Letter sent to Robert Goodwill MP on 25-Nov-2018:

Dear Mr Goodwill

I wrote to you a few weeks ago concerning Brexit, and I'm disappointed not to have received any response. But it's possible that my e-mail did not reach you, so I am writing again.

Over the past 2½ years since the EU Membership Referendum, we've experience an omnishambles negotiation, with the cabinet squabbling like children among themselves. We've discovered that what we were promised in the referendum campaign was utter fabrication, fantasy and downright lies. And we've now reached the point of having a deal on the table which has united even arch-Brexiteers like Dominic Raab and Arron Banks, with arch-Remainers like Tony Blair and Vince Cable - that the "Prime Minister's Deal" is worse than remaining in the European Union.

I feel very very angry that we, the United Kingdom, were sold a pack of utter shite, and that now we know the truth it would be undemocratic to have a second referendum to confirm... not whether it's what the people voted for because it's clearly not; but whether it is acceptable to them, or whether they would prefer to remain within the European Union. Clearly, it would be anti-democratic, and against everything the UK is supposed to stand for, *NOT* to have a second referendum.

Having given my view, I'd like to know yours; and how you intend to proceed:

• Do you believe Theresa May's deal gives the UK a situation as good as, or better than the ones we currently enjoy as Members of the European Union?
• Do you beleive the deal on the table is what #Leave voters were promised during the EU Membership referendum?
• Do you support a referendum on whether or not the EU should leave the European Union on the terms that have been negotiated?

Finally, I want to remind you of what the hardest-line Brexiteers themselves said about a 2nd referendum before the first referendum had taken place:

• • Jacob Rees-Mogg: "You could have two referendums, and as it happens it could be more sense to have the second referendum after the negotiation"
• • David Davies: "In the same Act of Parliament that establishes the Mandate referendum, we also commit the country to a decision referendum, to be held when the EU negotiation is concluded."

Yours sincerely

- Andi Ye

Why did British vote for Brexit?

I absolutely loved the impassioned speech given by Spanish MEP Estaban González.  He shares my vision of Europe, and shares my derision of Brexit.

I often see the question asked by Europeans about why British people voted to leave the European Union.  I've tried to answer it like this: 

They want to leave because they've been told through their whole lives that the European Union is nothing but a wasteful and corrupt bureaucracy, burdening Britain with ridiculous legislation and with no discernable merit. 

They want to leave because they've been fed lies, part truths and a negative version of every story by domestic politicians who are so keen to pass off their own mistakes and incompetence to an organisation which never fights its corner, never answers back. 

They want to leave because the right-wing (and also sometimes the left-wing) media in Britain has for all their lifetimes sold newspapers by filling them with stories about the EU that are perverted to give a negative spin... about straight bananas, bent cucumbers, stories to whip up nationalistic resentment about banning the British sausage, banning milk deliveries and banning British chocolate; stories to say that the EU is interfering in people's lives by banning incandescent lightbulbs and banning powerful vacuum cleaners; wasting huge amounts of money on vast wine lakes and butter mountains.

They want to leave because they're too lazy to research the truth for themselves, and because the lies panders to their xenophobic prejudices, their little-England small-mindedness, their selfishness conceit and deep-rooted belief that they belong to a favoured nation to whom the world should kneel and offer gifts and sacrifices.

They want to leave because they have been sold lies by a handful of well-publicised, well funded toffs who want to further their vendettas and narrow interests in removing the UK from the EU: that it will release hundreds of millions of pounds per week to spend on an under-resourced health service, that immigrants are taking their jobs and come to Britain to sponge benefits, that the EU will give Britain all the benefits with none of the responsibilities because the EU needs the UK far more than the UK needs the EU, that all of Hungary is bound for the UK, with most of Turkey soon to follow.

They want to leave Europe because they have never been given a positive vision of Europe, of cooperation, solidarity and brotherhood.  They have never been told about all the things Estaban González told in his speech, they have never been given a dream to help fulfill.

They want to leave because even the leaders who were campaigning for a Remain vote told them they disliked and were frustrated by the EU, but just it's kind of best to remain anyway to avoid the country imploding.

