NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's an issue that I feel is rather important to the UK:

Apparently Lord Falkner this morning rejected the idea that England should have it's own parliament, like the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh. To me (despite being born in Scotland) it seems unfair that Scotland (and to an extent Wales) have these special provisions and England does not. But perhaps that's just being naive.

It really does seem odd that our Labour parliamentary majority at Westminster relies on Scottish MPs, despite the fact that only 1 in 10 of MPs are Scottish.

However, I bet nobody cares, right?

(For those who think that the UK = England, look at the UK portal on Wikipedia. That explains it nicely.)

If you mean in that this Parliament would manage its internal affairs, then yes. Perhaps Parliament as it is could be the central point of reference for all the devolved Parliaments. Although this would sort of make the UK into a confederation.

No, I don't think another layer of government is a good idea, it would cost too much for no real advantage. What I do think is necessary, however, is that when English matters are debated at Westminster, Scottish and Welsh MPs cannot vote. This would end the current situation where non-English MPs are pushing through a Government policy that will have no impact in their own constituencies. This seems a more than reasonable compromise and removes the necessity of an expensive new political structure.

I'm English, and a supporter of the Welsh, Scottish and Cornish independence movements - so i'd say yes, we should split up the UK completely into 4 independent nations (not sure what to do with NI though...) and turn Westminster into the new English parliament. Let's end English imperialism once and for all! :D

I think the entire system of running the country should be changed.

Each individual region should be able to manage it's own affairs, while only a few descions, those that affect the whole of britain, should be taken by a central government. The same pricincliple should aply to any EU constitution, the majority or the ruling should be done on a local (Say, county) level, with just major desions being taken by an overall parliament.

No, I don't think another layer of government is a good idea, it would cost too much for no real advantage. What I do think is necessary, however, is that when English matters are debated at Westminster, Scottish and Welsh MPs cannot vote. This would end the current situation where non-English MPs are pushing through a Government policy that will have no impact in their own constituencies. This seems a more than reasonable compromise and removes the necessity of an expensive new political structure.
It could be indeed. Why hasn't this reform passed anyway? That, and proportional representation.

I think the entire system of running the country should be changed.

Each individual region should be able to manage it's own affairs, while only a few descions, those that affect the whole of britain, should be taken by a central government. The same pricincliple should aply to any EU constitution, the majority or the ruling should be done on a local (Say, county) level, with just major desions being taken by an overall parliament.
Closer to the Swiss model of confederalism then. Yeah, this would be ideal, especially for the EU.

I think the entire system of running the country should be changed.

Each individual region should be able to manage it's own affairs, while only a few descions, those that affect the whole of britain, should be taken by a central government. The same pricincliple should aply to any EU constitution, the majority or the ruling should be done on a local (Say, county) level, with just major desions being taken by an overall parliament.

I agree that the system needs complete reviewing. Scrap the Hose of Lords, replace it with a powerful Senate in which all four nations get a equal number of seats (forget about population differences) that can shape the Constitution.

It could be indeed. Why hasn't this reform passed anyway? That, and proportional representation.
It hasn't been pushed through already because, to be cynical, Labour is much stronger in Scotland than the Tories. Because the Tories only have 1 Scottish seat while Labour has a few dozen (I forget the precise figure) removing the Scottish vote would be a big blow to the Government's majority. And of course, not being able to do what they like is far more important an issue than democracy.

I don't agree with PR, but that's a different thread really.

I agree that the system needs complete reviewing. Scrap the Hose of Lords, replace it with a powerful Senate in which all four nations get a equal number of seats (forget about population differences) that can shape the Constitution.
The House of Lords serves as the UK's Court of Last Instance. What would replace it for this purpose? Unless it remained in this capacity.

I agree that the system needs complete reviewing. Scrap the Hose of Lords, replace it with a powerful Senate in which all four nations get a equal number of seats (forget about population differences) that can shape the Constitution.
To forget population differences would a huge democratic crime. About 85% of the UK's population lives in England, yet give them only 25% of the vote?

It hasn't been pushed through already because, to be cynical, Labour is much stronger in Scotland than the Tories. Because the Tories only have 1 Scottish seat while Labour has a few dozen (I forget the precise figure) removing the Scottish vote would be a big blow to the Government's majority. And of course, not being able to do what they like is far more important an issue than democracy.
Thus partisan self-interest hindering more efficient government, as always. Perhaps some of the other parties could push for it?

Thus partisan self-interest hindering more efficient government, as always. Perhaps some of the other parties could push for it?
Well, many, many people have brought it up many, many times, but Constitutional issues just aren't vote winners and so no one but theorists are particually interested in it. People perk up a bit about it when the Scottish MPs do carry the day, but even then the interest is short lived.

To forget population differences would a huge democratic crime. About 85% of the UK's population lives in England, yet give them only 25% of the vote?

