By Robin Tilbrook, Leader of the English Democrats
I am very grateful to Iain for this opportunity to appear on his blog as his guest.
Iain, whilst remaining always a loyal member of the Conservative Party (in its best traditions), has also been a good friend to the English Parliament cause.
I also was once a Tory, having been so since my student days (and my father and grandfather before me!). I was quite active in the Party, including standing as a local candidate. If a referendum on Labour’s prospects for National Devolution for Scotland and Wales had been put to all the people of the UK in 1998, I would have voted against it. But, and it is a big BUT, now it has happened and all parties concede that it is not going to unhappen. Indeed it is only in England that discussion on revoking National devolution for Scotland and Wales could, apparently sensibly, take place. In Scotland and Wales it is recognised that their devolution is a process which is not yet complete. All parties there, including the Conservative Party, are promising more powers and a general expansion of status and remit for their National Parliaments and governments. So the outstanding question, to my way of thinking, is what is going to happen in England!
In England, in startling contrast with the British Establishment Parties’ attitudes elsewhere, their attitude is that there should be little or no recognition of England and the English as a separate Nation. The Establishment talk is always about the need “to preserve the Union” of the United Kingdom and that this need overrides English claims to recognition and to fair treatment. This is not acceptable to anyone like me who cares about England.
The English Democrats (in cooperation with the Campaign for an English Parliament) have spent most of our campaigning time so far trying to inform people of the negative effects on England and on the English Nation of their unfair treatment. In doing so we have distributed over 20 million leaflets and the effects are clear to see. In every opinion poll on the subject since October 2006, over 60% of English respondents in opinion polls have said that they want an English Parliament with at least the same powers as the Scottish one. This is shorthand for not only a Parliament but also an English Government and First Minister. The British Establishment’s reaction is an interesting example of the different standards applied to England. The proportion of the Scottish electorate who voted for a Scottish Parliament was 44%. This 44% vote has been accepted by all establishment commentators as “the settled Will of the Scottish people”. Yet the views of over 60% of the English can be dismissed as an irrelevance!
At the moment I believe that the British Establishment could placate English demands for fair treatment by finalising the process of making the UK a federal state with an English First Minister, Government and Parliament to join those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; but the time will come when this will no longer be enough. This is because people are getting ever more exasperated by Establishment intransigence. There will then be a tipping point after which only independence will be acceptable. I sincerely hope that the British Establishment will recognise this before it is too late but I have to say that the signs are so far not encouraging. The latest effort by the Tories is frankly pathetic.
Ken Clarke’s Democracy Task Force has produced an obviously inadequate response to what was not the real demand. The real demand is for equal constitutional treatment for England and for Scotland. This includes a Parliament, a First Minister and a Government. This not just a demand for better representation in a legislature. I think Clarke's proposal, which I still call EVEL (English Vote for English Laws), is obviously unworkable under our current constitution e.g. if the UK Government is of a different party to the majority of English MPs. I suspect that it has been cynically produced as a “Populist Positioning Policy” to deceive much of the electorate, and also the many Conservative activists, who are in favour of an English Parliament, into thinking that the Conservatives will do something to make our constitution fairer. In fact all EVEL does is offer a policy which is easy to explain on the doorstep when canvassing but which could not be implemented – that is simply political chicanery.
This chicanery is of a piece with the reasons why I left the Conservative Party. This was because, having lobbied as hard as I could within the Party, I came to the view that its leadership did not want to do anything for England and could not be reformed from within. I also felt that England needed a proper political party to be the voice of moderate English Nationalism on a par with the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.
I know Iain feels that the cause of an English Parliament is best served by remaining within the Party and I wish him every success but I think that in six years the cause of English Nationalism has been enhanced enormously by the English Democrats and that we are now getting the kind of election results which it took the SNP about forty six years to achieve!
In another 6 years I intend that we will in a position to force the British Establishment's arms up its back (perhaps whilst Iain plays the “nice cop”!? and between us) I hope that we can force a constitutional change that will result in the fair and democratic treatment of England’s legitimate interests to the benefit of all the people of England!
So in the meanwhile I pray to Ken Clarke and the Conservative leadership to:- “… lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from”...EVEL!!!
79 comments:
Can I suggest that you also ask Alex Salmond to write a Guest Blog to explain the SNP position?
I don't really buy the slightly whingey argument for an English parliament. The UK parliament is 90% English already. English people with any sense will realise that a defacto English parliament is good enough and not take measures that will hasten the end of the UK.
The Soviet Union didn't have 'Russian' in its name, but it was after all the de facto Russian Empire.
I think the right answer would be for an incoming Tory administration to pass a 'Devolvement Parity Act'.
This would put each of England, Scotland, Wales and N.I. on an identical basis in terms of national parliaments and the ongoing role of the UK parliament.
Yes it would be a federal UK - good.
Once upon a time, people wanted Real Ale but publicans reckoned there was no demand for it. Eventually publicans had to concede that there was a demand and they had to meet it. Now it is an accepted feature of ordinary life.
Establishment politicians are behaving a bit like those publicans, in respect of English democracy.
However, unlike the Real Ale analogy, when politicians eventually have to open the floodgates to the demand, the danger by then is that the torrent's momentum will carry directly through to independence. If managed properly now, then the Union/Federation can be maintained, albeit on different terms to those previously pertaining (devolution having irreversibly changed the baseline).
English Parliament Now!!!
Oh, and the weasely statistical tap-dancing that includes non-voters in order to falsely reduce voting percentages tends to fool no-one, but does highlight the author as mendacious.
