To quote a well known (para)phrase "England is a proud and historic nation" and that's how I want it to stay. Would you equally suggest Scotland and Wales should be regionalised ? No one in Westminster has. They are happy to retain Scotland and Wales as nations. It's only England they wish to destroy. Balkanisation plays into the EU hands. They have long wanted to remove England from the map. There can be Devolution down to areas of England, but it must come as the remit of an English Parliament within a Federal UK.
England has 55m people in a union of nearly 70m. Having regional governments won't make anyone less English.
Delighted that we have a no-vote. It's all just extra layers of government. Make no mistake both countries would be worse off and the cost of a seperation would be eye watering. With the representatives that they currently have I've no doubt that Scotland would have wrecked itself. Cameron has played a canny hand with the tax raising powers. It means the nationalists can no longer claim that they'll give everyone a gold plated NHS based on taxation of a tiny minority of ultra rich. They know fine that there's not enough of these people to fund all the outlandish claims that they made, and even if there were they'd be on their toes before you could say 75% tax rate.
I understand why dimwitted little Englanders start hopping about and demanding their own parliament. But the question is, do you want another set of snouts in the trough? Usually the answer is "no", other than from the snouts that are hoping to get at the trough. The Scottish Parliament has been a farce. They've spent 11 years and gone three times over budget trying to put a tram system into Edinburgh. Apart from having one of the most striking main streets in the world looking like a shit building site for a decade they have only just managed to run a limited service (opened just before this vote, funnily enough). This is the kind of folly that the people of Scotland and Great Britain have to look forward to under a Scottish Parliament with more power.
If anything we should all be voting for less representation - the proportion of my tax pounds that go on a shower of fuds lining their pockets and fluffing their egos is terrifying. I'd rather spend it on nurses than politicians. Anyone who wants more parliament should have a good think about the schools and hospitals that they'll go without to give jobs to D List politicos, not good enough to get into the current parliamentary system. That's right, too shit to be included in the political remedial class that is the current house of commons. Good grief. People are so stupid I get depressed, every day is like waking up in a world run by cats.
To quote a well known (para)phrase "England is a proud and historic nation" and that's how I want it to stay. Would you equally suggest Scotland and Wales should be regionalised ? No one in Westminster has. They are happy to retain Scotland and Wales as nations. It's only England they wish to destroy. Balkanisation plays into the EU hands. They have long wanted to remove England from the map. There can be Devolution down to areas of England, but it must come as the remit of an English Parliament within a Federal UK.
England has 55m people in a union of nearly 70m. Having regional governments won't make anyone less English.
I'm pretty ignorant on this subject - can someone explain;
Who wants to "Balkanise" England ?
Why they want to do it ?
How they would do it against the wishes if the English electorate ?
To quote a well known (para)phrase "England is a proud and historic nation" and that's how I want it to stay. Would you equally suggest Scotland and Wales should be regionalised ? No one in Westminster has. They are happy to retain Scotland and Wales as nations. It's only England they wish to destroy. Balkanisation plays into the EU hands. They have long wanted to remove England from the map. There can be Devolution down to areas of England, but it must come as the remit of an English Parliament within a Federal UK.
England has 55m people in a union of nearly 70m. Having regional governments won't make anyone less English.
I'm pretty ignorant on this subject - can someone explain;
Who wants to "Balkanise" England ?
Why they want to do it ?
How they would do it against the wishes if the English electorate ?
Why regional autonomy in England is bad ?
This! We have NHS reforms and government IT projects pushed through on a national basis... One size fits all... Delivered by "big four" consultants at huge cost and they fail...always! Why not let cities and regions choose their own solutions and drive through success at a local level. We all have ticking time bomb of aging demographics in terms of health, pensions which needs to be tackled - let local providers tax and deliver. If central government tried to deliver there will be failure - central politicians will be voted out if they tackle head on. Devo max will give the Scottish parliament power and responsibilities - I see reports of re thinking funding across the UK. If they try raising too much tax then people and businesses will relocate...this is how all of Europe is supposed to work with free movement of labour and capital "helping" politicians and bureaucracy to make the right decisions. And finally, what a turnout?! Refreshing and the better together campaign won fair and square. Salmond is and should be portrayed as anti democratic if he insists upon going against the will of the people by talking up an early attempt to run another vote... As someone posted on here, where does he go from here? 2015 election is going to be fascinating.
To quote a well known (para)phrase "England is a proud and historic nation" and that's how I want it to stay. Would you equally suggest Scotland and Wales should be regionalised ? No one in Westminster has. They are happy to retain Scotland and Wales as nations. It's only England they wish to destroy. Balkanisation plays into the EU hands. They have long wanted to remove England from the map. There can be Devolution down to areas of England, but it must come as the remit of an English Parliament within a Federal UK.
England has 55m people in a union of nearly 70m. Having regional governments won't make anyone less English.
Regionalisation (Balkanisation) wiill divide England. We'll have the North competing with the South, the West competing with the East and all other combinations. How can one country set different tax rates across itself ? It's a recipe for infighting, jealousy and division. I ask again. Why is Balkanisation good for England but ruled out for Scotland and Wales?
