Time to stand up for Britain

THE significance of George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander coming out so forcefully against the possibility of currency union with an independent Scotland is a political and economic game-changer which should not be under-estimated.

The very fact that Westminster’s three Treasury spokesmen have put their differences to one side and said that there is no chance of a totally self-ruling Scotland retaining the pound totally changes the backdrop to this September’s referendum vote.

Until now it has been dominated by Edinburgh’s First Minister Alex Salmond, whose plans have been left unchallenged for too long. Because the Better Together campaign has struggled to find its voice – and because David Cameron recognises that the Tory party brand is still toxic north of the border – the SNP have been allowed to dominate the agenda and put their vision for Scotland before the long-term interests of the rest of the United Kingdom.

This is why the Nationalists have been gaining ground, according to the latest opinion polls, on opponents of devolution and why Ed Balls has now joined the Chancellor and Treasury chief secretary in warning about the risks of currency union.

After watching the financial crisis in the Eurozone nearly bring about the collapse of the euro, they know that monetary union can only work with sustained political will – and that the enmity between England and Scotland is so deep that the future of the pound would be compromised at a time when growth is still proving elusive in many parts of the United Kingdom.

This new spirit of co-operation also forces Mr Salmond to reveal whether he is prepared to take Scotland into the euro, the only alternative open to him, or whether he has misjudged the mood of his people.

However it is also important that the independence debate, one that is likely to become even more vitriolic in the coming weeks, does not become a battle of wills between London and Edinburgh.

Nestled between these two historic capital cities is a region that is looking for the right political and economic framework so it can rebuild its creaking infrastructure and create a new generation of jobs. It is called Yorkshire.

Tell us the truth

Total transparency over spending

NOW that the Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour have spoken with one voice on Scottish independence, perhaps the main parties can now make a joint request to the Office of Budget Responsibility to explain the true state of the public finances?

If they do so, it might enable some light to be shed on the claims and counter-claims clouding the build-up to the 2015 election. It is already beginning – Yorkshire council leaders now claim a sleight of hand by the Treasury is set to leave them £200m worse off. They claim that “new” money to provide joined-up care services is already being spent by the NHS.

Yet John Redwood, the former Cabinet minister, offers a different perspective. The senior Tory wants to know why the Environment Agency is being portrayed as a victim of “cuts” when it spent £1.27bn last year compared to £1.16bn the previous year, and ended 2012-13 with £95.8m cash in the bank. He asks: “We are told the ‘cuts’ stopped it doing a good job on flooding. How big an increase in spending would it take to qualify as no cut?”

Both examples explain why David Cameron was on the defensive yesterday when he was challenged in a succession of interviews about his response to the flooding crisis – and whether Downing Street’s various rescue packages involve new money or not.

After saying, clearly, on Tuesday that money will be no object, the PM had to backtrack 24 hours later when Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said certain conditions would have to be met. And that is the problem – whether it be care funding in Yorkshire or flood relief for the Thames Valley. There are now so many funding streams, and so many politicians (of all parties) who are prepared to be economical with the truth, that it is now almost impossible to tell when spending is being increased – or not. And that is not helpful to anyone, whether it be people planning services or voters wanting to hold their elected representatives to account.

Fuel for thought

Exploding the myths on fracking

IF some opponents of fracking are to be believed, the pollution risks associated with the extraction of shale would have been compounded by this month’s floods which are reaching Biblical levels. Yet this was disputed by energy expert John Blaymires who said the process will be taking place so far underground that a high water table would not be an aggravating factor.

This exchange, part of the first public meeting organised by the Yorkshire Post as part of its agenda-setting Big Debate platform, shows the value of decision-makers, academics and others being prepared to meet with ordinary people to discuss key policies. And it is why this newspaper will be organising similar events in the future – a more constructive dialogue between this region’s residents and leaders, one that helps to break down the myths, can only lead to more informed decisions and judgements being made on the defining issues.