Britannist

I feel you are 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. MPs doing both the work of the Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish devolved bodies and 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 people of the other parts of the UK back the UKIP proposal on this first. That is why they (the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) need to be asked.

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

arden forester

Just getting back to the origins of the thread. This meeting the EDP talk of was at the weekend. How long does it take to write a press release? Are we expecting a piece of A4 or a whacking great tome?

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

Bluemerle

There is no hope of abolishing the Scottish Parliament, the only way forward is to give the English their own Parliament. That would effectively scupper NL foisting regional government on us.

Britannist

If we can't get the rival Parliament in Edinburgh (or get the members of it replaced with Scottish constituency MPs from the House of Commons) then the only other option which would give equality for England with Scotland within the UK would be for the establishment of an English Parliament with the same powers and responsibilities as the present Scottish Parliament (this would mean ending the right of Scottish constituency MPs to vote in the House of Commons on specifically English matters or by setting up an English Parliament separate from the House of Commons).

There are two priorities - to get equality for England with Scotland within the UK and to get Labour out of power at Westminster (Labour being an anti-English Party which refuses to even consider equality for England within the UK).

The best way of defending the Union of the UK is to get equality for England with Scotland within the Union. If Labour continue to try to hold England down and deny us our right to equality with Scotland within the Union then opposition to the Union of the UK in England (at over 30% in the most recent opinion poll on the subject) might grow.

Ea of Dune

Britannist> I understand your sentiment, but personally I think you are wasting valuable time on trying to hold the UK together and fighting an unwinable battle.
Your time would be better spent pushing for English equality and fighting for your home team. Even if the Scots voted out the SNP next election, there is no reason why in another 10 years they wouldn't be back again, and all the hassle and neopotism would start over.
Devolution has opened the genies bottle. Rather then try and cling onto a broken system, let's build a new one that puts the English first in their own country.
If the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish want to form a council of the Isles, then great, if they want to run off and suckle on the EU teat then let them go and do just that. Let's not let them suck us down!

Ea of dune

Britannist

Thank you for your reply Ea of Dune. We both share the same objective - equality for England but may, at this time, have slightly different views on how to achieve it.

I think that we would both agree that one immediate priority is to get this Labour shower out of power for it is they (and the Liberal 'Democrats' and EU) who seek to hold England down and deny the people of England our rightful say over our future.

As for your comment (quoted above) "Your time would be better spent pushing for English equality and fighting for your home team" may I say that that is exactly what I am doing and have been doing for decades. I have been a supporter of St. George's Day being made a Bank Holiday (or the Monday nearest to it when it does not fall on a Monday) long before devolution changed the UK in 1999 and I have campaigned for constitutional equality for England with Scotland within the UK since then.

Regarding the SNP (europhile Scottish so-called 'National' Party) which you refer to (above quote). The SNP may 'come and go' but support for them is currently higher than is support in Scotland for that part of the UK quitting the Union (i.e. recent opinion polls put support for the SNP at over 40% and polls put support in Scotland for 'independence' from the rest of the UK at under 30% and often below 25%). In other words, a sizeable part of the vote for the SNP is a protest vote and not an anti-UK vote. Most political analysts accept that the SNP got many votes from disgruntled pro-UK Labour supporters in last May's Scottish Parliamentary election.

I support both England and the UK. I am a Unionist and want all four parts of the UK to stay together.

Northumbrian

The Scottish Parliament will never be terminated, as it is now a symbol of the nation.
It would be like trying to shut down the Scottish National Museum or the Scottish National Gallery etc.

Nope - no point shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Britannist

The options then are:

1. The status quo (the Scottish Parliament as it is now - see number 3. below please)
2. Replacing the members of the present Scottish Parliament with Scottish constituency MPs from the House of Commons (with English constituency MPs dealing with specifically English matters in the House of Commons during their absence).
3. The establishment of an English Parliament as a result of number 1. (above). If the Scottish Parliament is to continue as it is run now then England must have a Parliament of her own with the same powers.

cassie

I am afraid that UKIP has yet to keep up with events. In my opinion, a number of other measures are necessary if the Union is to survive in anything like its current form. For a start, a legal system common to all parts of the UK will need to be adopted; likewise bank notes. Failure to effect such long overdue changes whereby Scotland continues to set itself apart from conditions prevailing in the rest of the UK, will eventually lead to the UK becoming federal or, if not federal, being dissolved.

