NationStates Jolt Archive

Soon-to-be Prime Minister Gordon Brown has expressed concern both about Scottish nationalists and people who, in England, feel that the English Parliament (abolished in 1707, exactly 3 centuries ago) should be re-instated.


[Gordon Brown] told the Fabian Society that some groups were "playing fast and loose" with the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

He said the UK was a country "built on shared values" which served as a "model for the rest of the world".

[...]

"It is very important to recognise that Britishness and Britain itself is not based on ethnicity and race," he said.

"It is founded on shared values that we hold in common: a commitment to liberty for all, a commitment to social responsibility shown by all, and a commitment to fairness to all."

[...]

The pro-independence Scottish National Party is tipped to do well in the Scottish Parliament elections in May, with the independence debate likely to crop up often in the campaign.

[...]

The Conservatives have suggested for some time now that it might be better if exclusively English laws were voted on by English MPs alone.

But Mr Brown said the idea of "English votes for English laws" would pull the union apart.


Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6258089.stm).

As a totally irrelevent sidenote, it's nice to see the Fabian Society is still alive and recognisible enough to be mentioned in the news.

Anyway... Thoughts? I find the issue of an English Parliament to be a particularly interesting debate. Do you feel there should be one? Would it make sense and be fair, or would it be a threat to the unity of the UK?

The apparent rise of a distinct sense of "Englishness" (seperate from Britishness) over the past few years has been quite fascinating.

If Scotland wants to secede from the English Empire, that's their right - rhetoric about "shared values" is meaningless.

Would we get to keep Wales?

Anyway... Thoughts? I find the issue of an English Parliament to be a particularly interesting debate. Do you feel there should be one? Would it make sense and be fair, or would it be a threat to the unity of the UK?

It'd be better if MPs had the decency to abstain from votes which don't affect their part of the union but as this isn't happening I think an "English votes for English laws" scheme would be the best option. We don't need a separate 'English Parliament' though.

The Conservatives have suggested for some time now that it might be better if exclusively English laws were voted on by English MPs alone.

ye bruv

Would we get to keep Wales?

Would we want to?


I mean it's not like they've got any coal left..

Given that the Scots can vote on legislation that pertains only to the UK but is not reciprocated by English MPs voting on strictly Scottish legislation...make the entire thing a mockery.

As for Brown being PM...not entirely sure that is going to happen. A dead fish has more charisma. Then I am reminded of John Major. So maybe he can reached the Premiership.

If there is a splitting of the UK...well the economic damage would be immense to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. After all the economy is driven by England. But there are other issues as well within the economy (http://www.woodlands.co.uk/drifting).

If this is the case then I really cannot see a total separation or repeal of the Act of Union.

It would be the death knell for all countries involved.

Given that the Scots can vote on legislation that pertains only to the UK

Only to England you mean, I think. ;)


think an "English votes for English laws" scheme would be the best option.

That's quite an interesting idea. Although I suppose it would stir up a whole new debate...

If Scotland wants to secede from the English Empire, that's their right - rhetoric about "shared values" is meaningless.

Scotland would struggle without the rest of the United Kingdom....it is in the best intrests of all involved to just stick to one National Parliament that deals with the whole of the country rather than have English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments. Seriously Scotland would struggle if it became a separate country and did not have England supporting it.

It is sad that minor grievances can lead to the fracturing of a powerful country and that nationalism (or, rather, strong support for a certain region of a nation) can override a desire for integration and unity. In the modern technological age, we shouldn't be drifting further apart; we should be coming closer together. Scotland and England are not so diametrically opposed to each other politically; to see small disputes lead to disintegration is disappointing. Perhaps certain British policies are upsetting to Scotland, but it's impossible to satisfy everybody's desires unless the concept of a country is reduced to a clan of ten people, at which point society would utterly break down. Ideally, the most representative system of government would not be a multitude of minuscule countries, but rather one large country which grants its various districts semi-autonomy in terms of certain laws and regulations. Any move which takes the world farther away from such a noble goal is not only detrimental to the splitting country, but also to the world as a whole. That said, however, it would be unwise to intervene in the domestic matters of Scotland and if they really want independence, they should be granted it.

