Dec 22 2009
Scotland and Wales get their own debates – what of England?
Yesterday we learned there wil be 3 debates between 3 party leaders. What people want to see most is the debate between the Prime Minister and the man who could succeed him. The rules to qualify for the debate could be easy – the two top polling parties in the six months prior to the General Election.
If you want to be nice to the third party as the broadcasters clearly do you could say their Leader could join in if that party commanded a given proportion of the vote. I would set it myself at 20%, but to guarantee Lib Dems a place these days you might have to choose 15%. It would be better to have objective criteria for participation, in case another party did streak ahead of the Lib Dems in the polls, as happened in the European elections.
The Nationalist parties who say they want to join in cannot command anything like 15% of the Uk vote, and have no chance of their Leaders becoming Prime Minister. That is why they are correctly excluded from the UK debate. A system of allowing the best placed third party in GE polls would allow for any surge in a none of the above party, whilst excluding the range of single issue and small minority parties that seek publicity during a General Election but cannot command many votes. We can concentrate on the main protagonists and their main arguments.
As a sop to nationalist sentiment the broadcasters are offering Scotland and Wales their own national debates with their own local Leaders. That’s fine by me, but what about England? It just reminds us how lopsided UK devolution is under Labour, and just how much the EU hates England, wishing to break it into unloved regional units.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Trying to make any such debate “fair” is completely impossible. The debate in Scotland is Labour -v- SNP, but in SE England you could argue that it is Conservative -v- UKIP. The only people who ever claim fairness are those who think they have an advantage!
You either have the debate between the party leaders that could have positions in the next national Government, or call the whole thing off as too complicated.
Perhaps you start off with Conservative -v- Labour, with them each able to nominate a “partner” who would join them to the right of the Speaker in the event of a hung Parliament. Those partners would also have chairs in these debates, as they would be awarded a few Ministerial posts given such a result. That would justify LibDem presence, and (unless the LibDems offer to help both Labour and Conservative) potentially UKIP.
It’s still not entirely fair, but this is about democracy. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
Reply: In a General Election the debate in the south east is Cons v Lab. In a European election it is Cons v UKIP
Reply
Mick Anderson Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
John: I’ll concede the difference between EU elections and the coming GE, but I’m still not convinced that Labour are really the competition for the Conservatives in SW Surrey.
The only party I remember coming close to ousting the Tory MP was the LibDems. Certainly, you see few Labour posters in gardens during elections in this area. I suspect that the local Labour PPC thinks that retaining his deposit is a good result.
So, on the basis that the electoral landscape is always shifting, and that the last significant elections were using PR rather then FPTP, do you just look at the recent polls to see who is relevant for a two party debate? If so, depending on the pollster, there has been a real possibility of debates between Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg, but not the sitting Prime Minister!
Look on the bright side – whichever way you count it, Mr Cameron has his name on one of the podiums.
Reply: In the seats with the largest Tory majorities Labour are no threat. I was talking about the swing seats in the South East, which are mainly Con/Lab marginals – e.g. the Reading seats
Reply
Dear me, to think you used to hold a position of influence over Wales!
Actually, in fairness much of what you say is difficult to disagree with. But why must ‘Englishness’ be constantly defined in relation to other nations? I’m English myself, although I live in Wales, and I cannot help but be in embarrased by Englands parochial nationalism.
This debate is a case in point. You know damned well that any NHS, Schools, Transport etc debates discussed at the UK meetings will focus entirely on the English NHS, the English School system etc. In some senses this is fine and understandable, after all the debates will only last a select period of time, but it does leave some of us licence fee payers who don’t live in England feeling slightly left out..Indeed, sit and watch the 6 O’Clock nowadays. Only about 50% of it is-by definition-of direct relevance to me.
All of this is a difficult situation to resolve, and the answer isn’t to give Plaid Cymru and the SNP equal status with Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories in UK wide dabates, but you should recognise that the supposed UK wide debate will in effect be a debate about England, in that all of what is discussed will be relevant to someone living in Swindon, but only 50% will be relevant to someone living in Swansea or Scotland.
I just think these kind of practicalities of the debate should be absorbed before people start hoisting the St Georges Cross about these things, it’s English nationalism-’them and us’ at it’s worst, and a man of your experience should be above it.
Happy Christmas/Nadolig Llawen!
Reply: I disagree. The UK debates will in large measure be about Union matters – taxation, the national economy, employment,foreign policy, defence. I do not expect the leaders to spend any time discussing English roads`, English local government or most of the other essentially English issues.
Reply
James Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:36 am
The fact is, that whatever question is asked the answers given will all be of 100% relevence to English voters. I’d be surprised if any questions on Education, Health, Transport etc give reference to the devolved administrations.
I’m not saying this is not a natural state of affairs for a TV debate, what I’m saying is that it is wrong to claim there is no debate for ‘England’ or ‘English people’, as the national UK debate will by default address matters affecting English issues.
It’s this kind of unnessecary nationalist argument that makes life difficult for me when I return to England only to hear a tirade of childish anti-Welsh abuse from English people who mistakenly think they are being poorly represented.
Reply: I am certainly not anti Welsh, but why are you so worried about the English wanting their view taken into account on English matters?
Reply
Iain Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
You live in Wales and view English people as petty nationalists?!!!
It seems to me that you don’t want English people to be represented, any moves to do that you decry as petty nationalism, when its not. When English people are getting the raw end of the deal on pretty much everything they have every right to feel cheesed off.
The last act of Gordon Brown as Chancellor was to slash the capital spending of the English NHS by a third, he never touched Welsh or Scottish budgets even though he should have under the Barnet formula.
(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/f7a994d0-2677-11dc-8e18-000b5df10621.html)
This went by without so much as a whimper from our MP’s in Westminster, the reason being they see themselves as British not English, as a result English issues fall between the constitutional gaps. We need an English parliament to ensure that our representatives know who they serve. Their part time half hearted representation of England is not serving us well.
Reply
James Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Yes Iain, it is petty because you so rarely see English nationalism represented unless it is in a context that is undermining another nation.
Like here, I correctly point out that 100% of the televised debate will be of interest to English viewers, yet those living in Scotland, Wales or NI will most likely be listening to debates on the NHS, SChools etc that aren’t relevant to them.
