I see Salmond is doing his tour of the news studios denouncing the No campaign as liars and saying the No voters are stupid and gullible and will all be dead in 30 years time so it is only a matter of time until Scotland goes independent.
This would, unfortunately, be in contravention of the Edinburgh Agreement signed by himself, which stated that both sides would respect the result as the settled will of the Scottish people.
As such, by denouncing the circumstances of which the No vote was achieved, Salmond is refusing to respect the settled will of the Scottish people and broken his side of the agreement. Yes Scotland hasn't exactly covered themselves in glory in this aspect as well, since as they were the official campaign for Independence, they were bound by this agreement as well, and yet all they have done since Friday morning is attack the integrity of the 55% of Scots who voted No as well as criticise the circumstances of the result.
I doubt anything will come of it really and I imagine letting these idiots have their sour grapes will probably work out better in the long run but currently the SNP and Yes Scotland continue to let this fester and like a festering boil it should be lanced before it's too late. They are obliged to respect the result and yet not a single person from the Yes camp has done that.
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.
I'll happily "admit" that as it is all over the papers. Doesn't mean it is right or that it is going to happening. Or that I agree with it.
There is a game going on between the big parties ( I think there is an election soon) over regionalisation, local powers, devolved powers but don't be surprised if very little changes. Does Cameron really want an English First minister with his/her own parliament and tax income and most likely more power than the UK PM?
Meanwhile back to the EU carving up Europe fantasy.
This is the map.
As you can see Scotland is cut in two.
Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Hants have been re-united with Normandy. That will be a good league to play in. Gills, Brighton, Soton and Pompey plus Calais and Dieppe.
Meanwhile the Irish Question has been solved (well done the EU) as the whole of Ireland is now part of the same country as Portugal, coastal spain, Western France, Cornwall and Wales.
The little bit of England no one wants (Birmingham) has been renamed Airstrip one but London and the whole of the East Coast his now part of a north sea state. THis is good as we'll get German football and we are also in Belgium. Roland must have known this.
And all of this because the EU hates England and wants to destroy it. No other countries mind have bits ripped out of them, it is all an evil plot, a plan to "balkanise"(sic) England despite it also carving up Scotland, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Spain, etc.
I see Salmond is doing his tour of the news studios denouncing the No campaign as liars and saying the No voters are stupid and gullible and will all be dead in 30 years time so it is only a matter of time until Scotland goes independent.
This would, unfortunately, be in contravention of the Edinburgh Agreement signed by himself, which stated that both sides would respect the result as the settled will of the Scottish people.
As such, by denouncing the circumstances of which the No vote was achieved, Salmond is refusing to respect the settled will of the Scottish people and broken his side of the agreement. Yes Scotland hasn't exactly covered themselves in glory in this aspect as well, since as they were the official campaign for Independence, they were bound by this agreement as well, and yet all they have done since Friday morning is attack the integrity of the 55% of Scots who voted No as well as criticise the circumstances of the result.
I doubt anything will come of it really and I imagine letting these idiots have their sour grapes will probably work out better in the long run but currently the SNP and Yes Scotland continue to let this fester and like a festering boil it should be lanced before it's too late. They are obliged to respect the result and yet not a single person from the Yes camp has done that.
To back this up, here's what he said before the vote. It could hardly have been any clearer:
"The clause that was my red-line issue - just as David Cameron's red-line issue was to keep devo-max off the ballot paper in all circumstances two years ago - my red-line issue was Clause 30, the most important clause in that agreement in my estimation. What it says is in the event of the vote... both governments accept the result what ever it may be and pledge immediately to act in the best interests of the people of Scotland the rest of the United Kingdom. I will honour that by the letter, spirit and word."
And here's what he said subsequently: "Clause 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement is now in operation. On behalf of the Scottish Government I accept the results and I pledge to work constructively in the interest of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom".
I see Salmond is doing his tour of the news studios denouncing the No campaign as liars and saying the No voters are stupid and gullible and will all be dead in 30 years time so it is only a matter of time until Scotland goes independent.
This would, unfortunately, be in contravention of the Edinburgh Agreement signed by himself, which stated that both sides would respect the result as the settled will of the Scottish people.
As such, by denouncing the circumstances of which the No vote was achieved, Salmond is refusing to respect the settled will of the Scottish people and broken his side of the agreement. Yes Scotland hasn't exactly covered themselves in glory in this aspect as well, since as they were the official campaign for Independence, they were bound by this agreement as well, and yet all they have done since Friday morning is attack the integrity of the 55% of Scots who voted No as well as criticise the circumstances of the result.
I doubt anything will come of it really and I imagine letting these idiots have their sour grapes will probably work out better in the long run but currently the SNP and Yes Scotland continue to let this fester and like a festering boil it should be lanced before it's too late. They are obliged to respect the result and yet not a single person from the Yes camp has done that.
To back this up, here's what he said before the vote. It could hardly have been any clearer:
"The clause that was my red-line issue - just as David Cameron's red-line issue was to keep devo-max off the ballot paper in all circumstances two years ago - my red-line issue was Clause 30, the most important clause in that agreement in my estimation. What it says is in the event of the vote... both governments accept the result what ever it may be and pledge immediately to act in the best interests of the people of Scotland the rest of the United Kingdom. I will honour that by the letter, spirit and word."
And here's what he said subsequently: "Clause 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement is now in operation. On behalf of the Scottish Government I accept the results and I pledge to work constructively in the interest of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom".
Good work. Salmond needs to be nailed to the mast on this, he can't just go around undermining the UK government and claim to be acting in Scotland's interests. What he has done since Friday has been the opposite of constructive.
He has announced his pending resignation. If he feels so strongly that he cannot stick to that agreement then he needs to go sooner than he has planned. Or perhaps not! I've not analysed his musings post vote but if he is actively breaching "clause 30" then he will cause fatal damage to the SNP cause. How can anyone trust it to run a government in a devolved assembly if this is what he does on fundamental questions. Similarly Cameron attempts to box up Scottish changes with the rest of the UK is equally disingenuous. Both present opportunities to their opponents in elections to come in 2015 and 2016.
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.
I'll happily "admit" that as it is all over the papers. Doesn't mean it is right or that it is going to happening. Or that I agree with it.
There is a game going on between the big parties ( I think there is an election soon) over regionalisation, local powers, devolved powers but don't be surprised if very little changes. Does Cameron really want an English First minister with his/her own parliament and tax income and most likely more power than the UK PM?
