Whatever happened to the idea of regional assemblies?

Whatever happened to the idea of regional assemblies?

The plan for elected assemblies was scrapped after a resounding “No” in the North.

People don’t want another layer of politicians, they want a solution to the West Lothian question.

I wonder which party will be the first to take this idea on?

Given that a hung parliament now seems likely, the idea might gain some traction. The elephant in the room however may prove to be the following scenario: the UK national parliament has, for the sake of argument, a Labour or Lab/LD coalition in power, but the Tories have a majority in English seats.

Although not impossible to deal with, I’m not sure the current constitutional settlement could survive the strains of that kind of “cohabitation”.

If the devolution to an English Assembly closely matched the powers that are devolved to Scotland and should be devolved to Wales, I don’t see what the problem is.

Galen 10’s scenario already exists between the SNP at Hollyrood – where they are running a minority administration – and Labour at Westminster. There is certainly friction, but life goes on.

@ Galen

I think an English Grand Committee in Parliament could just about work if we had a more proportional system. Since it is likely that any government would need to build consensus to get UK bills passed, it would just have to ensure greater consensus for bills/amendments that referred only to England.

I quite like an idea that Simon Jenkins (bear with me) proposed several years ago, that within England we simply devolve everything up to Welsh Assembly powers back to the county councils/city councils and let them worry about it. Let the UK Parliament deal with UK wide issues and let local people decide on local services.

It might do some good for the national parties if their policies had been road tested in their own areas before they decided to promote them across the country.

I don’t see what the problem is

Labour needs those Scottish MP’s to be able to tell the English what to do.

Maybe the SNP should start putting up candidates in England too? The simplest answer to the West Lothian question is full independence.

Although, in practice, I do have to wonder just how often Scottish MPs bother to turn up to vote on English issues. It’s not like most MPs are that enthusiastic about turning up for anything short of a three line whip, even when the issues do affect their constituents. Anybody got any actual data on this?

As a Plaid member, I fully support England having it’s own parliament. My understanding is that SNP/Plaid MPs avoid voting in England only matters – the biggest culprits in this regards are Welsh and Scottish Labour MPs. My MP in Torfaen voted ‘strongly on foundation hospitals’…yes that is English Foundation Hospitals.

Gordon Brown’s position of being a Scottish MP and UK PM is clearly not acceptable either.

My concern is that the moves towards an English parliament is not done on the hop, without considering the other issues involved. In Wales our system is simply inferior to the Scots. It is unacceptable that different nations of the UK do not have an equal chance of devolution, with the same powers. There is a push pull we have to consider; if England ‘gains’ autonomy, it is important that Wales’ loss so to speak is transferred to the Assembly. It is not as simple as ‘English votes on English matters’, although I accept that is the crux of the issue.

It seems a bit silly to think that we could get a new voting system, an elected house of lords and even a written constitution but not include devolution in those massive changes.

In the end I want the four nations to have total autonomy. But in the meantime I think that we should have;

– A citizens convention on the UK constitution (devolution, the voting system, the lords)

– Scotland to have an independence referendum (so at least that convention will know what Scotland’s position is)

– Wales to have a referendum on Scottish style powers (ditto to give any convention a clear steer)

– Westminster to then have ‘England days’ and ‘UK Days’, with English votes for English matters.

– Clear laws within a constitution with clear guidance for any nation seeking to become an independent nation, including England of course.

“The simplest answer to the West Lothian question is full independence.”

Exactly. All this debate about how badly England does out of devolution would easily be put to bed by giving Wales and Scotland the fiscal powers to make its own way in the world.

I actually think that in Tory and Lib Dem circles, they accept that narrative. However I would argue that Scottish and Welsh Labour are the real roadblocks.

Perhaps STV will negate the huge electoral advantage Labour gets out of Welsh/Scottish MPs, and therefore make them less self interested?

I won’t hold my breath.

@6 cjcjc

Well, that kinda cut’s both ways given the Tory appetite for forcing Thatcherite policies down the throats of Scottish voters for 18 years. Look how well that turned out for them, huh? Latest opinion polls in scotland have the Tories running at around 16%. Funny how Cameron is suddenly interested in devolving power all of a sudden.

@5 Chris

I agree that making an English parliament work more or less presupposes some form of PR, which is an interesting conundrum for the Tories! I think one of the issues with regional devolution in England, and “federalism” in the UK is the disparity in size between the constituent “federal” units, and the fact that few places in England (apart from Yorkshire perhaps…?) are regions in the same way as say, Bavaria or Catalonia.

Although, in practice, I do have to wonder just how often Scottish MPs bother to turn up to vote on English issues.

Not just the Scots:

“For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate… at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?” – Tam Dalyell

@11: Aye, fair enough… Doesn’t answer the question though.

cjcjc,

Labour needs those Scottish MP’s to be able to tell the English what to do.

You are quite right. Whilst the SNP do not vote on English only issues, Scottish Labour do. It strikes me as undemocratic and wrong. If I were English I’d be outraged at it!

Does anyone know whether Scottish Liberal MPs vote on English only issues?

Marcus Warner,

I see no reason why the PM cannot, in principle, be Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish.

ukliberty: People don’t want another layer of politicians, they want a solution to the West Lothian question.

