Ken Clarke publishes his Democracy Task Force's report on the West Lothian question this morning. I refer readers to the blog post I wrote three weeks ago, when James Kirkup first wrote about the proposals in the Telegraph.
From what I have seen I am cannot in any way defend this so-called solution. It is not even a half way house. Either you believe that England should have devolved government or you don't. If you do, then you either believe in English votes on English measures or you believe in some form of English Parliament.
Unfortunately, just banning Scottish MPs from voting in the Committee and Report Stages of a Bill will have little or no effect. It still means that Scottish MPs will have a vote on Second and Third Reading.
Ken Clarke's Today programme interview this morning pressed a few of the right buttons, but on the substance of the issue he seemed to be incredibly vague. Yes, the English are starting to feel put upon, he seemed to be saying, but the implication was that we don't want to upset the Scots or threaten the union. Most Scots I know are quite happy for England to have proper devolution.
This is a timid response to an increasingly important question and few will be convinced by it. A month ago I described it as a 'sop' and 'half baked', and I see little reason to change my mind.
UPDATE 3pm: Sir Malcolm Rifkind isn't impressed either. ConservativeHome has his response.
Reportedly Kenneth Clark wishes to reduce the power of Westminster relative to Brussels. In which ways, if any, would this plan further this ambition?
ReplyDeleteBut is Iain saying that he thinks there should be a separate English parliament outside Westminster. Or would he be happy for it to be kept in the Commons with Scots MPs banned from ALL stages of exclusively English bills.
ReplyDeleteAS a Scot, I welcome the idea of English devolution. But it will only work if:
ReplyDelete- All the 'parliaments' have the same powers (England, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast)
- The English parliament sits outside London, to avoid the UK parliament being conflated with th English parliament
- Members at Westminster from all the countries lose pay and perks to reflect their decreased stature
The second point is incredibly important - devolution for England will only be workable if the English stop confusing England with Britain. At the very least, the English parliament should sit in a separate building in London...but ideally should be in Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, or Newcastle.
Half-backed, ham fisted and short sighted.
ReplyDeleteNice work Ken.
Funny how Wales always gets overlooked. Wales does not have separate laws from England, so any solution would have to involve "England and Wales", not just "England".
ReplyDeleteSuch timidity endangers the union rather than makes it more secure. There is an increasing feeling in England that they are treated unfairly by the democratic process.
ReplyDeleteThe "West Lothian" question first raised by Tam Dalyell won't go away and whilst Ken Clarke's proposals are a start in the right direction they do nothing to address the sense of injustice in the English electorate over the way Scots MPs vote on measures that will have absolutely no effect on their own constituents and on occasion had it not been for the Scottish vote the legislation would have fallen.
On top of this is the whole problem of the "Barnet Formula"; the ingrained feeling amongst the English that the Scots enjoy many social benefits and educational benefits that they don't whilst in the popular view the English foot the bill. On the other side is the Scots view that the English are pilfering Scottish Oil revenues.
The fact that also the present Prime Minister is a Scot, representing a Scottish constituency doesn't help although the personality of Brown exarcerbates the feeling of the English against him for his Scottishness. The fact that he also has senior ministers who are Scots and some of whom also represent Scottish constituencies makes for further friction.
The English feel disenfranchised in their own land with nobody fighting their corner or speaking for them and in part must go some way to explaining the rise of the BNP who play on that feeling(as so many extreme parties have always done in the past by latching on to a "scapegoat" or a myriad of "scapegoats")
In all this mix we have the SNP who again see every opportunity of friction between Holyrood and Westminster as an opportunity to advance the cause of Scottish independence.
Unless all mainstream parties actually address the issue of English nationalism and resolve the "West Lothian" question the danger for the union is that a majority of the English will want shot of Scotland and we will see the resultant break up of the Union by the Westminster politicians inability to actually solve/address the English paranoia over better privileges/services for the Scots
It will have no practical impact at all.
ReplyDeleteA Conservative government won't need it and a Labour government will just abolish it.
This amounts to betrayal.
Ken Clarke is a Federast, so I suspect his proposals are there as padding and diversion until the 9 EU Regions can replace England in the EUdenrat.
ReplyDeleteI agree Iain.
ReplyDeleteClarke is just throwing up more questions than answers.
Sooner, or probably later, it will have to be the government of the day that grasps the nettle and sorts out the 'English Question'.
And that will have to include some form of English Parliament.
I've tried to outline the issues here:
http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/e-word-elegant-solution.html
Why Clarke,who has refused to serve in any of the shadow cabinets since 97 should be entrusted with a major policy area like this beats me.
ReplyDeleteBut no surprises for the outcome,a totally meaningless fudge which would not have prevented Trust hospitals or Academy schools since the Scottish MP's still get to vote on the first,second and third readings.
Maybe Clarke nicked his policy from New Labour as they always like to give minorities additional rights over the majority.
More importantly is there any good reason to vote for a New Labour light party?
Iain,
ReplyDeleteI'm puzzled as to why you've posted this, without waiting a few hours to read the whole document. I appreciate that you argue for a solution which gives Scottish MPs even less say in English-only legislation, but why not wait and see why the document says about this before posting?
