Unlike David Cameron, the Campaign for an English Parliament support England all year long, and we are proud to fly the flag of England all year round, not just ‘for the duration of the World Cup‘.

If David Cameron had any passion for England he would fly the Cross of St George everyday of the year and he would put England on an equal footing with the other World Cup qualifying nations.

Team National Holiday National Government National Anthem (Adoption date) Algeria Revolution Day , 1st Nov Yes Kassaman (2006) Argentina Independence Day, 25th May Yes Himno Nacional Argentino (1813) Australia Australia Day, 26th Jan Yes Advance Australia Fair (1984) Brazil Independence Day, 7th Sept Yes Hino Nacional Brasileiro (1922) Cameroon Republic Day, 20th May Yes O Cameroun, Berceau de nos Ancêtres (1957) Chile Independence Day, 18th Sept Yes Himno Nacional de Chile (1828) Côte d’Ivoire Independence Day, 7th Aug Yes L’Abidjanaise (1960) Denmark Constitution Day, 5th Jun Yes Der er et yndigt land (1835) England No National Holiday No No official national anthem France Bastille Day, 14th July Yes La Marseillaise (1795) Germany Unity Day, 3rd Oct Yes Das Deutschlandlied (1922) Ghana Independence Day, 6th Mar Yes God Bless Our Homeland Ghana (1957) Greece Independence Day, 5th Mar Yes Ýmnos eis tīn Eleutherían (1865) Honduras Independence Day, 15th Sep Yes Himno Nacional de Honduras (1915) Italy Republic Day, 2nd June Yes Il Canto degli Italiani (1946) Japan Birthday of Emperor Akihito, 23rd Dec Yes Kimi ga Yo (1999) Korea DPR Founding Day, 9th Sep Yes Aegukka (1947) Korea Republic Liberation Day, 15th Aug Yes Aegukga (1948) Mexico Independence Day, 16th Sep Yes Himno Nacional Mexicano (1854) Netherlands Queen’s Day, 30th Apr Yes Het Wilhelmus (1932) New Zealand Waitangi Day, 6th Feb Yes God Defend New Zealand (1940) Nigeria Independence Day, 6th Feb Yes Arise O Compatriots, Nigeria’s Call Obey (1978) Paraguay Independence Day, 14-15th May Yes Paraguayos, República o Muerte (1933) Portugal Portugal Day, 10th Jun Yes A Portuguesa (1910) Serbia National Day, 15th Feb Yes Bože pravde (2004) Slovakia Constitution Day, 1st Sep Yes Nad Tatrou sa blýska (1993) Slovenia Statehood Day, 25th Jun Yes Zdravljica (1989) South Africa Freedom Day, 27th Apr Yes National anthem of South Africa (1957) Spain National Day, 12th Oct Yes La Marcha Real (1770) Switzerland Confederation Day, 1st Aug Yes Schweizerpsalm (1961) Uruguay Independence Day, 25th Aug Yes Himno Nacional (1938) USA Independence Day, 4th Jul Yes The Star-Spangled Banner (1931)

At the 2014 World Cup will England – as defending champions – still be the only team representing a nation that is a constitutional non-entity? We at the Campaign for an English Parliament sincerely hope not. But we are where we are, and for now, on the eve of World Cup 2010, we have no hesitation in saying:

Come on England, from all at the CEP

twttr.anywhere(function (T) { T(".cTweetBox-891368381").tweetBox({ height: 65, width: 515, label: "Tweet this", defaultContent: "If an English team, why not an English government, holiday and anthem? http://bit.ly/cOR9jo #Eng #WorldCup" }); });

Share

Following reports of people being told by police and jobsworth council officials, we have sought clarification from the British Department for English Culture, English Media and English Sport on the flag flying rules.  The response is as follows:

Dear Mr Parr

Thank you for your e-mail of 26 May, requesting clarification on flag flying issues.

You are correct to say that any national flag can be flown without the need to apply for advertisement consent from the local planning authority.  A flag, including any national one, incorporating wording or a logo would require the consent.

