1. More politicians

A 'new tier' of paid politicians is not needed, nor has it been demonstrated that 'the will of the people' has any desire for elected regional government.

What we are witnessing is the implementation of Government policy which was part of a manifesto pledge. There is hardly any evidence that the North East public wants an Assembly. There were only 713 responses nationally to the Government White Paper, and only 30 individuals from the North East were in favour of elected regional government. Last year's Soundings Exercise by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on whether anyone wanted a referendum produced only 844 responses from the region out of a population of some 2,500,000,and that included those who were opposed to an Assembly.

2. No extra money

There will be no extra money from the Government or the European Union.

Although the North East needs a better funding deal, an Assembly will not be able to provide it. As Nick Raynsford stated, and Lord Rooker confirmed, there will be no more money from central Government.

Therefore the Assembly will have £350m to spend, which is £150m less than the budget of Sunderland Council, and works out at only 38p per day per person in the region. Scotland and Wales will continue to receive massive amounts of extra funding under the Barnett Formula, calculated in 1978.

The Government refuses to reform this, and Lord Barnett who had planned that the formula would only last for one year now describes it as 'unfair,' with there now being more poverty in parts of the North East and North West than in Scotland. If the North East got the same funding as Scotland we would get £1.3 billion every year which, would be of real benefit to the area. After 2006 the money the North East receives from the European Union in the form of Structural Funds will dry up.

The North East will be classed as a wealthy region in comparison to regions of the ten accession countries joining the EU on May 1st 2004. This was confirmed by President of the Parliament, Pat Cox.

3. No real powers

An elected Assembly will have no power over health, education and law and order and would therefore not be able to create a single extra nurse, doctor, teacher or police officer.

It would have no power over transport, and would therefore not have the ability to dual the A1 for which many people in the region have campaigned for years.

The Assembly will be able to produce 'strategies' and have 'initiatives' and 'have influence'. However, it will not have the power required to implement and deliver these strategies and this will result in the assembly simply becoming a talking shop producing nothing but hot air and rhetoric…and lots of nice glossy brochures all at our expense.

4. Higher council tax

An assembly will be able to precept council tax to pay for itself, resulting in higher council tax bills for local ratepayers.

The costs of the London Assembly have already exceeded the Government's original estimate by 400%.

The London model, the same one envisaged for the North East, has 25 members chosen by proportional representation - and also a mayor, Ken Livingstone. In three years, the mayor's office has grown from 33 to 73 staff; many involved in presentational and political roles. He has14 press officers and the cost of this operation alone is £781,000 while the annual salary bill is £608,000.

The authority is housed in a new building - the unfortunately shaped City Hall nicknamed "the glass testicle" which cost £43 million to build, next to Tower Bridge. It was designed to house 429 members of staff - there were just 287 when the authority was set up. Yet the number has now risen to 628, which has meant that the GLA has had to rent office space in a nearby complex.

This year's budget for the GLA is £56 million, a 12 per cent increase on the previous year. A further £41 million is spent on management and support services.

5. New building

An Assembly will require a new building, again at great public expense. Despite reassurances from local luminaries, the reality will be far different from the platitudes and rhetoric. Don't forget this is also OUR money.

In Scotland, opposite the Palace of Holyroodhouse, a new parliament building is being constructed at a cost of £400 million - 10 times the original estimate. There are few Scots who believe that the latter figure will be the final total. The bill for the inquiry set up to investigate the scandal is expected to cost more than £1.2 million.

The Welsh Assembly's biggest calamity has also been its planned new building. Lord Rogers, the architect, won a competition to erect a three-storey modernistic glass debating chamber on the edge of Cardiff Bay for £12 million by April this year. In 2001, when the costs had hit £27 million and were reported to be rising to £47 million, Lord Rogers was sacked and work was halted. The Assembly then held on to his drawings and advertised for a fixed-price builder. Taylor Woodrow Construction won the work and brought in Lord Rogers as a sub-contractor. The Assembly then announced the cost of the work was £41 million, to which has to be added IT equipment, furnishings, professional fees and VAT. A spokesman said the completion date was scheduled for August 2005.

6. Slower decision-making

Decision-making will be slowed down with the increased bureaucracy.

