Many people have contacted me about the referendum in Scotland and whether it should become an independent country. I share the frustration and anger that many people express and have long believed that another vote was inevitable. Even the architects of the 'devolution project' in the Labour Party acknowledged in 1997 that Scottish nationalists would never be satisfied until separation occurred. If there is a No vote I anticipate there will be calls for another referendum - probably in 2017 if the UK holds a referendum on membership of the European Union.
I hope that the Scottish people decide to vote No and I believe the issue should then have a line drawn underneath it. Statements have been made by the three political party leaders that further powers would be devolved in the event of a No vote. That is not a policy I agree with.
The statement by David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg in the last few days are statements by party leaders in a campaign—not a statement of Government policy. They can be considered as proposals like those made in a general election campaign - of what they intend to do afterwards.
I share the view of many of my constituents that the taxpayers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be further subsidising free prescriptions, tuition fees and higher welfare payments in Scotland - while the same are denied to English taxpayers. No-one has ever asked the opinion of the House of Commons on this issue and if the Government brings forward legislation to achieve this I will vote against it.
Many people in England feel resentful that an announcement on proposals post referendum were made in a Scottish newspaper, with no warning. There are several specific issues contained in 'the vow' signed by the three party leaders that I particularly disagree with.
1 The Barnett formula will continue
The Barnett formula was devised in the 1970s by the then Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury Joel Barnett. It was meant to be a temporary measure to solve rows in the Callaghan government over how much money should be allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It introduced a system by which Scotland gets £1,623 – 19 per cent – more expenditure per head than England with the justification that public services cost more to administer in peripheral areas. However, the same never applied to English counties such as Cornwall, Northumbria or Cumbria. In 2008 David Cameron said the formula 'cannot last forever' and even Lord Barnett has recently said that it is 'grossly unfair' and should be scrapped. It is unjustifiable to my constituents - and all the people in England - that more taxes are raised in England and spent per head of population in Scotland.
2 The UK exists to ensure opportunity and security for all by sharing our resources equitably
This assertion is risible when considering that the Barnett formula already disproportionately favours Scotland. Added to the sense of injustice are the decisions by the Scottish Parliament to introduce free prescriptions, free university tuition fees and free social care for the elderly. The English taxpayer is already contributing towards paying for a range of services introduced by the Scottish Parliament that are denied to themselves in the rest of the UK.
3 NHS expenditure in Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament
The administration of the NHS in Scotland is already controlled by ministers in the Scottish Parliament. The new proposal is for the Scottish Parliament to be allowed to vary the income tax rate by at least 15p in the pound and allow the extra money to be spent on healthcare. The Scottish Parliament has full decision making powers over the NHS in Scotland with no influence from MPs in the UK Parliament. However, MPs elected in Scotland vote, comment and influence all decisions over the NHS in England. Scottish politicians make decisions on English domestic matters while English MPs have no influence on Scottish matters.
4 The Scottish Parliament to become a permanent institution
The Scottish Parliament is the result of legislation enacted by Westminster. Parliaments cannot bind successive Parliaments but the proposals of the three party leaders seek to achieve this. In 1997, when Leader of the Opposition, William Hague told BBC Radio Scotland that a future Conservative Government could hold a further referendum to reverse devolution but that view has now changed without any debate. The only way to ensure permanency would be to introduce a written constitution in the UK and that process would take years to complete as the Scottish Parliament would only be a small part of any constitution.
5 Extensive new powers will be delivered to the Scottish Parliament on September 19th
There is no formal agreement amongst any of the political parties to give new powers to the Scottish Parliament. I have written to the Chairman of the Conservative Party's 1922 Committee to advise him of my opposition to such proposals and ask what representations he has made to the Prime Minister. I have also advised the Government's Whips Office that I will oppose any legislative proposals that seek to achieve this. There has been no discussion in Parliament on this issue and it appears that agreement has been secured in private meetings involving former Prime Minister Gordon Brown - of all people.
It is for these reasons that I oppose the so-called Devo Max option. Some MPs have started calling for an English Parliament or a Grand Committee that would consider 'England only' matters, but I am not in favour of that proposal. I don't want an English Parliament because I do not believe in the need for one - or the need for a Welsh Assembly, a Scottish Parliament or even a London Assembly. As a politician who believes in localism I think powers should be devolved to the local authority level - wherever practicable. The whole devolution agenda has been a disaster for the United Kingdom. It has been a case of the emperor's new clothes - an offer made by politicians as an economic panacea for some of the more financially challenging parts of the UK and which has not delivered financially.