Other flags exempt, under the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations, from the need to apply are the European Union Flag, the Commonwealth Flag, the United Nations Flag, official county flags and saints flags flown in the county with which that saint is associated.

As long as any necessary planning permission has been obtained for the flagpole itself, it does not matter which type of pole the flags fly from.

I hope you find this information helpful, but please contact me again if you require any further clarification.

Regards,

Chris Green
Public Engagement & Recognition Unit
Department for Culture, Media & Sport

If anyone in a position of authority tells you to take down your flag, please get in touch with details (make sure you get their name).

According to an anonymous contributor to the letters page of the Shropshire Star, the Wrexham branch of Debenhams is selling Anyone but England t-shirts.

Slogan on World Cup T-shirt is not funny

As a regular customer of the Wrexham branch of Debenhams, I happened to be in there as we approach the World Cup and was disgusted to see on display, a T0shirt with the slogan “Anyone but England”.

I was so disappointed with our Welsh neighbours that I took a shirt to a sales assistant and asked if she would explain it to me. She laughed and said: “Anyone but England good isn’t it?”

I told her I was not impressed and found it highly offensive so she brought over the sales manager. I then put my point to him and although he agreed with me, he didn;t have the authority to remove the shirt from sale but he did give me a telephone number for their head office.

I telephoned the customer sales head office department and spoke to a lady who was very apologetic. She said that my concerns would be brought up at the next board meeting.

I asked if someone would let me know the result as I thought the shirt should be removed from sale. The lady told me that this was now an internal complaint and that it was policy that no one would be ringing me to let me know the outcome.

To me, that probably means the end of the matter.

Are we not a United Kingdom?

If England were out and Wales in, I would gladly be supporting them, as I would Scotland or Northern Ireland.

To my mind, this is racism and would we be allowed to do this to another nation?

This incites the younger generation and causes ill-feeling between the two countries. Should Debenhams be encouraging this?

Name and address supplied

Well, the answer to the first question is no, we are not a united kingdom. Far from it: we are a fragmented and increasingly divergent kingdom. To answer the second and third questions: yes it is racism and no, Debenhams should not be inciting racial hatred.

One day we may get an opportunity to return the favour with some Anyone but Wales t-shirts but I suspect it won’t be for a football tournament.

Commonwealth Games England have announced the results of their online poll to choose a national anthem for the English team in this year’s Commonwealth Games.

After a month of voting, Jerusalem was overwhelmingly chosen by members of the public as England’s national anthem.  It beat the British national anthem, God Save the Queen, and the British royal anthem, Land of Hope and Glory with over half of the vote:

Jerusalem: 52.5%
Land of Hope and Glory: 32.5%
God Save The Queen: 12%

English Commonwealth gold medalist, Dean Macey, says “Jerusalem’s awesome for getting you pumped before competing. Couple this with the huge pride that comes in wearing the red lion and you’ve got the perfect anthem for England’s Commonwealth Games’.

The question has got to be asked: we have a flag, we have a national anthem, we have history, a national identity and culture so why are we denied self-government?

The following complaint has been sent to Walkers Crisps …

Dear Sir/Madam,

When your advert featuring different countries was first shown on TV, England got a brief mention – noticeably briefer than other countries mentioned.

I now find that England has now been removed altogether from your advert. Why is this?

I was offended by your decision to give England the briefest of mentions in your advert, I am even more offended now that you have cut my country out completely.

There are over 60m people living in the UK and 50m of them live in England. You might want to remember that when you set out to offend our country.

Stuart Parr
National Council Member
Campaign for an English Parliament

The following complaint has been sent to Sky Sports regarding an advert for their Monday Night Football programme which mentions Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but not England.

Under the Race Relations Act 1976 it is unlawful to victimise or harass someone because of their race or nationality and English is recognised, for this purpose, as a race and/or nationality.  Swansea University describes racial harassment as:

… any behaviour, deliberate or otherwise pertaining to race, colour, nationality – including citizenship, or ethnic or national origins, which is directed at an individual or group and which is found to be offensive or objectionable to recipients and which creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.