Meanwhile back to the EU carving up Europe fantasy.
This is the map.
As you can see Scotland is cut in two.
Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Hants have been re-united with Normandy. That will be a good league to play in. Gills, Brighton, Soton and Pompey plus Calais and Dieppe.
Meanwhile the Irish Question has been solved (well done the EU) as the whole of Ireland is now part of the same country as Portugal, coastal spain, Western France, Cornwall and Wales.
The little bit of England no one wants (Birmingham) has been renamed Airstrip one but London and the whole of the East Coast his now part of a north sea state. THis is good as we'll get German football and we are also in Belgium. Roland must have known this.
And all of this because the EU hates England and wants to destroy it. No other countries mind have bits ripped out of them, it is all an evil plot, a plan to "balkanise"(sic) England despite it also carving up Scotland, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Spain, etc.
Henry, I know you dislike me. I know you USED to be totally against English representation in the (dis)UK. But what is all this? The issue of the democratic defecit affecting England is now out in the open. There's been a meeting at Chequers today, to discuss this very issue. If you don't support England's right to self-determination, that's your perogative. As it happens i do. You keep hurling 'Balkanisation' at me. I keep trying to tell you, it's not a word i dreamt up. It's word used widely in the media and by some parliamentarians, to describe the EU desire to 'regionalise' England. I equally know you think i make it all up and i'm just scaremongering. Well sorry Henry but i don't make it all up and i'm not scaremongering. I'm just a tiny voice in all of this. The map you have shown is frankly a mystery to me. I have no idea what it is or what it is supposed to represent. It is certainly not a version of the map i saw several years ago. You may not have noticed? But it includes Norway, which isn't an EU country !! And i did search the internet to try and find the map i referred to, with no luck. I will suggest it was removed for political reasons. You no doubt will say i made it all up. If you could overcome your dislike for me, or is it anyone who wants equality, fairness, justice and Democracy for England in line with that given to the three other parts of the (dis)UK? Then perhaps you would be able to explain to me why you do, don't or maybe support England's right to govern itself. Your constant approach is just to demean or belittle what i have said, without addressing the issue. I actually thought you were better than that.
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.
I'll happily "admit" that as it is all over the papers. Doesn't mean it is right or that it is going to happening. Or that I agree with it.
There is a game going on between the big parties ( I think there is an election soon) over regionalisation, local powers, devolved powers but don't be surprised if very little changes. Does Cameron really want an English First minister with his/her own parliament and tax income and most likely more power than the UK PM?
Meanwhile back to the EU carving up Europe fantasy.
This is the map.
As you can see Scotland is cut in two.
Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Hants have been re-united with Normandy. That will be a good league to play in. Gills, Brighton, Soton and Pompey plus Calais and Dieppe.
Meanwhile the Irish Question has been solved (well done the EU) as the whole of Ireland is now part of the same country as Portugal, coastal spain, Western France, Cornwall and Wales.
The little bit of England no one wants (Birmingham) has been renamed Airstrip one but London and the whole of the East Coast his now part of a north sea state. THis is good as we'll get German football and we are also in Belgium. Roland must have known this.
And all of this because the EU hates England and wants to destroy it. No other countries mind have bits ripped out of them, it is all an evil plot, a plan to "balkanise"(sic) England despite it also carving up Scotland, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Spain, etc.
Henry, I know you dislike me. I know you USED to be totally against English representation in the (dis)UK. But what is all this? The issue of the democratic defecit affecting England is now out in the open. There's been a meeting at Chequers today, to discuss this very issue. If you don't support England's right to self-determination, that's your perogative. As it happens i do. You keep hurling 'Balkanisation' at me. I keep trying to tell you, it's not a word i dreamt up. It's word used widely in the media and by some parliamentarians, to describe the EU desire to 'regionalise' England. I equally know you think i make it all up and i'm just scaremongering. Well sorry Henry but i don't make it all up and i'm not scaremongering. I'm just a tiny voice in all of this. The map you have shown is frankly a mystery to me. I have no idea what it is or what it is supposed to represent. It is certainly not a version of the map i saw several years ago. You may not have noticed? But it includes Norway, which isn't an EU country !! And i did search the internet to try and find the map i referred to, with no luck. I will suggest it was removed for political reasons. You no doubt will say i made it all up. If you could overcome your dislike for me, or is it anyone who wants equality, fairness, justice and Democracy for England in line with that given to the three other parts of the (dis)UK? Then perhaps you would be able to explain to me why you do, don't or maybe support England's right to govern itself. Your constant approach is just to demean or belittle what i have said, without addressing the issue. I actually thought you were better than that.
Henry, I know you dislike me. I know you USED to be totally against English representation in the (dis)UK. But what is all this? The issue of the democratic defecit affecting England is now out in the open. There's been a meeting at Chequers today, to discuss this very issue. If you don't support England's right to self-determination, that's your perogative. As it happens i do. You keep hurling 'Balkanisation' at me. I keep trying to tell you, it's not a word i dreamt up. It's word used widely in the media and by some parliamentarians, to describe the EU desire to 'regionalise' England. I equally know you think i make it all up and i'm just scaremongering. Well sorry Henry but i don't make it all up and i'm not scaremongering. I'm just a tiny voice in all of this. The map you have shown is frankly a mystery to me. I have no idea what it is or what it is supposed to represent. It is certainly not a version of the map i saw several years ago. You may not have noticed? But it includes Norway, which isn't an EU country !! And i did search the internet to try and find the map i referred to, with no luck. I will suggest it was removed for political reasons. You no doubt will say i made it all up. If you could overcome your dislike for me, or is it anyone who wants equality, fairness, justice and Democracy for England in line with that given to the three other parts of the (dis)UK? Then perhaps you would be able to explain to me why you do, don't or maybe support England's right to govern itself. Your constant approach is just to demean or belittle what i have said, without addressing the issue. I actually thought you were better than that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you are wrong. I don't dislike you. I don't even think about you in that way. I just disagree with some of what you say. Not all, just some and I challenge those parts that I do disagree with.
It is strange that you see disagreement as "dislike" and make it a personal issue rather than arguing your case.
The issue of a regional or national parliament for England is higher up the agenda but in your excitement you seem to think that because it was discussed at Chequers you will get exactly what you want. There is a long way to go and already the English question has slipped down the agenda with ISIL, Iraq, the UKIP conference and the build up to the next election under a year away.
