In a new Briefing Paper the Adam Smith Institute has called for an English
Parliament, but in a novel form. Unlike proposals which involve a new layer of
representatives, a fresh set of elections, and a new building to house it, the
ASI proposal uses existing institutions. Under the ASI plan, following the
next general election the MPs representing English constituencies should meet in
the Palace of Westminster as the Parliament of England, having equivalent powers
over health, education, policing and transport as the Scottish Parliament
presently has. They would elect a First Minister, as the Scots do, who would
then put together a cabinet which would govern England in the designated areas
of responsibility. The UK Parliament would remain responsible UK-wide
matters and would control the various departments in charge of them: security
and immigration, foreign affairs, international development, defence, employment
and social security, energy, constitutional affairs, and tax and the economy.
The English Parliament would meet and do its work in the same building as the UK
Parliament, with each of the two bodies meeting at different times. Part
of the attraction of the proposal is that it does not involve the expense of a
separately-elected body meeting in a separate building. Taxes would continue to
be set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the revenues collected by HM Revenue
& Customs and then divided between the home nations. The ASI tested the
popularity of this proposal by asking YouGov to conduct a survey. That
survey found a huge majority in favour. When the 30 percent “don’t knows”
were eliminated, the figures showed 69 percent in favour, versus 31 percent
against, a better than two-to-one majority.* The Institute notes that there is a
widespread feeling that the present asymmetrical devolution is widely perceived
to be unfair and unsustainable, and suggests that an English Parliament,
constituted along the lines suggested, would be the simplest way to redress that unfairness.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Adam Smith Institute Backs an English Parliament
Delighted to see the Adam Smith Institute row in behind the campaign for an English Parliament. Yesterday they released a briefing paper on the issue which can downloaded as a PDF HERE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
This is more or less the solution which I think would work, although the title "First Minister" is REALLY shit. It sounds about as exciting as "milk monitor".
It's totally pants and is really just a pathetically boring synonym for Prime Minister.
Why not have a Secretary of State for England who acts as the leader of the government on English matters? Or give the leader of the house this role? Elect them on a dual mandate at the same time as the UK parliament is elected, rather like the US President/Vice-President situation?
Alternatively, since the English governing party would almost always be the British governing party, the easiest and simplest solution would be to just bar the doors to Scots/Welsh/NI MPs when English only legislation is being debated/voted on.
This would ensure that only those representing English people would vote/speak on English matters.
Sounds a lot like yet another layer of government to pay for. Don't you think that the mendacious, egocentric, leeches have enough troughs to poke their snouts in.
AS for jockland, let them get on with it, and send back ALL the quangos currently housed up there!
No one wants to elect a Lord Protector then ? First Minister is such a NuLabour term. (By the way I don't think there has ever been an English Prime Minister - surely that's something we should put right ! Walpole was the first British PM. )
You realise that the new MEPs( ne new title needed if we remain in Europe) would get smaller salaries than MPs get at the moment (this is the situation with Scottish MSPs).
However Scottish MPs at the moment are grossly overpaid in terms of what they do for their Scottish constituents under devolution, so this proposal would also be a great chance to reduce the salaries of ALL MPs since their workload would have diminished.
I can just see the present House of Commons voting for that!!!
It was once mooted that a set of Grand Committees meeting in Westminster Hall and composed of MPs elected to Westminster would suffice. Variations could have been introduced such as the use of suitable existing buildings in Cardiff and Edinburgh for the respective commitee. Result; a seperate voice for each Home Nation and a single voice for the entire nation. The Tories didn't like this; they could not have used Scotland as a guinea pig for the Poll Tax for example.
But that idea was not enough for Labour who effectively tried to gerrymander an entire nation (UK) by their actions in Scotland (the divine right to rule) and Wales for a decade. Effectively, a single voice posing as a Home Nation and another voice silenced to pay for it.
That nationalism has now taken a permanent root in Scotland, and becoming so in England, as an opposition to their rule is due to their actions nationally. Margaret may have broken the Unions but Labour may well yet break the Union.
Grrr, this answer to the West Lothian question is exactly one of the solutions I was going to propose in a piece I was preparing for my blog. It was on the slow back burner from back in October. OK.. the very very slow back burner. University started and was a bit of a distraction.
Anyway, my idea included an additional proposal. If English MPs are sitting in Westminster on say Monday to Wednesday, dealing with English issues. Wouldn't it make sense if Scottish MPs were in Holyrood doing the same? If English MPs are doing the same job as MSPs are in Scotland that would leave Scottish MPs a bit spare at the start of the week.
