England arise – England could be the winner on Thursday

Whatever the Scots decide to do there is a winner. England.

I always thought of myself as British. My country was the UK. I now also think of myself as English, and my country is England. Years of listening to devolutionists and nationalists from other parts of the UK have persuaded me to change my approach. I now feel English as well as British.  My British identity is being threatened and undermined from elsewhere in the Union. My English identity is the future.

If Scotland votes to leave, England is the winner. My fellow countrymen and women will become English as well, divorced by the Scots from our old country. We will soon see what a great future England can enjoy.

The 8% of UK output accounted for by Scotland will be replaced by just three years economic growth in the rest of the UK after they have gone. More contentiously, the 5 million people will be replaced by new people from  inwards migration in just 20 years if we carry on at past rates, though many would like us to change  that.

If Scotland votes to stay they will do so with beefed up devolution. It will be different. We will know for sure that around  half the Scots want to leave us immediately and many of the  other half want to sup with us only with a very long spoon. The very least we should insist on is the same devolution of government to England within the residual union that Scotland will enjoy.

If they do vote to stay, as many of us hope and expect, it will be on new terms. Anything that Scotland wants England should be given as well. I welcome the new spirit in Scotland for an equal partnership. That  means an English Parliament for us. That means fair burden sharing when it comes to taxes and benefits from the Union.We must make sure this time England’s voice is heard. England expects….

Scotland wants to have the government they voted for. In the Scottish Parliament for devolved matters they do. England voted Conservative in 2010 but got a Coalition government. It’s high time England also got the government it voted for, at least for all devolved matters.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Mark W
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 5:30 am | Permalink

    Well said John

    • Hope
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:32 am | Permalink

      Agreed JR, but what does this demonstrate about Cameron’s negotiating abilities? Why would Scotland want to stay in the UK when successive governments have handed our sovereignty to the EU and continues to do so. Would it not be better for Scotland to make any arrangement on their own behalf rather than leave it in the hands of Cameron?

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 18, 2014 at 5:45 am | Permalink

        Cameron is clearly not very good at negotiating (not for the country’s interest anyway) nor good at having a sound sense of direction. We can not even get fair constituency boundaries, nor his promised EU referendum, nor even the £1M IHT promised about six years ago by Osborne.

        What has the UK or even the conservative party got out of the coalition agreement? Tory Party membership has almost halved since David Cameron became leader, killing the grass roots and volunteers needed to win seats. Scotland clearly on the way out, probably not now but surely quite soon.

        I see him as more as a religious priest, purveying clear drivel but saying what he thinks people would like to hear at the time and forgetting it shortly afterwards.

        Cameron/Miliband simply have no authority to offer the Scottish Devomax without approval of the English and rest of the UK.

        • Andrew R
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 10:05 am | Permalink

          Can I ask some dumb questions?
          If Scotland Votes ‘Yes’ who will actually form the negotiating ‘team’ for rUK ?
          How can that team be constituted purely from a Coalition government at the fag-end of it’s term of office?
          Shouldn’t the first Ministers of Wales and N.Ireland be involved?
          When a separation agreement is reached why shouldn’t that be put before the different electorates for approval (Lets face it even the Scots don’t actually know what they are voting for)?

          What about N.Ireland in general – My understanding is that most of the ‘loyalists’ are descendants of Scottish Presbateryan Settlers – Why not hold a vote in N.Ireland with 3 options
          Stay with rUK, Join Scotland or Join the Irish Republic?

          Reply I suggest we let Northern Ireland speak for herself, as she can do through her devolved Assembly.

  2. Chris Rose
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 5:44 am | Permalink

    Yup. I shall grieve for the Britain that has been taken from us without our consent, but now I am an Englishman and expect to be governed by people who represent the English.

    • Richard Hobbs
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:40 pm | Permalink


  3. James Winfield
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 6:09 am | Permalink

    Down with Barnett?

    • Mactheknife
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:46 am | Permalink

      Nope ! Cameron and co have “vowed” to the Scots electorate that Barnett will remain the same if they vote to stay but with devo max. So yes folks the Scottish get their cake and eat it, which seems grossly unfair to me (even as a Scots exile).

      Reports in the media suggest that either way the backbenchers of all parties will not support this commitment, so Cameron, Moribund and Cleggy were a bit premature with their “Vow”.

      • APL
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

        Mactheknife: “with their “Vow”.”

        I am sorry, but I need to ask, how does a ‘vow’ from someone who is notorious as a person that can’t keep his word, different from a ‘cast iron promise’?

        • Hope
          Posted September 17, 2014 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

          Any Scot would not believe Clegg, if there ever was a stupid vow from someone who is notorious for reneging on everything he says it is Clegg. I thought it was infectious and Cameron caught the disease! I now hope they vote for independence as we cannot afford to keep them.

    • Mondeo Man
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

      Even Barnett says down with Barnett !

      • Tad Davison
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

        You picked up on that too MM. Apparently, it was only meant to be a temporary expedient and even its creator says we should lose it.


        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 6:50 am | Permalink

          Few things are so permanent as those which are initially sold as being just temporary measures, income tax as a good example.

  4. ralphmalph
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 6:11 am | Permalink

    Do not forget that you would to sort the House of Lords as well. Same deal only English members should scrutinise and vote on English legislation.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

      We do need to sort out the House of Lords and make it a worthy second chamber of the federal UK Parliament. Because some of the decisions taken at the federal level have very serious and often irreversible consequences, both constitutional and practical, it is better to have a bi-cameral Parliament, and indeed that is very common in federations around the world.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

        Surely about 80% of the people in the House of Lords are not worthy of their positions. It would perhaps be best to close it down and start again.

        It is full of token people, people who hold irrational belief systems, party donors, time servers, friend of friends, failed politicians, ex largely parasitic lawyers and many who are clearly too old to do very much at all of any use.

        Its one positive is that you cannot be pushed out for saying something sensible and true but unpopular.

        It needs to be largely full and sound scientists, medical people, business people, engineers, sound accountants and sound economists. Not lawyers, PPE graduates, failed politicians, tv personalities and absurd lefty bishops.

        • bluedog
          Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:30 pm | Permalink

          Lifelogic, Dennis Cooper has it right.

          The House of Lords needs to be re-configured as a federal upper house. In this model, the members of the HoL would represent the under-lying states/provinces/nations that make up the federation. representation of the individual electors of the components of the federation woulf continue to be through their MPs in the House of Commons.

          What we don’t want is a HoL stuffed full of superannuated worthies and unworthies who are completely unaccountable, as is the case today.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 9:21 am | Permalink

          None of them have any popular mandate which could be removed within a few years when the next public election was held, so in that theoretical sense 0% of them are worthy of their positions. In more pragmatic terms of their usefulness as unelected legislators-for-life, 20% might be about right. So I agree that it’s necessary to remove them all and start again with a new system.

          The obvious alternative would be along the lines suggested by bluedog, but in its purest form that would mean recognising the equal status of all four, hopefully, of the nations in the federation and giving equal representation to each in the federal senate; and I can’t see the English with over 80% of the UK population tolerating the idea that they should have only 25% representation in a second chamber of the UK Parliament, even if as now it generally only had the power to delay legislation rather than an absolute veto.

          The alternative which I still prefer, despite it invariably arousing execration on all sides for different and conflicting reasons, is to use the second chamber to take the edge off the FPTP system used to elect the first chamber by giving much fairer representation to those whose political views are being under-represented or even entirely excluded from Parliament by the present electoral system, but without condemning the country to an endless succession of coalition governments based on deals made by politicians behind closed doors as happened in May 2010, and that is the very simple expedient of adding Second Past The Post for the second chamber to complement First Past The Post for the first chamber.

          I speculate that if we had adopted my preferred system fifty years ago rather than going with the fudge of appointed life peers then it’s very unlikely that Heath would have been able to bounce us into the EEC, and we would not now be facing the disintegration of the UK because the Tory party had been driven out of Scotland.

          However those leading the Tory party would still prefer to get 18% of the votes in Scotland but not get a single seat in Parliament, as in 1997, and see their party go into terminal decline in that part of the UK, rather than have UKIP getting seats in Parliament with 18% of the votes across the UK, and the same with those leading the other two old parties. As we saw in Newark, their joint strategy is to try to make sure that the UKIP candidate never comes better than second in any constituency and so UKIP gets no members in the House of Commons, and as we have also seen recently nor will they appoint any UKIP life peers to the House of Lords.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 10:57 am | Permalink

          It is full of endless purveyors of the climate scare quack science exaggerations too. Few of whom have any science training or understanding needless to say.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

          I’ve made a reply, lifelogic, but it’s rather lengthy and so may take some time to emerge from moderation …

      • William Gruff
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

        There you go again, banging on about a ‘federal’ ‘U’K without ever explaining why England needs to be part of one. We English can all see why the dependent Celtic nations need some guaranteed source of income but why do the people of England need to be the guarantors of that income?

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 9:26 am | Permalink

          So you want England to have land borders with not just one foreign country but with two, both of which would be free to make alliances with enemies of England.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted September 18, 2014 at 10:58 am | Permalink


          • libertarian
            Posted September 18, 2014 at 11:46 am | Permalink


            Its the 21 st century “land border enemies ” ? Oh Please. We don’t have a land border with France or Belgium yet people pour over the border all the time. Whilst there USED to be advantages to being an Island I think you will find technology has somewhat superseded that

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted September 18, 2014 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

            Oh please, look around the world and you will see many countries which would be greatly relieved if they did NOT have land borders with their neighbours, even in the 21st century with all modern technology.

  5. David Price
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 6:19 am | Permalink

    Agree with all you say but how to achieve it.

    With the exception of the EDP the other parties either reject it, don’t talk about England at all or if they do it is about “regions”. The focus has to be on an English Parliament for the whole country as a whole with equal devolution for all four countries.

    Saw the interview of Gordon Brown by David Dimbleby last night. There is no doubt Mr Brown is driven but he is determined to replace England the country by regions and replace rewards for aspiration and hard work by a dependency culture and handouts throughout the UK.

    I want the union to remain, but not at any cost and certainly not as a Brown paradise.

    • APL
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:06 am | Permalink

      David Price: “Saw the interview of Gordon Brown by David Dimbleby last night.”

      Why is it OK for the BBC to interview a Scot about the destiny of England?

      He is no longer Prime Minister, and barely bothers to represent his own constituents of Cowdenbeath in the Westminster UK parliament.

      If the Scots have a problem with representation in the UK government, perhaps they should look closer to home.

    • Iain Moore
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:09 am | Permalink

      Brown couldn’t bring himself to even mention our country’s name.

      • Brian Tomkinson
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

        I think you will find that most of the senior politicians in the three main Westminster parties have the very same difficulty.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 11:01 am | Permalink

          Indeed they do seem to find it hard to utter. Government forms even say ‘country of birth eg UK’ needless to say I write England.

  6. Roy Grainger
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    “That means fair burden sharing when it comes to taxes and benefits from the Union”

    No it doesn’t, it means the unfair (on Wales especially) Barnett formula enshrined in perpetuity by diktat from Cameron/Clegg/Miliband.

    Just as a side issue the position of Mr Farage on this is curious, he has really missed a trick by his lukewarm campaigning for “No” along with the rest of them – he could have captured many more votes in England if he had positioned himself more clearly as an English nationalist along that lines you taking John.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:27 am | Permalink

      Farage didn’t have the balls to face down the Leftist demonstrators who waited for him outside a venue in St Enoch Square in Glasgow the other day. They were the usual suspects. He departed in a blacked out Land Rover along a back lane after the meeting which did not look good. If he does not have the nerve to face the opposition he will not earn the respect of those who could be his supporters. Politicians will have to get used to aggressive heckling like this or get out of the kitchen.

      • Mondeo Man
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

        It’s not the heckling that is the problem.