Personally, I shall read the document first, and then decide whether I think it makes sense.
They also don't mention the West lothian question MK11 the house of lords, will non English Peers be barred from adjudicating on English bills?
ReplyDeleteI'm very keen to get any one but England Kinnock off our backs.
More wishy washy bollocks that serves Englands up Scottish left overs.
ReplyDeleteRemove the Barnett formula, have an English parliament, simple.
I guess it's a tiny step in the right direction, so as far as it goes I wouldn't object to it, but if it is "half-baked" then it is no more so than the current situation.
ReplyDeleteAs some point we are going to have to decide whether to do the job properly and have a fully fledged federal system or go back to Whitehall centralisation (which doesn't seem likely).
The next step, though, should be increasing the size of Scottish (and Welsh/NI) constituencies - after all, with so much now devolved, why shouldn't they have, say, half the number of MPs?
(Blogged).
What a mess. This is a huge issue and Cameron has screwed it up. I would urge all those who care about democracy to read the CEP booklet, by a brilliant Conservative, which will illustrate all the problems with this so-called solution. Every MP got a copy. Cameron got one.
ReplyDeleteI have been warning for some time that Cameron is trying to do a deal with Salmond, in a futile attempt to stop the latter from claiming the Tories are not the legitimate Scottish government after the next GE, and so propelling Scotland to independence.
It is a futile attempt which has sold the English down the river. The Captain WILL go down with the ship, and like Brown, Cameron will the death of his Party in England. Everyone knows that KC thinks of EU-friendly solutions to everything. He is not putting democracy first. It will be easy to convince others that Cameron is made of the same anti-English stuff as KC.
The both deserve it. It's just a pity that labour and conservative members are allowing it to happen. So be it. They will also deserve to go down with their captains in that case.
And those who think it will never happen; look to Scotland. You cannot afford to rest on your laurels. The future is not yet written, but there is a good indication of how it will turn out.
What do you expect from Ken Clarke but with New Labour unable to anything for the English at all where do you go ?
ReplyDeleteThats the point and to be fair Cameron has always said he would rather have an imperfect union than none.I have to agree though, this is really pathetic and will settle the question for about five minutes.Why bother at all ?
I'm afraid we are in this mess because Blair thought he had the right after 300 years to take a carving knife to the Union. He had no right to. The break-up of the United Kingdom is underway and will be traced back to devolution for Scotland and Wales.
ReplyDeleteWe just need to give them their damn independence and pull out all of the facilities paid for by the UK taxpayer (because they will no longer be in the UK).
ReplyDeleteOnce that's done we can ask any Scots left here if they'd like to leave then forcibly repatriate the ones that refuse to go, replace Hadrian's wall with something bigger and electrically charged and then do everything we can to keep them out the EU (the last bit is just out of spite).
Problems solved by this performance breakthrough:
1. Scotland getting way too much taxpayer money.
2. Jocks being in England
3. Do you really need a point 3 after 1 and 2?
Iain, I agree with you. Clarke, on the Today programme castigated the Tories for blocking devolvement. Yet does not want England to have the same! Illogical.
ReplyDeleteThe argument against devolvement was the fact that we are supposed to be a UNITED Kingdom. That argument was lost.
So England must have its own Parliament. end of story.
But I will accept this as it will inevitably lead to an English Parliament. The SNP possibly followed by the Welsh will promise never to vote on English matters. The Irish can never be trusted -as was the case with 42 days!- So I can forsee another incident when those Irish MP's will vote on a purely English matter and cause the whole thing to explode again.
I thought it comical, this morning, when Clarke in his argument for the final ALL MP's voting, said that a lot of Scots lived in England! Was he suggesting that they were a majority in England? nonsensical.
I only wish that people in the Tory party realised that Ken Clarke has been in the wrong party for years.
England will only get better when the "Union" (ha ha) is dissolved.
ReplyDeletePat Harris, Portsmouth, England
Why are all MPs to be allowed to vote on English legislation at any of the stages? English MPs can't vote in the devolved Parliaments at all!
ReplyDeleteAs for this suggested new parliamentary convention to prevent Scottish votes having an effect on amendments made by English MPs - well then if they can't have an effect why are they voting in the first place?
And seeing as it is only a "convention", and NuLabour have a record of just ignoring these, what's the point anyway?
We need an English Parliament and a new federal United Kingdom. And if the English won't be granted equal rights with the Celtic Nations then England needs her Independence.
Continuing our second class status is NOT an option.
David Cameron by all accounts is a bit of an Anglophobe with Scottish blood "pulsing through his veins"... so is it any wonder Clarke is inolved here? The outcome was obvious from the start.
ReplyDelete'Clarke was a bit vague' - quite, the Clarke story since 1997. Anyone recalling the leadership hustings against Portillo and IDS will be having a deja vu moment.
ReplyDeleteDoctor Millionaire,
ReplyDelete"Once that's done we can ask any Scots left here if they'd like to leave then forcibly repatriate the ones that refuse to go"
That's a joke, right? A big, funny, racist, joke?
