A good letter in the Telegraph from Ken Baker today...Sir - The appointment of John Reid, MP for Motherwell North, Lanarkshire, as Home Secretary, and of Douglas Alexander, MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire, as Transport Secretary is an affront to all English voters. Mr Reid will be responsible for the English police, prisons and criminal justice system, but as these matters have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, he will have no say on them in his own constituency. He can tell the Lancashire police force what to do, but not his own in Lanarkshire. An injustice of the same kind led to his being relieved of his post as health secretary. Mr Alexander will be responsible for English roads, railways and airports, but will have no say on those in Scotland. So both Mr Reid and Mr Alexander will have to make controversial decisions in a country no part of which they represent. Tony Blair, in his twilight months, has failed to recognise the inevitable consequences of his devolution of powers to Scotland, which he introduced in his bright dawn.
Lord Baker of Dorking, London SW1
UPDATE: I've just read in the Standard that John Reid described the Home Office recently as "the one Department which can't have a Scot in charge". For those of us living in the real world that out to be so, but in Mr Blair's parallel universe anything's possible. Next he'll be making Margaret Beckett Foreign Secretary.
30 comments:
I must admit, that sometimes I think Hadrian was gretly misunderstood.
RM
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Scotsmen in government, as with Englishmen in government. However, thanks to Blair and labour it's now a question of "which" government - not good at all.
What about John Reid, Glasgow MP, who will insist that the English carry ID card to access key services, yet his own constituents will not be required to do the same?
Where is Cameron? It is the absolute duty of the opposition to raise the question of the moral bankruptcy of a government that uses MPs which are not democratically accountable to the people they rule with discriminatory policies.
We need an opposition party, not an upper class hippy.
Oh dear oh dear anonymous, that's one policy under his remit (actually one of many, like immigration) which is a reserved westminster matter. Scots have no autonomous choice about whether to carry ID cards. Let's all join together to fight that one.
But what will David Cameron's West Lothian answer be ?
The West Lothian / John Reid issue was raised in a question in a Yougov poll today. They also asked whether recent events had made Prescott look a fool. You'll be pleased to hear that I answered with "He has always looked a fool."
David Cameron MP - The point isn't to like like a bitter opposition, it's to look like a professional, credible alternative government. Cameron has done that just as the Labour party project looks like it is in tatters. We should oppose by all means, but what you call vapidity is seen as maturity by those not amongst the politico-journalist classes.
The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have already said that, unlike in England, services in those countries will not require an ID card. Likewise, if we are ordered to carry them at all times, this will only apply in England. So all Welsh and Scottish UK Ministers, MPs, Lords and presumably the next UK Prime Minister as well as the Welsh and Scots staying in England but who can establish their Welsh or Scottish residential credentials will not be required to carry “entitlement” cards. However all those who cannot so identify themselves, namely the citizens of England, whether or not they and their ancestors have paid rates, national insurance and taxes all their lives and whose forefathers have suffered and died for the Union and so-called British freedoms will be required to demonstrate their entitlement to that for which they have already paid!
The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have already said that, unlike in England, services in those countries will not require an ID card. Likewise, if we are ordered to carry them at all times, this will only apply in England.
So all Welsh and Scottish UK Ministers, MPs, Lords and presumably the next UK Prime Minister as well as the Welsh and Scots staying in England but who can establish their Welsh or Scottish residential credentials will not be required to carry “entitlement” cards. However all those who cannot so identify themselves, namely the citizens of England, whether or not they and their ancestors have paid rates, national insurance and taxes all their lives and whose forefathers have suffered and died for the Union and so-called British freedoms will be required to establish their entitlement to that for which they have already paid!
It remains to be seen if Cameron is capable of mounting blitzkrieg against NuLabour, but this is certainly not the right time to do it. The outcome would be to concentrate the minds of Labour backbenchers and induce them to fall in reluctantly behind Blair. There's plenty of time for the Tories to stake their claim to government, but in the meantime it is sound strategy to hold back and let Labour tear themselves apart. The Tories should exploit divisions among Labour and pick off stragglers, not attack the centre.