So is that the answer? Monday - Tuesday is devolved time. Scottish MPs sit in Holyrood and deal with Scotland, English MPs sit in Westminster and deal with Englad. Thursday UK parliament day and Friday they head to the constituencies.
Would that just be a very convulted way of moving the old Scottish Office to Holyrood though?
Put simply, it is the easiest, cheapest and best solution, but it is hardly a new suggestion. I have thought the same for a long time now, as indeed you have.
..this is also pretty much exactly what I have been saying . I thought Mr. D wanted a shiny new building with all the bells and whistles , new EMP`s and so on.
This will not stop the Barnett formula though which what we need . Its not just our votes its the money they are stealing...just as they stole our sheep in their raggedy skirts and unkempt red beards.
Seems reasonable.
As a Scot I'd be happy if the same principle was applied to Scotland as well: get rid of the MSPs and just have the existing Scottish MPs sit in Holyrood to debate Scotland only legislation, and only go to Westminster for debates on defence / foreign policy etc.
Sir,
Devolution will deliver nothing of value to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It is little more than a job creation scheme for the politically useless and/or deranged. We need less government, sir, not more.
If anyone thinks that the English will become more 'English' or the Scots more 'Scottish' with their own devolved governance then they, sir, are demonstrably insane.
re: Newmania at 11.41am
The Adam Smith Institute's proposal also addresses the question of the Barnett formula, which we agree is outdated and unfair.
While the Chancellor continues to set tax rates, to be collected centrally, it is proposed that the revenue is divided between the home nations on the basis of population.
In the long run, the ASI recommends moving towards greater fiscal autonomy for all four nations of the UK.
Didn't John Redwood propose exactly this quite a long time ago?
It's all far too complicated (although this proposal is the best of a bad bunch). I don't know why we should be so "wedded" to the Union. It was a politically expedient move at the time, 300 years ago. The world has changed, Britain has changed and not many people consider themselves "British" any more.
Scrap the Union. Set the Scots, Welsh and English free.
The great advantage for those who see this merely as a way of entrenching a possible Tory majority (or at least largest partiness) in England is that this would be done without PR, thus making it quite different from Scotland, Wales & NI.
Not to subtle.
Brilliant! I'd love the people of England to have a Referendum on this - other parts of the Union too, to be fair to them as well as us.
newmania, your sheep stealing tale tells only part of the story; the Scots only stole those sheep because their land had been stolen from them and turned into sheep walks by vile English aristos.
Auntie Flo'
sniper said... "Margaret may have broken the Unions but Labour may well yet break the Union."
Well sniped.
As ever with the Adam Smith Institute, the concentration is less on a constitutional settlement than on keeping the costs down. Scotland & Wales have always favoured a more socialist model, England a Free Market,whilst Northern Ireland has always been a subsidy junkie.Self Rule for each of the parts of the Union, otherwise the 'UK' Parliament will just be chaos.
God help us, another half-witted job creation scheme for gormless politicians who can't get a 'proper' job.
When will you guys get the message???
1. This is a small country. We need FEWER politicians, not more of the bloodsuckers.
2. Devolution in Wales and Scotland has proved to be of NO VALUE at all. There is no argument at all for an English parliament that anyone outside the policy-wonk community could possibly support. the West Lothian question only came into being with the devolved adminsitrations. It is solved when they are abolished..
3. Thus, the solution is not to create more institutions with titles but to abolish the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament(look what hash they made of their elections last week)- or let the tartanocracy go their own sweet way if they want to - and centralise power in the Westmninster parliament. This has worked perfectly well for 300 years and only Blair's half-witted attempt at devolution has persuaded people otherwise. (We could also set about repatriating powers from the EU but that's quite another thread I think ...)
There is absolutely no way that we should accept another layer of government in this country - what with county, city and district councils, 'unitary' authorities and their so-called 'cabinets', MPs, MSPs, AMs, MEPs and heaven knows who else we are the most over-governed, over-regulated, most bureaucratic democracy in Europe. We should set about ridding ourselves of some of these time-wasting leeches on the public purse, reduce the number of MPs to 350 or 400, abolish several of the useless Whitehall departments (DTI, DCMS, DCA, DEFRA the list goes on...) and reduce their headcounts substantially and get these so-called 'civil servants' back to useful, productive, wealth-creating work. They are a millstone and a burden on society and the economy and we need to start abolishing them now.
Trouble is, I don't think any of this is on 'Middle Manager' Dave's agenda. Which means he's not a true Tory, is he?