For Mortmerician. I guess you don't know who the 'Little Englanders' were? I'll leave you to research that. Whenever an English parliament is suggested. Out comes the 'who wants more politicians' line. Strange that wasn't a consideration for Wales and Scotland. However, i have good news for you; Create an English Parliament at Westminster using the current seats. Remove all Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish MP's. (off the top of my head) that's about 100 MP's wages and expenses saved. Raise the Welsh and if possible the N.Irish assemblies to Parliament status. Ther we have four national governments at no cost, actually a saving. Now comes the radical bit. Scrap the house of Lords. 800+ peers pensioned off. massive financial saving in pay and expenses. Create a Federal House to look after reserved matters. I would think around 200 (i'll call them) Senators, should do the job. A cost for sure, but weighed against the savings, still a massive net saving.
To quote a well known (para)phrase "England is a proud and historic nation" and that's how I want it to stay. Would you equally suggest Scotland and Wales should be regionalised ? No one in Westminster has. They are happy to retain Scotland and Wales as nations. It's only England they wish to destroy. Balkanisation plays into the EU hands. They have long wanted to remove England from the map. There can be Devolution down to areas of England, but it must come as the remit of an English Parliament within a Federal UK.
England has 55m people in a union of nearly 70m. Having regional governments won't make anyone less English.
Regionalisation (Balkanisation) wiill divide England. We'll have the North competing with the South, the West competing with the East and all other combinations. How can one country set different tax rates across itself ? It's a recipe for infighting, jealousy and division. I ask again. Why is Balkanisation good for England but ruled out for Scotland and Wales? For Mortmerician. I guess you don't know who the 'Little Englanders' were? I'll leave you to research that. Whenever an English parliament is suggested. Out comes the 'who wants more politicians' line. Strange that wasn't a consideration for Wales and Scotland. However, i have good news for you; Create an English Parliament at Westminster using the current seats. Remove all Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish MP's. (off the top of my head) that's about 100 MP's wages and expenses saved. Raise the Welsh and if possible the N.Irish assemblies to Parliament status. Ther we have four national governments at no cost, actually a saving. Now comes the radical bit. Scrap the house of Lords. 800+ peers pensioned off. massive financial saving in pay and expenses. Create a Federal House to look after reserved matters. I would think around 200 (i'll call them) Senators, should do the job. A cost for sure, but weighed against the savings, still a massive net saving.
I think the idea of competition between the regions sounds brilliant. One of the biggest issues facing the England’s financial future is the pretty much stagnation of its economy outside of London. Having competitive regions, each trying to attract business and local authorities investing in their own infrastructure to enable to win business not only from other regions but also London, other parts of the UK and the EU sounds like a great way to begin to address that stagnation.
But more importantly, I believe that England has changed so much over the last 20 years that the priorities of London are no longer definitely the priority of Newcastle, Norwich or Torquay – if you follow Charlton away regularly surely you see that ? Why not let people in those regions take control of their own priorities and empower them to meet them ? That doesn’t mean the country has to fall apart at the seams, rather it would surely make an England that is satisfied with itself stronger ?
Also, Scotland has begun offering greater representation and autonomy to its Islands (I’m not sure if that falls into your “Balkanisation” definition) – here’s an example - http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/scottish-independence-debate/8714-salmond-offers-seabed-revenue-to-islands - but just Google “Council of the Isles” and you’ll see how regional representation is already taking place in the UK. As to why Wales and NI don’t similarly have regional representation I would imagine the size of those populations doesn’t make it a worthwhile activity.
I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers.
This isn’t a dig – because I’m genuinely interested in why you’re so vehemently against something which sounds fairly sensible – upon what evidence is your feeling giving regions more power would be “a recipe for infighting, jealousy and division” based on ?
Kind of jealous that the Scots actually had a real choice at the ballot box, and their vote really mattered. I always vote, but I've never really felt that.
that was the good thing about it mate , it was an important night in the history of the country
the fact it has royally screwed my weekend and I am behind on work because of it meaning another night in sweaty land is in the grand scale of the event a tiny issue
Perhaps someone should research how the six(?) federal states in Germany work or the 26 cantons in Switzerland. When you look at the nuts and bolts there is remarkably little that needs deciding at national and European level...defence, overall budgets, justice and human rights. But all of the detail and admin of health, welfare and education can easily be decided locally...
I'm a bit surprised Salmond's gone as traditionally Scottish support for Independence is around 30% and he got it with a 5% swing of it actually happening in the space of a couple of years. Although I don't agree with his politics he did a good job. I wonder if because he lost in his home town (Aberdeen) but his deputy Nicola Sturgeon won in hers (Glasgow) they think she's a more viable leader now ?
SE9addick quote ; I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers endquote;
You seem confused. USA is a federation. Every state has it's own legislators. They all operate under the Federal USA gov. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown have all now said Scotland can set it's own tax rates (we'll have to wait and see if it comes about) For that to work we need a Federation too. We certainly don't need some ad-hoc regionalisation designed to weaken England. We need English representation which in turn can beef up local devolution within strict parameters.
I have to say i am amazed at the willingness of some English people to see their country sidelined, weakened and eventually broken up by Westminster/EU.
