Aug 14 2007
Devolution saves the Union?
Labour told us that if we granted Scotland its own junior Parliament there would be no pressure for independence and the?? constitutional problem would go away.
That must be why Scotland has elected a Scottish Nationalist government, and why they are publishing a white paper seeking a referendum on independence!
What is Labour’s reply? They now say they must grant the Scottish Parliament more powers. They take comfort from opinion polls which suggest the defenders of the Union might win a referendum, but by their decison to grant the Parlliament more power they are giving the SNP much of what they want. They are on a slippery slope to more independence.
The SNP will now turn to their allies, the English nationalists, and point out that if the Scottish Parliament has even more power, the settlement for England is even more unjust. Scottish MPs at Westminster will be even more part timers for their own constituents, as so many of the things that affect their electors will be settled not at Westminster but in Edinburgh. Meanwhile the Scottish Westminster MPs will still be able to speak and vote on all those matters affecting England. This is unfinished business, and Labour is busily digging itself into a bigger hole.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
That’s why we need a stable federal constitution, and not a ‘rolling’ one.
The Labour Party were idiots to think that this arrangement would ever work. Asymmetrical devolution may have limited success elsewhere but it’s never going to work between two nations with the history that England and Scotland have. You can’t establish a ’sovereignty of the people’ in Scotland and expect it to be compatible with the absolute sovereignty of the imperial parliament in England.
Which makes me wonder why Scottish Labour, Lib Dems and Tories have released a joint statement in opposition to Salmond’s white paper on independence when Ming Campbell and Gordon Brown have both acknowledged ‘the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs‘ when they signed the Scottish Claim of Right.
What is a referendum on independence if not that? Hypocrites.
I collated a few of the New Labour lies on strengthening the Union here.
[Reply]
A lot of us are enjoying Brown’s discomfiture at the surge in the SNP’s support. Are we mistaken to be so minded?
[Reply]
I can’t find any fault with your arguments. The devolution process cannot be reversed but resentment by Britain’s second class citizens will threaten the Union more than Scottish independence ever has.
The process needs to be completed. Do you think the Conservatives will ever speak for England and give her equality with the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish? Will they put a referendum on an English Parliament in their manefesto?
[Reply]
With the growing influence of Europe and more powers for Scotland, we shall soon need to consider whether the Houses of Parliament have any real job to do (other than rubber-stamping decisions made by the bureaucrats in Brussels). What a sorry state of affairs
Reply: That’s why the Conservative party is saying No to more powers to Brussels, and demanding some back.
[Reply]
Will the Conservatives sit back and let New Labour dig themselves into a hole or will they start being pro-active and tell us what (if any) policies the Conservatives have for England?
I draw your attention to a snippet in the FT by Des Browne
“We have historically, for example, invested more in our public services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than we have in England as a whole. That’s how we do it, and I candidly don’t see scope for differential rates of taxation.
[Reply]
England must not be granted equal democracy and equal funding. Her sick and elderly must continue to die cheaply on the altar of Unionism and the neighbours must always be allowed ride on the English gravy train, as well as impose discriminatory policies onto them. All hail the McLabour version of a “Union,” where the Auld Enemy are kept in their place with heavy taxes and a neutered opposition, who are terrified of being called associated with them.
It’s not the SNP infuriating the English. Its the arrogant ruling elite, who assume we will continue to make the sacrifices you demand of us, in order to preserve your beloved dis-Union.
Democracy has been denied to England and the three main leaders have declared “special Scottish interests?”
The Union no longer works for England eitehr and with each day the feelings of injustice grow stronger. The numbers supporting an English Parliament are rising. An English Parliament may or may not preserve the Union, but one thing is clear - the Union as it stands today is simply not worth preserving.
Throw your hands in the air and declare us all Little Englanders if you so desire, but the truth is, it was you lot that forced this situation onto us. Name calling will not deter our drive for fairness and equality in our own land.
