by Bondwoman
Not my phrase, but one borrowed from Brian Taylor, political editor of the BBC in Scotland and author of books such as The Road to the Scottish Parliament. He was giving a lecture on Scotland and the EU at Edinburgh Law School, and in that context identified three weak points of devolution: the soft underbelly. Relations with the European Union; England; and money.
Â
I’ll deal with each briefly in turn.
Clearly any ‘federal’ or ‘semi-federal’ state will have difficulty working out relations with or within the EU. Can a federal state work properly when it is nested within another federal-type (or multi-level) system such as the EU? In the UK, the issue is dealt with by making EU affairs reserved matters under the Scotland Act, but at the same time allowing full association of the Executive with policy-making, as after all the Scottish Parliament must faithfully implement any legislation emanating from the EU within its sphere of competences, in areas such as fisheries or health, for example. Even in a non-asymmetric system, however, such as Germany, relations can be difficult. Many argue that Germany is weighed down in its dealings with the EU by the complexities of finessing the various Länder interests, and is ultimately a less effective operator. In any Member State’s negotiations with other Member States in the EU Council of Ministers, there is only room for one national position. What if Scotland and the rest of the UK are in conflict – e.g. over fisheries? What if Bavaria and North Rhine Westfalia have very different interests? Who decides?
Â
The English problem stems partly from the asymmetry of the current arrangements and partly from the geographical peculiarities of the UK. Historically, federal systems in which one large unit is federated with two or three other ones, the largest of which is one tenth the size, in population terms, of the large one, have not proved very stable. Moreover, if ‘devolution’ is something to do not only with issues of nationhood, but also with issues of localism (which it very probably is, especially in Wales and Northern Ireland) then an ‘English’ parliament is clearly not the answer to diversity and the demand for greater local democratic control within England. It will be a parliament representing 50 million people. The parties at the Westminster level are not proving very keen to grapple with this undoubted weak point in the system. For the Tories, as a unionist party, even ‘English votes for English matters’ within Westminster is a problematic posture to adopt. Labour seem palpably unwilling to open up the can of worms that this issue poses. And frankly, the Liberal Democrats at Westminster level, albeit much more open to flexible federal solutions, seem to be waning in importance.
Â
And finally, money. The money issue has nothing as such to do with devolution, because it stems from the Barnett formula originally devised long before 1997, an allocation of funding across the UK that seems in its current guise to be manifestly unfair to England and Wales and manifestly skewed towards Scotland. The problem is that such a centralist approach clearly does not fit with the devolution of considerable powers to sub-national authorities. There was little to agree with in Johnny Grimond’s bitter rant about Scotland in last week’s Economist (not worth linking to because it is behind a subscription wall, but you can find presentation of the argument and criticism here, here and here), except in relation to the argument that the power to spend should indeed be allied to the power to tax. The UK needs urgently to look at fiscal autonomy to go with the devolution of powers. This is not because this will give the English things the Scottish have, such as lower university tuition fees, which they think they are being denied because of budgetary constraints. The differences lie in political choices, not budgetary possibilities. England, for better or for worse, is making different political choices to Scotland. That is very clear in the health services and schools arenas. Even leaving aside the West Lothian question, those political choices would be more legitimate and probably better thought through if they were tied to a system of fiscal autonomy, combined with an appropriate system of fiscal transfers which all federal systems must have in order to maintain solidarity within the union. Fiscal autonomy will not necessarily lead to the break up of the UK. I hope it does not. Refusing to contemplate such autonomy may on the contrary, though, foster the types of political movements which will ultimately do much greater damage to the union.
Interesting article, BW.
On a minor point, it is perhaps worth mentioning that the Barnett formula is not actually skewed in Scotland’s favour. It is public spending which is so skewed. In fact, the Barnett formula seeks to reduce progressively over time Scotland’s relative share of comparable public spending. It may not be achieving this objective quickly enough - at least in the view of some -but that is a slightly different issue.
For me the UK has run its course. An English parliament first then dissolution of the union. The sooner, the better.
Good points. The EU, the West Lothian question and money are all poteniallly very serious problems.
However, it’s worth stressing that it’s not all soft underbelly. On a democratic level it does cater to the wishes of the scottish people far better than westminister did.