Sky’s behaviour is clearly deliberate, offensive and objectionable and therefore could be considered to be unlawful racial harassment.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have just seen the advert for your Monday Night Football programme for the second time – I had been waiting to see it again because I thought I must have been mistaken when I saw it for the first time.

The advert finishes by reciting country names – Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. No mention of England, the only country in the British Isles with an international football title to its name and with a population 5 times that of the four countries you mention combined.

As a customer I am appalled and offended at what I can only assume is a deliberate snub to England, my home and country.

As a National Council Member of the Campaign for an English Parliament, I am asking you formally to explain why you have excluded England and whether you believe that in doing so you are fulfilling your obligations not to cause harassment or victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976.

Stuart Parr
Campaign for an English Parliament

ENGLISH VOTES ON ENGLISH LAWS OR AN ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION?

The Campaign for an English Parliament demands urgent clarification from the new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government on the nature of their plans to address the governance of England.

The threat of an anti-Conservative “Progressive Alliance” which called upon 58 Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs from Scotland; 3 SDLP MPs from Northern Ireland, and; 32 Labour, Lib Dem and Plaid Cymru MPs from Wales to provide a rainbow coalition majority that trumped the Conservative majority in England, threw the future of the Union into serious question.

It was not just the voting privileges of the non-English MPs that was of concern (the so-called West Lothian Question) it was the fact that these non-English MPs constitute a sizable proportion of the Commons’ electoral college that chooses the prime minister and government of the United Kingdom, and hence – because England has no parliament and government of its own – of England.  There was a fleeting possibility that these MPs elected outside England’s borders would impose upon England a government not of England’s choosing, that did not have a majority of English MPs, but could nevertheless formulate policy for England and bring it before the House.  A government such as this, legislating on matters such as health and education that are devolved to the other nations of the UK, could not possibly claim legitimacy as the government of England.

To address the West Lothian Question the Conservative Party Manifesto promises that they “will introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries“.  This policy, referred to as ‘English Votes on English Laws’ until 2009 when it was revised to allow non-English MPs to vote on the Second and decisive Third Reading of England-only Bills, attempts to addresses the undemocratic voting rights of non-English MPs within Parliament but it does not address the question of who governs England and by what right.  The people of England deserve an English Government that governs in the interests of England, immediately accountable to an English Parliament, and ultimately accountable to the people of England alone.

The Conservative’s coalition partners make no mention of ‘English Votes on English Laws’ in their manifesto.  Instead the Liberal Democrats pledge to “Address the status of England within a federal Britain, through the Constitutional Convention set up to draft a written constitution for the UK as a whole”.

The Campaign for an English Parliament favours* the Liberal Democrat policy because of its more holistic federal approach, which asks the people for resolution of the English Question, as opposed to the Conservative’s technical top-down Parliamentary mitigation of the much narrower West Lothian Question.

We call upon the new coalition Government to outline their joint policy on the future of England and we ask that a Minister for England is appointed with special remit to oversee that policy and to represent England’s interests in Cabinet, as the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will do for their people in Cabinet discussions over reform of the Barnett Formula, Scotland’s Calman Commission proposals, and the plans for a referendum on a Welsh Parliament with primary legislative powers.   England requires a voice in Cabinet.

The National Council welcomes the initiative reported on the BBC website for Scotland (sic) that there will also be a commission to discuss the possibility of setting up an Assembly for England and to look at the West Lothian question.  However, the CEP will continue to campaign for a separately elected English Parliament or assembly with primary legislating powers in devolved matters.
* We qualify our preference for a constitutional convention on the proviso that the that the convention is preceded by a “National Conversation for England” so that the people of England can participate in a full and rounded discussion on the governance of England and England’s place within the Union, and surveyed on the options before us, before a phalanx of politicians, union leaders, churchmen, self-appointed or government appointed civic leaders all begin pontificating on what’s best for “the people”.

The National Council of the Campaign for an English Parliament, 12th May, 2010

Contact: Scilla Cullen

The dust is still settling on last week’s general election and we still don’t know what the future holds for England.

None of the LibLabCon parties has an English manifesto, an English wing of their party or any policy that promises to make England an equal partner in the UK.