The Scottish Parliament made Westminster MPs powerless in Scotland.
ReplyDeleteAn English Parliament would make Westminster MPs powerless everywhere.
This is the only reason Westminster MPs don't want an English Parliament.
With an English Parliament the UK could be run by a Grand Committee made up of delegates from each of the four fully devolved Parliaments. Maybe it could be called the UK Commission?
No extra tiers of government and no extra politicans.
I care more about a united England than I do about the United Kingdom, so we can get rid of the reviled regions right now.
If England is bust up into Euro-regions and Scotland and Wales go independent, where does that leave the English? Stateless and powerless (which of course is the plan). To hell with that.
In my opinion we need either a UK Parliament (and that means no Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament) OR the current system but with *English*, Welsh, Scottish and NI governments.
ReplyDeleteI believe I read that the Scots want to walk away from the Union without paying their share of the national debt....well I don't like to use stereotypes but ....
ReplyDeleteHaving Clarke dish up a big dose of fail just now (when planning for MEP elections must be starting) is brilliant. If he is seen to fail bigtime then there is hope for euro-scepticism yet.
ReplyDeleteJust one more example of 'the great lie' ( The UK being a 'united' country). Unbelievable. I don't think a 'federal' set-up will work in this country; the only way forward is complete independence for those component parts of the 'United' Kingdom who wish it. But, we, the people, will NEVER be allowed a vote on 'independence' because the 'establishment' will use Zanu PF tactics (ie) what they say goes- and bugger everyone else). England does deserve better- but a 'federal' set-up in a UK basis will not be it.
ReplyDeleteHitchy (July 1st 11:06 am) said the English parliament should sit outside London, to avoid the UK parliament being conflated with the English parliament. But why shouldn’t the UK parliament vacate what was our English Parliament in Westminster, and move to somewhere more central for the UK? After all, the UK parliament made this mess, so they shouldn't expect the English parliament to be the ones to be put to trouble.
ReplyDelete"We argue that the most effective and elegant solution to the so-called 'West Lothian question' would be to devolve similar powers to those enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament to English County and Unitary councils. Westminster MPs would then be on a level playing field - whether they were elected in Dumfries or Dagenham, Pontypridd or Pontefract, they would effectively be voting on, and have power over, the same issues." Direct Democracy
ReplyDeleteOK, the document has now been published on www.conservatives.com. So instead of ranting, may I suggest that people (a) read the whole document, and (b) stop going on about Kenneth Clarke and instead judge the proposals on their merits, not because they dislike the chairman.
ReplyDeleteAs regards the specific objection that it would be better to have an English parliament, or a scheme where Scottish MPs had no vote on English-only bills, the document does give serious thought to these options, but concludes they are unworkable:
Many attempts to address this problem propose ‘English Votes for English Laws’, the concept that only English MPs should be able to vote on measures relevant to England alone. While the proposal has an obvious apparent logic and justice, it has also been met with a host of objections. Many of these
are, we believe, spurious or plainly motivated by party political interest. However, there is one practical problem which has considerable constitutional importance. This is the question of what would happen were a UK government of one party to be confronted with a House of Commons majority of English MPs of another party or parties. Given the tight linkages between executive and legislature that characterises the British system, with formation of a government (usually of one party) dependent on the ability to carry its programme through Parliament, this deadlock would be new and arguably dangerous territory.
There is plenty more food for thought in the document. And, no, they haven't forgotten about Wales.
The truth is, this is a complex subject. Tony Bliar has left us with a complete mess to sort out. There is no easy solution, but this is a well-balanced attempt to sterr through the difficulties.
There are only three answers to this mess
ReplyDelete1) Abolish devolution and the Scottish legal system, and have a fully centralised state
2) Have a fully devolved, federalised state, with an English parliament - or even independence.
3) Have a fudge - like we have had for the last 300 years.
Ken Clarke's solution is a slightly better fudge than we have today. Personally I think federalism in UK would be a disaster, so a better fudge is probably right. I don't know yet if this is the right recipe
The English Democrats got less than 1% of the vote in the Sedgefield, Crewe and Nantwich and Henley by-elections. People don't want an English Parliament. Deal with it.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason Iain wants one is because he thinks it will help him get elected. Remember Iain can't win a first-past-the-post seat. He lost the Conservatives number one target seat at the last election by over 10,000 votes. He needs a devolved body with a PR system as a way of obtaining office for himself, as well as a generous, taxpayer-funded expense account to make up for all his failed business enterprises.
Hitchy! I'l tell you what's racist mate.
ReplyDeleteMaking me pay £7.10 for the drug i need, when Taff gets it free and Jock gets it for a £5 until 2010, when he'll get it free.
A Scottish PM who has never been voted into any job by the people of England. But he continues to raid our wallets and purses to pay for the Barnett Formula.
Charging English kids Student top-up fees when little Jock is excused them.
I could go on, but i won't. Like Brown and Cameron you won't listen
English Parliament now!!!!!