The Cameron speech in Glasgow.."We should not forget that Alex Salmond couldn't ask for more effective allies in his campaign to break up the Union than sour Little Englanders who cry 'good riddance' when independence for Scotland is suggested. I'll fight them all the way. No one is prouder of being English than I am."....and so I, with my 55 years support of the Tories and having withstood that lying shit Edward Heath, became a UKIPPER. All we need is to be asked precisely the same questions as the Scots, no more and no less. It's called democracy.
Do you see a common cause between London and Yorkshire that could be compared between that of Glasgow and Edinburgh?
England hasn't had a Parliament who's authority I would recognize since the purge of hereditary peers.
"I also felt that England needed a proper political party to be the voice of moderate English Nationalism on a par with the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru."
This all sounds fairly reasonable, but do you think it added to the party's credibility that you fielded candidates in Wales?
I think it made you look like A.N.Other Looney Party
Iain Dale is an English MP - why would he need to ask Salmond's opinion of the English being granted the same democratic rights as the Scots?
Westminster is not England's Parliament. It it was, there would be no Scottish, Welsh or NI MPs in it. Meddling with the county council level of democracy does not cut it.
As a Yorkshire lass born and bred, I want nothing less than my own national Parliament, equal to that of Scotland's, and with politicians representing England and looking after England's interests.
English Parliament NOW!!!!
Instead of asking for English Parliament which plays into the hands of Alex Salmond, the support for him being tenuous in Scotland at the moment, we should ask for:
1. Reduction of Scottish MPs by 60% at least by merging Scottish constituencies
2. Barring Scottish MPs voting matters concerning English
3. Revisiting Barnett Formula and amending it to provide sensible balance
4. Giving Holyrood Parliament tax-raising power.
I lived in Scotland for a decade and have Scottish friends. They will not vote for independence when the chips are down. Scots know that with EU expanding Eastwards with smaller nations in Eastern Europe joining the EU, Salmonds argument about getting generous grants from the EU as the Irish did will not work as the EU grant cake has to be sliced to many bits. Scots also know they have to go it alone without the protective mother goose. Giving tax-raising power to Holyrood Parliament means, trimming Barnett Formula allocation, and SNP the extreme socialists will tax hapless Scots to the hilt and within the life of a single Holyrood Parliament, Salmond will be as popular as Callaghan in 1978.
The repercussion of getting English Parliament cannot be all good. For a start, England's international stature whatever that is left of it will be diminished. It will provide good argument for the separation of NI and Wales, and a crowded little England will ensue.
The common cause between London and Yorkshire is we're all English.
The common cause between Glasgow and Edinburgh is they're all Scottish.
If any one cares to look at public opinion, we have 86 pages of it on the link provided.
Anonymous 11:48 AM said...
As a Yorkshire lass born and bred... .
And how does that continue? Strong in arm, and thick in head?
Iain Dale isn't an MP of any sort, let alone an English one
commentcles said...
Of course the existing Parliament is 90% English elected MPs but why are English students paying top-up university fees? why are our hospitals being "regionalised"? why have NHS prescription charges been waived in Wales, Why is care in old age in Scotland unversally free, Why do the English elderly have to sell their homes to pay for their care in old age.
Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish elected MPs voted that English Students should pay top-up fees, Scottish, Welsh and N. irish MPs voted that English hospitals be "regionalised".
Only scottish elected MSPs voted for free social care for the elderly in Scotland. Welsh elected representatives voted for free NHS prescriptions. The English tax-payers foot the bill for all this largesse through the Barnett Formula.
We want an English Parliament with English elected MPs working for the English electorate. The Scots, Welsh and N. Irish electorate can keep their noses out of English affairs.
If £1 is spent on Taffy, Jock or Paddy then £1 shopuld be spent on Tommy. It's called fairness.
I would change the name of your party to "England Expects" or something along those lines. Why would you want to be known as the English Democrats to distinguish from what, the English Dictators?
Off-topic alert. Just spotted this on the BBC News website, "Ian Oakley, who stood down as the Tory candidate in Watford last month, admitted five charges of criminal damage and two of harassment."
The Nasty Party is back.
If anyone is in any doubt as the popularity of an EP and the growing demands for parity, many of those published letters on the subject from people of all walks of life and across country are stored on this link (those identified, that is. No doubt twice as many were not spotted) -
http://crossofstgeorge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=181690#181690
Robin,
In many ways this is the key question for about 5 years hence. Then a Cameron government will be struggling with the economy Alistair Darling is about to wreck with his stimulus (ie re-election bribe) package, and fighting a referendum on Scottish (but never Welsh) independence.
This will cause maximum dissatisfaction amongst the English, and it is possible the fatal error of the next Conservative government is now being made in not recognising this likely set of events.
The argument between going with the CEP and staying in the Conservative party and going with the English Democrats is one I often mull over.
Commentcles - the issue that you miss is that the UK parliament engages in British politics. An English Parliament would engage in English politics.
You can see the impact in Scotland now as the Scots Lib Dems, Tories and Labour all become more autonomous and push the interests of Scotland ahead of the UK at the expense of the English.
The British political response to these devolved bodies has been a Dutch auction of English interests - which are always sacrificed in a vane attempt to keep the UK together for long enough so they can be British ministers when its their turn in government.
I also agree with Robin that a federal UK is about the last defensible line which could hold the British state together. Not just because of the injustice of any other solution against the English, but also for parity of respect between all the home nations.
By the way does anyone know why no one talks of the 'home nations' any more ?
No Government or political party can just legislate millions of people out of existence at a whim.
English Nationalism will become ethnic nationalism unless this government stops imposing britishness in England and starts promoting a civic English agenda and culture. A good strart will be an English Parliament.
