Geoffrey Collier

mrabody: The United Kingdom is not merely an economic entity. If you want a separate England say that: but don't think that you will continue with an arrangement which will allow England an indefinite monopoly on matters like foreign affairs and defence, etc. in Scotland and Wales. Destroy the Union if you wish, but don't imagine that you can destroy it, while continuing to control those other parts of Britain by stealth.

When I have more time, I will return to this subject once others have contributed to this debate.

cassie

Allow me to declare my interest. I am English. I was born in England, grew up in England and have lived in England all my life. Many of those who presume to prescribe what is best for England [they usually mean better for Scotland and Wales!] are not English and omit to say so.

The voters in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have all been afforded a number of referenda in which they were invited to record collective opinions on whether they wished to have powers devolved to them. As a consequence, 15% of the UK's peoples have three parliaments between them.

In marked contrast, the 85% of the UK's citizens in England have not been asked once whether we as a nation would also wish to have powers devolved to England. Instead, we have had a hotch potch of regional assemblies inflicted upon us.

I find it quite remarkable that anyone English should find every excuse under the sun to avoid according parity of treatment to the English! I find it unacceptable that new and different criteria not operated in 1997 are now invoked to prevent England as a nation being treated the same as Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland.

Are we not supposed to be a democracy? Is it too much to ask for voters in England to be given opportunity to record our collective opinions about these matters?

One last point: I proposed a separate English Parliament, NOT a separate England. However, continued opposition to treating England fairly may itself bring about the very thing which the opposers say they wish to avoid: the dissolution of the UK!


____________________

mrabody

I have never said I want a seperate England, but don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. I am merely pointing out that based on the economics of the current arrangement England gains no benefit. The fact is Geoffrey, the people of England (and Scotland and Wales) are more likely to vote on pocketbook issues than on more distant matters such as Defence and Foreign Affairs. Therefore the perceived unfairness of the current arrangement is going to grow into an issue of large concern to English voters in the coming years. When it becomes generally known that elderly Scots do not have to sell their homes to pay for care and that it is English taxpayers who are keeping them in comfort and wealth - when people get angry about the fact that you can get treatment for macular degeneration in Scotland on the English taxpayers tab, but if you are English you will go blind, they won't take your lofty, dispassionate position on the issue.

In Canada the the French in Quebec are generally very isolationist and opposed to any form of involvement in overseas conflicts. They make up 1/4 of the electorate so foreign affairs is "controlled" by the 75% of the population resident in English Canada. It's led to problems in the past but somehow the country muddles through. As long as we have a volunteer army and Westminster isn't conscripting Scots and Welsh to fight in unpopular wars, your concern remains a red herring. I think the Scots and Welsh population are mature enough to understand that if you voluntarily sign up to take the Queen's shilling, you may sometimes have to earn it.

Bob FM

GC has the knack of formulating is argument based on his own, usually wrong, perception of what he believes other posters are saying. Ergo then his replies accurately misrepresent that. The fact is one of UKIP's policies is a separate English Parliament, based on a number of days a month when only English constituency MP's sit to decide English Issues. There can be nothing wrong with that, and would in no way put the Union at risk. To suggest otherwise rather flies in the face of the clear evidence that the other members of the Union clearly do not total autonomy.

cassie

Thank you for your helpful post Bob FM.

I agree with your account of the current situation, but I am seeking a review of present UKIP policy in favour of a solution similar to the arrangements in Scotland and Wales.


_______________________________

cassie

Thank you for your helpful post mrabody. I agree with your assessment.

One of the biggest threats to the continuance of the UK may well be the failure to deal with the current severe imbalance between nations!

_______________________________________

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 achiive 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?

Geoffrey Collier

BobFM: I think that it is important that we discuss in a civilsed way, matters about which we may not necessarily agree. What would be those English Issues: definition please? Would they be particular policy areas, health, education, etc? What is the problem we experience at the moment caused by our constitutional arrangement? Can you provide evidence and actual examples to support your case? When Westminster used an English majority in the Commons, to impose the Poll Tax on Scotland, just to see if it worked; presumably that is alright. When, however, a situation is identifierd which, only theoretically, could be unfair to the English - let's see the evidence - then all hell breaks loose.

All across the EU, using arguments like the ED's, EU grants for local languages and projects, and many other devices, the intended objective is the dismantling of the nation states. Edward Heath told us that the nation state, is now obsolescent if not wholly obsolete. Those are not the people whom we should follow.

Stephen Booth

I would like to see one form of taxation only, a locally based income tax. Suppose each tier of elected government, beginning with the Parish Councils, and then up through District Councils, up to County Councils, and Metropolitan councils had an absolute power of veto over passing any of this locally raised money up to the next level. Each body would therefore be able to squeeze off any unpopular government measure. The Wallies of Westminster would be dependent upon people at a local level to finance their mad schemes, and there would almost certainly not be a single penny for Brussels.

People would then have more control, and this would be meaningful. Voting in elections would have a purpose. In my opinion, taxation needs to be localised.

__________________
Britain Out of Europe Now !

HM

I agree that three need to be some pretty hefty tax cuts, but in your scenario tobacco and alcohol aren't taxed and also there would have to be huge holes in public spending with no money getting to Westminster. There does need to be decentralisation - but there needs to be a common sense line drawn somewhere and "one form of taxation only" is way past it, for the sake of national-level policing, prisons, education, transport etc. which needs Westminster funding for guidelines.

__________________

• Respice post te; hominem te esse memento!