    • JoolsB
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:44 am | Permalink

      Why is the Barnett Formula especially unfair on Wales? They might get less than Scotland but they still get far more per head than we do in England. How else could they afford their free prescriptions and £3,600 cap on tuition fees for Welsh students no matter where they study in the UK? And they get to send their MPs to Westminster to meddle in English only matters. It’s not just the Scots we need to be rid of but the Welsh as well.

      • Hope
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

        Lord Barnett says it was only meant to last for a few years. He wants it scrapped as it is unfair!

  7. Lifelogic
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 6:31 am | Permalink

    You say: “If they do vote to stay, as many of us hope and expect, it will be on new terms. ”

    Terms offered by Cameron & Miliband only as desperate, last minute, panic measures and without any authority from the voters of the UK.

    But how is Cameron going to handle this mess, saddled as he is by Clegg and about to lose an election badly. Clegg it seems does not even think constituency boundaries should be fair and Cameron could not even manage to negotiate this.

    It is, I agree, an opportunity for the Tories if played well. It could even turn this disastrous premiership round. But will he grab the opportunity and can he achieve it? Given that that Libdems and Labour will clearly try to block him at every turn.

    Having idiotically thrown the last election with his pro EU stance, his green crap agenda, his tax borrow and endless waste, his IHT & EU ratting, his un-selective immigration and his big government/over regulation agenda, I have little sympathy for his position.

    Cameron is the cause of this mess after all. The people whose advice he seems to takes have been wrong on nearly every issue he addresses.

    Tax rates are still far too high, Libya is a complete mess, constituency boundaries not sorted, government borrowing out of control, trade deficit increasing, the nonsense HS2 plan, no sensible relaxation of employment regulations, silly green crap subsidies everywhere, a botched Scottish referendum, a lack of decent road provision …… it goes on and on.

  8. Old Albion
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Stirring words JR. But how will we, the people of England, achieve equality, when most of the British in Westminster deny our existence?

    • Derek
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:07 am | Permalink

      We could always vote the British out. Quite how we do that given the inbuilt bias for the status quo in the system I don’t know. The easiest answer of course would be for MPs with the same views as John Redwood to do it for us!

  9. JoeSoap
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 6:56 am | Permalink

    Well this seems quite a chipper posting, but let’s not jump up and down too soon, eh?

    1 Immigration
    It’s easy to say that lost ground will be made up, but do you really want to plonk Scotland’s population as immigrants into the South East? The UK will lose 1/3 of its land mass and some of its most beautiful scenery, and open spaces, only to need to house more immigrants in less space (presuming the EC immigrants who would have gone to Scotland now remain in England).
    2 Democracy
    Clearly in the event of a secession there should be a total review of how we do politics in England. If we are to put England First, we need to introduce direct democracy here and let a new system flow from it. Never again can Cameron and his like start promising aid outside of England without direct consultation with the people. We have a system here which serves English people no better than Scots, in truth. The difference is that they have a route out of it.

  10. The PrangWizard
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    I’m a little lost for words, but welcome to England, Mr Redwood. Let’s hope you bring many more with you. But they must demonstrate they are true.

    We must hear and see the words England and English, not Britain and British. England must be above all. If Scots – Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling etc., can duplicitously sign the Scottish Claim of Right to put Scotland above all, and yet claim to support the union and get away with it, then the English must assert themselves in the face of such British Establishment connivance.

    And let us see change in our national cultural institutions to reflect our English identity back to us. ‘National’ Gallery, ‘National’ Archives, which nation, we know they are British. England is not acknowledged, yet Scotland has its own, named as Scottish, institutions? Why doesn’t England? We cannot go on being invisible, constitutions and rigid mind-sets must be changed. A year ago Sandy Nairne saw no need for any change in the National Portrait Gallery, but change there should be. And British Library? Where do people go to learn about England and the English?

    There is an urgency now to put these things right. When is the flag of St George to be flown as a matter of course on English public buildings and others, often subversive, banned?

  11. Bill
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:06 am | Permalink


  12. Horatio McSherry
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:08 am | Permalink

    How droll Mr. Redwood – how dry. Love it!

    As per usual, I’m not sure I see the logic in the three main party leaders’ logic on independence and devolution. If Scotland votes to leave, then they leave…except with all the things Salmond wants to keep. But if Scotland votes against independence and to stay part of the UK, then they have been promised devolution to the point of being Salmond’s version of independance. Surely, if Scotland votes to stay in the union, then the Scottish Parliament should be done away with and they should again be governed by Westminster?

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:43 am | Permalink

      ‘Surely, if Scotland votes to stay in the Union, then the Scottish Parliament should be done away with and they should again be governed by Westminster’.

      Completely agree with that. Many people in Scotland detest the Scottish Parliament and all that it stands for. As long as that parliament exists there will be no peace in Scotland or England.

  13. Bill
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    David Cameron has handled the ground rules for the independence vote badly, very badly. He appears to have allowed Salmond to choose the day, the question, the minimum age of voters and the percentage needed for victory.

    What chance, then, he would make a better job of negotiations with the EU in 2017? Time to go, David.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:47 am | Permalink

      Well Cameron will go down in history with more contempt than Chamberlain even if Scotland votes NO as wants to hand over more power to the Scottish Fuhrer come what may. Pathetic performance from the ‘manager’ and does not bode well for England.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:34 am | Permalink

      I’ll go along with that Bill, but where do the Tories look for a replacement?

      We could do far, far, worse than our own JR, but knowing the Tories of old, that is probably what will happen, they’ll choose somebody far, far worse. I doubt if they’ll choose a man of the people and a true patriot. I’m worried by the outsiders like Brooks Newmark coming up on the rails. All we’ll get from the modern-day Tory party is more of the same failed pro-EU policies and a watered-down version of New Labour.


    • Bob
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

      ” He appears to have allowed Salmond to choose the day, the question, the minimum age of voters and the percentage needed for victory.
      What chance, then, he would make a better job of negotiations with the EU in 2017?”

      Do you have any confidence in Mr Cameron’s negotiating skills Mr Redwood?

      • stevie
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

        Cameron’s only a mouthpiece it’s his team of advisors who should be replaced. As a follow of Keith Vas Select Committee ordinary politicians prove themselves time and time again as competent representatives for their respective parties, maybe that is where we should look for our future Ministers.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

        Allowing a simple majority vote, allowing 16 year old’s to vote and giving a “yes” vote for the break up was indeed idiotic. But Cameron has a record of being idiotic. Ratting on Cast Iron, the pointless wars, Libya, the love of the EU, gender neutral insurance and pensions, the green crap and allowing Clegg into the TV debates on equal terms as just a few blatant examples.

      • zorro
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

        No comment….


  14. mickc
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    Nice idea, but it won’t happen.

    Despite the obvious contempt in which the Westminster denizens are held by the majority of people, they will never give up a single ounce of power.

    The UK is indeed the last colony of the British Empire.

    • Bob McMahon
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

      England is the last colony of the British Empire.

    • William Gruff
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

      How on Earth can the hub of an empire be its last colony? The last colony of the British empire is England, which, ironically, was the fount of that empire. Thus is the biter bit. However, we English will not let the British make a bonfire of English kindling.

      Think carefully about whom you vote for next year, and do not vote for anyone standing under the umbrella of the big two and a half.

  15. Amanda
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    It is an ill wind that blows no good at all. I entirely agree; British is a very devalued currency these days, as ‘British’ people bring terror and mayhem to the world here and abroad: English it is.

    I will be talking with my MP about support for an English Paliament and a fair deal – that is indeed the silver lining. The fact that Cameron does not support this, or even care that he so obviously does not support this whilst offering bribes to the Scots, is beyond belief – the Tories need rid of CMD Mr Redwood.

    As for the Scots, they can do as they please; but do they really want to have a (leader ed) like Salmond??? Pity poor Scotland if that does come about. I am just astounded that nearly half a country are willing to vote for this (kind of ed) Socialist: I would not be surprised if the first thing Salmond did on a ‘yes’ vote was to ban other political parties. And, if this is what the Scots want, then we really are better off without them; sad though that may be. One think I’d be interested in seeing though – if you take out the EU migrants and the under 18 year olds, what is the proportion of Yes to No then?

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:11 am | Permalink

      Almost certain that parties whose ‘values’ do not comply with modern Scotland will be proscribed directly or indirectly.

      • A different Simon
        Posted September 18, 2014 at 10:16 am | Permalink

        Max ,

        This is the trend in the developed world ; e.g. the drive to allow political parties only to exist at the European level and ban all others .

        Perhaps in future candidates will not be allowed to stand as independents .

        All a natural extension to the “no platform” policies beloved of the progressive consensus .

        Socialism by it’s very nature must actively protect itself from challenges from individuals and groups which proffer an alternative .

        As Amanda says , it’s an ill wind that blows .

  16. agricola
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    Well summed up and pleased you are beginning to feel a bit English. It has come to many of us over the years, as much a reaction to the EU as anything. Your desire for English autonomy in Parliament for all matters that do not come with a UK label will I hope be well supported. But bare in mind that not by CMD, until of course he sees his position under threat. Then as ever he will panic, just as he did with “I vow to thee your country with my citizens money” It is all a question of how many in the conservative party have the guts to support the England agenda rather than the CMD agenda which just as with Scotland comes with personal rewards.

    I would like to pay tribute to Gordon Brown’s effort yesterday to preserve the Union. He was articulate and effective.

    You surmise that inward migration may make up for the loss of five million Scots. Possibly so, I wonder how many will come from Scotland, or will they, like Australians, be subject to a none European stricter control. I would hope not.

    Whatever the outcome of tomorrows vote. please press hard to rally the conservative party to the cause of England. The English await it. Both Labour and the Lib/Dems loose out in an exclusively English Parliament so do not expect too much support from them. They have a long record of self interest before the interests of the people and the nation.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:56 am | Permalink

      In the event of a ‘Yes’ vote tomorrow, I wonder if I’m the only one to be troubled by the prospect of replacing the Scots we’ll lose, with people from elsewhere?

      Anyway, there could be an influx of Scots people into England, so our own immigration could go up even further. But where the hell we’re going to get the space to house everybody, God only knows. Time to get into the loft-conversion, portacabin, and tent manufacturing businesses, not to mention domestic property if you can afford to buy to let.


  17. JoolsB
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    Wishing thinking as long as Cameron is at the helm John. He seems to think his word is final and he can skip the parliamentary process with his ‘vow’ and his ‘we’re a long way off an English Parliament’ despite poll after poll and no doubt his post bag saying otherwise. This anti-English PM is on the same page as Milipede and Cleggie in his contempt for England and his own constituents. No doubt after tomorrow he will also be siding with them in the regionalisation of England. For the sake of the survival of the Tory party but more importantly for the sake of England, he needs to go NOW. Whichever way the vote goes tomorrow and lets hope they vote yes, Cameron’s position is no longer tenable.

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:00 am | Permalink

      I wonder if there is a mechanism to depose an unrepresentative leader of a political party, as one would take over the control of a ship when the captain was no longer fit to give orders?


      • stevie
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

        Hi Tad, there is in many countries of the world, but let’s hope it does not materialise in this one “it’s called a 9mm round.

    • Roy Grainger
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

      To be fair Cameron he made his position perfectly clear in his speech: his country (UK) means more to him than his party. On that basis his “vow” to bribe Scottish voters with money from English constituents and without seeking approval from his party (or Parliament come to that) is entirely consistent.

    • Bob McMahon
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

      “[Cameron] seems to think his word is final and he can skip the parliamentary process…”

      When Cameron referred to himself as the ‘heir to Blair’, it was one of the few times in his life he was being honest. He probably doesn’t know lies from truth these days, so often does he lie through his teeth.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

        Bob, knowing what that man did and continues to do to wound and injure world peace, for anyone to claim to be an heir to Blair, marks them out as a very dangerous individual. Thankfully, people are gradually getting wise to Cameron and his days as a politician are well and truly numbered.


  18. alan jutson
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    I would be more positive about our chances if it were going to be a level playing field, and all Countries in the UK had exactly the same powers in their own Parliament.