It is time now for those with English constituents, to speak out against this tyranny and earn the money they are more than happy take from our taxes. If they want Scotland to have special treatment, they should put themselves up for election in that country, not ours.
[Reply]
And we, the English nationalists, welcome them with open arms. The Union is dead, kaput, finished, over, no more, shuffled off this mortal coil.
[Reply]
Listening to Alex Salmond introducing his White Paper I feel that Brown and Cameron must realise that the game is up. Salmond is a formidable leader and I have no doubt that the SNP will succeed.
I do not understand why English politicans fail to respond. That failure is leading to more and more resentment. We English need English MPs to speak up for us.
By the way Mr Redwood, ‘English Votes on English Matters’ is a half baked ill thought out gimmicky policy. Anyone who gives it more than a moments consideration reaches the same conclusion.
[Reply]
Reply “I am fighting for English votes on English isssues”
With respect Mr Redwood you can stick your English votes on English issues right up unelected no mandate Brown’s Tartan Kilt.
Independence for England !.
[Reply]
Devolution has been a disaster for the UK no question. A lop-sided devolution programme coupled with the Barnett formula is a recipe for antagonising the English. Solution: give England a parliament and adopt a ‘needs’ based allocation of public money. If this is too much for some Scots/Welsh MPs to bear then so be it, English independence follows. Westminster can carry on ignoring England if it wishes, but don’t be suprised if we jump the UK ship before the Scots do.
[Reply]
John, you said “2. A new English Parliament, so England has to pay the bills for two lots of MPs and two lots of officials as we do have to pay for that in Scotland at the moment.”
When does democracy become too expensive? Also, why is it not too expensive for the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish?
You advocate English Votes on English Matters
[Reply]
I would rather the union remain intact but I see nothing wrong with a referendum. If the people of Scotland want independence then why shouldn’t they have it?
[Reply]
‘Labour told us that if we granted Scotland its own junior Parliament there would be no pressure for independence and the constitutional problem would go away.’ (JR)
Chamberlain once told us something along the lines of that is we let Hitler have the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia he would soon calm down and the German hunger for nationalism would go away.
When trenches were dug in a London central park Chamberlain addressed the nation as follows:
“How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul.”
Can is just me or is there an analogy between Chamberlain’s obession with ‘peace’ and Gordon Brown’s obsession with ‘Britishness’?
[Reply]
John Redwood - You are NOT offerng an English Parliament. If you were, you would just say that England should have her own Parliament and equal devolution.
Are you so sure of your facts that you are willing to meet with representatives of the Campaign for an English Parliament and discuss the issue with them? How about also completing a simple questionnaire on the subject, so that it can be posted on their website and we can all hear your side of the argument for EVoEL? Why not give us the Conservative view on the matter and answer the questions that have not yet been acknowledged?
If you are confident of your position, you will have no problems with that. Are you confident or will you ignore this request?
Reply:
I am confident of my position. I am offering an English Parliament of equal power and value to the present Scottish Parliament held within the Westminster Parliament and formed from English MPs. I have set out my views on the Union on this site and in my books -
[Reply]
John,can you please explain to the English why the Conservative Party apparently does nothing to defend the rights of English constituents? I refer,of course,to issues related to treatment of the elderly,tuition fees,NHS drugs for serious illnesses. Scots MP’s stand up for the rights of their Scottish constiuents;the SNP further Scottish matters in Holyrood and Scottish MP’s impose legislation on the English nation in Westminster. Where are you English MP’s when all this is happening? Why are you not demonstrating your outrage and demanding parity of treatment for your constituents? Until we see some English leadership from you we will see all such moves as EVoEM as gimmickry.We deserve an English Parliament dedicated to the protection of English interests and excuses about costs really do not wash now that devolution has become embedded in the constitutional landscape.
Reply: We do highlight these injustices, but remember we are in the minority
[Reply]
English votes on English Votes/Matters has been a Conservative manifesto pledge under Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard, and now it is Cameron’s solution.
