With the publishing of the Welsh Commission report, it seems that it is being called for proportional funding based on need, well it is a start but this needs to be implemented. The English tax payer has far too long been paying through the teeth to balance the books of all the other parts of the union. This is unfair as the English get per head, less than every other person in the defunct Union.

When will the people of England open their eyes and see the injustice in this practice, better and free university education – not in England, free or cheap prescriptions – not in England and better services – not in England.

From the CEP

A report commissioned by the Welsh government says that Scotland’s subsidy under the Barnett Bribe should be cut by £4bn if funding is allocated based on need rather than population and political expediency as it current is.

The Welsh government has been promised a referendum by the Brits on turning the Welsh Assembly into a Welsh Parliament and a commission has suggested that the Welsh government should have the power to vary income tax by 3p – a power the Scottish government already has. The Brits have also promised the Scottish government more powers over taxation and an independence referendum will be held some time soon north of the border.

And England? The West Lothian Question has been kicked into the long grass with a promise of an unspecified commission at some point in the future with no changes to the unconstitutional and institutionally racist system of imperialist British government of England in the meantime.

From the Scotsman

£4bn budget warning

SCOTLAND’s budget could be cut by £4 billion if the Barnett formula was scrapped and funding calculated on how much the country needed, a report on devolution funding commissioned by the Welsh Assembly claimed.
Authors David Miles and Gerald Holtham said the formula should be abolished as it did not allocate money fairly across the UK because it was based on population and not what was needed to pay for public services in different areas of the UK.

“An assessment consistent with those used to distribute health, local government and education spending around England could eventually result in Scotland getting as much as £4bn less than it currently does,” Mr Miles and Mr Holtham wrote.

The report, “Fairness and Responsibility”, called for a reform of devolution that would see the Welsh Assembly handed powers to vary income tax levels in their country by up to 3p in the pound, a power already held by Holyrood.

From the BBC

Row over draft referendum question on assembly powers

A new dispute has begun over the Welsh assembly powers referendum with a row over the wording of the question.

The Electoral Commission is considering the draft question put forward by Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan.

But the assembly government says it is “disappointed” not to agree the words with her, and called it “deficient”.

The commission has 10 weeks to consult on the question ahead of a probable 2011 referendum on further powers for the Welsh assembly.

The exact wording of the question is: “Do you agree that the assembly should now have powers to pass laws on all subjects in the devolved areas without needing the agreement of Parliament first?”

We are disappointed that we could not agree a question with the Wales Office
Welsh Assembly Government

Even before this process started, the assembly government made it clear that it did not agree with Mrs Gillan’s question.

A spokesman for the assembly government said: “We are disappointed that we could not agree a question with the Wales Office.

“We feel the suggestion put forward today by the secretary of state is deficient and does not accurately reflect the issue that voters will be asked to decide.

“We will therefore be submitting an amended, shortened version to the Electoral Commission as an alternative proposal.”

This is the latest row between the UK and Welsh governments surrounding the referendum.

The assembly government had stated that it preferred a referendum in the autumn of 2010, but Mrs Gillan ruled that date out and criticised her predecessor, Labour’s Peter Hain, for not doing enough preparatory work to enable an autumn referendum.

Despite the alternative assembly government submission, the Electoral Commission is only funded to carry out its statutory duty – and that is to consider the question submitted to it by the Welsh secretary.

As a result the proposal from the assembly government will not receive any consideration as part of the formal consultation process.

From Our Kingdom a piece by Gareth Young

The Coalition Government Ducks the English Question

Gareth Young, 7 June 2010

England may have voted Conservative at the general election but it won’t be Conservative policy on the West Lothian Question that England gets. The Conservatives won a majority of seats in both England and England & Wales, yet their promise to the voters of England and Wales that ‘a Conservative government will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries’ has been reneged upon in favour of a ‘commission to consider the West Lothian question’.

The Conservatives have been considering the West Lothian Question for the past twelve years. Ken Clarke’s Democracy Task Force had considered it in depth and at length. However, in last week’s written ministerial statement on the Machinery of Government, we discovered that responsibility for considering the West Lothian Question would not lie with Ken Clarke’s Ministry of Justice. Instead it is Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg who has been handed ‘special responsibility’ for ‘considering the West Lothian Question’.

The letter that I recently received from Nick Clegg’s office tends to suggest that Clegg favours mitigating the West Lothian Question rather than answering it.
We recognise that devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland poses difficult questions for the governance of England within the Union. I think it’s important to be honest about the fact that it is difficult to find an immediate solution. The idea of ‘English votes for English laws’ is extremely complicated to implement – particularly because many laws actually extend to England only in some parts, while covering other parts of the UK in other areas. Given the fact that changes in spending on English services which would be devolved in the rest of the UK directly affect the devolved administration’s budgets, it is also often the case that ‘English’ legislation actually will affect devolved issues outside of England. We believe that we can only really deal with this question by looking at it as part of the wider political system. We need to do more, first of all, to give more power to people locally in England – so that they, too, have more control over their own affairs rather than being micromanaged from Whitehall. We want to give local communities real power over their health services and policing, through fairly elected local health boards and police authorities – as well as freeing the hands of local councils, removing power from Westminster and Whitehall. Ultimately, we want to move towards a federal United Kingdom – devolving power within England further and thus resolving this question.

The voters of England will not get what the Conservatives promised them. And to make matters worse we will not get what the Liberal Democrats promised us (the Liberal Democrat manifesto promised to “address the status of England within a federal Britain” through a “constitutional convention”). Oh no. The status of England will not be recognised by English Votes on English Laws or addressed through a constitutional convention, instead England faces more piecemeal constitutional reform that ducks the English Question altogether, denied any recognition of nationhood by a manifesto for government that nobody voted for.

