The CEP News Blog points out this morning:
There’s not been much ‘added value’ to this blog recently because now that the press seem to be finally doing their job it’s just been a case of directing you to the relevant articles.
Excellent. But sometimes I wonder just what is going on, when I read things like this from a Mr Paterson (apparently English - he carefully refers in the course of his e-mail to "we English") in reply to newspaper articles highlighting the disparities of "Union":
"Devolution was offered to English regions We didnt want a vote on it!So we cant moan about it.I think there is a white lie being spun here about Scotland being subbed by English taxes.If Scotland voted for full independence today ,You will find that London will come up with some excuse not to respect the Scots vote ,We English must ask ourselves WHY?,Does Scotland actually Sub England ! Stop winging and get off your backsides and shout louder,Good luck to Scotland ,She has to shout louder to be heard,Its our own Gvt we should be angry with not the scots."
Read the full Times article here.
This is bizarre nonsense from somebody who is apparently English and living under the effects of health apartheid, the West Lothian Question, etc. England was never offered a vote on "English regions" (an invention of a previous Tory administration, bolstered up by New Labour into expensive talking shops). The only area asked was the North East, which voted 78% "NO".
As for Scotland being subbed by English taxes, there is no doubt about it. How can Mr Paterson think it is any different? After all, North Sea Oil is a UK resource - and quite a lot of it lies in English waters. The Continental Shelf Act of the late 1960s tweaked our maritime border in Scotland's favour, but this has never been ratified by giving a vote on it to the electorate in England, and must be corrected if Scotland leaves the Union.
In the meantime, UK resources should be shared. It is not a case of Scotland being "Britain" when it suits it, or simply "Scotland" when it suits it.
I have read several very anti-English e-mails from apparently "English" folk over the years that we have been debating devolution issues. Is it simply that some English people have very low self esteem and thoroughly enjoy taking a one-eyed anti-English view of the situation? Or is that some contributors are simply not being honest about who or what they are, and aim to muddy the waters with some carefully thought out apparently English anti-English nonsense (if you get my drift)?
After all, if an "English" person is saying that the English are totally in the wrong over devolution issues, they probably have a point, the uninitiated reader might think. After all, they've no axe to grind.
Over to you, Sherlock...