Thats the point, there is no grand conspiracy, so inventing one is petty.
I hate to say it (and I say it as an Englishman living in Wales), but Welsh nationalism seems more about pride, and English nationalism more about prejudice. I can’t speak for Scotland as I’ve never lived there.
The whole headline of this blog is just silly, misleading and unhelpful
JimF Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Surely Wales and Scotland have their own Parliaments to discuss their parochial matters, whereas England doesn’t? Many here would only be too happy to return to the position of the national debate being about the nation, rather than having Welsh and Scottish matters “sliced-off”. My guess is this wouldn’t go down as well with the Welsh and Scottish.
Reply
James Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:10 pm
No it probably wouldn’t
And is it any wonder when you dismiss my childs education and healthcare as parochial? Why would people want to share a political arena with you?
Terry Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
The fact is the UK Government in Westminster only ever discusses English Health, English Transport and English Education, English crime (policing). The problem is that it does always done without mentioning the word “England” and is often driven through the House by people such as Brown or Darling, who represent NO VOTERS (Scottish, Welsh or English) in such matters.
Look at this report in the Grauniad http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/09/darling-interview-public-spending-clampdown. Darling said the government should make health, education, transport and housing its four spending priorities, but they’re all English departments! He doesn’t say English or England in the entire interview and he has no mandate in these areas.
I often wonder if some people purposely “don’t get” why the English think they’re under represented. (BTW they are right and it is you who are mistaken).
Reply
James Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Darling should state that they are English only matters. And English people are not underrepresented. A debate on healthcare in Westminster is in effect an English only debate.
Where this is the case I’d support it being clearly stated as such, and I’d support 100% the removal of Scottish, Welsh and NI MP’s rights to vote on the matter.
What will in time emerge is that Westminster will serve as the English parliament (which by default it already is in health, education, etc) and the British parliament. English MP’s will have a right to vote on all issues, Other MP’s just a right to vote on British issues (defence, taxation etc)
It’s the natural and best solution, and conversely will strengthen the Union in my opinion.
Terry Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
James how are the English not underrepresented when the likes of Darling are allowed to exercise executive powers over English only matters, and the English can’t vote against him?
Can you imagine what would happen if 23% of MSPs were from outside Scotland and its first minister represented a non-Scottish constituency? (ditto for Wales once the Assembly has the same powers as the SP).
Do you think they would object and do you think they’d be right to do so?
The English are in an intolerable position and this dog’s dinner of a constitutional settlement will destroy the union of it is not sorted out.
Stuart Fairney Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I honestly think we were better run when JR was Welsh Secretary, than today ~ have you seen the calibre of the AM’s ?
A leading Lib Dem (who will remain nameless to protect the guilty) was my former geography teacher, and she was not exactly Napoleonic. Ditto a Labour AM who was a lecturer at the University I went to.
Nice enough people but I wouldn’t employ them to run a McDonalds franchise, much less a country due to a lack of real experience outside the public sector.
Reply
James Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
It’s a fair comment, and obviously in every institution there are those with more or less experience etc.
Some voters like inexperienced politicians as I think they are viewed as more in touch with the electorate.
I agree that the standard of AM’s could improve, but a great many are very good, and with improved status of the Assembly, the standard is likely to increase.
John Redwood seems a nice guy and I was too young to remember personally his time in Wales..Unfortunately though the anthem faux pas let him down.
Reply
Stuart Fairney Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Without wishing to be confrontational, could you name the best half a dozen and what makes ‘em good?
I have to disagree with your idea that with more powers, higher calibre people will enter the asssembly ~ look at many MP’s. It will be the same old third-raters who can’t get to Westminster, I think the idea that captains of industry would say “Well the assembly has some more powers at last ~ it’s politics for me” is to put it mildly, unlikely.
I would agree however, its current status as an uber-council is a nonsense which only exacerbates the ‘West Lothian’ question. This needs to be resolved and the front bench silence on the issue on all sides is noticeable.
Iain Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“Yes Iain, it is petty because you so rarely see English nationalism represented unless it is in a context that is undermining another nation.”
And the West Lothian hasn’t beggard English constutional rights?
Its odd that you consider England having its own Parliament as undermining others, but not the other way around!
“but Welsh nationalism seems more about pride, and English nationalism more about prejudice. ”
Prde in burning down English holiday homes in Wales? You have an odd sort of idea of what pride means.
Reply
James Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Iain,
The West Lothian question is the shame of contemporary British parliamentary politics. I have stated elsewhere on here that matters affecting only England should be voted on by English MP’s only.
England having its own parliament would not undermine others. It’s something I’d support. What will in time happen is that Westminster will effectively be home to two parliaments: The British, and the (effective) English parliament. English MP’s free to vote on all matters, with Welsh, Scottish and N.Irish MP’s free to vote only on matters affecting the UK. No arguments from me there.
I should dismiss your childish ‘burning holiday homes’ issue. Afterall, it’s not difficult to find a violent, offensive element to any nationalist movement. It’s made considerably easier if you choose to trawl back to the 1970’s…come on Iain, you can surely think of something more recent!?
The very fact though that you mentioned the tiresome ‘holiday cottage’ issue means that your understanding of national identity needs updating. I dread to discover your musings on German or Japanese nationalism!
Reply
“…to be nice to the third party..” means according an electoral advantage of publicity to the third party that is denied to the other smaller parties. Nick Clegg has no chance of being Prime Minister, he should not been part of the debate. Parties such as UKIP – which came SECOND in the European Elections – are now being discriminated against. This is a cosy stitch-up by the Establishment to subtly disadvantage parties that the Establishment would wish not to exist.
Reply
At first glance what an excellent step for democracy but on further consideration maybe not. You have highlighted the spurious involvement of Clegg, to be fair surely the same rules as PPB should apply. At times when there is a clamour for a referendum all the great and the good in the Commons start mantraing “our system elects representatives to carry out the wishes of the people” implying we know what is good for you, just pipe down and be good chaps. Now these debates are going to completely dominate the election and the significance of candidates will be further eroded. One of the results of the expenses and candidate parachuting scams has been a feeling that the electorate would take a closer look at who was on offer at the polls. I would suggest that the strength of the BNP and UKIP has some bearing on this agreement by the party leaders, who want to increase the move towards presidential style general elections and marginalise the smaller parties.