I'm a bit surprised Salmond's gone as traditionally Scottish support for Independence is around 30% and he got it with a 5% swing of it actually happening in the space of a couple of years. Although I don't agree with his politics he did a good job. I wonder if because he lost in his home town (Aberdeen) but his deputy Nicola Sturgeon won in hers (Glasgow) they think she's a more viable leader now ?
He has nowhere to go as he cannot retain his political integrity AND the integrity of the post of first minister when the majority has voted against him. Just read his statement on BBC.Co.UK and it implies he wants to continue the struggle. As posted before this is democracy at its best and I hope the people down south wake up in time for the next election which may either break or maintain the tradition of two main parties + lib dems. Story in the guardian stated two floating voters watched all the debates but secured no answers! Now that's the challenge for 2015.
SE9addick quote ; I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers endquote;
You seem confused. USA is a federation. Every state has it's own legislators. They all operate under the Federal USA gov. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown have all now said Scotland can set it's own tax rates (we'll have to wait and see if it comes about) For that to work we need a Federation too. We certainly don't need some ad-hoc regionalisation designed to weaken England. We need English representation which in turn can beef up local devolution within strict parameters.
I have to say i am amazed at the willingness of some English people to see their country sidelined, weakened and eventually broken up by Westminster/EU.
I'm definitely not confused, some taxes within states are devolved to local authorities to set - here's a list of sales tax (which I think roughly equates to our VAT) rates by city in the state of Nevada;
I completely agree (as you'll see from lots of my posts throughout this thread) that Federalisation is the way forward, I just don't see why a country of 50m wouldn't seek to create opportunities for its poorer parts by giving them certain powers without it ending up in "infighting, jealousy and division" which you suggested it would.
I stayed up watching the results. Most of my family are Scottish and are pretty evenly split so I was interested. I had no definite opinion either way as I didn't have a choice in the matter. Whatever the outcome I believe both countries would have just had to deal with it and life moves on. Far too much appealing to scare mongering from both sides instead of anything substantive.
Irrelevant of the result I'm hoping this is a catalyst for things changing for all UK countries with regards to self determination and regions having more control over themselves. We are a small country but in reality we have such regional diversity that everything being centralised and the same simply doesn't make sense any more. I'm also hoping that us English actually start taking an interest further than just whinging occasionally and realise that some things can be effected when the effort is made and not just accepting that everything being privatised and more expensive whilst we keep sending people abroad to kill and be killed for financial reasons is inevitable (I won't hold my breath though and I'm sad to admit that statement includes me).
The scariest and most striking thing for me about these kind of debates is how clueless many really are about the reality and complexities of situations. They get all there information and facts from what they already want to believe and selected tit bits from the media and history that suits their predisposition. They genuinely think everything and everyone conforms to stereotype and rules, but mainly because they're simply not intelligent enough to rationalise anything more complex. On here some express their anger at stereotypes and hatred towards us English by commenting in a way that vindicates the stereotype and justifies the hatred and they can't see the irony. Yet they still think their simpleton views hold the same weight as those with actual knowledge and reasoning capabilities. Ah well that's democracy and social media I suppose.
SE9addick quote ; I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers endquote;
You seem confused. USA is a federation. Every state has it's own legislators. They all operate under the Federal USA gov. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown have all now said Scotland can set it's own tax rates (we'll have to wait and see if it comes about) For that to work we need a Federation too. We certainly don't need some ad-hoc regionalisation designed to weaken England. We need English representation which in turn can beef up local devolution within strict parameters.
I have to say i am amazed at the willingness of some English people to see their country sidelined, weakened and eventually broken up by Westminster/EU.
As ever I agree with a lot of what you say but you lose me when you start on the EU wanting to wipe England off the map and use terms like Balkanisation.
With "balkanisation" I don't see any connection or similarities between the english regions and the former yugoslavian states. England is over a 1000 years old, yugoslavian was less than 100. The racial, ethnic and religious divides in the balkans are totally different and far more significant that even the four UK nations let alone between Kent, Cornwall and Yorkshire. I don't see the comparison and can only hear scare tactics.
The appeal for an English Parliament seems almost "they've got one so so should we" but we know that the situation in each of Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland is already different.
Personally I would prefer English MPs only to vote on local English issues but retain the UK government in its current form.
Regionalism is fraught with problems IMHO because the old counties are too small in most cases while the big cities would skew the set up, especially London. That isn't a reason to look at how to do it. It might be more workable perhaps, as you say, under an English parliament.
When you give parts of a country discretion over tax rates you get fiscally driven migration by the targets for higher taxes. That was evident in Scotland with the threat of independence and may yet happen if and when they exercise the right to fiddle with income tax rates. With a small country like England we don't need that sort of "competition". Daggs may have a point.
I am with Henry on this. We only need to ensure that votes on English matters are limited to English MPs. Simple really and the only one who won't see it is Milliband for the rather obvious reason that it will reduce his influence if he ever becomes PM.
Funny how Milliband felt empowered to make a vow on a whim without consulting any "people" when it came to Scotland but now feels a load of "people consultation" is needed before doing the something less for the English. He is a huge hypocrite but as a politician I guess that's only to be expected. This could all end badly.