And lastly, they voted to leave because the vote was gerrymandered: voting open to British citizens, Commonwealth immigrants and Irish immigrants but not to immigrants from the rest of the EU (the biggest stakeholders of all).  No voting for 16 and 17 year-olds who voted in teh Scottish Independence referendum, because they would disproportionately vote to Remain.  And no requirement for a super-majority to compensate for the universal phenomena that many will vote to protest against things unconnected with the issue at hand (government policies of austerity, anger with bankers, fear of invasion by Islamic terrorists, etc).

Exam boards set exams around Ramadan: further Islamisation of the UK

I was shocked to read that UK exam boards are trying to accommodate their exam timetable around the Islam period of 'Ramadan', because many Muslim parents starve their children through daylight hours in this period, and they can't concentrate at school.  I think it's a scandal that the UK doesn't treat the enforcement of Ramadan on children as child-abuse, let alone trying to accommodate it!  I wrote this letter to my MP.

Dear Mr Goodwill

ISLAMISATION OF THE UK

Media reports this week have reported that exam boards aim to avoid a clash for the next 3 years between exam season and the height of Ramadan, when Muslim pupils would be fasting.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/jan/06/popular-exams-in-uk-to-be-rescheduled-to-avoid-ramadan

Before presenting my case against this, I want to acknowledge that Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) have issued a limited clarification that for the timetable for 2016, it was drafted over a year ago and will not be changing.

http://www.jcq.org.uk/media-centre/news-releases/jcq-statement---exam-timetables

The essence of the exam board consideration is that children are being deprived of food to meet a religious timetable, and they will do their best to compensate so far as exams are concerned in the scheduling of their examinations.

This is unacceptable.  If religion (in this case Islam) and secular values (in this case children's education) come into conflict, it MUST be the religion which makes the accommodation. 

The subject of children's sustenance has been studied in depth and been found to be closely linked to educational performance.  Government initiatives have consistently acknowledged the findings of these studies by applying nutritional standards and providing free school meals where they consider appropriate to make sure every child has a mid-day meal.

The appropriate response of exam boards, of schools and of government is not to pander to the demands of an implementation of the Islamic religion by mitigating the effect of religious deprivation, but to strongly overrule it: the education of children in the UK MUST NOT be compromised by religious consideration: it is Ramadan which must be held at fault if applied to school children: schools should be obliged to do their best to ensure children are well-nourished, and if there is evidence of deprivation to accommodate religious fanaticism, it should be reported to and investigated by Social Services.  The government should ensure the provision of public education to guide parents and the regulatory framework to ensure enforcement.

If I may say, Mr Goodwill, in previous correspondence you have allowed your Christian tradition to excuse child abuse and other iniquities: you allow it to cloud your vision. You have defended the right of parents to mutilate their sons' penises because of misplaced respect for religious sensibilities, and you defended the Polish Law & Justice party's homophobic stance by telling me they simply hold traditional Christian values.  It's time to wake-up and smell the coffee: religion is encroaching upon the common secular values of the majority in this country.  The influence of Islam, in particular, is being allowed to impose itself above the interests of humanity itself.  I urge you to recognise this and act accordingly.

Yours sincerely

- Andi Ye

Calling a spade "a spade"

Since the 'Charlie Hebdo' murders in Paris, we've often heard the name "Daesh" being added to the names for the terrorist group also known as ISIS, ISIL, IS and "Islamic State".  Which name to use?

Well, I'm going to continue using "Islamic State", because it clearly attributes the atrocities to a group wanting the world to be ruled by their brand of Islamic law.

We often hear Muslims objecting to an association between their religion and Islamic State fanatics.  Twitter is awash with hash-tag #NotInMyName.  And good - Muslims who are appalled by attacks by adherents to their religion should definitely and clearly disassociate themselves with the terrorist fanatics.  But is it fair for us to make an association between Islam and groups like Islamic State, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram; as well as the many real, repressive and repulsive Islamic states from as Saudi Arabia to Uganda?

Well, the name is "Islamic State" - not "Secular State".  There is no part of secularism that can be used to excuse or justify terrorism.  Islamic militants get their justification from the koran - the same book from which every other Muslim takes their religious instruction.  The same words which are ignored, excused or (generously speaking) "symbolically interpreted" by many Muslims are implemented in blood by the fanatics.  Is it an unfortunate accident that a perfectly reasonable religion (which just happens to call for death to infidels and all manner of other nastiness) has been hijacked by murderous extremists?  Or could it happen to any group?

Let's test that thought by thinking what would happen if a branch of so-called 'militant atheists' decided to engage in "unholy" war.  What would be their justification?  Atheism has no "instruction manual" of incitement comparable to scripture.  So if some speaker seen to represent militant atheists incited violence, would they succeed?