I doubt the UK would break apart. It isn't in the best interest of any of those nations to separate from each other.

rather than have English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish parliaments.

There's already devolution for Scotland (Scotland Act 1998) and Wales (Government of Wales Act 1998). As for Northern Ireland, see here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6046302.stm?ls).

The point some are making in England is that, if three out of four countries in the UK have (or are going to have) self-government, why shouldn't the fourth (England) have self-government as well?

Only to England you mean, I think. ;)



That's quite an interesting idea. Although I suppose it would stir up a whole new debate...

I think I worded it badly perhaps LOL

Scottish MPs can vote on legislation affecting the rest of the UK...but other 'national' MPs cannot vote on strictly Scottish legislation.

The same goes I think for the Welsh...but I am not entirely sure.

I truly hope the UK doesn't break up - although the situation looks pretty bleak looking at the English press and the thought of Scottish and Welsh elections in May. I was born in Scotland, to 1/2 English and (by blood) and Scottish and English parents, plus I have family in Wales, so having to choose a new nationality (considering myself British) would be, for me, quite difficult, more so than it already is now.

What I would like to see would be a federal system, similar to that in Australia and Canada, with England, Scotland, Wales, London (to be a 'neutral' capital) and Northern Ireland becoming states/provinces, plus possibly Cornwall (which has a strong self government movement), Mann and the Channel Islands. Each would have their own Parliaments (in keeping with British style, we could call the lower house a House of Assembly and the upper a Legislative Council) and government.

We could pay for it by kicking out the 700 strong House of Lords, and replace it with a smaller Senate.

As far as I can see, having four or more equal partners in a Union would be stronger than an unequal one.

I think I worded it badly perhaps LOL

Scottish MPs can vote on legislation affecting the rest of the UK...but other 'national' MPs cannot vote on strictly Scottish legislation.

The same goes I think for the Welsh...but I am not entirely sure.
The Welsh Assembly does not have primary legislative powers, so Welsh MPs cannot vote on 'English' matters. (England and Wales, in any case, being one legal unit.) However, should the Assembly, by a 2/3 vote and the Welsh people by a referendum support it, it could obtain Scotland-style powers.

Only to England you mean, I think. ;)
Nope, they can vote on Welsh and currently Northern Irish legislation too, until the NI Assembly opens and Wales gains legislative, as opposed to just executive power.

It's a bleeding mess.

Trilby63;12205077']Would we want to?


I mean it's not like they've got any coal left..

We have lots of water though, which you need. Plus we have the Passport Office, National Statistics office and fun things like that. You mess with us and your names will be misspelt and you won't know what percentage of the population is being affected:cool:

The point some are making in England is that, if three out of four countries in the UK have (or are going to have) self-government, why shouldn't the fourth (England) have self-government as well?

I suppose the reply to that would be to look at where the centralised government is: if the UK's lawmakers are legislating from the capital of England for the whole of the UK it seems irrelevant to start a wholly new 'English Parliament'.

The West Lothian question is problematic but not to a great degree. The Primary tax powers (and lots of other little niggly things that I cannot be fagged to look up right now) that the Scottish Parliament has are not great enough to warrent a seperation of the UK on that basis. If home rule were granted to Scotland, Wales and (so unilkely) Northern Ireland - rather than the half-measures that accomplished nothing which were devolution - then surely an English parliament would automatically exist in Westminster.

This question can only be answered properly if, all of a sudden, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have home rule....then I'll be damn worried because England (if the last election was anything to go by) will end up with a Conservative government in name as well as nature and I'll give up....

Also I find the Nationalistic concept of Englishness quite scary. I'd rather describe myself as British (even with it's empirical connotations) than lump myself in with the St. Georges Flag brigade...

We have lots of water though, which you need. Plus we have the Passport Office, National Statistics office and fun things like that. You mess with us and your names will be misspelt and you won't know what percentage of the population is being affected:cool:

Sigged. :D

Sigged. :D

Whooo *celebrates*

Let the inhabitants of Scotland vote and see what they want.

