Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Cassie, etc: I am not interested in giving advantage to any individual country or particular part of the United Kingdom. I am also English, and have family documentation, wills, etc. continuous and chronological since the 15c. However, that forms no part of the debate: that must depend on the evidence and merits of our proposition.

We have a Parliament with 645 seats, of which 528 seats represent English constituencies. The remaining 117 seats comprise Scotland (59 seats), Wales (40) and Northern Ireland (18). Should any issue be of particular importance to the English, and it was widely supported among the electorate, it could become law if all other parts of the Union opposed us or not. It was to correct this imbalance, that consideration for the interests of of Scotland, Wales and N.I. (albeit a different history there), was successful.

To some extent, the political imbalance within the UK was mitigated by the two dominant political parties, being significantly represented in constituencies from Lands End to John O'Groats. That was the case until Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979, and possible one or two elections subsequently. When John Major was defeated by Blair, a new political landscape appeared. The Conservatives had no political base either in Wales or Scotland. (We will ignore NI, as not to complicate the issue). Devolution gave Scotland and Wales some autonomy over domestic and social issues, but little else.
Those two countries chose to take certain decisions which annoy many people in England. One relates to prescription charges and the other educational grants. Should the English want the same treatment, a HoC with 528 English seats, could achieve it for them. Should every other part of the UK oppose us, - all other 117 seats- the will of the English representatives would prevail. What do the English want to bring into legislation, that cannot be achieved by the extant constitutional arrangement? Quote an example which supports your case.

I would support ending subscription charges. Only about 6% of patients actually pay for them. The other 90+% are either too old, too young, unemployed, in receipt of social security etc. (check the facts). It is unlikely that any 'new money for the NHS'
is derived from prescrition charges. Indeed so few pay, pharmicists were giving the
patients the medication and pocketing the money. A new regulatory authority was then
established to monitor chemists. Encourage the English MPs' to abolish prescription charges and bring us into line with Scotlan and Wales using those means which already exist. If that is what you want; what do you identify as an imediment?

Education loans are a similar issue to prescription charges. When Education grants were provided, a small staff in the L.E.A. was sufficient to administer them. When they were replaced with loans, each loan has to be monitored individually- over the recipients working life - to ensure their collection. Now grants have ended, local authorities are obliged to increase their staff, to supervise the annually increasing number of approved loans. Again, we have the parliamentery numbers necessary to change these things if we wish. Our numerical advantage in the Commons renders opposition from other parts of the Union largely irrelevant.

Should the Conservative win the next G.E. and all the evidence seems to suggest that they will, are you content that we should legislate for all other parts of the UK? Should your answer be no, a total separation will be necessary. You cannot impose upon them constraints in terms of military contribution, foreign policy, fiscal policy, etc. under a constitution which has abandoned national partnership in favour of national self-determination.

At a time when we are in uncharted waters, in respect of our relationship with the EU;
in addition to world governments and bankers. not to mention experienced veteran financiers, (Geogre Soros, Warren Buffett, Ben Bernanke, and a million other) saying that we are about to experience the worst economic crisis for eighty years, you want to destabilise the country further with a constitution experiment. Against that background, what compelling reasons can you identify?