SE9addick quote ; I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers endquote;
You seem confused. USA is a federation. Every state has it's own legislators. They all operate under the Federal USA gov. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown have all now said Scotland can set it's own tax rates (we'll have to wait and see if it comes about) For that to work we need a Federation too. We certainly don't need some ad-hoc regionalisation designed to weaken England. We need English representation which in turn can beef up local devolution within strict parameters.
I have to say i am amazed at the willingness of some English people to see their country sidelined, weakened and eventually broken up by Westminster/EU.
As ever I agree with a lot of what you say but you lose me when you start on the EU wanting to wipe England off the map and use terms like Balkanisation.
With "balkanisation" I don't see any connection or similarities between the english regions and the former yugoslavian states. England is over a 1000 years old, yugoslavian was less than 100. The racial, ethnic and religious divides in the balkans are totally different and far more significant that even the four UK nations let alone between Kent, Cornwall and Yorkshire. I don't see the comparison and can only hear scare tactics.
The appeal for an English Parliament seems almost "they've got one so so should we" but we know that the situation in each of Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland is already different.
Personally I would prefer English MPs only to vote on local English issues but retain the UK government in its current form.
Regionalism is fraught with problems IMHO because the old counties are too small in most cases while the big cities would skew the set up, especially London. That isn't a reason to look at how to do it. It might be more workable perhaps, as you say, under an English parliament.
O/K a few years ago, on this very forum, you accused me of 'wanting one because they have one' (Scottish Parliament) That was crap then and it's crap today. There is at last, a wide ranging acknowledgement that England gets a rum deal out of this 'Union' It isn't just me banging on about it. Even Milband, Cameron, Clegg and Farage have finally admitted it. Don't get hung-up on the use of 'Balkanistion' it's just a word used widely by those of us who can see what the EU wants to do to England. They actually issued a map a few years ago showing England chopped up. Not Scotland or Wales though, obviously. I'm happy to use the word 'regionalisation' if you prefer? The end result will be the same. The destruction of England as unified country. Some are now saying we need English votes for English laws. It's an unworkable fudge. Some are saying Westminster should have days for Engand, sometimes England/Wales/N.Ireland business, excluding the Scots. I would welcome this as a first step, but it doesn't go far enough. We need an English Parliament equal to that of Scotland with an overseeing UK Federal Parliament for reserved matters.
I'm pleased to see you have now realised England deserves it's own Parliament. I realised it 15 years ago when Blair introduced lop-sided Devolution for all, except the English.
To quote a well known (para)phrase "England is a proud and historic nation" and that's how I want it to stay. Would you equally suggest Scotland and Wales should be regionalised ? No one in Westminster has. They are happy to retain Scotland and Wales as nations. It's only England they wish to destroy. Balkanisation plays into the EU hands. They have long wanted to remove England from the map. There can be Devolution down to areas of England, but it must come as the remit of an English Parliament within a Federal UK.
England has 55m people in a union of nearly 70m. Having regional governments won't make anyone less English.
I'm pretty ignorant on this subject - can someone explain;
Who wants to "Balkanise" England ?
Why they want to do it ?
How they would do it against the wishes if the English electorate ?
Why regional autonomy in England is bad ?
This! We have NHS reforms and government IT projects pushed through on a national basis... One size fits all... Delivered by "big four" consultants at huge cost and they fail...always! Why not let cities and regions choose their own solutions and drive through success at a local level. We all have ticking time bomb of aging demographics in terms of health, pensions which needs to be tackled - let local providers tax and deliver. If central government tried to deliver there will be failure - central politicians will be voted out if they tackle head on. Devo max will give the Scottish parliament power and responsibilities - I see reports of re thinking funding across the UK. If they try raising too much tax then people and businesses will relocate...this is how all of Europe is supposed to work with free movement of labour and capital "helping" politicians and bureaucracy to make the right decisions. And finally, what a turnout?! Refreshing and the better together campaign won fair and square. Salmond is and should be portrayed as anti democratic if he insists upon going against the will of the people by talking up an early attempt to run another vote... As someone posted on here, where does he go from here? 2015 election is going to be fascinating.
Some good points here. Going back to front, isn't it amazing that it took an issue of this magnitude to garner such a turnout? It was probably always going to be the case as such an issue impacts on so many levels. However, I'm pretty confident that come the general election next year, turnout will be lower than 2010. Partly for the reasons listed above. Do we have a system that supports voters feeling their vote will actually make a material difference in their day to day life? For me, probably not. I'm London through and through so can't speak for others, but our population, economy, infrastructure and shockingly oppressive housing market, means that a centralised govt probably doesn't quite cut it anymore. Not to go off piste here, but taking the housing market as an example, the new houses cropping up in Wapping and Battersea coming on the market at silly money don't really suggest to me we've got anywhere in terms of getting on top of it. Of course the govt cannot regulate the housing market and the prices attached to new builds etc. But what a de-centralised system may do, is encourage regions to step up and promote the benefits of business setting up outside of London. This may mean that migration into this country and/or graduates finishing uni are not flocking to the capital in their droves, adding to the angry commute and people exploiting buy to let market with exorbitant rents. Other regions in the UK may get an impetus or an injection of growth through control of big, big issues like corporation tax. This would in turn help regions develop, taking the pressure off of things like an over inflated housing market in London.