Bah, it's that mid-lothian question thingy again.

All I can say is that the british labour party has spent the past century engaged in divisive regional politics, so Gordon 'penfold' Brown can fuck off.

He's a disgrace. His party is a disgrace. And anyone who gives them the time of day is a disgrace.

But let me tell you how I really feel.

The Welsh Assembly does not have primary legislative powers, so Welsh MPs cannot vote on 'English' matters. (England and Wales, in any case, being one legal unit.) However, should the Assembly, by a 2/3 vote and the Welsh people by a referendum support it, it could obtain Scotland-style powers.

Thanks. I was not entirely sure. I did remember something like that but was not sure if that had changed.

You are also completely right about Wales and England being a single legal unit. Something many forget.

This question can only be answered properly if, all of a sudden, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have home rule....then I'll be damn worried because England (if the last election was anything to go by) will end up with a Conservative government in name as well as nature and I'll give up....


True, that's somewhat bothersome. England needs the rest of the UK to keep the Tories out.


Also I find the Nationalistic concept of Englishness quite scary. I'd rather describe myself as British (even with it's empirical connotations) than lump myself in with the St. Georges Flag brigade...

Speaking as a half-Brit who's mostly English (and a little bit Welsh) on my British side, I see no reason not to refer to myself as both British and English.

To be honest the idea of paying for 3-? parliaments makes my money box shiver in fear, which is beside the point as the people who want this separation tend to have skinheads and a 12 year old in the back of there “banging” Toyota corrosion

Let the inhabitants of Scotland vote and see what they want.

they did didn't they?

He's a disgrace. His party is a disgrace. And anyone who gives them the time of day is a disgrace.

Pfft beats voting conservative…but not by much

Pfft beats voting conservative…but not by much

I'm a geordie, so there really isn't much sympathy for the tories where I come from. (Albeit I live in the US now). And I would never suggest that anyone should vote for them.

I would say that the labour party has stuck it up tyneside's arse however, and people should vote for any party other than them.

the people who want this separation tend to have skinheads and a 12 year old in the back of there “banging” Toyota corrosion

An unusual but amusing description of Conservative Party members. :D

Speaking as a half-Brit who's mostly English (and a little bit Welsh) on my British side, I see no reason not to refer to myself as both British and English.

I dunno. I have such a distrust of Nationalism that I generally refer to myself as a Londoner out of the shame of using the terms English or British. The English thing only bothers me to the degree that it seems to go down a road that ends in 'Englishness' and only certain people who tick certain boxes being called 'English'.

As with all cultural Nationalism the reason that the Scots and the Welsh want self-rule is that their cultures were systematically repressed and destroyed by the English for hundreds of years....probably another reason I hesitate to call myself English.

We could pay for it by kicking out the 700 strong House of Lords, and replace it with a smaller Senate.


Well I have to say I thought I'd never say this but...I am not sure now is the time to remove the House of Lords.

They have been a more effective check on the Rev Smilers megalomania than they were when Mags was in power.

Maybe they have finally grown a backbone.

As with all cultural Nationalism the reason that the Scots and the Welsh want self-rule is that their cultures were systematically repressed and destroyed by the English for hundreds of years....probably another reason I hesitate to call myself English.

Christ, if I had a penny.

Listen you, most of england's culture has been destroyed by Estuaries too. But you don't give a shit about that, do you?

I dunno. I have such a distrust of Nationalism that I generally refer to myself as a Londoner out of the shame of using the terms English or British. The English thing only bothers me to the degree that it seems to go down a road that ends in 'Englishness' and only certain people who tick certain boxes being called 'English'.

As with all cultural Nationalism the reason that the Scots and the Welsh want self-rule is that their cultures were systematically repressed and destroyed by the English for hundreds of years....probably another reason I hesitate to call myself English.

Well I consider myself as English. I do not consider the people that make up the majority of the BNP (for example) as English. In fact I find it hard to consider them as human beings.

Scotland would struggle without the rest of the United Kingdom....it is in the best intrests of all involved to just stick to one National Parliament
I'm not saying that the UK should fracture (except NI, which I would like to see integrated into the Republic of Ireland), but I'm saying the peoples of the constituent parts of it should have the right to control their places' future.