Gordon Brown remains in charge of the British government and de-facto English First Minister despite never having contested and won an election as leader of the Labour Party and potential Prime Minister.  More importantly, England elected the Conservatives with a large majority and we are once again ruled by a Labour government that is propped up by MPs elected in Scotland and Wales.

David Cameron is desperately trying to do a deal with Nick Clegg who is talking to both the Tories and Labour about a coalition.  The Tories managed to keep their sole Scottish MP but utterly failed to increase their numbers in Scotland as they had expected (rather optimistically) to do.  This lack of mandate in Scotland has led the SNP to threaten to break their self-imposed ban on voting on English legislation.

The Lib Dems have no majority in England, Scotland or Wales but will almost certainly be in a position of power in the next few days.

None of the parties have a mandate to govern the UK alone.  The Tories have no mandate in Scotland and Labour and the Lib Dems have no mandate in England.  Only a Conservative-Labour coalition can claim a mandate across the UK and hell will freeze over before that happens.

The only way to sort this mess out in a democratic way is to create a devolved English Parliament and hold fresh elections for both a federal British and devolved English Parliament.

The software running the CEP website has been upgraded (a refresh of the site itself will be along soon).

For the geeks amongst you, we’re now running Wordpress 3 Beta 1.

If you encounter any problems with any part of the site, please let us know.

Tomorrow is the big day, where we all get a chance to vote for the next British imperial government.

None of the major parties are prepared to listen to the 7 out of 10 people who want an English Parliament and give us equality with the rest of the UK so it us up to us to make sure that we each vote for the candidate that we think is going to treat England fairly.

Remember, we are electing an MP to represent us for 5 years tomorrow, not a Prime Minister.  Vote for the candidate that will best represent you as a free Englishman (or woman) and forget about the “bigger picture” – it’ll take care of itself!

The Campaign for an English Parliament is non party political. However we do challenge and criticise the manifestos of those parties likely to form or influence our next government.

Each of them issue a manifesto for Wales and one for Scotland and one for Britain. They all exhibit a most curious logic and that is that Britain is composed of the countries of England, Scotland and Wales but when Scotland and Wales are removed it still leaves ‘Britain’. Is this the new arithmetic? They variously claim that we should have a fair deal or a fair future or that we are invited to join in the government of Britain. Make up your own minds as to how true those promises are for us in England.

Our critiques should be seen as open letters to prospective parliamentary candidates. They have been assembled in haste and so if there are any spelling or grammatical mistakes please accept our apologies.

The critiques can be read on the English Parliament Online website.

On Wednesday Power2010 projected a large image of the flag of St George onto the Houses of Parliament. The projection didn’t last long because the police turned up and unplugged the projector, implying that they were breaking the law, taking the names and addresses of those involved, citing anti-terrorism law, section 44.

This is England. A land without democratic voice, in which the police prevent people from projecting the national flag on a national icon in order to combat “terrorism”.

The Power2010 stunt was to publicise the release of today’s St George’s Day press release which reveals that 68% agree with the statement: “England should have its own parliament with similar powers to those of the Scottish Parliament”.

The ICM poll also revealed that an even greater proportion of people in England – 70% – would support “English Votes on English Laws”, the policy that Power2010 is promoting as part of its five point pledge.

The ICM poll shows a large majority (70%) of voters say that laws for England should be made by the House of Commons but only MPs representing English constituencies should be able to vote on them. English Votes on English Laws (EVoEL) is one of the five changes to fix politics backed by over 100,000 votes which now forms the POWER Pledge being put to all candidates standing in the General Election.

The poll of 1033 people across England also shows that less than a quarter (23%) of people in England feels either “more English than British” or “English not British”. Almost half – or 46% – of those questioned in the poll say they feel “equally British and English”. 24% of those questioned said they feel either “British not English” or “more British than English”, according to the poll. POWER2010 says this means that the fairness of decision-making matters more to people than Englishness.

On the matter of identity the ICM data reveals that 77% of people surveyed felt English to some degree, so I’m not quite sure why Power2010 believe that ‘the fairness of decision making matters more to people than Englishness’. Devolution to Scotland and Wales was sold on the message that devolution acknowledged the dual nature of national identity, recognising both Scottish identity and British identity, or Welsh identity and British identity. The English too have a dual national identity, yet England is denied the opportunity to vote for its own national parliament, despite years of polling that clearly demonstrate public support.