    Why is it that I feel that England is going to be stitched up !

    Its not Scotland that needs to break free, but England.

    I would have been more than happy for the UK to stay united on sensible terms, but all the others seem to want more from us, than we get ourselves, thus we are being torn apart from within the UK, and at the some time from the outside, by the EU, with them all wanting a slice of the action.

    Time for us to put ourselves first for a change, after all what is the problem with parity.

  19. Faustiesblog
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    Good for you, JR.

    However, those who wish to break England up into 9 regions are backed by the EU. They are an unscrupulous bunch who are not averse to breaking their own laws (e.g., illegal bailouts under the EU treaties).

    They will attack you with everything they have. They will try to discredit you, they will mock you and they might even try to dig up some of your trangressions. So those of you in Westminster who take up the fight will need to take a leaf out of Ghandi’s book and keep going.

    If you fight the good fight for England, the people of England will be behind you, regardless of the dirt that they try to fling at you.

    Fight for us and we, the people of England will fight for you and with you.

    You only need glance over to Clacton to see what I mean.

    • DaveM
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:16 pm | Permalink


    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:38 pm | Permalink

      Very sound advice Fausties!

      Let’s back JR to the hilt.


  20. APL
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    I agree, English doesn’t need British.

    JR: “More contentiously, the 5 million people will be replaced by new people from inwards migration in just 20 years if we carry on at past rates, ”

    Nor is there any need to ‘replace’ 5 million people. The missing 5million were living in a geographical area that isn’t England, there is no need to replace them.

    On Scottish ‘independence’** England will have exactly the same population, be just as overcrowded as she is now. There is no need to talk of ‘inward migration’ to top up the population to whatever it is you feel is the correct population, 65 million?

    ** A brief list of the last few British Prime (and close run ) ministers.

    David Cameron – Born in London, his father born in Aberdeen – Scotland.
    Gordon Brown – Born in Renfrewshire – Scotland
    Anthony Blair – Born in Edinburgh – Scotland
    John Smith – Born in Dalmany – Scotland ( leader of the Labour party died before he could win an election )

    It’s difficult to make the case that Scotland has been or is under represented in the government of the United Kingdom.

    And it’s a credit to the good nature of the English, that they allow foreigners to run their government.

    • Faustiesblog
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:55 am | Permalink

      Furthermore, many more ministers, ex-ministers (of all parties) and those in key positions hail from Scotland – Gove, Duncan-Smith, Alistair Campbell, etc. Not to mention those in key positions in QUANGOs and our institutions, such as the BBC.

      I estimate Scottish representation in positions of power (past and present) at around 30% to 40%. Given that the population of Scotland is around 5% of that of the UK, this is quite remarkable.

      To what can we attribute this state of affairs? Ability? Perhaps it’s a long march through the institutions that Saul Alinsky and spoke of. Perhaps we need a long purge of the institutions.

      • APL
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

        Faustiesblog: “To what can we attribute this state of affairs?”

        The old Scot’s network? 🙂

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:18 am | Permalink

      Agree with the second last paragraph but to claim that ‘foreigners’ have run the government is ludicrous.

      • APL
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

        Max Dunbar: “but to claim that ‘foreigners’ have run the government is ludicrous.”

        Max, maybe so, but I was quite happy with the Union of our two countries, it isn’t me that wishes to dissolve the Union.

        But once it has been, in Scotland, English will be foreigners, and vice versa. You can thank Alex Salmond for that.

    • Bob McMahon
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

      Cameron’s merely one in a very long line of PMs (15 of the last 22, I think) who were either born in Scotland or with strong ancestral connections to it. When you throw in Chancellors, Home Secretaries, Foreign Secretaries and other top jobs in parliament or the parties’ top tables, it’s clear that the Kingdom has been run by a tartan mafia for far longer than the phrase has been in common use.

  21. Bob Robinson
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    On the “Today” programme this morning (Wednesday 17th 2014) Alec Salmond ducked a question form Jim Naughtie concerning the formation of a currency union between the rest of the United Kingdom and Scotland – he was asked whether in the event of forming such a union, the people of the rest of the United Kingdom should be given a vote in this matter?
    He flannelled or should that be tartened himself out of a direct answer.

    If Scotland keeping the pound does become a matter of negotiation what, Mr Redwood, would be your position on a RUK plebiscite?

    Reply There is in my view no question of allowing an independent Scotland a currency union and I will support any legal means to stop it.

    • margaret brandreth-j
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      Yes John too many pints of the white stuff have been taken from us already.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

      Referendum. Ask UK citizens in the rest of the UK whether they agree to continue to share their currency with what would shortly become a foreign country.

      But as an aside here, do not allow anyone to keep their UK citizenship and vote in that referendum or any other UK election or referendum if they are eligible to be automatically granted citizenship of the new Scottish state and have not signed a document renouncing that right and confirming their allegiance to the continuing UK, and do not even think of allowing dual citizenship.

      • sjb
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        Would you propose reducing the electoral franchise even further by excluding qualifying Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens, too?

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 7:23 am | Permalink

          Yes, because only those who are citizens of a country should be allowed to vote in its elections and referendums. If the result today is “yes” we should not follow the foolish precedent of allowing Irish citizens to vote by allowing Scottish citizens to vote. And we should revert to the days before we allowed multiple citizenships.

          • Lindsay McDougall
            Posted September 18, 2014 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

            Just to make it clear, Denis, we should revoke the right of the Irish to vote in UK elections. We might get larger Unionist majorities in Northern Ireland.

      • David Price
        Posted September 18, 2014 at 11:59 am | Permalink

        Doesn’t Boris Johnson have dual citizenship?

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

          Maybe; lots of people now have divided loyalties. One notorious propagandist for the EU mentioned that he had triple citizenship – US, UK and France – so where would his allegiance lie?

    • Richard1
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

      It was a pathetic interview by Jim Naughtie, who is always very weak with leftists, and may well have been additionally cowed by the SNPs targeting and intimidation of specific BBC journalists they don’t like. It’s quite clear from the reports by respected journalists such as Tom Brady, the reports of politicians on the No side that the SNP led separatist campaign (uses questionable tactics ed) The people of Scotland should send them a big raspberry.

  22. formula57
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:45 am | Permalink

    I have said that yesterday’s Vow will have to be repudiated and today you say “If they do vote to stay….. That means fair burden sharing when it comes to taxes and benefits from the Union “. That is good enough for me: thank you and may all your works flourish.

    That disgraceful Vow aside from contradicting itself in outrageously enshrining the Barnett allocation whilst calling for “sharing our resources equitably” is telling Scots they can spend what they like on the NHS provided they tax themselves enough to be able to do so! Are any of us, Scottish voter or other, supposed to be contented or persuaded by that Vow? Rather, it should serve to make us English realize that indeed, it is time for England to arise once more.

    • David Price
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:34 am | Permalink

      The vow did not say “Scottish NHS”, it said;

      “we can state categorically that the final say on how much is spent on the NHS will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament”

      So it can be interpreted as giving Scottish Parliament the say over the whole NHS.

  23. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:47 am | Permalink

    JR: “the 5 million people will be replaced by new people from inwards migration in just 20 years if we carry on at past rates, though many would like us to change that.”
    According to figures released by the BBC, if Scotland votes to leave the union, the United Kingdom would lose 32 percent of its land but just 8 percent of its population. Population density would then rise from 263 people per square kilometre to 355. Why on earth would we want to do that?
    Your party promised to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands but as with so much else have failed miserably. Next May we shan’t believe another such pledge or any others for that matter.

    • Anonymous
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:40 am | Permalink

      Brian – The population density you quote is academic. England is already feeling the pressure of 355 persons per square kilometre.

      • Brian Tomkinson
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

        The point I was trying to make was that with such a high population density already why would we want to increase it further with another 5 million immigrants.

        • APL
          Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

          Brian Tomkinson: “why would we want to increase it further with another 5 million immigrants.”


  24. Douglas Carter
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:53 am | Permalink

    As a political process, I think what you’re proposing John will find itself essentially indivisible from the process to withdraw from the EU.

    Under the ‘who watches the watchers’ ethos, the politicans (and doubtless those Lords) who would be called upon to plan for the new English settlement will draw from the instinct to (i) Create an England of smaller regions, or (ii) the full entity version England (which – according to my viewpoint as currently is, would be your posture John).

    That’s very simplistic and doubtless it is more complicated, but I have no doubt it will represent a battle between those who wish for a radical change in the way that English voters might be represented, and those who will permit only marginal – even cosmetic – changes to the status-quo, in no small part due to (but not wholly due to) unwise treaty obligations made in earlier years, and associate assurances and agreements linked to those obligations.

    There will be those who may wish for your whole England Parliament, but will, as yet, be unconvinced of the advantages of EU withdrawal. If such people are willing to give proper thought to the matter, I think they’d find themselves natural allies with the withdrawal enthusiasts. I’ve been convinced for some years now that UK\Britain\England would eventually be forced out of the EU not by referendum but by obviated circumstance. A thoughtfully devolved England and an English Parliament may well be the catalyst which brings that EU withdrawal about.

    Here’s hoping…..

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

      Dream on. If Scotland votes itself out of the UK then it is also voting itself out of the EU, unless the present EU treaties are amended so that it stays in as a new member state in its own sovereign right. That is what Cameron would want, not least to keep Scotland in the EU Single Market alongside the rest of the UK, and indeed he has publicly stated that he would want an independent Scotland to be in the EU. Negotiating the EU treaty changes needed to cope with the break up of the UK would be his priority, not negotiating for the return of powers to the UK or for the withdrawal of the UK, and he would be doing that in opposition not only to countries such as Spain which would not want to make life too easy for a breakaway Scotland but also countries like Germany which would very much like to see the euro planted on part of the British mainland. Basically a “yes” vote would instantly reduce Cameron to the status of a supplicant.

  25. Richard1
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    The campaign for Scottish separatism has been unpleasant and divisive. A foretaste of the peoples republic of Scotland – if that’s what they vote for – was seen with the organized protest against specific BBC journalists who had not been sufficiently craven to Salmond and his henchpersons. Also in the violence against yes campaigners like Jim Murphy and Nigel farage. And in the sinister threats by some old nationalist against businesses which had spoken against separatism. It will be a sad day for civilized hard working and law abiding people in Scotland if these malevolent yobs manage to gain power.

    Meanwhile as you say since Scotland is to have substantial new powers – offered by Gordon brown if you please, the PM rejected by the electorate by the biggest margin since the beginning of democracy in the UK – we must demand the same for England. Its time to give the same message to the leftist Scottish MPs as they have been giving in Scotland about the Tories since 1979 – your writ doesn’t run here. As they have sown, so must they reap. Full devolution in England with no interference or power for Scottish MPs.

    • Richard1
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:00 am | Permalink

      I mean violence against no campaigners like Murphy and farage.

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:46 am | Permalink

      We have your name in our book…

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:47 am | Permalink


      I note how little (if any) coverage the BBC gave to the demonstration by ‘Yes’ campaigners outside the offices of BBC Scotland. They were angered by the slanted journalism that favoured one side over the other. The BBC didn’t cover a similar demonstration outside Broadcasting House either, by those opposed to Israeli (actions ed) in Gaza.

      I’m not in favour of ‘malevolent yobs’ as you put it, but people are bound to be angry when our ‘most trusted broadcaster’ is so lop-sided. And I can’t believe how the disastrous Gordon Brown is presently being held up by the BBC as the ‘saviour of the Union’ and given the exalted status of elder statesman, when he was a wrecker in the truest sense of the word.

      If we do get an English parliament, one of its first duties should be to finally bring that malevolent mouthpiece for all things to the left, to book, and ensure BBC propaganda that offends so many people, is finally replaced with quality even-handed journalism.


      • Tad Davison
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

        I see nothing wrong with the original word I used, but then, I’m not afraid of Israel, nor its underhanded methods in order to coerce, subvert, and to buy favour. Nor indeed am I blind to the truth. Images that need no commentary and therefore cannot lie.