…but how does that work without devolved (regional) assemblies? Westminster cannot simultaneously be the national assembly and a ‘devolved’ English one, especially when so much ‘English’ legislation usually applies to Wales as well.

@ 8 Marcus

“Gordon Brown’s position of being a Scottish MP and UK PM is clearly not acceptable either. ”

That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve seen in a long time. You can’t have it both ways… either it’s a United Kingdom or it’s not!

You can make an argument about whether Scottish Labour MP’s should vote on “England only” legislation when there is a devolved Scottish parliament, but not that Scots should be excluded from becoming leader of the Labour party or PM.

redpesto,

Because, as part of any settlement of the West Lothian Question, there would have to be equal devolution to Wales, England and Scotland?

Doesn’t answer the question though.

There is some information from page 21 of this document.

Chris @ 5:

I quite like an idea that Simon Jenkins (bear with me) proposed several years ago, that within England we simply devolve everything up to Welsh Assembly powers back to the county councils/city councils and let them worry about it. Let the UK Parliament deal with UK wide issues and let local people decide on local services.

At least that proposal recognises that some form of English devolved assembly/assemblies would be required.

@douglas clark – but that’s my point: English Westminster MPs can’t double up as ‘devolved’ English MPs in the same assembly chamber

redpesto,

English Westminster MPs can’t double up as ‘devolved’ English MPs in the same assembly chamber

Why not?

“the fact that few places in England (apart from Yorkshire perhaps…?) are regions in the same way as say, Bavaria or Catalonia.”

Well I suspect Mebyon Kernow may disagree with that

In principle England needs devolution, the question is really what form that takes – English parliament (or english only days at westminster), or regional assemblies.

I’d be in favour of the latter. England is a much larger country with a far larger population, and devolution is intended to bring decision making down to a local level, which regional assemblies will do far better than a national english parliament. There is already in Wales a regional divide between North and South (and arguably east and west) that the assembly does its best to manage, but the regional divides in England – economically, socially and culturally are far greater. The problems and issues faced by people in the South East are different to those in the North. Hence devolution in England needs to be far more regional to make a difference.

redpesto,
English Westminster MPs can’t double up as ‘devolved’ English MPs in the same assembly chamber

Why not?

I suppose there might be confusion when there is UK wide legislation consisting of some English-only divisions – after all, some MPs today get confused about whether they went through the “Aye” lobby or the “No” lobby.

Gordon Brown’s position of being a Scottish MP and UK PM is clearly not acceptable either.

Why on earth not?

ukliberty:

redpesto,
English Westminster MPs can’t double up as ‘devolved’ English MPs in the same assembly chamber

Why not?

Separation of powers? Distinction between legislative bodies? Why else go to all the trouble of a Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly – they could have just used Westminster MPs and saved themselves the bother.

redpesto @ 19,

Correct we if I am wrong but Westminster already doubles up as a UK Parliament and an English Parliament. It passes legislation that sometimes only applies to England and sometimes applies to England and Wales.

The issue, it seems to me, is that neither Scottish nor Welsh nor NI MPs should vote on purely English legislation.

Frankly, it is ludicrous that they do.

The issue, it seems to me, is that England cannot or will not look North or East of its Borders to see worked examples of this happening in practice. Although youdo, probably, require your own separate Parliament. Not for the sake of the layer of politicians but for the layer of governance.

Labour needs those Scottish MP’s to be able to tell the English what to do.

Yes, just imagine a fantastical situation where Scotland was ruled for years by a government its people despised and comprehensively rejected at election after election. How horrible – my heart bleeds buckets, etc. and so on.

The simplest answer to the West Lothian question is full independence.

To throw a spanner in the works, only 20%-25% of Scots are in favour of full independence, so we can throw that option away at a stroke.

Those English voters who were able to vote on regional assemblies – a solution that would’ve resolved this situation – roundly rejected the idea before. If people decide they want to look at this again, I would urge them to call another referendum and, if they want it, a move to a true federal system. That way most people would be happy.

Not everyone, of course, and I’d be sad to see the end of the Boo-hoo-hoo, the horrible Scots done stole our democracy style of bullshit that we’ve seen in the last few years.

With regional assemblies, folk would have to come up with some new grievance to whine over – my bet would be the biennial blubberfest that inevitably ensues whenever some minor Scottish politician or celebrity declines to support England in an international championship. If not that, then it’d be something else, since that’s the nature of this kind of self-pitying guff.

@27 Flying Rodent

“To throw a spanner in the works, only 20%-25% of Scots are in favour of full independence, so we can throw that option away at a stroke.”

Whilst I agree with a lot of your sentiments, the pro-independence % has more commonly been between 25-30%. In the general election it’s likely that many Scots will (as is their predictable, forlorn habit) vote Labour to keep the hated Tories out. ickly

So..altho’ it might not be imminent, it’s not exactly a huge leap from their current position to a majority in favour. As we’ve seen in the past week, things can change quickly. Many of the kind of solutions to the West Lothian question posited above will bb grist to the nationalist mill.

the pro-independence % has more commonly been between 25-30%. In the general election it’s likely that many Scots will (as is their predictable, forlorn habit) vote Labour to keep the hated Tories out.