At August 05, 10:52 AM, Commentcles said “I don't really buy the slightly whingey argument for an English parliament. The UK parliament is 90% English already. English people with any sense will realise that a defacto English parliament is good enough and not take measures that will hasten the end of the UK.” But MPs are elected to the UK parliament as representatives of a part of the UK electorate. They have no mandate to lobby for England’s interests. The Scottish Parliament works in Scotland's interests. Even if a large majority of UK MPs represent English constituencies, the ruling party can and does force its policies for England through with the few votes of MPs who represent no one in England. This cannot happen for Scotland because it has its own parliament. And the UK parliament can still bring forward policies affecting only England, while the Scottish Parliament brings forward devolved legislation for Scotland. It is the establishment of the Scottish Parliament that is ending the UK. The demand for an English Parliament is merely a response to this. As for empires, England is the last colony of the British Empire.
Robin Tilbrook makes a bold claim: "In every opinion poll on the subject since October 2006, over 60% of English respondents in opinion polls have said that they want an English Parliament with at least the same powers as the Scottish one."
This is untrue. Firstly, we must discount all the self-selecting surveys that are sometimes described as 'polls' and take just the properly conducted opinion polls. There are not many of them.
ICM January 2007: Asked "There is now a Scottish Parliament, and devolved assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland. Do you think there should or should not be a parliament for England only?" This is a leading question, but even then it only produced a 51-41 vote in favour.
ICM December 2007: Multi-option poll. Another leading question: "There is now a Scottish Parliament, and devolved assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland. Which of the following options would you prefer for England?".
32% supported the status quo.
24% said the UK Parliament should continue to legislate but only English MPs able to vote.
21% supported a devolved English Parliament within the UK.
16% wanted English independence.
The ICM 2007 poll
32% supported the status quo.
24% said the UK Parliament should continue to legislate but only English MPs able to vote.
21% supported a devolved English Parliament within the UK.
16% wanted English independence
In my calculations that is
63% in favour of some form of English dimension at Westminster against 32% for the status quo, which prompted Frank Field to make an early day motion calling for an English Parliament.
A new poll is needed to judge public opinion on this issue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7129382.stm
For anyone that doesn't want to see our national assets, inlcuding military and diplomatic (a top table at world affairs/UN Security Council seat/EU primacy if we ever choose to use it) squandered by petty tribalism - the defence of the union is the highest priority.
The arguments for an English Parliament have some weight, in terms of recalibrating our hodge-podge constitution to fairness. However, a country in the mould of the USSR with an overwhelmingly strong sub-state in a supposedly equal nation is always unhealthy.
Regional Parliaments anyone? Override that pesky geordie 1998 vote? Probably not. So we're left with the status quo as the best option.
I am sorry David - even the BBC poll showed that when asked if they wanted an English Parliament well over 60% of people in England said Yes. Even Tony Blair recognised that, if asked, the majority of English people would opt for an English Parliament.
It is of course the only way to save Gordon Brown. If the Labour party grasped the nettle and offered a devolved parliament to the English with the same powers of Scotland et al, maintaining the UK Parliament as a federal one, they would probably get a fourth term.
It is the only way they could, and slowly but surely the tide has turned and we will have our parliament, but somehow I doubt if people like you will be a part of it.
Why do Conservative want another layer of government?
The answer is simple and obvious: ban Scottish and NI MPs from voting on exclusively English and Welsh issues/laws.
English Democrats – like UKIP – should think twice before standing (let alone boasting about it) against Conservatives. You take ‘our’ votes and this helps Labour win. We are were we are, constitutionally, because of this incompetent Labour government . You should not work against us.
While the British elite bury their heads in the sand in England and conver themselves in tartan in Scotland, we in England are watching and listening with more than a little interest.
The words and actions of those who now deny democracy to the English will come back to haunt every British polician who seeks a seat in our English Parliament. And they will. But we will never forgive, or forget.
Man in a Shed 12.26
"no one talks of the 'home nations' any more"
Only in some sports, it seems!
I thought that I recollected a recent mention in a political context but, on locating it in Saturday's Telegraph, it doesn't say 'Home'.
Re possible cabinet reshuffle, Jim Murphy aspect:
"One possibility is for him to run a new Ministry of the Nations, overseeing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and possibly even the English regions."
So, there are three nations and one collection of regions in the UK. If this sort of trend continues with the Con/Lib/Laberals, then my objective will harden to English Independence!
windsor tripehound is showing his ignorance of a fine old Yorkshire saying:
"Yorkshire born,
Yorkshire bred,
Strong in ' arm,
Quick in ' head"
(where the tick show the slight pause where "the" is elided).
"Quick in the head" means quick-witted - not "thick".
But I shall forgive him his ignorance because as a Yorkshireman I recognise that we both have something in common - we're both English and we're both being deliberately discriminated against by the British State.
The Devolution genie is now out of the bottle. We are now faced with a simple choice.
Either create an English Parliament and some form of federal UK.
Or watch the UK break up.
The last poll (quoted above) showed 16% of the English are now in favour of complete separation and independence - and yet this is a question that 10 years ago nobody would even have thought to ask!
If the politicians dither, then a tipping point will be reached and it will be too late.
We need an English Parliament now.
Surely a federal system, perhaps with regional assemblies in England (as opposed to one English Parliament) with similar powers to the Welsh Assembly would offer the most sensible solution. A system that is fair and recognises all the countries and regions of the UK is just as likely to strengthen the union as hasten its demise.
Graham
I never quite worked out why the English were not entitled to a vote on Scottish and Welsh devolution - it is our Union too and we should be allowed a say in its break up. And surely it must now break up as the devolution process can have only one natural conclusion as Tam Dalyell recognised in the 1970s.
