I have found it extraordinary to read some of the commentary on the liberalisation of the City in the 1980s, written by people who now have access to state papers under the 30 years rule. They wish to see in our debates and discussions the  causes of the banking crash which happened 23 years later from quite unrelated causes. Such is the power of Labour’s spin.

The banking and broking system moved smoothly from the cartelised and small City of the early 1980s to the global market of the later 1990s without accident. When the Conservatives left office in 1997 we had a decade of success with the larger City under our belts. The commercial banks were bigger and did more, but they still had sensibly controlled balance sheets thanks to the continuity of banking regulation under the Bank of England. There were  no more scandals then than in the years prior to Big Bang.

Gordon Brown decided to tear up our regulatory settlement, take most of the bank regulation responsibilities away from the Bank of England, and give them to a new Statutory body, the FSA. It was that fateful decision, not our decision to liberalise the City, which caused the banking crash. Mr Brown’s new regulator allowed a massive expansion of bank balance sheets and credit, well beyond anything we would have allowed, and then in 2007-8 they decided to bring the system crashing down by forcing change too rapidly on  a bloated banking industry with higher interest rates and demands for more capital.

Big Bang transformed the City for the better, as I hoped at the time. It broke up the cosy cartel of the old stockbrokers and jobbers, introduced competition into commissions which made share buying and selling so much cheaper, allowed in many foreign banks and brokers with extra capital, new business and job opportunities, and allowed UK institutions to raise serious amounts of new money to operate on a world scale.

It built one of the dominant financial service and banking sectors of the world. The City expanded from the narrow Square Mile around the Bank of England, to encompass Aldgate, Liverpool Street, the Finsbury area , parts of Mayfair , St Paul’s and parts of docklands. Today we earn £60 billion from our financial and business service exports, and have a  group of companies and service industries that the world envies. Without Big Bang none of that would have  happened, and the UK would be a lot poorer. Instead of blaming Big Bang for financial scandals, people should remember there were scandals before Big Bang, and remember above all that it was Mr Brown’s regulators who  helped bring on the crash they were meant to prevent.

Apparently when Mr Osborne says he has halved the deficit as a percentage of the economy, he is according to Labour wrong to mention that true figure. He should concentrate on the cash figures, which show the deficit down by one third.

So why then does Labour bang on about the Conservative spending plans for the next Parliament, and claim wicked cuts to get it down to 35% of GDP?  Applying their own latest logic, they should accept that Mr Osborne’s plans for cash public spending show further gr0wth of £40bn a year by the end of  the next five years. Fair’s fair. If it’s cash we are using, then Conservatives plan rising spending next Parliament.

The UK has a long and difficult history in its relationship with the rest of Europe. For much of the last millennium UK policy was based on the proposition that we had to prevent a single power dominating the continent, as they were likely to be hostile to us and opposed to free trade. Our need to preserve our right to choose our own political and religious views led us into war against Spain, the European hegemon of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Our wish to preserve our independence and trade led us to fight many wars against France, culminating in the epic struggle for our own survival and the future of our continent in the long Napoleonic wars. In the twentieth century it was a necessity to stand up to German aggression and dominance. Spain, France and Germany all attempted invasions, and all failed. The Dutch pulled off an invasion by agreement with a substantial part of the British establishment.

If our neighbours had been less keen on fighting for control, or if at times we had been better at diplomacy, we would saved ourselves a lot of blood and treasure. The long and damaging European wars held us  back as well as the continent, destroying wealth and diverting effort.

Since the 1960s the UK has decided on a different European diplomatic strategy.The UK establishment, with some notable exceptions, has decided to allow and actively promote a new European hegemon to emerge called the European Union. This is against the whole run of our past policy and experience, and is a very dangerous experiment. I have no wish to go back to a policy of continuous wars between nation states,  but fortunately the main European countries are now peace loving and respectful of each other’s borders.  I do  worry that this so called cure for these wars   is not the right way to extend and preserve the peace. It is not in the UK’s national interest, and is bizarre as France and Germany would have no intention of invading us if we were outside the EU.  There is danger in the EU developing an aggressive state personality of its own, and an obvious threat to our hard won liberties from placing ourselves under EU control.

