Britannist

Mr. Simon Heffer, the eurosceptic Daily Telegraph columnist, and Mr. Iain Dale, the former Conservative General Election candidate, discuss an English Parliament:

PlayPolitical.com - Conservative Party: Iain Dale and Simon Heffer debate an English Parliament on St George's Day

Britannist

Key extracts from the discussion at Playpolitical between Mr. Simon Heffer and Mr. Iain Dale on the link given in the last posting to this thread:

Mr. Simon Heffer, Daily Telegraph columnist said "I think the Conservatives have to accept that the Union with England and Scotland is over. Since the election of Blair in 1997; the referendum in the Autumn of that year on setting up a Scottish Parliament; the Scottish Parliament being set up in 1999 and the Scottish 'National' Party victory in the third Scottish election Scotland has been on a path to independence. Maybe not immediately but in the next ten years."

When informed by Mr. Iain Dale that Conservative MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind had suggested that a Grand Committee be set up to handle English domestic affairs and that such a body could (according to Mr. Dale) be a de-facto English Parliament Mr. Heffer said "A Grand Committee reduces England to the status of a glorified region. England should have her own Parliament - nations don't have Grand Committees."

Mr. Heffer said that the Union of the UK was supported in England by only a vocal minority and by Gordon Brown (a Scottish constituency MP) "who needs to keep it going to be UK Prime Minister."

cassie

I'm afraid that Heffer's final utterance recorded above seems very much to be true!

When Scots go bleating on about how they were coerced into union with England and how they've been ill-treated for three hundred years, they fail to take into account that the political systems in 1707 were vastly different to what they became. Then, both England and Scotland were ruled by relatively small oligarchies centred around the monarch!

It was not until two hundred and seventy years later that significant changes were made in extending the franchise. Even then, the candidates one could vote for came from a narrow class of citizen ie those with a private income such as peers' sons, baronets etc MPs' pay was not introduced until 1911.

It was not until 1928, when ALL men as well as women of 21yrs and older were permitted to vote! Therefore, it seems rather unreasonable (not to say somewhat irrelevant) for anyone to keep harping on about grievances prior to 1928. Indeed, the vast majority of complaints are about persons now dead who allegedly committed offences against other persons, also now dead! Prejudice rather than logic sustains the vast preponderance of such grievances. In essence, I am saying that you can't properly blame the sons for the sins of the father or grandfather!

We may not have realised it at the time [I didn't], but the huge mistake was made by Blair & Co in 1997 - if mistake it was. In a truly united kingdom, it should not have been permitted for two minor parts (Scotland and Wales) to effectively determine whether they could be treated differently. The consultation process should have included England, even if the proposals at that time were only about Scotland and Wales, but we do not have a wise, principled government! One can only conclude that, from the outset, there was NEVER any intention of involving England as such. Worse, there was no attempt to obtain cross-party consensus!

The sad thing is that, neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems seem in any way willing to remedy the deficiency, the constitutional anomaly. The fact is that if Scotland and Wales are entitled to be treated as nations in their own right, then even more so is the much more populous England. Even UKIP has yet to realise that its proposed remedy, although logical, is simply not feasible now! No one really believes that the assemblies in Scotland and Wales can be dissolved and, short of that, different arrangements for England are not acceptable and, in the longer run, will be rejected one way or another.

There is another approach. If the intention was solely to create regions and the British Government truly was not anti-English, it could divide Scotland in two (north/south) and attach parts of northern England to both halves to create two regions. Similarly, Wales could be divided in two (east/west) and have attached parts of western England to each half to create another two regions. However, we can all appreciate the response from all 'quarters' to that!

Devolution and the way it has thus far been effected really has divided the Union! To my mind, the only feasible way of remedying the constitutional situation is to give England a referendum about devolving powers to an English Parliament, such powers to enable the English Parliament to determine its own systems of local government. When will UKIP wake up and realise this?


__________________________________________________

Britannist

I agree Cassie - it is time for England to have a referendum of her own. Never in the history of England have we - the people of England- had a referendum of our own on any matter (the EEC/EU 'staying in or getting out referendum of 1975 was, of course, a pan-UK vote). The other parts of the UK have all had one constitutional referendum of their own each - some two.

The voice of England must be heard - the people of England must be allowed a say on their future. There has to be a referendum in England on establishing an England Parliament to match the powers of the one Scotland now has within the Union of the UK.