So, I think I am now in favour of England voting for independence from Scotland and Wales. And Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, the Falklands, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the Isle of Wight and Lundy if we can get away with it. Actually, lets keep on going to the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy. Mercian Nationalists anyone? (www.evilmagic.org/mnp/)
I suspect, however, that the great English voting public could not give a wotsit about this and until the accession to power(!) of the English Democrats we can safely ignore it.
The reason we have Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland "parliaments" is because the EU told us to have them.
The reason why we won't have an English one is because the EU won't let us. Its plan is for England to be split up into nine regions each with its own assembly. London is one region, the North-East voted against one but the North-East Assembly still exists - paid for by taxpayers and filled with place men. The other assemblies already all exist - do an internet search for them.
And even if the above were not true - which it is - why would we want more politicians? It doesn't equate to more democracy: it just means paying more taxes. We were told the London Assembly would cost the average Band D council tax payer another 3p a week - about £1.50 a year. Last year I paid more than £300 for the London Assembly. Do I feel more represented? No. Would I miss the LA if it was abolished? No. I want fewer politicians not more - I already have an MP, and MEP, a London Assembly member and three local counsellors looking after "my interests". What in God's name do they all do?
No to an English Parliament and while we are at it, let's abolish the London Assembly, the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm
Opinion Research Business
Poll for BBC Newsnight Jan 2007
"5. In 1998 the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly gave these countries certain powers that were previously held by the UK parliament in Westminster. Do you think that an English Parliament should now be established? "
61% of English respondents felt there should be an English Parliament
(As did 51% Scotland and 48% Wales respondents)
It should be noted that, asked by a fresh-faced pollster about an issue they have no strong views about, many people respond enthusiastically to proposals for constitutional change. After lengthy and detailed debate in which the points against are put, many then change their mind.
I suspect that a referendum on establishing a devolved English Parliament would be rejected and would get barely 20% support in a referendum.
If you are in Tim Yeo's neck of the woods, please spit in his eye for me.
With regard to the "unfairness" as you perceive it, how can the domination of parliament since its inception by England be unfair to England? If you removed all the Scottish MPs from the equation, you'd still be left with nearly 600. If you can't sort things out now, when the vast majority of MPs and constituencies are English, why would squandering hundreds of millions of pounds on an English parliament change that? Why do you need so much government anyway? if you want to leave the EU, fine, but if you don't there's a very strong argument to substantially reduce the political population of London.
Alex Salmond's tinpot party commanded all of 17% of the available votes in the last Scottish election and many of those were cast in protest against Labour. The country (UK) is not greatly enamoured with any political party and it would be a good start to talk sense. Sadly, you haven't even got that far.
Looks like Watford could be the, 'One' for u Iain.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7542549.stm
Perhaps that, 'Nice' Mr. Conway could put in a good word for u.
The United Kingdom was a marriage of two old parliamentary nations into one new composite nation which involved both giving up their parliaments and self rule and vesting it in the new supranational country
ie Great Britain/the British.
When one of those old national partners ie Scotland got back its parliament and self rule via the Scotland Act 1998 then equity demanded that the English be offered the same.
They were not and the British establishment has, in a glaring example of national bias and discrimination of the sort they condemn elsewhere, resolutely set itself against recognising England in any way.
( other than perversely through the Barnett Rules)
The only just outcome of the present impasse is the evolution of a federal UK including a self ruling England with her own parliament, administration and budget , which is specifically loyal and committed to England and not to "Britain" just as the Scottish government is to Scotland.
Considerations of size and cost are irrelevant in this context. It is justice and democracy that counts and England is denied that.
The movement for English self rule is comparable to that of Women's Suffrage. It took 21 years from 1897 to 1918 to get it.( Yes , I know many campaigned for it before 1897 and I know full votes for women did not happen till 1928 but the argument was won some time before 1918).
We are at a comparable time before circa 1905-6.
Things move faster nowadays!
Re the Conservative party and England there are two broad strands of opinion .
There are the out and out Britishers( often of celtic extraction) who moronically are determined to forever hold down whosoever they can under British rule - and thats only the English now. Their method is to ignore the English and if pushed into a corner to employ ridicule, enmity and contempt.
There is another largish group who see the point, who can see that an English parliament will not be an end to the UK but will renew it as a happy federal country.
Arthur Asquith(Liberal) was Prime minister right up to 1916 and he was dead anti votes for women to the bitter end. So was most of the establishment though not all. 1918 saw the inception women's suffrage as a fact
and the world did not end!
Norman: "Alex Salmond, the support for him being tenuous in Scotland at the moment"
Ha ha, you've got to be joking? Scotland has never had a more popular leader.
Normun
Salmond makes no arguments whatsoever for EU handouts
he just wants to stop Scotland handling its wealth and opportunities away -- and become more like Norway
Ken 10.55
Your Real Ale and brewery analogy is a good one, however what people tend to forget is that NuLab, in Cahoots with the Tories and LibDems have already sold the Brewery to Brussels.
Keeping the English divided is an essential part of the EU plan.
Scotland will NEVER be independent, at best it will be merely a regional government within the EU, with no more powers that it enjoys today, probably less.
It is all to do with perception, and the perception that ALL the political parties want to give is that the devolution path came out of Westminster. Nothing could be further from the truth. It came out of Brussels.
For the EU integration plan to work England must be kept divided, it must be broken, which is why we are being split into 9 regions.
That is why there will never be an English parliament, the EU just wont allow it.
Why do we want another level of "government" when the existing mechanisms are failing so badly?
An English parliament would only be worthwhile if we actually had rights to govern ourselves.
Since waste policy, energy, defence, foreign affairs, agriculture, trade, fisheries and anything else you can mention is firmly lodged in Brussels, what on earth would the point be?
An english parliament would also need to rob councils of wehat little powers they had left to justify itself as the Scottish assembly has done.