Indeed, I think there is clear opportunity for the UK to be independent, and free of wars against major continental countries. The fact that all the major countries of western Europe have at last decided they do not want to fight more wars, and no longer assert rights over each other’s territory means we have that opportunity for peace which does not depend on accepting ever greater political union with the continent. We should seize the moment, and welcome the conversion of our neighbours to the paths of peace. It is far better they beat ploughshares than swords. That peace will be more prosperous and extend for longer if it respects the independent minded nature of the UK. We do not wish the UK to become some forgotten fields controlled  on the edge of  a new European empire.

Whenever the UK disagrees with the EU we are told we are ” marginalised” and will lose influence. It is another case of EU double speak, because history shows it is only when we disagree strongly with the EU do we ever get anything we might want.

Margaret Thatcher’s most public disagreement with the EU was over the size of the UK financial contribution. She gained a new settlement which saved us substantial sums.

John Major disagreed over the Euro and gained us a valuable opt out which we still use to this day. It’s a pity he did not just veto the whole Maastricht Treaty, as David Cameron did with the recent Fiscal Treaty.

David Cameron is demanding changes over borders and benefits. Already we hear noises from the continent that some changes will be possible, though not yet enough to satisfy us. There would have been no offers on these topics at all without the UK expressing disagreement with the current position.

Labour’s approach of agreeing with anything the centralisers in the EU  bureaucracy wanted and then either telling the UK it was good for us, or playing it down as an insignificant or unimportant change was the opposite of having influence. There was  no strategic aim for the UK within the EU, and no successes of this craven policy.

Some in the UK establishment seem to be afraid of Germany, and think we need to be pliant supplicants at the court of Mrs Merkel. I see it as the other way round. The UK’s relationship with Germany should be based on the central proposition that we are a crucial customer for their industry, buying much larger volumes of goods from them than we sell to them. As customer we should be able to tell our supplier what we want and expect to have more of  our wishes met. Our bargaining position is much stronger than the pro EU sell out officials and politicians would have you believe.

Next year could be a decisive year for England and for the UK. There is a lot riding on the election in May.
This should be the year when the business of England is at last on the agenda. After 15 years of one sided and unfair devolution, Parliament must come to a judgement about how to allow England a voice and a vote over her own affairs. England is not willing to see large new powers granted to other parts of the UK without some justice for us. I will continue to speak for England.
This could also be the year when the UK decides it does want a new relationship with the European Union. If the squabbling Eurosceptics can put aside their differences over the pace and extent of change in the relationship with the EU, they can win the election. An election win will mean a renegotiation of the relationship. More importantly it will mean a referendum on whether the new relationship is worth having, or whether we should simply leave the EU and seek to sort out the consequentials once we have given notice. Those who believe there is no chance of a sufficient change to warrant staying in will then have their opportunity to persuade the country to leave. Seeing if there is a deal on offer first is a necessary part of either getting what we want through negotiation or showing the country that the EU is unreasonable and unfriendly to the UK’s needs. Moving straight to an In/out vote as some wish would be a more hazardous enterprise.
Years of dramatic constitutional change have been deliberately undersold to the UK electors. Labour’s Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties were mighty steps on the way to EU control, presented as minor moves. The devolution settlement was presented as important in Scotland but played down or ignored in England. At the very least the debates running up to the election of 2015 will be a political education on the big issues which remain unresolved, or are left in a state which many English people find unacceptable once they are explained.
I look forward to speaking for an independent UK with a new relationship with the EU, and to speaking for England. A more independent UK could achieve more, be more prosperous, and truer to its history and the beliefs of its people.

I wish the Scottish nurse with ebola a speedy recovery and good treatment. I am glad the UK NHS can help.

The fact that Scotland has to send its first ebola case to England should pause us to consider the claims about the NHS made in the Scottish referendum. Voters were told by the SNP that protecting the NHS in Scotland from unspecified or untrue political  threats was one of the main reasons Scotland should be independent. Campaigners for the Union replied that under devolution the SNP majority in Edinburgh already had control over the Scottish NHS and they therefore could guarantee it for themselves without state independence. The funding formula ensures Scotland gets more money per head.