If Scotish MPs are not allowed to vote on some bills it becomes, in paractice, impossible to form a government without an English majority. In which case Scots, Welsh & Irish are disenfranchised & you are making the end of the UK inevitable. That is OK if that is what you want, but be sure it is & say so.
ReplyDeleteIt is up to England to decide what it wants - when it does it will inevitably get it.
The argument for the English Parliament being in London & the UK one somewhere more central is good even if it is a break with tradition.
My thought is that this, or an English Parliament (or several Parliaments) are the only options. In practice the argument for running a new English Parliament on PR would be unanswerable which is probably why the Tories may brandish it but won't use it.
Oh look, an anonymous troll. A record number of errors. Let's address them...
ReplyDelete1. Polls consistently show people are in favour of an English Parliament.
2. I want an English Parliament because I believe in it. For no other reason.
3. The point about PR is laughable as I oppose PR for parliamentary elections.
4. I have said it so often, but I am not applying for seats.
5. What failed business enterprises are these then? Every business I have started has been a success, in that I have been able to sell it on afterwards.
If you refer to 18 Doughty Street, I had no shareholding in it and was employed as a presenter.
In other words. Sit on it and swivel.
Is anyone with the means willing to challenge the legality of the original Devolution process? On the basis that most UK citizens never got a vote, for starters.
ReplyDeleteIain,
ReplyDeleteDont get your knickers in a twist.
I think it would be good if you just banned 'anonymous' comments. They are either from Brown's Bunker or general malcontents.
Remember, Idle and silly comments are unworthy of notice and as such should be disregarded.
Doctor Millionaire
ReplyDeleteI have carefully reviewed you analysis and conclusions; I have found it to be entirely correct in all particulars. Well done.
Any solution has to make sense in the situation where one party forms the government but another has a majority of English MPs.
ReplyDeleteSee what happens under the Clarke system:
Everyone agrees that action must be taken on the burning issue of something-or-other. The government brings out a bill, which is accepted by the whole house.
Then the opposition party, with its majority in committee, can alter the bill IN ANY WAY THEY LIKE, so that it ends up representing their policy on issue something-or-other.
Then the whole house, with its government majority, has two choices:
- reject the bill - in which case the whole thing has been a waste of time and nothing is done about something-or-other
- OR accept it, even though it represents the policy of the opposition, not the government.
Isn't that a self-evidently idiotic system? Has any democracy ever had anything remotely like it?
It would always be very difficult to have situation where the government did not have a majority for the English-only bills that make up much of the parliamentary timetable. And equally, if the changes forced a situation where only an English person could be PM, that would clearly be untenable. In light of that, the Clarke compromise is not so unreasonable – fudge as it is.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, an English Parliament with similar powers to that in Scotland is the way forward. I agree with Hitchy above on the provisos he suggests. That would leave a 'federal' westminster - hopefully much cut down - to deal purely with the remaining reserved issues.
Doesn't Wales deserve better, I don't know if you realise that there is a country to the left of england called WALES.
ReplyDeleteWe even have our own MPs just like Scotland, who vote as well.
Perhapes you could remember to include them next time.
You're right Ian but its no more than one expects from Kenneth Clarke
ReplyDeleteI listened to the interview this morning. I have never held the view that England should have its own parliament but have felt uncomfortable with MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland voting on issues which do not effect their constituents. I look forward to reading the full document but in the meantime, I thought Ken Clarke was at least offering a sensible solution to the difficulties. He clearly stated that he was not a "federalist" and believed in the Union. I welcome his views and his work will clearly start a debate.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder if the matter would be so important if there were more Conservative MPs representing Scotland?
To call this proposal a camel is to insult the lumpy ships of the desert, good style.
ReplyDeleteJust how long has Mr Hush Puppy had to think of something that would actually have a bit of credence? This is nowt more than a back of a fag packet proposal. It will not work, it cannot work - in short, this will be a right bloody screw up, when all along, there is only one answer.
An English Parliament. End of.
Also, don't you just love it when our soooo democratic political leaders don their serious, heavy eyebrowed faces when they start to lecture some third world country about the need to bring democracy to their people? And all along, they are perfectly willing to keep 50 million people in the mushroom shed of national representative denial?
Welcome to England, a democracy free zone - the only country in Europe without a national legislature..... absolutely shameful.
Why the hang-up about anon contributors since this is advertised as a moderated blog? If Iain does not like what is said then he can simply block it.
ReplyDeleteIf Iain wants to assist the police state with surveillance and tab-keeping then he would remove anon contibutions - although I suspect he may have the internet address of all his contibutors as it in the IP packets that make-up the message.
Back to topic: KK's idea.
It seems to be a recipe for deadlock. If English MPs alter the content of a bill in the report stage but the Scots & Welsh MPs voting contribution at Third reading says 'no' then we have impasse.
It would seem that the English can block a Scottish-backed idea, but they cannot get an England only bill through.
All Clarke wants is the EU. He is not loyal to England.
ReplyDeleteHe wanted the EU Constitution and even voted against a Referendum. He therefore does not think democracy is important.
The logical conclusion therefore is that he wants England and English democracy abolished.