Mr Dale, thank you for highlighting the injustices England is facing from the Bliar Labour Regime (and their EUssr superiors)
New Scottish Cabinet in Westminster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01. Prime Minister - Tony Blair *
02. Deputy PM - John Prescott (Welsh)
03. Chancellor - Gordon Brown*
04. Foreign Secretary - Margaret Beckett
05. Home Secretary - John Reid*
06. Health Secretary - Patricia Hewitt (Australian)
07. Defence Secretary - Des Browne*
08. Culture Secretary - Tessa Jowell*
09. Education Secretary - Alan Johnson
10. Work and Pensions Secretary - John Hutton
11. Trade Secretary - Alistair Darling*
12. Transport Secretary - Douglas Alexander*
13. Environment Secretary - David Milliband
14. Northern Ireland and Wales Secretary - Peter Hain (South African)
15. Community & Local Government Secretary - Ruth Kelly (Irish)
16. Leader of the Commons - Jack Straw
17. Leader of the House of Lords - Baroness Amos (African)
18. Constitutional Affairs - Lord Falconer*
19. Chief Whip in the Lords - Lord Grocott
*Scottish
----------------------
Discrimination against the English
The politics of each country in the United Kingdom is clearly different with Labour and the Liberal Democrats doing far better in Scotland and Wales. These political parties have therefore ended up with a free hand in running aspects of their own national affairs. The same is true in Ireland where political parties with specifically Irish characteristics are left to run their own affairs. In England there is no assembly so there is no means whereby the politics of England finds expression.
The current "New Labour" government has a "majority" of some 66 MPs in the Parliament of Westminster. This essential majority for the survival of this government comes from Scottish and Welsh MPs who contribute some 70 MPs to the Labour Government's double counting system. There is therefore, in the case of England, an imposition of a United Kingdom assembly where the government of the day has manipulated affairs to guarantee a built-in "majority". This is a minority government which has the "support" of less than 22% of the electorate. This grossly unfair system survives because of the ability of Scottish and Welsh MPs to sit in two houses while preventing the English MPs the same priviledge; this is an unacceptable act of discrimination against the English.
Erosion of vital English values
Historically, in terms of the development of democracy, Englishmen have been unique in identifying, defining and giving voice to seminal values which so many hold dear. These include the right to the pursuit of happiness, the setting of individual freedom as the hallmark of a successful system of justice as reflected in the typically English legal imperatives as the right to equality before the law irrespective of status, the assumption of innocence, the right to trial by jury, habeas corpus and freedom of, and the defence of, free speech. These have largely rode on English Common Law and the ability of Judges and Juries to do a fair job free from political interference.
Such imperatives for the survival of freedom were promoted by the Levellers during the English Civil War and by the group associated with John Lilburne. Cromwell had these inividuals kept in prison. With the collapse of the English Republic and with the return of Royalty their essential writings were very much kept under wraps. The spark which gave rise to a mass revolution in the American Colonies was when the British Crown moved to ban juries because too many were preventing the state enforce arbitrary decisions on innocent "colonists". It is notable that the American Constitutional components which relate to the pursuit of happiness, individual liberty and freedom are largely based on the early writings of Lilburne written in the Tower of London, 150 years before.
Unfortunately there has been a slow erosion of this essential spark, this recognition of the importance of the defence of individual freedom, as a typical English value. This has occurred gradually since the ascendency of the Scottish influence in United Kingdom politics. Scotland, it should be noted, has a legal system based on the European system, Corpus Juris, a codified Roman Law which is completely distinct and almost alien from English Common Law. This sustains a position which keeps the influence of the community conscience in legal affairs and court decisions at arms length.
Elimination through a political Europe
The lack of an English assembly prevents the English from protecting their rights to sustain their nationality as English. The European project, Corpus Juris and the European Constitutional Draft are aimed directly at "standardizing law" which means, in the United Kingdom context that Scottish Law will eventually reign supreme. The breaking up of England into so-called EU regions has been a subtle and politically destructive means of destroying the coherence of the English nation. England has become the only country in Europe to have been eliminated without a war but rather as the result of the manipulations of Brussels bureaucrats and dishonest and irresponsible politicians in Westminster serving their party interests over country.
Call for action
The democracies with the most robust defence and best records for upholding individual freedoms are those whose system of governance are based on the British Parliamentary system founded on the English system and which defend most of the essential elements developed by the Englishman Lilburne and others. These countries include the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There is no reason why the English should endure the insult of having this essential and historic legacy of democracy and individual freedom buried by bureaucrats and politicians who do not uphold such values or who even wish to destroy them. Fortunately there is a slowly growing realization amongst the English as to what has happened. It is very much associated with the expansion of the "political" European Union and this experiment has gone far enough. History demonstrates that it is not a good idea to try and marginalise the English. This is a call for action to reverse this pernicious process.
http://www.realnews-online.com/rn0001.htm
http://www.thecep.org.uk/news/ViewItem.asp?Entry=919
Why Gordon Brown cannot become Prime Minister.
I am holding on to the theory that the last nine-years have been a "Bobby Ewing-in-the-shower dream". It is beyond the realms of unbelievable...
The time has come for an English National Covenant
The only effect one Independent State can have upon another Independent State is through the obligation and terms of a bi-lateral Treaty. This principle is embodied in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that states a "...party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty."