Now, chew on that.
Interesting reading, surely the new Ministry of Justice should now be called the English Ministry of Justice, because Scotland have their own justice system.
TOM C..said
it is proposed that the revenue is divided between the home nations on the basis of population.
In the long run, the ASI recommends moving towards greater fiscal autonomy for all four nations of the UK
Now your talking , but the Scots will want an oil claw back and the whole row will soon move to full independence . This being the case such a move should come with a clear time table and not the pretence, as with devolution, that it is a final settelement. On that basis it would be fair for the UK to be consulted and I for the Scots they will find its a question of....
" Pick a windy Jummy .. ye`re leavin '"
It sounds remarkably similar to the UKIP proposals...
DK
Is it any coincidence that the ASI have been regular visitors to No. 11 - i wouldn't be surprised if GB steals a march on the Conservatives by running with the principles of this excellent paper.
After all its the only feasible and logical way for the English to tolerate him as PM.
The Tories need to wake up and play the English card before its too late - does anybody know any Conservative policies ?
does anybody know any Conservative policies ?
did anyone know any Labour ones in 1997?
The European Union is the elephant in the room when there is discussion of an English parliament.
Are we staying in the EU? If yes, then the need is to reform local government so that regions match old boundaries. A Cornish region, a Kentish southern region, Greater London, East Anglia, Wessex, the Midlands, the Ridings of Yorkshire...
Scotland itself would divide into two.
There's no need for new buildings, surely, for instance, Birmingham has a big enough town hall... Regional assembly members would be like county councillors, not like MPs.
All ought to be elected by first past the post (do we need more lessons in the purpose and iniquities, indeed inequities of pr systems of voting?)
Regional powers would be as for current regions and the Westminster parliament would do federal stuff.
If we're out of the EU then the settlement needs rethinking; for a start perhaps Scotland and Wales might care to stop biting the hand that feeds them.
Of course the Labour party nomenklatura, the appointed shadow local administration that has been rolled out across the UK, will resist any return to democratic accountability whether in or out of the EU.
Labour rules, and already you cannot vote them out.
I discussed this back in January and I'm pleased that my broad overview has been adopted by the institute :))
In comments I have left elsewhere I went further and said I would like the Commons to become the English Parliament and the Lords to be the UK chamber. I think this avoids additional layers of government and gives England a democratic settlement.
This is a brilliant plan.
When government expenditure is now 130 billion pounds, saving a few quid must be a good idea. Who needs oversight anyhow; it costs money, and normally involves no more than mourning the loss of a few billion into a black hole, and the accompanying insincerities about "lessons having been learnt".
There are two weaknesses however:-
1. It gives Scottish MPs more time to focus on how to wreck the country.
2. It does not save as much as alternatives:-
a. Abolish the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, repeal the Local Government Act (1972) and return all local matters including health and welfare, education and policing to counties and county boroughs, abolishing depts of Health, Defra, Education, large chunks of Home Office etc.
b. Optimise savings by dematerialising parliament with MPs using Video links. Apart from the Speaker controlling debates, other transactions would include Committee meetings, meetings with Whips, meetings with co-conspirators etc, and a MP could follow a debate, partake and vote, while at the same time dealing with correspondence and have confidential discussion with secretary etc.
There are many ways to skin a cat (I dont mean that literally).
I notice the ASI wants the national parliament to control immigration or should that be invasion. What a surprise. 'Immigration' into England is the main reason New Labour are being wiped out. Most invaders arrive in England. We English demand the right to decide who stays here and who does not. The ASI has skipped arm in arm with New Labour for a decade, they support mass invasion. They cannot be trusted. The English will set the terms of their own Parliament thank you.
Ed said -does anybody know any Conservative policies ?
did anyone know any Labour ones in 1997?
Yes the outright promise not to raise taxes. State managed share of the GDP has risen from 38% to 45%. I suggest a shaky promise not to reduce taxes would be about right , which we have .
N, my point was that Blair didn't outline any policies he just stated his desired outcomes such as "education, education, education" - which isn't really a policy.
He then has the cheek to say that Cameron wouldn't know what to do once in office - something which he still doesn't know.
we dont want any more parliaments, mp's or other taxpayer funded wasters. we want our government and country back. I dont suppose it has dawned on you all that the reason we are seeing nationalist support mushroom is that the government in westminster is so bad why would anyone including the English want anything to do with it?