On the other hand, you might be of the opinion that we need to keep the talent/business/growth flowing into London. I agree, but we're bursting at the seams. We will always have inward investment, but I feel it can be shared more evenly across the UK. Perhaps I'm looking at this more simplistically than I should and I welcome those to tell me it cannot work like this.
I'm also aware we have regional development agencies, but they are always going to be working within a national framework (apart from maybe business rates, I'm not sure). And if you say to me the London Assembly, all I think is Boris Bikes and cycle lanes. I'm sure there is more to it, but that is all that springs to mind. And if you say local govt and councils, then these guys get their budgets slashed every financial year. It's pretty grim.
Maybe this isn't the exact argument seriously red is trying to put forward, and apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick. However, if I take the 'big 4' consultancy example, those relationships are cemented in some posh restaurant in London. Rolling out an IT change initiative on a public service in a region they have no cultural understanding of, makes no sense to me.
Shouldve seen the antics of the yes crowd last night in that Sq the atmosphere was toxic not a celebration, anyone who even dared to ask questions was treated like they were going to get a bit of steel in the gut
The amount of ob that arrived in the Sq at 9am to move on the Scots laying down in vomit
SE9addick quote ; I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers endquote;
You seem confused. USA is a federation. Every state has it's own legislators. They all operate under the Federal USA gov. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown have all now said Scotland can set it's own tax rates (we'll have to wait and see if it comes about) For that to work we need a Federation too. We certainly don't need some ad-hoc regionalisation designed to weaken England. We need English representation which in turn can beef up local devolution within strict parameters.
I have to say i am amazed at the willingness of some English people to see their country sidelined, weakened and eventually broken up by Westminster/EU.
As ever I agree with a lot of what you say but you lose me when you start on the EU wanting to wipe England off the map and use terms like Balkanisation.
With "balkanisation" I don't see any connection or similarities between the english regions and the former yugoslavian states. England is over a 1000 years old, yugoslavian was less than 100. The racial, ethnic and religious divides in the balkans are totally different and far more significant that even the four UK nations let alone between Kent, Cornwall and Yorkshire. I don't see the comparison and can only hear scare tactics.
The appeal for an English Parliament seems almost "they've got one so so should we" but we know that the situation in each of Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland is already different.
Personally I would prefer English MPs only to vote on local English issues but retain the UK government in its current form.
Regionalism is fraught with problems IMHO because the old counties are too small in most cases while the big cities would skew the set up, especially London. That isn't a reason to look at how to do it. It might be more workable perhaps, as you say, under an English parliament.
O/K a few years ago, on this very forum, you accused me of 'wanting one because they have one' (Scottish Parliament) That was crap then and it's crap today. There is at last, a wide ranging acknowledgement that England gets a rum deal out of this 'Union' It isn't just me banging on about it. Even Milband, Cameron, Clegg and Farage have finally admitted it. Don't get hung-up on the use of 'Balkanistion' it's just a word used widely by those of us who can see what the EU wants to do to England. They actually issued a map a few years ago showing England chopped up. Not Scotland or Wales though, obviously. I'm happy to use the word 'regionalisation' if you prefer? The end result will be the same. The destruction of England as unified country. Some are now saying we need English votes for English laws. It's an unworkable fudge. Some are saying Westminster should have days for Engand, sometimes England/Wales/N.Ireland business, excluding the Scots. I would welcome this as a first step, but it doesn't go far enough. We need an English Parliament equal to that of Scotland with an overseeing UK Federal Parliament for reserved matters.
I'm pleased to see you have now realised England deserves it's own Parliament. I realised it 15 years ago when Blair introduced lop-sided Devolution for all, except the English.
I'm only mentioning the highly loaded and emotive "Balkanisation" word because you used it again and again. In no way can it replaced by "regionalisation" as the two words have such different meanings and intent as you well know.
You keep saying that the EU want to carve up England. I assume that this goes back to 2006 and some plans around a project called Interreg, which wants to foster cross-border co-operation on issues such as tourism, trade, health and the environment. Since then has anything actually happened or it is just another "EU want straight bananas" scare story?
In the same way you stated as fact that the last Labour Government refused to build new prisons when just such a construction was happening in Plumstead and elsewhere. Yes, I have a good memory too.
Not sure I said that England "deserves it's own Parliament". What I said was "Personally I would prefer English MPs only to vote on local English issues but retain the UK government in its current form".
I'm open to the idea of an English parliament now as I was then but have doubts now, as then, over adding yet more layers of government and cost.
The coming debate on constitutional reform will be interesting and will IMHO have a number of unforeseen consequences. Already we are seeing the three main UK parties taking up their party political positions. That usually means that they are thinking about themselves first and the country second, one reason I've never had much time for them.
SE9addick quote ; I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers endquote;
You seem confused. USA is a federation. Every state has it's own legislators. They all operate under the Federal USA gov. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown have all now said Scotland can set it's own tax rates (we'll have to wait and see if it comes about) For that to work we need a Federation too. We certainly don't need some ad-hoc regionalisation designed to weaken England. We need English representation which in turn can beef up local devolution within strict parameters.
I have to say i am amazed at the willingness of some English people to see their country sidelined, weakened and eventually broken up by Westminster/EU.