The constituent parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (so called since 1927) are (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland)
England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland have all been regarded for centuries as nations, and are still correctly referred to as such. This has nothing to do with legal status. England, Scotland and Ireland all were once Kingdoms, but no longer are (since 1707 in the case of England and Scotland, 1800 in the case of Ireland). Wales was not a Kingdom but a Principality, and is sometimes still referred to as such.
The UK Government draws up on its LEGAL BASIS from the Act of the Union.
Article 4 of the Act of Union states That all the subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union.........have the same Rights Privileges and Advantages
The people of Scotland, since devolution, have had different rights, privileges and advantages over those of the people of England. The treaty of union is therefore null and void and England can withdraw using the provision of Article 61 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Article 61 Supervening impossibility of performance
A party may invoke the impossibility of performing a treaty as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from it if the impossibility results from the permanent disappearance or destruction of an object indispensable for the execution of the treaty. If the impossibility is temporary, it may be invoked only as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.
That is the Answer to the West Lothian Question.
Anoneumouse - nations are created and destroyed through force majeure - not through legalistic principles. The only counterexample I can think of is Czech/Slovakia. Almost every other country in the world, from Israel to New Zealand, has been created through force. It follows that the emergence of independent England, if it ever happens, will be the result of unpleasantness rather than the application of sophisticated jurisprudence. Could be sooner rather than later. Being Welsh I'm all for it.
I would take the comments on this site serioulsy if they actually knew the names of the Scottish Constituencies, Douglas Alexander is actually the MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South! And he is still an MP whether the powers at be on this site like or not! Personally I don't see the problem DOuglas will make an excellent Socttish Secretary.
Isn't Clarke's Democracy Task Force suppose to be answering this question in regards to how the Conservatives would reform the constitutional arrangement?
Even if it is, surely there is some mileage to be made from this but lets wait until the other sccrew-ups run their full course before complicating the picture
As a Scot who has lived south of the border I'm all in favour of English votes for English laws as it does seem like the only fair way to proceed. Am I not wrong in thinking that this was our policy at the last election anyway? However, I'd take the objections on this site a lot more seriously if the issue wasn't just used as an excuse to be nasty about Scottish people in general - I mean, the northern Irish were blowing up the English for years and they don't get the same level of vitriol that is reserved for Scots on this site! I get the impression a lot of this comes from the Oxford-educated South East of England hooray-henrys who are ofended that anyone who isn't one of them can aspire to Government. From my point of view these people dislike those from the north of England just as much as Scottish people.
At the end of the day, whether or not we have EVfEL or not, the main issue is how well someone does their job, not what their ethnicity is. Surely we can attack the Government from that perspective?
I frankly could give an airborne sexual intercourse which corner of Scotland Alexander represents. He has no right to project laws on the English people. After the collapse of Labour, the Scots Parliament wilh have to go. The English people were never consulted on these changes, and they are thus unconstitutional. If the people of Scotland don`t like that then they can go to Hell.
Simple axe the Parliament. The English people were never consulted. If the Scots don`t like it tough.
I suggest bondwoman checks out the policies of her own Parliament - the Scottish will not be required to produce ID cards to access any devolved services, which includes the NHS.
This will not be the case for the people in England.
Will John Reid, Scottish MP, be demanding that the people of England be treated the same as his own constituents?
Certainly not, judging by the past performances of Scottish MPs, who have two faces - one for Scotland and one for England.
Check your facts, bondwoman, before you spout your rubbish elsewhere.
England has just as much right to pull out of the union as Scotland which doesn't mean it is a good idea.
The idea of letting only English MPs vote in Westminster on some items is a non-starter. Since somebody has to decide to introduce such legislation would mean you would have a UK Prime Minister Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays & an English First Minister Tuesday & Thursday, with Scots & Welsh talking time off.
If England wants its own assembly, presumeably elected by PR like its analogues or prefers regional assemblies you can get it. It is up to you lot to decide what you want, make it workable & go for it.
I'm not sure the Reverend Paisley would appreciate being described as having specifically Irish characteristics - nor that his enemies would like being lumped with him - but then that's the Irish.
Actually, more than 50% of Scottish people either voted against having the Scottish Parliament or didn't vote at all, so there would be a very good mandate for a Conservative Government to introduce an Abolition of Devolved Assemblies (Scotland and Wales) Bill when it came to power.
But, to tell you the truth, I don't think the people on this site would be happy 'cause they wouldn't have an excuse to moan about how Scots are doing them down all the time...
All very droll, at least the posts that aren't paranoid.
Scotland secured Home Rule after 100 years of debate, pressure and the final push of a broad Cobnstitutional Convention.
If South Britain finds that all very upsetting and problematic, or want EV for EL, then why not get off your collective backsides and organise the very same?