Reply
I see a business opportunity for Channel 4. They could stage a similar debate for the leaders of the parties outside “the big three”.
Reply
Gabriel Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I thought exactly the same thing.
UKIP
Greens
English Democrats
BNP
SNP
Plaid Cymru
It would resolve the matter and if the main three were to be involved it should be at the discretion of both the host (Channel 4) and the six aforementioned.
Reply
Dear Mr Redwood
Thanks for your blog. There’s something I was thinking about for more deserved-Gordon Brown bashing – he poked his fun at Mr Cameron re: ideas dreamt up on the playing fields of Eton – well, why not look into the crack-pot ideas GB and his friend once truly believed in – in their early lives in their play grounds – such as socialism, CND – only to have nothing to do with them now.
Regards
Reply
Its high time England had its own Parliament. I would prefer asymetric devolution which means preventing MPs from other home nations voting on matters that are devolved to them.
Currently we have a Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Parliament and NOTHING for England.
We also have a Secretary of State for Scotland, Secretary of State for Wales, Secretary of State of Northern Ireland and NOTHING for England.
I signed the English Claim of Right. Will you John?
http://www.englishclaimofright.com/
Reply
England is of course being ignored as a discrete entity because all the major parties like it that way. David Cameron, notoriously said he did not want to be PM of only England and that an imperfect Union is preferable to no Union (sub text – England must appease the other countries). This situation will continue until MPs for English constituencies start standing up for England in a serious way. The Tories really ought to take the lead on this but there seems no chance that they will. That is why people turn to parties like the EDP. The disagreements between the major parties are mostly at the margins of policy or about managerial competence. There is little point in voting for any of them if you are looking for a genuine change of direction.
Reply
Yes indeed, what of England ? There might have been more of a chance England’s voice was heard if the Conservatives had sought to give a voice, but they haven’t, and when Cameron has gone out of his way to insult us calling us ‘Sour faced little Englanders’; boasted about all the Scottish blood flowing through his veins but thought that it would be demeaning if he became Prime Minister of England; put Ken Clarke in charge of policy formation on English constitutional issues, which is the same as doing nothing for Ken Clarke was never going to look kindly on England, Brussels yes, England no; and after 4 years as leader of the Conservatives he has never, NEVER, raised the issue in PMQ’s, its as if he has a psychological hang up actually saying the word England other than in an abusive context . In short the Conservatives have been nothing short of bloody useless as an opposition and giving England a voice.
Reply
James hits it spot on I think.
The “UK” Leaders’ debate will be the English debate, which is why the fight has started. What will be discussed, from my perspective?
Brown will talk about his Free Personal Care – we have that in Scotland already.
Cameron will harp on about giving more powers to the Councils and such – this is devolved.
Clegg will talk about free tuition fees – got them cheers!
Brown will want to mention his Crime and Security Bill – doesn’t apply up here.
Cameron will want to show off his green credentials – which don’t even closely match the Climate Change Bill already enacted by the Scottish Parliament.
Clegg will talk about his changes to the NHS – yup, you guessed it, Nicola Sturgeon will not be implementing them if becomes PM!
And so on, and so forth.
If they happen to mention something like Trident, or the benefits system then fair enough, it will apply to me – although there are further complications in this issue too (cf Attendence Allowance debate). James suggests 50% would be irrelevent to Wales, I would say 75% would be irrelevant to Scotland. The News Bulletins are a good example. I should really sit in the house and listen to an average weeks’ worth, and just count how many of the political stories actually affect my country directly. But to call for a Scottish Six O’Clock News is, apparently, “parochial”.
The constitutional situation we have in this country is complex. The Devolution arrangements are assymetrical and confusing to folk who don’t take a large interest. I don’t think Alex Salmond and the rest should be included in the UK-wide debate, I don’t think there SHOULD be a UK wide debate. It’s just not sensible. Not unless they’re just keep wee flags up whenever someone is talking to indicate to viewers which nations their policies will apply to. You’d be surprised by the distinct lack of Saltires!
There should be regional debates, including the people who are relevant there. This should be simple enough for the BBC and ITV to do, although I don’t know enough about Sky’s infrastructure.
Otherwise, what are the other possibilities? To have a debate only about Reserved matters? It would be a tad dull to have a debate about running the country without mentioning Education, Health, Crime…
Reply Many of us in England do not want “regional debates” If there is to be devolved debate we want it to be England wide. You might find it worthwhile to watch candidates for PM of the UK, as they can discuss the economy, benefits system, public spending, banking and monetary policy, war and peace and defence – a few things that may just be of interest if you wish to remain in a United Kingdom. In the south we get Scottish news and do not complain about it. We are told every time the main Scottish football teams play how they get on but they don’t join in a UK league.
Reply
Eddyh Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
The reports on Scottish football teams are disguised English Nationalism. They never win!
Reply
Terry Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
You say “The “UK” Leaders’ debate will be the English debate…”
So why is it called the UK debate, why not the English debate?
Is it because Brown a major player and his constituents are not affected by 75% of what he has to say?
Is it because Brown is meddling in affairs where he has mandate nor moral authority?
Is it because it will expose the fact that there are now two classes of MP at Westminster (those who represent their constituents on all matters put before them and those who have no mandate for most of it)?
Why won’t the Conservatives offer the only logical solution to this democratic deficit?
Reply
James writes:
“I cannot help but be in embarrased by Englands parochial nationalism.” [sic]
But not by Wales’s or Scotland’s, eh, my dear little “English” person!
Reply
Terry Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
I can’t help but be embarassed by such people as James.
Reply
James Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Thanks Maria, for putting words in my mouth. One imagines that inventing phrases is your best means of winning an argument.
I may not have said it, but I am indeed ashamed and embarrased by small minded, parochial Welsh nationalism, I just see a damned site less of it than what I hear from my English friends.
I am English and proud of it, but also proud to live in Wales. I’ve never once been called an ‘English so and so’ in Wales in 15 years, yet its common to be called derogatory names in England just for speaking about Welsh matters.