The thing is, if you ask a Conservative MP how it would work (and I’ve asked a fair few) they don’t have the first idea. It’s one of those sound-bite policies that has never had any flesh on its bones.
We’ve been waiting for years to have this explained to us. Hopefully the Democracy Task Force (which includes Sir George Young who came up with this barmy idea in the first place) will be able to do this, but I rather think they will be laughed offstage, even with a variation on the theme like an English Grand Committee (that gets around the ‘parliament within a parliament’ problem but none of the others).
There needs to be an English executive - a cabinet government, with First Minister for England. Any solution that offers us less than the Scots is just racist and will lead to further bad feeling between the constituent nations of the UK. If the Tories had any faith in English Votes on English matters they would put it to the English people in a referendum so that we could reject it and choose a full blown parliament and English government. They won’t.
[Reply]
Thanks, John. You response is very much appreciated. You are a credit to your Party for this.
[Reply]
“2. A new English Parliament, so England has to pay the bills for two lots of MPs and two lots of officials as we do have to pay for that in Scotland at the moment.”
Not at all. Why would we need 650 British MPs if an English Parliament takes three quarters of their waork away from them? That is the reason why British MPs are so opposed to giving England what the rest of the country has - they’re protecting their jobs. Not more politicians, different politicians.
Also, your idea of an “English Parliament” is nothing like the Scottish Parliament. For a start, MSPs are elected in Scotland to represent Scotland only. In your idea of an “English Parliament”, British MPs elected in England to respresent Britain would vote on matters that only affect England but with due regard to the rest of Britain. This is not what the Scots have got with their parliament. Also bear in mind that anything that costs money will affect Scotland, Wales and NI because there will be less money available to subsidise them. This is the biggest, most fatal flaw in the Tory proposal and it took a matter of days for a Scottish MP to pick up on this.
Nothing less than what Scotland has will do for England and what the Tories are proposing is nothing like what Scotland has.
Reply: I disagree. I am proposing the same powers. Why on earth do you want more politicians and more officials? Of course, if you want to split up the Union that is a different matter, and then you could abolish the UK Westminster Parliament.
[Reply]
This is excellent news,English MP’s should join with the English Constitutional Convention and include the public in the dabate.
[Reply]
I’m not sure if I agree 100% with the plans you’ve outlined here, but congratulations on being so open and receptive. Well done.
[Reply]
As I said, not more politicians, different politicians. Like I said, we wouldn’t need 650 British MPs if we had an English Parliament. When it comes to the first English Parliamentary elections and the simultaneous redundancy of 400-odd British MPs (I can’t see how it would work any other way), it is the MPs who supported equal rights for England that get re-elected, not the MPs who have actively sought to deny English people the same right to self-determination that Scotland has.
It’s not just the power of the “English Parliament” that the Tories are proposing that is important - it is the whole way the Parliament would be made up and the scope of such a body. British MPs are elected to represent Britain and the fact that as a body, the British goverment has actively supported and engineered a system of apartheid and deliberate discrimination in England, you would have to be incredibly naive to entertain the possibility that they would suddenly take it upon themselves to put England’s interests first on “devolved” matters. MSPs, AMs and MLAs are elected solely to represent the interests of the country they are elected in, the rest of Britain is of no concern to them. This would not be the case with the Tory proposal.
Whilst I disagree with Tory policy on English devolution, I am glad that they are at least recognising that there is a problem and I would like to congratulate you personally for having the balls to argue your point in public. The Conservative Party have so far refused to debate the English Votes on English Matters policy with the Campaign for an English Parliament despite several public invitations to do so. The Conservative Party’s future lies in England - the Scots and Welsh don’t vote Conservative. The Party would do well to remember this.
[Reply]
Bottom line John. Who will have the cheque book?
If you answer is ‘The British Government’ you may as well come out with it and say the British branch of the SNP.