I didn't say you made up the word Balkanisation and I don't think you created it. What I challenged you on was your first use here of such an emotive, loaded and frankly totally inaccurate word that compares Yugoslavia to England. You yourself quickly backed down and said that "regionalisation" would do. The use of such a word is scaremongering IMO.
As for the map. Again it was you not me who said that the EU want to wipe England off the map and carve it up. You said there was a map to prove it. A map you say you now can't find despite it being a cornerstone of your argument.
I found the map I posted (interestingly the Daily Mail article also had a quote from Eric Pickles talking about "Balkanisation") on a number of sites all claiming what you were claiming eg destroy England. It is clearly not a map of proposed countries but of economic co-operation areas hence all the atlantic coast being in one area as they share common industries such as fishing. And as you say it includes Norway. But it is a PROPOSED EU map from 2006. It is not a carve up or attempt to wipe England off the map. The funding levels alone show how minor it is.
You then go back to me disliking you. That is an issue for you and your counsellor to deal with not me.
You last attack is a bit beneath the belt though. Because I don't agree totally with you somehow you make the huge and unfounded leap to "I don't want equality, fairness and democracy for England". So you are the only one who can decide what that looks like and only you can offer that. Any disagreement and the other side are anti-English democracy.
As I have said for a long time I'm all for more democracy for England. Where we differ is the form that that should take. I don't think this should be "Scotland's got one so I want one too".
As someone who believes in the UK I'm not a fan of the level of devolution offered to Scotland but the relative size of Wales and Scotland compared to England mean that an all of England Parliament with tax raising powers would not, IMO, address the issues of regional poverty and economic decline that exist in many parts of England other than London and the South East.
My fear is that a whole of England parliament would still be driven by the City of London and its economic priorities rather than what would benefit the West Country or the North East, for example. Hence why I still consider regional parliaments (maybe we could call them Witans) an option. Not the only but a valid option all the same.
I also just don't believe that Cameron or any party leader will want to see an English First minister with powers, and revenues, close to or even equal to his own.
Not only would we have another level of government but we would also have two almost equally powerful First/Prime Ministers. The theory is that the UK PM would decide on national and international issues and the English FM on English issues. But who decides where one begins and the other ends? Is membership of the EU a UK or an English issue. Certainly impacts on England. Interest rates hit the 55m people in England, airstrikes in Iraq or Syria could lead to terror attacks in England, can an English firm sell arms to Syria or Kurdistan is the English minister says OK but the UK minister doesn't. And if they represented different parties the log jam and conflict would be immense. Maggie got rid of the far less powerful GLC for similar reasons.
Do I have the answers to all of the above? No I don't which is why far from disliking you I enjoy the debates. It makes me think and hone my own arguments and views. You learn nothing from debating with people who agree with you which is perhaps what you have been doing too much of and why you interpret disagreement as dislike.
I love England and I love Britain. And so do you which is why we both care enough to argue about it.
Watching question time last night and this obsession with an English parliament is a real distraction... As the tory pointed out the Celtic MPs could simply abstain themselves from the house when it comes to English matters. And someone else pointed out that Angela Merkel doesn't waste time setting council tax for that is a local matter in Germany devolved to the federal states. The GLA, Wales and Scotland are three nations/regions already established - so power should be devolved where possible to let the local electorate and politicians take the credit and blame. Scandals in childcare and the NHS are, I believe a symptom of an over centralised bureaucracy costing too much and accountable to nobody in reality.
And I agree with @Henry Irving in that agreeing with everyone does not sharpen up the debate. One thing the Scottish referendum has shown us is that simple important questions with complex undertones and implications will motivate the vast majority to participate. No matter that I disagree but Salmond and Farrage have shown how to get a significant percentage of the vote and contribute to the shape of political debate. This sets a challenge to the duller parts of the spectrum to wake up and make a case.
Despite the "you don't like me" stuff, the posts on here are actually the basis of a decent debate.
My view has always been ideologically federalist in approach with "home rule" for the "nations" of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To set that in context - a UK wide elected upper house (Senate). A UK Lower House and regional parliaments for the "nations". All of this within the framework of a written and properly codified constitution setting out precisely where power lies, how it is devolved, how citizens can change the constitutional settlement, and what happens if regional parliaments pass laws which are beyond their competence within the constitution to provide.
We are light-years away from that. We can't even agree to introduce an elected upper house, a project started in the 1900s with the passing of the Parliament Act. It took us a 100 plus years to introduce metric measurements. Does anybody seriously think that a rebalancing and proper constitutional resolution can be resolved in months let alone a year or two?
At present Scotland has its own parliament with limited powers already and will get some more. Northern Ireland has an assembly with some powers and Wales likewise. Each of them have different degrees of power and it's very unlikely they want or will be given identical powers in any quick settlement which may deal with the question of "English votes for English issues".
For those advocating "English Votes For English issues" how will all that work?
Here are some challenges
Will Welsh MPs be voting on England and Wales issues and not England only issues? What about when/(if) we move to tax raising powers in each of the current regional parliaments/assemblies?
How will the current upper house be used to amend/reform legislation founded in regional parliament? Will the Parliament Act be necessary if the HOL votes differently to the "English only" MPs?
What if Wales asks for wider control over its affairs and then votes to overturn gay marriage legislation already in place under the UK juristiction?
These may be poor questions to ask, there may be simple answers, there will be many other issues some with complex answers to resolve but as sure as my arse faces south, trying to rectify them in the febrile atmosphere of the run up to a General Election is just not possible - it won't happen. They will have more pressing things to deal with such as a war, fighting for every vote and with the SNP holding the Government's feet to the fire to give peace meal the additional powers promised.
What is likely to happen in my view is this:- Scotland will be offered some more powers. The main UK parties will reach a compromise which will fall short of the new SNP Leader (for it will be she) Nicola Sturgeon's demand for full Devo Max aka Home Rule. This compromise with agreement to legislate in the next parliament will be presented to the UK wide electorate in a General Election.
Scotland, in my view, will return a majority of pro Independence MPs rejecting the settlement of new powers given. Labour will fail to win a General Election. The Tories may indeed win a small overall majority or in coalition with others, will pass into law their plan for an in/out EU referendum. Nicola Sturgeon and other Scottish independence voices will then call for a further referendum for independence to be held at the same time with a question "should Scotland be an independent country if Scotland votes to stay in the EU, and the UK as a whole votes to leave the EU?"