        Reply You asserted a serious allegation that Israel denies and has not been proved

    • Tad Davison
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

      On second thoughts, malevolent yobs could be the answer. Rebellion of the people might be the only way to get real change. Whilst we orderly people continue to stay within the law and meekly accept a situation where politicians lie to get into office, then sell us out thereafter, they’ll keep on doing it because there’s no recourse.

      If ever the right of recall were needed, it is now, but of course, that was put on the back-burner by a government that was sacred stiff of the implications of its implementation. And unless John Redwood moves to Cambridge, or I to Wokingham, it looks highly unlikely that I’ll ever entertain the notion of voting for the Tories again. I really do wish that I could show my displeasure in the most vehement way, but it wouldn’t be eggs that I throw!


  26. Mark B
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    It is NOT about winners and losers. It is about a just and equal settlement.

    No more, no less, just the SAME !!!

  27. David Murfin
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    “the 5 million people will be replaced by new people from inwards migration in just 20 years” But they won’t be living in Scotland.

    • Mike Stallard
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:45 am | Permalink

      No, they won’t. They will just pass straight through and swell the numbers inside our polyglot cities.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:02 am | Permalink

      David–But does not Salmond keep saying that he wants (considerably) more immigration in order to beef up the Scottish population? Seems madness to me and I wonder how many of the Scots are in favour. In my experience approximately zero, their having seen what’s happened down South.

  28. Anonymous
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:13 am | Permalink

    A great post.

    I hope for independence from Scotland on Friday – we simply can’t afford them any more.

    Whatever happens in the future – a failed independent Scotland especially – we English will be blamed for it.

    The impetus for anti-Britishness/Englishness, I believe, has Catholic origins. Tony Blair was a Catholic all along but didn’t tell us until afterwards. We have never been forgiven for breaking away from Roman Catholic influence and prospering from it.

    • Max Dunbar
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:23 am | Permalink

      There is certainly an element of sectarianism, particularly in Glasgow. Some republican pubs have large YES posters in their windows.

  29. Roger
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:14 am | Permalink

    Well said John. Couldn’t agree more. I sincerely hope that an English Parliament is forthcoming but will you explain to us, given the likely makeup of Westminster post NO vote and the GE, how this can be achieved.

  30. NickW
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    With you 100%.

    The question is as to whether the Conservative Party is capable of waking from its slumber and having the courage and determination to bring these ambitions to reality.

    The alternative is that the Conservative party splits with the go-getters on one side and the wet husky huggers on the other.

    It appears to me that the path trodden by Douglas Carswell may turn out to be the only way forward; the alternative is a new leader and an alliance with UKIP; the figures show that UKIP and the Conservatives together could defeat Miliband with one hand tied behind their back.

    • Mondeo Man
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:51 am | Permalink

      If Great Britain can be broken up and renamed then why on earth can’t the Conservative Party ?

      It’s quite evident that Party comes before country in Westminster, otherwise we wouldn’t be in the position where the break up of our country is now more likely to come before the break up of the failed and discredited legacy parties.

      What democracy ? We have politics for politicians – not the people. Party now comes before everything. Blairism rules.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:11 am | Permalink

      Nick–Little chance of an Alliance. Cameron has said (wrongly) that “Conservatives don’t do deals” (he should study the Conservative Alliance with the National Liberals in 1951) and our host will only ask you what kind of Alliance you have in mind. Given that the issue is the most important one in the entire Universe one might have expected a better show than this. Maybe there will be more hope after the Conservatives are annihilated at Clacton.

  31. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    JR: “It’s high time England also got the government it voted for, at least for all devolved matters.”
    A pity your leader, to whom you provide unswerving support and loyalty, doesn’t agree with you. That is if he has even really thought about it, as he seems incapable of dealing with more than one issue at a time and even then is hopeless. Surely by now your eyes have been opened to the abject failure personified by this man?

    • David Price
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:32 am | Permalink

      The thing to open one’s eyes to is that none of the parties, except for the EDP, have a concern for England.

  32. M Davis
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    Let’s hope Mr Cameron agrees with you, Mr Redwood; I’ll keep my fingers crossed!

    When younger, I always said that I was English, having been born in England of English parents. I probably started thinking of myself as British when I came to live in my adopted Country of Wales. From now on, on ALL official and non-offical forms, I will be ‘ticking’ ENGLISH. I remember once (probably when the Socialists were in power!) when filling in a form, there was any nationality except English, so I wrote the Country in myself and ticked that.

    • Faustiesblog
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:13 am | Permalink


      From now on, my return address in all correspondence will include “England”. If England is not on a form, then I will insert it.

    • Robert Taggart
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      Alas – Cameo does not. Time for another leadership contest ? !

      • Robert Taggart
        Posted September 20, 2014 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

        CORRECTION !…
        Cameo now does – or is it Lynton Crosby’s doing ? !

    • lojolondon
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:02 am | Permalink

      It is still the case – you can tick Scottish, Irish, Welsh, British, and a multitude of ‘other’, but not English. The civil service, Biased BBC and entire left wing of Britain are embarrassed about being English, and downplay it at every opportunity.
      PS. Note that now that Labour may lose their chance of an election victory along with the 40-odd Labour MP’s if Scotland leaves the union, they are suggesting breaking up England too, the plan being to win some regions.

    • DaveM
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      You’re lucky if you get anything more than EU-UK these days.

  33. Paul
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Well, it looks like our glorious leader and the other two have decided to bribe them. So whilst I agree with everything you write here, and I don’t want the Scots to go, I think the chances of ‘equal partnership’ and ‘fair burden sharing of taxes’ is not much above zero.

    Is this going to be maintained as Scottish oil production falls ? Why ? Anyone bother to ask the other 92% of the country whether they want to subsidise Scotland ?

    So I’m hoping for a Yes tomorrow, sadly.

  34. Iain Moore
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    Not if the British establishment get their way. With England their last meal ticket they are doing everything in their power to deny an English identity.

    We have the British political parties denying English representation. The agenda political left one might understand, because they have always been hostile against an English identity, why I don’t know, but they are, but why the Cameron Conservatives have hitched their future to the left’s hatred of England I am at a complete loss to understand.

    You can see the war that has been declared against and English identity in the out put from the BBC, here they do everything in their power to ignore the argument for and English Parliament, instead seek out rag bag one man and his dog separatists causes they can find in England, from some VIZ comic editor who espouses his idea of Newcastle joining Scotland, some free Yorkshire movement that was cobbled together last year, Cornish separatism. The BBC attack on England is almost incessant. As you, Mr Redwood, found out with Hain, the BBC gives Scots, Welsh, NI , more air time to peddle their regionalisation of England, than they give English people.

    • a-tracy
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:38 am | Permalink

      Well Iain it is time for the orchestrated campaign to the younger populations social media that the SNP did so well, get them discussing the issues with their parents, rile up their civic caring nationalism for England and their say in the Union whilst they know they’re the only students in the union paying £9000 pa tuition fees put in by a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Chancellor even though it wasnt in their manifesto and excluded their own students. We need to set some records straight.

      • JoolsB
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 5:00 pm | Permalink

        Even worse a-tracy, it was a Conservative Prime Minister aided and abetted by his English constituency MPs and his Scottish constituency Lib Dum chums who imposed £9,000 tuition fees on England alone but you’re right, English kids only have tuition fees in the first place thanks to Blair, Brown and their 59 Scottish Labour MPs. The bill would have failed but for their interference, not that the then Conservative opposition raised any objections at the time.

        • a-tracy
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 9:14 am | Permalink

          I’m with you JoolsB I have complained bitterly to my constituency MP ever since it was decided and imposed and I continue to bang on about it.

  35. English Pensioner
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    I gave up thinking of myself as British some years ago. It has become merely a description of people who have British citizenship, and who in many cases don’t even regard this country as home. My newsagent sends her children “home” to somewhere on the Indian sub-continent each summer although they were born here.
    In any case, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish all describe themselves as such, so why shouldn’t those such as myself, who have largely English ancestry going back for centuries describe themselves as English. For some reason all the leftist politicians regard the use of the word “English” as racist, although they have no such problem with the Scots. They also condemn those who regard themselves as English as being nationalistic and whilst this is apparently all right for the Scots and the Welsh, it seems that they regard it as being akin to Nazism if used by the English.
    In my view England will do very well without Scotland, there will no longer be a need to appease them at every opportunity. Loss of the Scottish output is surely irrelevant as it is output in proportion to the population which matters.
    My only worry is that Scotland will rely on England for defence, knowing that if there was any threat against them we would come to their rescue rather than allow a potential enemy to get a foothold on our island.
    I only hope the Scots enjoy their independence (if that is what it can be called) once they join the EU. I suspect their views will be largely ignored as they will no longer be part of a major contributor to the EU and they will be treated like Estonia or Latvia as countries which will do as they’re told.

  36. Mike Stallard
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:41 am | Permalink

    “Those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it,” as Santayana never said.
    Together Scots and English brains, brawn and raw courage made the British Empire. Well done! Now gone forever.
    We need something new.

    But our history has a deeper message. Until James I (1603-1625) whose dream was of a united Britain, there were constant border wars, incursions even invasions of this country. Indeed the Jacobites came from there in silken kilts made in Paris. Our National Anthem is in response to a Scottish invasion, and that was in the middle of the 18th century!

    We haven’t got on. And, of course, the traditional way of defeating a rebellion is by making promises, then decapitating the rebel leader and forgetting the whole thing.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:15 am | Permalink

      Mike–Wat Tyler was run through I believe, not decapitated. Head chopping was only for the nobility.

    • Bob McMahon
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

      What is (or was) so special about the Empire? The Irish, Swiss, Australians and Canadians, for example, seem to have done all right without invading here, there and everywhere, so why can’t (or couldn’t) the UK be (or have been) like those countries?

      • APL
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

        Bob McMahon: “The Irish, Swiss, Australians and Canadians”

        The Australians and Canadians of course, were part of the British Empire.

        And the Irish until 1922.

        • sjb
          Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

          GDP per capita for Australia, Canada and Ireland exceeds that of the UK. What conclusion might we draw from that?

          • APL
            Posted September 18, 2014 at 8:20 am | Permalink

            sjb: “What conclusion might we draw from that?”

            It’s not a bad idea to have your defence paid for by your colonial master?

            Rather like, in fact, postwar Germany. Who had all its defence expenditure by the US and UK.

  37. Atlas
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Agreed. (Note to myself: must stop doing this apparent toadying {after all, I’m not in Cameron’s Eton clique}, however John is correct, so logically I agree !)

    If Cameron thinks that once he has a narrow no vote win then he can move onto other things as if nothing happened, then he will find he has another think coming…

    The West Lothinian problem must be resolved to England’s satisfaction now.

  38. Richard Lark
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

    Has any Conservative MP other than David Cameron come out in support of Gordon Brown’s proposal of Devo Max for Scotland without any rebalancing for rUK? Did Cameron consult with Conservative MPs or even with the whole Cabinet before giving his support to a measure most damaging to England?
    At the start of the campaign I was hoping for a clear majority for the NO side. However if the choice now is between a so-called United Kingdom containing an almost independent Scotland and a neutered England, versus a fully independent Scotland and a free rUK. Then I would strongly support the latter.
    Congratulations on the stand you are taking. Please NO SURRENDER.

    • APL
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

      Richard Lark: “Has any Conservative MP other than David Cameron come out in support of Gordon Brown’s proposal of Devo Max for Scotland without any rebalancing for rUK?”

      Who the hell is Gordon Brown to have any say whatsoever? He is just a back bench MP (and failure as Prime Minister) who never bothers to turn up to Parliament, but takes the money anyway.

      • JoolsB
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

        Proving that Scottish MPs don’t have much reason to turn up at Parliament unless it’s to interfere in English only matters because most of their workload is done for them by 129 MSPs at Holyrood

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 10:12 am | Permalink

          You’ve been told before that only 6 of the 33 Acts passed by the UK Parliament in 2013 did not apply to Scotland, putting that another way 27 out of the 33 did apply to Scotland wholly or in part, and yet you still insist that the MPs elected in Scotland had nothing to do at Westminster during the course of that year?