He is COMPLETELY the wrong person to save English democracy
If you make a daft choice of person to propose a solution then Clarke's utterly ridiculous proposal is what you get.
Rifkind had the solution.
Rifkind seems to be saying that under his understanding of the Clarke scheme (which he opposes) an opposition majority of English MPs could introduce as many amendments as they liked to a government bill - but only as long as they weren't WRECKING amendments. So that qualification becomes a vital part of the scheme.
ReplyDeleteIs there any objective basis for determining when an amendment counts as a wrecking amendment and when it doesn't? I doubt it.
Anything proposed by Ken Clarke ( an even worse Chancellor than Brown) should be dumped in the waste paper bin ASAP
ReplyDeleteThe so called "Union" has been null & void as of 1998 when Scotregion and Wales go their own EUSSR Regional Assemblies.
ReplyDeleteThey want to break England up into 9 such pitiful little EU "Regions".
Whats all the fuss about "saving the Union" when its been dissolved in all but name for a decade?, big deal! it only dates from 1707 anyway and England needs Scotregion like a hole in the head, England would and will be much better off without this communist little ball and chain Region around its ankle, lets not forget, England was the Worlds FIRST nation state and predates the so called "British Union" by 700 HUNDRED YEARS!.
Nothing less than a English Parliament is acceptable! we already have the building so no need for any garish eyesore like what England bought for Scotregion, just remove the Scotregion, Welsh Region and N Irish Region MP's!
There is no West Lothian Question.
ReplyDeleteIf the Parliament of the United Kingdom were to enact legislation applicable in Scotland, then that legislation would prevail over any enactment of the Scottish Parliament.
There is simply no doubt at all about this, and anyone who doesn't like it should have voted No to devolution. I bet they didn't.
At present, it merely chooses not to do so. But it should do so, not least to make the point.
After all, hasn't Gordon Brown any views about such matters in his own constituency? Now he has the chance to give effect to those views. He should take that chance.
Dale is as metrocentric as conhom. Lighten up, we need a little compromise on this issue to save the Union.
ReplyDeleteOh dear. By my count, 13 out of the first 50 comments are just personal attacks on Ken Clarke.
ReplyDeleteSome people really are obsessive. And the funny thing is that the option which most of those attacking the proposal favour seems to be an English parliament (and presumably an enhanced Welsh and Northern Irish parliament as well). That really IS a way to break up the United Kingdom and thereby give more power to the EU. Little regional governments, which can be set against each other by Brussels and the big European countries. Is that really what you Clarke-haters want?
At the risk of repeating myself, please direct your anger at New Labour, and Blair in particular. They are the ones who got the country into this mess, from which there is no easy or palatable escape.
Hitchy at 12.12.
ReplyDelete"That's a joke, right? A big, funny, racist, joke?"
It is both big and funny. By virtue of being amusing it could be called a joke. That doesn't mean I don't think it's the best way forward.
Racist? It would be targetted by nationality if that's what you mean. A bit like the English money going north of the border to the Scots now. If by your definition that's racist then, yes, racist.
All this guff about what if a UK government of one party were confronted with an English majority in another party is a total red herring.
ReplyDeleteBecause the answer would be: the UK government wouldn't be able to pass exclusively English laws which were opposed by a majority of English MPs. And that would be terrible for England HOW exactly?
No-one seems to worry about a UK government of one party being confronted by a Scottish government of another party. Everyone seems to accept that the UK government wouldn't be able to impose laws on the Scots for which they didn't have enough votes and thinks that it all fair and democratic.
An English majority for a different party of course wouldn't affect the UK government's ability to pass UK laws because everyone would be able to vote on those. So the UK government would be restricted to governing only on "federal" matters.
But, as that is the whole point of having devolution for all the member countries, what is the objection?
I suspect that England is so enormous relative to the rest of the UK that politicians can happily accept having no power in the "smaller" countries and still convince themselves that they're governing the whole country.
But taking England away from them is (in their eyes) like waking up on Christmas morning to find no big presents at the foot of the bed and only a tangerine in your stocking.
beverly johnson said...
ReplyDeleteAnything proposed by Ken Clarke ( an even worse Chancellor than Brown)....
Err, Benerley, really, don't go there! I'm no fan of Mr Hush Puppy but, really, as bad as Brown. No chance - not many have been!!
"Either you believe that England should have devolved government or you don't."
ReplyDeleteIain, you sound like George Dubya Bush. Unfortunately compromise is an essential part of mature political debate, particularly when it comes to issues like nationhood.
As Chancellor Clarke saved Gordon's bacon for 10 years.
ReplyDeleteOutside of that is another matter.
Clarke is doing everything to avoid the obvious solution that then throws up unpleasant (for some) logical consequences.
The obvious answer is that English MPs vote on English matters. This beggars the question as to why, then, cannot Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs then be voting on their respective matters? Why not indeed!
This would mean we can DITCH the useless jumped-up bunch of sticky-fingered ex local councillors the MSPs, AMs etc and remove a layer of government while keeping the same people to provide "joined up debate" across local AND Union business.