As ever I agree with a lot of what you say but you lose me when you start on the EU wanting to wipe England off the map and use terms like Balkanisation.
With "balkanisation" I don't see any connection or similarities between the english regions and the former yugoslavian states. England is over a 1000 years old, yugoslavian was less than 100. The racial, ethnic and religious divides in the balkans are totally different and far more significant that even the four UK nations let alone between Kent, Cornwall and Yorkshire. I don't see the comparison and can only hear scare tactics.
The appeal for an English Parliament seems almost "they've got one so so should we" but we know that the situation in each of Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland is already different.
Personally I would prefer English MPs only to vote on local English issues but retain the UK government in its current form.
Regionalism is fraught with problems IMHO because the old counties are too small in most cases while the big cities would skew the set up, especially London. That isn't a reason to look at how to do it. It might be more workable perhaps, as you say, under an English parliament.
O/K a few years ago, on this very forum, you accused me of 'wanting one because they have one' (Scottish Parliament) That was crap then and it's crap today. There is at last, a wide ranging acknowledgement that England gets a rum deal out of this 'Union' It isn't just me banging on about it. Even Milband, Cameron, Clegg and Farage have finally admitted it. Don't get hung-up on the use of 'Balkanistion' it's just a word used widely by those of us who can see what the EU wants to do to England. They actually issued a map a few years ago showing England chopped up. Not Scotland or Wales though, obviously. I'm happy to use the word 'regionalisation' if you prefer? The end result will be the same. The destruction of England as unified country. Some are now saying we need English votes for English laws. It's an unworkable fudge. Some are saying Westminster should have days for Engand, sometimes England/Wales/N.Ireland business, excluding the Scots. I would welcome this as a first step, but it doesn't go far enough. We need an English Parliament equal to that of Scotland with an overseeing UK Federal Parliament for reserved matters.
I'm pleased to see you have now realised England deserves it's own Parliament. I realised it 15 years ago when Blair introduced lop-sided Devolution for all, except the English.
I am just stunned you can remember a spat from a "few years ago" - I had a right set to with Len a couple of weeks ago and can't even remember now what it was about... LOL.
SE9addick quote ; I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers endquote;
You seem confused. USA is a federation. Every state has it's own legislators. They all operate under the Federal USA gov. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown have all now said Scotland can set it's own tax rates (we'll have to wait and see if it comes about) For that to work we need a Federation too. We certainly don't need some ad-hoc regionalisation designed to weaken England. We need English representation which in turn can beef up local devolution within strict parameters.
I have to say i am amazed at the willingness of some English people to see their country sidelined, weakened and eventually broken up by Westminster/EU.
As ever I agree with a lot of what you say but you lose me when you start on the EU wanting to wipe England off the map and use terms like Balkanisation.
With "balkanisation" I don't see any connection or similarities between the english regions and the former yugoslavian states. England is over a 1000 years old, yugoslavian was less than 100. The racial, ethnic and religious divides in the balkans are totally different and far more significant that even the four UK nations let alone between Kent, Cornwall and Yorkshire. I don't see the comparison and can only hear scare tactics.
The appeal for an English Parliament seems almost "they've got one so so should we" but we know that the situation in each of Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland is already different.
Personally I would prefer English MPs only to vote on local English issues but retain the UK government in its current form.
Regionalism is fraught with problems IMHO because the old counties are too small in most cases while the big cities would skew the set up, especially London. That isn't a reason to look at how to do it. It might be more workable perhaps, as you say, under an English parliament.
O/K a few years ago, on this very forum, you accused me of 'wanting one because they have one' (Scottish Parliament) That was crap then and it's crap today. There is at last, a wide ranging acknowledgement that England gets a rum deal out of this 'Union' It isn't just me banging on about it. Even Milband, Cameron, Clegg and Farage have finally admitted it. Don't get hung-up on the use of 'Balkanistion' it's just a word used widely by those of us who can see what the EU wants to do to England. They actually issued a map a few years ago showing England chopped up. Not Scotland or Wales though, obviously. I'm happy to use the word 'regionalisation' if you prefer? The end result will be the same. The destruction of England as unified country. Some are now saying we need English votes for English laws. It's an unworkable fudge. Some are saying Westminster should have days for Engand, sometimes England/Wales/N.Ireland business, excluding the Scots. I would welcome this as a first step, but it doesn't go far enough. We need an English Parliament equal to that of Scotland with an overseeing UK Federal Parliament for reserved matters.
I'm pleased to see you have now realised England deserves it's own Parliament. I realised it 15 years ago when Blair introduced lop-sided Devolution for all, except the English.
I am just stunned you can remember a spat from a "few years ago" - I had a right set to with Len a couple of weeks ago and can't even remember now what it was about... LOL.
Henry and I had a few spats; every time i mentioned English Parliament. He doesn't want to admit it, but he can see politics is coming round to the idea.
Comments
I understand why dimwitted little Englanders start hopping about and demanding their own parliament. But the question is, do you want another set of snouts in the trough? Usually the answer is "no", other than from the snouts that are hoping to get at the trough. The Scottish Parliament has been a farce. They've spent 11 years and gone three times over budget trying to put a tram system into Edinburgh. Apart from having one of the most striking main streets in the world looking like a shit building site for a decade they have only just managed to run a limited service (opened just before this vote, funnily enough). This is the kind of folly that the people of Scotland and Great Britain have to look forward to under a Scottish Parliament with more power.