      • Tad Davison
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

        They’re giving that man Brown way too much credibility APL. I see great danger in that. He had his chance and blew it big time. He wasn’t just incompetent if indeed he ever was. He was cold, calculating, and downright duplicitous. It is courting disaster to let Brown anywhere near power or decision-making.


  39. Peter Stroud
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    Things can never be the same, regardless of which way the poll goes tomorrow. Absentee MP, Gordon Brown, seemingly uninvited, made wide ranging promises to the Scots, should they remain in the UK. We then saw our Prime Minister hold hands with Miliband and Clegg, and promise similar, extra powers without a scrap of parliamentary debate. Many found these actions very unseemly. Pledges made to a potentially foreign country, without any consultation with the representatives of the majority of the population. Pledges made by a defeated prime minister: all seem symptoms of panic, which is no way to behave when the stakes are so high. No, things can never be the same. Surely the forty Scots MPs sitting in the Commons, must never, in future, be allowed to vote on English, or Welsh matters.

  40. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    Indeed ! arise Sir England , but I am still British and this free movement paraphanalia applies to us all . The climate doesn’t exactly engender a spirit of cooperation .All for one and one for all is being defenestrated.
    I can see a regional future where the biggest loudest self- interested bullies take over like lynch mobs and hang any potential thoughtful competitor on the local tree.We really are regressing socially .

    • margaret brandreth-j
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:39 am | Permalink


  41. David Price
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Time for an independent English Conservative Party?

  42. David
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:44 am | Permalink

    I agree 100% with your sentiments but sadly I don’t think it will happen. Sadly devolution to England doesn’t seem to be happening.

  43. ian wragg
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:48 am | Permalink

    I see the Spanish are insisting Scotland would have to join the Euro if they want EU membership. Where does that fit into Salmonds socialist utopia. An outcome very much like France I think, bankruptcy within 2 years.
    I see the coalition is led by Mr Brown who is busy giving away sweets he doesn’t have to the Scots. CMD really doesn’t want to get his party elected in 33 weeks time. Why do you cling to this rotting corpse John.

  44. Bert Young
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:51 am | Permalink

    I have to add my support to all the others you have received this morning . The stand you have made for England is right and proper ; we cannot continue to be the “leftover – bottom -of-the-pile” from this mess ; how Westminster will be re-organised is another matter . In any event the “vows” have to voted through and I do not believe there will be a majority support for them . The Barnett formula also has to be re-aligned and an equal status created for everyone . This “Yes/No” referendum has reignited a degree of hate and the unity we once had will never be the same . I am disgusted with it all .

  45. oldtimer
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    Whatever the result of the vote, I consider that Mr Cameron`s position as PM to be untenable.

    Mr Salmond ran rings round him in framing the terms of the debate – through the question asked, the extension of the electorate to 16 year olds, the exclusion of Scots not living in Scotland, the inclusion of foreigners who do live in Scotland, and the emotive date of the vote to name a few.

    Mr Brown has run rings around him in extracting the contradictory “Vow”. How can it both retain the Barnett formula and yet equitably share resources between the four nations. He also has allowed the regionalisation of England to be promoted by Brown and Clegg – a long standing EU ambition to neuter England as a political force. Either this is a measure of Cameron`s bungling, political incompetence or is something he secretly wants to promote. Either way the Conservative party should get rid of him.

    If, as Salmond and others say, Scotland is the third wealthiest part of the UK and well able to stand up for itself as an independent country, why does it need Barnett formula largesse? If the argument is being shifted to the need for large, remotely inhabited areas to be subsidised, then surely that argument cannot be applied to the densely populated Glasgow, Edinburgh and their hinterlands? This special pleading sounds very contrived to me.

  46. Mondeo Man
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:02 am | Permalink

    The SNP argue that they want a breakaway so as to avoid further periods of ‘Tory misrule’.

    But hold on a minute ! Isn’t that how democracy works ? We Conservatives (erstwhile) put up with 13 years of Labour misrule.

    And then, when we vote a Conservative into office we get “I can’t deliver you the Conservatism you voted for – there are many in my constituency who don’t believe in it and need my representation”

    A) This is not how democracy should work, however politically expedient it may be.

    B) Labour never EVER reciprocate this to the Conservatives living in their constituencies.

    Where is our choice, Prof Redwood ?

    You know. The choice that was demanded from us when our jobs were privatised and outsourced. I know you are the good guy but there still isn’t a fag paper between your party and the rest.

    The Scots have choice. The English don’t.

    And still no word from your PM in the way of apology for calling us loons nor thanks for our extraordinary patience and maturity on this and other matters.

    We’ve seen him grovel like a jilted teenager to the Scots yet he treats us with contempt.

  47. NickW
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    It appears that the Scottish No campaign and the leaders of the three main political parties have succeeded in convincing the English that Scottish Independence is the preferred option.

    One can only hope that they had the same effect on the Scots.

    Cameron has established a new bench mark for political incompetence that towers far above anything in our history. His place in the history books is assured.

  48. Stephen O
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    The three party leaders have rushed out a commitment to spend more of other peoples’ money on Scotland naturally without asking anyone else. Rather acting like the ‘Westminster Elite’ Alex Salmon has been talking about breaking free an argument which has boosted the yes vote.
    Well I have a suggestion of how to boost the no vote. David Cameron has denied he would resign in the event of a Yes vote, rightly (in my view) concerned that this would boost the yes vote. Well why does not he vow, as part of a pact with Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, that they all resign in the event of a No vote?
    It would boost the ‘No’ vote, giving ‘No’ voters to give a chance to strike a blow against the ‘Westminster Elite’, cost taxpayers nothing and endear Scottish voters to the rest of the UK after this divisive campaign.
    All three are culpable for how close the UK is to breaking up. Ed Miliband for being a part of the Labour government which pushed devolution in the belief it would head off independence (!!!) and for being the leader of the party which ran the soulless No campaign, David Cameron for being in charge at the time and agreeing the terms of the final vote and Nick Clegg, well for being Nick Clegg and just as much part of the Westminster Elite as the other two.

  49. Robert Taggart
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:28 am | Permalink

    Agreed johnny.
    As far loyalties go for Moi…
    Prior to ’97 – British – when asked.
    English – when pressed.
    European – when convenient !
    Post ’97 – English – when asked.
    British – when pressed.
    European – when convenient !!

  50. Andyvan
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    A simple question that no politician will answer-

    If Britain is really a democracy why don’t the English have a vote on the union?

  51. Max Dunbar
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:32 am | Permalink

    I disagree with your first sentence that England is a winner whatever the Scots decide. That remains to be seen. The clock is being turned back 300 or possibly 400 years. After the Romans left Britain we had the Dark Ages which lasted for 500 years. What happens in Scotland has always had a profound influence on England and will continue to do so.
    Beware talk of winners.

  52. Terry
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    And who can argue with that? Well, who outside of Downing Street, I really mean.

    To deny England and the English the same terms provided to Scotland and the Scottish, is to invite confrontation. If Downing Street will not comply, I trust our pro-democracy Back Benchers to revolt and ultimately demand a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister. We had had enough of his arrogance and of his blatant ignorance of the wishes of the English citizens.

  53. ian
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    I would like to point out that purdah laws governing the referendum have been broken by the coalition ie wet&mad on the andrew marr show 6/9/2014 with devo max. As i understand all parties sign an agreement that said no more powers would offered to scotland with less than 25 days to go before the referendum because of postal voting. Will the referendum be called in question because of his action and if mr salmond can call for a rerun. All three parties have now broken that agreement, so if no one gets in trouble, the people can expected all agreement to broken that the government sign from now on. is that the case.

    • CdBrux
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 4:04 pm | Permalink

      Did they offer more powers or just to bring them in quicker, so making it the big news story?

      Either way it’s a shambles and has the possibility to have a narrow no vote cause much more problems.

  54. Derek
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    I totally agree either you John. If Scotland does vote NO (and I think it will, probably around 70% against I fear) then we English should go independence. We are told that England is too big to have her own English Parliament in a UK Federation. That being the case, independence for England is the obvious answer.

  55. lojolondon
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    Well said John, I only wish that the cabinet and leaders of our country were as sensible and patriotic as you. I wish you were my MP so I could support you and vote for you.

  56. Sam
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    Dr Redwood, I want to thank you for being one of the few voices willing to speak up for England, which has been ignored, marginalised, and humiliated by its political stewards for too long.

    I want to wake up on Friday in a country with its own parliament, with a row of St George’s flags fluttering outside. I want that country to sing Jerusalem before sporting events (not just cricket), and to have a public holiday in late April when Shakespeare’s Henry V will be performed in parks and market squares throughout the land.

    Two things, in my mind, make that difficult politically. The first is the Labour party, who will not blush while abetting any iniquity that hands them electoral advantage. Nobody who opposed equality between the sizes of electorates in each constituency can be trusted to play their part in bringing democracy to England: witness Labour hailing the need for semi-autonomous city-states in its political heartlands. The other is UKIP, which has done a far better job than the Labour party or the EU in fragmenting and impeding any patriotic consensus.

    I don’t know where all this leaves the prospective EU referendum. In a “devo-max” Britain, what happens if England votes to leave but Scotland votes to stay? Do we have to re-run all this nonsense again?

  57. Bryan
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    Is my history correct? First came the Union of the Crowns creating the UK, then the Union of Parliaments.

    So if Scotland votes to take all of the power back from the Union Parliament at Westminster then we are left with English, Welsh and NI MP’s and the United Kingdom with the Queen as Monarch remains?

    Does this mean that the UK remains a member of the EU?

    Apparently regionalisation for England is supported by the front benches, in public, and save-the-World Brown because it protects the minorities.

    Now that is a very frightening concept!

  58. Eddie Hill
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Stirring words indeed and music to my ears. My UKIP colleagues and I have been saying exactly the same thing since the referendum debate began to hot up.

    I also love NickW’s observation that: “the figures show that UKIP and the Conservatives together could defeat Miliband with one hand tied behind their back.”

    This is indeed the way forward.

    However, England has no need whatsoever to “replace” the 5 million inhabitants of Scotland because as others have pointed out on this page, if Scotland votes “Yes,” we will have lost a large landmass with a much lower population density and, in England, we are very short of housing and sustainable land for development as it is.

    In any event, immigrants are an even greater threat to our Englishness than even the Scots are and continued membership of the EU will ensure that not only does this threat remain, it will become much larger and much more threatening by the week.

    Also, to think that migration levels will remain as they are is naïve in the extreme. What we are currently seeing is a trickle compared to the populations of those countries with strong “push” factors, and depending on which forecasts you look at, another 20 years will see another billion or so increasingly impoverished and desperate people added to that number.

    In short, Scottish independence is very small a sideshow compared to the real big issue!

  59. NickW
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:20 am | Permalink

    What is on offer to Scotland in return for voting NO is actually almost complete independence WITH the monetary union we said we would never give them.

    Think about it. They keep the monetary union we have now and are given fiscal independence. We are forced to backstop their economy as they wreck it with Venezuealan style socialism.

    How insane is that?

    Let us hope and pray that Yes comes out the winner, because for England No is definitely the biggest loser in creation.

  60. ian
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    I would also like to point out today that the coalition government has been going round signing agreements with private companies with poison pill in them, that is to say next in coming government cannot cancel the contract unless it pays for the whole contract like the two aircraft carries the labour government order be for leaving government for 6 billion pounds. I understand that your coalition has signed billion of pounds of these contracts so far and will keep on sign them up to the election. The people have not voted for this, is it right the government should be able to do this. Have all parties sign up for this because if incoming party has not and does not like it and cancel the contracts the people will have to pay out billion of pounds with no work done. Is this the future of government now, all done and dusted without a vote.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

      An important question to which I note you received no answer!