Christ, if I had a penny.

Listen you, most of england's culture has been destroyed by Estuaries too. But you don't give a shit about that, do you?

Estuaries? Those who speak Estuary English perhaps? Or water flowing into the sea?

I assume you mean Southerners...and what is this English culture that has been destroyed? I can think of a few things that I'm glad have changed and a few things that I wish hadn't happened. I don't think that 'English culture' has ever been repressed and attacked and I don't think that England (post-William the Conqueror and the start of what he perceive as England now) has ever been controlled by another power...correct me if I'm wrong do.

(except NI, which I would like to see integrated into the Republic of Ireland)

oh dear this thread only made it 3 pages

I hardly think Brown is absolved of blame on this, since it's New Labour that continues to propose the further devolution of power. Ever since they got into power they've been shirking off their responsibilities to the union; Rather than actually deal with the issues of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland, they've been paying untold billions of taxpayer money on unnecessary bureaucracy in the name of Devolved Government and expecting the problems to just go away, and I think everyone in the Union wants this to stop, whether English or otherwise.

I think the reason this grates so is when there is blatant hypocrisy.

Now, I've heard this next anecdote, and have no reason to doubt it's true. But I've never been arsed to look it up, as I've never had to make any decisions on it, so bear in mind it could be bollocks before, well, anything:

University fees in England and Wales only passed their vote because of Scottish MPs voting in favour of them. However, when voting for university fees in Scotland (a vote which the English and Welsh MPs couldn't take part in), the majority of Scottish MPs voted against them. That's why there are university fees in England and Wales, but none in Scotland.

Har. Har. Har.

Edit: Oh, the poll. Other. I would be happy if either a) all members of the union have their own mini-parliament, and in matters which affect only that member only that mini-parliament has a say in, or b) all members are governed by the UK parliament in Londinivm. I don't care which, either is as fair as whatever. But the current state is daft.

Well I have to say I thought I'd never say this but...I am not sure now is the time to remove the House of Lords.

They have been a more effective check on the Rev Smilers megalomania than they were when Mags was in power.

Maybe they have finally grown a backbone.
As much as I intensely hate Blair and his policies, I can never justify to myself why an unelected house, not accountable to the electorate for its decisions, should be able to block policies of the elected house. Which, under the Salisbury agreement, they generally don't. I think a smaller, accountable house elected by PR would be far better at scrutinising government legislation and would have a mandate to block its decisions.

I'm not saying that the UK should fracture (except NI, which I would like to see integrated into the Republic of Ireland), but I'm saying the peoples of the constituent parts of it should have the right to control their places' future.
Even when its people consistently vote in a unionist majority?

Being an American,where the regional differences are a lot greater then Britians,I LOL at this post.There is next to no difference between Scotland and England.You can drive from one to the other in a day.

Being an American,where the regional differences are a lot greater then Britians,I LOL at this post.There is next to no difference between Scotland and England.You can drive from one to the other in a day.
I dare you to stand in Glasgow city centre and say that.

Even when its people consistently vote in a unionist majority?
Sorry if I was unclear. I was only stating my wishes. The ultimate decision belongs to nobody but the people of Northern Ireland. I respect their decisions, including when I disagree with them.

Being an American, I don't know anything about this matter.

Corrected. ;)

Northern Ireland integrating with the Republic of Ireland would be bad for the Republic imo.

If there is a splitting of the UK...well the economic damage would be immense to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. After all the economy is driven by England.

Nah, we'd just join the Republic, problem solved.

Good luck to Scotland and Wales, though.

Sorry if I was unclear. I was only stating my wishes. The ultimate decision belongs to nobody but the people of Northern Ireland. I respect their decisions, including when I disagree with them.
Just out of pure interest, why do you think it would be better if NI were to become a part of the Republic? I'm not trying to be confrontational, It's just interesting to hear a nationalist POV from someone who I (don't think) is NIrish.