Piece by George Monbiot

Someone Else’s England

You don’t have to be a nationalist, or English, to accept the case for an English parliament.

One of the most striking features of the massive response to my article last week on Hazel Blears and the Labour Party was the number of Labour activists who wrote in to agree. If, as I suspect, their fury and dejection is representative, Labour will be eliminated at the next election. Just three years ago, almost all the pundits agreed that the Tories were finished as an electoral force. Suddenly, Labour looks like the force that might never recover. Has any party in modern politics done more to squander the goodwill that swept it into power?

But I noticed something else as well: something that wasn’t there. Every other issue I mentioned was picked over and debated. One was not. It concerns the most glaring democratic deficit over which this government has presided, yet almost everyone is too polite to mention it.

Three nations in the United Kingdom, as a result of one of this government’s rare progressive policies, now possess a representative assembly. The fourth and largest does not. England, the great colonising nation, has become a colony. It is governed by a Scotsman who uses foreign mercenaries – Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs – to suppress parliamentary revolts over purely English affairs. There is still no democratic forum in which English interests can be discussed only by English representatives. The unfairness is staggering, the silence stranger still.

One of the peculiarities of UK politics is that issues which hardly anyone supports receive majority assent in parliament. Under the current system, no popular support is required. University top-up fees, for example, were rejected by the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, but Scottish and Welsh MPs were frogmarched through the lobbies to impose them on England (the government won by five votes). Foundation hospitals were voted down in both Wales and Scotland, and foisted on the English by the representatives of those nations. Had Heathrow’s third runway been debated only by English MPs, the proposal would have been resoundingly defeated; it was approved by 19 votes, after 67 MPs from the other nations were induced to support the government. They can support such measures without any electoral risk, as their constituents are not directly affected. Devolution, which has had such beneficial consequences here in Wales and across the other borders, has left the English high and dry.

So why does no one – with the honourable exception of a tiny band of thinkers like Paul Kingsnorth and Gareth Young – who is even vaguely on the left want to discuss it? Perhaps it is because two quite different issues have been muddled up: democracy and nationalism. English nationalism takes many forms, but the image which comes to most minds is of skinheads waving the flag of St George. These are, or should be, separate concerns. You don’t have to be a nationalist, or English, to accept the case for an English parliament.

Last month I was fiercely attacked by the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) for writing that “England means nothing to me”. I meant two things. First that I consider myself a global citizen – a member of the species – before I consider myself a national citizen. I believe that everyone has an equal entitlement to the world’s wealth and power. I don’t love England, but nor do I hate it. I am indifferent. Secondly, I do not know what England means. The problem for those who wish to define this nation is that England has universalised itself. English culture, thanks to English imperialism, has seeped into everyone’s culture; the English language has become everyone’s language. The acts of union, forged by a dominant England, have submerged English identity into a British or Unionist identity. British imperialism, in turn, has destroyed the sense of a discrete and self-contained nation. The values, language, governance and business structures, the global integration we imposed on other nations have come back to bite us.

The hero of the film Slumdog Millionaire, for example, works in a call centre in which cold-callers in Mumbai, tutored in British accents, politics, weather and geography, seek to persuade their British customers that they are phoning from just around the corner. I happen to think that the transfer of jobs like this is a good thing, a restitution of employment once forcibly relocated from India to England, but I realise that most people here are appalled by the implications. Whether you approve or not, you have to accept that Finland has no such issues, as no one else was forced to speak Finnish.

Those five words in December, claimed the CEP’s head of media, Michael Knowles, were “as good an illustration anyone can get of the prejudice England experiences from the UK Establishment.” It is because of the “indifference and hostility” of people like me that the English “are so discriminated against”.

Knowles, in other words, confused a good case founded on democracy and human rights with patriotism, giving people of more cosmopolitan views every excuse they need to turn away. To support an English parliament, you don’t have to love England, you have only to love democracy.

Labour politicians use this excuse to sustain the government’s inordinate executive power. Instead of a parliament, England has been given nine regional assemblies. Only one of them (in London) has been elected; hardly anyone even knows that the others exist. They represent the opposite of devolution: a transfer of power away from local authorities towards a higher level of government, over which the people have no direct control. Next year they will be turned into Local Authority Leaders’ Boards, representing the final abandonment of the government’s promise of regional referenda leading to elected assemblies.

On Sunday David Cameron revealed his own plan: a great bog of fudge pudding which makes the parliamentary system even more complex and opaque than it is already. “For English-only legislation, we would have a sort of English grand committee,” he told the Mail on Sunday. In “exceptional circumstances” (and what isn’t?) the committee can be overruled by the rest of the Commons. Today he writes in the Guardian of his plan for a “radical decentralisation, to reach every corner of the country” and turn Britain’s “pyramid of power on its head”. But there’s not a word about an English parliament.

No one is suggesting we disband the government of the United Kingdom (though I propose that it be moved close to the geographical centre of the UK – Liverpool, say, or Rhyl). The Campaign for an English Parliament argues that it should retain control over matters such as the UK’s constitution, foreign and defence policy, employment legislation and social security. The remainder – some taxation, health, education, transport, local government, planning, the environment, police, courts, prisons and the rest – should be devolved to the four nations.

England is no longer my home and not much of my business. But I would be surprised if anyone across the border who has understood the implications is happy with the current deal. The nation which claims to have brought democracy to the world is in dire need of it.

Labour spent 1.3 trillion on things like ballet and other unnecessary stuff, all while the country’s economy was on a down turn.
We will be footing the bill, the rest of the UK will not be paying out of their budgets, again Labour spent the English taxpayers money on non-essential services and projects, people were still losing their houses, jobs and businesses.
It would have been better to give the money back to the people, wipe their slates clean boosted the economy but every ones debts being paid off so the economy would have been more stable.
Gordon and his legacy will hurt for many years to come.