    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink

    England has been the winner so many times. When the US, Canada, India,South Africa, Rhodesia, Australia and New Zealand got their own flags, got their own currencies, paid taxes only to themselves.
    In retrospect, the Better Together Campaign in the USA, to mention just one, was not as well planned and co-ordinated as it might have been.

  62. behindthefrogs
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    After the no vote we must not only have your proposed restriction to English voting but also a parliament where MPs have similar sized constituencies, We must have equal representation so that the same number of people are represented by English MP:s as by Scottish MPs. The current advantage the Scots enjoy must be removed.

  63. John Wrake
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    When the Union between England and Scotland was forged, both countries were motivated to uphold the Christian faith on which they had been founded. Though their practice of that faith differed, allowances were made in the agreement to accommodate those differences.

    Through the advance in secular thinking in recent decades throughout both nations, the Christian faith has been ignored, rejected, vilified and ridiculed by the majority of those holding or seeking power.

    Though the following words were addressed to a different nation at a different time, for me, they have a curiously contemporary ring. What do you think?

    The prophecy of Isaiah, chapter 3 verses 1 -5 (Good News Bible).

    “Now the Lord, the Almighty Lord, is about to take away from Jerusalem and Judah everything and everyone that the people depend on. He is going to take away their food and their water, their heroes and their soldiers, their judges and their prophets, their fortune-tellers and their statesmen, their military and civilian leaders, their politicians and everyone who uses magic to control events. The Lord will let the people be governed by immature boys. Everyone will take advantage of everyone else. Young people will not respect their elders, and worthless people will not respect their superiors.”

    John Wrake.

  64. NickW
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    There was something that Cameron, Clegg and Miliband failed to understand when they went to Scotland, and which the English MPs in our Parliament now need to understand with absolute clarity.

    Scotland is our enemy.

    This does not apply to all its people, although it does applies to a large number of them, but it does apply in totality to Scotland’s Government.

    These might seem like harsh words, but if one reviews past events, particularly recent events that unpleasant truth becomes apparent; no other conclusion is possible.

    However the referendum goes the truth of the situation must be clear in the minds of our politicians; they should look after only our interests and leave Scotland to look after itself.

    There is no goodwill to be bought by any offer of any kind.

  65. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    If our kind host would permit, may I draw his attention to the views of Dr Tim Morgan in his blog ‘Deep in the hole, parts 1 & 2’.


    I would be most interested to hear Dr Redwood’s opinion on our current account deficit – has he a more optimistic view ?.

    Reply I will write about the balance of -payments when other matters are bit less hectic. Were Scotland to vote Yes the loss of oil export revenue for the RUK would be substantially offset by the end of RUK remittances of profits and dividends to the largely foreign owners of the oil and gas assets.

  66. DaveM
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Excellent positive and optimistic post – much as I’ve been feeling for the past few days.

    As a reply to some of the comments above:

    Brown, Cameron, Clegg don’t represent the whole of Westminster, and the whole of Westminster doesn’t deny our existence. That’s just the current Con/LibDem line and is largely personality driven. I can’t help feeling that it is a line followed to appease the Scots and keep England divided and quiet much of the time – bit of a miscalculation as it seems to have stoked English Nationalism to previously unseen levels if you believe the word on the street!

    I have no doubt that the party members who nod sagely when they hear the so-called “leaders” (now there’s a total misnomer!!!) would follow a pro-English Parliament leader just as eagerly if it meant toeing the party line and keeping their jobs.

    Once again, optimism from our host and negativity from people who are supposed to be on his side. Defeatism never won a thing.

    Cameron has said two things of note this week:

    1. “No plans for an English Parliament” – he’s hardly a man known for keeping his word.

    2. “I won’t be PM forever” – thank the Lord.

  67. fedupsouthener
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Fully agree with these sentiments. It’s about time we were able to be proud to be English and not just British. Please can we have more powers for England and the same favours as Scotland will get if they vote no bestowed upon us! We don’t need uncontrolled immigration but rather we should be choosing who we allow into the country just as Australia, New Zealand etc do now.

    I am fed up with England and the English being derided while we are taken for a ride.

  68. APL
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    JR: “The 8% of UK output accounted for by Scotland will be replaced by just three years economic growth in the rest of the UK after they have gone.”

    Just a question.

    Would we even want to erect trade barriers with the Scots?

    It would be an opportunity to assert English independence of the European Union and negotiate as part of the severance, a free trade agreement with Scotland.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

      It would not be our decision whether there would be trade barriers.

      At present it is trade internal to an EU member state and the legal base for that is not any EU agreement but still the internal 1707 Treaty of Union, which the SNP wishes to see terminated; in which event it would stop being internal trade and would instead become international trade and fall within the remit of the EU, presupposing that the rest of the UK was deemed to still be an EU member state as seems more or less certain would happen; if the government of another EU member state like Spain wanted to be awkward then it could be, and armed with a veto over treaty changes it could not only prevent Scotland remaining in the EU but go further and also prevent Scotland remaining in the EU Single Market in any other way; therefore Spain could dictate that there would be trade barriers between the newly independent Scotland and the rest of the UK, and also the rest of the EU and the rest of the EEA, and also all those other countries with which the EU has made trade deals on behalf of its members.

      • APL
        Posted September 17, 2014 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

        Denis Cooper: “At present it is trade internal to an EU member state and the legal base for that is not any EU agreement but still the internal 1707 Treaty of Union, which the SNP wishes to see terminated; ..”

        Understood, but applying trade tariffs between Scotland and England would be pretty bad for Scotland, do we really want a Palestine type situation on our border?

        But, given that after independence HM the Queen will still be head of state of both countries, and that treaties are but agreements between heads of state, HM the Queen need only say to herself, I want free trade between this country and that country.

        Get it ratified and Bingo! The European Union can go and do unspeakable things to itself.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted September 18, 2014 at 7:56 am | Permalink

          Potentially it would be devastating for Scotland, because exports to the rest of the UK account for about a third of Scottish GDP. I’m not sure that the degree to which Scotland is dependent upon the English being willing and able to buy its products is understood by many Scots who are planning to vote “yes”, they’re unthinkingly taking it for granted that their trade with the rest of the UK would carry on as usual as it has for the past three centuries.

          On the other hand because the GDP of the rest of the UK is an order of magnitude greater than that of Scotland its exports to Scotland don’t account for a third of GDP, only about 3%, and so the potential economic damage would certainly be noticeable but not devastating.

          No, we don’t want a Palestine situation north of the border, and the best way for the Scots themselves to avoid that is to vote “no”.

          They have just been told very clearly, once again, that if it left the UK Scotland would not automatically and immediately become a new EU member state in its own sovereign right, on the contrary under the present EU treaties it would automatically leave the EU at the same instant that it left the UK, and part of the price for avoiding that would be adoption of the euro. Many will decide to disbelieve that and instead believe Salmond and the SNP, but if they get the result they want they will find out that this is just one of the ways that he has been duping them.

          There is nothing that the Queen could do to protect the Scots from the consequences of their own folly, the monarch is now no more than a constitutional idling wheel and her present Prime Minister would not be prepared to precipitate major breaches with 27 other countries by permitting trade with Scotland to continue just as if nothing had happened and Scotland was still part of the EU.

  69. Stephen Carmichael
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    The English need the Scottish MP’s to offer balance. The experience and perspectives that these MP’s can bring is without value. It is an advantage surely that they don’t have to have full concentration on Scottish issues, thanks to the Edinburgh Parliament, allowing them to concentrate on Westminster issues, thus benefiting Great Britain.

    • NickW
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

      Thank you for that; it’s always nice to see a bit of humour introduced into such a serious topic.

  70. Bob McMahon
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    If the British state can’t or won’t treat all its constituent nations equally and fairly, what is the point of continuing the ‘Union’?

    UK citizens living in England have the same legal rights as UK citizens living in the other nations. Democracy should be for 0% of us or 100% of us. I prefer the latter, but, then again, I’m not one of the ruling class.

    • Mondeo Man
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

      In a UK referendum on the EU do you think that the rest of the EU should have a vote too ?

      • Roy Grainger
        Posted September 18, 2014 at 6:10 am | Permalink

        Should the rest of the EU have a vote ? I suppose they should vote on whether they support the vast array of bribes that the EU will offer to UK in the event of a referendum. I didn’t want a vote on Scottish independence (though if I had I’d vote to cast them adrift) but I also didn’t want to agree to my taxes being used to send them more money than we send to Wales in perpetuity. On a local level I also didn’t want my London council to buy four Scottish flags and fly them over my London town hall.

  71. ian
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Now that wet&mad and the coalition have made a illegal bribe should not the yes vote win by default because the agreement being broken.

  72. Brigham
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    The only good outcome is if the vote is yes. No more subsidising Scotland. Bribing, or trying to, will be over. I don’t know why you are so soft on them John, the majority hate the English. My pals and I used to go golfing for a week every year in Scotland. While we were playing golf and spending in their country they were most hospitable. As the alcohol flowed the situation changed. Talk about “in vino veritas” We barely got out with whole skins from some of their hostelries. The sooner we get rid of them the better.

  73. Daniel Jura
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 1:40 pm | Permalink


    Thank you for you increasingly noticeable stand, on trying to highlight the democratic and financial deficit that the good folk of England suffer, at the hands of Westminster. Please do all that you can to ruffle feathers in your stand against the injustice of the stutus quo. Can’t you get any of your fellow English MPs to make a similar stand?

  74. Feodor
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    “If Scotland votes to leave, England is the winner. My fellow countrymen and women will become English as well, divorced by the Scots from our old country. We will soon see what a great future England can enjoy”–John Redwood.

    Particularly given the fact that you were once a Secretary of State for Wales, I find this comment to be especially myopic. Following the debate on Scottish independence, you’d struggle to think the UK consisted of more than two nations. Wales and Northern Ireland simply do not feature in the thinking of either English or Scottish nationalists, yet these two countries represent an integral–if small–part of the UK. Does your ‘great future’ include these two nations? And if so, how?

    • Old Albion
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

      You are aware that Wales and N.Ireland both have their own Assembly ?

  75. Mr Smith
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    Its worth repeating the Gordon Brown plan, which the three Westminster chumps promptly agreed when they signed the ‘Vow’ to Scotland this week. No consultation with anyone south of the border of course:

    * The new Scotland Act should enshrine in law the permanence of the Holyrood Parliament: semi-federalism.
    * A guarantee of fairness: Gordon Brown wants politicians of all unionist parties to sign a statement that the aim of a “modern union” will be one that secures “security and opportunity for all” by “sharing equitably the resources of the nations and regions”.
    * The Barnett Formula should be preserved in perpetuity and, in addition, Scotland should be able to raise taxes to protect spending on the NHS if necessary
    * A permanent role for Scotland in the evolution of the UK, with Scots to be consulted on any changes to the way England is governed.

  76. christopher m carr
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    England does not win if Scotland leaves.
    Yes we must set out on a different journey. But do not call it a triumph if the pattern of our politics has so wearied our countrymen – as the Scots have so long been – that they want no more to do with it.
    I never thought myself a nationalist or patriot. The grief I feel surprises me.
    Good luck to Scotland, and to all the nations of what was once UK.
    Here, once again, is the end of an auld sang.

  77. John B
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    So a case of vote YES for an independent England.

    8% of UK output… I assume this means GDP.

    GDP includes Government spending and monetary value of goods and services produced. The monetary value of public services, absent a market value, is calculated as wages.

    So if we take all the Government spending in Scotland and all the wages of public servants… considerable I expect… out of that 8%, we should get the true value to the UK economy from Scotland. Not much since not much is produced up in Scotland as they are all on the dole.

    Furthermore all that Government spending and wages comes out of taxation, mostly from England, so that money could be left in the economy or be used to reduce taxation. Further since some of those public service wages are spent on services to Central Government, these jobs could be moved to England or Wales/Northern Ireland.