Theres too much ignorance about, in all nations, but I’m sorry, the views of Scotland, Wales and NI from an English perspective are more likely to be ignorant. Literally in the sense that the authors of those views don’t understand the devolution process, or indeed the cultural diversity that exists within the UK.
Reply
Maria Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I fail to see the logic in your latest comment, James. I quoted directly from your original comment, so I believe you are talking absolute gobbledygook. I don’t believe you are who or what you say you are, in fact I think I you are a time waster. And an anti-English bigot to boot – wherever you were born. Your views are ridiculously skewed (what about the West Lothian question? What about health apartheid? What about the Barnett Formula?) (and more personal abuse ed)Time waster.
Reply
Maria Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Ah, James is allowed to attack – painting me as a person who wins arguments by putting words into other people’s mouths – and yet I’m not allowed to defend myself. Thank you, “ed”!
Reply
Maria Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I think “ed” was grossly unfair in slating my comment – I’ve never been on a site where such inserts are made before and sides therefore taken – but as this is a obviously a very select site (it is an MP’s site, after all) and I’m a straight speaking lass from an area once described as “The Gorbals of East Anglia”, I can quite see why it’s happened. Unfortunately, if insulted I do tend to hit back, and I know I’m a little bit “Common”. Can’t have that on an MP’s site, can we? Funnily enough, I remember the days of the ’70s and ’80s when MPs traded insults most days. But nowadays the elite know so much better. I won’t comment again.
At the last national polling the Conservatives came first followed by UKIP, Labour and the Lib Dems. That was prior to the ratification of Lisbon when there was a perception from the electorate that the Conservatives would offer a referendum.
To premise the debate based upon pollings of a future General Election is going to skew the debate towards the incumbent parties at the expense of the other parties. A fair impartial broadcaster would surely be more interested in holding a debate based upon the popular support of parties as opposed to the inbuilt bias towards incumbents from the FFP system. Perhaps polling organisations could conduct a poll asking electors which party they would like to see governing Britain and include in the debate all parties polling over 10%.
This would at least allow a more representative debate based upon what the populus actually wanted rather than skewing the coverage to include perceived voting tactics. Tactical voting encourages people to vote for the best worst candidate rather than simply their actual best choice. Whilst the FFP system produces strong government, it does so at the expense of correlated representation of the people. I see no justification of extending this short coming to the system to coverage of a national debate.
Reply
FPP I mean
Reply
I don’t expect much from these so-called debates. They will be carefully structured events which I doubt will produce much real debate and explanation but plenty of exhortation and misrepresentation. What we never get these days are the hour long forensic, political interviews by a determined and dogged inquisitor such as the late Sir Robin Day. Today’s political leaders couldn’t endure such interrogation for so long. Of course what they now do is insist that lightweights, such as Marr, interview them for no more than twenty minutes or appear on some wretched comfy sofa.
Reply
alan jutson Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Brian Tomkinson
Agreed.
I will keep my powder dry until I hear what rules are going to be applied, and who will chair it.
Will the audience be vetted for their views and questions and thus fixed in a particular view (remember Question Time and BNP)??
Will the leaders be made to actually ANSWER the questions ??
Will the Leaders be able to question the other leaders ??
This so called debate could be a very damp squib, and an opportunity wasted. Or it could at last show us something of substance,
Reply
If these debates go ahead, we might as well let people vote for the winner – in a presidential election.
In the present system, the additional airtime can only benefit the three participating narties – unless a leader makes a terrible cock-up – and so it is unfair to the smaller parties which are trying to get into Parliament but which are excluded by our outdate first past the post system.
Let Brown, Cameron and Clegg have ONE debate and let the other two go to the unelected parties.
Reply
Do not expect sense from the “debates”, first, it is based on the false premise that we are a free Democratic Nation, we are not. The plan was always to abolish England, still is but now it is further on than ever thanks to the three main parties. All of them hate England and the English, that is a given.
Until “devolution”, we did not think in terms of English or whatever, we were British and proud of it. Our outlook was based on the Union, freedom and justice for all. No part of that is left thanks to 12 years of socialism, the cowardice of Parliament and the lack of a credible opposition, or even just opposition.
Strange the lack of comment on the great carbon scam following the closure of the Redcar steel plant, guaranteed to make millions for………… India.
Reply
Reasonable points, but you can’t have it both ways. Its not good a politician of a Unionist party moaning about What of England?
Did you say What of Scotland? When the Poll tax was imposed on, people in that country voted against the government that introduced it. And were clearly not in favor of it.
Whilst I may be a Conservative voter (the poll tax was a dismal mess, any tax should be easily collectable and it was obvious that a poll tax wouldn’t be ‘easily collectable’ or fair for that matter) , it seems obvious that if you jump on a ‘What of England’ bandwagon, then its in a narrow self interest.
Reply
JimF Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
So a UK Parliament is allowed to provide money asymmetrically to Scotland but a UK Parliament can’t decide how it should be collected?
Ok, let’s try another tack. Maybe Scotland should raise it’s own taxes and pay it’s own bills. So let’s have Regional debates, as James suggests. It will be highly entertaining to hear a debate on just how sufficient taxes will be raised from Scots to prop up Scotland’s banks, pay for your education, welfare, NHS…..
Reply
Michael Lewis Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I agree that Scotland should foot its own bills. As I live in London, it seems strange to me that the UK should provide money to regions that don’t particularly need it. Why should I subsidise Edinburgh? My point was this: don’t moan ‘What of England?’, if you’re representing a Unionist view. I agree with you though: it bothers me slightly that tax isn’t redistributed according to need, but on some old formula that seems in another self interest.
Reply
Mr. Redwood,no one in this “British” Parliament gives two hoots about England,the English must have their own Parliament.
It is the most undemocratic ,unfair,unjust,situation that England is in at the moment. Who indeed speaks for England?…listen…the silence is deafening.
Reply
Michael Lewis Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
‘…listen.. the silence is deafening’ … that’s the sort of melodrama exhibited by male contenstants in the X-factor. Flounce all your like, the UK has a parliament and England is well represented.
Its just that we’re possibly in a situation where the majority of us in England vote Conservative, but Labour hang on because of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland … well thats a bit tough really. I voted Conservative in the last election, but the party wasn’t bothered when the majority of Wales or Scotland didn’t vote for it.
