Wishing all Little Man in a Toque readers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. As of next year you will have to read my ramblings from a new location http://toque.co.uk/.

The net of lights over the Lewes Christmas tree is a disgrace as far as I am concerned. A piss poor effort by the council.

There is a majority in Scotland who favour changing the Status Quo (only 36% opt for the present settlement) but only 25% of Scots support independence. However, if support for Scottish independence is measured across Britain as a whole, then support rises to 28%.

O’Neill speculates that “Salmond’s preference for a four-option referendum is probably on the premise that independence choice would secure the propaganda value of the highest percentage of the four”. I’m not sure how these things work, but it would appear to me that the four option choice makes retention of the Status Quo the winning option.

It would be fascinating to see the results of an opinion poll conducted along the lines of an instant run-off ballot. I imagine that ’some additional powers’ or ‘many additional powers’ would win through in such a ballot.

Dear Mr Baker,

I am writing to you to ask whether there is anything you can do to put pressure on the Government to disclose the information denied to us by Jack Straw’s veto over a FOI request.

Today Jack Straw vetoed a Freedom of Information Request that would have disclosed the minutes of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English Regions (DSWR) of 1997.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/announcement101209a.htm

The remit of the DSWR Committee was as follows: “To consider policy and other issues arising from the Government’s policies for devolution to Scotland and Wales and the regions of England and to promote and oversee progress of the relevant legislation through Parliament and it subsequent implementation.”

Jack Straw has stated that that release of the minutes was not in the public interest, would be damaging to the doctrine of collective responsibility and detrimental to the effective operation of Cabinet government.

I beg to differ. The recent Holtham report into an alternative to the Barnett Formula, which revealed that Scotland received £4.5bn a year too much; the demand for a legislative Welsh Assembly; the recent Calman Commission proposals; the Scottish Government’s Your Scotland, Your Voice white paper, and; England’s complete rejection of regional government, makes these minutes a matter of great public interest. That the Government believes otherwise indicates to me that they believe that disclosure of these minutes would somehow compromise the devolution settlement or cast it – or the UK Government itself – into disrepute. As a denizen of England, and one who feels that democracy in England has been damaged by the devolution acts, I would like to know the exact nature of the horse-trading that occured between Derry Irvine and Donald Dewar, in order that I can determine whether anyone in Government considered English interests during these negotiations (this is particularly important because England’s place in the Union has only been debated by Cabinet members and not by the people of England – we have been denied our say).

Given that a great many people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are very dissatisfied with the asymmetric mess that is New Labour’s bodged attempt at devolution, it is conceivable, probable even, that they are witholding this information in order to prevent public knowledge of valid reservations raised by ministers at the time.

And as for the ‘doctrine of collective responsibility’, a look at the 1997 Cabinet should reveal exactly who this veto is designed to protect from public scrutiny and embarrassment: Jack Straw and Gordon Brown.

I have to ask, what are they hiding?

In ending I quote Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy:

“This is 12 years after the event. Devolution has already happened and is well established. There have been two General Elections, a change of Prime Minister and numerous Government reshuffles since this Cabinet meeting.”

“A cynic could easily think that the Government is vetoing this to save themselves of political embarrassment months away from an election. The Freedom of Information Act is meant to empower the public, not protect politicians. It is ironic that the day after the Pre Budget Report, this veto will leave many feeling they have been short-changed. “

Yours,

Out of interest the 1997 Cabinet was as follows:

TONY BLAIR
GORDON BROWN
JOHN PRESCOTT
MARGARET BECKETT
JACK STRAW
ROBIN COOK
DAVID BLUNKETT
CLARE SHORT
MO MOWLAM
CHRIS SMITH
FRANK DOBSON
ANN TAYLOR
HARRIET HARMAN
RON DAVIES
GAVIN STRANG
DONALD DEWAR
LORD IRVINE
JACK CUNNINGHAM
GEORGE ROBERTSON
NICK BROWN
SIR ROBIN BUTLER
LORD IVOR RICHARD
ALISTAIR DARLING
DAVID CLARK

Two considerations that Jack Straw believes are of particular relevance are:

• A number of participants, including current Government Ministers, have their respective views recorded in the minutes.
• Of the large number of Ministers who took part in at least one of the DSWR meetings, the majority remain active in Parliament. 16 are members of the House of Commons and a further 15 members of the House of Lords. Additionally, seven Ministers are still in Government.