    Currently some inward investors are steered towards Scotland, and others interested in investing there are not dissuaded by Central Government, but with an independent Scotland, both will be encouraged to invest in rUK.

    I am at loss to understand, oil revenues aside of which 10% will stay anyway and shale oil/gas will come on stream, why the breast beaters and hand wringers imagine Scotland has such an important input to the total British economy that their departure will cause such economic problems to rUK.

    But then these are the same who foresaw UK’s economic melt down if it did not join the Euro, were taken completely by surprise by the sub-prime crisis in the US and the effects this would have on heavily indebted and in some cases bankrupt economies, and of course preach doom over UK’s possible exit from the EU… that being an economic Titanic the UK should certainly stay on board. Ice with that?

    With Scotland the UK will do well; without Scotland the rUK will do even better.

    Best case is YES vote; worst case is NO vote because the English will get screwed more, unless you Mr Redwood are successful in getting enough support for the reforms you wish to see in the latter case. Good luck.

  78. Denis Cooper
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    “Anything that Scotland wants England should be given as well.”

    In 1997 there was a referendum in Scotland, and 74% of those who voted said that they wanted the establishment of a new, separately elected, Scottish Parliament which would exercise devolved powers, pass laws for Scotland and hold a separate devolved Scottish government to account.

    So there you are, that is what they wanted and what they got, and just to catch up with the Scots that is what the English should have as well.

    Not some fudge whereby UK MPs elected in England are given second hats as members of a so-called English Parliament, actually an English Grand Committee, and with the government of England still embedded in the UK government.

    And as the devolved Scottish Parliament and government are to be made permanent, that is to say they are to become entrenched in the constitution of the UK, so too should the equivalent devolved English institutions be constitutionally entrenched.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

      The ‘fudge’ with the ‘second hats’ would be a very cost effective method of implementing an English Parliament.

      And I would remind you that the UK is still running an annual deficit of £110 billion. In these circumstances there are three golden rules:
      (1) Don’t waste money
      (2) Don’t waste money
      (3) Don’t waste money

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted September 18, 2014 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

        And I would remind you that the annual cost of running the Scottish Parliament is around £70 million:


        which would work out as just 2.5p per week per head of population in England, or less than 0.02% of public spending in England, and even in the unlikely event that it didn’t save anything from better government it would still add only 0.06% to your £110 billion deficit.

        If as you seem to think people in England won’t reckon it’s worth even tuppence-ha’penny each per week to get improved democracy in England AND stop the euromaniacs breaking up England into EU Regions, then what is all this “hard-done by English” fuss about?

  79. Vanessa
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    “England will get a new parliament…..” In your dreams ! This government will never give England anything special despite being bribed by the Scots with our money.

    I would now like a referendum for the English to get rid of the Scots – let’s see how far their puny little taxes go to pay for all their socialist generosity. Our money has been irresponsibly spent and all the changes they will get if they vote NO has never been put to us, the taxpayer. Why should we cough-up for them?

    Cameron will be kicked into the long grass at the election for forgetting about who his voters are and not giving a damn.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 3:53 pm | Permalink


      Unless they are given an English Parliament, Conservative MPs should vote down the additional devolution to Scotland. That’s what they are there for. If there is a massive constitutional crisis, that’s too bad. David Cameron didn’t get a mandate for additional devolution, so he hasn’t got one.

      Once again, the Conservative Party is in danger of kow-towing to the idiotic cult of follow the leader. That’s what got us Edward Heath’s agenda instead of Enoch Powell’s agenda.

  80. C. Swann Esq.
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Mr Redwood. Your recent statements have cheered me up immensely. It’s so refreshing to see a politician grab this issue by the horns. Whether Scotland vote yes or not, England should have it’s own parliament. Our flag should be the St. George’s Cross and not some hideous new creation. Other than England can you think of any other western democracy that doesn’t have it’s own parliament? The UK was never a country, it was always a union of separate nations. If Scotland leave then the UK/GB is dissolved. I think Scotland should vote No then we leave the union instead and leave them all high and dry. Better idea?

  81. Mark B
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Just to let everyone, including our kind host know, I today received a letter from my MP.

    He briefly states

    In view of what has been going on, I believe that it is now clear that we need a proper constitutional settlement for England.

    One can read that in a number of ways but, to me we need a proper debate and, we need to call a Constitutional Convention. This, in my view, represents an opportunity to not only address the issue that have arisen due to recent events but, to look at the whole system by which we are governed.

    Thank you.

  82. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    And in practical political terms, any proposals for increased devolution should be voted down unless the English Parliament is included. If the PM objects, just tell him that that’s the way it’s going to be.

    This PM has now lost authority on Europe, immigration and Scotland. Eurosceptics must take advantage.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:32 pm | Permalink

      the whole political class has lost authority on immigration.

  83. Iain Moore
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    I have noted an argument being made, as in your debate with Anne Begg, where it is suggested that because England is a larger country it shouldn’t get it’s own Parliament.

    If that is their argument, then what they are suggesting is that the Scots weren’t only deciding their own constitutional settlement, but they were deciding England’s as well. A bit insulting that, and if that is the argument they are making, then the English should have been included in the referendum in 1998. As they weren’t , and nothing was said at the time, then the English have every right to get on a sort out what ever constitutional arrangement they want.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

      Labour is desperate for its 41 Scottish Westminster MPs to continue to vote on English issues. We must stop them.

  84. eeyore
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    For two years I’ve been writing to the Telegraph (yes, I know, very sad) asking Who Speaks For England?. So far they have thought the question not worth space in their columns.
    Now I know the answer.
    John Alan Redwood PC MP, it’s YOU!!

  85. Margaret Brandreth-J
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    Someone commented on the grief they feel at the possible separation . This is the grief I felt when as a State Registered Nurse in the 1980’s we were told that we were no longer to be of our great state and were to be sold off. This was without consultation and without remorse as we were thrown out.
    It also happened at a time when my husband and I were almost forcefully separated and we as it has seemed, have been manipulated into a certain way of life against our interests.
    This breaking up of Great Britain has been manufactured for years.We were too strong for our competitors and business wanted to swallow us up and take control.

  86. john robertson
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

    My guess is that the EU will look more favourably on our demands for reform whatever the outcome because of the close vote.

    If it’s a smaller UK then we get a jobs boost from not just Scottish financial services but those other firms, SME’s that have their major stake in the UK and the EU.

    If it’s a No vote then please don’t follows Scottish and Weld devolution. I want English MPs voting on English matters, not promoted councillors as in Scotland with no connection to Parliament.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 9:59 am | Permalink

      Here we are on polling day in Scotland, and after years of this being discussed it seems that some people still do not grasp that if the Scots vote to terminate the 1707 Treaty of Union between Scotland and England then Cameron’s top priority will be to ensure that trade continues uninterrupted and unimpeded, and that will put him at a huge disadvantage in negotiations with other EU member states each of which has a veto on treaty changes.

      And even if the Scots vote to maintain the Union the result will be so close that the other EU leaders will be laughing at Cameron behind his back, and they will be even less inclined to give way to the weak leader of such a fragile country.

  87. Iain Gill
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    I agree we need English decisions in English hands. But I also agree with the Scots that we need to regain power from public school boys who have never done a proper job too, it’s understandable that there is frustration with these characters being in power from many parts of the country. I see the Scottish issue as much to do with an unrepresentative political class with far too few regional and working class accents, I hope the Conservative party is listening to this too.

  88. Monty
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    Why do we even need to “replace” the population we are about to lose?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 9:35 am | Permalink

      We don’t.

  89. Max Dunbar
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:03 pm | Permalink

    I was at the demonstrations at George Square in Glasgow tonight.
    The atmosphere was not just febrile but revolutionary. It was as if the referendum had already been won by those who I would term republicans rather than nationalists. The entire square and surrounding streets were dominated by YES campaigners and supporters. The statues of Albert and Victoria which are mounted on horseback had been scaled and draped with saltires and other flags. A huge anti-nuclear weapons banner formed the backdrop to the area where ‘speeches’ were being addressed to the enthusiastic revolutionaries. This consisted of distorted and unintelligible ranting of the most aggressive type and was amplified to a painful level.
    Later, a small group of Loyalists gathered in front of the City Chambers. A stand-off ensued which grew bigger as the evening progressed. In the meantime the Cenotaph had been invaded and draped with republican flags and banners in the most disrespectful way. Youths climbed up and perched atop the lions and other parts of the monument. This enraged the Loyalist group and appeared as direct provocation. The Loyalist demonstration grew rapidly until a large crowd had formed in opposition to the Republicans who had, in the meantime, broken past the police lines and surged across the road. The Loyalists who were fewer in number withdrew to Cochrane Street which is adjacent to George Square and runs past the City Chambers to the east. I managed to film the event from both sides until it became unsafe to do so. A Marxist attempted to swipe the camera from my hand. Another joined him and thanks to the police I was able to withdraw and continue filming on the Loyalist side where I encountered no hostility.

    • Mondeo Man
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 8:28 am | Permalink

      Thank you for this, Max Dunbar.

      If I haven’t said so already THANK YOU Dr Redwood.

      Though I loathe the course of your party leadership I have immense regard for you as a politician and as a person.

    • JoeSoap
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 8:58 am | Permalink

      So these are the type of people whom the leaders of LibLabCon will be appeasing with their gifts. Three wise men they are certainly not.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 9:34 am | Permalink

      Sounds like Theresa May should ask for the tanks to be on standby.

  90. William Gruff
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:38 pm | Permalink

    I always thought of myself as British. My country was the UK. I now also think of myself as English, and my country is England. Years of listening to devolutionists and nationalists from other parts of the UK have persuaded me to change my approach. I now feel English as well as British …

    I have been English not British for decades: since I understood that Britishness is meaningless.

  91. Monty
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    After the divorce, we must have a clean break settlement. No alimony for Scotland. No return for Scotland. That is very important. It’s the only way we gain our freedom from the threat of future Scottish interference in our affairs.

  92. William Grant
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 3:27 am | Permalink

    Dr. Redwood, you are misleading your public. More than 80% of No voters in Scotland, at the moment, don’t want extra powers for Holyrood and only 40% of the electorate have declared for independence. Also, the UK is called Britain for short, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, just now. Scotland, according to the leader of Conservatives at Holyrood, Ruth Davidson, puts the Great into Great Britain. The rUK is Britain and Northern Ireland, which will still be Britain for short.

    • Mondeo Man
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 8:33 am | Permalink

      Mr Grant

      A ‘Vow’ has been made by our own party leaders which would further compound the Anglo/Scottish iniquities. Dr Redwood’s position is in response to unwise actions south of the border, not north of it.

  93. Graham C.
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 6:32 am | Permalink

    If the Scots vote to break up the Union it will be a vote in favour of socialism now. If they vote narrowly to retain the Union it will be eternally difficult for Scotland as a whole to be content with an economic policy decided by the UK which is less than socialist.
    The challenge for England with or without the Scots will be to demonstrate to itself and rest of the World that the desire for socialism now is not also deeply embedded in England in a way that makes economic progress difficult.

  94. Richard
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    Mr. Redwood,

    I am pleased to read that you are so confident that England will benefit from whichever way Scotland votes.

    You may be right in the very long-term but in the short-term I am certain England will be fleeced whether Scotland votes “yes” or “no”.

    Messrs Cameron, Miliband and Clegg and the majority of their parties are all strongly Europhile and will use the coming constitutional changes to further implement the EU policy to weaken England economically and split it up into regions.

    • oldtimer
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 8:46 am | Permalink

      I fear you may be right about this.

      While we await the result of the Braveheart vs Hardhead vote in Scotland, we reply on English MPs to do something about the Softhead nominally in charge south of the border. But do they have the gumption and the votes to succeed?

  95. DaveM
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    I can’t help feeling, when reading this and other blogs, that regarding the EU we are getting into conspiracy theory territory (american style!)

    However, i saw the Spanish PM on TV last night.

    “Scotland’s independence will torpedo the European Project” Ha ha – there it is!!!