It would be yet another toothless talking shop for the likes of Iain dale to prattle about while the real business of government is conducted elsewhere.
Not that Dale is interested in the real business of politics. Merely the lamentable soap opera in that theatre by the Thames.
However, in terms of witless prattle, this is the least offensive posting on this blog.
"Alex Salmond's tinpot party commanded all of 17% of the available votes in the last Scottish election"
and the well financed Unionists parties couldn't even manage that, despite every media output trying to scupper the SNP.
The 'Tinpot' party just rumbled Scotland's only viable Unionist party in Scotland in its own heartlands.
Greater Manchester Fabians said...
"..a federal system, perhaps with regional assemblies in England ...with similar powers to the Welsh Assembly ... "
1) Would Scotland relinquish powers down to the level of the Welsh assembly? I think not!
2)I would be content with regional devolution, i.e. that wasn't nation-based, throughout UK. However, that would mean Scotland and Wales splitting to at least two regions each, doing away with their present parliament & assembly.
No?
OK then, England = one nation = one parliament. Now.
Commentcles said...
"...The Soviet Union didn't have 'Russian' in its name, but it was after all the de facto Russian Empire."
-- And is now just Russia, its union having disintegrated. Not the most apposite analogy in support of your argument for status quo!
It should be noted by David Boothroyd that the interests of the Labour Party in preserving the Union only dates back to their entirely cynical sop to the Nationalists which has back fired as the devolved Parliament has been occupied by the most local Party ( as they always are ) .
We must therefore discount the self selecting opinions of David Boothroyd which seek to impose an unfair electoral settlement on the English because the Labour Party is disproportionately represented in Scotland and let us not forget Wales which is actually the most over represented part of the UK .
Labour are facing structural problems over 69 seats in the fragmenting Celtic fringe and know the gerrymandered position of the boundaries will be attacked by a Conservative Administration. In May 2005, Labour won 286 out of 529 English seats with 8.05m votes, Tories 194 seats with 8.10m votes, We can see that unless Labour can continue to defraud the English they will never be elected to anything.
This fact lies behind the plot to break up England into statelets of the EU itself imposed by fraud and and with English tax money showered on the DUP (that part of the UK who benefit most from everyone else and contribute least).
This also lies behind their encouragement of mass immigration and the wish to colonise Southern Conservative areas with immigrant settlements called laughably “eco towns “ . 2,000,000 of the 3,000,000 new homes will, be occupied by immigrants which forms another strut of the Labour Plan to re establish themselves in England.
What is not true is that the Barnett formula is a colossal fraud on the English . Have a look at the figures. Scotland is very nearly fiscally balanced; Salmond would only need to raise an additional £2bn a year in taxes from the Scots to break even. It seems what London and the South East is really paying for are public services in Wales and Northern Ireland. Which makes the DUP's recent treachery over 42 days even more galling.
The majority clearly find it quite unacceptable that England should be governed by an Administration reliant on Scottish seats when here is a Scottish Parliament . The majority are also mistrustful of another wasteful talking shop and nervous of weakening our base to the point that Labour can use the EU to break up the England they so detest in the future .By far the best solution is to simply reduce the number of Scottish MP`s commensurate with the extent of devolved power. Arguably this would be about 2/3 or say a half. An immediate reappraisal of the amount we are spending on N Ireland and Wales musty take place and on that basis Conservatives should campaign for the Union to continue which , I suspect , many would prefer if they were not getting ripped off by the Labour Party hysterically wrapped in its flag.
Scotland is now independent in fact and can only be governed from Westminster by consent .For the Scots to be persuaded not to hold us all to ransom ,the down side of the equation must be introduced quickly . That would be their virtual irrelevance in decisions affecting Britain, I think we will find as N Sea Oil runs out so will the stamina of the SNP.
The great obstacle to the future of the Union is the Labour Party and its need to cheat and lie to the English. Take that away and much of the heat goes from the debate
If the people on this thread that are against an English Parliament are English......for Gods sake whats wrong with you, and if you are not English ...It has sod all to do with you!!!!
The conservatives with the other two main parties form the political elite class. Their interests are nearly enough identical to each other, and inimical to that of the people. Their interests lie with a risk less, tax funded, undemanding career. They jointly handed our sovereignty over to the unelected junta ruling from Brussels, reducing themselves to the status of a a provincial council. None of them are interested in the nation states of Britain, since such views might harm their prospects in Brussels. Notice how, like bishops arguing about the number of angels on a pin head, they all support devolution for Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland but are at a total loss as to understanding why England would desire to be equal to those three countries. It's comical to watch the extremes to which Rifkind and Ken Clark will go, to contort thinking to ridiculous extremes in order to avoid the obvious and fair solution to the English problem. Never fear, Alex Salmond will eventually solve the problem for them with the nuclear option of independence. Hey presto! we then have independence thrust on us -the English. Those MPs who purport to represent the English (but nominated by party hierarchies) will be seen as not suitable to represent the English.
paul donnelley
Exactly. Labour has not only destroyed the economy, almost destroyed society with their pathetic PC victim culture, pandering to extremists and so on, they've about destroyed the Union as well, not to mention corruption and self-enrichment on a scale not seen before. Scum, all of them.
The Mother EU has even got the map labelled ready for us.
David Boothroyd said "I suspect that a referendum on establishing a devolved English Parliament would be rejected and would get barely 20% support in a referendum"
Well Blair doesn't share your supposition and Brown definitely doesn't, otherwise we would have had a referendum, wouldn't we?
David Boothroyd, get your facts right.
Here's a link to the polls on an English parliament.
I keep seeing comments that an English Parliament would be too big and would "dominate" the Union, (or similar).
How?