Maybe so, maybe no – the trajectory of support for independence has been consistently downwards ever since devolution, IIRC. That’s one reason why the SNP have had to put their doomed independence referendum on the backburner – because they’re pinning all of their hopes on the possibility that a load of English Tories will start slagging Scotland off for votes in the General Election, thus bolstering support by creating an equal and opposite numbnuts response on this side of the border.

It might work, it might not – my bet is on the latter.

We, the English, have on numerous occasions polled between 61% and 68% in favour of our own English parliament.We are sick of being ignored by politicians like Cameron (who called us “sour little Englanders” for wanting independence from the Britstate).Brown, as another correspondent has mentioned, is in a position of power which makes a mockery of the constitution,and Clegg is mute on the issue.In fact all three wise monkeys involved in the ‘Big Debate’ have yet to utter the word England.This shows exactly the level of contempt in which they hold the majority population of this island.
Why do we elect them? They clearly despise us? Why are droves of Labour and Tory supporters going to vote BNP? Because at last there is a party which will listen and take note of the rapidly building sense of despair within a normally indifferent group of people.
It is clear that we must have an English parliament if we are to continue to pretend to the rest of the world that we have any respect for democracy.England is the ONLY country in the civilised world without a national assembly. The problem being that the British state parliament at Westminster is certainly not that,rather it is the final resting place of those with colonial pretentions,even though the only colony they preside over is England.

The issue, it seems to me, is that neither Scottish nor Welsh nor NI MPs should vote on purely English legislation.

It a bit more complicated than you think, Douglas, because of how the Westminster Parliament works.

The flaw at the heart of EVoEL is the role of the Royal prerogative in parliament.

It is, for example, theoretical possible to arrive at a situation in which one party has a working majority on UK-wide legislation while not even being the largest single party when MPs from the Celtic fringes are excluded from on English only matters.

The problem that arises there is that the Royal prerogative would still be vested in the Prime Minister who would, therefore, control the legislative agenda of the House both for the UK as a whole and for legislation that applies only to England, leaving the leader of the party with the greatest number of English MPs completely out in the cold.

Back in the late 40s and early fifties, when the Labour and Conservative Parties dominated to the extent that only 2% of votes went to any other party, EVoEL could have created a complete deadlock in which neither party could legislate in England on any matter that the other opposed.

A federal set-up in which there are both UK and English parliaments is the only model in which such a complete deadlock cannot arise, which it why its the better solution to the issue.

Unity,

Yeah, well, I’d already moved on My post @ 26 is probably a more accurate version of what would have to be. And appears to align with you final para.

The more detailed version of my thoughts are actually quite easy to understand, and the issues are quite simple too.

There is a case for equal devolution of powers to each of Westminsters’ client states. Y’know, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. There is nothing complicated about that idea, it is called federalism.

There is absolutely no reason why these national Parliaments, within the overall economic, defence and foreign policy constraints can’t follow their own paths.

What it does mean is that we would not have the entirely stupid situation of Scottish MPs voting on Welsh local issues, or English issues or, perm any combination you want. If England wants to pass power downwards, it would be perfectly at liberty to do so. Usually they don’t want to do it, however the choice would be theirs.

Tam Dayell was quite right all those years ago.

If that ends up with England being dominated by Tories, well, you know what you’ll have to do

Unity: I’m really glad to see this getting a more or less rational airing. Last time I mentioned the idea on the internet I was accused of being a BNP sock-puppet. That was about a year ago. Long time in politics; #mustbecleggsfault

John Q Publican,

The problem isn’t with the idea, at least I don’t think it is. It is with the rest of the politics that attach to it.

This was discussed, briefly, here:

http://tinyurl.com/32946qe

You might find it interesting.

But I’m not an English Democrat either. No politics of any sort attach to it when it’s me talking except the ones I attach: i.e. that a quasi-devolved model will never work as well as a fully-devolved federalist model.

It’s not about English cultural imperialism and it certainly isn’t about immigration, I immigrated myself in 1993. It’s about being a medieval historian, knowing a hell of a lot about constitutional history and recognising that the current system isn’t fair to anyone at all. Including the Scots.

My point is that the Overton window on this debate has shifted. People are now prepared to accept that Unity is not a BNP sock-puppet. This wasn’t true a year ago.

redpesto,

ukliberty:

redpesto,
“English Westminster MPs can’t double up as ‘devolved’ English MPs in the same assembly chamber”

Why not?

Separation of powers?

Why is the separation of powers relevant?

Distinction between legislative bodies? Why else go to all the trouble of a Scottish Parliament/Welsh Assembly – they could have just used Westminster MPs and saved themselves the bother.

Indeed…

Galen10 @ 16

My point is that in the current system, without english votes for english matters, it is unfair to have a Scottish MP be a UK PM. If you did have those reforms, then of course, it would be fairer to do so.

Scyld @ 30

“The problem being that the British state parliament at Westminster is certainly not that,rather it is the final resting place of those with colonial pretentions,even though the only colony they preside over is England.”