MPs keep getting time off because of a lack of work, they say. The more bureaucrats we have the more legislation they invent for us. Best we have as few as possible so when they do pass a law it has more chance of being something worthwhile, not the interfering useless authoritarian clap-trap that Jaikwqueie Smythe has invented to give the impression she is "doing something".
"It still means that Scottish MPs will have a vote on Second and Third Reading."
ReplyDeleteIt escapes why England should have to put up with sheer bollocking injustice of having MP's from what is now a foriegn country with its own parliament no less have any say, let alone voting, in our affairs.
this is not rocket science .
Its pretty basic. England should have its own parliament and government and if the Westminster one does not want to do it then we need a completely separate one elswhere which will do it.
So that leaves the one at Westminster with nowt to do ?
They should've thought of that.It should be slimmed down to say 250MP's and stick to British things only and keep its nose out of English affairs.
Following in the footsteps of the arch traitor Heath, anything suggested by Clarke should be ignored.
ReplyDeleteWhy wasn't a real conservative asked
to consider the Jockonese problem?
Daggs,
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is unfair on the English that they get charged top-up fees and prescription charges when the Scots and Welsh have decided to charge lower (or non-existent fees.
But 85% of MPs in Westminster are English. If they voted for these things for England, they would be unstoppable. Hell, you wouldn't even need half of them to vote for it because I expect the Scots and Welsh MPs would probably support it.
Don't complain that Edinburgh and Cardiff are using their legal powers to offer these things. Complain that your MP isn't making it happen in England.
At the moment Scotland has 129 MSPs doing most of the work that MPs in England do, It also has 56 SCottish MPs who have nothing to do with Scottish Education, Health, Transport, Housing, Law etc. These MPs have virtually no caseload. In Westminster, except for PM, Chancellor and a couple of other ministers there are around 46 MPs doing about one tenth of what the others do. These Scottish MPs generate same amount of expenses and take same salary as English, Welsh and NI equivalent.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to sorting out the system we need to abolish the Scottish MPs since they have nothing to do and allow some of the MSPs (around 50) to attend Westminster say couple of days a fortnight to attend to UK business, the rest of the time the English Welsh and NI MPs can get on with business which doesn't concern Scotland. Since each MP costs around £200,000 to £300,000 depending on who comments we could save over £10m since the MSPs are already getting paid and have all support services. Two bargain berths on Scotrail to London for £38 and a night in a hotel should do it.
Scotland also needs to cut number of MSPs from 129 for 5m people. Around 56 would be enough with a second chamber of around 30 would cover most legislation.
The West Lothian Question actually has more effect on Scotland since it leaves 56 MPs spare.
In theory a Scottish MSP could still be PM, Chancellor or Defence since he/she would be in Westminster for national matters. It would mean that he/she could not be Home secretary or any other purely English, Welsh or NI job and that would be fair.
It would mean a /British parliament meeting for a couple of days a fortnight and the rest of the time Westminster would administer England and the bits of Welsh and NI legislation not devolved. It might also mean that if the same scheme was applied to Welsh AM and NI AM they would not be in Westminster for purely English matters. It would also remove all the duplication.
Also it would strengthen Westminster against EU since each area could decide how much EU interference it wanted. EU Education, Health and Transport matters would be dealt in Scotland by Edinburgh and in Westminster for England, Wales and NI. They could accept different amounts since the Scots are more pro EU than the rest.
Only EU matters affecting things like defence would be discussed at Westminster and a national line taken.
Of course independence would be even easier and the two nations could still have co-ordinating committee of English, Welsh and NI MPs and Scottish MPs to discuss matters of importance to British Isles. Independence would solve most of the problems inclding WLQ, Barnett, GERS and North Sea Oil. It would alo mean that a Scottish socialist redistributive means tested benefits dependent government would nver again rule at Westminster.
Hitchy, You really must do your research with a little more accuracy, Westminster was the seat of the English Parliament long before the Act of "Union", may I suggest that the English Parliament be reinstated in Westminster and that you can put the YOOKAY Parliament where the sun shines least.
ReplyDeletePat Harris. Portsmouth, England
This is barking. Either Scots and Welsh MPs should be able to vote, or they shouldn't. Banning voting in the Committee and Report Stages of a Bill is like trying to stop yourself getting half pregnant...
ReplyDeleteThis must be the LIMIT! Why? I saw Shona Robison SNP on Newsnight. She is the MSP for Dundee East. But wait! Stuart Hosie SNP, the woman's husband,is the Westminster MP for, wait for it . . Dundee East! F*ck M* . . . Time for the tumbrills to roll. Lets re-build Newgate Prison and erect Tyburn.These people are taking the piss! They must be wiped out! And we'll do that by kicking Nationalist Scotland and all their scavenging politicians into the wide blue yonder. England Expects . . .
ReplyDeleteOch gie uz peace .
ReplyDeleteYous english governed Scotland wi nae mandate fur 18 lang years.
didnae hear you tory public school bankers complain aboot that.
set o' hypocrites.
An English Parliament would just increase the cost of Government and create a new layer of people who would feel obliged to do things. And probably, like the Scottish parliament, you would get lower grade people than at Westminster.