By definition an English Parliament can only decide for England just as the Scottish Parliament in turn decides solely on matters regarding Scotland.
How on Earth does English control of English schools and hospitals affect the other nations of the UK?
Unless, of course, you really mean that the other nations will no longer be able to interfere with these devolved English matters just as English MPs are not allowed to interfere with the devolved Scottish, Welsh, etc. matters?
Why is this so unacceptable?
Why are you insisting that England must be treated as a colony of the British State?
It's no wonder we now have an English Independence movement when simple requests for equality are treated in such a high-handed and contemptuous fashion...
New Mania says "By far the best solution is to simply reduce the number of Scottish MP`s commensurate with the extent of devolved power"
that still leaves it a BRITISH parliament whose loyalties and responses are British and not English. Playing around with number of seats from outside England in the British parliament is not the answer. The only logical answer since Scotland now has a national parliament is that England must have the same( which will preserve the union by the way as a federal state
Newmania , your method would kill it off .
The BBC Newsnight poll in January 2007 had an even more clearly leading question: "In 1998 the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly gave these countries certain powers that were previously held by the UK parliament in Westminster. Do you think that an English Parliament should now be established?"
A couple of points have been made.
Firstly that the UK parliament can't advocate for English interests.
This is silly. The VAST majority of MPs represent English constituencies. And yet we are expected to believe that they do not advocate for the interests of their electorate. Nope, sorry.
We now have a minor anomaly that non-English MPs can vote on English-only matters. This is too minor an issue to warrant the huge expense of creating an English parliament. The other often proposed measure of banning non-English MPs from voting on English matters would effectively create the bizarre situation of an English parliament without no executive branch.
Secondly, that it's unfair that Scotland gets to implement various left-wing policies such as free personal care. When the Scottish parliament decides to do these things, it does not get more money to play with than it otherwise would have.
If a federal system were implemented I fear that it would spur Scotland on to seeking fiscal autonomy. This would lead to them getting the same amount of money, but English 'democrats' being no longer able to kid themselves that the Scots live on the largesse of their downtrodden southern neighbours. Result: a large barrier to independence - financial timidity of the Scots - would be gone.
ken says Re Soviet Union: And is now just Russia, its union having disintegrated. Not the most apposite analogy in support of your argument for status quo!
Ken, I think you miss the point slightly. English nationalists are short-sighted if they think that going down a path that ultimately destroys the UK makes sense for England.
Standingtall et al...
Regional Parliaments/assemblies, but only for England is the balkanisation strategy from people who don't what England to operate as a nation.
This policy is always put forward by the enemies of the English in the past it was a Scottish foreign policy aim, it certainly looks like an EU aim, and today left wing politicians try it as they think they would never win power in an English Parliament.
The last group of people are wrong - what would happen is an English left wing politics would take form, and have its share of power as the pendulum always swings. ( Just ask Labour in Scotland and Wales. )
Commenticles , you are well behind the times
we English are all in favour of fiscal independence of England and Scotland from one another. Couldn't care less about the tedious arguments as to who subsidises whom via the Barnett Rules. Its national self government we want. The money is important but only secondarily and if it turns out Scotland subsisdises England it makes not an nth of difference . We still want English national self government. We'll manage.
contrary to your protestations the British parliament is dedicated to British aims and a major one of those is supressing any sign of England.
Commentcles said ...
Have you not heard of the "Barnett Formula" that does indeed allow the Scots to spend more money per head of population than in England.
I thought your posts were based on at least a modicum of knowledge in the workings of the UK political situation since devolution. Obviously not.
Commentcles
The point was that as far as I'm aware it wasn't the major nation, Russia, that instigated the break up but the other component territories.
As potentially in our case.
"..English nationalists.."
'English democrat' in my case, please, as 'nationalist' could imply that I seek independence from the Union, in like manner to Scottish & Welsh nationalists.
"..short-sighted if they think that going down a path that ultimately destroys the UK makes sense for England.."
I didn't lay down that path. You expect me to sit still while supposed Scottish & Welsh unionists amble along it, plucking the berries of ever increasing devolution from the wayside bushes?
On yer bike, sunshine!
Put it another way: if my wife told me she wanted to stay married but changing to a semi-detached "time to be me" relationship, I would give her all the time she could use and more.
(Thankfully, after almost 40 years, she's shown no sign of wanting to disrupt things!).
So, I certainly don't want to end the Union but I fear that the complacency of Establishment politicians will lead to me being a regretful onlooker of the dissolution of the UK.
Toque, the problem with these polls is that they all use leading questions which mention a well known argument in favour of an English Parliament. It's quite possible to craft a question which mentions a well known argument against:
"In addition to the UK Parliament at Westminster, do you think that there should be a separate English Parliament consisting of salaried MPs, to decide how to govern England?"
I bet that would more than reverse the majorities in favour that some polls show. For myself I am not against an English Parliament in principle, but I want to see a proper worked-out scheme not a series of half-baked arguments along the lines of "We want what Scotland's got". What about the England and Wales criminal law problem, for instance? And I also want to see that there is genuine support from the public, not support delivered through leading questions in polls with hidden agendas.
Not yet another lot of pigs with their snouts in the trough. Do not allow the political layers to grow. If their is to be a new layer do away with the existing.
Can this be done without totally breaking up the UK?
'Slightly whingey arguement for an English Parliament'......
Commentcles, if that is what you really believe then I pity you. An English Parliament is the simplest, most logical solution to the current drunken camel we laughingly call the 'United' Kingdom. An English Parliament will mean SMALLER, more focused government, less bureacracy, less pen pushers. True, it will replace the Westminster model - good riddance to over-hyped tripe.