I think we'd have to conclude that if they did succeed, it would be on the basis of a prejudice which is genuinely, entirely and completely separate from "atheism" itself.  Atheism has no written works which are called "truth" and which may not be challenged.  There is no un-accountable god of unquestionable and unimpeachable authority.  And the main message of atheism is "Think for yourself, challenge a priori beliefs and your own preconceptions."

This fundamentally differs from Islam (and of religions generally) where there are a set of prescribed, unprovable truths which devotion requires them to accept without challenge.  To be a Muslim, to be a Christian, to be a follower of Judaism requires adherence to a canon of literature and deference to an authority which must be accepted on trust, "in faith".  So in a direct proportion to the degree of willingness of a follower to accept the religion's authority, adherents are allowing themselves to set aside any innate rational instinct they may possess, and be softened-up for brain-washing.

So has Islam been annexed by a tiny minority who do not share the values of 'real' Muslims?  Well it's certainly not a tiny minority.

• A 2007 poll poll of British Muslims conducted by the "Policy Exchange" think-tank (key findings here) found that 28% of British Muslims "would prefer to live in Britain under sharia law rather than British law".  
• The same poll found that 36% of 16 to 24-year-olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death, compared with 19% of over-55s.
• A 2015 ComRes poll of British Muslims commissioned by BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme found that 27% British Muslims have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
• The same poll found that 11% of British Muslims feel sympathetic towards people who want to fight against western interests.

It's difficult to down-play the significance of these statistics.  (Although the BBC did it's best, by spinning the Radio 4 survey result in an article entitled "Most British Muslims 'oppose Muhammad cartoons reprisals'".)  We have to acknowledge that Islam is the problem.  If 0.01% of British Muslims had these beliefs it might be called a tiny minority.  But these beliefs are mainstream.

On the night of the November 2015 atrocities in Paris, I engaged with Muslims and Muslim supporters on Twitter, who had complained that they were being unfairly held as scapegoats for the extremists.  You can feel the emotion from Brooklyn madness, who used her 145 characters to tweet:

Brooklyn madness ‏@artdecxo Nov 14

NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST
NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST
NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST
NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST
NOT ALL MUSLIMS A

But when I replied to her as to 17 others, I got no response.

@artdecxo This BBC poll found 27% of British Muslims support motivation of Hebdo attack. What do you think about it? http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-radio-4-today-muslim-poll/ …

It's as if there is a consensus of understanding on what this means, but an unwillingness to address it.  This 'ostrich mentality' is shared by our politicians, and quality media; who seem to believe that calling a spade a spade is simply unacceptable, even after it has been independently found to be a JCB digger!

A rational response to extremism and causes of extremism is one that addresses the evidence.  And that's why I'm going to start by calling the terrorists in Paris "Islamic State", not "Daesh".  Let's look around the world and see what happens when Islam rules states. Forced marriage. Beheading. Stoning.  Lashing.  Female genital mutilation.  Misogyny.  Apostate killing. Gay killing. Honour killing. Female subjugation.

Muslims, Christians and other religions should be free to believe in their fairy stories of gods and angels, miracles and flying horses, creation myths and resurrections.  But when the religion is used in large part to inflict scripture-based beliefs in its name on unwilling participants, Members of the Club need to reform it or leave it.

Hash-tag #IslamIsTheProblem.  Hash-tag #ReligionIsTheProblem.  And that is why I will call a spade a spade, and why I will call the group responsible for the Paris atrocities "Islamic State".

Sunday 08-Nov-2016: Avoiding Television Today

On an average Sunday, I watch a bit of news and politics, and listen to it on the radio while making dinner; interspersed with usual computer work and study.  Today, and generally on Remembrance Sundays, I keep away from news and national media; and I never buy poppies.  And that's not because of a lack of respect, but as a mark of respect.  Here's why.

First off, whether their missions are justified or not, the armed forces are commissioned by the country's elected representatives, to do bidding on our behalf.  If they are injured or harmed in the way of that task; if they are subsequently disadvantaged on leaving the armed services; it is he country that should fund them through taxation, not charities through donations.  If the Royal British Legion were essentially an organisation that pressed for the government support of veterans, it would have my support (qualified on their evidenced argument on an issue-by-issue basis).