ReplyDeleteI must have listened to a different Today programme this morning; I thought it was a pragmatic suggestion requiring little effort yet dealing with the major concern. Unlike most other options it is implementable.
I would read Rifkind's comment as a detailed improvement rather than outright disagreement (I am sure it could be read as the latter, buy why bother? Why not just take it as an improvement).
One other change that is needed: harmonising the average number of voters per Scottish seat in Parliament with England. This too would reduce the impact of the current position.
As an aside, Its a shame so many comments are based on people's dislike of Clarke rather than his proposals. That's the sort of attitude which reinforces people's dislike of politicians and their followers.
Hitchy man! I've written to my MP, I've written to Cameron, I've written to Brown. They ain't chuffin' listening. They all bleat 'creating an English Parliament will break the UK'
ReplyDeleteThe UK was broken in 1998 when Tony B.liar created devolved government in Scotland. All i and many English people want is equality with you, the Welsh and the N.Irish. We want the right to govern ourselves. We can remain 'friends' even allies. We could perhaps have a federal British state. But what we can't have is a continuation of the assymetrical devolution we have today. It's undemocratic.
It won't be pike's and musketawill be the Wolves in Sheeps cloving that Tony BLiar Gave into in the first place
ReplyDeleteJohn Woodman said...
ReplyDeleteAn English Parliament would just increase the cost of Government and create a new layer of people who would feel obliged to do things.
Have you not been reading? Most proposals here involve MSP OR MP, but not both. How is that "a new layer"?
Iain, I have long enjoyed your Diary, but I cannot any longer respect you when you are happy to publish ignorant racist drivel like that of Doctor Millionaire without also publishing robust rebuttals of that despicable individual.
ReplyDeleteBy your actions it very much appears that you condone what he has said.
Vile. Both of you. Him for saying what he said. You for publishing it without permitting robust responses in kind.
John Woodman: "One other change that is needed: harmonising the average number of voters per Scottish seat in Parliament with England"
ReplyDeleteThis was done at least an election or two ago. Scotland used to have 72 MPs, now it has 50 something.
While we're at it, there have been just four votes in Parliament where Scottish votes have carried the day on supposedly non-Scottish matters - now that's four too many, but out of all the thousands of votes in Parliament, it's not quote the Tartan Jackboots that some here bleat on about.
One other thing - never forget - Labour has a big majority of MPs in England alone - down to people who live in England voting Labour. Sure, the Tories got a handful of votes more in England than Labour did overall, but that's not how the seats panned out (we don't have PR, thank goodness) - but in any event, the presence of a Labour government in the UK is down to how people in England voted - nothing to do with how Soctland voted.
True Brit. Your other comments have been deleted because they contained swear words. Swearing is banned on this blog. See the Rules. If you don't like it, don't come back. I have published all other comments about Doctor Millionaire's views.
ReplyDelete[Well Iain, I did try to protect your gentle readers sensibilities through the use of asterisks. Here is my comment once more, with a certain 'A' word replaced with more respectable terms. I hope this is acceptable now.]
ReplyDeleteDoctor Millionaire: what an ignorant, racist, prejudiced rectal orifice.
Next you'll be defining English purity laws to decide which of us Brits, with our thoroughly mixed up English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish ancestry, is more one thing than another and setting up concentration camps accordingly.
Utter rectal orifice. You do your cause no favours.
I have noted the criticism of my view and added some nuance in response.
ReplyDeleteAny Scots who want to stay after the new wall goes up can, but they have to promise to kick the heroin and to refrain from deep-frying things inappropriately, deal?
True Brit...
ReplyDeleteYou say that like it's a bad thing.
Would you not be better suited to a blog where you may simply rant away with lots of bad language?
Doctor Millionaire said...
ReplyDeleteI have noted the criticism of my view and added some nuance in response.
Any Scots who want to stay after the new wall goes up can, but they have to promise to kick the heroin and to refrain from deep-frying things inappropriately, deal?
July 02, 2008 9:43 AM
Dr. Millionaire, why would we do that? I would have thought you’d want us to integrate?
Go to Croydon, Slough or Basingstoke on a Friday evening and you’ll hardly see examples of English people enjoying the wonders of high culture, fine dining and moderate drinking.
Is there ever an appropriate way to deep-fry things, anyway?
True Brit, I think you'll find that Iain is perfectly happy to allow comments inciting hatred against Scots to go through, but if you dare say the same thing about homosexuals it'll be censored within seconds.
ReplyDeleteHe can dish it out, he just can't take it. I suspect half of these comments from people like doctor millionaire are really Iain sock-puppetting. It's a way of being able to vent his frustrations at not getting a safe seat without jeapordising his place on the A-List.
You condemn yourself with your own words.
ReplyDeleteThe Union must remain strong - we've had too many years (about eleven) of divide (by regionalisation) and rule (by Brussels).
ReplyDeleteIt really won't do to give up the Union. I'm sick of this flipping government and the mayhem it's caused. 'Create a problem and provide a solution'. They are the problem and they're the only ones who like the solution. We don't want devolution of the UK. We don't want to devolve any more power EU.