The Power2010 press release continues:

Director of POWER2010, Pam Giddy, said today:

“England was not mentioned once in the leaders’ debate and has not featured at all during this campaign so far. Yet we now know people want a fairer way of making decisions that affect England.

“It suddenly feels like we are on the cusp of seismic changes to the way our politics is done. But so long as the unfair system we have at the moment persists it can only play into the hands of undemocratic voices like the BNP. With all the talk of reform in the air politicians should not duck the English question, but use the opportunity of St George’s day to say where they stand.

It was a shameful disgrace that the word ‘England’ was not uttered once during the first leaders’ debate, a debate that dealt almost entirely with matters affecting only England. What is it about England that Brown, Cameron and Clegg are so afraid of? Like Pam Giddy says, if they don’t speak for, to and of England, then others will step into the political vacuum.

Power2010 are encouraging people to ask their candidates for their views on ‘the English Question’, and they have provided on online tool to help make the task easier.

Please use it to ask your parliamentary candidates whether or not they support an English parliament.

Happy St George’s Day all.

Whoever you are, wherever you’re from, whatever your faith, or none, we are all England. This is the message of the ‘I am England’ campaign launched today on St George’s Day with less than two months to go to the World Cup.

The ‘I am England’ campaign celebrates the extraordinary diversity of today’s support for England. The message is both positive and simple. There’s none of the stop-against-anti mantra that most campaigns find themselves saddled with. Instead ‘I am England’ is a statement that ours is a team, and a country, for all. No qualifications are required to become a fan, no exclusions demanded to determine who can and cannot be a supporter. And of course if our next-door neighbour chooses instead to back Nigeria, Honduras , Spain or Australia that’s fine too, a soft patriot all-inclusive support for England has the potential to co-exist with such a understanding unlike an English jingoism that can easily descend into a racialised version of nationalism. A key contest in what we mean and understand by ‘England.’ As for the Scots, Welsh and Irish nobody is expecting them to join in, nor would we expect to, they too have their own teams to support, but some of the petty-minded nastiness of those of our neighbours obsessed with the ‘anyone but England’ message does their cause of civic nationalism no favours at all.

The campaign by Philosophy Football and backed by Kick it Out, football’s inclusion and equality campaign is launched today with an ‘I am England’ YouTube film.

The England fans featured in the film include those who have been to every World Cup since 1982, fans who have been to every away qualifier of the 2009-2010 campaign, home England fans who go to Wembley, fans who follow England from down the pub or from the sofa. Fans who play, fans who would be risking a heart attack if they tried. Fans who will be watching the World Cup in South Africa, fans who will be watching back home. Fans who can remember 1966, fans too young to remember 2006. Fans of clubs, fans who only watch England. All wearing the ‘I am England’ T-shirt. And wearing their shirts these fans all appear on a ‘We are England’ poster also produced by the campaign, and carried in the St George’s Day edition of the Eastern Eye newspaper.

It is the ‘I am England’ shirt which is the centrepiece of the campaign. Designer of the T-shirt , Hugh Tisdale outlines his ambition, “We have our first 100 fans wearing them, now our aim is to reach out to all who share this passion for an England everybody can support. There’s no need for any campaign slogan, its the variety of those who will wear the shirt that says it all.’

The ‘I am England’ T-shirt , with free ‘We are England’ poster, is available from www.philosophyfootball.com

The Campaign for an English Parliament welcomes the findings of the ICM poll commissioned by Power 2010 which confirms that 7 out of 10 people support for an English Parliament.

This result backs up last year’s poll for the Jury Team and the last two independent polls commissioned by the Campaign for an English Parliament, all of which came out with the same figure. The people of England want an English Parliament, it’s a mystery why the British parties go to such great lengths to deny us the same right to self-determination they gave the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish.