As much as I intensely hate Blair and his policies, I can never justify to myself why an unelected house, not accountable to the electorate for its decisions, should be able to block policies of the elected house. Which, under the Salisbury agreement, they generally don't. I think a smaller, accountable house elected by PR would be far better at scrutinising government legislation and would have a mandate to block its decisions.

Not being elected they don't have to appeal to popular opinion, and so can make unpopular decisions that are, nevertheless, better than the popular one. They prevent tyranny by majority.

Say, at the risk of Godwinning myself, that there were more terrorist attacks, and the population at large got all worked up and were largely in favour of rounding up all the Muslims and imprisoning/extraditing/whatevering them. The government, being elected, may want to do this as it'd be significant Popularity Points. The House of Lords, not being elected, can tell them to stop being so fucking stupid. Unfortunately there exists the Parliament Act, but nothing's perfect...

I dare you to stand in Glasgow city centre and say that.

It'd be pretty daft to do in Corby town centre, frankly...

i voted yes, but the thing is, even with an english regional parliament you still need a UK-wide parliament for UK-wide issues and this just means more politicians, which cannot be a good thing. it is, however, odd to me that scotland and wales can have devolved parliaments but england does not. i suspect mainly because scottish and welsh nationalism is usually constructed in opposition to england and the union because they are the minor partners, whereas england has no stronger entity to construct it's nationalism against, it just is. the reason i think it would be good to have a devolved english parliament is that it would take the reigns away from people who might be acting in the sole interest of england in a UK-wide parliament. give them their own arena in which to shit on the rest of us, and let truly internationalist people have control of the UK-wide parliament to keep the nationalists in check.

As much as I intensely hate Blair and his policies, I can never justify to myself why an unelected house, not accountable to the electorate for its decisions, should be able to block policies of the elected house. Which, under the Salisbury agreement, they generally don't. I think a smaller, accountable house elected by PR would be far better at scrutinising government legislation and would have a mandate to block its decisions.


Even when its people consistently vote in a unionist majority?

Would you rather have experts overseeing legislation in the 2nd house or 'elected' representatives...given that politicians have a vested interested in popularity?

/playing devils advocate here...

it could obtain Scotland-style powers.

Such as flying around in a kilt and fighting crime while eating haggis?

oh dear this thread only made it 3 pages

I'm going to be kind to the OP and not respond to that ;)

The ultimate decision belongs to nobody but the people of Northern Ireland. I respect their decisions, including when I disagree with them.
I'm not sure that's such a good idea, and I'm one of them. The NI public has shown time and time again that it is fiercely divided in its politics, becoming increasingly so over time as no progress is made. The way I see it, letting them make their own decisions on governance right now is rather like letting a child make its own decisions on what toys to play with when you know full well that a handy cache of firearms and explosives is easily within arms' reach.

the scots need another braveheart. time to show those English bastards whose boss.... again.

Would you rather have experts overseeing legislation in the 2nd house or 'elected' representatives...given that politicians have a vested interested in popularity?

/playing devils advocate here...
I would politely respond by saying that Prime Ministerial appointments (i.e. seats bought), members who inherit seats and Bishops are hardly experts at all and also have their own vested interests to deal with. If you want experts, Commons committees should be able to co-opt experts and hold hearings.

The Power Enqury (http://www.powerinquiry.org/report/documents/PowertothePeople_002.pdf) touches upon the subject in great detail

the scots need another braveheart. time to show those English bastards whose boss.... again.

Or New Braveheart could go and check to see what Scots there are in the cabinet (and look up Tony Blair whilst he's at it), and decide he doesn't have to bother.

The Conservatives have suggested for some time now that it might be better if exclusively English laws were voted on by English MPs alone.

And that's why I don't support it. 'England' is not a unit of shared political culture, by creating an English Parliament all you are doing is creating a body that will be able to force Conservative policies upon the unwilling minority of non-Conservative 'English' people. For example, left-wing people in the Industrial North of England have always relied on the alliance with the Celtic Fringe to see that they are properly represented in the FPTP central government, with the Celtic Fringe granted autonomy, and its representation in Westminster deminished, England is essentially handed to the Conservative on a silver platter.

Instead, I would recommend further devolution to County government, giving those organisations greater control over the local NHS, other public facilities and power to vary taxation.

