NationStates Jolt Archive

Today the North of England was offered the chance to get its own regional assembly and vote on the subject. In this it joins Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However this subject can raise strong emotions (I myself am strongly against devolution: more on that later).

For devolution is the argument that it allows more detailed and in depth decision making. How can London be expected to know what's important in Yorkshire? This is the same argument for local bylaws: Parliament simply does not have the time or epxertise to consider problems at local level. Another argument (I'm not too sure about this one) is it will lead to lower taxes. I suppose this is because the people will have to pay less towards the running of central government but I am not entirely sure. Then there is the issue that raises most emotion: that of local identity. This is particulary true of the Welsh and the Scottish who have for a long time resented English domination over their countries. They see their regional assemblies as emancipation from an invader who is culturally different. This is the same for the North iof England and Cornwall, who both feel a strong sense of national identity other
than that of Englishness. To them, being partially liberated from Parliament and the Crown is a step towards the freedom they believe that they deserve.

Against devolution is the following. Firstly higher council tax rates. After all the local tax payers will have to pay more to keep their regional assemblies running. The second is that of icnreased burecracy and therefore slower decision making. However it is my belief that devolution paves the way to the complete and utter destruction of Britain as a state.

It is together that the British have done so well. It is together that we have fought against many foes and been victorious. To introduce regional councils only points down the road that leads back to pre-medieval England. An island of squabbling states, so in love their own traditions they can unite for their own common interests. The English have fought side by side with the Welsh and the Scot for hundreds of years yet our friendship is now being torn apart by power seeking politicians. These politicians make up propaganda to suggest that the English are nothing more than illegal invaders come to steal land and freedom from the natives. Nothing can be further from the truth. England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland have shared each others bounty so together they have grown rich and powerful. The notion of Britain being undemocratic is absurd for Irish, Scottish and Welsh MPs have being sitting in the Houses of Parliament for as long as there has been union between these countries. There have been many Irish, Welsh and Scottish ministers of prominence: David Llyod George was a Welsh man and he led the country during the latter half of World War One. John Reid and Gordon Brown are both Scots and at the same time are high ranking Ministers of the Crown. So let no say that Britain has treated its provinces undemocratically.

The point of different cultures is another jab. It is true that the cultures of Wales and Scotland are quite different from those of England but this is once again a piece of propaganda from ardent nationalists. Southern Wales was, even during its independence, high English. The city of Cardiff and the surrounding regions spokepredominately English and used many English customs. The Welsh culture was very much one of the hills and as such can be considered as an outdated relic of Celtic times (which it really is to tell you the truth). The same can be send of Scotland. The south was very much a country similar to that of England. Its laws and government were not that enstranged from the ways of Westminister. It was in the unruly and remote north that Scottish culture comes from. It is quite surprising that the North of Scotland has not demanded its own regional assembly: in times of old, the Highland clans hated Southern Scots just as much as the English. It is odd how these minority cultures (which they have been from the beginning) have suddenly sprouted to become national identities. I surmise that nationalists have probably been fanning the flames.

Finally I point to reason. Why is Scotland part of the UK? Through military conquest? No. Scotland willingly joined the UK in 1707 with the Act of Union which the Scottish Parliament duly agreed to. The simple fact was Scotland could not compete with England in economic terms. While England was becoming rich, Scotland was becoming poor. While England was becoming an Empire, Scotland was stuck with its failed New Celedonia. It would be the same today. How on earth an Scotland be expected to compete with the inudstrial powerhouse of the South? Scotland becoming seperated from the UK will lead to both England and Scotland becoming weaker. Scotland will not be able to compete with England and England will lose out from the loss of Scotland. Wales, Cornwall and Yorkshire couldnt set up their countires. What would Cornwall do? Set up a Cornish pasty industry? If we divide then the entire British isles will only become weaker as a result. Already we have our football clubs: this is unhealthy. There should UK team. That way no rivallary can be bred from a petty sport.

So what do you think? Do you believe that devolution will be a welcome liberation or a weakening and divisive act?

It's hard for me to judge, neither knowing much about it nor being a UK citizen, but I am in general a proponent of globalization and decreased nationalism.

People talk about the US being incredibly polarized all the time, but that's because we have a system that gives us two choices - and only two choices - for chief executive, and forces us to choose between black and white. We all are one nation, and no matter who our chief executive is, we'll lay back and take a few years of his or her administration. I am proud of the fact that my country exists and does well by most of its citizens on a global scale, and I am glad to be a part of it.

But that doesn't mean I like other countries less - we all have to share the same world. Differences are important to understand, like your differences between Wales, England, Scotland, and Ireland, but I think that understanding should lead to ways to reconcile differences and bring about less strife.

This is all very general, as I said, I know nothing about devolution, but it seems to me that as long as there's a large uniting movement by the name of the European Union, devolution seems a bit self-contradictory.

being all under one nation will not help us.

it is the difference in opinion which brings about change.

absolute power, corrupts absolutely.

trade globalization is good though

As someone with ties to the North East of England, I understand the impetus for devolution. From the perspective of many in the north the central government will fund projects in london (and the S.E.) with general revenue ad infinitum, but anything that is done in the North East often seems to have to come directly form the norths pocket so to speak.

I think the original idea for devolution was to keep more of the north's taxes in the north. But you are right, this way will only actually increase taxed and create another layer of useless bureacracy. (Like the old Tyne and Wear Metropolitan Council, but good old maggie did for them.)