If anything we should all be voting for less representation - the proportion of my tax pounds that go on a shower of fuds lining their pockets and fluffing their egos is terrifying. I'd rather spend it on nurses than politicians. Anyone who wants more parliament should have a good think about the schools and hospitals that they'll go without to give jobs to D List politicos, not good enough to get into the current parliamentary system. That's right, too shit to be included in the political remedial class that is the current house of commons. Good grief. People are so stupid I get depressed, every day is like waking up in a world run by cats.
Who wants to "Balkanise" England ?
Why they want to do it ?
How they would do it against the wishes if the English electorate ?
Why regional autonomy in England is bad ?
We have NHS reforms and government IT projects pushed through on a national basis... One size fits all... Delivered by "big four" consultants at huge cost and they fail...always! Why not let cities and regions choose their own solutions and drive through success at a local level.
We all have ticking time bomb of aging demographics in terms of health, pensions which needs to be tackled - let local providers tax and deliver. If central government tried to deliver there will be failure - central politicians will be voted out if they tackle head on.
Devo max will give the Scottish parliament power and responsibilities - I see reports of re thinking funding across the UK. If they try raising too much tax then people and businesses will relocate...this is how all of Europe is supposed to work with free movement of labour and capital "helping" politicians and bureaucracy to make the right decisions.
And finally, what a turnout?! Refreshing and the better together campaign won fair and square. Salmond is and should be portrayed as anti democratic if he insists upon going against the will of the people by talking up an early attempt to run another vote... As someone posted on here, where does he go from here?
2015 election is going to be fascinating.
How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?
It's a recipe for infighting, jealousy and division.
I ask again. Why is Balkanisation good for England but ruled out for Scotland and Wales?
For Mortmerician.
I guess you don't know who the 'Little Englanders' were? I'll leave you to research that.
Whenever an English parliament is suggested. Out comes the 'who wants more politicians' line. Strange that wasn't a consideration for Wales and Scotland. However, i have good news for you;
Create an English Parliament at Westminster using the current seats. Remove all Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish MP's. (off the top of my head) that's about 100 MP's wages and expenses saved.
Raise the Welsh and if possible the N.Irish assemblies to Parliament status.
Ther we have four national governments at no cost, actually a saving.
Now comes the radical bit. Scrap the house of Lords. 800+ peers pensioned off. massive financial saving in pay and expenses.
Create a Federal House to look after reserved matters. I would think around 200 (i'll call them) Senators, should do the job. A cost for sure, but weighed against the savings, still a massive net saving.
But more importantly, I believe that England has changed so much over the last 20 years that the priorities of London are no longer definitely the priority of Newcastle, Norwich or Torquay – if you follow Charlton away regularly surely you see that ? Why not let people in those regions take control of their own priorities and empower them to meet them ? That doesn’t mean the country has to fall apart at the seams, rather it would surely make an England that is satisfied with itself stronger ?
Also, Scotland has begun offering greater representation and autonomy to its Islands (I’m not sure if that falls into your “Balkanisation” definition) – here’s an example - http://www.shetnews.co.uk/features/scottish-independence-debate/8714-salmond-offers-seabed-revenue-to-islands - but just Google “Council of the Isles” and you’ll see how regional representation is already taking place in the UK. As to why Wales and NI don’t similarly have regional representation I would imagine the size of those populations doesn’t make it a worthwhile activity.
I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers.
This isn’t a dig – because I’m genuinely interested in why you’re so vehemently against something which sounds fairly sensible – upon what evidence is your feeling giving regions more power would be “a recipe for infighting, jealousy and division” based on ?
the fact it has royally screwed my weekend and I am behind on work because of it meaning another night in sweaty land is in the grand scale of the event a tiny issue
On a different note Salmond gone?
quote ; I’m not sure I quite understand your comment “How can one country set different tax rates across itself ?” – I can think of many countries which have different tax rates in different regions – the USA for a start. Actually I’m not really sure how federalisation would work without devolved tax setting powers endquote;
You seem confused. USA is a federation. Every state has it's own legislators. They all operate under the Federal USA gov.
Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown have all now said Scotland can set it's own tax rates (we'll have to wait and see if it comes about)
For that to work we need a Federation too. We certainly don't need some ad-hoc regionalisation designed to weaken England. We need English representation which in turn can beef up local devolution within strict parameters.
I have to say i am amazed at the willingness of some English people to see their country sidelined, weakened and eventually broken up by Westminster/EU.
As posted before this is democracy at its best and I hope the people down south wake up in time for the next election which may either break or maintain the tradition of two main parties + lib dems.
Story in the guardian stated two floating voters watched all the debates but secured no answers! Now that's the challenge for 2015.
http://www.sale-tax.com/Nevada
I completely agree (as you'll see from lots of my posts throughout this thread) that Federalisation is the way forward, I just don't see why a country of 50m wouldn't seek to create opportunities for its poorer parts by giving them certain powers without it ending up in "infighting, jealousy and division" which you suggested it would.