I mention this merely to stress my suspscion that for our intense national self loathing makes it a subject of much ire, the Scottish parliament is already a very firmly rooted instituition.
Any attempt to lessen it’s reach would almost certainly end in electoral disaster for it’s instigators.
This is important because when it comes to dealing with the first two problems it ties the hands of anyone trying to thrash out a more efficent settlement.
If all the Sacrifices have to come from down south, then that surely feeds other problems.
First of all, the European Union is an ‘association’ of sovereign nation states, i.e. Confederation not Federation. However, if the EU Constitution is ratified then it will become a Federation.
Secondly the Barnet Formula. Did you know the average North Briton now receives in excess of two thousand a year more than the average English person in public spending from the UK Treasury.
Northern Ireland 8898
Scotland 8096
Wales 7509
England 6623
And finally, the only effect one Independent State can have upon another Independent State is through the obligation and terms of a bi-lateral Treaty. This principle is embodied in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that states a “…party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
The UK Government draws up on its LEGAL BASIS from the Act of the Union.
Article 4 of the Act of Union states That all the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union………have the same Rights Privileges and Advantages
The people of Scotland, since devolution, have had different rights, privileges and advantages over those of the people of England. The treaty of union is therefore null and void and England can withdraw using the provision of Article 61 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Article 61 Supervening impossibility of performance
A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from it if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked only as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.
That is the Answer to the West Lothian Question.
Anoneumouse: whether the EU is a federation or a confederation is irrelevant. It has federal features which is the point at issue.
Presumably when England leaves, it will leave behind all the petroleum revenue tax. Just checking, you know.
Of course once scotland separate and become an independent nation they should keep the oil and gas revenues from fields with in their territory and waters. Why not, they will be able to sell and export their natural resources through available infrastructure like every other nation.
By the way, Health is not an EU competence.
in fact Jack Straw once said in parliament, …”there would be a political crisis that would affect our membership of the European Union”…….If the EU involved itself in the UK NHS
So tell me about the Watts decision, then. It’s not a “competence” as such, but health care matters have to be regulated in a manner which remains in conformity with the internal market. See http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521605245 for details.
Anoneumouse - The quote from Staw that you use was in response to a hypothetical asking what would happen if the UK were forced by the EU to end the principle of the NHS being free at the point of use. Straw was not, as you imply, saying that ANY interference in health policy would provoke a crisis, merely that if the EU were to try and force Britain to end free healthcare there would be a crisis. He also said “I very much doubt that that would ever happen.”
It’s all a question of context - quotes in isolation can be taken to mean anything.
It’s also worth noting that from that in that same debate (column 1948) Straw stated that “EU law has had primacy over domestic law since… 1964. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, EU law has had primacy over domestic law since we signed up through the 1972 Act” - it’s hard to see how National Health Service regulation is anything other than a domestic issue, so EU legal rulings would have primacy.
There is nothing to tell.
Various governments and europhiles have told us for years that being members of the EU does not effect our independent sovereignty.
The ECJ and the Watts decision has proven them wrong.
What else can one say
Anoneumouse - in answer to the sovereignty question, Jack Straw again, from that same debate: “We could have a Bill [expressly, clearly and unambiguously inconsistent with the European Communities Act 1972] tomorrow, and no one could prevent us from passing it if it were the will of this House and of the House of Lords. However, all our actions have consequences, and although he could have such a Bill, he could not be a member of the European Union”
Once you sign up to ANY international agreement, you face consequences should you fail to live up to your obligations - but if the negatives end up outweighing the positives, few international agreements (including EU membership) are so binding that they cannot be broken.
In other words, British sovereignty is constrained by membership of the EU - in practical terms - no more than it is by involvement with the WTO, NATO, the UN, or by any other international agreement, treaty or whathaveyou. Occasionally membership of any of those organisations can have its downsides - but successive governments have decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. This isn’t a restriction on sovereignty, simply realpolitik.
[expressly, clearly and unambiguously inconsistent with the European Communities Act 1972] tomorrow, and no one could prevent us from passing it if it were the will of this House and of the House of Lords.