Scotland's population is very different to Scottish people living in Britian, then we are talking of a very differnet demographic map. The original Union of Scotland and England was of Equal Partners, two kingdoms ruled by the same king James. Scotland should have equal seats with England, to prevent independance. If it is given to Scotland, there is no justification not to also give equal representation to Wales, granted, Ireland is a different matter, because it may wish to rejoin with the south.

Well, many, many people have brought it up many, many times, but Constitutional issues just aren't vote winners and so no one but theorists are particually interested in it. People perk up a bit about it when the Scottish MPs do carry the day, but even then the interest is short lived.
Maybe one of the opposition parties should endeavour to explain to them how the current system affects them negatively?

Scotland's population is very different to Scottish people living in Britian, then we are talking of a very differnet demographic map. The original Union of Scotland and England was of Equal Partners, two kingdoms ruled by the same king James. Scotland should have equal seats with England, to prevent independance. If it is given to Scotland, there is no justification not to also give equal representation to Wales, granted, Ireland is a different matter, because it may wish to rejoin with the south.
You are into the territory of four different nations with this argument. The United Kingdom is one nation, and as long as that is the case it must be treated as the population of the UK, not the population of various parts. After all, why give the Scots a 25% voice because they are different and not people from the South East of England, when they are different to people of the North West?

Maybe one of the opposition parties should endeavour to explain to them how the current system affects them negatively?
It's not that no one is aware of the problem, they just don't necessarily consider it a serious issue. We're used to our system of the 'elected dictatorship,' and so a Government being able to do whatever it wants isn't unusual. It also provides a bit of ammunition to the opposition if Scottish MPs carry the vote to have a pop at the 'victory.'

It's not that no one is aware of the problem, they just don't necessarily consider it a serious issue. We're used to our system of the 'elected dictatorship,' and so a Government being able to do whatever it wants isn't unusual. It also provides a bit of ammunition to the opposition if Scottish MPs carry the vote to have a pop at the 'victory.'
And I thought the way the EU works is bad. :confused: Hopefully the status quo system will be reformed at some point, perhaps when the Tories reclaim their place in the sun.

And I thought the way the EU works is bad. :confused: Hopefully the status quo system will be reformed at some point, perhaps when the Tories reclaim their place in the sun.
The problem with having a strong Government, though, is that everyone wants it reformed when they are in Opposition and no one want it reformed when they are that strong Government.

The EU's systems are much, much worse though. At least we have a go at democracy. :p

The problem with having a strong Government, though, is that everyone wants it reformed when they are in Opposition and no one want it reformed when they are that strong Government.
How bloody useless :p

The EU's systems are much, much worse though. At least we have a go at democracy. :p
The thing is the EU is being pressurised to reform, whether it likes it or not. Otherwise, it will be faced with paralysis. It can't afford to ignore a need for change anymore. Hopefully it'll act on it soon enough.

The thing is the EU is being pressurised to reform, whether it likes it or not. Otherwise, it will be faced with paralysis. It can't afford to ignore a need for change anymore. Hopefully it'll act on it soon enough.
Ah, but the EU isn't really a body in its own right - it needs the consent of the member states for everything it does. Reform is essential, there are few who would deny that, but everyone has a different idea of what the reform should be. The closest the member states have come to agreeing so far has been to agree to talk about it later. I can't see anyone ever giving way, to be honest, and so it'll all be swept under the carpet as usual, and the EU will limp on in its current form.

Ah, but the EU isn't really a body in its own right - it needs the consent of the member states for everything it does. Reform is essential, there are few who would deny that, but everyone has a different idea of what the reform should be. The closest the member states have come to agreeing so far has been to agree to talk about it later. I can't see anyone ever giving way, to be honest, and so it'll all be swept under the carpet as usual, and the EU will limp on in its current form.
Or at long last someone will actually come up with a workable model for the EU. A lot of EU governments are going right-wing currently, so maybe this will help in that their proposed economic models won't diverge too immensely. If it limps on its current form it will be nothing but a crippled old man in the race to becoming the world's dominant economic power. If they take the Lisbon Agenda seriously, they need to wake up. I am hoping people will start taking a look at Switzerland as a model for the EU.

I voted yes, but I would prefer it if there was just one centralised government for the whol UK, and no sepertate parliaments. The scottish one has already screwed over the english, because they get to vote on scottish issues and english ones, while the english MPs can only vote on english things. this lead to the scots voting to abolish tuition fees in scotland, and fund it by keeping them in england. its just not right and no one could do a damn thing about it.

Or at long last someone will actually come up with a workable model for the EU. A lot of EU governments are going right-wing currently, so maybe this will help in that their proposed economic models won't diverge too immensely. If it limps on its current form it will be nothing but a crippled old man in the race to becoming the world's dominant economic power. If they take the Lisbon Agenda seriously, they need to wake up. I am hoping people will start taking a look at Switzerland as a model for the EU.
Ah, but this is the thing, many people have an idea for a workale model for the EU. Some want full integration, some want partial integration, some want no integration, just co-operation, some want it to end completely. These are all arguably workable models; it's not a problem of theories, it's a problem of different people pulling in different directions. For anything to seriously change you need 25 similarly thinking leaders from all the countries, and that is unlikely to ever happen.