Doomed Labour’s £1.3 TRILLION last spending spree revealed: As the economy nosedived, your millions were wasted on grandiose schemes

The extraordinary extent of Labour’s final spending spree – which cost the public purse £1.3trillion even as the economy was sinking – was laid bare for the first time last night.

Bills included £50million to promote ballet and music, £5.6million for pensions for the Royal Household and £38.4million for gipsy encampments.

Details of the spending – which saw public expenditure rise by 15 per cent over two years – are contained in a vast Treasury database which the Coalition has made public.

The so-called Combined Online Information System (Coins) is so impenetrable that experts are having to pore over it to extract details.

The first comprehensive analysis, by software firm Rosslyn Analytics for the Daily Mail, shows that even as the economy was spiralling into recession, Labour kept the spending taps on – sanctioning expenditure that ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous.

A portion of the money will have been to support Gordon Brown’s economic philosophy to increase public spending to stimulate the fragile economy. But the figures also reveal a significant level of more questionable spending

A portion of the money will have been to support Gordon Brown’s economic philosophy to increase public spending to stimulate the fragile economy. But the figures also reveal a significant level of more questionable spending.

They show that the department run by former Children’s Secretary and Labour leadership hopeful Ed Balls lavished nearly £50million on programmes for ballet, dance and music in schools.

The National Measurements Office, which orders retailers to weigh their goods in kilograms rather than pounds, in line with EU diktats, cost £150million. Another quango, Natural England, cost £442million.

The Department for Environment also spent £95million on an obscure ‘National Environment Enjoyment programme’. Initially staff could not say what the money was spent on.

They later clarified it was for management of national parks.

The Cabinet Office had to fund £14billion for gold-plated pensions for Whitehall staff, more than double the amount that needs to be cut from public spending this year.

The Coins figures show that pension costs for the Royal Household reached £5.6million, while highly-paid judges received £267million in taxpayers’ money for their retirement schemes.

The Electoral Commission, which has been widely criticised for its handling of the election and its failure to prevent postal voting fraud, cost £48million to run over two years.

THE £38.4M GIPSY SITE FUND

As taxpayers struggled to afford their own homes through the recession, more than £38.4million was used to fund sites for travellers.
Councils were asked to apply for the grants through the Department for Communities and Local Government for funds to ‘provide amenities and purchase sites for gipsies’.
Previous guidelines released by Labour stated that gipsies needed caravan sites as they suffer an ‘ aversion to bricks and mortar’. Even areas of outstanding natural beauty were not offlimits.
Yesterday the new Coalition Government axed the grants. A spokesman for the department said: ‘The current economic climate means that we need to act quickly and take difficult decisions about reducing grants due to be paid to local government.’

And in the middle of the recession, MPs cost the state £178million in salary and expenses.

Bailing out the banks cost taxpayers nearly as much as funding the NHS over the last two years.

Taxpayers shelled out £132.4billion to bail out financial institutions other than Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley. Northern Rock cost £ 20.3billion to nationalise while Bradford and Bingley was even more expensive, at £24.6billion.

Overall, pension payouts were the third most expensive area of government expenditure – underlining the high costs to Britain of an ageing population.

At nearly £128.4billion, the cost of paying the state pension is more than double England’s £59billion schools budget.

And while Britain is struggling with a recession, the Labour Government continued to send money abroad.

Around £1.6billion was given to the European Union to distribute to poor countries, despite the UK already having its own Department for International Development (DfID).

A further £1.3billion was spent on ‘reducing poverty in Asia’, the continent that has seen the largest surge in economic growth in the past decade.

The Government has said it will make the database figures more accessible by August.

Mark Wallace, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘The publication of this information is proving a massive eyeopener into the ways our taxes are being spent.’

Labour have a lot to answer for, a lot to sort out in their own camp and until then, they will never be the party of the people like they used to be.
Gordon Brown should never been allowed to do such damage, he was wrong for the job and has proven it once again with this revelation.

Cameron is being a bit two-faced on this one. What about the rest of the year, you TWAT?

He is one of those people who only support England during a sporting event.

It makes you sick, this so-called leader of the UK, his parliament tries it’s best not to recognise England, until the team goes to South Africa for the world cup.

Cameron and your coalition parliament for once please do not be hypocritical and allow councils, businesses and other proud English folk to fly the flag all year round, and as the parliament buildings are in England the flag should be flown all year round, especially as the rest of the UK and their governing bodies fly their national flag.

DAVID Cameron yesterday announced that he would be flying the flag of St George over Downing Street for the World Cup and called on MPs wherever they come from in the UK to cheer on England.

• The flag of St George flies above fans watching England’s warm-up game in South Africa this week. Picture: Getty Images

With England the only team from the home nations in the World Cup in South Africa, Mr Cameron has made the unprecedented decision to exchange the flag of England for the Union Flag which normally flies over Downing Street.

Mr Cameron’s comments came during Prime Minister’s Questions after an appeal from a new Tory MP to get properly behind the team.

He was urged to show his support for the English team by Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon), who said: “I ask you to do a great thing for the people of England and cut through the bureaucracy and nonsense and fly the flag of England over Downing Street for the duration of the World Cup.”

Mr Cameron replied: “There was some question that this was going to have a cost impact but I’ve managed to cut through that and I can say that at no additional cost to the taxpayer the flag of St George will fly above Downing Street during the World Cup.”

Then, pointedly looking up at the SNP members, he added: “For the purposes of this I’m looking at all the benches here and I’m sure that everyone in this House, no matter what part of the United Kingdom they come from, will be cheering ‘come on England’.”