So it is an irony that a difficult case has to be transferred to NHS England, under the control of a Conservative Secretary of State. It is tribute to England that we can offer these important enhanced services despite the funding formula. Maybe a Conservative Minister is no  bad thing for the NHS after all.

Getting back to work yesterday should have been easy, as the numbers of people travelling to work seemed well down. Fortunately I did not go by train and tube, as Westminster tube station was closed for engineering works, along with the Circle and District lines westbound and a large section of the Jubilee line. Some mainline trains were also still disrupted by the well advertised engineering works that have overrun and caused chaos at Christmas.

I understand the need to carry out engineering works. I understand the aim to do them when the country’s workforce is on holiday, though that disrupts people who want to travel to visit families and friends over the holiday period. This Christmas it seems that engineering works overran Network Rail’s planned times, leaving the railway struggling to meet demand and failing to keep people properly informed of what limited service is available. Once again the railway did not wish to provide a service on the holiday itself.

On Sunday morning I heard a review of the papers by three celebrities on Radio 4. They majored on condemning the appalling lack of service on some mainline train lines, loosely related to the papers they were meant to be reviewing. The high point came when Barry Cryer opined that we needed to nationalise the railways to sort out all these problems! Mr Cryer was apparently unaware that all the current engineering problems are the result of actions and inactions by Network Rail, the nationalised owner of the track and signals. He made no mention of the very highly paid Chief Executive of this nationalised company, a state employee, who thinks being on holiday is more important than sorting out the failings of his(and our) railway to do the engineering works on time and to keep travellers informed of changes to services. Worse still, the audience in the studio clapped his wish to see Network Rail nationalised as some of them are also unaware of our collective ownership and mismanagement of most of the railway’s assets!

As nationalisation clearly is not the answer, what is? In the short term a change of management would be a good idea. Surely the state could hire a better Chief Executive for less money than the current one? Someone with a sense of public service and duty, who would want to supervise when things might go wrong or have gone wrong. Better directions to Network Rail on what is expected, and a vigorous attack upon poor management to get more efficient use of the assets is the least that should happen. Longer term we may need structural changes in how our rail system is financed and managed.

The west has intervened in the Middle East in recent years on the grounds that parts of that area harbour terrorists who might or have taken action in western cities. The intervention builds on a long standing western wish to intervene which has in the past depended more on access to the oilfields and oil supplies of that prolific oil producing territory.

The first priority of a new UK strategy should be to create energy self sufficiency at home, to reduce our concern for and need of Middle Eastern supplies. A suitable combination of new gas and oil production, new technology use of coal, higher degrees of fuel efficiency and thermal insulation and sensible renewables which work when you need them rather than when the wind blows could combine to produce an independent UK within a decade.

The second priority should be to tackle terrorist tendencies at home through better border controls, intelligence led activities against potential criminals, and programmes to engage with those most likely otherwise to seek adventure through violence. Some of this is happening anyway as part of the government’s policy, but the tougher and more intelligent control of borders is an important part of winning.

The third priority is to offer help to those states and groups who wish to promote or support democracy. Much of this entails diplomatic and educational work, offering training and support.

Military intervention should be the last resort and unusual. Rescuing Kuwait from an unwelcome invasion was a sensible use of western force, which liberated the country relatively easily and acted as a warning to other wannabe Middle Eastern invaders. Seeking to become embroiled in Sunni/Shia disputes or in civil wars over what constitutes the true borders of a given Middle Eastern country is neither easy nor productive in most cases.

Many UK leaders and commentators lay great emphasis on the “special relationship”. I agree with them that it is special in two respects.

The long joint history is the first tie. It started well with the plucky story of English settlers establishing the core of the eastern seaboard colonies that were to be the decisive influence on the emerging USA. These associations of kith, kin, and shared values do matter, despite the way these same “English virtues” had to be asserted in new language and with muskets by the settlers in the War of Independence. Both sides are largely at peace with their past. The US can be relaxed about the War of Independence because they won and went on to far greater things. The UK can be relaxed because many of us think the settlers were right to revolt against crass decisions by the British government of the day. We enjoy some reflected glory in what the US became.