But actually the activities of the Royal British Legion (especially Poppy day) are more of an instrument of state oppression than a campaign for better treatment.  Politicians and media have a game they play to challenge each others' commitment to "the bravery of our armed forces".  Anybody in political office who isn't wearing a poppy in the prescribed month (!) will be instantly lambasted by the poppy mafia.

The less responsibility politicians are willing to take for their foreign policy decisions, the more they and their aids/supporters stifle public discussion by condemning dissenters for lacking patriotism and support for the armed forces.  It's a complete perversion: it is often the dissenters who are on the side of the armed forces!

Video by "In a Nutshell": The European Refugee Crisis and Syria Explained

I follow the YouTube Channel "In a Nutshell" (formerly known as Kurzgesagt) and support them in a very small way on Patreon.  They are a group of Munich-based designers and their channel generally has science-based videos.  This is a departure from their usual them, but clearly they feel strongly to make their case on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvOnXh3NN9w

I welcome their contribution to the debate.  It was timely, courageous and useful. And I'm especially grateful to them for addressing the question of immigrants with Muslim religion, which is always avoided by mainstream politicians and media. Good job.  Having opened the debate, I want to continue the discussion.
The video made a case for putting the issue of Islam into perspective, and that was useful (most extreme case: a 25% rise of Islam to 5% within the EU, birth rates dropping, etc.)

However, any rise (and also the current level) is a legitimate concern if we're talking about people who hate and want to destroy exactly the things the majority value most highly. And unfortunately it looks like a substantial proportion do.
Here are some results from a ComRes poll (very reputable research organisation) of British Muslims commissioned by the BBC in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre (see comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-radio-4-today-muslim-poll):

• 27% have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attack 
• 24% disagree that violent acts against those who publish pictures of  Mohammed can never be justified 
• 11% feel sympathetic to people who want to fight against Western
  interests
• 45% disagree that Muslim clerics preaching that violence against the
  west can be justified are out of touch with mainstream public opinion. 

These are truly scary numbers. We often hear the mantra, "This is not Islam". But in any relevant sense, Islam is what people who define themselves as Islamic believe.

These are truly scary numbers. We often hear the mantra, "This is not Islam". But in any relevant sense, Islam is what people who define themselves as Islamic believe. 

Is a country morally obliged to admit any individuals (refugees or otherwise) who support actions which are unlawful in the potential settlement country? I'm talking about beheading, stoning, apostate killing, gay killing, forced female genital mutilation, forced marriage, etc. Do our "Western values" dictate that we must admit people who want to destroy "Western values" ? 

At this point, I want to make sure it's understood: I am not arguing that every adherent to Islam seeks to destroy many of the most deeply held values of the Western countries in which they live, but it is clear that a scary number do. I'm not arguing that the EU should not admit Mulsim refugees, but I am saying that process and right to differentiate on the basis of individuals' belief is a legitimate and important discussion. 

To close my contribution, I'm interested to hear comments on the video below, a copy of which I picked-up from Richard Dawkins' Twitter feed recently. There are various copies on YouTube and because the opinions  being endorsed by the audience are so grotesque I wondered if the video could be faked. But this appears to be the original and I can't see why this YouTube channel would be motivated to fake it:

youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU 

 And here is the Wikipedia page about the organisation "Islam.net".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_Net 

(Of course, I don't think the beliefs expressed belong to a majority of Muslims, but they seem to belong to the large number of Muslims in a conference in the small country of Norway.)

How many times can Labour crucify itself?

It's interesting to consider in just how many different ways the Labour Party have managed to shoot themselves in the foot, in their leadership election.

• First, of course, was the crazy voting system, already publicly lamented by many in Labour, where "people who support Labour values" can register to vote in a leadership election for the princely sum of £3.  Stories abound of Tory supporters registering to vote for veteran left-wing MP Jeremy Corbyn in order to make Labour unelectable.
• Then Labour establishment grandees roll out to scorn Corbyn voters (Blair, Brown, Miliband (D), Blunkett, Mandleson, Campbell, et al).  It's difficult to think of anything more likely to focus support for Corbyn than to be criticised by a person his supporters hate.
• The 'other' party candidates are putting on an appalling show.  Aside from condemning Corbyn's policies, in a superlative demonstration of un-democracy they have variously called for each other to pull-out of the contest!  (And let's not forget, a key reason Corbyn is so popular is because of the bland, non-distinctive, "Westminster Village" policies of the other candidates which have excited almost nobody.)