Be in no doubt that the minorities operating in England will fight tooth and nail to prevent the English from having their own separate parliament and executive. They know that it will go much of the way to restoring a sense of English identity, that the number of positions in England now occupied with Scots and other minorities will be reduced! I formed the view some time ago that the Scots and Welsh are very pro-British when in England quite simply because it enables them to fill many more positions here. However, back in their own countries they are fiercely Scottish and Welsh as the case may be!

Does anyone truly believe that Neil Kinnock's son would be Head of an English Council Office in St Petersburgh?

__________________________________

Britannist

In response to Cassie's points in the last posting to this thread (all the quotes below are of Cassie's comments):

True - but it didn't happen did it? This is 2008 - not 1999. So we have to deal with the situation as it is now.

Most of the people who regard the UKIP proposals for getting equality for England within the UK do not actually want England to be in the UK at all. I explained the UKIP policy on this earlier - it is that the option of replacing the members of the Scottish Parliament with Scottish constituency MPs be put to the voters of Scotland. This has to be put to Scotland before the English part of the UKIP policy could be implemented (for reasons I detailed earlier in this thread). If Scottish voters choose to keep the present Scottish Parliament exactly as it is then English must have a Parliament of her own within the UK to match the one in Scotland.

True - but there is alot of speculation now that if the Conservatives managed to get a majority at the next General Election they would move to stop Scottish constituency MPs voting on specifically English matters in view of the fact that English constituency MPs cannot vote on Scottish issues (which are, of course, now dealt with by the rival Parliament in Edinburgh).

Correct - but if there is a majority in the British Parliament for the establishment of an English Parliament one would be set up. In reality there would probably be a referendum first (and perhaps an English Constitutional Convention before it). Of course, if Scottish/Welsh and Northern Irish constituency MPs are prevented from voting in the House of Commons on specifically English matters then a de facto English Parliament would be created anyway.

The UKIP proposals represent the views of the people of England as identified in the most recent opinion poll on this matter (Daily Telegraph late last year) which revealed that in general English people described themselves as both English and British; that they did not think that Scotland having higher UK Government financial allocations than England was fair and that Scottish constituency MPs should not be allowed to vote on English matters in the House of Commons.

Of course Cassie doesn't - because it seems that Cassie might not be a suporter of the UK anyway. I am. I am a Unionist who wants equality for England with the other parts of the UK within the Union. And there are far more campaigners for equality for England within the UK than there are campaigners for English rights who do not support the UK.

UKIP is ahead of events. While some are discussing whether Scottish constituency MPs should be allowed to vote on English matters before the House of Commons, UKIP is already promoting a policy in which Scottish constituency MPs would not even be in the House of Commons for English debates - they would (if UKIP policy were implemented) be in Scotland doing the work presently carried out by the present Scottish Parliament. The UKIP proposal on dual-purpose MPs is an excellent one. If it fails to win the approval of Scottish voters then Scottish constituency MPs would have to be stopped from voting on England's internal matters when they come before the House of Commons.

One of the conditions on the creation of the Union was that Scotland retain her own legal system. It is unrealistic of Cassie to suggest that the people of Scotland would approve a change to that centuries-old agreement. As for banknotes - we use the same Pound Sterling currency across the UK - that is the important thing.

The UK might become what Cassie calls a 'federal' Union in which we have dual-purpose MPs as UKIP proposes - MPs sitting in both the devolved legislatures and the national Parliament of the British nation.

If the UKIP proposal for dual-purpose MPs is not approved, then English-only voting in the House of Commons becomes more likely.

As for the reference to the UK being "dissolved" - as I have written many times before the UK would continue if, for instance, Scotland quit it. Let us not forget that centuries before Scotland joined the Union there was already a sort of United Kingdom of southern Great Britain: the Union of England and Wales. I hope that Scotland does not leave the UK - but if it did, the rest of the UK would not be "dissolved".

I fully support promotion of England, Englishness and the English identity. But I also believe in the Union of the UK and that it must be made to work in the interests of the English nation (just as it works in the interests of the other parts of the Union of the UK).

There are one or two people posting to this forum who do not like England being in the Union of the UK but who seem to be too scared to admit that there real aim is to break up the UK (which just happens to be the aim of the EU too).