In the meantime "English Votes for English Issues" if they can manage to solve some of the obvious procedural problems, will be enacted. In my view it can only relate at this stage to Scottish MPs and will stop Scottish MPs voting on any issue before the UK Parliament which has already been devolved to Scotland. It will be a constitutional mess and it will just get worse as more powers for the Scottish Parliament are demanded.
The forces of nationalism within the UK have been stirred. UKIP will fan these flames - stoking up the "who is speaking for England" stuff. This is just going to get worse. The more powers devolved to Scotland, the more devisive the voices will become.
Personally I would live with greater devolvement to Scotland, Wales and NI, but with no "English Votes" or English Parliament. I don't like it because its messy but it means all MPs would still have equal voting rights on matters before the UK Parliament even if they relate only to England.
I could just about cope with "English Votes" as they relate to Scottish MPs provided that only very limited tax raising powers are devolved, although it will be messier still.
I could not countenance giving Scotland (and possibly Wales and NI) significant tax raising powers, leaving an English Parliament sitting with English Constituency UK MPs who were elected in a UK General Election. That is a democratic and constitutional nightmare from which separatism is almost bound to accelerate. For the devolvement of significant tax raising powers from the UK to Scotland (and Wales/NI) there would be an absolute requirement for England Only MPs elected to an England Only Parliament separate from English Constituency MPs elected to the UK Parliament.
I don't believe the Tories who are advocating the "English Votes for English issues" have thought this through. Its a great political flag to wave but will make things less legitimate and democratic.
My solution is for a constitutional convention. It will take time - a number of years but better to start that now. It is clear to me that a federal outcome is the only way to stop the UK fragmenting. Without it in my view, Scotland will be gone within the next 10 years, followed by a great clamour for NI to split/re - align; the demographics suggest this may be a strong possibility and will be harder to resist if we pull out of the EU.
We should be working to strengthen our union not weaken and divide it. That won't and can't be done peace meal or with a head in sand attitude.
"Civilizations die from suicide, not murder." — Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975); British historian, philosopher of history, research professor of International History at the London School of Economics and the University of London and author of numerous books.
Well, you are wrong. I don't dislike you. I don't even think about you in that way. I just disagree with some of what you say. Not all, just some and I challenge those parts that I do disagree with.
It is strange that you see disagreement as "dislike" and make it a personal issue rather than arguing your case.
The issue of a regional or national parliament for England is higher up the agenda but in your excitement you seem to think that because it was discussed at Chequers you will get exactly what you want. There is a long way to go and already the English question has slipped down the agenda with ISIL, Iraq, the UKIP conference and the build up to the next election under a year away.
I didn't say you made up the word Balkanisation and I don't think you created it. What I challenged you on was your first use here of such an emotive, loaded and frankly totally inaccurate word that compares Yugoslavia to England. You yourself quickly backed down and said that "regionalisation" would do. The use of such a word is scaremongering IMO.
As for the map. Again it was you not me who said that the EU want to wipe England off the map and carve it up. You said there was a map to prove it. A map you say you now can't find despite it being a cornerstone of your argument.
I found the map I posted (interestingly the Daily Mail article also had a quote from Eric Pickles talking about "Balkanisation") on a number of sites all claiming what you were claiming eg destroy England. It is clearly not a map of proposed countries but of economic co-operation areas hence all the atlantic coast being in one area as they share common industries such as fishing. And as you say it includes Norway. But it is a PROPOSED EU map from 2006. It is not a carve up or attempt to wipe England off the map. The funding levels alone show how minor it is.
You then go back to me disliking you. That is an issue for you and your counsellor to deal with not me.
You last attack is a bit beneath the belt though. Because I don't agree totally with you somehow you make the huge and unfounded leap to "I don't want equality, fairness and democracy for England". So you are the only one who can decide what that looks like and only you can offer that. Any disagreement and the other side are anti-English democracy.
As I have said for a long time I'm all for more democracy for England. Where we differ is the form that that should take. I don't think this should be "Scotland's got one so I want one too".
As someone who believes in the UK I'm not a fan of the level of devolution offered to Scotland but the relative size of Wales and Scotland compared to England mean that an all of England Parliament with tax raising powers would not, IMO, address the issues of regional poverty and economic decline that exist in many parts of England other than London and the South East.
My fear is that a whole of England parliament would still be driven by the City of London and its economic priorities rather than what would benefit the West Country or the North East, for example. Hence why I still consider regional parliaments (maybe we could call them Witans) an option. Not the only but a valid option all the same.
I also just don't believe that Cameron or any party leader will want to see an English First minister with powers, and revenues, close to or even equal to his own.
Not only would we have another level of government but we would also have two almost equally powerful First/Prime Ministers. The theory is that the UK PM would decide on national and international issues and the English FM on English issues. But who decides where one begins and the other ends? Is membership of the EU a UK or an English issue. Certainly impacts on England. Interest rates hit the 55m people in England, airstrikes in Iraq or Syria could lead to terror attacks in England, can an English firm sell arms to Syria or Kurdistan is the English minister says OK but the UK minister doesn't. And if they represented different parties the log jam and conflict would be immense. Maggie got rid of the far less powerful GLC for similar reasons.
Do I have the answers to all of the above? No I don't which is why far from disliking you I enjoy the debates. It makes me think and hone my own arguments and views. You learn nothing from debating with people who agree with you which is perhaps what you have been doing too much of and why you interpret disagreement as dislike.
I love England and I love Britain. And so do you which is why we both care enough to argue about it.
There's a lot there and i really can't be bothered to go over the i say tomato you say toamayto parts again. You and I disagree. I feel you have a dislike of me because of the aggressive attitude that comes over with your comments. If i'm reading that wrong, O/K. The core issue in all of this is equality for England. Since 1998 England has been the country left out of (dis)UK Democracy. I've spent part of my last fifteen years writing to my MP, to Gov. ministers, to the press and on various blogs/websites. Expressing my opinion that there is only one resolution to the current Democratic defecit affecting England. An English Parliament. You appear to disagree with that, but it is an opinion that is growing. When asked in various polls. Support comes out at around 60% in favour. That is a giant leap over the last fifteen years. I believe a new UK Federation is the way forward. With four Parliaments of equal status controlling all devolved matters and a Federal chamber which would retain control of reserved matters. I don't expect that to be the outcome of the Chequers meeting. But i do expect a minimum of Non-English constituency MP's being stopped from voting on English issues. It's a minefield of complexity, but i see it as a first step in our journey to equality. Re. localised Devolution. Again a minefield. However i believe any localised Devo. should be the remit of an English not (dis)UK Parliament.