As for the "it's the EU that is behind all this" - if you think the EU or any European politician gives a monkey's cuss what the structure of UK domestic government is, you've been sitting too close to your pc screen. Get out more
"more than 50% of Scottish people either voted against having the Scottish Parliament or didn't vote at all"
So the 74% vote FOR a Scottish Parliament, on a 60% turn-out is undemocratic and could be overturned by a Cameron govt?!
Quite aside from the fact that Cameron actually supports devolution, just how democratic are you - if 74% of 60% turn-out isn't enough?
Something tells me if we had had referenda results against the Euro, Constitution, English Assemblies or anything else - a result like that might just have been enough, eh?
For the last few posters - this is not a question of moaning about/slagging off the Scots. This is a simple question of fairness.
MPs sitting for Scottish seats vote on English issues which do not concern them or their constituents.
MPs sitting for English seats cannot vote on Scottish issues because all such issues are dealt with by the Scottish Parliament.
Therefore Scottish MPs (shorthand, can't keep typing about Scottish seats) are voting on English matters and are not accountable to their constituents for those votes. For instance, the recent Education Bill - doesn't apply in Scotland, nothing to do with the Scots at all, Scottish MPs voted on it. This is just not right.
Mind, I do rather wonder what all those Scottish MPs actually do - the ones that aren't in Government that is. Virtually everything seems to be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament - do they hold surgeries for their constituents? What could there be for discussion?
If we adopt a principle that Scottish MPs cannot vote on matters not affecting Scotland (leaving aside that this is difficult to separate out) and that it's okay to have different majorities for different things in the Commons (imagine government crippled because a UK government lacked a majority for English action), where does it stop?
Do we equally limit the rights of Welsh and Northern Irish MPs?
What about other issues? Should Bills affecting London local government be only voted on by London MPs?
Should Bills about County Councils be only voted on by MPs representing areas with County Councils (for London and Berkshire at least this is easy to do).
What about specific bills for local projects? Should any Crossrail legislation be limited to MPs for constituencies in London and areas where the current plans for branches go? Or even just those whose contiuency will contain the tunnel?
For fifty one years this country existed with one part covered by a devolved parliament and few made much of the issue. The compromise of fewer MPs per head who could vote on all worked. Axing about another twenty Scottish MPs and the political classes stopping talking about the West Lothian Question as an excuse to attack an unpopular measure everytime would be the most beneficial solution for all.
Tim RP
No the important answer is to extend the same degree of political representation and accotability uniformly across the entire Kingdom.
Whether that is to close the Celtic parliaments and run everything from Westminster or to give the English their own parliament with the same devolved powers as the fringe or some other idea is simply a detail to be thrashed out.
Inequality, as the lefties love to point out, breeds resentment and anger. The English are starting to get angry and resentful. And since they constitute the majority of the population the pols had better start waking up and find an equitable solution to what is a grossly discriminatory system at present.
RM
Jafo, you're right in your criticisms of the current constitutional settlement, and it is unfair that Labour exploits their large majority in Scotland and the uneven devolution settlement to impose its will on England... As I Scotsman I agree with this criticism and accept that it need to be changed.
BUT many of the posts on this website do not make this argument in a rational way but indulge in racist hatred against Scots in general. In previous posts we've seen Scots referred to as 'cockroaches' and comments like "the Scots can go to hell" and the inane comment at the top of this posting about Hadrian's Wall just go to illustrate this. This therefore must lead many people to believe that certain posters are just using the constitutional issue as one to indulge in whipping up hatred against their fellow Britons.
Anon, I agree that postings which appear to convey rabid hatred of the Scots don't exactly help rational discussion. I certainly don't feel like that, and don't think most English people do - after all, if we did, there would have been rioting in the street long before now!
However, I am forced into thinking (not particularly from this blog)that perhaps there's a considerable number of Scots in Scotland who do feel hatred and resentment towards the English - well, we're all entitled to our own opinions, and we can hate anyone we like, it's a free country (sort of).
To illustrate, just take the situation about football. In the scheme of things, football doesn't really matter (sorry, can hear screams of rage now) but it is hugely important to lots of people. England is delighted our football team has qualified for the World Cup and we really really want them to do well. Scotland's team hasn't qualified, and obviously the Scots aren't happy about that. We wouldn't be either - we know how they feel. But there've been times when Scotland has qualified and England hasn't, and when that occurred the English cheered for the Scots. But we all know, because they never stop pointing it out, that in general, the Scots won't cheer for England, they'll support anyone other than us. Does that sound balanced?
"Whether that is to close the Celtic parliaments and run everything from Westminster or to give the English their own parliament with the same devolved powers as the fringe or some other idea is simply a detail to be thrashed out."
No it isn't. The former is imposing something on the outlying countries & a guarantee that the Union will end. This is a case where many Tories are throwing hand grenades in troubled waters because they see a Tory majority in England as a tangential route to power. Unless dissolving the Union is intended this is irresponsible.
Post a Comment