Being an American,where the regional differences are a lot greater then Britians,I LOL at this post.There is next to no difference between Scotland and England.You can drive from one to the other in a day.

So distance is the only thing that matters? How very ignorant of you. Having been to both, I can tell you there are significant differences. Not the least of which is the fundamental fact that many Scottish people feel different to the English.


i suspect mainly because scottish and welsh nationalism is usually constructed in opposition to england and the union because they are the minor partners, whereas england has no stronger entity to construct it's nationalism against, it just is.

Spot on. Identity is often strongly boosted by having a more powerful "other" to define yourself against. Which is why it's so interesting to see the question of "English identity" emerging now.


the scots need another braveheart. time to show those English bastards whose boss.... again.

Gordon Brown is Scottish. And, for that matter, so is Tony Blair.

I would politely respond by saying that Prime Ministerial appointments (i.e. seats bought), members who inherit seats and Bishops are hardly experts at all and also have their own vested interests to deal with. If you want experts, Commons committees should be able to co-opt experts and hold hearings.

The Power Enqury (http://www.powerinquiry.org/report/documents/PowertothePeople_002.pdf) touches upon the subject in great detail

I would have to say in response that if it was a case of political appointments to make sure government policy was passed without question the House of Lords should be sacked for incompetence ;)

As for the Power Inquiry...please...Helena Carter and Emma B and some bloke few have heard of representing the 'ethnic vote'. Notwithstanding a old style Thatcherite Tory. Frankly so far not impressed.

However I will read the report (it is rather large) but I suspect that it will say things like the executive is too powerful and that power needs to be devolved to local representatives. And most likely a few bashes on the quangos. (all fair points but really...a total no brainer)

Soon-to-be Prime Minister Gordon Brown has expressed concern both about Scottish nationalists and people who, in England, feel that the English Parliament (abolished in 1707, exactly 3 centuries ago) should be re-instated.

Anyway... Thoughts? I find the issue of an English Parliament to be a particularly interesting debate. Do you feel there should be one? Would it make sense and be fair, or would it be a threat to the unity of the UK?

A very interesting debate indeed. In the US we have our state governments which deal with local/regional issues based on state boundaries and then a federal government which deals with the larger social/defense/diplomatic/economic issues that effect us as a nation.

I could see the English (and Scottish, Welsh, Northern Ireland) parliament as a more regional functioning body that would act like our state governments that deal with issues relating to the region and not specifically other regions.

There would be a need though to have a written framework that would spell out the role of the regional parliaments in relation to the British parliament.

Remember we did have a bit of a problem regarding secession and a resulting war, but the greater good of a unified country did win out in the end.

I think I speak for 7 million Britons when I say this

London should secede from the Union.

*nods*

edit: I mean you have the Northern Irish who have only just stoped blowing each other up; the Welsh who think it's cool to have your own language and to engage in bestiality; the Scotish who get turned on by their own rabid hatred of the English; the English who are so disjointed that they comprise the Cornish who think they have their own language, the Brummies who now can listen to for more than 10 minutes without falling asleep, the people from Yorkshire who hate Scots, hate the Southerners and again have a distinct language that no one understands; you have the southern toffs and snobs who are so blue that the very concept of talking to someone who isn't a conservative would cause them to have a Pulmonary embolism; and finally you have the scousers who just everyone else hates;... oh yes, and the chavs. Frankly I'd rather secede than subsidize their bizzare ways.

If I've missed your region out, then rest assured I probably loathe you just as much. ;)

I would have to say in response that if it was a case of political appointments to make sure government policy was passed without question the House of Lords should be sacked for incompetence ;)
And I would then say that the opposition could just do the same thing the same thing if it wished, and our third party was notorious for doing the same thing at the start of the 20th century. The best way to make sure it can't happen again is a house with the legitimacy, independence and ability to block the Commons, being election by PR/STV.