MP's voted for Xmas in their Turkey like behaviour with devolution, their cowardice when confronted with the problem of EU and unrestricted migration and their failure generally to reflect public opinion in policy making.
The public are sick of the current political elite, they stopped listening or voting for them ages ago and we are simply seeing the death of our democratic system.
If the public felt they were well served by the political elite they wouldnt all be voting to escape it would they?
Until we have a political leader,from any party, that will address the problems that concern real people; EU membersip, immigration, high taxation and accountability in public office then the trend will continue. We dont want an english parliament we want our old one back, filled with decent people not the selfish, westminster bubble, professional politician stuffed talking shop we have now.
Put simply, dissolve Parliament and arrange for the Editorial Board of the Daily Mail to govern the whole land as benevolent dicatators.
I disagree.
I feel it would be better that rather than, "the Parliament of England, having equivalent powers over health, education, policing and transport as the Scottish Parliament presently has."
Every county council/ unitary authority should have "equivalent powers over health, education, policing and transport as the Scottish Parliament presently has."
That way voters in England can pressure their local council for changes they want to services AND the scottish/welsh assemblies are pressured to devolve their own powers to local gov't, and vote themselves out to existance. Everyone's a winner :-)
[I think Direct Democracy made a similar suggestion in one of their newsletters.]
The passionate Unionist Adam Smith must be spinning in his grave. Not for the first time the ASI have peed on his legacy.
Look, England makes up 85% of the UK, and devolving to England, rather than say its regions, would be utterly asymmetric. Like Prussia 1871-1933, but worse. And God knows we don't want to devolve to these arbitrary line-on-a-map Prescott's white elephants of regional assemblies.
Simple solution. Abolish Holyrood and Cardiff and devolve to counties and boroughs. Far more localist, and far less likely to have any one area dominating the others by dint of its internal policy.
There is an ugly nationalist vein running through some of the comments here. Is this ignorance or is it a situation precipitated by NuLab and devolution?
tye died diaper
What is so ugly about nationalism?
Some of us like our own kind and would prefer to defend our values.
You know John Bull is right nothing good will come to Wales N Ireland or Scotland yeah Johny baby just like Hong Kong Singapore India Australia nothing good came of them either eh.
Here is what you will have in your English Parliment a real statesman for First Minister lets see now who are the best English contenders;
John Prescott
Peter Mandelson
Dennis Skinner
Dianne Abbot
Stephen Byers or how about a man with vision yes David Blunkett all English all top tier right.
Then there is Partcia Hewitt, Ken Livingstone now there is a shoe in for the first English First Minister Kenny boy.
Oh yes the old celts will be shaking in their boots when England awakes and....well strike probably or whinge about something or other.
The ASI's proposal is utterly unworkable and infantile: what happens if the English (or British) executive loses a confidence vote? Ordinarily that should require a dissolution, but if it's merely the English 1st minister that has lost the vote, why should the UK parliament be thrown into turmoil, and, obviously to anyone but the ASI, vice versa. Totally, unbelievably stupid. If Madsen wants to know why the ASI enjoys the 'reputation' it currently does, let him reflect on where the opportunism he showed in the wake of Blair's election victory in 97 has gotten him.
Good grief, imagine who would stand for an English Parliament (and yes, I am aware that I might well be eating my words if it were ever actually to be set up), or who would turn out to vote for such a thing! The latter would be very few in number, but that would only make them all the more dangerous. And the former would be "elected" from party lists. NOOOOO!
The SNP has just lost an election specifically about the Union, and support for independence itself in Scotland is now at pre-Braveheart levels, though continuing to decline. Plaid Cymru doesn't know what it thinks, and isn't worth thinking about.
So let's get on with rebuilding our country, Britain, with a strong Parliament and strong local government able to tell an over-mighty executive where to go, an over-mighty judiciary where to go, Brussels where to go, and Washington where to go.
That is what people in all parts of the United Kingdom want.
Like several other contributions, I like the idea of the ASI. Only one major problem, and that is the present MPs from English constituencies in spite of being in a large majority, have shown no loyalty to England and indeed more or less refuse to discuss English devolution in any form with anybody. They therefore bear a greater resemblance to the Norwegian Quisling than to any of the innumerable leaders of the English of the past.
Our first need is for a leader who wants an English political entity, and wants it badly, in fact demands it.