Sorry mate. You cannot pin rule Britannia on Wales or Scotland – Wales was the first colony of the English empire.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/11/16/wales-the-first-and-final-colony-91466-25181558/

John Q Publican @ 35,

Sorry, I wasn’t suggesting you, or Unity for that matter, were. Rather the opposite. The point that was being made in the comments I linked to was that the idea of an English Parliament appears to have been usurped by some pretty unsavoury people.

It ought to be reclaimed from them.

Scyld @ 30.

Sorry, misread your post. Apologies

Douglas Clark @38:

In that case I misread the sentiment of the comments myself, sorry about that. I agree with you 100% here, because even if we find it won’t work, that still involves reclaiming the idea from the nut-bars before we can even figure that out.

@29 Flying rodent

“the trajectory of support for independence has been consistently downwards ever since devolution”

Not from the polls I’ve seen. It’s ranged from:

27% in 1999, 29% in all 3 years 2000-2002, 26% in 2003, 31% in 2004, 34% in 2005, 30% in 2006 and 23% in 2007.

I can’t find much upto date polling, but depending on how the question is asked around 33% said they would vote yes in a referendum for independence in 2009, and 53% against. 57% supporting holding a referendum, down from earlier pro referendum figures of over 60%.

Some recent polling suggests that a Tory victory in the geneneral election would result in a 50% pro-independence vote, with 41% voting for the status quo.

To throw a spanner in the works, only 20%-25% of Scots are in favour of full independence, so we can throw that option away at a stroke.

Hey, I only said it was the simplest answer, not that it was sufficiently popular to pass.

Flying Rodent,

If I recall correctly, Gallen 10’s figures seem about right. I really would like to see someone, anyone, fund a Scotland only poll on a weekly basis. All we seem to have is sub-samples of national polls that bounce all over the shop. They more or less prove that statistics need to be treated with care.

And circumstances alter cases. A Tory majority would move the consensus very quickly, don’t you think?

The problem we have is that parliament is sovereign, not the people.
Parliament is controlled by the political parties, holding all the levers of power.
In the 21st century a system of federal government would be more appropriate, following a written constitution.
True constitutional sovereignty starts with the people, passing their consent(mandate) up to parliament.
Selection of MPs could be by region. Electing to a senate(legislature) and to an executive(cabinet?)
Taxes collected and allocated regionally. Passing on to parliament that which is owed, to parliament, to fund government.

5:
”I quite like an idea that Simon Jenkins (bear with me) proposed several years ago, that within England we simply devolve everything up to Welsh Assembly powers back to the county councils/city councils and let them worry about it. ”

I agree with that and would make for a federal system. Scotland has 5+ million people, Wales 2+ and NI 1+.

In comparison London has 8 million, Birmingham 1 and a county like Kent over a million.

There would be some debate, to say the least, about where exactly boundaries were drawn but it is doable.

astateofdenmark,

Yes it would be doable in an independence light mileu. However, frankly, I think there are now fracture lines tracing across the UK.

I am a member of the SNP.

And the reason I am is because of folk like you.

Sorry about that, you are probably a charming and decent fellow. But I do see a pretty clear distinction between folk that want to go for counselling about their differences and those that don’t.

I don’t. Not any more.

This was a hard decision for me to make a few years ago. But there you go.

Better complete separation than an occasional, pretendy, orgasm.

Unfortunately we are being seduced by Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown that keeping out marriage intact is some sort of virtue. David Cameron’s Conservatives may be the devil incarnate, but touchy feely politicians are just as bad.

It is what you do.

@46 Douglas

“Better complete separation than an occasional, pretendy, orgasm.”

Nice line..I kinda like it!

I tend to think that independence for Scotland is inevitable; the question is really just how long it will take. I think it would be a good thing for both Scotland and England, though in many ways it’s a sad end.

I’ll still have a Scottish passport tho!

Galen10,

I tend to think that independence for Scotland is inevitable; the question is really just how long it will take.

So do I.

I suspect that the Unionist Scottish plonkers will sell out all our resources in return for favour on the media, in the city, in that fucked up place called London.

They will sell you short for a hill of beans.

You can see the anger?

I have no time at all for the Westminster village.

But you kind of knew that?

It is vaguely interesting that we may, actually, own our own seabed.

http://tinyurl.com/28ggcdt

I wonder how far that extends? The English would claim equal rights to Scottish Oil.

Well, fuck off!

Fair enough. I’m not bothered either way about Scotland’s status, there will be a referendum at some point and that will settle the matter. Meantime, there is still a constitutional anomaly, Scotland or no Scotland. I personally fail to see much difference between a UK Parliament administering most things for 60 million and an English one for 50.

Hence, devolution to the cities and counties is a good thing in itself imo.

Just done some googling and the population of various areas:

Kent – 1.7 million
Devon – 1.1 million
W Mids – 2.6
G Man – 2.5
Mersey – 1.4 million
Tyne – 1 million

If Scotland, Wales, NI and London are able to manage their own affairs, these places and the rest should be able to as well.

Of course this doesn’t preclude you going your own if you wish.

Well, one political party has already grasped this: UKIP (sorry, it’s election time, couldn’t resist).

Simply, abolish the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and Stormont.