But most SNP and Plaid Cymru MPs were shaking their heads vigorously, including Western Isles MP Angus MacNeil.

But he said the Prime Minister was right to fly the flag of St George over Downing Street.

“It’s nice to see they think they can do something without Scotland,” he added.

However, he insisted: “I don’t want to upset anybody from other nations over who will do well in the World Cup, whether that is England, France, Germany or any other countries involved”.

Ian Davidson, the MP for Glasgow South West who has just become the chairman of the Scottish affairs committee, was also diplomatic, claiming he did not mind who won because he would not be watching many games.

“As I am originally from the Borders I am more interested in rugby,” he said. “But I wish England well”.

The Prime Minister also failed to impress the Tartan Army. Hamish Husband, a spokesman for the Association of Tartan Army Clubs, said: “I think Mr Cameron is quite right to fly the flag of St George. I would hope that Gordon Brown would have done the same for Scotland when he was Prime Minister and I am sure nobody would have minded.

“But as far as supporting England goes, we all hope England have a good time in South Africa and lose every single game”.

Mr Cameron’s appeal to non-English MPs appeared to have failed to persuade politicians from north of the Border who were reluctant last night to support England.

In the House there has been some friendly rivalry about the competition, with shirts bearing the legend ABE (Anybody But England) preferred by MPs from the Celtic nation and a new SNP shirt (Scotland Not Present) worn by some English members.

When will the question get answered?
We have been lied to, once again the English were duped into believing the government would actually do something for the majority of voters in the so-called UK.

‘No early moves’ to replace Barnett formulaIT WOULD be “quite wrong” to replace the controversial formula that allocates funding to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Westminster government insisted yesterday.
It had been reported that there may be moves to replace the Barnett formula, which calculates the amount of public spending in the devolved areas of the UK.

However, government minister Lord De Mauley ruled out rapid action on the issue
despite pressure from Tory former chancellor Lord Lawson of Blaby and Labour’s Lord Barnett, who produced the formula which bears his name when he was chief secretary to the Treasury in the 1970s.

Lord Barnett told peers: “There is approximately £1,600 per head more spent in public expenditure in Scotland than in England, which has very serious implications for the coming cuts.”

He said a report by a Lords committee “unanimously recommended that is should be changed and based on need”.

Labour former minister Baroness Hollis of Heigham said: “Given that the Barnett formula funds on the basis of population and not need, it is profoundly unfair to overfund Scotland by the extent of £4 billion to £5bn a year while requiring underfunded local authorities in the rest of the country to make further savage cuts as their contribution to reducing the deficit.”

Lord De Mauley said the coalition understood the concerns but added: “In the light of the grave financial situation the country faces it would be quite wrong for a new government to rush to a decision on this complicated matter.

“We are carefully considering the various reports, but there is as yet no consensus on what a needs-based assessment would take account of.”

This is the original poem re-tweeted by Sarah Brown.

Elegy from an Opposition

For every child who instead of being cooped up in a small flat
is playing in a brand new children’s centre
- that is Gordon’s legacy.

For every patient who is treated in a brand new hospital,
instead of suffering on a waiting list
- that is Gordon’s legacy.

And for every person in an African village
whose life has been transformed by the cancellation of world debt
- that is Gordon’s legacy
- and it is our legacy too.

We can be proud of what Gordon has done and thank him from the bottom of our hearts.

This is my version.
For every child who instead of being cooped up in a small flat is playing in a brand new children’s centre and is unsafe from perverts ( they have rights apparently) and even the primary school teachers love of photography – that is Gordon’s legacy.

For every patient who is treated in a brand new hospital that is full of germs, and suffering while on a waiting list – that is Gordon’s legacy.

And for every person in an African village whose life has been transformed by the lax immigration laws – that is Gordon’s legacy – and it is our legacy too.

We can be proud of what Gordon has done and thank him from the bottom of our hearts.

Unless you have a brain and can realise what the bastard has really done to ruin our country – that is Gordon’s legacy.

The fact that we are all suffering because of rising debt and overflow of immigrants using up our precious little resources – that is Gordon’s legacy.

Our country stripped of recognition and all our taxes used for everyone else to have a better life – that is Gordon’s legacy.

WLQ never answered, while Gordon’s constituents get the better treatment – that is Gordon’s legacy.

England’s people have less right of recognition, while a Somalian gets put in housing above people who have been on the list for years – that is Gordon’s legacy.

During the recession monies are given to banks, they still get bonuses (enough to feed a third world country), but the people of England still suffer, losing jobs, houses and business – that is Gordon’s legacy.

Try to speak out against all this, your a labelled a bigot – that is Gordon’s legacy.

Just for fun hope you enjoy.

This is from Parliament.uk webpages
Just something for people to read, and to point people not in the know so they can get some understanding what we fight for and against.

Where does England fit in the increasingly devolved United Kingdom?

It is now over 10 years since the devolved legislatures and administrations were (re-)established in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each arrangement has developed differently, but each has moved toward further devolution from Westminster. The evolving devolution settlement prompts questions about the representation of and funding for all parts of the United Kingdom.
The West Lothian Question

The role of MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the UK Parliament has become controversial now that there are devolved legislatures and administrations in those areas, responsible for subjects such as education, housing and health.

The so-called West Lothian (or English) Question asks why MPs from the non-English parts of the UK can vote on all English matters, while English MPs cannot generally vote on Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish domestic matters (which have largely become the responsibility of the devolved bodies).

These issues came to the fore with the Government in the previous Parliament sometimes being dependent on the votes of MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to win votes in the House of Commons on legislation affecting England only. With the Conservatives winning a minority of seats across the UK but a majority of seats in England, and with the tight electoral arithmetic in the Commons, the salience of this question will increase.
English votes for English laws?