Very good and thought provoking piece Bing. Am I allowed to say I like you : - )
A written constitution is common place in the rest of the world and even if not that some sort of rule book would be needed to make it clear who has what powers where.
Watching question time last night and this obsession with an English parliament is a real distraction... As the tory pointed out the Celtic MPs could simply abstain themselves from the house when it comes to English matters.
Generally they do, however it has been previously pointed out with examples where, during the Blair years, Labour whipped the Scottish MPs to vote with the Govt on English matters when rebel English Labour MPs threatened the Govt's majority.
The problem is it ought to be a convention that Scottish MPs don't vote on devolved matters only affecting England, yet they do for purely political reasons, which is frankly an abomination. If Scottish MPs don't want the UK Govt to waste time setting up an English parliament or some kind of law to stop non-English MPs voting on English devolved matters, then they simply have to stop fucking voting on laws that don't concern them. It's a bed of their own making.
Frankly, an English parliament with some kind of PR system like Scotland has in place could revitalise democracy in England as it has in Scotland - devolved English matters mean a lot more to people day-to-day than national matters (which, in a fully devolved UK, I imagine would be largely limited to foreign policy, defence and constitutional matters). It makes sense for England, Scotland, Wales and NI to coordinate on defence and foreign policy - otherwise we'd be in an unthinkable situation where England and Wales could be promoting sanctions on Russia whilst Scotland was selling Putin our state secrets or allowing Russian espionage to operate in the Scottish borders.
Whatever happens, the status quo cannot continue - democracy is on life support in England and half of Scotland wants to secede. The current trajectory this country is headed in politically is poisonous and if people are going to make attempts to revitalise democracy and introduce more local autonomy on issues that matter to people, then that can only be a good thing, and those in Westminster that oppose English devolution are simply terrified of losing their waning authority.
45% of Scotland wants to secede. Detailed analysis is required but the polls clearly stated that wealthier voters and women voted no by 60:40. Women and wealthier people tend to be more risk averse or at least challenge the "team Scotland " rhetoric that was basically economic garbage. The Scottish economy is fine as part of the UK but would have had a huge credibility gap to bridge in isolation. Interesting that the Barnett formula is under scrutiny now. If one takes out London then the rest if England is getting a raw deal compared to Scotland. Here's a new proposal: devolve power to London and Scotland... Give them tax raising authority so that voters pay for their choices...then wait and see if other regions want what is on offer in London and Edinburgh. This has been an interesting and intelligent debate - thought provoking (and easy to ignore the bickering) It also gives perspective on the EU discussion. Put another way, is Cameron just another Salmond making a lot of noise. Only that there is a real danger that the UK would vote no if given a vote on the EU. As per the quote higher up society might vote for suicide sooner or later!
Is it wrong of me to say that I still don't give a shit and still won't vote for any of the self aggrandising arseholes who put themselves up for election whether it be for Ingerlund, Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Whoever wins won't give a toss about me and will do nothing to change my situation and as a result I really can't give a rats arse about any of it.
Is it wrong of me to say that I still don't give a shit and still won't vote for any of the self aggrandising arseholes who put themselves up for election whether it be for Ingerlund, Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Whoever wins won't give a toss about me and will do nothing to change my situation and as a result I really can't give a rats arse about any of it.
Politics - complete bollocks.
Thank you your Majesty and what does Prince Phillip think?
Is it wrong of me to say that I still don't give a shit and still won't vote for any of the self aggrandising arseholes who put themselves up for election whether it be for Ingerlund, Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Whoever wins won't give a toss about me and will do nothing to change my situation and as a result I really can't give a rats arse about any of it.
Politics - complete bollocks.
Whilst not disagreeing with the thrust of your point. Interesting that you decided to corrupt England to Ingerlund. But didn't corrupt Scotland, Wales or Ireland !?
Is it wrong of me to say that I still don't give a shit and still won't vote for any of the self aggrandising arseholes who put themselves up for election whether it be for Ingerlund, Scotland, Wales or Ireland.
Whoever wins won't give a toss about me and will do nothing to change my situation and as a result I really can't give a rats arse about any of it.
Politics - complete bollocks.
Whilst not disagreeing with the thrust of your point. Interesting that you decided to corrupt England to Ingerlund. But didn't corrupt Scotland, Wales or Ireland !?
Simply because most of the people you hear banging on about this Sceptered Isle seem incapable of pronouncing the name of it any other way. Don't seem to come across that sort of mispronunciation in other areas. Just a personal observation you understand and not meant to be taken as gospel.
I've always considered that pronunciation (ingerlund) to be deliberately derogatory. In an attempt to align concern for England's current political situation with football hooligans.
If there isn't going to be another independence vote for a 'generation or even a lifetime' then why would even the most rabid Scottish Nationalist bother voting for them?
Comments
This would, unfortunately, be in contravention of the Edinburgh Agreement signed by himself, which stated that both sides would respect the result as the settled will of the Scottish people.
As such, by denouncing the circumstances of which the No vote was achieved, Salmond is refusing to respect the settled will of the Scottish people and broken his side of the agreement. Yes Scotland hasn't exactly covered themselves in glory in this aspect as well, since as they were the official campaign for Independence, they were bound by this agreement as well, and yet all they have done since Friday morning is attack the integrity of the 55% of Scots who voted No as well as criticise the circumstances of the result.
I doubt anything will come of it really and I imagine letting these idiots have their sour grapes will probably work out better in the long run but currently the SNP and Yes Scotland continue to let this fester and like a festering boil it should be lanced before it's too late. They are obliged to respect the result and yet not a single person from the Yes camp has done that.
There is a game going on between the big parties ( I think there is an election soon) over regionalisation, local powers, devolved powers but don't be surprised if very little changes. Does Cameron really want an English First minister with his/her own parliament and tax income and most likely more power than the UK PM?
Meanwhile back to the EU carving up Europe fantasy.
This is the map.
As you can see Scotland is cut in two.
Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Hants have been re-united with Normandy. That will be a good league to play in. Gills, Brighton, Soton and Pompey plus Calais and Dieppe.
Meanwhile the Irish Question has been solved (well done the EU) as the whole of Ireland is now part of the same country as Portugal, coastal spain, Western France, Cornwall and Wales.