Right, I get it now, you mean like the realpolitik of the Weights and Measures Act 1985
Anoneumouse@5 and BW@6; the EU is neither federal nor confederal, and the constitution wouldn’t really change that, it’s somewhere in between. Best term I’ve heard is “Confederal Consociation” but that’s awful, and was created by a Greek.
The term “federal” when debating the EU is so badly defined and ill-used it has become an irrelevence. Same as “sovereignty”, the term has an amorphous meaning that is effectively irrelevent.
But, if we must use it, NM’s right. We can leave at any time. We simply choose not to accept the disruption.
MatGB: federal = “Of or constituting a form of government in which sovereign power is divided between a central authority and a number of constituent political units.” That perfectly describes the EU as I study it. I use federal as a thinly descriptive term, not a normative term. That is what I mean. Please do not conflate my meaning with thicker meanings.
Devolution, but how far?…
A couple of interesting things have turned up on the constitutional reform front. MatGB at Not Little England has put his finger on one of the most interesting questions of the debate…
Anoneumouse - I don’t quite get you. The reformation of the British system of weights and measures was necessary for international competitiveness, which is why this country had already started to introduce the metric system and modify the British version of the Imperial system (which is, of course, subtly but importantly different to the US version) long before the 1985 Act which is such a favourite of EU-sceptics.
The Weights and Measures Act 1824 abolished lots of old units, yet I never seem to hear anyone complaining about that. Equally, the abolition of the troy pound in 1879 is rarely compained about, nor the standardisation of the US and British definitions of a yard in 1958/9, nor the 1963 redefinition of a gallon, nor the 1970 adoption of an international standard for the nautical mile.
The adoption of the metric system simply made sense in a world increasingly using metric - hence Canada’s adoption of it in 1983 (I doubt you can pin that on the EU, although you can probably have a fair stab at it).
So, in terms of realpolitik, if faced with the choice of reforming your system of weights and measures to fit in with the bulk of the world and thus make trade simpler and more efficient (including, though they don’t notice it, for the average high street consumer now that supermarket cuture means that so many of our goods are imported pre-packaged from abroad) on the one hand, or having to waste time and money re-weighing and re-labelling countless products and risking manufacturing goods for the international market to the wrong specification, I certainly think that the right choice was made.
It’s also worth noting that, despite the belief of some, EEC/EU pressure played very, very little part in Britain’s shift towards the metric system. The fault lies entirely with Napoleon having introduced a way of measuring things which was far simpler and more logical than the old British system where 1,760 yards make a mile, 3 feet make a yard and 12 inches make a foot, 8 pints make a gallon and 20 fluid ounces make a pint - especially as an American gallon is only 128 fluid ounces, not 160, and the American ton is 2,000 lbs, not 2240.
(God, that was tedious and off-topic. Sorry…)
English Devolution: how far?…
I want a Convention that will discuss how we are governed, followed by a preferendum to the people asking them how they wish to be governed. That has to be an essential cause that all reformers can agree on, regardless of what actual outcome we want,…..
Nosemonkey
You quoted Jack Straw as stating
“We could have a Bill [expressly, clearly and unambiguously inconsistent with the European Communities Act 1972] tomorrow
The 1985 Weights and Measures Act, allowed freedom of choice to use either imperial or metric.
But the man from realpolitik, he say no, he say you are buggered mate, cos Jack Straw he talks bollocks
It was on this principle that Steve Thoburn was found guilty of the criminal offence of selling bananas by the pound, because the judge ruled that the European Communities Act of 1972, under which metric weights and measures were made compulsory, was a “constitutional statute”. It therefore could not be overridden by the later 1985 Weights and Measures Act, which permitted the continued selling of goods in pounds and ounces.
.
The myth that the Barnett Formula reduces over time, is just that - a myth. Under the Scottish Chancellor, the funding to Scotland has in fact tripled, enabling that country to enjoy free services that are denied to those in England.
How funding is spent varies according to each country, but when one country is deliberately kept with the lowest funding in the UK, it doesn’t really give England any choice. The problems are compounded when Scottish MPs govern English portfolios, such as transport. Our infrastructure is crumbling and any extra funding is difficult to get, simply because to give the English even £1 extra for transport, or anything else, it means that extra money (with a percentage on top of what the English get) has to paid to Scotland, Wales and NI and they can spend it on whatever they like. The Barnett Formula has a built in system of discrimination against England and it simply isn’t good enough.