Reply:
In a devolved structure for England and
[Reply]
Great Britain should have one soverign parliament. Devolution needs to be remodelled to act as a compliment rather than a treat to the Union. How? By reconfiguring the makeup of the devolved administrations. Instead of the existing parliament/cabinet model - which undoubtedly creates a rival to Westminster. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should have a directly elected First Minister with specific powers/functions and is held to account by Grand Committes of the House of Commons. e.g. The Scottish First Minister reports to the Scottish Grand Committee (made up of Scottish MPs), which would convene in Scotland. The chair of the Grand Committee would be a Government Minister who sits in Cabinet.
England would have devolved the same powers held by the new Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish First Ministers, but these powers would be devolved not to a directly elected English First Minister but to new County/City Councils who will have directly elected Council Leaders responsible to Parliament through a English Grand Committee.
Reply: Thank you for a thoughtful variant of what I am suggesting. Your model does help address the current injustices.
[Reply]
“Reply: There are surprisingly few arguments about what is a Scottish matter - an English matter is by definition the same as a Scottish matter, so that adds no extra complexity.”
Not quite. Scottish spending is determined through the almost universally misunderstood Barnett Formula, with the Scottish budget allocated as an ever decreasing percentage of what is spent in England. As such, votes on what look like ‘English Only’ issues such as tuition fees and foundation hospitals, still have a knock-on effect on funding for the Scottish Executive.
Taking an extreme example, let’s suppose that it was decided to privatise the NHS in England and therefore remove any element of state financial contribution towards it. Even if Scots wanted to continue with a state-provided health service, they would come under intense pressure to follow the same policy north of the border, simply because Scotland would no longer receive their share of English spending in this area, despite having the tax base to cover the costs.
This would drive a coach and horses through the principal of devolution. However, Fiscal Autonomy, whereby the Scots took responsibility for collecting all taxes in Scotland and passing on a remittance for shared services such as defence, transfer payments to the less well off parts of England etc, would let you have English votes for English laws without impeding the ability of the Scottish Parliament to govern Scotland as it sees fit.
It would also restore a long absent link in Scotland between taxation and public expenditure, which would force governments to take decisions for the long-term rather than trying to maximise electoral utility in the short term. In short, everyone benefits. Take this on board, John, and your party could really begin to sweep up the mess left behind by Labour’s ill-thought out reforms.
[Reply]
I am pleased to see someone recognise that the WLQ is a problem, and is not going away. However, I am not sure about this English Votes for English Law’s idea. Do you propose that only MP’s for English Constituencies will be able to vote on English Laws, or do you forsee the formation of a seperate ‘English Executive’, drawn from Parliament, as well? If it is the former, I hope you might reconsider, afterall, devolution is not all about legislative power, it is also about the executive arm of government.
Reply: I envisage the English Grand Committee making those decisions
[Reply]
John
We want our own parliament, it can be achieved with less expense and fewer mp’s than we have now. what you are suggesting is not an English national parliament, as would be recognised internationally. Let’s have the debate John, honest, inclusive and out in the open, then the English can make up their own mind’s and we can get back to being a democracy.
[Reply]
In every poll for the last few years asking if people want an English Parliament the answer has overwhelmingly been “yes”. Do you think that it is appropriate for any political party - whether they are in power or not - to disregard this clearly expressed desire by a majority of the population for an English Parliament because it doesn’t suit their party politics? Isn’t the whole point of democracy that the government runs the country according to the will of the people?
Reply: There are many things that people say they want in polls that political parties do not offer or cannot offer.I suspect many of those would like my proposal of English votes for English issues, if told the extra cost of having an English Parliament as well as the Westminster Parliament.
[Reply]
My apologies for a rather curt remark earlier on in the posts, but that is because I feel so strongly about the current political situation in England, and how we “sour little Englanders” (the current Tory leaders opinion of us, not surprising considering the Scottish blood running through his veins) are treated.