Our current 'democratic solution' is an utter joke. It doesn't work, it is an utter failure. For instance, if you perused the election literature of the Labour candidate for Glasgow East, you will have read - absolutely nothing. Nothing about how she was going to change her constituents miserable lot through Health, Education, Housing and Transport initiates. Nothing about how she was going to lobby to get more jobs into the area...... Nothing at all.
Because she knew - as did her constituents that she didn't have the power to promise to do any of that because the Scottish government look after all those issues. She could, of course have promised them if she was (as she is) an MSP - but a Scottish Westminster MP? Completely neutured. The only things they can do is mess about a bit with the 30% of Westminster time that is UK and international business - and of course shove their noses into the other 70% of the time which is English business
Have you ever wondered exactly what they talk about in a Scottish MPs Surgery? They don't talk about Health, Transport, Planning, Education - they are not in their remit - all MSP territory.
Do you reckon the biggest problem the average Scottish MP has is clearing the tumbleweed from the surgery hallway and stopping the wooden chairs from taking root?
AA Gill did a vox pop tour of the constituency the week before the by election. He met some bloke in a run down pub and this guy summed it up quite well.
"What can they do? Nothing! They have no power to change anything at Westminster"...
Indeed they don't. But the pathetic bleatings about the dangers to the union if an English Parliament were to be reinstated by some on this thread makes me want to puke. They seem to think it's OK to continue to keep paper Scots MPs with no mission statement, no credibility and no legislative power to effect change on their OWN constituents.... it makes a mockery of our democratic process.
That is the true outrage, the true 'extra layer of unwanted bureacracy' Scots Northern Irish and to a lesser extent Welsh MPs all sitting on their hands whistling Dixie, collecting the cash - and waiting for the next opportunity to meddle in anyone but their own constituents business.
These guys inhabit Rotten Boroughs to satisfy a flawed and entirely cynical political agenda - one that all 3 main parties have signed up to, one that is expressly designed to bury my country forever. Not one strip of moral fibre between the bloody lot of them.
But one thing is for sure, the longer these creeps put off the inevitable, the greater will be the demand for change - and the greater will be the degree of change. By ignoring the demand it is they who are putting the union at risk, it is they that will see it crash and burn.
And all I can say is it cannot come soon enough.
How about we paraphrase the Scottish referendum question?
1. I agree that there should be a English Parliament; or
2. I do not agree that there should be a English Parliament
Idle musing on "balkanisation":
Postwar Yugoslavia was only held together by a strong leader who maintained an arms length relationship with the Soviet Union. After his demise, the edifice crumbled.
In our case, it was the leader who initiated the balkanisation process, in subservience to an ever closer relationship with the European Union.
That process continues, though thankfully without the internecine strife.
So, how are we to proceed, starting with the situation as it is today?
Where is our strong leader with a glorious unifying vision to reinspire the United Kingdom?
No, I don't see one either, so let's get on and deal with the reality.
Unionists obviously believe the United Kingdom and a united England are mutually exclusive. Their solution is to abolish England by replacing it with regions. John Major started this process.
I care more about a united England than I do about the UK. Devolution has empowered the SNP and if the regionalists get their way England will have disappeared by the time Scotland chooses independence. The most Eurosceptic nation will then be powerless. Job done!
The Scottish Parliament has made all Westminster MPs powerless in Scotland. An English Parliament will make all Westminster MPs powerless everywhere. This is one main reason they oppose one. Denying the English a parliament benefits nobody other than Westminster politicians.
If the UK is so damned important then Northern Ireland, Wales and especially Scotland should have disappeared as nations, not just England.
Labour and the Lib Dems have got the British at each other's throats. Now they intend to get the English at each other's throats.
The Union can go to hell. I'll keep England thanks.
I completely agree with this article. Kudos to Iain for allowing it to be published.
Toque, what you seem to be suggesting is that England are asked exactly the same question about exactly the same level of devolutionary power, as Scotland.
Seems eminently reasonable to me, who could possibly object?
Who indeed? I'm amazed the polls only show a consistent two thirds in favour.
The reason the establishment parties fear an English parliament isn't a breakup of the Union. As mentioned here 90% of the Westminster Parliament is English and any breakup would simply turn Union MPs into English ones.
What the buggers actually fear is the federal union that would emerge if England achieved parity with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They fear that the national assemblies/parliaments would take many of the powers now exercised by Westminster, leaving the Union parliament with fewer responsibilities.
This in turn would lead to a reduction in the number of MPs suckling at the teat of the Mother of Parliaments and enriching themselves and the whores and restraunteurs of London.
"Seems eminently reasonable to me, who could possibly object?"
Terry, No one could object. Which is why they repeat the mantra that there is no demand for an English parliament, even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Some of the posters here seem to think that all English Democrats are ex tories . John Redwood also thinks they were splitting the conservative vote at Halternprice,this is not true.
Membership is from across the political spectrum. I am ex Labour,voted new labour once and never again. The arguments put forward by I suppose tory supporters here, are no different to the arguments we've had from New Labour supporters since 1997.
A pox on all your houses.we owe tories nothing.
Gadgie - I too was a Labour voter before I became an English Democrat. I voted Labour from as soon as I could vote at 18 to finally waking up after 1997... over 30 years unbroken support. My family were also all diehard Labour voters - but not anymore.
I will never, ever vote for Labour again.
The electorate are denied a referendum in the UK when the Government fears the result will go against it. Hence no referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and hence no referendum on an English Parliament.
As for splitting the Tory vote, well so be it. If the Tories fail to take English concerns seriously then they don't deserve to win the election.
If English democrats are ex-Tories as has been claimed, then the Tory Party had better sit up and take notice pretty damned quick.
I live in the North of England ( the bit that Gordon Brown passes through or flies over between his constituency and Westminster) and I can assure you the Tories are not popular here.