Anoneumouse - there’s no such thing as a “constitutional statute”, and an Act of Parliament is, by its very nature, law. So if the judge really said that (which I seriously doubt), he was an idiot who knew nothing of law.
The reason Thorburn was arrested was for using weights that ONLY weighed in Imperial - in other words he was refusing his customers the choice enshrined in the Weights and Measures Act.
If you want to turn that into an anti-EU thing, the situation was complicated by a largely pointless 1994 EU directive that said that all goods must be weighted in metric units, even though they could still be sold in imperial.
Thorburn, however, preferred to waste taxpayers’ money by pushing for lengthy trials and gaol terms rather than merely invest in a new set of scales which had both Imperial and metric measurements on them.
And if you ask WHY he should have to get new scales - as I’m sure you will - it’s because the metric system has been introduced over such a long period in this country, starting back in the 1970s. Most people under 40 (and certainly under 30) generally think in both Imperial AND metric (personally I think in pounds, but not ounces - for weights under a pound I think in grammes), so need both systems. But the Imperial system is still alive and kicking.
Della Petch, please see http://www.ippr.org.uk/ipprnorth/pressreleases/?id=1839 for further information on the fact that public spending has risen more slowly in Scotland than in England since devolution.
It’s quite wrong to say that England is making different choices to Scotland. The author misses the whole point - England is not making choices, it is the UK that is making choices for England, and that’s not what devolution is about.
The UK is a union of nations. It either represents those nations fairly or it will fail. Equality for the English means that the English, as a nation, should be given the same right to decide on their constitutional position within the UK as the Scots and Welsh.
If the UK cannot live with England’s decision then that is a problem for the UK to come to terms with. Fear of that decision is not a reason to withold democracy, nor to accept the perpetuation of a gross democratic and constitutional injustice.
there’s no such thing as a “constitutional statuteâ€, and an Act of Parliament is, by its very nature, law. So if the judge really said that (which I seriously doubt),
Read s 60 and 61
Thoburn vs City of Sunderland (Supreme Court of Judicature 18th February 2002 Case Number: CO/3639/2001 )
England makes no choices, it has no parliament to enable it to do so. The UK Parliament makes our ‘choices’ for us and personally I do not like that, however (heres a novel suggestion) can we not let the English decide what they want in a referendum, just as the Scots were allowed to do?
Anonomeuse/Nosemonkey - Laws LJ who gave that judgment has always been inclined to the notion of “higher order law”. I’m not sure that he has yet convinced his brethren in the English -and I use the term advisedly- judiciary. Jackson (the foxhunting case) in the Lords seems to me to go the other way.
In practice though I think it’s true that there are statutes that are now recognised by the courts as in some way fundamental -where they will for example require very clear and express words before they find there has been a repeal-, (and also non-statutory principles such as the right to judicial review, which is almost impossible to remove by statute).
The status of the Act of Union is particularly complicated and the courts have shied away from deciding what precisely it did: see MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, Re: Lord Gray’s Motion (Privileges Committee), and also some matters raised in the Lords Select Committee on the Constitutional Reform Bill and the Commons Select Committee on Constitutional Reform.
I’ve never been convinced of the logic of the Factortame No 2 decision. In the end it represents the triumph of international political reality over domestic law. Not necessarily in a bad way, but I do see it as a minor legal revolution.
If England were to have a parliament, would there be any parts of the domestic sphere in which the UK would still have power, or would it have to be reduced to dealing almost exclusively with foreign affairs?
Also - is there a reason why an “unbalanced” federal state, where one unit contains about 80% of the population, wouldn’t work in practice?
Just curious, is all.
Why is it every time the issue of an English Parliament comes up,Scottish people join in the debate usually just to shout”it’s oor oil”? We don’t give a stuff about oil.England was not invited in devolution debates for Scotland or Wales. Can they please keep their nebs out of our businness.