Be that as it may Mr Redwood, you contradict yourself on some points, you use the term “an English Parliament as well as the Westminster Parliament” yet you had previously said that Westminster was the English Parliament, either it is or it isn’t, you also say you propose the same powers for England as Scotland yet talk about an English Grand Committee, I dont recall Scotland being given a Scottish Grand Committee.
Please Mr Redwood drop the Unionist bit in your Parties title, at the last election you won the vote in England but lost the election due to the Labour votes in Scotland and Wales so we end up with a PM that doesn’t have a single English vote and is the leader of an opposition party in his own back yard, how very democratic !!!!
Like other posters I have a lot of admiration for you for at least discussing all the problems over asymmetrical devolution, and taking some “flack”, can I suggest you challenge the present leadership, you may have more support than you imagine. In anticipation Good luck.
Reply: I do not contradict myself. Under my proposals the Union Parliament buildings would also house the Engllish Parliament, and English MPs would be members of both. The English Parliament at westminster evolved into the Union Parliament. I have absolutely no intention of challenging for the Leadership of the Conservative party. I want to win the next election with our current Leader.
[Reply]
What’s the extra cost of having an English Parliament? Has this been worked out or is it just an assumption based on the assumption that we’d still have 650 British MPs in Westminster?
I think that most people would be in favour of having a devolved parliament like they have in Scotland if they realised what it would actually do for England and that it wouldn’t be an extra layer of government and that it wouldn’t cost huge amounts of money if it was coupled with a reduction in the size of the British government. There are too many MPs in Westminster already thanks to over-representation of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If the number of MPs in Westminster reflects the amount of work they have, under an English Parliament we could manage with one MP per county.
Reply: When did introducing another layer of government cut the costs of government? It just would not happen.
[Reply]
John,
Firstly, thanks for engaging with people here in the comments on your own blog. It’s what differentiates a real blog from a fake one. Very refreshing coming from a politician. You are a credit to your race.
As for your version of an English Parliament with equal powers to that of the Scottish Parliament I fear you are missing the whole picture. Parliaments and our representatives within them are not just institutions that encapsulate power. Equal powers to pass legislation is meaningless if representation for legislation is never made. This is the “who will speak for England” issue the answer to which can only be “an English executive”. You are all currently Unionist men and women, which is fine, but you need to convince us that you have the interests of England and her people at heart and that is something that you have all failed to do. We want to be represented by people whose paramount concern is us and by us I mean the people of England. The Scots have this via the Scottish Claim of Right. Their representatives have promised to have their interests as paramount ones. That includes our current PM. I want the same.
An first minister for England, an executive for England, an English parliament and a Union. The latter I will be sad to see sacrificed at the alter of English equality but Equality we must have. Anything less will not fly below our radar.
Reply: There is no sensible half way house between Union and independence. Your version will take us to more expense and petty conflict.
[Reply]
John you wrote
“There is no sensible half way house between Union and independence. Your version will take us to more expense and petty conflict.”
Are you not, in actual effect, suggesting a half way house?
You also stated that an English Parliament would introduce another costly layer of government, yet others have posted answers to this that you fail to adress, just trott out the old mantra, of more politician’s etc.
If an English parliament ends the union, then so be it.At least we will be free from foreign interference in our affairs, and NULabour socialism.
Reply: I would have held a referendum in Scotland on In or Out of the Union years ago, and would nto have embraked on the half-way house route. Short of doing that - and the government clearly does not want to do that - my proposal deals with the immediate unfairness to England. Of course none of these ideas appeal to anyone who wants English independence.
[Reply]
JR: “Reply: There is no sensible half way house between Union and independence. Your version will take us to more expense and petty conflict.”
My version, a first minister and executive to speak for the people of England, is much the same as has been afforded to the people of Scotland. What is best for the people of England may be a “petty conflict” to you and your party but it is everything to us.
