Englishman

No, I did understand that he had not left the party etc

Britannist

As I also wrote elsewhere no changes would be made to the way Scotland is governed without the permission of the Scottish people first.

If the Scottish people voted in a referendum to keep the existing Scottish Parliament as it is run now, their wish would be honoured.

What Blair has done (i.e. setting up the rival Parliament in Scotland) is 'not set in stone'. The idea that the Scottish Parliament as planned and set up by Blair/Labour/Liberal Dims is going to carry on as he designed it forever is not realistic. There will be changes to it. The majority of voters in Scotland did not vote for the Scottish Parliament to be set up in the referendum - the majority voted against or did not vote at all.

UKIP simply offers the Scottish people the option of replacing the costly 129-member Scottish Parliament with a more efficient and less costly alternative which would be a Scottish national legislature made up of the 59 Scottish constituency MPs. There would be no need to hold separate Scottish Parliamentary elections thus saving alot of money. The membership of the Scottish national legislature and Scotland's representation in the House of Commons would be decided in the same (General) Election.

Should the people of Scotland choose to keep the Scottish Parliament as it is run now, then I think that England should be given an English Parliament to match the powers of the one in Scotland now.

The important thing is to provide equality for the people of England with the people of Scotland within the UK.

Baron von Lotsov

Well it's an odd thing to do then, to post it on a discussion forum.

__________________
"A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

arden forester

Exactly so!

__________________
www.ardenforester.blogspot.com
www.westminster-whispers.blogspot.com

cassie

So much for the UK! Why all this pandering to the Scottish people? [Er, um! Besides, don't you mean Scottish voters?]

Equality for voters in England would be affording them the same opportunities to have a say! Equality for voters in England would be affording them the same opportunity to have their own national parliament!

This persistent discrimination in favour of Scots and against the much more numerous English is not only unfair and unequal, it is undemocratic!

All the Brit unionist parties shy away from permitting English voters a proper, equal and democratic say (by referendum), because they want to retain the Union at all costs ~ even at the cost of diminishing democracy in England! They are unwilling to countenance referenda unless they think they can 'win' ie the referendum will deliver the desired result! Some democrats they are!

We are well on the way to state-funded political party oligarchies deferring general elections on the same basis.


_______________________________

Independent UKIP

Way to go there someone by diverting from the incredible original post:
I don't have time to enter that debate tonight. Maybe another night though.

SilverFalcon

You sound like me a few years ago in several places. What happened was I got mine kicked by extremist plants and the true blues got depressed and went away.

Come back, wherever you are, lads! All is not lost ... yet ... nearly ... maybe this time you'll kick out the kooks ... ahem ... waiting ... you know how it is ... he who pays the piper calls the tune ... etc ...

That was long ago. You were probably there then as well. It's enough to make anyone give up and go away. I blame this phenomenon of suicidal destructiveness more than the patriotic people who leave. They can't be expected to function if every time they peer over the trench their own people send a hail of badger dung over no man's land. Killed by friendly fire every time.

Britannist

This is the United Kingdom - a Union of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland/Ulster. The views of the peoples of all four parts of our Union count.

And, of course, that includes the view of the English people - by far the largest part (in population terms) of the UK.

You know, Cassie, that I support equality for the people of England and the nation of England within the UK.

The UKIP proposals are to put to the people of Scotland the option of Scottish MPs handling specifically Scottish matters instead of electing the costly 129 member rival Parliament in Edinburgh. While Scottish MPs were in Scotland debating and voting on domestic issues (the present Scottish Parliament having been got rid of) English constituency MPs in the Commons would deal with exclusively English matters.

Should the Scottish people vote to keep the Scottish Parliament as it is now then England must have a referendum on setting up an English Parliament - one with the same powers and responsibilities as the existing Parliament in Scotland.

Either way (the UKIP proposal or a 'Yes' vote in a referendum in England on establishing an English Parliament), the English would gain equality with Scotland within the UK.

I do not believe that the devolution mess brought in by Blair/Labour/Liberal Dims (i.e. as planned at the Scottish Constitutional Convention) is 'set in stone' forever and UKIP is right to suggest that an alternative be put to the people of Scotland - one which would, if approved, provide a direct link between the devolved legislatures and the UK National Parliament in that the same MPs would sit in both.