The little bit of England no one wants (Birmingham) has been renamed Airstrip one but London and the whole of the East Coast his now part of a north sea state. THis is good as we'll get German football and we are also in Belgium. Roland must have known this.
And all of this because the EU hates England and wants to destroy it. No other countries mind have bits ripped out of them, it is all an evil plot, a plan to "balkanise"(sic) England despite it also carving up Scotland, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Spain, etc.
"The clause that was my red-line issue - just as David Cameron's red-line issue was to keep devo-max off the ballot paper in all circumstances two years ago - my red-line issue was Clause 30, the most important clause in that agreement in my estimation. What it says is in the event of the vote... both governments accept the result what ever it may be and pledge immediately to act in the best interests of the people of Scotland the rest of the United Kingdom. I will honour that by the letter, spirit and word."
And here's what he said subsequently:
"Clause 30 of the Edinburgh Agreement is now in operation. On behalf of the Scottish Government I accept the results and I pledge to work constructively in the interest of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom".
Or perhaps not!
I've not analysed his musings post vote but if he is actively breaching "clause 30" then he will cause fatal damage to the SNP cause. How can anyone trust it to run a government in a devolved assembly if this is what he does on fundamental questions. Similarly Cameron attempts to box up Scottish changes with the rest of the UK is equally disingenuous.
Both present opportunities to their opponents in elections to come in 2015 and 2016.
But what is all this?
The issue of the democratic defecit affecting England is now out in the open. There's been a meeting at Chequers today, to discuss this very issue.
If you don't support England's right to self-determination, that's your perogative. As it happens i do.
You keep hurling 'Balkanisation' at me. I keep trying to tell you, it's not a word i dreamt up. It's word used widely in the media and by some parliamentarians, to describe the EU desire to 'regionalise' England. I equally know you think i make it all up and i'm just scaremongering. Well sorry Henry but i don't make it all up and i'm not scaremongering. I'm just a tiny voice in all of this.
The map you have shown is frankly a mystery to me. I have no idea what it is or what it is supposed to represent. It is certainly not a version of the map i saw several years ago. You may not have noticed? But it includes Norway, which isn't an EU country !! And i did search the internet to try and find the map i referred to, with no luck. I
will suggest it was removed for political reasons. You no doubt will say i made it all up.
If you could overcome your dislike for me, or is it anyone who wants equality, fairness, justice and Democracy for England in line with that given to the three other parts of the (dis)UK? Then perhaps you would be able to explain to me why you do, don't or maybe support England's right to govern itself.
Your constant approach is just to demean or belittle what i have said, without addressing the issue. I actually thought you were better than that.
Yep, removed for political reasons o0
But what is all this?
The issue of the democratic defecit affecting England is now out in the open. There's been a meeting at Chequers today, to discuss this very issue.
If you don't support England's right to self-determination, that's your perogative. As it happens i do.
You keep hurling 'Balkanisation' at me. I keep trying to tell you, it's not a word i dreamt up. It's word used widely in the media and by some parliamentarians, to describe the EU desire to 'regionalise' England. I equally know you think i make it all up and i'm just scaremongering. Well sorry Henry but i don't make it all up and i'm not scaremongering. I'm just a tiny voice in all of this.
The map you have shown is frankly a mystery to me. I have no idea what it is or what it is supposed to represent. It is certainly not a version of the map i saw several years ago. You may not have noticed? But it includes Norway, which isn't an EU country !! And i did search the internet to try and find the map i referred to, with no luck. I
will suggest it was removed for political reasons. You no doubt will say i made it all up.
If you could overcome your dislike for me, or is it anyone who wants equality, fairness, justice and Democracy for England in line with that given to the three other parts of the (dis)UK? Then perhaps you would be able to explain to me why you do, don't or maybe support England's right to govern itself.
Your constant approach is just to demean or belittle what i have said, without addressing the issue. I actually thought you were better than that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you are wrong. I don't dislike you. I don't even think about you in that way. I just disagree with some of what you say. Not all, just some and I challenge those parts that I do disagree with.
It is strange that you see disagreement as "dislike" and make it a personal issue rather than arguing your case.
The issue of a regional or national parliament for England is higher up the agenda but in your excitement you seem to think that because it was discussed at Chequers you will get exactly what you want. There is a long way to go and already the English question has slipped down the agenda with ISIL, Iraq, the UKIP conference and the build up to the next election under a year away.
I didn't say you made up the word Balkanisation and I don't think you created it. What I challenged you on was your first use here of such an emotive, loaded and frankly totally inaccurate word that compares Yugoslavia to England. You yourself quickly backed down and said that "regionalisation" would do. The use of such a word is scaremongering IMO.
As for the map. Again it was you not me who said that the EU want to wipe England off the map and carve it up. You said there was a map to prove it. A map you say you now can't find despite it being a cornerstone of your argument.
I found the map I posted (interestingly the Daily Mail article also had a quote from Eric Pickles talking about "Balkanisation") on a number of sites all claiming what you were claiming eg destroy England. It is clearly not a map of proposed countries but of economic co-operation areas hence all the atlantic coast being in one area as they share common industries such as fishing. And as you say it includes Norway. But it is a PROPOSED EU map from 2006. It is not a carve up or attempt to wipe England off the map. The funding levels alone show how minor it is.
You then go back to me disliking you. That is an issue for you and your counsellor to deal with not me.
You last attack is a bit beneath the belt though. Because I don't agree totally with you somehow you make the huge and unfounded leap to "I don't want equality, fairness and democracy for England". So you are the only one who can decide what that looks like and only you can offer that. Any disagreement and the other side are anti-English democracy.
As I have said for a long time I'm all for more democracy for England. Where we differ is the form that that should take. I don't think this should be "Scotland's got one so I want one too".
As someone who believes in the UK I'm not a fan of the level of devolution offered to Scotland but the relative size of Wales and Scotland compared to England mean that an all of England Parliament with tax raising powers would not, IMO, address the issues of regional poverty and economic decline that exist in many parts of England other than London and the South East.
My fear is that a whole of England parliament would still be driven by the City of London and its economic priorities rather than what would benefit the West Country or the North East, for example. Hence why I still consider regional parliaments (maybe we could call them Witans) an option. Not the only but a valid option all the same.
I also just don't believe that Cameron or any party leader will want to see an English First minister with powers, and revenues, close to or even equal to his own.