I would just like to point out that the person who wrote this post, i.e. me, who is resident in Scotland now, but was born and resided for a long time in England (FWIW), did not raise “oil” and is not telling anyone that “this is our business” or “this is your business”. I am interested in devolution and how it works, and I happen to be interested in the longterm survival of the UK, because I think it makes sense as a multi-nation state, based on a civic, not a “national” identity, and remains an important actor in international relations and in the EU. In that context, history is bound to be important, as well as the context in which the current political situation is evolving. However, the commentaries on this post are already turning this into an unpleasant debate in which people are just starting to shout at each other. That worries me, and that is precisely why I write about ill informed comment on both sides, that seems to me to unleash the types of political forces which make the survival of the UK less likely in the long term. It saddens me that the Labour leadership won’t grasp the important issues about the UK and its nations, and also that some Conservatives seem just too quick to jump on certain types of bandwagons which are inconsistent with being a “unionist” party.
Just one point on the substance of the commentaries: with the number of MPs representing constituencies in England still the overwhelmingly dominating force in Westminster, it remains a moot point who is doing the “choosing”. I agree with those who say there needs to be some solution to the West Lothian question. I doubt that an English parliament is the answer.
Anoneumouse/Liadnan - I think the problem is that our EU-sceptic friends tend to ignore the qualifier of “implied repeal”. The Judge in that case seems to be saying that whereas the implied repeal of prior can generally be considered fine, in some cases there should be some explicit mention. Constitutionally, I don’t think there is any basis for this, but the differentiation between explicit and implicit repeal is a vital one.
Still doesn’t alter the fact that the metric martyrs were a bunch of stubborn fools, nor that the whole shift towards the metric system had practically nothing to do with the EEC/EU.
—-
As for our English Parliament friends - M Peck calls for a referendum on the subject. Considering the nort west regional assembly was rejected in a referendum as a waste of time and money, do you seriously think the people of England as a whole could care less about a national parliament?
I originally come from Sussex - I have plenty in common with someone from Kent or Surrey, but as little in common with someone from Northumberland as I do with someone from Scotland or Wales. Why should I allow people in Northumberland to have a say in what happens in my own county? A south east regional assembly would make far more sense to me than an English parliament.
Once you start down the path of regionalism - be it national, county, town or parish - there’s no stopping you.
Yes, I think that’s right. At root the argument is “this (where this is the point at issue) is a fundamental point on which lots of other things rest so if Parliament wants to repeal or amend it they should damn well say so in terms”
Agree about the metric martyr stuff. Though I think in resolutely imperial terms myself.
Reading this makes me think of that old Irish story about the man giving directions - “I wouldn’t start from here.”
The English don’t want regional government and Nosemonkey is right, they probably wouldn’t vote for an English parliament either. Devolution is messy and inconsistent but we will have to live with that or face the break up of the Union - which would be a disaster, IMHO.
On the subject of identity, I have a different view from Nosemonkey’s - I have always felt that my identity is multi-layered - I am from Nottingham, I now live in London, I am English, British and European. Of these, being English is the most important to me. That may be because I have relatives all over England, so I have been to most parts of it. I have visited a pub and had a pint in all but five English counties!
Of all my identities, ‘East Midlander’ is probably the weakest, yet that is what people from my home city would become under a system of regional government. It holds no appeal for me at all and I think most English people feel the same.
Steve; personally I’m Devonshire, Westcountry, then English, British and European. Being Devonshire means a bit, but then, I am hopelessly inbred…
“The English don’t want regional government and Nosemonkey is right, they probably wouldn’t vote for an English parliament either. Devolution is messy and inconsistent but we will have to live with that or face the break up of the Union…”
Who says the English wouldn’t vote for an English parliament? Of course we would.
“We’ll have to live we it”? No we wont WE ARE GOING TO HAVE OUR OLD ENGLISH PARLIAMENT BACK.
Cujimmy - not once people realise how much it is going to cost.
Steve:
>Cujimmy - not once people realise how much it is going to cost
The man has a point. Any attempts to create a level of English or regional government will be met by cries of “Government wastes more of YOUR money on bureaucrats!”
Unless there is a genuine groundswell of popular support for it, no party is going to waste political capital on it. It’s not worth it.