By this time (late August 2015), with support among registered Labour Leadership eligible voters polling Corbyn at well over 50%, the next Labour Leader is as good as decided.

And yet the Labour party continues to find new ways to damage itself with a process they call 'weeding out the cheats'.

You can see that they'd want to make some token effort to filter known Members of the Tory party from the running.  But they're vowing to weed out votes from both the left and the right who are judged not to hold Labour values.  To that end, they have volunteers trawling voters' social media to find indications of criticising Labour, being a member of the Green party, etc.

And the problem are:

• It won't affect the outcome, and even if it does, there's bound to be a damaging legal challenge.
• This seems to be a process which would weed out Jeremy Corbyn himself.   Corbyn has been a Labour MP for around 30 years, and apparently voted against Labour 500+ times.  He has regularly spoken out against their official policies.  
• They're apparently weeding out genuine Corbyn supporters.  Many people who have joined the Greens and other left wing parties have done so because successive Labour party leaders have taken the party from the place it once occupied: a place still occupied by themsleves and Corbyn.  These are people who genuinely believe in the policies being espoused by a leadership contender, and many would probably be active party supporters if he were elected.  That seems a very strong basis for a legal challenge if Corbyn were not eventually elected!
• They're threatening to weed out voters who pay for Affiliate Membership with their Union dues.  What chance that such a person is ever going to pay Labour party Membership with their Union dues ever again?
• They probably won't always ban the Corbyn supporters anyway.  These people are not being banned on the basis of ballots forms.  There will surely be life-long Labour voters as well as one-time Labours who have criticised labour policies and even voted Tory.  They may have registered to vote in the Leadership Election exactly because they don't want the Labour party become unelectable. 

It will be interesting to see how many more wounds they can self-inflict before this story is over.

Gutter Journalism is not Just Tabloids

There are plenty of things that turn my stomach.  But one of the most gratuitous is journalistic coverage of disasters.  It is their pleasure to find the most harrowing scenes and shove them in your face.  They pursue like a pack of slavering dingoes the most distressed family members of victims and relish the awards and prestige they might gain from stuffing them in your face.  It is from behind frowning faces that news readers have the greatest delight to report on developing stories and speculation of human misery.

Of course, not all journalists; but specifically including journalists who make themselves out to be in the highest reputable echelons of journalism, and to be even more specific I cannot think of any BBC TV journalist to whom that doesn't appear to apply: it seems to be a mandatory attribute of appointment to their job.

Open Letter to Tim Farron (LibDem leader) about his unvaluable contribution to the Calais Immigration debacle

I've not been impressed so far with Tim Farron's leadership of the LibDems.  I'm not impressed with the semi-homophobic expression of his "Christian values" in his voting record, and I'm significantly piqued that when he has the chance to make a positive policy contribution to national debate on the Calais illegal immigration problem, he just joined Labour's Harriot Harwoman in belly-aching about the PM's use of the word "swarm" (which seemed a very apt description to everybody I've spoken with).  So here's a copy of my letter of indignation to him.

Dear Tim

I have long supported the Liberal Democrats, and continued to support Lib Dems in the last election.  But I am becoming increasingly alienated from your party, and about ready to jump.  I was particularly unimpressed with your recent response to David Cameron's comments.  This quote from the Lib Dem website:

"By blaming ‘migrant swarms’ for the current crisis in Calais David Cameron risks dehumanising some of the world’s most desperate people. We are talking about human beings here, not insects."

Stepping back: I do not have a problem with EU migration. I have had the pleasure of working in different European countries in the past, and I am delighted to welcome others from the EU. I've found them to be friendly, work hard, integrate into British society, and add to the cultural wealth of the country.

But I'm really fed-up with the situation in Calais, and don't understand why it's happening. It's costing us a great deal of money and inconvenience (in policing, detention, economic opportunities represented by the thousands of delayed and stranded lorries, and making it very difficult for British tourists to go on holiday and for other visitors to visit the UK).

The illegal immigrants in Calais are exactly as David Cameron said: they are "a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean, seeking a better life, wanting to come to Britain".

Instead of taking the opportunity to become indignant about the use of the word "swarm" (which everybody I've spoken to seems to think is a highly appropriate word), you should be contributing positive ideas of how to solve the problem.