So, any about turn now just looks like toys being thrown out of the pram.
Reply
Maria Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Really? England is well represented? But it is not even recognised as a UK nation, and various laws are passed – top up fees, foundation hospitals for two, because unaccountable MPs foist them on the regions once known as England. And don’t be bitchy, it’s a silly way to try and win an argument, and you do not appear clever enough to carry it off.
Reply
Maria Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“‘…listen.. the silence is deafening’ … that’s the sort of melodrama exhibited by male contenstants in the X-factor. Flounce all your like, the UK has a parliament and England is well represented.”
Another reply where a writer resorts to personal insult, but once again “ed” is silent!
Reply
Michael Lewis Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Perhaps Maria, the “ed” has a sense of humour;) It clearly wasn’t a personal insult. The point I made is very valid. For decades Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had a government that they didn’t vote for. Now, if it looks like these countries may help Labour hang on: suddenly its an issue for people that didn’t mind it when the boot was on the other foot. And, I say this as a Conservative voter! The fact is , Westminster is the centre of power for the UK, much of the legislative power of the UK is held in Westminster and the majority of MP’s are English, representing England.
Terry Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
People living in England are less well represented than UK citizens residing elsewhere.
Some British people have two Parliaments to shout for them, whilst the English make do with the UK Parliament whose executive are elected outside England to interfere with English only legislation.
Do you believe the English, if they desire it, be permitted equal democratic representation?
Reply
The only UK matters the Parliament at Westminster is responsible for-to which MPs from all the British countries and the Province of Northern Ireland will be sent after a general election-are reserved issues such as described above.
If the UK debates are to be of reserved matters and not English domestic matters, there is nothing left to be debated separately in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland since their devolved assemblies/Parliament deal with their domestic matters.
Reported today Conservative leader David Cameron said: “I have always believed in live television debates.
“I think they can help enliven our democracy, I think they will help answer people’s questions, I think they will crystallise the debate about the change this country needs.”
Which country? Britain is a state consisting of 3 countries?
The prime minister told the Daily Mirror: “I relish the opportunity provided by these debates to discuss the big choices the country faces. (Which country?)
“Choices like whether we lock in the recovery or whether we choke it off; whether we protect the NHS, schools and police or whether we put them at risk to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy few.”
Clearly Mr Brown intends to debate English domestic matters such as the English health service, English schools and police, since the Westminster parliament only has control over those of England in the UK.
Will the LibLabCon ‘unionist’ parties be presenting different policies on domestic matters for their Assembly and Scottish Parliament members to pursue in the devolved territories and will they be more advantageous than those proposed for England?
The Campaign for an English Parliament will be monitoring what these so-called unionist parties propose and will note any comparative disadvantage proposed for the people of England
Reply
Terry Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Spot on Scilla.
If the debate is on reserved matters, there is no need to have seperate debates in Scotland Wales or N. Ireland.
If the debate is on non-reserved matters, there HAS to be a similar, seperate dbate for England.
Well done!
Reply
In the despised and rejected House of Commons every week Mr Cameron, on TV, has a go at the Brooding Genius of Downing Street. You can watch it if you like. It is often on the news. When Mr Clegg stands up, the House empties faster than a bumper of claret down a New Labour throat.
BNP? Plaid? SNP? Sorry, I do not hear them.
Now there is to be an American Debate!!!!!!!
Wow!
Chaired by the totally impartial Martha, Jeremy or Gavin. Or interrupted constantly by Richard Bumblebee (remember the immortal Robin Cook?)
And, as ever, the faithful supporters of Region England (who were never asked) and the faithful supporters of Labour (who are never considered) and the true Conservatives and UKIP people (who are as ever taken for granted) all are getting terribly excited!
Reply
Does it really matter if the English have a debate of their own.
The position taken by the three main parties effectively destroyed the union in practical terms, the minute favourable terms were given to three, to the disadvantage of the one.
In 12 years devolution has created a latent English nationalism that is growing despite the attempts to ignore it by the mainstream. At the moment it is represented by a number of groups, but eventually it will coalesce into a single driving force.
The web is now driving political debate, and the media driven product is increasingly only of interest to the media themselves and the political elites. A contrived debate on English matters will be a pointless and vacuous exercise, convincing nobody and more importantly will have no impact on the debate and the demand for fairness out in the country.
Reply
Does it matter? We are no longer a Sovereign Nation, our rulers are in Brussels living high on the hog, we just have to pay their bills.
Reply
Ah well at least the Satellite receiver will be busy.
Reply
England does not have its own parliament because the English people have not campaigned for one in anything like the required numbers. It’s no good blaming the Scots, the Welsh, Brussles, the Tories or Labour – look to your own lack of effort and you’ll see why there is no English parliament.
In Scotland we had the Covenant in the 50s, the Constitutional Convention, the Claim of Right, the seven year camp on Calton Hill and countless petitions, marches, and even (shock!) cross party unity on the issue. The Trades Unions, the Churches, artists, the parties, the PEOPLE decided enough was enough and worked damned hard to change it.
In England you have divided fringe groups who moan, write blogs and won’t even co-operate on common aims (see the divide between the Campaign for and English Parliament and the EDP, for example).
Wake up, stop blaming everyone but yourselves, work harder – the Scots did it, the Welsh did it (taking it a step further so did the Norwegians, Finns, Icelanders, Indians, Americans…) – why can the English not?
Reply
Mick Anderson Reply:
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Of course, there is always the possibility that a “national” government run by Scots doesn’t want the English to play on a level field.
However, on the whole, I’d prefer fewer layers of expensive government. I can see the point of a (Local) County Council, and of a National Government. I would be delighted if all other grades of administration (from PCC to EU) were abolished.
Reply
Terry Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:34 am
No one on these boards has blamed the Scots or Welsh for England’s democratic deficit. Don’t you feel you have a duty to read something before you comment on it?
Also, it is true that English nationalism has only existed since devolution. The movement for Scottish devolution has existed for fifty years and the Welsh movement for seventy. The SNP and PC enjoyed very limited success pre-1998, and if it wasn’t for the Labour Party, you’d still be waiting for devolution.