Could a system be introduced in the House of Commons whereby only English MPs would vote on ‘English’ bills or ‘English’ bills would pass only with the support of English MPs? The Conservative Party stated in its manifesto that a Conservative government would introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or England and Wales, could not be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those two areas.

Many challenges remain. Precisely which bills are ‘English’? A large proportion are a mixture of English and UK extent, as other measures are added during the passage of a Bill. What about ‘English’ bills that have public expenditure implications across the UK? Would such a system create two classes of MP?
An English Parliament?

There is very limited mainstream political momentum for a separate parliament for England. It is hard to see how a UK federation of four parts would work, given the population size and wealth of England in relation to the rest of the UK. The Liberal Democrat Party stated in its manifesto that it would ‘address’ the status of England within a federal Britain, through its promised Constitutional Convention.

There are other outstanding devolution issues for the House of Commons:
Is there a continuing role for MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in devolved, as well as reserved, matters at Westminster? Westminster can and has legislated for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on devolved matters (with the consent of the devolved legislature concerned) on a number of occasions since 1999 – much more often than originally expected. The Calman Commission has recommended closer working between the UK and Scottish Parliaments.
Should the numbers of MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland be reduced? Despite the devolved legislatures, they currently have disproportionate numbers of seats compared with their electorates.

Is it time to replace the Barnett formula?

The 30-year-old Barnett formula, which allocates public money to the devolved administrations, has been criticised on a number of grounds. The current arrangements are alleged to be unfair: public spending per head is 18% higher in Scotland and 16% higher in Wales than in England. With cuts to public spending widely expected, this disparity could come under even closer scrutiny. The current system has also been criticised for failing to give the devolved administrations responsibility for raising their own revenue.

Reflecting this dissatisfaction, there have been a number of recent reviews of the Barnett formula. These include the Calman and Holtham Commissions in Scotland and Wales respectively and a report by a House of Lords Committee. These reviews made a variety of recommendations for reform, including greater powers over taxation for the Scottish Parliament and replacement of the formula with arrangements based on the relative need of the different parts of the UK. Gaining consensus on these relative public spending needs is likely to be a difficult task.

Will the spectre of public sector cuts result in more pressure for reform of the Barnett formula? Or will the influence of the nationalist parties in a hung parliament act in favour of its retention?

Best thing to ever happen to the almighty Euro, anyone who ever thought that the Euro would save our country is wrong.
England should keep the pound, it should never go.
And to think the Labour twats were thinking of putting us in the firing line by ushering our country toward the Euro.

William Hague ‘vindicated’ by euro warning.

Confidence in the euro has been hit on the markets

Foreign Secretary William Hague has said the euro is “in crisis” but it is not in the UK’s interest for countries to pull out of the single currency. Mr Hague said the weakness of the euro, caused by the debt crisis across Europe, “vindicated” his warnings about the currency when he was Tory leader. But he said he took no “comfort” from the current situation and nations must work hard to reduce their deficits. David Cameron says it is in the UK’s interest for the euro to stabilise. Speaking in Germany on Friday, the prime minister said financial stability in the eurozone – the UK’s largest trading partner – was vital, although he said he would oppose giving any extra powers to EU institutions to try and shore up the euro. ‘Financial confidence’ German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the prospect of the debt crisis in Greece spreading across Europe has put the future of the euro at risk – although EU countries have agreed billions of pounds of rescue funding. Mr Hague said “the language of crisis” was already present in efforts to deal with the worsening situation. I warned all those years ago that to create a ‘one size fits all’ currency… is a dangerous thing to do William Hague Foreign Secretary “Well, there is a crisis – of course there is a crisis,” he told the BBC’s Politics Show. “We don’t want the euro to be in crisis. “I am a long-standing opponent of the Britain joining the euro, but we don’t want the euro to collapse or countries to pull out of it because of course that kind of crisis is very bad for Britain and affects financial confidence across the board.” During the 2001 general election campaign – when he was Conservative leader – Mr Hague warned that Labour could take the UK into the euro and there were “24 hours left” to save the pound. All of the three largest Westminster parties have ruled out joining the euro for the foreseeable future, and Mr Hague said history had shown that it would not have been right for the UK. “I warned all those years ago that to create a ‘one size fits all’ currency… is a dangerous thing to do economically unless you are trying to create a single economic state. “So I suppose that’s been vindicated in many ways but I don’t take any comfort from that.” He added: “This is a difficult situation for Europe. “We will do what we can to help, but the most crucial thing is that countries with excessive debts and deficits bring them under control.”

Now after all this to and fro business over the last few days, Clegg needs to make his mind up.
To go with labour and Gordon’s rainbow coalition would be disastrous for England, but the Labour negotiation team will promise the earth.
The Tories, like it or not, won this election and although not by a majority, it would be a crime against democracy if the Lib Dems did not go with them, the public voted Labour out, we do not want any of them in.
I think the people have spoken and should be listened to.
The Tories are not the greatest party to have in power, but should be given the chance to prove us wrong, not helping labour keep their status, an unelected PM, even though Brown has vowed to go, and then it would be an unelected parliament too.
The Tories got the majority of the vote even though they never filled enough seats for the greatest amount of seats they needed to run parliament, so by default should be in government after all it was labour who shifted the boundaries of constituencies to suit there own ill gotten needs.
From BBC NEWS:

Hung parliament: It’s decision time, says Cameron

Nick Clegg: Talks in critical and final phase

David Cameron says it is “decision time” for the Lib Dems over which party they will back to form a government.

The Tories won the most seats but were short of a majority and have asked for Lib Dem support to form a government.