Ah, but this is the thing, many people have an idea for a workale model for the EU. Some want full integration, some want partial integration, some want no integration, just co-operation, some want it to end completely. These are all arguably workable models; it's not a problem of theories, it's a problem of different people pulling in different directions. For anything to seriously change you need 25 similarly thinking leaders from all the countries, and that is unlikely to ever happen.
I remain optimistic that something will be worked out. Unless they want to reword the Lisbon Agenda to the effect that the EU becomes the most lethargic economic force by 2020; oh no, wait, we can do that by 2008 if we want. :rolleyes: Anyway, back on topic. :p

Persoanlly I'd prefer it to be dissolved eathen further,each county gains greater power, so that they are a sort of mini-country dealingwith the issues that matter to them (NHS, taxes). They you have the 4 nations which do the major stuff (Education ideas ect.). You have a general election every 4/5 years which decides who become prime Minister, but the Prime Minister only has contol over foregn policy, not regional.

It looks like I'm the only non Brit who voted "NO" so I might as well give a reason why. The UK isn't a very heirarchical government structure. (Unlike the US where you have a clear Federal/State/(County/Parish)/(City/Town/Village) heirarchy that are mostly independent of each other. Other parliments in the UK are mostly for cultural and political reasons, not for reasons of heirarchy.

The scottish one has already screwed over the english, because they get to vote on scottish issues and english ones, while the english MPs can only vote on english things
Erm...Any Scottish issues in Parliament can be voted on by both English and Scottish (and Welse and N Irish) MPs.

Same with any English, Welsh, or N Irish issue.

Unless you mean the Scottish Parliament, where only Scottish issues are voted on.

So, either way, the statement "[the Scottish MPs] get to vote on scottish issues and english ones, while the english MPs can only vote on english things" is quite simply wrong.

Here's an issue that I feel is rather important to the UK:

Apparently Lord Falkner this morning rejected the idea that England should have it's own parliament, like the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh. To me (despite being born in Scotland) it seems unfair that Scotland (and to an extent Wales) have these special provisions and England does not. But perhaps that's just being naive.

It really does seem odd that our Labour parliamentary majority at Westminster relies on Scottish MPs, despite the fact that only 1 in 10 of MPs are Scottish.

However, I bet nobody cares, right?

(For those who think that the UK = England, look at the UK portal on Wikipedia. That explains it nicely.)

It's a nonsense bandied around by English people who want to feel aggrieved about something. See also "Brussels"

Here's an issue that I feel is rather important to the UK:

Apparently Lord Falkner this morning rejected the idea that England should have it's own parliament, like the Scottish parliament in Edinburgh. To me (despite being born in Scotland) it seems unfair that Scotland (and to an extent Wales) have these special provisions and England does not. But perhaps that's just being naive.
This is a silly idea. England, especially the South is so dominant in the UK already that it really would be pointless.

It's a nonsense bandied around by English people who want to feel aggrieved about something. See also "Brussels"

So why was the first person to raise the issue in Parliament the Scottish MP for West Lothian?

I think the current system is good enough.....although maby issues just affecting England should be left to the English MP's and vice versa

As a left-leaning 'Englishman', I would not want to be ruled by a parliament that was completely ruled by the English.

To generalise, (and generalisations are what counts in a first-past-the-post system), the English are much more right wing and, frankly, stuffier than the rest of the British Isles, and I fear that such a body of legislators would not come close to representing my views.

This is what I love about Britain, that a mutual union is able to unite the unique political cultures of each constituent nation, (for example, Scotland has a proud history of liberal collectivist thought), to form a state that provides for each of its citizens.

The House of Lords serves as the UK's Court of Last Instance. What would replace it for this purpose? Unless it remained in this capacity.

The House of Lords will lose its judicial function in 2008, as the provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 transfer those functions to a new "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom".

Wonder how much that'll cost.

As a left-leaning 'Englishman', I would not want to be ruled by a parliament that was completely ruled by the English.

To generalise, (and generalisations are what counts in a first-past-the-post system), the English are much more right wing and, frankly, stuffier than the rest of the British Isles, and I fear that such a body of legislators would not come close to representing my views.

This is what I love about Britain, that a mutual union is able to unite the unique political cultures of each constituent nation, (for example, Scotland has a proud history of liberal collectivist thought), to form a state that provides for each of its citizens.

So basically, you're willing to stick with the present system because it helps ensure that your views (which a majority of the English disagree with) are forced upon them?

So basically, you're willing to stick with the present system because it helps ensure that your views (which a majority of the English disagree with) are forced upon them?

That's about it, yeah... I never claimed to be anything other than self-interested.