Cujimmy - have you got any figures to back that assertion up? Although there is an indication that the West Lothian Question is causing increasing concern (between 45% and 59% supposedly being bothered about the idea of a Scottish Prime Minister), it’s a major, major leap to assume that this would translate into support for a complete overhaul of the constitution and the creation of an entirely new form of government bureaucracy.
Creating an English Parliament to solve the West Lothian Question strikes me as little different to using a flamethrower to kill a fly. It’s major overkill for what is, really, an easily-solved constitutional anomaly. And Jonn/Steve are entirely right - the cost will put a sizable number of people well and truly off, even should they be tempted by the idea.
Having a Scottish Prime Minister and the West Lothian question are two entirely separate issues. Notwithstanding the fact that there is no West Lothian question as such until we have fiscal autonomy, even when that is achieved, it remains highly problematic to tell Scottish (and I presume also Welsh) voters that they are second class citizens when it comes to electing the person who might serve as the UK’s prime minister. I sometimes detect just a smidgeon of anti-scottish prejudice in just some of the debates about this issue.
>>>>Notwithstanding the fact that there is no West Lothian question as such until we have fiscal autonomy
Nonsense the West Lothian question is as follows:
* How can it be right that MPs elected to Westminster from Scottish constituencies have no ability to affect the issues of their constituents which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and
* If power over Scottish affairs is devolved to a Scottish Parliament, how can it be right that MPs representing Scottish constituencies in the Parliament of the United Kingdom will have the power to vote on issues affecting England (including those that don’t affect Scotland), but English MPs will not have the power to vote on Scottish issues?
Whilst I understand your implication - that Scots have a right to vote on matters that will affect the block grant - there are issues (foxhunting) that are nothing to do with this.
And I would say that it is perverse to excuse the erosion of English democracy on the failure of the Labour Government to abolish the Barnett Formula. One financial injustice does not render the democractic injustice null and void.
Stop trying to tip-toe around the issue. The facts of the matter that money should be distributed on social need rather than political patronage and nationalist favouritism, and Scottish MPs should not vote on English business.
Nosemonkey you said:
“Once you start down the path of regionalism - be it national, county, town or parish - there’s no stopping you”.
Exactly. The journey started in 1999 with the setting up of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. Unfortunately for those who thought this would be a quick fix to stop Scottish and Welsh Nationalists breaking up the UK breaking the result has been somewhat different. It awakened the English who are now quite understandably demanding equitable treatment.
An English Parliament with powers equal to those of the Scottish Parliament is the only answer.
HomeRuleforEngland, you say that your journey started in 1999 and that there were those who thought that devolution would be “a quick fix to stop Scottish and Welsh Nationalists breaking up the UK”; well excuse me but is this not what the English Nationalist are hell bent on doing with their attempt to gain an English Parliament, because “if” it happens that will be the result!
HomeRule - but why is England the best bet for the geographical boundaries of the new parliamentary system? Cornwall had its own parliament (of sorts) until the 19th century - far more recently than England had a purely English parliament. Why shouldn’t the Cornish get independence as well? And if them, why not East Anglia, Mercia, Wessex, Kent, Sussex, etc. etc. etc.
I’m genuinely intrigued to know what the rationale is for a purely English Parliament beyond the nationalist one. (When I use the term “nationalist” I intent to imply no unsavoury connotations, by the by…)
I understand the logic of your position - it can be a (moral) problem when Scottish MPs vote on purely English issues. But I still don’t see how it’s any less illogical than an MP from Dorset being able to vote on plans for the regeneration of Durham mining communities, or the MP for Islington voting on cattle farming. London generates a huge amount of England’s wealth - why should it have to be told what to do by the MP for Dartmoor? That’s a problem that an English Parliament still wouldn’t solve - but it’s pretty much the same as the Scottish issue.
Why have an MSP from Glasgow vote on crofting issues in the Highlands? Why have an MSP from Orkney telling Edinburgh what to do? Why stop at Scottish independence why not have the Highlands or some of the islands like Shetland get independence as well? These are problems that a Scottish Parliament wouldn’t solve but they are pretty much the same as the English issue.
Bondwoman”I am interested in devolution and how it works, and I happen to be interested in the longterm survival of the UK” You campaign from Scotland against an English Parliament to save the UK?
