswoman said: "The real question here is should there be another independence referendum and our view on that has been clear, which is that the one in 2014 was legal, fair and decisive.


"Our priority here is on how do we look to the future and move forward. We believe that this issue was settled in 2014. I think recent polls don't suggest there has been a big change in the views around a second referendum, so what we should be focusing on is how do we work together to ensure the best possible outcome for the UK as we exit the EU."


A spokesperson for the First Minister said: “The arrogance of the Tories knows no bounds. They now think they can do what they want to Scotland and get away with it – not content with trying to drag us out of EU against our will with the support of just one MP out of 59 in Scotland, they are now suggesting they might try to block the nation's right to choose a different path.


"Any Tory bid to block a referendum would be a democratic outrage, but would only succeed in boosting support for both a referendum and for independence itself - something which the prime minister has previously indicated she understands all too well.


"Our mandate is unequivocal, with a manifesto commitment which makes explicitly clear that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to decide on an independence referendum if Scotland faces being taken out of the EU against our will."”


(Here is a link to the original >>> https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/uk-regions/scotland/news/82978/michael-fallon-westminster-will-block-new-scottish).

YOU COULD OWE £6,000 MORE IF SCOTLAND BECOMES A “NEW” STATE!

YOU COULD OWE £6,000 MORE IF SCOTLAND BECOMES A “NEW” STATE!

Although the English Democrats and the Campaign for an English Parliament are in some sense sister organisations, we haven’t always seen eye to eye on every issue, but the Campaign for an English Parliament has kept going over the years campaigning for proper and fair constitutional recognition for England.  It has recently made two submissions to the House of Lords Committee’s Inquiry on the implications for the “rest of the UK” if Scotland goes independent. 

The second submission looks critically at Nicola Sturgeon’s submission on behalf of the Scottish Government, in which she made it clear that the SNP’s negotiating position on the question of Scotland being a new State is going to be that in that case Scotland is not liable for the UK’s debt. 

My suspicion is that Alex Salmond and his team have thought very carefully about what they put in their proposal for Scottish Independence and included in it several tank traps which they fully expected the arrogant and ignorant and unprincipled, short-termist Westminster politicians and British Political and Media Establishment to fall into. 

Such a one is the question of Scotland keeping the pound and having involvement with decision making at the Bank of England. 

All three Establishment parties conspired together to attack this proposal at the same time.  They obviously hadn’t thought through their position.  Because by arguing that there could be such a thing as the “rest of the UK” (rUK) and that Scotland would be a new State (and therefore said that they would have to apply for all sorts of things that the SNP wanted, like being in the EU), they failed to realise that by making that attack they were arguing that under International Law, the new State of Scotland would not be liable for any of the old State’s liabilities. 

So in effect, Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Balls and Miliband have managed to argue that constitutionally the new Scotland should not be liable to pay a penny for its share of the British Government’s debt.  Not even for the billions spent under Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling for propping up Scottish banks!

Recently a long-standing member of the Party has sent me in a letter that he has had from his MP, Danny Alexander, the Scottish Liberal Democrat, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who in his letter says that Scotland’s share of the British Government debt is £120bn.  However I think it is worth looking at the good work that the Campaign for an English Parliament has done in reply to Nicola Sturgeon’s submission to the House of Lords inquiry. 

Below is the article and here is the table that the CEP have prepared. 

It looks like the incompetence of the British Establishment is likely to land all those of us in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with an additional debt of £1,737 for every man, woman and child.  Perhaps even more realistically that would be approaching £6,000 extra for every English tax-payer. 


If you are not keen on Scottish Independence you might feel further disgruntled if you take notice of what has happened to the opinion polls since the concerted attack on the SNP over this: Support for Scottish Independence amongst those likely to vote has increased quite considerably.  So not only have Lib/Lab/Con probably landed us with larger bills but they have also failed in their objective of reducing support for Scottish Independence!  What a brilliantly effective tank trap that was Alex! 

Here is the article:-
 

Debt bombshell if Scotland quits UK

TAXPAYERS from England, Wales and Northern Ireland are in line for a £1,737 debt bombshell if Scotland quits the UK, campaigners have warned.
Alex Salmond has said an independent Scotland would walk away from the UK’s massive national debt if it is blocked from sharing the pound.
The UK owes around £1.2TRILLION - equivalent to £18,993 per head if shared equally among UK nations, the Campaign for an English Parliament said.
But if Scotland votes “yes” in September’s referendum, the individual debt burden would rise to £20,730. This would likely lead to more cuts to public services or rising taxes as the Government battles to get the UK’s finances under control, the group claimed.
Its stark warning is laid bare in written evidence submitted to the Lords Constitution Committee, which is exploring the constitutional implications of Scottish independence for the rest of the UK. Chancellor George Osborne has rejected the prospect of Scotland keeping the pound if it becomes independent. He is backed by Labour and the Lib Dems.
But last month Scottish First Minister Mr Salmond warned that his decision would “backfire spectacularly”. The SNP boss said Scotland would only take on its share of the national debt if it kept a slice of “shared UK assets” like the currency. “All the debt accrued up to the point of independence belongs legally to the Treasury,” he warned. “And Scotland can’t default on debt that’s not legally ours.”
Eddie Bone, director of the Campaign for an English Parliament, said it was clear Scotland could legally get out of paying its share of the UK debt. “I have no doubt that will impact on our public services and possibly lead to higher taxes in the rest of the UK,” he said. “The English need to be given their own political voice so they are able to protect their assets.”
Britain’s national debt currently stands at just over £1,200,000,000,000 and is rising. As of 2011, there were 63,181,775 people living in the UK. That means a debt cost per head of £18,993.
Without Scotland paying its £100million share (divided between 5.3m people), the cost per person in England, Wales and Northern Ireland rises to £20,730.
Some 84 per cent of the UK population live in England, while 8.4 per cent live in Scotland, 4.8 per cent in Wales and 2.9 per cent in Northern Ireland.
http://www.thecep.org.uk/2014/03/26/debt-bombshell-if-scotland-quits-uk/