Not only would we have another level of government but we would also have two almost equally powerful First/Prime Ministers. The theory is that the UK PM would decide on national and international issues and the English FM on English issues. But who decides where one begins and the other ends? Is membership of the EU a UK or an English issue. Certainly impacts on England. Interest rates hit the 55m people in England, airstrikes in Iraq or Syria could lead to terror attacks in England, can an English firm sell arms to Syria or Kurdistan is the English minister says OK but the UK minister doesn't. And if they represented different parties the log jam and conflict would be immense. Maggie got rid of the far less powerful GLC for similar reasons.
Do I have the answers to all of the above? No I don't which is why far from disliking you I enjoy the debates. It makes me think and hone my own arguments and views. You learn nothing from debating with people who agree with you which is perhaps what you have been doing too much of and why you interpret disagreement as dislike.
I love England and I love Britain. And so do you which is why we both care enough to argue about it.
Scandals in childcare and the NHS are, I believe a symptom of an over centralised bureaucracy costing too much and accountable to nobody in reality.
And I agree with @Henry Irving in that agreeing with everyone does not sharpen up the debate. One thing the Scottish referendum has shown us is that simple important questions with complex undertones and implications will motivate the vast majority to participate. No matter that I disagree but Salmond and Farrage have shown how to get a significant percentage of the vote and contribute to the shape of political debate. This sets a challenge to the duller parts of the spectrum to wake up and make a case.
My view has always been ideologically federalist in approach with "home rule" for the "nations" of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To set that in context - a UK wide elected upper house (Senate). A UK Lower House and regional parliaments for the "nations". All of this within the framework of a written and properly codified constitution setting out precisely where power lies, how it is devolved, how citizens can change the constitutional settlement, and what happens if regional parliaments pass laws which are beyond their competence within the constitution to provide.
We are light-years away from that. We can't even agree to introduce an elected upper house, a project started in the 1900s with the passing of the Parliament Act. It took us a 100 plus years to introduce metric measurements. Does anybody seriously think that a rebalancing and proper constitutional resolution can be resolved in months let alone a year or two?
At present Scotland has its own parliament with limited powers already and will get some more. Northern Ireland has an assembly with some powers and Wales likewise. Each of them have different degrees of power and it's very unlikely they want or will be given identical powers in any quick settlement which may deal with the question of "English votes for English issues".
For those advocating "English Votes For English issues" how will all that work?
Here are some challenges
Will Welsh MPs be voting on England and Wales issues and not England only issues? What about when/(if) we move to tax raising powers in each of the current regional parliaments/assemblies?
How will the current upper house be used to amend/reform legislation founded in regional parliament? Will the Parliament Act be necessary if the HOL votes differently to the "English only" MPs?
What if Wales asks for wider control over its affairs and then votes to overturn gay marriage legislation already in place under the UK juristiction?
These may be poor questions to ask, there may be simple answers, there will be many other issues some with complex answers to resolve but as sure as my arse faces south, trying to rectify them in the febrile atmosphere of the run up to a General Election is just not possible - it won't happen. They will have more pressing things to deal with such as a war, fighting for every vote and with the SNP holding the Government's feet to the fire to give peace meal the additional powers promised.
What is likely to happen in my view is this:- Scotland will be offered some more powers. The main UK parties will reach a compromise which will fall short of the new SNP Leader (for it will be she) Nicola Sturgeon's demand for full Devo Max aka Home Rule. This compromise with agreement to legislate in the next parliament will be presented to the UK wide electorate in a General Election.
Scotland, in my view, will return a majority of pro Independence MPs rejecting the settlement of new powers given. Labour will fail to win a General Election. The Tories may indeed win a small overall majority or in coalition with others, will pass into law their plan for an in/out EU referendum. Nicola Sturgeon and other Scottish independence voices will then call for a further referendum for independence to be held at the same time with a question "should Scotland be an independent country if Scotland votes to stay in the EU, and the UK as a whole votes to leave the EU?"
In the meantime "English Votes for English Issues" if they can manage to solve some of the obvious procedural problems, will be enacted. In my view it can only relate at this stage to Scottish MPs and will stop Scottish MPs voting on any issue before the UK Parliament which has already been devolved to Scotland. It will be a constitutional mess and it will just get worse as more powers for the Scottish Parliament are demanded.
The forces of nationalism within the UK have been stirred. UKIP will fan these flames - stoking up the "who is speaking for England" stuff. This is just going to get worse. The more powers devolved to Scotland, the more devisive the voices will become.
Personally I would live with greater devolvement to Scotland, Wales and NI, but with no "English Votes" or English Parliament. I don't like it because its messy but it means all MPs would still have equal voting rights on matters before the UK Parliament even if they relate only to England.
I could just about cope with "English Votes" as they relate to Scottish MPs provided that only very limited tax raising powers are devolved, although it will be messier still.
I could not countenance giving Scotland (and possibly Wales and NI) significant tax raising powers, leaving an English Parliament sitting with English Constituency UK MPs who were elected in a UK General Election. That is a democratic and constitutional nightmare from which separatism is almost bound to accelerate. For the devolvement of significant tax raising powers from the UK to Scotland (and Wales/NI) there would be an absolute requirement for England Only MPs elected to an England Only Parliament separate from English Constituency MPs elected to the UK Parliament.
I don't believe the Tories who are advocating the "English Votes for English issues" have thought this through. Its a great political flag to wave but will make things less legitimate and democratic.
My solution is for a constitutional convention. It will take time - a number of years but better to start that now. It is clear to me that a federal outcome is the only way to stop the UK fragmenting. Without it in my view, Scotland will be gone within the next 10 years, followed by a great clamour for NI to split/re - align; the demographics suggest this may be a strong possibility and will be harder to resist if we pull out of the EU.
We should be working to strengthen our union not weaken and divide it. That won't and can't be done peace meal or with a head in sand attitude.
— Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975); British historian, philosopher of history,
research professor of International History at the London School of Economics and
the University of London and author of numerous books.
Well, you are wrong. I don't dislike you. I don't even think about you in that way. I just disagree with some of what you say. Not all, just some and I challenge those parts that I do disagree with.
It is strange that you see disagreement as "dislike" and make it a personal issue rather than arguing your case.
The issue of a regional or national parliament for England is higher up the agenda but in your excitement you seem to think that because it was discussed at Chequers you will get exactly what you want. There is a long way to go and already the English question has slipped down the agenda with ISIL, Iraq, the UKIP conference and the build up to the next election under a year away.