As for the Power Inquiry...please...Helena Carter and Emma B and some bloke few have heard of representing the 'ethnic vote'. Notwithstanding a old style Thatcherite Tory. Frankly so far not impressed.
Nevertheless, it's proposals do make a lot of sense, although some more than others. Don't knock it before you've tried it.:)

However I will read the report (it is rather large) but I suspect that it will say things like the executive is too powerful and that power needs to be devolved to local representatives. And most likely a few bashes on the quangos. (all fair points but really...a total no brainer)
Well, it more focuses on the relationship between the individual and the government, and yes, the points you made are a part of that.

Spot on. Identity is often strongly boosted by having a more powerful "other" to define yourself against. Which is why it's so interesting to see the question of "English identity" emerging now.

i think the more powerful "other" to the english nationalist is probably the EU which provides financial support for development to the smaller nations in the union, while the the more powerful nations in the EU are generally expected to be able to stand on their own two feet. as far as i'm aware the only region of england that gets significant aid from the EU is the south-west which has it's own brand of secessionism unrelated to english nationalism anyway.

Trilby63;12205077']Would we want to?


I mean it's not like they've got any coal left..

But...think of the sheep, man! Without the English to protect them, the Welsh will go nuts!

And I would then say that the opposition could just do the same thing the same thing if it wished, and our third party was notorious for doing the same thing at the start of the 20th century. The best way to make sure it can't happen again is a house with the legitimacy, independence and ability to block the Commons, being election by PR/STV.

Well based on this there is no need for a second or senior house and we both agree that that is not a good thing.

The problem is that the Opposition party could not muster enough people to ward off an attack of gummi bears. Look at the way they dealt with the Iraq question...they offered no opposition at all.

Voting systems...that is an entirely separate issue needing its own thread. However if you do go down that route all I can see is a coalition executive.


Nevertheless, it's proposals do make a lot of sense, although some more than others. Don't knock it before you've tried it.:)

LOL sounds like a Coke advert! LOL

I need to read the document first mate...but I mean really...look at the panel...its only Helena Kennedy that gives some kind of legitimacy to the exercise...and thats at a stretch. Still it could have been worse...it could have been Cherie!


Well, it more focuses on the relationship between the individual and the government, and yes, the points you made are a part of that.

Like I said...need to read it...and chances are that the document is 'true'...but I can't help but think its an exercise in futility.

I think I speak for 7 million Britons when I say this

London should secede from the Union.

*nods*

edit: I mean you have the Northern Irish who have only just stoped blowing each other up; the Welsh who think it's cool to have your own language and to engage in bestiality; the Scotish who get turned on by their own rabid hatred of the English; the English who are so disjointed that they comprise the Cornish who think they have their own language, the Brummies who now can listen to for more than 10 minutes without falling asleep, the people from Yorkshire who hate Scots, hate the Southerners and again have a distinct language that no one understands; you have the southern toffs and snobs who are so blue that the very concept of talking to someone who isn't a conservative would cause them to have a Pulmonary embolism; and finally you have the scousers who just everyone else hates;... oh yes, and the chavs. Frankly I'd rather secede than subsidize their bizzare ways.

If I've missed your region out, then rest assured I probably loathe you just as much. ;)

Yeah...only problem is....Wimbledon is not London :D LOL

(nice rant though!)

Well, at the moment the British system is more or less a patchwork.

They should make a total reformation, and create several federal states, an everyone should have the same rights. Not like now, where in England there is no Parliament at all, in Wales they have a quite weak one, and in Scotland there they have a stronger one.

Great Britain is one of the oldest democracies - and this is the reason that their system is so chaotic. A new, modern system would perhaps stop the segregation movements - which are quite stupid in my opinion. While the rest of Europe unites, the people on the British Isles divide.

Well, at the moment the British system is more or less a patchwork.

They should make a total reformation, and create several federal states, an everyone should have the same rights. Not like now, where in England there is no Parliament at all, in Wales they have a quite weak one, and in Scotland there they have a stronger one.

Great Britain is one of the oldest democracies - and this is the reason that their system is so chaotic. A new, modern system would perhaps stop the segregation movements - which are quite stupid in my opinion. While the rest of Europe unites, the people on the British Isles divide.
Quoted for extreme truth.