The willingness to co-operate, take up arms and mutually support is also what most of these commentators and strategists believe. There is some truth in that. There is a high degree of co-operation between the intelligence and military forces of both countries. The UK has been most willing to assist the US in a wide range of military interventions worldwide in recent years. Whilst the US has been the dominant military partner, the presence of the UK with voice and supporting military capability has been helpful to the US in putting its case worldwide and showing it has friends and allies who share its outlook. NATO remains the bedrock of UK home defence against possible future serious threats, and the US commitment to the NATO guarantee is central to strategic thinking. I am all in favour of us working for a strong NATO and developing our joint working on intelligence and military matters wherever possible.

However, the world can change. The US and the UK in the end need to consider their own individual national interests. They are not always the same. The US undermined the UK at Suez. The UK stayed out of the Viet Nam war, which turned out to be a good call, without undermining the whole alliance. The US was not willing to back the UK against Argentina over the Falklands, trying to pose as a peace making friend of both countries when Argentina had violated international law and trodden on the UK’s interests and duties to the islanders. The USA did not enter the 2nd World War as a fighting ally of the UK until late 1941, and had been an even later entrant to the Great War of 1914-18. The UK needs to remember its history and make sure it has its own capability to defend our interests overseas and our own islands when need arises.

Sometimes people say all is well if the Prime Minister has a strong relationship with the President. Again history should lead to some shading of this view. Margaret Thatcher’s relationship with Mr Reagan was very good, but it did not produce US military or diplomatic support over the Falklands. Churchill’s relations with the White House were actively cultivated but it did not produce the early and strong military support he needed. Mr Cameron’s relationship with Mr Obama is as far as I know a good one, but this President has a different view of our shared history and a wish to reorient the US more towards the Pacific where the UK can offer less help.

All the time the US State department holds the view that the UK should get on with submitting itself to the EU to be of more help in the councils of Brussels to the US, the more the relationship will have its strains. The USA, proud of its own hard won independence, needs to grasp just how strongly many UK citizens oppose the idea of losing our independence to the EU.

Some pro EU people I n the UK make out the UK would need to become more dependent on the US if we left the EU. It appears that the choice is rather different to that. We either become more dependent on both the EU and USA, or we become more independent of both. From my reading of history and based on my instincts I think we need to be more independent of both, capable of defending ourselves if need arises.

This morning brought a classic case of BBC failure to interview well, thanks to the absence of a BBC England. The Today programme had as its main political guest Liz Truss, acting in her capacity as England’s rural affairs and rural economy Minister. After wasting the first couple of questions on a definition of productivity as the interviewer clearly thought his audience not up to that (why not just briefly describe it if worried), he asked her a couple of questions on broadband in Aberdeen. I guess he thought that would provide “regional” balance. The trouble is Aberdeen is neither rural nor English so it was nothing to do with Liz Truss who understandably seemed at a bit of a loss to know where to begin to explain the constitution to the Today programme.

If the Today programme wishes to explore their allegation of poor broadband installation in Aberdeen then they could invite on a Scottish Minister responsible for Scottish development and the urban economy, or could explore with the Culture and media Secretary whether devolution is getting in the way of spreading broadband in parts of Scotland, where responsibilities are different. Instead, once again England was short changed by not getting a proper interview of the English Minister on England’s rural economy.

Once even more powers are devolved to Scotland the Today programme and other BBC UK programmes need to make a decision. Either they have to set up an English programme where all matters can be discussed that relate to England as they have for Scotland with BBC Scotland, or they have to allocate slots in UK programmes to English only issues and be prepared to explore properly as if there were a BBC England. Today’s interview was just one of many which fails to give England the scrutiny and treatment it deserves, and misunderstands how we are governed in a devolved country.

Perhaps the Today programme should begin with an item exploring Englishness and England’s issues, to explain to its producers how devolution works.