Then Welsh MPs sit in Cardiff for two weeks a month,. Scots at Holyrood, NI at Stormont, English at Westminster. Each group of MPs deals with matters pertaining only to the country in which they are sitting.

The other two weeks of the month all are at Westminster as the UK Parliament.

No new buildings, no new politicians to pay for and yet we have a federal system.

Struggling to find recent stats on independence, but it looks like Galen’s figures are more accurate than mine. My interpretation would be that they represent a hardcore of SNP voters plus a much smaller number of waverers, but that’s based on my personal experience, i.e. Nationalism just isn’t that big a deal for most of the Scots I know.

That said, I’m in Edinburgh and the Nats’ heartland is the Highlands & islands, so who knows? Maybe it’s a far bigger deal up north than in the central belt. I just don’t sense any great potential for even a gradual swell of support for independence.

If Scotland, Wales, NI and London are able to manage their own affairs, these places and the rest should be able to as well.

Do it, don’t do it – it’s none of my business how other folk want to govern themselves. The big problem for people claiming some epic unfairness in the present settlement – particularly the likes of the BNP ballbag upthread – is that loads of northerners already had the chance to vote for an assembly in a referendum and they decisively voted against it.

The reason it’s never gone back onto the agenda is that nobody was interested back then. If a majority of English people start demanding assemblies, then assemblies will be shoved into manifestos so fast it’ll make your head spin. The pretence that assemblies aren’t on offer because OMG the elitissess have contempt for the honest hard working man is a convenient fiction for the internet bullshitter.

That odious little prat Alex Salmon has been moaning all week that the leaders debates are “undemocratic” because they don’t include leaders of Scottish parties (the irony of this complaint with a Scottish Prime Minister in the debates seems lost on him) and that no one has discussed Scottish politics (apart from GB in a rerence to the weather, hilariously) Why can’t he get it into his head that it’s because;

a) No one south of Hadrians wall gives a toss about Scotland
b) That’s why the Scots and the Welsh were given their own Parliaments so they could argue amonst themselvers.

What he would do well to remember is that Scots are already disproportionately represented in Westminster, and that we are fed up of paying for their much higer levels of public spending e.g Free prescriptions and University education for Scots, the latter of which may apparantently breach equality laws.

@52 Tim

Wow.. you’re really more deluded than I thought. Hopefully you aren’t “official” UKIP, or in the leadership (tho Lord knows that’s mad as a box of frogs)… but are your seriously suggesting that UKIP want to close down the Scottish Parliament supported by the vast majority of the Scottish people?!

Any other anti-democratic measures you’d like to support? An electoral pact with the BNP perhaps?

Good grief…..

Arrghh,

Flying Rodent @ 54,

That is so much nonsense!

Do it, don’t do it – it’s none of my business how other folk want to govern themselves.

You are playing a game here, and it is is obvious as fuck. You want to tell folk.

You are a complete utter wanker when it comes to that, aren’t you?

@ 52 “Simply, abolish the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and Stormont.”

Indeed – what’s the point of a “Paliament” that doesn’t raise or spend it’s own taxes and can’t legislate on anything important. Either give them full powers and cut them adrift of the UK or close them down as a waste of time and money. Why is this debate always framed in terms of weather the Scots want independence, they should be asking English voters if they want to carry on having the Scots draining their economy.

@ 55 Matt

The Scots more than pay their way. There is NO convincing evidence to support the idea that Scotland (or the deprived areas of England) are subsidised. There are equally convincing arguments that the rest of the country (i.e. the whole UK)suffers by subsidising the SE, where the govt and so much of it’s spending is concentrated.

Free prescriptions and uni tuition should be what we all get: hardly the SNP’s fault, better talk to Westminster about that!

@ 59 “Free prescriptions and uni tuition should be what we all get: hardly the SNP’s fault, better talk to Westminster about that!”

Salmond was arguing that Scotland should not have to bear any public spending cuts imposed by “The Westminster Parties” i.e he wants to retain the inherent inequality of the current system. In which case he should have to raise his own taxes, at the moment Scotland is being subsidised by UK taxpayers, however you look at it.

I agree, either everyone pays or no one does, but I can’t see the latter being affordable any time soon.

@ 61 Most of the oil is in English waters actually. It’s brought ashore in Scotland partly for logistical reasons, partly to take advantage of the cheap labour afforded by Sottish unemployment, and partly because that way any accidents won’t spoil English coastland

Now you fuck off.

And take your bankers with you……………

Direct from UKIP’s website:

“We would retain national bodies but replace national representatives with Westminster MPs from that
nation: The 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament would be replaced by the 55 Scots Westminster MPs,
the 60 Welsh Assembly Members replaced by the 32 Welsh Westminster MPs, with similar arrangements
over time in Northern Ireland with its 18 MPs to normalise UK affairs.
To be fair to England, the 545 English Westminster MPs would meet the same week a month in
Westminster for English days in an ‘English Parliament’, debating English-only legislation. MPs would
divide time between national Parliaments and Westminster for devolved or Union business.”

You are playing a game here, and it is is obvious as fuck. You want to tell folk (whether to have an assembly or not). You are a complete utter wanker when it comes to that, aren’t you?

What’s it got to do with me whether northerners or Londoners want an assembly for themselves? It’s none of my business at all.