The majority of the people of Scotland did not vote for Blair's devolution mess - the majority either voted against it or not at all. The UKIP alternative proposal should be put to the people of Scotland. If accepted it would lead to English-only debates in the Commons (while the Scottish constituency MPs were away doing the work that the existing Scottish Parliament does now) and to all four parts of the UK being governed in the same way.

cassie

You say you "support equality for the people of England and the nation of England" and then you go on to advocate special treatment for Scotland and its people!

You say "The UKIP alternative proposal should be put to the people of Scotland. If accepted [by the Scots!] it would lead to English-only debates in the Commons . . ." Big deal! Scots forever in the driving seat!

I maintain that the overall form and composition of the assembly in Holyrood is more than a 'Scottish matter'! It affects England and the rest of the UK!

OK, consult the Scots, but consult the English, Welsh and N Irish also!

It is this compartmentalisation of the UK which has done much to bring about this situation and the accompanying estrangement! It has led me (and I know that I am not alone) to the position whereby I do not want Brown as British prime minister, and not just because his constituency is in Scotland!

The British Parliament is supposed to have sovereignty and, therefore, the power to take back devolved powers. Therefore, if a majority of British voters (I choose the description deliberately) want abolition of the Scottish (or Welsh) assembly so be it! Likewise the creation of an English Parliament.

The Scots in government in Westminster use the English majority against us to diminish us and democracy here [witness 'the government's' very recent response to the petition for an English Parliament!], so let us use that majority to derive majority decisions and true democracy! If the peoples of Scotland and Wales object to majority decisions solely because they are predominantly English, let THEM create other situations for themselves. I am tired of their wants and interests prevailing at the expense of those of the English; it has led to immense damage to English society!

Yes, I think that on balance it is much better to retain the UK in one form or another, but not at any cost, and certainly not at the continued cost of democracy and fair treatment in England! Ultimately I am a democrat and, therefore, if a significant majority of voters in England and the rest of the UK want separation, so be it! I am not one of those would be dictators [like Heath, Hestletine, Douglas-Home etc] who think that, just because they have been elected, they can impose anything on us!

Remember, Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany, and he was no more German than Napolean was French! We would do well to study historical precedents.


_______________________________

Britannist

I feel that you may be making the mistake of trying to argue with someone who is on your side on the issue of English equality in the UK and English self-determination. It should be pretty clear by now (from my previous postings) that I want the same as you: equality for England and the people of England within the UK. But there is more than one way to achieve this.

As for Scotland - it seems to me right to put the UKIP proposal on the way Scotland is governed to Scotland first (i.e. before any changes are made in the way England is governed) because Scotland already has its own Parliament and for the English part of the UKIP proposal to work, changes would have to made to the way Scotland is governed - the present Scottish Parliament would go and its duties handed to Scottish MPs (if UKIP has its way).

What the UKIP proposal on devolution amounts to is England saying to Scotland "We (England) want equality with Scotland in the UK and we think the easiest way of achieving this is for English and Scottish MPs to separately handle specifically English and Scotish matters and that to do this you would have to agree to the Scottish Parliament being got rid of and its duties handed to Scottish constituency MPs with English constituency MPs in the Commons dealing with English business while the Scottish MPs were away in Scotland voting on local matters."

If the people of Scotland reject the proposal and opt to keep their existing Scottish Parliament, then, there would, no doubt, be moves at Westminster (once the Labour Government is out of the way) to stop Scottish constituency MPs voting on English matters in the Commons (in view of the fact that Scotland has her own Parliament which English constituency MPs cannot vote in).

What you seem to be suggesting, Cassie, is that England just go ahead and set up an English Parliament now Scotland has one. I think that we should try to see if we can get rid of the divisive Scottish Parliament and move to a system whereby MPs in all four parts of the UK deal with both national legislation (in the Commons) and devolved matters (in the devolved legislatures). Having MPs do both UK and devolved work would provide a useful and much-needed link between the devolved bodies and the national UK Parliament.

The issue of English devolution does not include only the choice of an English Parliament of the same kind as the existing Scottish Parliament. The people of England could opt for dual-purpose MPs (i.e. English MPs handling specifically English matters in the Commons and Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish MPs doing the work - at meetings in Wales/Scotland and Northern Ireland - of the Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish devolved bodies with all MPs from all parts of the UK dealing with UK business before the House of Commons) - but this can only be done if the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish agree to changes in their present devolved legislatures.

There is no point in England agreeing to dual-purpose MPs unless the other parts of the UK back the UKIP proposal on this first. That is why they (the people of Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland) need to asked.

The UKIP proposal - if implemented - would both strengthen the Union of the UK and give equality to England in the UK.