Memo to The Hitch, just what is your own kind? English = Black, Muslim, Indian, Chinese, Caucasian, Jewish?
defend your values Hitch what pray are they Fish and Chips a fight on a Friday night, pissing in a bus shelter, invading other countries or do you envisage a Morris minor and Scones old chap. Wake up and smell the stench of decay your English values are gone never to return. Operation Trident, The Muslim Council of Britian your football teams have no English players,no go ethnic Ghettos previal in your major cities there is no way back my friend do the decent thing and go to France
Anonymous @ 4:12
Sir,
One presumes, from your logic, you support an independent Scotland. If you value and wish to maintain Scottish culture, sir, I would suggest that you are far better off in the Union that outside of it.
If an independent Scotland becomes a more prosperous country, then what will be the consequences for nationalism? I would suggest, sir, that the inevitable influx of immigrants will erode the very values that you hold dear. In our brave new world, economic prosperity = immigration.
A Scottish government will not restore Scotland's culture, sir, it can only destroy it.
I think campaigning for an English Parliament would be a vast error. We should do everything we can to maintain the Union so that we may function as a coherent economic unit if and when the European project finally fails.
Forthurst 1.48.
Good stuff, but do please learn the difference (your para 2b) between partake and participate. To clarify, you might participate in the act of skinning a cat and could thereafter, should you so desire, partake of roasted cat meat at your barbecue...
DAVID LINDSAY
That is what people in all parts of the United Kingdom want.
You are living in a fantasy . Polls consistently show that the English want out and its hardly suprising is it. The acheivement of the SNP is astonishing and votes for the other party`s cannot except by supreme wishful thinking be counted as Unionist . Are Cobservative votes in England Unionist? Hardly
No a lot of people in England want to vote for the sort of agenda you otherwise mention but cannot because we are dragged back by votes paid for with our taxes in Scotland and Wales.
Anon 4.19 . You think that English Nationalism consists of Piss and Kebabs but it also consists of Shakespeare , Wordsworth , Parliament and a long history of unique achievement.Englishness is still very much alive although the political class want to deny it a voice. I `m not sure what your point is but it sounded faintly irritating so two English fingers to you.
James Blunt
( Rhyming slang another English tradition)
We need less government not more! More governing bodies mean more taxes for the workers and fat pensions for useless politicians who don't have proper job. More rules and regulations for the sake of showing these new bodies are doing something. General population not interested hence very low turnouts at local and national elections. Politicians interested of course, more jobs for them and also political blogmeisters have more to blog about! Good on yer Colin! And as anonymous said, Scots beware, if you make your new country economically attractive yer'll be swamped with economic migrants!
Peter Hitchens has just blogged:
"How the EU must rejoice to see he repeated daft calls for an 'English Parliament'. This is a plea it can grant all too easily provided the 'Parliament' has no power. I suggest it should be held in a giant thatched mock-Tudor barn in Milton Keynes, surrounded by massed bands of traditional Morris Dancers and traditional football hooligans, all waving their St George's flags (while real pillars of nationhood, such as the great army regiments and the Royal Navy, are quietly dismantled, disbanded and demoralised)."
Quite.
Colin
I was completely with you untill you said something about getting civil-servants back to usefull productive work.
This is impossible, as civil-servants dont DO usefull and OR poductive anything, never have and never will. Do you really think these people are capable of changing a tap washer? We spend Billions training these people to be worse then useless. The only usefull thing a civil-servant can do is turn themselves into pig food.
You are right that if David Cameron does not greatly reduce the amount of civil-servants he is not a true Tory. However I would vote for him first, then see. You/we can always throw eggs at him later if he letts you/us down.
Throwing eggs and nasty blog posts at Tories is more fun, and sure to be fully covered on the BBC and the rest of the state regulated media.
We could make ourselves famous.
The ASI is an ass! Why eliminate the don't knows? Doing this is cheating. About 47% are for this thing in some sense - what was the question asked? - and 53% are against or undecided.
To get to 69% for from that is at the extreme of the Tory Disraeli's lies mountain.
Colin - yes, there is a deep malaise in our democratic organisation, but I really don't think it's because we have too much democracy - rather the opposite in fact. In France their lowest elected 'body' has about 2,500 electors; in the rest of Europe their lowest democratic body has about 3,000 - 4,000 voters. In the UK our lowest level is at an average of 118,000 voters - the local council. The rest of the 'clutter' between local democratic bodies and parliament is obscured by appointed members of quangos - 60,000 of them at the last count, who actually outnumber the whole of our elected representatives. And here in London we have ten (I think) utterly obscure MEPs - (which one do you write to? All of them?) as well as GLA assembly members. And a Mayor. Who is different from the elected Mayor that some boroughs have, the ceremonial Mayors that most boroughs have and the two Lord Mayors (I think)of the City and the Royal Borough.