Why not spend your time trying to close down the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly to save the UK?
The way I see it, the scots think that they have an ace with this bloody oil, and use it to screw England at every opportunity. We want the union finished.
Tally - who’s “we”, exactly? As I asked Cujimmy above, where are the figures to show this majority support for an English parliament? England’s population is about 50 million - how many of those 50 million do you reckon would back you on this?
You’ve got a case - although I personally think it’s a weak one - but your presentation of that case leaves a lot to be desired. You English parliament types would probably be better off, rather than railing against anyone - like Bondwoman - you perceive as being sympathetic to the Scottish, as if all Scottish people are involved in some grand
Zionistconspiracy to remove your democratic rights (which makes you sound not only faintly racist, but also decidedly ludicrous), in focussing on facts and figures. Like the fact that the Tories got more votes in England than Labour did in the last General Election. You need to prove that there’s a definite political/cultural difference north of the border that can’t be overcome - which will be a very, very tough job - and that this is significantly different to the political/cultural difference between, say, Henley-on-Thames and Tower Hamlets.And you also really, really need to come up with some justification for England being the geographical unit for your proposed new parliament. Because your arguments at the moment sound rather like you simply don’t like the idea of representative democracy (in which case, you’d probably be better off moving to Switzerland…), and are focussing your ire on Scotland because you’re largely frustrated Tories who know that you haven’t got a chance of winning seats up there and that the next Prime Minister is likely to be Gordon Brown. I have no idea if that is the case, but if that’s how you come across, you’re not likely to get anywhere.
Nosemonkey you said:
Tally - who’s “weâ€, exactly? As I asked Cujimmy above, where are the figures to show this majority support for an English parliament? England’s population is about 50 million - how many of those 50 million do you reckon would back you on this?
Well done, Nosemonkey, you are nearly there. I’ll give you a hint: ‘Referendum’.
(Its where you ask people what they want, you know, like the Scots and Welsh were asked in 1998 if they wanted their own Parliaments.)
Another example of a referendum is the one held in the NE of England, when 78% said they did not want an elected regional assembly.
Fine. But I think you just answered your own question there, HomeRule - that’s probably about the percentage who would vote against an English Parliament if they were given the chance. Which is fine by me, but would be an expensive waste of time.
I disagree Bondwoman, an English Parliament and an elected regional assembly are totally different things.
After a proper debate with both sides being given opportunity to put their case, I am sure that an English Parliament would be voted for.
What is your evidence? You have been asked for this earlier in this thread and you have provided no evidence for this. Your assertion is just that: pure assertion. I would prefer debates about the future of the UK to be based on evidence, not assertion, and not - either - senses of grievance.
HomeRule - ignoring the ongoing request for evidence of support for your campaign, for the EU constitution a referendum was estimated to cost £80 million. Doubtless it would be a similar figure for one for an English parliament.
It also took the best part of three decades (if not three centuries) for Scottish devolution to gain majority support, despite Scotland having a much more coherent cultural identity than England and a party with seats in parliament campaigning for some form of independence consistently from the 1960s onwards.
The Campaign for an English Parliament’s been going for what - a couple of years? And though there are political parties campaigning on this issue, the larges is the English Democrats, with 2,000 members (at a generous estimate), boasts just three councillors, and its best showing in the last general election was 3.4% of the vote in one constituency - thanks largely to the candidate being a columnist for the Sun.
To have any chance of winning the hearts and minds of your fellow countrymen, you’d need a sustained, high-profile campaign for years. Anything less would ensure that a referendum would simply be a costly waste of money and shut down any possibility of getting another vote on the issue for decades. If you’re serious about wanting an English parliament (as I have no doubt you are), you need to be a little more realistic about your chances, or you’ll have no chance at all.
The idea of an English Parliament frightens the life out of a lot of people, politicians, newspaper proprietors and others. That is why a lot of effort is spent trying to tell the English that they are just a mongrel nation.
Gordon Brown infamously uses the phrase ‘nations and regions’, John Prescott says that there is no such thing as English and Jack Straw said that we English are a very violent people.