However, unlike Scotland, the Tories could win seats here if they started listening and acting on peoples' concerns. Instead Cameron prefers to run up to Scotland to slag off the "sour little Englanders" and do deals with Ulster Unionists.
If the Tories don't come up with the goods after they win the next general election (due to English votes) they will get as good a kicking in the following GE as Labour is getting now.
When I read articles portraying England as the downtrodden second class citizens of the United Kingdom, I'm always reminded of Boris Yeltsin's campaigns pre-1991 to establish separate Russian institutions within the USSR. Again the argument was that Russians were not being accorded equal treatment when other republics had their respective CPs. Yeltsin managed to dismember that Union to the great cost of Russia and a number of the other republics who might have benefited from Gorbachev's attempts to foster an evolving Union.
The crisis in the UK has been precipitated by a disastrous experiment in devolution. The effects must not be allowed to be similar. Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh MPs form a small part of the Westminster Parliament. England remains the metropolitan centre for UK politics. The constitutional disparities which Labour have created need to be tackled, but not by affording England a parliament which will dwarf other devolved assemblies and unbalance the Union irreparably. English nationalists are as loathsome as all other nationalists.
Much as I have sympathy with the cause for an English Parliament I find it difficult to believe that the EDP will be the vehicle that delivers it.
As an example of this Robin Tillbrook says:
but I think that in six years the cause of English Nationalism has been enhanced enormously by the English Democrats and that we are now getting the kind of election results which it took the SNP about forty six years to achieve!
The National Party Of Scotland was formed in 1928. Robin Tillbrook is correct that 46 years later in 1974 the SNP had their most successful General Election campaign polling approximately 33% of the Scottish vote and winning 11 Parliamentary seats.
In recent bye-elections the EDP have polled:
Henley: 157
C&N: 275
H&H: 1714
Furthermore they do not even register on the regular National polls published in the media (the SNP do).
Does anyone seriously think that they are going to poll 3% of the English vote at the next General Election, let alone 33%?
Does anyone actually think they will achieve a third place at any seat in the next General election let alone get someone elected to Parliament?
It is this sort of ridiculous unsubstantiated propaganda that so undermines the EDP and, more importantly, the cause for better democracy in this country.
It's about time they stopped with the never never land fantasy stuff and started behaving like a serious political party that actually benefitted the cause they purport to promote.
At the moment all they are doing is making the dire proposals coming from the major parties look credible (which they are not) and playing directly into the hands of parties such as the SNP who would wreck the Union.
If they want to discredit that dinosaur of an autocratic centralist, Clarke, then do it, not by making vague assertions but by dissecting his statements and the proposals from that whitewash of a Democracy Task Force, to show him for the self-confessed political elitist he is.
After the debacle of their Mayoral campaign efforts and articles like this the EDP is increasingly becoming a joke!
The reality is simple for the EDP either get serious or fold!
So in the meanwhile I pray to Ken Clarke and the Conservative leadership to:- “… lead us not into temptation, and deliver us from”...EVEL!!!?
If this article is anything to go by, as it stands, on the current evidence, the EDP don't have a hope let alone a prayer!
Patrick
'I think the right answer would be for an incoming Tory administration to pass a 'Devolvement Parity Act'. '
This won't happen.
Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with most of the comments being an English Nationalist, I think a vital point is being overlooked.
If they give the English parity with Scotland and Wales they have to do it properly which brings up the bogey man of PR.
PR is the basis for those parliaments and has allowed the growth of the SNP because smaller parties have little opportunity under the 'first past the post' system.
We live in a one party state. You can barely put tissue paper between the big three. The success of the SNP (and all power to them) shows what happens when folk get a real choice.
PR in England would mean the English finally having that real choice with a chance of winning seats.
The British establishment will never allow that unless forced by dissent or even revolution.
They could afford to risk it with Scotland because it is not big enough to matter. The real power lies with the vote in England and thereby sits the rub.
Hi Ken
Only just seen your reply to my comment. I don't agree that you need to regionalise Scotland and Wales if you did the same to England. Scotland has a population of around 6million and Wales around 3million. Given that the NorthWest of England, for example, has a population of 7million I don't understand the need for regionalising in Scotland and Wales.
On the point about Scotland having to relinquish some existing powers, yes that would present a difficulty.
Graham
Hi Graham,
rather than being a practicable proposal, it was more making the point that there is no way that Wales and Scotland could keep nation-based devolution whilst England was fragmented.
Though, come to think of it, the Regions currently referred to are the EU ones. If, instead, all of UK regions were of a lesser size than now, then it becomes feasible to have (new-style) regionalism, to get away from nation-based.
But, as you say, Scotland is hardly likely to relinquish what it has now, so we're back to the original point: an English Parliament!
Why is the Union worth saving? This question has never been really answered by any commentator that I am aware of. Those who argue against the establishment of an English Parliament because it will "threaten the Union" should perhaps consider that this may in fact be a good thing for the people of England.
Was arch Unionist Ken Clarke ever likely to come up with anything other than his half-baked proposals? His whole approach was framed by his mantra that we "must not threaten the Union". Why not? How does the Union benefit the English since devolution?
The Union is broken. Why are we attempting to fix it?
The Union broke several years ago when Scottish and Welsh MPs decided they weren't as British as the English, and wanted their own separate governments. Unfortunately, they didn't want the responsibilty of paying for them, so we are left in this unsatisfactory compromise where they like to govern themselves, but with the knowledge the English will pick up the tab when needed.
We should have an English Parliament, but the simplest and most effective way is by removing the 117 non-English MPs from Westminster. This would of course end the Union, but fortunately the non-English now have the experience of governing themselves.
visit faisalardhy.blogspot.com
Post a Comment