But on Monday, the Lib Dems opened formal talks with Labour, after Gordon Brown said he would quit as leader.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said talks had reached a “critical and final phase” and his party would “do our bit to create a stable, good government”.

Mr Brown’s announcement that he would step down as Labour leader by September came after days of talks between the Tories and Lib Dems, and, it emerged, secret meetings between the Lib Dems and Labour.

‘Crunch time’

Labour and the Tories are both trying to woo the Lib Dems with promises on electoral reform as the battle to form a new government reaches its critical phase.

Labour say if the Lib Dems back them they will put the Alternative Vote system into law and then hold a referendum asking voters if they want a proportional representation voting system – a key issue for the Lib Dems.

The Conservatives upped their offer on Monday evening to the Lib Dems to a promise of a referendum on changing the voting system to the Alternative Vote system.
” I hope they will make the right decision to give this country the strong, stable government that it badly needs and badly needs quickly ”
David Cameron

Speaking on Tuesday morning Mr Cameron said his overriding concern since Friday was for “strong, stable government that is in the national interest” and his party had made a “very reasonable” offer to the Lib Dems to deliver it.

He said his MPs had put aside party interest in favour of the national interest – after they approved a referendum on the voting system, a reform the Conservatives have always opposed.

Mr Cameron said: “It’s now, I believe, decision time, decision time for the Liberal Democrats and I hope they will make the right decision to give this country the strong, stable government that it badly needs and badly needs quickly.”

‘Rainbow coalition’

A meeting of Lib Dem MPs continued beyond midnight and ended with no firm decisions taken, the BBC understands.

Labour’s ruling national executive committee is set to meet on Tuesday to discuss the prospect of a coalition and the time it will take to replace Mr Brown.

Two senior Lib Dem figures – Simon Hughes and Lord Ashdown – told the BBC earlier they did not back a so-called “rainbow coalition” with the Lib Dems and Labour which would also involve the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties.

Instead they believed a Lib Dem-Labour coalition could rule as a minority government, in the belief that the SNP would never vote with the Conservatives. They would seek support from the nationalists and the Green MP on crucial votes.

Mr Hughes told BBC Radio 5live: “I would expect either a government of Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties or Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties.

“In the case of Labour and the Liberal Democrat parties, with our two sister parties from Northern Ireland – the SDLP for Labour and the Alliance Party – you get 319 votes in the Commons. That’s only five short of a majority, given that Sinn Fein don’t participate.”

The Tories secured 306 of the 649 constituencies contested on 6 May. It leaves the party short of the 326 MPs needed for an outright majority, with the Thirsk and Malton seat – where the election was postponed after the death of a candidate – still to vote.

Labour finished with 258 MPs, down 91, the Lib Dems 57, down five, and other parties 28.

If Labour and the Lib Dems joined forces, they would still not have an overall majority.

With the support of the Northern Irish SDLP, one Alliance MP, and nationalists from Scotland and Wales they would reach 328, rising to 338 if the DUP, the independent unionist and the new Green MP joined them.

So come on Clegg, put us out of our misery, choose for democracy or choose for gain. It is after all down to you.

Interesting article from the Times. Wholeheartedly agree with the writers idea and it could really work.

‘Wow,” said a wide-eyed young Liberal Democrat voter babe, staring over my shoulder on Friday at a coloured election map of Britain. “England is, like, totally blue.” How true. Huge swathes of England are Conservative. And, she noticed in the next instant, Scotland is, like, totally red and yellowish gold. Only one single constituency north of the border is blue.

As Alex Salmond of the Scottish National party said in the wee hours of Friday, it is “overwhelmingly clear” that Scotland does not want a Tory government: “I don’t believe they’ve got a mandate to run Scotland from fourth place.” Again, how obviously true. Yet, equally obviously, the Tories have got a genuine mandate to run England.

Last week’s strange election has convinced many voters that our electoral system needs reform. That question will be central to negotiations between party leaders this weekend as they compete for power in these impotent times.

While the psephological sophisticates discuss the arcana of proportional versus alternative voting, I have a simple suggestion that might have democratic appeal all round. And it would not stand in the way of any other electoral reform. It’s simply this: we Sassenachs must say no to the Scots. We must accept that we are united by geography but divided by politics: we cannot vote together any longer.

The reason is again blindingly obvious. As Nick Clegg has pointed out, David Cameron’s Conservatives got the most votes and the most seats. As Cameron himself pointed out, his party got a higher share of the vote than Labour achieved at the last election, when Blair won a majority of 66.

This remarkable Conservative success was won despite the enormous disadvantage that Tories (and Liberal Democrats) suffer from the way constituencies are currently divided, so that they must win far more votes than Labour to win as many seats, as voters now appreciate. Yet despite their success, the Conservatives cannot form a government. Although Labour got a disastrous drubbing, Gordon Brown is still in Downing Street and Clegg, whose political bubble burst, is to be kingmaker. This is, like, so totally wrong.

Look to the map and towards Hadrian’s Wall for both reason and solution. Cameron got 306 seats (against Brown’s 258), just 20 seats short of an overall majority. But Brown’s 258 included 41 from Scotland (out of 59 Scottish constituencies). Without these Scottish seats, the Labour party would have got only 217 to the Conservatives’ 305 and Clegg’s 46 (to which he would be reduced if he did not have his current 11 Lib Dem seats in Scotland).

This injustice could be put right simply by saying politely to the Scots that we would like to separate, psephologically and politically. Let them run Scotland their own way. They are perfectly well equipped to do so. They could even turn themselves into a rich tax haven, a mini Switzerland, given their wealth of world-beating financial services, lawyers and golf courses.