Hundreds of thousands of people – perhaps even millions – will celebrate St Georges Day today and over the weekend with local councils, companies, societies and individuals organising fun days and parties. What better way to finish off the St Georges Day celebrations than an announcement from the leaders of the big three parties that they are listening to voters in England and will hold a referendum on creating an English Parliament like they did in Scotland and Wales? They’re all promising change, this is change we want.

To reinforce their message, Power 2010 have beamed an English flag with the slogan “Home Rule” onto the side of Westminster Palace. The Brits won’t be amused!

On St George’s Day please spare 99p for your country and
download ‘England (With One Voice)’ by Tim Hunter/Northern Soundscapes

(Gained honourable mention in the 2009 Unisong Songwriting Competition in the SOCIAL / POLITICAL category)

St Georges Day 2010 is almost upon us (it’s Friday, in case you didn’t know) and we’re interested in what you’re planning to do to mark the day.

It was St Georges Day that first led me to discover the Campaign for an English Parliament all those years ago.  I was looking for St Georges Day events in and around Telford but there weren’t any.  The CEP explained why, quite bluntly – the Brits don’t like England.  It sparked my interest and lead to me joining the CEP, becoming an avowed English nationalist, joining the CEP and eventually being voted onto the National Council.

A lot’s changed in that time and one of those things is that Telford & Wrekin Council are finally, after years of nagging, marking St Georges Day.  They’re doing it on Saturday rather than St Georges Day but at least it means more people can go.  That’s where I’ll be on Saturday with my family.

I have the day booked off work on Friday as I do every year (my unofficial St Georges Day public holiday) and I’m taking my wife to my sister’s pub for a St Georges Day lunch (they’re doing traditional English food and beers all week for St Georges Day).  On Sunday we’re planning to visit Blists Hill who are doing special St Georges Day events all weekend, starting Friday.

But enough about me! What are you doing for St Georges Day? If you haven’t got anything planned, check out the St George Holiday website and if you know of any events that they don’t know about, let them know.

David Wildgoose and someone from Socialist Unity appeared on The Big Question with Nicky Campbell this morning to argue that England does deserve its own parliament.

They both put up some very good arguments despite being shouted down repeatedly by the British nationalists who were opposed to fairness for England who were entirely uncontrollable.  The debate was far too short to make any meaningful impression on the audience or viewers but it was encouraging to see an arab man (Kuwaiti I think judging by the flag on his lapel badge) proving that it isn’t just white people or English nationalists that are unhappy with the status quo and support an English Parliament.

You can’t watch the programme again because it’s made by Mentorn Scotland, not the BBC, but You can watch the programme again here and you can discuss it on the BBC religion and ethics messageboard.

Scotland and England at breaking point?

Anger that Scots get a better deal than the English is putting the union under strain

Berwick-upon-Tweed’s formidable town walls were built more than 450 years ago during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I to keep out marauding Scots. These days, however, locals joke that it is the English scrambling to get over the border to take advantage of state-funded perks available to their northern neighbours.

“We have to pay more for treatments and services we get,” complains Ruth McNeely, a former teacher and mother-of-three who lives in the town.

“The situation with tuition fees is appalling. I had three children go through university a number of years ago, and two are still paying off their student loans. It is a dreadful way for young people to start off their working lives.”

Had she and her children lived in Scotland, their higher education would have been free. They would also have reaped the benefit of a settlement that gives Scots 20% more per head in Treasury funding.

McNeely is not alone in thinking that the English get a raw deal. An exclusive YouGov opinion poll for The Sunday Times on English attitudes to Scotland today shows that 64% believe Scotland gets “more than its fair share” of public funding. At the onset of devolution 10 years ago, only 21% expressed a similar view.

After a decade of indifference, the English appear increasingly resentful about being treated as second-class citizens, missing out on benefits such as free higher education and eye and dental checks, free or cut-price prescriptions and free personal care for the elderly as the Scottish government’s budget has doubled to £35 billion.

Critics say that if Scotland had the greatest deprivation and lowest earnings in the UK, there could be a strong case for the country receiving a proportionately greater share of public spending. However, studies have shown that, despite pockets of acute deprivation in areas such as Easterhouse in Glasgow and Greendykes in Edinburgh, it is more affluent than most English regions.