Liquid lunch, was it?

BTW, when I was talking earlier about the type of person who loves to get all teary-eyed and emotional over the grave indignities inflicted on England by them awful other ‘uns, it was posts in the Matt Munro model that I meant.

@ 65 as in the oil is in waters that, under International law are English, it’s not complicated. And talk English “you we thief”

@ 66 I’m not English – suck on that.

What are you then Matt, exactly ?
I have you down as a second generation Hungarian. parents moved here after 56. Just a guess ?

I think what we need is for the Scottish to become independent – completely – from England. They make their own money, do all the things they need to do to live as they wish. And certainly not receive any revenue from English coffers nor pay anything into them, either. They would have to take on their own defence, NHS, everything – that is what I believe, whether a majority of Scot’s would, that is another question. But if independence is what they want – then so be it.

Regarding English regional assemblies – lets have them and abolish local councils, that will remove one layer of bureaucrats. They would be larger regional councils but do much the same as what local councils do now with added power – all elected through STV.

Just an idea – I am playing Devil’s advocate with this, though.

@10: “the fact that few places in England (apart from Yorkshire perhaps…?) are regions in the same way as say, Bavaria or Catalonia.”

The notion of an intense regional patriotism in Yorkshire is something of an enduring popular myth. Note this entry for 3 March 1936 in George Orwell’s research diary for the book that was to become: The Road to Wigan Pier (1937):

“I notice that apart from the usual hatred between the Northerner and the Southerner, there is also hatred between the Yorkshireman and the Lancashireman, and also internecine hatred between the various Yorkshire towns. No one up here seems to have heard of any place in the south of England except London.”
George Orwell: Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters, Vol.1 19920-1940 (Pengin 1970) p. 217.

The reference therein to internecine hatred between Yorkshire towns still has a resonance.

IMO having lived through WW2 and its aftermath, I can vouch that all this St George stuff is very recent. If we wanted to fly a flag in the war to celebrate some victory, it was the Union Jack.

The notion of a poverty stricken north of Britain as compared an affluent London and the south of England is also something of a myth as these BBC news reports show:

“A Sheffield suburb has been named as the wealthiest place in England outside London and the south east. A survey by Barclays has found that nearly 8% of people in the Sheffield Hallam constituency earn more than £60,000 a year. This puts it in 17th place in the top 20 of most affluent places ahead of traditionally wealthy areas such as Twickenham and Windsor. The only other district outside the south east in the top 20 is the Tatton constituency in Cheshire.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2191223.stm

“The richest people in England live in the north, not the south-east, once house prices are taken into account, a study has calculated. The study, from Barclays Private Clients, looked at people’s wealth in England and Wales after the cost of living – including house prices – were taken out. It found that eight of the 10 wealthiest places were in northern English counties.

“Tatton in Cheshire, home to David and Victoria Beckham, as well as ex-Tory MP Neil Hamilton and his wife Christine, topped the league.

“The study found the actual average wage in Tatton was £29,303.
But that was worth a “real” average income of £41,506 once the cost of living was taken into account, it said.

“Hallam in Sheffield came a close second with an average ‘real’ income of £41,289.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3025321.stm

Btw Sheffield Hallam is Nick Clegg’s constituency.

This is a conundrum for me. I’m all for federalism but England’s overwhelming population, wealth etc. makes an English Parliament seem cumbersome, really I’d prefer regional assemblies/parliaments but sadly they got scuppered by anti-EU ‘death of England’ scaremongering.

As such I’m willing to go with popular will for an English Assembly, but I’d suggest leave London out of it as a ‘federal area’, keeping its own Assembly. That way at least a decent chunk of wealth and population is elsewhere, balancing the system a bit better. Plus the less power and influence stuck in Westminster the better. Put the English Parliament Building in Birmingham or Manchester, hell Berwick-upon-Tweed would be ideal!

The idea of a barebones Assembly with power in the hands of councils is intriguing

Flying Rodent and others,

I have a copycat, who is a compltete utter tit. I have asked Sunny and Unity what can be done about it. Apparently, knowt much.

I am really sorry that this idiot has spoiled any sort of reasonable discussion. I’d be as angry as you are, if someone said that sort of shite to me . That is what he does, and it is disgusting….

Yeah, got that – not the first time this has happened.

@59 Matt

“Most of the oil is in English waters actually. It’s brought ashore in Scotland partly for logistical reasons,…”

Errrmmm, sorry, no it isn’t! As someone who used to work in the oil industry I can assure you the vast majority of the oil is in what would become the Scottish sector of the North Sea. Some of the oil and a lot of the gas fields would fall within a new “English” sector… but these are more mature, and more over-exploited as they are easier to reach.

Douglas @ 69

When I read the diatribes from your doppelganger, I did scratch my head and think, “That doesn’t sound like Douglas. Has he gone insane?”

@ 64 – Er why Hungarian ?? I’m Italian/Irish (and a bit Spanish if you go back far enough) both parents moved here in the late 50s.

Northern regional assemblies didn’t make sense partly because they were seen as talking shops that would claim what little powers they had from local authorities, and partly because they didn’t represent a real regional polity but an abstract amalgam of more local political communities.