Petty conflict number one: free prescriptions in Wales but not in England. Petty conflict number two: Less costly education in Scotland but not in England. Petty conflict number three: N.I.C.E no longer being a true national body with the result that we see people in England suffering in comparison with other British citizens. There are many others. These “petty conflicts” will continue to the point where not even the most Unionist of British politicians will be able to keep a straight face.
At that point we will no longer be looking to you for help and guidance as the natural party for England as you will have already spoken, and it will not have been for us.
[Reply]
You only need a full blown English Parliament if the four parts of the Union have voted to go it alone. I have always favoured having a referendum on the future of the Union. If we keep the Union then the English votes for English issues creates the same structure in England for settling devolved issues as the Scottish Parliament creates in Scotland.
Then why does Scotland require a full blown parliament?
English votes does not create the same structure for settling devolved issues as the Scottish Parliament creates in Scotland; in Scotland the devolved parliament is just part of the settlement, they also have a Scottish government working explicitly in the interests of the Scottish nation, they have politicians elected at a Scottish level. A UK government, and UK politicians, can never do that for England, if you are attempting to fob us off with a UK government that will speak for England and for whom England’s interests are paramount then I’m afraid you are selling us a dud because such a government can never exist.
[Reply]
you use the term an English Parliament as well as the Westminster Parliament
[Reply]
(The fairy story)
Same old story. England can’t have this because it will lead to that blah blah blah. “The English” are dangerous! “The English” are this! “The English” are that.
(The real story)
Scotland got a parliament, wales and N ireland assemblies! All three have political representation nationally and through the EU internationally! All of this led to the break-up of the UK!
Oh don’t keep saying that the UK is still in existence because it’s a lie. How can there be a UK when scotland has it’s own parliament? We are not united!
The point is predominantly scottish new labour started all of this and the English are not to blame for any of it. Stating that if England has a parliament, i.e. starts on the road to self-determination, it will inevitably cause trouble is to blatently leave out the truth about what has happened since 1997. Then again, it’s always the English people’s fault no matter what the reality. It is never the scots fault.
Fact:
November 2006 - Ipsos Mori poll for Sunday Telegraph found that 68% of people supported an English parliament.
January 2007 - A BBC poll found that 61% want an English parliament.
In April 2007, an ICM poll showed support at 67%
Facts don’t lie!
The English want equal treatment. That is not a crime, or dangerous, or selfish, or irresponsible, or unreasonable, or wrong!
Reply: I want equal treatment too for the English, but I do not want more politicians and bureaucrats. I would like the arrangements for Scotland and England to be the same, with Westminster MPs doing both jobs in both cases. For a couple of days a week the Scots would stay in Scotland to use their very expensive new building, and the English would stay at Westminster to use that as the English Parliament as well as the Uk Parliament.
There is no valid reason for denying the English political equality!
There is no valid reason for denying the English people self-determination!
The English should have the same political representation as was given to the scottish people.
There is no moral reason for denying this to the English.
No reason whatsoever.
[Reply]
Of course none of these ideas appeal to anyone who wants English independence.
You would be surprised John. I think I know English nationalists better than you and amongst our number it’s the separatists that are hoping and praying for English Votes on English Matters.
The rest of us have fought it because it will wreck constitutional havoc, marginalising Scottish MPs and logically preventing them from taking cabinet positions. And also because it only addresses the West Lothian Question and not The English Question (it is unfair). If Devolution ‘98 was crack-handed gerrymandering then EVoEM is too but with the added charge of constitutional vandalism thrown in.
You need to think long and hard before you break up the union with what you see as pragmatism (but is in actual fact more asymmetry and inequality).
[Reply]
John Redwood’s Reply:
“I want equal treatment too for the English, but I do not want more politicians and bureaucrats. I would like the arrangements for Scotland and England to be the same, with Westminster MPs doing both jobs in both cases. For a couple of days a week the Scots would stay in Scotland to use their very expensive new building, and the English would stay at Westminster to use that as the English Parliament as well as the Uk Parliament.”