They already entice the super-rich with their castles and grouse moors. And they have their oil wealth, insofar as it belongs to them, their deep-sea ports, their shipbuilding, their IT, their magical Highlands and islands, their arts festivals and an abundance of game, fish and marketable tourist tat.

The Scots have two highly developed important cities and several great universities and medical schools; their intellectual and entrepreneurial tradition is second to none. They don’t need us.

Nor do we need them. Above all, we would be much better off without the notorious Barnett formula; it is obviously unfair that the Scots should receive more public money per head than the English, especially when their taxes and benefits are so different. Let them get on without us.

All the talk during this election about mandates and the people’s voice means little if politicians are still unwilling to admit to the glaring Scottish democratic deficit. At the end of 2006 a famous ICM poll found that 52% of Scots wanted independence from Britain, but also — startlingly — that 59% of the English favoured separation from Scotland. As far as I know there have been no polls about this thorny issue since.

Personally, I have never quite understood the sentimental attachment to the union. Its historical and political underpinnings are clear enough and so much blood and anguish have been spent on the idea of the union that it’s perhaps disrespectful to make light of it. All the same, those emotional ties are weakening and, according to the 2006 ICM poll, particularly among the young.

That may, of course, be because they study so little history these days, but equally it might be a feeling, shared by me, that the union is a political construct whose time is over. The growth of the European Union and this country’s general decline — and perhaps multiculturalism as well — all mean that it is hard to rally fervour round a concept such as a United Kingdom. United we aren’t. And kingdom means less and less, especially to those on the political left.

Years ago I lived and worked in Hong Kong (then still a crown colony) and was at first astonished to hear Chinese people constantly talking about something called “Yoo Kay” and how they longed to get proper Yoo Kay documents. It was several days before I realised they were talking about my country and several weeks before I realised that many of them had no idea what the Yoo Kay was like, or what the initials stood for. It was just the third-best place to go, if you couldn’t get to California or Vancouver — a bit of a disappointment, really.

I love Scotland and have spent many happy summer holidays there. But I can’t help noticing that the Scots don’t love us; some actively dislike the English. The time has come for an amicable divorce, making Scotland no more than a good EU neighbour.

Obviously there would be practical problems, as in any divorce. Defining who is Scottish and who is not (for voting purposes, if nothing else) might be one. But all of these problems could be overcome if there were a mandate to do so. I suspect there is. And that would be, like, so totally super.

This is a bad story, the MOD should be held accountable. The idiot in London should be sacked.
Most of all the Government that allowed this to happen should hang their heads in shame.

SAS defied MoD to rescue two of its men held hostage in Iraq as top commanders ‘prepared to quit’ over ban on mission

The SAS launched a daring mission to rescue two of its own men held hostage in Iraq against the orders of the Ministry of Defence, the Daily Mail can reveal.

The elite unit was pushed to the brink of mutiny after it was banned from saving the SAS soldiers captured by militants because to do so would embarrass the Government.

The astonishing edict drove SAS officers close to mass resignation, according to a hardhitting report by the Tory MP Adam Holloway, a former Guards officer.
SAS defied MoD to rescue two of its men held hostage in Iraq as top commanders ‘prepared to quit’ over ban on mission

Horror: A British soldier (circled) escapes in flames from his vehicle after it is attacked by a mob in the first phase of the rescue mission

The SAS Lieutenant-Colonel on the ground, believing that ‘politically motivated’ commanders in the UK were ‘unable to make rational and effective decisions’, sent in a rescue team anyway – fearful that within hours the captured men could have been spirited away or executed.

The rescuers blasted their way into the police station in Basra where the two soldiers were being held and saved them.

Mother of killed soldier – who PM accidentally insulted in misspelt condolence letter – praises son’s colleagues at inquest
British sniper takes out five Taliban fighters in 28 seconds

Details of the incident in 2005 expose the shameful way the Armed Forces have become politicised under Labour – with political spin put before soldiers’ lives.

Mr Holloway’s explosive account is supported by General Sir Mike Jackson, who was head of the Army at the time but only learned of the scandal later.

General Jackson last night made clear his disgust at the way soldiers were asked to sacrifice their men for political reasons, shattering the sacred military covenant that no man is left behind on the battlefield.

He told the Mail: ‘The story as you relate it chimes with my memory of the events. It was not only a brave but a very necessary operation to release those two captured soldiers. The British Army looks after its own. Underline that three times.’

The two troopers were seized by militant Islamic militiamen who had infiltrated the Iraqi police.

But a ‘very senior general’ at Permanent Joint Headquarters in Northwood, to the west of London, refused to approve the rescue mission.

Ministry of Defence officials were concerned that attacking an Iraqi police station would undermine the Government’s claims that Britain was successfully handing power to the local security services.
Enlarge

In a report on the Failure of British Military and Political Leadership in Basra, published by the First Defence think tank, Mr Holloway says: ‘The senior operational commanders in the MoD – a continent away from the frontline – repeated very clearly, and a number of times, that there were “more important things at stake than the lives of the soldiers”.’

Explaining the reasons for the decision, Mr Holloway quotes a senior British civilian official in Iraq at the time: ‘The need to rescue the soldiers from an insurgent group embedded within the police force proved that our training and mentoring operation was dangerously ineffective, and in complete contradiction to the universally positive picture presented to Whitehall by the Government and MoD at the time.’

That explanation was met with incredulity in the special forces. The report says SAS commanders regarded the orders as ‘politically-motivated deliberations’ that would only succeed in giving the insurgents time to ‘remove their captives beyond the reach of any rescue operation’.

The SAS Lt-Col ‘told his forward based troops to mount the operation with or without approval. In the event, approval did come through – but the operation was already being mounted by the time that it did’.