The latest report, by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, suggests that Scotland has Britain’s lowest level of relative poverty, expressed as the proportion of households with less than 60% of median UK income.

Since Labour came to power in 1997, the proportion of Scots in relative poverty has fallen from 17.8% to 14.6%. In the same period, the level in London, which has consistently suffered the highest rate of relative poverty, dropped by 1.8%, while in the West Midlands it rose by 1.3% to 20.7%. Similarly, Scotland has more people in work and also higher levels of income than Wales, Northern Ireland and most English regions.

It is little wonder that David Cameron is warning that Scotland will have to accept its share of the pain if he is elected to lead a Conservative government. Cameron knows that he will be forced to make deep cuts in public spending and, to appease the English voters on whom his passage to Downing Street depends, he has promised that the funding formula which has benefited Scotland so much is “coming to the end of its life”. The trick is to do so without playing into the hands of the SNP, whose general election campaign has the slogan “more nats means less cuts”.

According to Ernst & Young’s ITEM club, an economic forecasting group, Scotland is likely to face 14,000 job cuts in the public sector, with the total headcount falling to about 600,000. The losses are a result of a predicted 15% budget cut under the next UK government, which translates into a £5 billion reduction over three years.

But even these cuts are likely to do little to assuage concerns in England, where the state accounts for one in five jobs compared with one in four north of the border.

A House of Lords inquiry last year suggested that Scottish public spending should be reduced by £5 billion every year so that England gets a fairer deal. It followed evidence from the Centre for Economic and Business Research that Londoners subsidised the rest of Britain by up to £30 billion annually.

This perceived injustice appears to be hardening attitudes among English voters towards Scotland. In today’s poll almost a third that said it was unfair for UK taxpayers to bail out Scottish banks, such as Royal Bank of Scotland, which many blame for the depth of Britain’s recession. But the deepening malaise is about more than money. The YouGov poll found increasing resentment at Scottish MPs meddling in English affairs, with two-thirds of those surveyed saying that they should be banned from voting on matters that affect only England.

As he walks a tightrope, anxious not to alienate the Scots nor ignore the English, Cameron has produced a fudge, promising to restrict the ability of Scottish MPs to take part in certain stages of the consideration of English bills. However, the Tory leader would not strip them of power to take part in final votes.

Professor John Charmley, a British diplomatic relations expert and head of history at the University of East Anglia, says concerns over the so-called West Lothian question — in which Scottish MPs can vote on English laws but not vice versa — are likely to intensify.

“What Labour did in 1997 [by agreeing to establish a Scottish parliament] avoided the West Lothian question by simply not answering it, but that hasn’t gone away. I think it’s opening up a dangerous constitutional fissure,” he says.

OF the Barnett formula, under which Scotland is awarded a higher share of public spending, Charmley says: “Scotland has done much better than England. You can either do what the formula did, which is to bribe the Scottish and the Welsh to stay in the union, or you can give them their own governments. But to bribe them and give them their own governments is, I would suggest, a little overgenerous. The Scottish and the Welsh have powers over their own expenditure. Why do they need this for-mula to give them more money?”

Kelvin MacKenzie, the former Sun editor who provoked outrage with his claim that Scots lack entrepreneurial skills and enjoy spending rather than making money, believes that the union has outlived its usefulness. “Why should a poor person in England effectively have to stump up for a poor person in Scotland? The English make all the money. Because we’re generous spirited, the unfairness of it all was overridden by the fact there was plenty of money sploshing around. There’s not plenty of money sploshing around now.”

While the recession appears to have cooled nationalistic sentiment in Scotland, there are signs that the union faces increasing strain from the English backlash. Stuart Parr, of the Campaign for an English Parliament, believes the free services available in Scotland, which he claims are subsidised by the English, cannot continue.

“From the figures the Treasury produces, England contributes something like £20 billion a year more to this kind of spending than they get back. In effect we pay for the free cancer treatment, the free personal care, the free university tuition, but we can’t actually have it and we are told we can’t afford it.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, support for England to continue to be governed by Westminster has fallen from 62% in 1999 to 49% now, while support for an English parliament has risen from 18% to 29% in the same period. The YouGov poll also reflects weakening attachment to the union. A little more than half of English voters say that they would not care if Scotland became independent.