Yes, the whole thing is a mess. The last thing we need is another set of elections for MEngPs without reform of all the rest of it.
And the assumption that we should simply add another layer of centralised law-making and administration is, frankly, terrifying. At a time when we desperately need to 'Shrink the State' another army of 'English' civil servants in new 'English' Departments of State would Supersize the Leviathan we need so much to take the axe to.
Adam Smith will indeed be spinning in his box, I think; he thought the only legitimate function of government was to maintain the rule of law, and leave all else to the Market.
Forthurst - your option 2 - why not? We desperately need to kill this creeping Centralism before it kills British democracy, so why not 'Big Bang' localism? Genuinely devolve huge chunks of the Central State down to local democratic level, make a bonfire of the Quangos, strip down the civil service to a few thousand letter-answerers, give authority back to Ambassadors in their posts, and to Admirals and Generals in theirs? This Blair / Brown / Rousseau construct of no intermediate authority between the State and the Individual is destroying this nation - the Scots and Welsh independence movements are as much a national nausea against Whitehall Centralism as a desire for ethnic self-determination.
Good blog entry Iain - this issue is fundamental to our way ahead.
The UK never voted on Scottish devolution, only Scotland did. And they voted for as much independent power as they could lay their hands on.
Scotland has just voted to reject Labour rule in Scotland, in favour of obtaining even more independent power. Yet we have Scotland ruled from Westminster by the rejected Labour party, and England ruled from Westminster by a peculiar, hiding, Scottish politician who has never faced the English electorate because he sits for a seat in Scotland.
At the moment the United Kingdom seems to have no government. The wholly discredited Prime Minister is determined to sign a European Union treaty that would be rejected wholesale if put to the UK electorate, and the replacement is so damaged by his mental condition he is unable to control the most florid symptoms of obsession on the most public of occasions, and behaves worse to the point of arousing real fears of his stability, according to his fellow workers and colleagues, in private.
In the circumstances the dissolution of this Parliament and a submission of the Labour party to the electorate's approval would seem necessary.
Hitch: unfortunately for you, but fortunately for the rest of us for you to "be with your own kind" implies your immediate and lasting hospitalisation in Broadmoor along with other deviants and criminal lunatics. Shame on Blogger for tolerating your excess and hatred. Go to Jail, do not pass go, do not collect any taxes.
Hee hee, the word verification for this comment is hilariously "adgov"!
Anon 12.51 - are you sure you're not confusing ASI (Adam Smith Institute) - free market think tank, with SI (Smith Institute) named after former Labour Leader John Smith, which is Gordon Brown's covert "think" tank and propagandist?
The question was:
“Would you support or oppose a proposal that the English MPs are constituted as the Parliament of England, meeting in Westminster, choosing a First Minister and with powers similar to those wielded by the Scottish Parliament?”
And the contention of this flimsy document WAS an additional layer of government, NOT the kind of independence that several have spun from this.
Chris Paul said:
Hitch: unfortunately for you, but fortunately for the rest of us for you to "be with your own kind" implies your immediate and lasting hospitalisation in Broadmoor along with other deviants and criminal lunatics. Shame on Blogger for tolerating your excess and hatred. Go to Jail, do not pass go, do not collect any taxes.
Fair enough. I don't disagree with the sentiment, in some respects. I presume that you extend this view to all types of nationalism.
Hm, I don't think this fits with EU plans, it would strengthen rather than weaken England, so I can't see it flying.
By contrast, an English Parliament in Birmingham tussling with Westminster for power would weaken the nation state, so would likely be acceptable.
Thanks, Polly Glott, for the English lesson, but I'm well aware of the difference, since I was taught English by the historical novelist, Colonel George Shipway, a modest but most impressive man.
However, I meant to say 'take part' which, of cause, means participate. 'Partake' is not a word I would use intentionally in any context.
However, thanks for your approval for a concept replicated by other contributors.
It really is quite dispiriting that politicians continue endlessly to change things for the worse, usually after performing an unscientific and unrigorous examination of the problem they are trying to address, eg secondary moderns are bad so replace all schools with bog standard comprehensives - wrong, including (better) public schools, 30% of children are well-educated, so let's focus on the other 70% meanwhile, we will still be getting a good supply of doctors, scientists, engineers etc. Now the whole system is f**ked and the whole world has to be scoured for doctors and technicians, even Rolls-Royce is recruiting engineers in Germany - what a mess.
Post a Comment