It really does make you wonder. I wouldn't have credited Blair and co with stupidity, but they totally failed to look even one move into the future on this one. I mean I'm not expecting clairvoyance on a big scale or anything, but would it have been too much to expect them to predict that their constitutional hodge-podge would inevitably cause the premature break up of the Union with the west Lothian question etc.

Because even if you stop Scottish MP's voting on English issues in Westminster you're even worse off than before, because then Scottish MP's become second class members and the Scots will think, "why are we even bothering to vote for these people when all they vote on is defence and foreign policy etc. So why don't we consolidate all that into one scottish parliament." And then bingo, you've got the break-up of the Union.

No, You're right the only way to do it is to try to get a proper federalist system working. But even with that you've got problems because after giving people their own parliaments with more or less total sovereignty in some areas, a federalist state is going to seem like a step backwards.

Well based on this there is no need for a second or senior house and we both agree that that is not a good thing.
Where did I say that we don't need an upper house?

The problem is that the Opposition party could not muster enough people to ward off an attack of gummi bears. Look at the way they dealt with the Iraq question...they offered no opposition at all.
Which is exactly why we cannot rely on the opposition to somehow protect us from bad appointments to the Lords, and therefore need an independent elected house.

Voting systems...that is an entirely separate issue needing its own thread. However if you do go down that route all I can see is a coalition executive.
Of course, I only mentioned it as a way of showing how an elected upper house need not be dominated by the Government as it is now. However, a coalition executive would only be a good thing.

LOL sounds like a Coke advert! LOL

I need to read the document first mate...but I mean really...look at the panel...its only Helena Kennedy that gives some kind of legitimacy to the exercise...and thats at a stretch. Still it could have been worse...it could have been Cherie!

Like I said...need to read it...and chances are that the document is 'true'...but I can't help but think its an exercise in futility.
Well, to me it makes sense, if you can get through it, regardless of the authors.

Well, at the moment the British system is more or less a patchwork.

They should make a total reformation, and create several federal states, an everyone should have the same rights. Not like now, where in England there is no Parliament at all, in Wales they have a quite weak one, and in Scotland there they have a stronger one.

Great Britain is one of the oldest democracies - and this is the reason that their system is so chaotic. A new, modern system would perhaps stop the segregation movements - which are quite stupid in my opinion. While the rest of Europe unites, the people on the British Isles divide.
*Applauds*

Maybe England should get, in the most literal sense, medieval on the scots &al.

HIC EST EDWARDVS PRIMVS SCOTTORVM MALLEVS

VIVAT!

Where did I say that we don't need an upper house?

Nowhere mate. It was more based on what you said the lower house should be doing. I was being slightly sarcastic whilst agreeing with you. Remember I am trying (badly most likely) to play devils advocate. ;)


Which is exactly why we cannot rely on the opposition to somehow protect us from bad appointments to the Lords, and therefore need an independent elected house.

Well as the opposition have no say in the appointments...

The thing is that a upper house that is elected will be such a radical change. For a start it would require a written constitution rather than a constitutional tradition.


Of course, I only mentioned it as a way of showing how an elected upper house need not be dominated by the Government as it is now. However, a coalition executive would only be a good thing.

Also you are predicating that all appointments are bad. Which is not the case. Otherwise (despite a labour majority) the Lords would not have been so entrenched with regards to much of the more draconian legislation Blair had/has/is pushing through.


Well, to me it makes sense, if you can get through it, regardless of the authors.

I've not said anything otherwise. I just need to read it (most likely over lunch tomorrow).

I wouldn't have credited Blair and co with stupidity

Really?
Um... Why not?

...


Oh, and my little anecdote earlier was actually true (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3432767.stm). Huzzah, etc. Just in case anybody actually cared.

Really?
Um... Why not?

Greed, corruption, general lack of morals, dishonesty, hypocrisy and any other number of vices and failings yes. But i don't think stupidity is one of the charges normally levelled against Blair.

Greed, corruption, general lack of morals, dishonesty, hypocrisy and any other number of vices and failings yes. But i don't think stupidity is one of the charges normally levelled against Blair.

He's not bright enough to tell Bush to bugger off...