In a damning conclusion, Mr Holloway reveals: ‘The next day General Mike Jackson was told what had happened and was, reportedly, appalled. He also learned that had the authority not eventually come through the commanding officer and many of his officers and senior ranks would have resigned.’

Mr Holloway’s account makes no reference to the SAS but it was widely reported at the time that the two soldiers seized were part of the special forces regiment based in Hereford.

He reveals that the SAS Lt-Col later left the Army, ‘disillusioned at the degeneration of the moral backbone of British military generalship in the heart of Whitehall’. The MoD said it did not comment on special forces matters.

‘There are more important things than the lives of soldiers’ said the voice in London

By Tim Shipman

The SAS commander in Basra was planning one of the most risky and high-profile operations in the regiment’s recent history when he discovered that the enemy was not his biggest problem.

Hunkered in the nondescript HQ in Iraq’s second city, the Lieutenant-Colonel watched for the umpteenth time as footage of two of his men – held captive, beaten and bloodied – flashed on the TV screen in his office.

It was September 19, 2005, and in a jail in the centre of town two SAS men accused of killing an Iraqi policeman were held hostage by militants who had infiltrated the Iraqi police.

Beaten: The SAS men were paraded on TV. We have protected their identities

Three hundred miles north, on an airfield just outside Baghdad, a C-130 Hercules special forces transport plane sat on the runway, wind whipping the sand into a yellow mist.

In the back, a squadron of SAS troops sat patiently looking at the crate of kit strapped to the floor of the fuselage, pulses quickening as they checked their Heckler & Koch submachine guns and C8 carbine rifles.

A second SAS squadron in Basra prepared for the arrival of the reinforcements. Like any mission they had made speedy plans and moved into action with calm professionalism.

But this time it was personal. The targets were two of their own. That was when the call came – on a secure line from a military bunker just outside London. The Lt-Col could not believe what he was hearing. ‘Permission not granted. There are more important things than the lives of the soldiers.’

The voice was that of a senior general at Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood, the UK nerve centre of the war.

That was when the Lt-Col realised that his biggest challenge would be the top brass at home. The men waiting on the runway were flabbergasted when they heard. ‘People were pretty fired up,’ one source close to the regiment said. ‘And then there was the let down. The CO was furious.’

It was then the commanding officer made the decision that could have seen him and his brother officers hauled over the coals. The alternative, they agreed, was to resign en masse in disgust.

He picked up the phone and made the fateful call. ‘We’re doing it anyway,’ he said. Minutes later the C-130 took off. There was no going back. BASRA was originally proclaimed a beacon for post-war Iraq, a model of how to hand over control to the local population.

But now it was a hotbed of militia extremism. For weeks the SAS had been monitoring and infiltrating the Iraqi insurgent groups who were quietly gaining a stranglehold on the very police force that British soldiers were supposed to be working with to restore order.

Attack: An Iraqi protester hurls a rock at a Warrior armoured vehicle covered in flames caused by a petrol bomb

The operation had gathered intensity after six British soldiers were killed in attacks by militants. The crisis began when a group of special forces soldiers, clad in Arab garb and driving a battered civilian car, got into a shootout with Iraqi policemen at a roadblock in the city.

One Iraqi was killed and three injured in the gun battle. The SAS men were seized and beaten by their Iraqi captors. They were handed to a militant militia group. Then there was the public humiliation of the TV cameras.

The insurgents could not have chosen a better time to strike. The senior officer in Iraq was on leave, his deputy a staff officer without the clout to make the big calls. Brigade commander Brigadier John Lorimer – a soldier universally admired as an effective commander – had his hands tied by demands that he refer major command decisions to London.

In the drab corridors of the Ministry of Defence main building, there was panic, but not just about the lives of the men held hostage. Operational command rested with an RAF officer who was allegedly playing golf. His highly-regarded deputy, Major General Peter Wall, was out of the office.

The SAS commander’s request to launch a rescue mission was passed to Northwood. The judgment was that a raid would be both a diplomatic disaster in terms of relations with the Iraqis – but more seriously that launching the raid against Iraqi police who were supposed to be allies would be an admission that the British had lost control of Basra.

As Andy McNab, the SAS hero of the first Gulf War who is now a bestselling author, puts it: ‘There is a very strong feeling from the guys on the ground in Iraq and now in Afghanistan that we have made a mistake by running our wars from 3,000 miles away.’

In Basra, a delegation of officials and diplomats was dispatched to the police station where the men were being held, backed up by troops. They were quickly ambushed by a mob assembled by the militants who armed the crowd with petrol bombs. The scene descended into chaos.

Two Warrior fighting vehicles were swiftly engulfed in flames. One soldier, his uniform ablaze, was forced to throw himself from the hatch of his armoured car and roll on the ground to put out the flames. It became one of the defining images of the Iraq occupation. He was rescued by colleagues and there was a tactical retreat.

Then came rumours that the two hostages were going to be moved. SAS commanders feared their men would disappear and perhaps be executed. As darkness fell, ten armoured vehicles, packed with SAS colleagues, returned. They bulldozed through a 6ft wall to the compound.

The special forces troops fanned out, firing stun grenades while helicopters hovered overhead. They found the men and got them out. No British serviceman was seriously hurt. At some point after the SAS commander gave the green light for the raid, retrospective permission was granted by top brass back home.

But those who were there insist it was well under way before the agreement was given. One SAS source said: ‘The OK was given retrospectively because the operation was a success. But if it had gone wrong they would all have been completely shafted.’

There was a price. In the chaos 100 prisoners escaped and furious Iraqis quickly demanded compensation for the damage caused.

But insiders say the price of inaction for the reputation of the Army would have been higher. Just how serious became clear a day later when the head of the army, General Mike Jackson was told that the senior ranks of the SAS would have resigned if permission had not been granted.