Nosemonkey you follow a similar line with your “……despite Scotland having a much more coherent cultural identity than England….”
What evidence do you have for that statement? Presumably not the sectarian displays at Celtic v Rangers!
I don’t recall cost being an issue when the Scots and Welsh were given 2 referenda each. Wales may get a third, so I’m afraid I do not accept that argument.
Cost also did not seem to be an issue when the government when ahead with its costly elected regional assembly campaign.
HomeRuleforEngland you said
“What evidence do you have for that statement? Presumably not the sectarian displays at Celtic v Rangers!”
Funny, I was wondering how long it would take to drag sectarianism into the argument; strikes me that you cannot answer the question “where’s your evidence?” so you have decided to muddy the waters with the old sectarianism argument. Why can’t you people stick to the point?
Numptie, I was replying to Nosemonkeys unsubstantiated statement that Scotland has a stronger cultural identity ythan England. I’ll be interested to see his evidence for that.
I refer you to a recent ICM Poll for the BBC in which 59% of the people of the South of England and 54% of the North of England said they would object to a Scot being PM.
http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/215
Unfortunately the BBC and others refuse to conduct a similar poll for an English Parliament. Despite emails to the BBC Politics Show they refuse to make a serious debate programme about the English Question and an English Parliament
The results of the ICM Poll are an indication that a lot of English people would vote for an English Parliament. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Actually I happen to agree with Nosemonkey, England’s neighbouring nations do have stronger cultural identities than England; but then that stems from being dominated nations, and dominated nations always form strong cultural identities around which to rally. Dominating nations, such as England, do not form strong cultural identities because they don’t need one.
P.S. I notice that the sectarian argument does not figure in the evidence that HomeRule presents, so what happened to that argument?
‘Scuse me for butting in, but it seems to me that the arguments here are just going round and round in circles, and I am getting rather bored. I am fully aware that all protagonists are going to go away thinking that no one is listening to them, but there we go, that’s life. I shall not be responding to any more of these comments, but that should not be taken as indicating my approval or disapproval of any arguments. Many thanks to all for their contributions.
HomeRule - I’m begining to agree with Bondwoman, this is getting tedious. That ICM poll (which I originally posted a link to in comment #37) shows no more and no less than that 54-59% of respondants to the poll aren’t happy at the idea of a Scottish PM. It says nothing whatsoever about their support for an English parliament, as that is a completely different question.
Perhaps if you were able to provide evidence that there is widespread support for your parliament idea then the BBC may do a programme on the issue - but, as I pointed out above (something you haven’t yet responded to), one political party with 2,000 members hardly counts as a mass movement.
Even if you take the 130,056 votes the English Democrats got in the 2004 European elections as evidence of support, that’s still only about 0.2% of the population of England. Plus they only got 14,506 votes at last year’s General Election - just 0.1% of the total cast. Even if you add the 654 votes the English Independence party got to that, you’ve still got a long, long way to go before you’ll be anywhere near the support you’d need to win a referendum.
Is that enough evidence to the contrary?
Nosemonkey, no it is not.
Anyway, we we shall see what happens.
This Disunited Kingdom of ours is dying,doomed,an ex Union etc.
Nice talking to you.
I wouldn’t like to bore anyone further so bye bye.
I know what BondWoman means - the thing that really puzzles me is why people like HomeRule cannot stick to the original point of a post, why do they always have to bring their own agenda into a comments thread even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the origina topic?
re:the scots oil,the real reason the macmafia in the labour party,will not grant scotland independence,is they know that post independence it will be discovered that the so called scottish oil will in fact be in english national waters.how they would howl in scotland,they also conviniently forget the advantages they have gotten off the english over the last three centuries.so please all you connery wannabees demand independence england needs you go your own way,and as for reginal assemblies do the people off the north and cornwall think the people of the home counties are going to be taxed for your benefit,keep england whole.english forever british never,and for the record i am from birmingham and i see myself no different to any other english person.it has to be dissolution of the union for the good of england.
[...] He follows up with a discussion of Bondwoman’s excellent post at the Sharpener and concludes: The answer then appears to me to be that there may in fact be no need for an English Parliament, because the constitutional imbalance can be righted and more local government delivered, without it. [...]