Like I stated, same old story.
John, when all this mess started in the 90’s, did you object to the scottish, welsh and N. Irish political institutions having “more politicians and bureaucrats”?
Sorry John, I think the arrangement whereby “for a couple of days a week the Scots would stay in Scotland to use their very expensive new building, and the English would stay at Westminster to use that as the English Parliament as well as the Uk Parliament” would not work.
Firstly, what constitutes an English mp? This question would have to be answered whether we had the arrangement you’re proposing or a proper separate English only parliament.
I don’t think that an English mp means an mp who sits in an English constituency! I think an English MP is someone who is English! That to me doesn’t just mean being born in England either. I don’t suppose you’re going to answer this question. We need our own people in these positions not necessarily because they’re English but because we’ve seen what happens when we let non-English people sit in these positions! Think Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Reid, John Prescott and Peter Hain. None of these people care about England. What do you think?
I want a fully functional independent English parliament and executive and an independent England. By the way, why should scots come to Westminster when they have not let one English person in their parliament? We all need to be treated equally in this United Kingdom right John? What is good enough for the scots is also good enough for the English! Maybe I should reverse that and state, what’s good enough for the English is good enough for the scots, i.e. we were treated in a particular way and the scots never moaned, so why should they whine when it happens to them? It’s only fair in this supposedly united country! Right John?
Reply: yes I did ob ject to all this in the 1990s. I opposed devolution. You are not comparing like with like, comapring the Union Parliament to a devolved Parliament.
[Reply]
JR: yes I did object to all this in the 1990s. I opposed devolution. You are not comparing like with like, comparing the Union Parliament to a devolved Parliament.
You wasn’t objecting too hard in your “Death of Britain” book John! I found the book to be more of a lecture on why various events weren’t good. Such as devolution. I have looked at it again and I don’t see it as a protest book. All you did was spell out the reasons for not having this and that. However, that’s just my opinion.
I know you wrote “The death of Britain” because I bought it. That was in 1999. I have leafed through the book again and noticed that you never mentioned an English parliament once. Infact you only mention one thing about England.
I am not worried that i’m not comparing like with like. I don’t think that’s a legitimate answer to what I asked anyway.
You stated:
a)”I want equal treatment too for the English… but I do not want more politicians and bureaucrats”
b)”I would like the arrangements for Scotland and England to be the same…”
I don’t see how you can claim to want “equal treatment for the English” and “…arrangements for scotland and England
to be the same” when you are against an English parliament! The scots having their own parliament plus going to Westminster is not the same as the English only turning up at Westminster. The same treatment would be for the English mp’s to ALSO have a parliament of their own! I think you’re just trying to get out of answering my questions. What constitutes an English MP john? By the way John, I dont want to be bolshy. I am however of the opinion that you’re stalling.
Reply: What nonsense!
The Death of Britain was a book against devolution, warning that it would help break up the UK as part of the Euro plan to split us up into regions to make it easier to govern from Brussels. I was elected in 1997 on a manifesto opposing devolution. Now people have voted for devolution and we have it in a lop sided way, we need to find a way of giving England a fairer deal.
Of course having the English Parliament at Westminster is the same as having the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh if it is given the same powers, as it would be under my proposals. I would also like both Scotland and England to elect just the one set of politicians to do both jobs. It would not make any constitutional difference if the English Parliament was given - at taxpayers expense - a different building somewhere else. What matters are the powers.
I am also fed up with the waste of time and energy arguing over whether to pull the UK apart or not - I would like a vote on the Union - in or out - so we can settle it for a generation.
[Reply]
If 529 English MPs at Westminster can produce all the legisaltion for England, then surely 529 English representatives could be split between Westminster and an English Parliament (say, a third at Westminster and two-thirds in an English Parliament)?
Our new English Parliament then campaigns for fairer funding deal; we gave Scotland
[Reply]
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Devolution saves the Union?, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
Reply: What needs clarification?
[Reply]