Originally Posted by Britannist

In response to Cassie's points in the last posting to this thread (all the quotes below are of Cassie's comments):[Likewise my comments about Britannist's points.]


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. [Which does not preclude the people of England from being consulted, and being so at the same time as those in Scotland! There is no justification for treating the peoples of Scotland and England differently in this matter. Indeed, there is a case for simultaneous consultation.]


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. [Most? I should be interested to see the objective evidence for this assertion.] 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.[Once again, this is an arrangement whereby the ten times greater number of English voters can be sidelined. Scotland is part of the UK. The sovereign parliament for the UK is in Westminster, NOT Holyrood! Only 8.3% of the UK's voters are in Scotland. As a democrat, I object to the 84% of voters in England being excluded from being directly consulted about matters which affect England.]


True - but there is a lot 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).[Yet more speculative about a potential, complicated and cumbersome arrangement!]


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.[If, if, if! "If 'ifs' and 'ands' were pots & pans, there'd be no need for tinkers!"]


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.[One could deploy a similar argument in support of the creation of a separate parliament and executive for England.]


Of course Cassie doesn't - because it seems that Cassie might not be a supporter of the UK anyway.[Instead of continuing to argue your case, you are now questioning my motives, which entitles me to reciprocate.] 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.[I am not unhappy with this position, but I am first and foremost a democrat and, therefore, am willing to have such matters properly tested with direct consultation. However, there are those who insist upon retaining the UK at any cost ~ even that of democracy in England (eg Brown & Co) ~ and would only ever hold referenda when they think they can 'win'!]


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 centuries old agreement was modified by the Scotland Act 1998, and can be modified again, and again, and again! To paraphrase you: "This is 2008 - not 1707. So we should deal with the situation as it is now."]


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. [It always amuses me that individuals concern themselves with unnecessary and undesirable detail (which, in the event, might not apply) in order to attempt to weaken an alternative view!]

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

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 agree, but I think you are being a little pedantic here. If Scotland left the UK, 50% of the non-English element would go with it, along with a separate legal system, different bank notes etc. Apart from the nonsense of the Welsh language (spoken by only a minority of 3 million people), England & Wales are integrated to a degree not replicated in Scotland! Many in N Ireland are 'pro-British', and the character of the UK would change significantly if the truculent, constantly complaining Scots left. Effectively, the current UK would 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). [It is long over due for other parts of the UK (Scotland in particular) to work in the interests of England, Englishness and English identity!]

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).[It could also be said with equal veracity, that there are those who would impose the Union upon England as much as they can, just as the Russians have tried to impose on parts of the former USSR, association with and dependence upon Russia! I believe that it is desirable to retain the UK, but not at the cost of democracy and self determination being less in England than in other parts of the UK. ]

Originally Posted by cassie

You must accept that there other points of view about England Britannist!

Originally Posted by Britannist

I also accept, Cassie, that your intentions regarding the debate about the future of England in the UK and the unfairness of Labour's 1999 devolution' settlement' on England are good. I wrote before that your views and mine on this are similar. We both want equality for England. The difference between your views and mine appears to be that I want to put the concept of dual-purpose MPs to Scotland (a plan I explained earlier in this thread for those who do not know what I mean) - and you, Cassie, do not believe that it would be accepted by the people of Scotland and that we should proceed quickly to setting up an English Parliament to match the one in Scotland.

Originally Posted by cassie

Of course it is inconceivable that...Brown would even consider permitting voters in England a vote on such matters...