My own point of view is this: if migrants claim asylum, then as far as I understand they are bound to do so at the first safe country they reached. France is not a country from which they need to seek refuge.  So I don't see what our obligations are under the Geneva Convention. Either they arrive without having having registered as refugees (in which case we take them back to the country they started from) or they have already registered as a refugee (in which case we take them back to France (or wherever).  If they come back again we take them back to their home country whether they've applied for refugee status or not. What is the complication I'm missing?

I don't believe I'm un-libertarian about this: there are plenty of genuine refugees and they mostly land in Greece or Italy.  We need to help fund the process of establishing whether they're genuine refugees and help provide refuge for a fair share of those who are.   But our policy just seems crazy.  Apparently we care when they die in rickety boats at sea, but we don't care when they die in much greater numbers in their home countries.  Why the inconsistency?

I think what really upsets me is that these illegal immigrants tend to be the people who do not share British values, who do not integrate into British society but segregate themselves in religion-based ghettos, and who think Britain needs to change to accommodate them.

I think you'll find I'm in the majority of the dwindling number of Liberal Democrats: I hate that the Conservative party seems to wave around UKIP's flag about uncontrollable EU immigration, when *most* immigration is still of the kind we *can* stop - the non-EU immigration.  And it's not that I'm anti non-EU immigration either; but please correct me if I'm wrong: the immigrants we seem to take in in greatest numbers seem to be exactly those with the greatest divergence from Western values and the ones who for whom we are paying disproportionately through the welfare state.

It really does seem up-side down.

Why  are you making unhelpful comments instead of saying "David Cameron is damned right it's a problem, and [these] are the policies he should be adopting to fix the problem!".  If you want to re-build in opposition, then for pity's sake have some policies and promote them.  Don't just carp about trivial vocabulary used by other party leaders.

Yours sincerely

The Scary Rise of the SNP

In a meteoric change of electoral scenery, all but 3 seats in Scotland are now represented by the Scottish National Party, who have wasted no time in demanding new separatist powers and threatening to demand for a further independence referendum. Will the new Westminster Government meet their demands, or ignore them completely as an irrelevance to the electoral arithmetic of the new parliament?  I'm not sure, but I'm concerned.  So I wrote to my newly re-elected MP about it.

Dear Mr Goodwill

Please allow me to congratulate you on re-election.  I think you know from previous correspondence that there are many matters on which we cannot agree, but on the crucial matter of the economy, I think the Coalition of the last parliamentary term did a respectable job.

I am writing to you now with a major concern about Scottish devolution in the new parliamentary term.

Provisional autopsy results from pre-election opinion polls suggest that many of the electorate decided on their way to the polling booth how they would cast their vote, and that a leading concern was about what deal the Labour party might make with the SNP.  So I think I'm probably right in thinking that my concern over what concessions the coming Conservative government will make to the stratospherically strengthened SNP will make in this parliament and even in the coming weeks.

I have always considered my country to be the United Kingdom; and that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries' only in a  historical sense.  So the SNP's rise, the independence referendum and feelings made manifest in the referendum campaign, and the close result of the referendum came as a bombshell to me.  Scotland and Scottish people are dear to me, and I was much disturbed to discover the vehement passion in Scotland against rUK as represented by their demon "Westminster".

But I have to say that we're either one country, or we're not.  If we are one, then we must get equal treatment.  I rather regret the promises made by the three party leaders in the closing days of the referendum campaign, and the idea that they may extract further benefits and autonomy from rUK is unacceptable to me... to the extent that if it happened, I would campaign for Scottish Independence myself, and help to dig a channel freeing them from rUK so they could drift off into the deep Atlantic!

I agree with Cameron's stated position that in exchange for "devo-max" we must have a re-alignment of rights and benefits for rUK.  Certainly this must mean no Scottish voting in Westminster on issues of devolved power: so far as that could weaken Scots' position and be abused by the Westminster government, it is the price of their own separatist demands.  I would go further: I think it's time to review the Barnett formula and stop favourable financial settlements to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  Let's have equality in all things and spread resources equally across the UK.  No more powers and preferential treatment to Scotland!  And no "Northern Assembly in England" (we have quite enough government already!!).

What is your view, my elected representative?  Can you assure me that there will be no bowing to the vocal demands of the SNP, whatever their threats; no further devolution than what's already been (inadvisedly) promised, and a realignment of democratic and fiscal equality?

Kind regards