England needs a major party or newspaper (less so since the internet) to fight its corner. Right now there’s no one prepared to step up to the crease, but that shouldn’t stop us trying.
Reply
Tulloch Gorum Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“Of course, there is always the possibility that a “national” government run by Scots doesn’t want the English to play on a level field.”
A rather slim possibility, I would think. Having an English dominated government prior to 1997 (and arguments about the levelness of that particular playing field need hardly be rehearsed) did not stop Scots from actively campainging for devolution. Look below the top level of politics to the grass-roots and you’ll see what I mean. The devolutionsit/ nationalist movements I mentioned in my post attracted massive support despite (or because of) the English dominated nature of the government. No reason why things can’t be the same in England.
“No one on these boards has blamed the Scots or Welsh for England’s democratic deficit. Don’t you feel you have a duty to read something before you comment on it?”
Not so much on these boards, but the sentiment does exist. In fact, see Mick Anderson’s comment above yours for an example.
“The SNP and PC enjoyed very limited success pre-1998, and if it wasn’t for the Labour Party, you’d still be waiting for devolution.”
Well, if wasn’t for Labour’s refusal to run a joint campaign, and then their ludicrous 40% imposition that came out of nowhere, Scotland would have had devolution in 1979.
Success was also limited by the FPTP system – in the October election 1974, the SNP won over 30% of the Scottish vote… and a grand total of 11 seats. Impressive for a minor party, but not the kind of return that matches the support.
Reply
Terry Reply:
December 24th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Tulloch, if you’re referring to comments made elsewhere you’ll need to reference them because I’ve not seen many. There are, of course, plenty of anglophobic remarks on these boards and elsewhere. (See Davidb’s “little Englander”/”xenophobe comments below.)
The point I’m trying to make about the Tory/Labour stranglehold is this… it is very difficult to break the two party stranglehold in a FPTP system (ask the Lib Dems). It is even more difficult when you are a single-issue party (ask CND, the Greens, UKIP etc).
This is why I believe the only way England will get what Scotland already has, is to persuade a major party to do for England what Labour did for Scotland.
Demands for an EP are very high (60-odd%), but we need to get one of the big two to adopt it as a policy if we’re to get anywhere.
I heard a representative from the SNP on Radio Scotland talking at length abouth this when I was on the daily commute this morning. His attitude was that as SNP and Plaid Cymru would have seats in Westminster they should get a place in the debate. I don’t believe the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Fein were brought up, or if they were I missed that part.
I really can’t see why the Scots and Welsh nationalists are pressing this, what does it matter to them to be seen in countries other than their own in debates? I honestly can’t understand why they are doing this and the chap this morning didn’t really make clear why the SNP would be disadvantaged by such a debate.
I could understand Alex Salmond (who is my MP incidentally, not sure if he has attended Westminster since becoming First Minister of Scotland but that’s another rant for another day) wanting a televised debate with Iain Gray (Lab), Annabel Goldie (Con) and Tavish Scott (Lib Dem) to discuss matters which are important to Scottish voters and there’s nothing to stop them talking about matters which appertain to the United Kingdom as a whole but to insist, on threat of legal action, on attending a debate where 90% of the viewers won’t have a chance to vote for a PPC from their party seems ludicrous to me.
It just makes these nationalist parties appear petty and petulant in my opinion. In fact, I’m sure it could be spun to their advantage along the lines of ‘See how Westminster ignores us, your best bet to have a national voice is to vote for your national party’.
Reply
Perhaps one way around this is for Cameron to declare the whole devolution exercise an unsatisfactory half-way house, and that Scotland, and if popularly requested Wales and NI have an in-out referendum, in which they declare themselves part of the UK ruled by a Westminster Parliament or go alone. These devolved Parliaments would then be either used properly in independent nation states or disappear.
Assuming the result keeps the UK together, Referendum 2 would be for the sovereignty of the UK Parliament over Brussels. If this is unattainable the UK says goodbye to the EU.
We would almost certainly be back to a united Kingdom, one Parliament speaking for all and not subservient to Brussels.
Reply
Englands “British” Government looks after England as an afterthought – after its thought about Scotland, Wales and NI, first.
You’ve just got to watch PMQs every wednesday – never once even heard the word England, or even better the words ” the best interests of England”.
The people of England live in a jokeocracy not a democracy – roll on Independence for England.
Reply
The whole thing is an absolute farce. Scotland should vote for independence asap and get rid of mismanagement from Westminster including all nuclear weapons which are opposed by:
*a majority of the Scottish parliament
*a majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster
*a majority of the Scottish people in every opinion poll ever taken on the subject
And yet we are to be subjected to 4 and a half hours from people who are opposed to these views above on nuclear weapons and who have the power to ride rough shod over the wishes of Scots-you could not make it up!
Reply
The matter is so easy to resolve. The BBC and ITV have separate branches in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I understand the Beeb has a Welsh service, I presume ITV does something similar. These regional service providers need only put out alternative programs on their local networks and presto, England has an English debate about English matters and the voters in the other 3 nations of Great Britain have their rights under the Representation Of The People Act preserved.
As to Sky, I wonder how many people are going to rush out to watch 3 politicians argue with each other when they have such a plethora of entertainment competing with the event.
I speed read the predictable Little Englander comments above. Please remember dear xenophobes that we all pay taxes to your exchequer, die for your country in its foreign adventures, and that Westminster is the British parliament, so we bags a shot at the promoted posts sometimes. Oh, and we Scots never got the vote in 1707 to join of our own free will. Many of us don’t want to be there at all. It is the representatives of the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties in the devolved administration in Scotland who don’t agree to the SNP asking for a referendum on independence. Perhaps if Scotland’s status is so irritating to you you could elect members who can force the hand of their respective parties north of the border.
Reply
Iain Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 am
“Oh, and we Scots never got the vote in 1707 to join of our own free will.”
So Scottish myths would have usa believe, but you Scots have been pushing for Union when English weren’t, and you Scots got a dammed sight more say in establishing a Union that we English, who had no say in it.
This is someone elses work but it lays out the sequence of events that led to this Union…….