Really, what are these corrupt bastards hiding from us?

Unlock Democracy’s press release is reproduced here.

I reproduce below my emails to him on this subject.

—– Original Message —–
From: “Gareth Young”
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 13:08
Subject: Re: St George’s Day

Dear Mr Cameron,

In your speech “I will never take Scotland for granted” (15th September 2006) you said “No one is prouder of being English than I am”. Yet you seem unable or unwilling to answer a question on what Conservative plans for St George’s Day are.

If there is a reason you have not replied to my previous emails (see below) would you please do me the courtesy of telling me what it is?

Thank you,

Gareth

—– Original Message —–
From: “Gareth Young”
Sent: Thu, May 1, 2008 11:16
Subject: St George’s Day

Dear Mr Cameron,

On the 18th April I emailed you to ask what plans the Conservatives had to mark St George’s Day.

I drew your attention to Annabel Goldie’s St Andrew’s Day address which supported calls for St Andrew’s Day to be a public holiday and banged on about what a great nation Scotland is.

When are the Conservatives going to do the same for England; where was the St George’s Day address?

Best,

Gareth

—– Original Message —–
Subject: St George’s Day
From: “Gareth Young”
Date: Fri, April 18, 2008 16:34

Dear Mr Cameron,

On St Andrew’s Day the Conservative leader in Scotland gave a St Andrew’s Day address.

What plans do the Conservative Party south of the border have to mark St George’s Day?

Gareth

And this

—– Original Message —–
From: “Gareth Young”
Sent: Tue, December 8, 2009 12:40
Subject:Re: IPPR suggestions on Englishness

Dear Mr Cameron,

I am resending this email because you have not responded to it after eight
months.

In brief, do you support calls for an English national anthem and a public
holiday on St George’s Day?

Best regards,

Gareth Young

—– Original Message —–
From: “Gareth Young”
Sent: Tue, May 26, 2009 10:17
Subject:IPPR suggestions on Englishness

Dear Mr Cameron,

On Monday the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) called for
greater recognition of English identity by public authorities and
suggested an English national anthem and a public holiday on St George’s
Day as methods of facilitating this. Do you support these suggestions as
a way of celebrating the “sense of pride in being English and a growing
wish to celebrate our English heritage” that IPPR highlight?

Gareth

—– End of original message —–

Nick Bourne the Conservative leader in Wales has been agitating for a St David’s Day holiday, so I wonder why David “No one is prouder of being English than I am” Cameron is not doing the same in England?

I cite this exchange from the “Jim Murphy webchat” on the No. 10 website as an example.

Ulysses: Why not have a devolved Parliament for the English?

Jim replies: That’s up to the people in the regions of England and we had a referendum on regional assemblies in the North East of England and they voted no. So that hasn’t gone any further.

You chinless, pasty, arrogant, anti-English twat.

Let us not forget that in Scotland the Scottish Constitutional Convention had eight years to develop their proposals for the Scottish Parliament. Then those proposals were put to referendum. In England there needs to be an equally wide process of deliberation and consultation: the English deserve no less.

Professor Robert Hazell

Yes, that’s Professor Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit, the Government’s chief wonk on matters constitutional, declaring that the English deserve no less than to be consulted on how we should be governed.

It’s England and Wales.

But of more interest is this passage from the Government’s own guide to the Sustainable Communities Act, 2007. My bold.

The Sustainable Communities Bill was introduced to Parliament as a Private Members Bill. It was sponsored in the House of Commons by Nick Hurd MP, Conservative, Ruislip-Northwood and in the House of Lords by Lord Marlesford. The Bill was supported through Parliament by the Government and all of the main English political parties. It is the result of a five year campaign led by a coalition of organisations under the banner Local Works. Local Works name 85 national supporting organisations reflecting a very wide constituency.

English political parties, eh?

Exactly how does one define a political party as English?