If we devoved assembly type powers to county level there would be some areas where it would probably work better than others. The Metropolitan Counties probably have a decent enough level of political organisation and population to make it work, and the large two tier authorities (Lancashire, Kent, Hampshire, Nottinghamshire) would probably be fine if we presume that unitary authoirities would fall under the assemblies influence. Some of the Home Counties are probably too small, and areas like the English Marches and Wessex would probably need to be integrated to be of a viable size. However I think it’s a good compromise in terms of bringing power down to an appropriate level and removing much of the disparity between the influence of ‘Celtic’ and English MPs over the others population.

However central government won’t like it because it doesn’t trust local government, and the people will be hard to convince as it will involve more unpopular local boundary changes and isn’t an ‘English Parliament’.

Matt Munro

“What he would do well to remember is that Scots are already disproportionately represented in Westminster, and that we are fed up of paying for their much higer levels of public spending e.g Free prescriptions and University education for Scots, the latter of which may apparantently breach equality laws”

The problem is, the existing devolution settlement, which allows the Scottish parliament control of health etc. but not control of fiscal policy. The taxes should be collected in Scotland and a fair ammout sent to westminster. (see my comment 44)

Strange that Matt, in an earlier post you said your parents were from Eastern Europe. I don’t know who taught you geography but Italy and Ireland are not parts of Eastern Europe.

alex sloan @ 75,

Would you let the Scots keep the oil revenue that comes out of their lands and seas?

Just asking.

For that is the elephant in the room.

@ 76 Which earlier post ? I have never cliamed my parents were from Eastern Europe, for the very good reason that they aren’t.
Maybe you’re confusing one of my post with one of the many accusing me of being from Germany circa 1933 ?

Douglas Clark,

I think the real question is why do you want it?

First off, it would presuppose that you become independent and I don’t think there is a snowball in hells chance that the Scots will vote for that and second it presuppose that there is some benefit in it for you.

North Sea oil production peaked in 1999 and even using the “maximum” estimate of ultimate recovery, 70% had been recovered at end 2006, so it is not the bottomless honey pot you seem to think.

Then when you consider that the Barnett Formula that allows for higher public spending per capita in Scotland is a better ratio then the then Scottish disproportionate tax revenue already it seems that Scotland is already enjoying the fruits of the oil, without the additional full burden of the costs.

And the additional burden of countless other costs that would befall an independent Scotland.

Douglas Clark asks
“Would you let the Scots keep the oil revenue that comes out of their lands and seas?

First of all Douglas I am a Scot. Neither of my comments mentions oil, nor do I advocate any sources of revenue being being alocated to any of the regions of England either.

The proposal is, how to solve the problem of 2/3rds of voters in England wanting a parliament.

The true problem is.
The acceptability of the British Party System of government is quickly losing credibility in 21st century. It is no longer fit for purpose.What is required is a Constitutional Convention. This is the first step to democracy in Britain. Object a written codified constitution.

For a UK written constitution, what I consider, the most important aspect, the parties have to be removed from the process of selecting our representatives (including the Prime Minister) right down to local level.
The present system of party whips forcing MPs to vote along party lines distorts democracy and gives excessive power to the parties.

The Problem the UK Political System, as it presently stands. Is that it is an evolved, unwritten non codified constitution. The system has been hi-jacked by the PARTIES, unionist, nationalist and everything in between. It holds parliament as sovereign, not the people.

Even in our unwritten constitution, one vote for each eligible citizen is inferred. But under the party system, party members have more.
They vote for which candidates are put forward. They vote for who is to become Prime Minister. Some of these party members are not even eligible to vote.
The candidates’ only “competency to carry out the job description” being that they are members of that party and will carry out the policies of that party.

The only choice available, to the electorate, is which one of the parties. In recent years the choice has been BAD or WORSE.
The promised policies and legislative programme (manifesto) is not legally binding and contains no costing or time scale. It is almost never carried out.

Her Majesties Government Consists of
The Prime Minister
The political leader of the government, a post not created by act of Parliament nor mentioned in legal documents. It evolved and was manipulated, by the political parties into what we have to-day.
The modern day PM leads a political party. Is voted into the post, not by the House of Commons (the Legislature), or the electorate, but by his party colleagues and thus by a political party.
He then chooses the Executive (the Cabinet) from members of his party, not necessarily elected members of parliament. As leader of the Cabinet he wields, Executive and Legislative powers, many of which are “Royal Prerogative” and still legally vested in the Sovereign.
Hence one party has control over Her Majesties Government, both Legislative (MPs)
and Executive (Cabinet).For a term of five years.

Members of Parliament
The candidates, for the job of representing the electorate in parliament, are not vetted or selected by that electorate, but selected and put forward by the parties to represent the parties.
As the candidate are frequently completely unknown to them and have never made themselves available for questioning or consultation on the needs of the constituency they are to represent.
The choice of the electorate is therefore, which party to vote for, (based on the published manifestos)

This government is accountable to, Sovereign, Parliament, political party and LASTLEY to the ELECTORATE, supposedly by virtue of a majority of seats (MPs) elected at a general election. This majority it is claimed to be of the popular vote. In reality is of the TURNOUT.