‘The desire for a Union principally arose in Scotland and dates right back to the late 16th century. The English were never particularly interested, those that were tended to be actively against the idea. Driving the idea were a small group of Scots nobility and in particular the House of Stuart.
The first words spoken by Mary Queen of Scots at the birth in Edinburgh of her son the future James1/V1 were ” This is my son whom I hope shall first unite the two kingdoms of Scotland and England”. That was on 19/06/1556.
When James V1 of Scotland duly became also James 1 of England in 1603 he tried to bounce the English parliament into having him proclaimed King of Great Britain.He tried three times 1603-5 each time rejected out of hand by the English parliament.
There were two brief unions in the 17nth century, in 1641-dissolved in the civil war, and in 1654-9 under Cromwell- ended at the (English) restoration by the English parliament. Neither involved unions of parliaments by the way- they were military, foreign policy and economic unions only.
The next big push by the Scots and English tiny yet emerging British political class was in 1702-3 when Commissioners from both countries met for 10 weeks over Christmas. At the end of that the English side walked away unconvinced of any benefit to England and dismayed at the potential disadvantages. This despite the urgings of the(Stuart)Queen Anne to reach agreement.
It should be noted that up until this time hardly anyone in either country, Unionist or non Unionist, had conceived of a parliamentary Union. A free trade union and a naval/military union were about the extent of it. This remained true right up to October 1707 when the proposed articles of Union were published in Scotland. Not published at all in England you will note.
The final push for Union in late 1707 was mainly in Scotland where the debate in the Scottish parliament was
1. long(from 3/10/1706-to 16/01/1707)
and
2.in detail, article by article(25 articles)and word for word. Gone through twice over!
It was finally passed by a large majority ie 110 votes for and 67 against.
The idea of federal Union, as opposed to Union of parliaments, was suppressed largely because of the difficulties that Marlborough and Portland and Argyll- all strong unionists – had had in dealing with the federal Dutch states (14 of them) when raising support for the war with France.
Contrast that with the treatment of England.
Bill first read in the Commons 22/1/1707 and rammed through with a “committee of the whole House” and a short enabling clause ie effectively no debate at all.
2/2/1707 Bill read out with no debate.
Committee in one day in one sitting.
29/2/107 Third reading, no debate and it was passed.
There had been plenty of opposition and it was mainly TORY opposition. The Whig government was desperate to avoid the crystallizing of opposition and they were ruthless in doing so and damn the consequences.
In the Lords, the Bill was forced through its three stages in three days. Opposition here was more organised and yet energetically beaten down by the Queen(a Stuart Unionist) and her government. Just as in Scotland.
You might note that it was the Englishman Lord Haversham, who knew Scotland well, who proposed the idea of federal union.
Yes, Unionist, the British Union was forced on the people of England who had no idea what was being enacted in their name and were not consulted.’
Reply
Davidb Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
177 votes deciding it all. How democratic. I draw your attention to
http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/06_03_mob.html
The ordinary people were not consulted, and were not in favour.
We could spend forever debating historical points. But we are where we are. I strongly agree with your disgust at England’s harsh treatment, and am all for the dissolution of this union. So my more salient point is the relevant one here then,
“It is the representatives of the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties in the devolved administration in Scotland who don’t agree to the SNP asking for a referendum on independence. Perhaps if Scotland’s status is so irritating to you you could elect members who can force the hand of their respective parties north of the border.”
Reply
Dickens of Oxford Reply:
December 24th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
It is interesting to note some of the fallacies in that post by Iain. I’ll just take two, because I don’t have the time to fillet the rest:
“The next big push by the Scots and English tiny yet emerging British political class was in 1702-3 when Commissioners from both countries met for 10 weeks over Christmas. At the end of that the English side walked away unconvinced of any benefit to England and dismayed at the potential disadvantages. This despite the urgings of the(Stuart)Queen Anne to reach agreement.”
It was actually the Scots that walked away from those negotiations. To be substantially accurate, the negotiations ended in February 1703 and were due to be picked up later in that year, in London.
The Scots did not return because of the strength of anti-English and anti-Union feeling in the Scottish Parliament and the strength of anti-English feeling amongst the Scottish population. It was felt that, at that time, any parliamentary union with England was further away than ever.
The Scots proposed the Act of Security later that year, which is widely construed as Scotland flaunting its independence. That, combined with England’s military ventures in Europe instilled renewed impetus in the English to force a Union with Scotland, come what may.
“This remained true right up to October 1707 when the proposed articles of Union were published in Scotland. Not published at all in England you will note.
The final push for Union in late 1707 was mainly in Scotland where the debate in the Scottish parliament was”
Utter nonsense. The articles of Union were proposed well before October 1707, given that the Union was effected in May 1707.
The idea that the Scots were involved in the final push for Union takes a bit of a historical liberty, given that the Union had already been agreed to, and legislated for, in England, before the Scots even got round to scrutinising their own legislation. By 1706 England could barely afford to wait for the Union.
I could go on, but I’ll leave with just one anecdote of how public opinion differed in Scotland and England with respect to the Union.
Edinburgh, and most other Scottish burghs were in riot at the very thought of Union for must of the period, but curiously when the Duke of Queenberry rode into England he was “feasted and feted” wherever he went. The route of his cavalcade into the city of London was lined by cheering crowds.
I suggest, that says it all.
Reply
Terry Reply:
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
“I speed read the predictable Little Englander comments above. Please remember dear xenophobes that we all pay taxes to your exchequer, die for your country in its foreign adventures, and that Westminster is the British parliament, so we bags a shot at the promoted posts sometimes.”
Can you point out where any of the posters have demonstrated xenophobic sentiment, my dear Little Scotlander speed reader you? Maybe you should try “slow reading” for a while? There again, why let the facts stand in the way of long held prejudices, eh?
If you reserve the right to “bags a shot” at the top jobs in the British Parliament, how about a quid pro quo compromise? I suggest that 23% of MSPs be elected outside Scotland, along with the First Minister and Finance Minister. Do you agree?
PS. The host of foreign adventures were started, and continued, by Scots Prime Ministers heading a Scots dominated cabinet (Robin Cook being the honourable exception).
Reply
The TV debates are a welcome development. Its a pity the views of Welsh and Scottish Nationalists risk overshadowing this initiative.