    “The spirit of the moment is towards integration not separation”. Are these people even aware that there was a Euro election recently (and that the federalists got smashed)?!! Moreover have they actually spoken to any of the people they are supposed to represent?

    As with everything, it is in human nature to rebel against authority (particularly unelected authority) and to become more loyal to your roots and your identity the more someone tries to deride and remove it. To that end, the European Parliament is doing a fantastic job of promoting nationalism and localism – I’m just waiting for the final straw which breaks the camel’s back and galvanises the 400 million or so Europeans into uniting more than ever AGAINST the EU. Ironic.

  96. Christine Constable
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 10:12 am | Permalink


    I think after the Referendum Yes or No you should arrange to have a future of England Conference where ideas and speakers can be asked to attend with ideas for creating a new future for our nation. We have for so long lacked direction, national focus and a reappraisal of England and Englishness and we desperately need this. The Tories having been so focused on Britain and the Union have for decades overlooked the more serious constituency the English themselves.

    Now Scotland doesn’t want Conservatism and Wales is pretty much a Labour stronghold it is high time the Conservatives focused on England and where this once great nation is going.

    There is a whole constituency out there who have been urging the Tories to now think of England, having you as a flag bearer will be a welcome change and we are thrilled you are carrying the torch for the much neglected majority.

  97. Jane
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    I am disturbed by many comments on this thread. As long as we have a UK Parliament all members of that Parliament should be allowed to vote. I am furious with the agreement that the Barnet formula has been promised by the three leaders as well as additional powers. I hope this matter is debated in the House of Commons.

    What should we do if the vote is no by small majority? On a personal level I have moved broker from Edinburgh to England. I have also perused my investments and moved monies out of companies in Scotland. I am a keen golfer but will no longer have an annual golfing holiday in Scotland – I will now go to Ireland. I am so angry at the anti English sentiment throughout this campaign that all things Scottish will be avoided. I have been horrified by so much of the nationalist campaign that I too consider myself, English and British – at one time I would have said it the other way.

    I would drastically cut the number of MPs from Scotland, NI and Wales. As each country has its own devolved administration and no doubt will seek more powers following the promises made to Scotland, then we do not need so many representatives. We also need to review the Lords.

    If the vote is yes, then I will expect the House of Commons to deal with all matters related to Scotlands departure with vigour and ensure that rUK is not disadvantaged. I have read many legal and financial articles related to the breakup and it seems that Scotland may try and hold us to ransom because of Trident. RUSI indicate that Trident can be moved to Devonport but this will take many years. I can see the SNP demanding a currency union to allow this to happen. I DO NOT WANT A CURRENCY UNION WITH A FOREIGN COUNTRY. Why should the rUK act as a central bank and a country can not be independent if a foreign country controls its finances. I want the UK government to be firm on all such issues and as we all know the difficulties that lie ahead for Scotland we should not bail them out either. I have read many articles that indicate this is likely. I am hoping that MPs insist that if there is a yes vote any settlement is brought to the House of Commons.

    I have lived in Scotland and have also visited regularly. You all live in cloud cuckoo land if you think that David Cameron could have influenced or done anything more to influence the vote. The Tories are hated in Scotland. We all saw how Ed Miliband was treated as well. The intimidation of journalists, the hatred towards the English who live in Scotland, the NO voters who are being intimidated in their communities is the worst form of nationalism. This is all down to the First Minister. Let him cope with the aftermath. What he has done is make many fair minded English people anti his country. Whatever happens he has won. All I know is that I will be glad to get his face of my TV screen.

    Finally, all the issues that the First Minister wants to retain – the BBC etc should not be permitted. I read that broadcasting to Scotland could not be met by the licence fee of the population of Scotland and I do not want to subsidise that country. I want all tax funded operations such as government jobs moved South as well as all BBC production. I am very angry at the nasty campaign I have followed and want nothing to do with the perpetrator. I am sorry for the many Scots who will suffer but your FM has mortally offended many of us.

    • Richard Hobbs
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

      What an excellent post Jane. Thank you. You have articulated much of my own thought and I am glad to see it.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted September 18, 2014 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

      “I would drastically cut the number of MPs from Scotland, NI and Wales. As each country has its own devolved administration and no doubt will seek more powers following the promises made to Scotland, then we do not need so many representatives.”

      Yes, but the devolved administrations only deal with matters which have been devolved to them from the UK Parliament, and there is no reason why a UK citizen resident in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland should have less of a say on matters reserved to the UK Parliament than a UK citizen resident in England.

      The missing pieces in the constitutional jigsaw are the devolved institutions for England to parallel those elsewhere in the UK, by which I mean a separately elected Parliament and government for England, the whole of England.

  98. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 10:59 am | Permalink

    Earth to David Cameron…earth to David Cameron!..We as a nation are already massively indebted and living way beyond our means. I know this is a difficult concept for a rich and privileged man that has little experience of the real world but that is how it is.
    You cannot afford to make promises to the Scots you cannot keep. Unless of course you are a supremely disreputable and dishonest politician.

  99. Mike
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    I’m a Catalan Spaniard living in Madrid. This country is also closely following the Referendum process due to some parallelisms we may have but also divergences regarding the Scottish process. I think that these major issues concern all British citizens, thus all may have had something to say on this. After all countries are like a Corps, and decisions affect all shareholders. I am no expert on this, but the main flaw I see is that some UK territories enjoy privileges of devolution, their own government and Parliament while old England has none of these. The English people are also entitled and have the same right as the Scots to decide by themselves only through their Government and Parliament on certain issues. When devolution issues started in the UK they should have first worked out a framework and possibly reinventing Westminister’s role as a “federal” parliament. If the rules of the game are not equal for all, and the promises made by UK Gov to extra reward the Scots if they remain in the Union, only raises resentment and aggraviation for the remaining UK. This is the sin we have in Spain where making an exception with some territories, led later to try to equalize all … and to the current marasm. Because they always want to be unique and privileged regarding the rest, and they’ll stick only if they can spoon out more benefits. We also have all this debate raging on the Economic Flows between a country’s territories and with the Central Gov where the data provided by the territories that want to secede where skewed and bloated.
    That is why there is also a dangerous sentiment in the remainder of Spain that the sooner these unsupportive territories leave, the better.
    And in spite these issues like the Catalan or formerly the Basque, regardless of what their Parliaments and Government decide the last word is of the National Parliament which has the Country’s full sovereignity. However we fear that our PM Rajoy like yours takes this debate away and turn into a bilateral decision, making also the mistake of giving part of the country the same status on a par as the whole: Scot-UK or Catalunya Spain.
    The other issue is that such an important decision should be taken on a qualified majority (eg min >70%) and not on a simple majority, theorically with one single vote.
    Seems Mr Salmon was more probably shrewder than Mr Cameron during the negotiation on the Referendum terms, as they favour him.
    My apologies for my grammar or spelling mistakes, but I think you can grasp what I want to say. It is a pity and a paradox that England and Castile, the nucleus and forgers of some of the oldest countries and major actors in history are now in low ebb. But it may also be an opportunity to redefine the remaing country and learn from the mistakes. What is needed are politicians willing to take decisions beyond the short term tactics with the only purpose of keeping them in office … until they can jump to a Corporate Board.

  100. Steve Gee
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Keep it up John. There are few Englishmen with spines any more, so please do not capitulate, or allow your careerist colleagues on the backbenches, to be bought off with yet another undemocratic solution for England.

    It is a concept so simple even Clegg should be able to get it. English votes electing English MPs to write English laws for the English.

    Barnett is a disgrace and it must go.

  101. Oliver Baldock
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    Well said John, some kind of federal system must be possible – currently only UKIP are actually voicing this . For another subtle example of how England does not currently have a voice I’d urge people just, for the sheer heck of it, to go to the bbc website and click on ‘politics’. Scroll to the bottom and you will see colourful links to ‘Scottish Politics’, N.Ireland Politics’, ‘Wales Politics’ and……wait for it…..’Around England’. ‘Around England’ …I tell thee…perhaps that’s why the English are apathetic about politics, politics doesn’t exist in England!

  102. Alexander Fergusson
    Posted September 19, 2014 at 4:20 am | Permalink

    Each of the countries in the UK must now have its own parliaments. Actually, the major regions of England should have their own parliaments. These Parliaments MUST have strong fiscal powers. Not only will such powers drive efficiency and accountability in the civil service and public office but they will also allow the regions to adopt economic policies that match the regional needs. This will benefit all of us in the union and permit the UK to maintain its disproportionately strong international political position.

    John Redwood don’t let this topic mire in Parliamentary prevarication. This is the most important political issue of your career.

  103. Ian B
    Posted September 19, 2014 at 6:15 am | Permalink

    It appears that Mr Cameron has now decided to rewrite the entire Constitution and present it to us today, a remarkable achievement for one man in such a short timespan. One wonders if it has allowed sufficient time to think things through.

    Nobody seems to have considered, firstly, whether the Scots themselves- the majority who voted for the Union- actually want “Devo Max”, whatever it is. Perhaps they would prefer to retain the same relationship as before the vote. The vote only tested whether Scotland wanted in or out of the Union; there was no question regarding a change of arrangements.

    Nobody seems to have considered, secondly, what the English, Welsh or Northern Irish want.

    Thirdly, apparently Mr Cameron intends to remove Scots MPs from Scottish votes, in a “Devo Max” (whatever it is) scenario. But there does not seem to have been much thought given to this. Will there still be Scottish ministers? Might there be a Scottish Prime Minister, ruling over an England that voted Tory, presiding over legislation that he cannot himself vote for? It would seem that Scots MPs must also be barred from any ministerial posts, and indeed any authoritative positions in the Commons which affect English matters (such as committees).

    This is all clearly indefensible. There is going to have to be a complete rethink of the Constitutional arrangements. I really doubt that Mr Cameron either can or should do that on his tod.

  104. Steve
    Posted September 19, 2014 at 7:39 am | Permalink

    Well done John on your campaigning last night. I really think the remainder of your political career could be about restoring democracy to England, both with respect to the UK and the EU.

    Just so you are aware, everyone I have spoken to this morning thinks that there is no chance of Cameron delivering English votes on English issues. Labour are fundamentally undemocratic and when the Lib-Lab coalition take over in May, they will bin the proposal in order to preserve power in England.

    Every Tory English MP should be out on camera and writing in newspapers every day between now and May. It should be THE issue between now and then. Once England controls it’s own destiny and the dead hand of socialism is cast off our shoulder, the whole of the UK can start its long walk back to greatness.

    Cameron cannot be justified John and after his dismal performance as the sellout foreign secretary, neither can Hague. Garner allies, John and hold their feet to the democratic fire.

  105. Chris S
    Posted September 19, 2014 at 8:44 am | Permalink

    I have listened to David Cameron this morning.

    At one level he appears to have accepted that the West Lothian Question has to be resolved in a much more definitive way than the unacceptable and half-baked proposals made by the McKay commission. He has also said it has to be solved at the same time as further powers for Scotland.

    Back bench Conservative MPs will have to make absolutely sure that The PM follows through with what we understand this to mean.

    I.E. :

    Every single issue and decision devolved to Scotland is matched by an absolute ban on Scottish MPs being involved in any discussion of or vote whatsoever on that same issue in respect of England, Wales and NI.

    This also has to mean that, in the event of a Labour win at a General Election without a majority in England, English MPs from all parties in the House of Commons must come together to elect a first Minister and cabinet to enact legislation on all devolved matters for England.

    Cameron has an opportunity here to lay a large bear trap for Miliband.

    He should press ahead with his proposal to devolve income tax raising and more spending powers to Holyrood because that would mean the same powers for a more conservative England. If I were the PM I would go further and devolve other taxes such as CGT and corporation tax on the same basis.

    He could put the Conservatives in the advantageous position of going into the General Election offering more powers for Scotland than Labour and the LibDems as well as fully addressing the issue of English votes for English matters.

    That has to improve his prospects for 2015.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page