Irrelevant of the result I'm hoping this is a catalyst for things changing for all UK countries with regards to self determination and regions having more control over themselves. We are a small country but in reality we have such regional diversity that everything being centralised and the same simply doesn't make sense any more. I'm also hoping that us English actually start taking an interest further than just whinging occasionally and realise that some things can be effected when the effort is made and not just accepting that everything being privatised and more expensive whilst we keep sending people abroad to kill and be killed for financial reasons is inevitable (I won't hold my breath though and I'm sad to admit that statement includes me).
The scariest and most striking thing for me about these kind of debates is how clueless many really are about the reality and complexities of situations. They get all there information and facts from what they already want to believe and selected tit bits from the media and history that suits their predisposition. They genuinely think everything and everyone conforms to stereotype and rules, but mainly because they're simply not intelligent enough to rationalise anything more complex. On here some express their anger at stereotypes and hatred towards us English by commenting in a way that vindicates the stereotype and justifies the hatred and they can't see the irony. Yet they still think their simpleton views hold the same weight as those with actual knowledge and reasoning capabilities. Ah well that's democracy and social media I suppose.
With "balkanisation" I don't see any connection or similarities between the english regions and the former yugoslavian states. England is over a 1000 years old, yugoslavian was less than 100. The racial, ethnic and religious divides in the balkans are totally different and far more significant that even the four UK nations let alone between Kent, Cornwall and Yorkshire. I don't see the comparison and can only hear scare tactics.
The appeal for an English Parliament seems almost "they've got one so so should we" but we know that the situation in each of Wales, N. Ireland and Scotland is already different.
Personally I would prefer English MPs only to vote on local English issues but retain the UK government in its current form.
Regionalism is fraught with problems IMHO because the old counties are too small in most cases while the big cities would skew the set up, especially London. That isn't a reason to look at how to do it. It might be more workable perhaps, as you say, under an English parliament.
I am with Henry on this. We only need to ensure that votes on English matters are limited to English MPs. Simple really and the only one who won't see it is Milliband for the rather obvious reason that it will reduce his influence if he ever becomes PM.
Funny how Milliband felt empowered to make a vow on a whim without consulting any "people" when it came to Scotland but now feels a load of "people consultation" is needed before doing the something less for the English. He is a huge hypocrite but as a politician I guess that's only to be expected. This could all end badly.
There is at last, a wide ranging acknowledgement that England gets a rum deal out of this 'Union' It isn't just me banging on about it. Even Milband, Cameron, Clegg and Farage have finally admitted it.
Don't get hung-up on the use of 'Balkanistion' it's just a word used widely by those of us who can see what the EU wants to do to England. They actually issued a map a few years ago showing England chopped up. Not Scotland or Wales though, obviously.
I'm happy to use the word 'regionalisation' if you prefer? The end result will be the same. The destruction of England as unified country.
Some are now saying we need English votes for English laws. It's an unworkable fudge.
Some are saying Westminster should have days for Engand, sometimes England/Wales/N.Ireland business, excluding the Scots. I would welcome this as a first step, but it doesn't go far enough. We need an English Parliament equal to that of Scotland with an overseeing UK Federal Parliament for reserved matters.
I'm pleased to see you have now realised England deserves it's own Parliament. I realised it 15 years ago when Blair introduced lop-sided Devolution for all, except the English.
On the other hand, you might be of the opinion that we need to keep the talent/business/growth flowing into London. I agree, but we're bursting at the seams. We will always have inward investment, but I feel it can be shared more evenly across the UK. Perhaps I'm looking at this more simplistically than I should and I welcome those to tell me it cannot work like this.
I'm also aware we have regional development agencies, but they are always going to be working within a national framework (apart from maybe business rates, I'm not sure). And if you say to me the London Assembly, all I think is Boris Bikes and cycle lanes. I'm sure there is more to it, but that is all that springs to mind. And if you say local govt and councils, then these guys get their budgets slashed every financial year. It's pretty grim.
Maybe this isn't the exact argument seriously red is trying to put forward, and apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick. However, if I take the 'big 4' consultancy example, those relationships are cemented in some posh restaurant in London. Rolling out an IT change initiative on a public service in a region they have no cultural understanding of, makes no sense to me.
The amount of ob that arrived in the Sq at 9am to move on the Scots laying down in vomit
Strange way to run a Country.
You keep saying that the EU want to carve up England. I assume that this goes back to 2006 and some plans around a project called Interreg, which wants to foster cross-border co-operation on issues such as tourism, trade, health and the environment. Since then has anything actually happened or it is just another "EU want straight bananas" scare story?
In the same way you stated as fact that the last Labour Government refused to build new prisons when just such a construction was happening in Plumstead and elsewhere. Yes, I have a good memory too.
Not sure I said that England "deserves it's own Parliament". What I said was "Personally I would prefer English MPs only to vote on local English issues but retain the UK government in its current form".
I'm open to the idea of an English parliament now as I was then but have doubts now, as then, over adding yet more layers of government and cost.
The coming debate on constitutional reform will be interesting and will IMHO have a number of unforeseen consequences. Already we are seeing the three main UK parties taking up their party political positions. That usually means that they are thinking about themselves first and the country second, one reason I've never had much time for them.