We should first get out of the EU and then the four countries can get together and agree devolution terms between themselves if they wish. Personally, I would be sorry to say goodnight vienna to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Anonymous July 02, 2008 2:40 PM said...
ReplyDelete"Iain is perfectly happy to allow comments inciting hatred against Scots to go through"
Not true. He didn't allow one of mine (- I would moan but other people have posted much better ones).
"if you dare say the same thing about homosexuals it'll be censored within seconds."
Not true. He has permitted a lot of that, much of it unfair, rude, and offensive even by robust internet standards.
"He can dish it out, he just can't take it."
Not true. He allows a lot. He doesn't like some things, same as anyone else.
"I suspect half of these comments from people like doctor millionaire are really Iain sock-puppetting."
I suspect you are making that up just to be insulting.
"It's a way of being able to vent his frustrations at not getting a safe seat without jeapordising his place on the A-List."
Tosh.
BTW I'm as Iain as you are i.e. not. Iain would be a much better MP than most of the existing ones. Not that I'd rush to vote for him, though I might just as an appreciation of the blogging facilities he provides.
http://arightindividual.wordpress.com/
ReplyDeleteMy views on this - I happen to agree with much of what you say on this, Iain.
So, to sum up your view I^H anonymous, it's lick, lick, licketty, lick! Lick, lick!
ReplyDeleteI note that Iain hasn't disassociated himself, even when challenged, from Doctor Moronaire's vile comments - which is surprising, since with Iain's part Scottish ancestry he'd surely be on the better side of Hadrian's wall too, leaving Doctor Moronaire in the overcrowded, overheated, over-run, unpleasant concentration camp of South Britain :-)
North Briton said...
ReplyDelete"it's lick, lick, licketty, lick! Lick, lick!"
Twat.
"the overcrowded, overheated, over-run, unpleasant concentration camp of South Britain"
All thanks to the porridge-eaters abusing their chance to run the place. It was only to be expected. A nation that drugs its children to sleep by running whisky bottle corks around their mouths is fit only for slave labour, hooking, and drug running.
Anonymoron: "All thanks to the porridge-eaters abusing their chance to run the place. It was only to be expected. A nation that drugs its children to sleep by running whisky bottle corks around their mouths is fit only for slave labour, hooking, and drug running"
ReplyDeleteMy, my, anonymoron, you're a touch sensitive aren't you! I insult you for what you said, so you insult an entire nation of people for what I said about you - a great example of your ignorant prejudice.
While we're at it, have you forgotten (or are you just too ignorant to know better) that every Labour government since 1997 has won sizeable majorities in England alone?
In other words, the Labour governments that have done so much to wreck the UK have been elected by English voters, voting in England, time after time. And before anyone pipes up with "but the Tories got a pitiful 60,000 more votes than Labour in England in 2005", that's not how it panned out seatwise - we don't have PR, so it doesn't matter a flying fig.
Regardless, the Labour governments of recent years are a result of how England votes, not how Scotland votes - so look a little closer to home when you're apportioning blame for the current abysmal shower elected to run our great country.
North Briton said...
ReplyDelete"insult an entire nation"
But it's only McJockland, what's the problem?
Don't try hiding in your barbarian past. Fact is that current Labour thickos have destroyed the UK, imposed European type corruption on England, and are utterly incompetent even up in the land of the Fried Mars Bar. England will look after itself when we stop pandering to the skirt-wearing Celts.
Anonymoron: "But it's only McJockland, what's the problem?"
ReplyDeleteA perfect demonstration of the angry misinformed prejudice that characterises ignorant hateful Little Englanders such as yourself.
Anonymoron: "Don't try hiding in your barbarian past"
Yeah, yeah, the same barbarian past that produced Adam Smith, John Carlyle, the enlightenment of the reformation and so on and on. You are so ignorant.
Anonymoron: "Fact is that current Labour thickos have destroyed the UK, imposed European type corruption on England, and are utterly incompetent even up in the land of the Fried Mars Bar"
Yes, Labour thickos mostly elected in England (didn't you read that a comment or two back, or have you forgetten this inconvenient truth already?), with a big majority in England at the last three elections - though obviously you prefer to ignore hard facts like these in order to blame the Scots for the stupidity of your fellow English residents who've kept voting Labour time after time since 1997.
Anonymoron: "England will look after itself when we stop pandering to the skirt-wearing Celts"
England will look after itself when England stops voting Labour! English MPs are 85% of the UK parliament - England decides what government we have - and yet you bray on and on with your hateful prejudice about the Scots. What a putz!
North Briton said...
ReplyDelete"England will look after itself when England stops voting Labour!"
Labour is being stopped. Then England can stop the money trains to the McHighlands. Then the 165,000 barbarian taxpayers in Jockland can pay for the rest of the 5 million liver failures.
Yeah, yeah - anonymoron just ain't gonna let the facts get in the way of his ignorant moronic prejudice - hence his used of the coward's regude of 'anonymous'.
ReplyDelete