There is a strong case for a TV debate featuring parties in Scotland and Wales – what about Northern Ireland as well?
The point about representation for England is quite correct. The next Government needs to give proper consideration to a better system for England that gives its parliamentarians the same level of ‘home rule’ as the rest of the UK.
As a Scot I don’t think Scottish MPs should decide on matters relating to education in England – leave that to the English. However UK matters must involve all MPs.
Reply
Never mind stupid television debates. How about the way that we are governed? The parliament at Holyrood and the assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland are unnecessary and damaging institutions. To preserve the unity of the United Kingdom, at the very least the tax raising powers of Holyrood should be abolished.
People in England would do well to remember the main reason that Scotland surrendered its independence in 1707 after 400 years. In the eighteenth century, colonisation was all the rage. The English were very good it at and the Scots were lousy. The Scots sunk half of their entire available working capital in attempting to build a colony in Darien, the most inhospitable and unhealthy part of the Isthmus of Panama. Disease, defeat by the Spaniards and financial ruin finished the attempt in 1700. This led to a collapse of Scottish self esteem and their willingness to sue for Union with England. It was, if you like, Scotland’s Suez moment.
Suez caused a collapse in English self confidence which persists to this day. We kow tow to the Americans on foreign policy and we kow tow to Europeans in everything else. There will not be an English recovery, nor will the relationship with Scotland be an easy one, until England resolves to recover control of its own affairs. By all means have a Customs Union and some technological harmonisation with European nations but that is as far as it should go.
Recovering powers will not be easy. We will have to increase our defence expenditure and allow for an attack from nations in the European mainland. We will have to nice and friendly to everybody – talk softly and carry a big stick – but be absolutely steadfast in regaining much of our sovereignty.
Reply
Today we hear that the Government is cutting funds to English Universities, but I don’t hear the Government cutting the money sent to Scotland as it should under the Barnet formula. Spend more money in England Scotland automatically gets an increase, cut money in England and Scotland should get a cut, where is it? I don’t hear any mention of it. Will our MP’s bother to stir themselves or yet again meekly accept English people getting a raw deal, as they did when Gordon Brown cut the capital spending to the English NHS but didn’t touch Scotland’s or the Welsh budgets!
Reply
Doug Reply:
December 24th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Ha! That’s a laugh. Just because the London-centric “British” media doesn’t mention it, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. We’ve received a very big cut in our block grant, which is interesting when you consider that North Sea oil is probably just about the only source of income the UK is getting at the moment. Small wonder then that the unionist parties are being given this unfair advantage over the party which currently governs Scotland and is looking to return it’s largest number of MPs ever by some amount.
You people just don’t have a clue, do you? You decimated Scottish industry in the 80s, and now you claim to be getting an unfair deal because your useless media doesn’t bother telling you what’s happening up here? Pathetic.
Reply
Terry Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 8:48 am
”We’ve received a very big cut in our block grant…”
Your over generous block grant (23% higher than England’s spending, despite some areas being more deserving) was not cut when Brown slashed £6Bn from the English NHS.
”…which is interesting when you consider that North Sea oil is probably just about the only source of income the UK is getting at the moment.
Why do some people in Scotland think North Sea oil belongs to Scotland, just because they live closest to it? The City of London used to be the UK’s power house (until a certain Scottish Chancellor started meddling with the regulatory body, which had worked just fine for 160 years) but England didn’t get higher spending because of it.
He also allowed incompetent Scottish bankers to take over English ones and then almost destroyed another (Lloyds) by persuading them to bail one of them out. His fellow Scot, Darling, then insisted that the new LloydsTSB/RBS protect jobs in Scotland, at English workers’ expense.
You people just don’t have a clue, do you? You decimated English banking and now you claim to be getting an unfair deal because your useless media doesn’t bother telling you what’s happening? Pathetic.
Reply
Terry Reply:
December 26th, 2009 at 8:51 am
sorry £2.6Bn not £6Bn
I don’t want to get into the nationalist debate on devolution, I was just confused about this point in John’s original post:
“It just reminds us how lopsided UK devolution is under Labour, and just how much the EU hates England, wishing to break it into unloved regional units.”
A) What has this got to do with the EU?
B) I can’t see anything in this post (or story) where anywhere it is suggesting that England is broken up into unloved regional units. Unless you are referring to devolution in which case it should be pointed out that Wales and Scotland have never been part of England…
Reply: It is part of the EU plan to make Wales and Scotland separate regions, but to balkanise England. The UK government follows their wishes, with its plethora of regional government bodies.
Reply
Re: What has this got to do with the EU?
Errr…everything actually, as they are behind it, Bliar/Broon and Labour simply obey.
http://www.sterlingtimes.co.uk/england_no_longer_exists.gif
http://img8.abload.de/img/nbook12big28e.gif
Reply
“England is well represented”, really.
If the Parliamentary vote on top-up fees for English university students had been soley decided by English MPs, English students would be enjoying free university education , as in Scotland, however, because the vote was open to Mps elected in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland top-up fees are paid.
Why were Scottish MPs permitted to vote with the Government when they knew full well that, back in their own country MSPs voted for freedom from such fees, was it jobs for Scottish workers?, English student loans are administered from Glasgow – what a slap in the face.
The regionalisation of England and it’s services, Hospitals (PFI), Fire Stations, Ambulances etc was brought about for the same reasons.
Britain is not a country – England is, always has been and always will be.
Reply
What is the Point of an English, Welsh, Scottish or Nth Irish Parliament when 80% of BRITISH laws are made in Brussels.
What do we get to vote on, only what Brussels deems is not important.
The idea of devolution is simply crumbs they have thrown us to squabble over, meanwhile the EUSSR has taken our main meal.
I can’t believe people can’t see this.
Devolution is pointless, Independance from What ?
Reply
Dear Sir,
As always when you ask Parliament for anything that requires a referendum the reply will be “We do not do referendums”. They will clearly tell you what you can and cnnot have. The Campaign for an English Paliament has to get political, or else people like Jack Straw will just brush you away as of no consiquenc, because he knows you have to have a vote in Parliament to change any thing.
Rodger William.
Reply