Again, these extra bureaucrats are paid for by us. Despite reassurances, there has not been one example of devolution that has resulted in streamlining or efficiency, and each devolved assembly has seen costs and staff numbers escalate rapidly.

Scotland, which used to be run by five ministers from Whitehall now has 20. There are nearly 1,000 more officials involved in the central administration than before devolution, costing an extra £20 million. There are also another 1,700 people working for various executive agencies. In Wales, when the Assembly was established in May 1999, it employed 2,206 civil servants, plus 41 in the Office of the Presiding Officer. A year ago, those figures had jumped to 3,192 and 200, and as mentioned earlier, staffing levels in London have expanded so much they have outgrown their headquarters.

7. No help to business

More politicians would also slow down decision-making and hinder economic progress. It is businesses and entrepreneurs that generate the wealth need to be able to not only maintain international competitiveness, but also be able to drive forward local initiatives.

An Assembly will have no powers to give economic aid to business. It will not be able to create rent or rate free zones. It will not be able to set aside any rules or regulations from Brussels or Westminster. It will however, be able to produce more 'think tanks' and economic strategies.

There is no proof at all that an Assembly could improve the region's economic performance. There has been no reassurance that the regional development agency (One North East) would be given the freedom to function without being politicised by the Assembly.

A recent survey of London businesses showed their concern at their development agency coming under political control. There have been no convincing arguments put forward as to how an elected Assembly would ensure speedy decision-making.

8. Another talking shop

A regional assembly would be just another talking-shop for 'upgraded' local politicians and 'downgraded' national politicians. People on the streets are already saying it will be the 'usual suspects' and result in 'jobs for the boys.'

There is not a shred of evidence that we will see the emergence of a new dynamic breed of business focussed politicians, or that the Assembly would be business driven.

It is likely that there will be a dominance and descent into party politics, with perhaps a few token individuals drawn from minority parties and groups elected under the system of proportional representation. A change in the national Government with the opposition party holding power in the Assembly would have potentially disastrous consequences for the North East.

Business in general is opposed to elected Assemblies to say the least, and far from convinced by any arguments or reassurances from the Government. The CBI, Chambers of Commerce, and the Institute of Directors all oppose them. The British Chambers of Commerce say, "Voting 'yes' would be a vote for higher taxes, regulation and unemployment."

9. Not real devolution

This is not real 'devolution' and an Assembly of 25 members will not bring democracy 'closer to the people.'

It will mean each assembly member will represent around 100,000 people. With the local government reorganisation and the removal of either the counties or districts, there will be the loss of many councillors who are closer to the communities they serve than an assembly member ever could be. There is also the problem that small rural areas will lose their voice, as they will be completely overlooked in a new central authority. This is hardly bringing democracy closer to the people.

The North East is being fobbed off: this is fake devolution and is most certainly not ' Home Rule' as some local newspapers would mistakenly have you believe. Powers (over things like fire services, housing, transport and planning, and possibly even over the police) will be acquired from local councils and taken up to regional level.

Real devolution would reduce government powers and hand them back to the historic counties and cities of England.

10. Local government confusion

Adding local government reorganisation to the referendum question as an 'afterthought' has created further problems, confusion and uncertainty.

Local Government reorganisation has further complicated the arguments with the 'Second Question' in the referendum for the two tier county / district authorities asking what type of unitary authority the voters want, should a Yes vote be achieved; and there is concern from residents about services and costs.

Local government reorganisations have never saved money, whatever the politicians say. Independent research shows that it leads to massive one-off costs. The council tax in Scotland rose by 17% the year after unitary authorities were created. Are residents in the North East willing to pay this? There are also very serious concerns from council employees because of job uncertainty with the local government reorganisation.

Will there be redundancies? Will there be relocations of some employees due to the closure of council offices, and will employees have to relocate their families and face personal upheaval and hardship? Will residents have to travel long distances to visit council offices?

Unison, the main union for public sector employees is in favour of elected regional government, and has actively funded the Yes Campaign with members' subscriptions yet has produced no data or studies to reassure those very members. One has to ask the question as to whether they are acting in their members' interests or in the interests of Unison's hierarchy.