I didn't say you made up the word Balkanisation and I don't think you created it. What I challenged you on was your first use here of such an emotive, loaded and frankly totally inaccurate word that compares Yugoslavia to England. You yourself quickly backed down and said that "regionalisation" would do. The use of such a word is scaremongering IMO.
As for the map. Again it was you not me who said that the EU want to wipe England off the map and carve it up. You said there was a map to prove it. A map you say you now can't find despite it being a cornerstone of your argument.
I found the map I posted (interestingly the Daily Mail article also had a quote from Eric Pickles talking about "Balkanisation") on a number of sites all claiming what you were claiming eg destroy England. It is clearly not a map of proposed countries but of economic co-operation areas hence all the atlantic coast being in one area as they share common industries such as fishing. And as you say it includes Norway. But it is a PROPOSED EU map from 2006. It is not a carve up or attempt to wipe England off the map. The funding levels alone show how minor it is.
You then go back to me disliking you. That is an issue for you and your counsellor to deal with not me.
You last attack is a bit beneath the belt though. Because I don't agree totally with you somehow you make the huge and unfounded leap to "I don't want equality, fairness and democracy for England". So you are the only one who can decide what that looks like and only you can offer that. Any disagreement and the other side are anti-English democracy.
As I have said for a long time I'm all for more democracy for England. Where we differ is the form that that should take. I don't think this should be "Scotland's got one so I want one too".
As someone who believes in the UK I'm not a fan of the level of devolution offered to Scotland but the relative size of Wales and Scotland compared to England mean that an all of England Parliament with tax raising powers would not, IMO, address the issues of regional poverty and economic decline that exist in many parts of England other than London and the South East.
My fear is that a whole of England parliament would still be driven by the City of London and its economic priorities rather than what would benefit the West Country or the North East, for example. Hence why I still consider regional parliaments (maybe we could call them Witans) an option. Not the only but a valid option all the same.
I also just don't believe that Cameron or any party leader will want to see an English First minister with powers, and revenues, close to or even equal to his own.
Not only would we have another level of government but we would also have two almost equally powerful First/Prime Ministers. The theory is that the UK PM would decide on national and international issues and the English FM on English issues. But who decides where one begins and the other ends? Is membership of the EU a UK or an English issue. Certainly impacts on England. Interest rates hit the 55m people in England, airstrikes in Iraq or Syria could lead to terror attacks in England, can an English firm sell arms to Syria or Kurdistan is the English minister says OK but the UK minister doesn't. And if they represented different parties the log jam and conflict would be immense. Maggie got rid of the far less powerful GLC for similar reasons.
Do I have the answers to all of the above? No I don't which is why far from disliking you I enjoy the debates. It makes me think and hone my own arguments and views. You learn nothing from debating with people who agree with you which is perhaps what you have been doing too much of and why you interpret disagreement as dislike.
I love England and I love Britain. And so do you which is why we both care enough to argue about it.
There's a lot there and i really can't be bothered to go over the i say tomato you say toamayto parts again. You and I disagree.
I feel you have a dislike of me because of the aggressive attitude that comes over with your comments. If i'm reading that wrong, O/K.
The core issue in all of this is equality for England. Since 1998 England has been the country left out of (dis)UK Democracy. I've spent part of my last fifteen years writing to my MP, to Gov. ministers, to the press and on various blogs/websites. Expressing my opinion that there is only one resolution to the current Democratic defecit affecting England. An English Parliament. You appear to disagree with that, but it is an opinion that is growing. When asked in various polls. Support comes out at around 60% in favour. That is a giant leap over the last fifteen years.
I believe a new UK Federation is the way forward. With four Parliaments of equal status controlling all devolved matters and a Federal chamber which would retain control of reserved matters.
I don't expect that to be the outcome of the Chequers meeting. But i do expect a minimum of Non-English constituency MP's being stopped from voting on English issues.
It's a minefield of complexity, but i see it as a first step in our journey to equality.
Re. localised Devolution. Again a minefield. However i believe any localised Devo. should be the remit of an English not (dis)UK Parliament.
A written constitution is common place in the rest of the world and even if not that some sort of rule book would be needed to make it clear who has what powers where.
The problem is it ought to be a convention that Scottish MPs don't vote on devolved matters only affecting England, yet they do for purely political reasons, which is frankly an abomination. If Scottish MPs don't want the UK Govt to waste time setting up an English parliament or some kind of law to stop non-English MPs voting on English devolved matters, then they simply have to stop fucking voting on laws that don't concern them. It's a bed of their own making.
Frankly, an English parliament with some kind of PR system like Scotland has in place could revitalise democracy in England as it has in Scotland - devolved English matters mean a lot more to people day-to-day than national matters (which, in a fully devolved UK, I imagine would be largely limited to foreign policy, defence and constitutional matters). It makes sense for England, Scotland, Wales and NI to coordinate on defence and foreign policy - otherwise we'd be in an unthinkable situation where England and Wales could be promoting sanctions on Russia whilst Scotland was selling Putin our state secrets or allowing Russian espionage to operate in the Scottish borders.
Whatever happens, the status quo cannot continue - democracy is on life support in England and half of Scotland wants to secede. The current trajectory this country is headed in politically is poisonous and if people are going to make attempts to revitalise democracy and introduce more local autonomy on issues that matter to people, then that can only be a good thing, and those in Westminster that oppose English devolution are simply terrified of losing their waning authority.
Interesting that the Barnett formula is under scrutiny now. If one takes out London then the rest if England is getting a raw deal compared to Scotland.
Here's a new proposal: devolve power to London and Scotland... Give them tax raising authority so that voters pay for their choices...then wait and see if other regions want what is on offer in London and Edinburgh.
This has been an interesting and intelligent debate - thought provoking (and easy to ignore the bickering) It also gives perspective on the EU discussion. Put another way, is Cameron just another Salmond making a lot of noise. Only that there is a real danger that the UK would vote no if given a vote on the EU.
As per the quote higher up society might vote for suicide sooner or later!
Whoever wins won't give a toss about me and will do nothing to change my situation and as a result I really can't give a rats arse about any of it.
Politics - complete bollocks.
If there isn't going to be another independence vote for a 'generation or even a lifetime' then why would even the most rabid Scottish Nationalist bother voting for them?
Perhaps we could replace Salmond with Farge?