These findings may cheer Alex Salmond, who will insist on more funding for Scotland and greater powers for Holyrood as the price of supporting a minority government, in a move that may stoke up English concerns even further.

However, the first minister would do well to note that while the English aren’t losing sleep over the prospect of losing their bedfellows, three-quarters are resistant to Salmond’s claim that Scotland would get 95% of all North Sea oil revenues that flow into the UK Treasury — a claim Cameron described in a Sunday Times interview last weekend as “flimsy”. It could be a messy divorce.

Additional reporting: Scott Hussey and Julia Belgutay

Cameron avoids funding question

One of the little-noticed details in the three UK party manifestos published last week was what they did and did not say about government spending in Scotland. All three indicated that they backed the Calman Commission’s principle that some of the money spent by the Scottish parliament should come out of taxes raised in Scotland and over which Holyrood has some control.

But Labour were silent on how much money Westminster should still give Holyrood after this reform is introduced. That is not surprising. Any suggestion that Scotland might get less money to spend overall could prove toxic in the party’s efforts to defend its fiefdoms north of the border.

More surprising was that the Tory manifesto was silent on this subject too — even though David Cameron has previously hinted that he wants to review the current Barnett formula. His apparent reticence seems all the more curious in the light of today’s poll, given 64% of people in England think it unfair that public spending per head in Scotland is 20% higher than in England. Promising to look at Scotland’s funding would seem to be a popular policy to promote in the English marginals he needs to secure an overall majority The Tory leader has not exhibited the same reticence about the West Lothian question, arguing that purely English legislation should have to secure the consent of a majority of English MPs. Here he seems to have demonstrated a popular touch. As many as 67% of people in England think that only English MPs should be allowed to vote on purely English laws.

Why might he have promised to address one English grievance but not the other? The answer may lie in public opinion in Scotland. Most in Scotland do not accept that they get more than their fair share of public spending but on West Lothian they largely agree with the English.

So in promising to tackle West Lothian, Mr Cameron does not risk offending most Scots. But if he grasped the funding thistle he might. Perhaps he is indeed aware that a Conservative government dependent on English votes would need to be careful about the devolution battles it fights?

John Curtice is professor of politics at Strathclyde University

The CEP’s Deputy Chairman, David Wildgoose, is on Nicky Campbell’s The Big Question on BBC1 tomorrow at 11:15am.

The question David will be debating is “Do the English deserve its own Parliament” which is pretty condescending and hopefully someone makes that point!

The show is being broadcast from the King Edward IV school near Birmingham which was one of the locations of the English Speaking Union’s school MACE debates where they debated for and against a CEP-sponsored motion for an English Parliament.

Well, ITV were true to their word in last night’s “leaders debate” with Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg and before any question on a devolved matter was asked, the presenter explained that it was devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

England wasn’t mentioned once in the whole 90 minutes of the programme.  Not by the presenter who said that matters were devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland rather than saying it only applied to England and certainly not by the three leaders who were deceitful throughout, referring to “this country”, “the country”, “our country” and “Britain” when they were talking about England.

We would have liked to have seen the presenter – or even one of the other “leaders” – point out that Gordon Brown’s constituency is in Scotland and that he’s accountable to nobody on devolved matters in England but that was never going to happen in reality was it?  We would also like to have seen a question on West Lothian Question as it was one of the Power 2010 pledges and the biggest constitutional complaint in the Hansard Society survey but sadly not.

Nick Clegg confirmed his party’s commitment to the balkanisation of England, even going so far as to suggest regional immigration and regional work permits (never mentioning England of course, but talking about the end of our country) as an answer to the problem of unfettered immigration.

ITV did what they said they would do.  It wasn’t really enough but it’s better than expected.  From the messages received to the CEP Twitter account, the consensus is that all three of the “leaders” disappointed with their failure to mention England and that ITV didn’t go far enough to highlight the devolution aspect of the questions on English matters.