In the 1997 General Election, the TURNOUT was 71.3% or 30.7 millions. Of a total electorate of 39.5 millions approx.

Labour party 13.5 million = 44% of turnout = 31.24% of total electorate.
Conservative party 9.6 million = 31% of turnout = 22% of total electorate.
Liberal Democrat party 5.2 million = 17% of turnout = 12% of total electorate
Others 2.45 million = 8% of turnout = 5.6% of total electorate.
“None of the above party” 8.8 million, did not vote for any candidate, therefore 17.25 million voted against having a Labour party government.

Turnout at elections in UK have been declining since 1950. Assuming total electorate roughly constant, the last Tory governments (1979-1997) were elected with similar results.
Everyone should recall it was the 13,697,923 votes in the 1979 general election which ushered Margaret Thatcher into Downing Street.

May 1979 GE
Con 43.9%: 13,697,923 votes, Lab 36.9% : 11,532,218 votes, Lib 13.8% : 4,313,804 votes.

The electoral commission should add NON OF THE ABOVE to the voting paper.

Then comment 44
True constitutional sovereignty starts with the people, passing their consent(mandate) up to parliament.
Selection of MPs could be by region. Electing to a senate(legislature) and to an executive(cabinet?)
Taxes collected and allocated regionally. Passing on to parliament that which is owed, to parliament, to fund government

Why are we in Britain still arguing over this issue? The present Labour government should have done this years ago. On the demands for an English parliament, the plans are a non-starter. For example, a person from Yorkshire has nothing in common with someone from Kent. The more simpler solution would be to introduce a parliament within each of the nine English regions, with services currently run by government departments transferred to them. Allow them to collect national taxes and allocate them within their areas, with the government take their cut to cover issues like defence and strategic planning. All members should be elected by PR (STV). Give the Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments real autonomy (that’ll stop the ‘separtists’ in their tracks), and key legislation covering the affairs of local councils (such as budgetcapping) should be abolished and given their powers back. It may not be easy, but we desperately need a genuinely federal system of governance in the UK that most people would support and fight for.

“but we desperately need a genuinely federal system of governance in the UK that most people would support and fight for.”

The problem is that when the NE was asked this very question they said “bugger off”.

So not much support and the fight is against it.

Tim Worstall @ 82,

Frankly, I do not recognise the folk you want us to see as us or as anything like ‘us’.

You are apparently a UKIP hero.

Now answer the questions about your utter racism,.

I think you have a lot to answer there.

The prospects for a federal system for England are indeed dim, partly for historical reasons, partly because the UK (or more specifically England) was always “over-centralised”.

Regional assemblies aren’t the way forward, devolving power to lower levels is: mind you neither the Tories or Labour are likely to be too keen: too much control freakery. Always makes me laugh when Cameron talks about decentrlisation … like the Tories finally woke up to the joys of devolution, after the Scots reduced Scottish Tories to a pathetic rump.

@81 Neville: “For example, a person from Yorkshire has nothing in common with someone from Kent.”

Ale drinkers in Yorkshire appreciate a good hop season as much as Kentish farmers. A girl studying down south appreciates good public transport to the north as much as her boyfriend up there. English regions are mutually dependent and have common interests.

I more or less agree with the rest of it. The English people have never been given an honest offer for regional assemblies. Honest assemblies would replace all quangos and unelected regional administration. Do a web search for Regional Development Agencies and look at the statements about accountability. An RDA may have more influence on your life than the local council, but do you have a vote about its composition? And for your local hospital trust or police authority?

Please do not remind me of the farcical referendum to determine establishment of a north-east assembly. I am not proposing an extra layer of government.

I suggest that we abolish all of the unelected bodies that intermediate between national and local government. The whole lot of them, unconditionally. Create regional assemblies to fill the roles, and don’t become anal about them all being the same population size. Assemblies should be functional bodies.

The cost of this will be extraordinarily expensive: to the unelected appointees. It will be free to the tax payer because we are already paying for an intermediary layer of unelected government.

Galen10

“Regional assemblies aren’t the way forward, devolving power to lower levels is: mind you neither the Tories or Labour are likely to be too keen: too much control freakery. Always makes me laugh when Cameron talks about decentrlisation … like the Tories finally woke up to the joys of devolution, after the Scots reduced Scottish Tories to a pathetic rump”

I do not see where you get the idea that regional assemblies and devolving power to lower levels, are different. A federal system does that, it matterrs not what you call the starting point(parliaments or assemblies)

Neville @ 81 got the point. A written constitution setting out the rights and responsibilities of the people would be required to make it work.

@86 alex sloan: “A written constitution setting out the rights and responsibilities of the people would be required to make it work.”

People don’t need special rights in devolved government. Their rights are inherited from the layer on top.

People don’t have responsibilities to government at any level. Government has responsibility to people.

“Now answer the questions about your utter racism,.”

What racism?

And is this the good Doug Clark or the bad one?

Wee Dougie McQuisling is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Charlieman wrote
People don’t need special rights in devolved government. Their rights are inherited from the layer on top.
People don’t have responsibilities to government at any level. Government has responsibility to people.

I would refer you to my posts 44, 75, and 80