Should England have their own Parliament without the voices of Scotland and Wales?

AandM Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 04:54:27 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Dont you think its about time that England should have their own Parliament, to make decisions on their own about education, NHS, and welfare, without the voices of Scotland and Wales.



i think its about time that the New Labour should create a new Parliament just like the Scottish Assembly and the Welsh Assembly.

dont you think its a bit silly having the voice of Scotland and Wales to make decisions on policies and law, when quite frankly it should be up to the English policitions.

i mean well if Scotland can make decisions on Scotland's education and so on, why cant England.

well lets take the poll and see if Labour should introduce a new Parliament to England.


tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Should England have their own Parliament without the voices of Scotland and Wales? | 35 comments (35 topical)

England should have their own Parliament (#1)

by Mark Wadsworth on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:58:02 PM GMT

Yes! Tony Blair has hinted at something like this. We can infinite arguments about details, and these will have to be got right, but thanks for raising this topic again.


Re: England should have their own Parliament (#2)

by swatantra on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:56:40 PM GMT

No, Scots MPs should have the good sense to absent themselves from the Chamber when legislation relating specifically to England is discussed. If they haven't the sense, then they should be told.


[ Parent ]

Re: England should have their own Parliament (#3)

by AJScobbie on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 11:17:26 PM GMT

Look guys I am sorry to break it to you but the Parliament at Westminster is of the United Kingdom. Members of Parliament are elected and all have the same rights and priveleges.

We had this argument over Irish Home Rule one hundred years ago. At the time those that believed in the Union were determined you cannot have two classes of MP or it will lead to a fundamental break down in the UK.

Why are we as a Labour Party allowing the right wing press and opportunistic modern Tories (supposedly the Unionists too) to run with the English Votes for English Laws nonsense?

Labour relies on the Scots and Welsh MPs for a majority. It has been that way in recent times with the excpetion of the landslides of 1997 and 2001. Do you really want a situation where a Labour PM cannot pass legislation on Education, Health, Criminal Justice because we are excluding Scots and Welsh MPs? But then only be allowed to pass legislation on stuff like social security, economy and defence?

It just does not make any sense unless you are a Tory or determined to get rid of Scotland from the Union.

Yes it may seem a tad unfair but please note that Parliament can and does frequently choose to legislate on matters that are not reserved by the Scotland Act. Sadly the media do not cover the excessive operation of the Sewell motions. Far far beyond what was ever envisaged during passage of the bill. The media also fails to explain the basic constitutional doctrine of parliamentary supremacy. Or to put it in the more easily comprehendible words of Enoch Powell

"Power devolved is power retained"

Please have a serious think about this and avoid playing the tory game. More power to local government in England or organic assyemetric devolution in parts. Or perhaps a seperate English Parliament in Birmingham with Westminster as a Federal Parliament.

But dont forget the Treaty of Union dissolved both English and Scots Parliaments. What remains in Westminster is the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI and I for one am determined to see it remain so in my lifetime.


[ Parent ]

Re: England should have their own Parliament (#10)

by swatantra on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:33:41 PM GMT

Education is a good example of why the Scots MP's should stay out and leave it to the English MP's, the two education systems are different, even if the majority falls.  Scots MP's should not be in the invidious position of proping up legislation pertaining only to England. If the Scots MPs developed this convention, there would be no need to elect a separate English Parliament, yet another tier of Government.


[ Parent ]

Re: England should have their own Parliament (#12)

by Glass House on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:59:36 PM GMT

To me, English votes for English laws is a terrible answer (which is why I advocate an English Parliament below)

The issues for England are a lot different from Uk-wide issues. People should be able to vote for both individually, like they do in Scotland and Wales.


[ Parent ]

Re: England should have their own Parliament (#14)

by swatantra on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:32:43 PM GMT

My problem is having yet another lot of English MPs working alongside the 'Union' MPS, where is the separation of responsilities and the special relationship with constituents and, will there be enough for them to do. I doubt it. Its too costly an exercise. Better to press ahead with setting up the Regional Assembly Governments.


[ Parent ]

Re: England should have their own Parliament (#15)

by Glass House on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:37:52 PM GMT

I don't think it's any different than having 'double representation' from Councillor(s) and an MP.

Hopefully the number of English MPs would remain the same. I'm not advocating tacking on a load of extra 'Members of English Parliament' in additional to current MPs.


[ Parent ]

Re: England should have their own Parliament (#25)

by AJScobbie on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 01:03:35 AM GMT

Yes by all means have regional government but not in every region. We do not need pat solutions. Think of the Spain and their interesting system of devolution. Think of a solution for each locality.

And as for over representation at the Union "Federal" level well just dramatically cut the number of MPs. That is the real answer. The US Sentate copes with 100 members. A true UK Parliament with devolved powers to the nations on a population of 60 million could manage with 100 members...

yes that sounds quite nice to me. Shift the whole thing to Brum or wherever and keep Westminster for the big UK issues but on a much smaller scale of elected members thus ensuing the new devolved English levels of Gov dont involve an increase in elected politicians and layers of Gov....

But hey we cant possibly have any part of England run the show bar London can we?????/?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England (#4)

by Loz on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 11:33:48 PM GMT

YES

Although to save millions of pounds and much time, they could just get the scots to abstain for example.

It simply isn't fair that the Scots should have a say on matters that don't affect them.

They've got their own parliament, so either let us make our own decisions, or give us our own parliament. Its long overdue.


Re: Should England (#5)

by AJScobbie on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:00:40 AM GMT

Loz did you even read my post? It may not seem "fair" but constitutional law is not something that can be boiled down to what works as a glib slogan


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England (#6)

by AJScobbie on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:04:43 AM GMT

Also top up fees do affect the Scots as its putting massive pressures on Scotland to introduce higher fees for our ancient universities that frequently come in the UK top 10/15 institutions.

Its messy and not how I would design a state but we are where we are. Do you think it was fair for a nation that returned a dozen or so Tory MPs out of 70 be governed soley by a party that lacked any mandate north of the border?

Do you seriously think a nation that is only ten percent of the total UK population can seriously oppress the massive majority that reside in England? Do you seriously think that the 58 Scottish MPs are there to inflict their will on the Home Counties?

Its mass hysteria in the media about this. It was not an issue during fifty years of Stormont. Why? Well perhaps because NI returned Unionists to vote with the Tories at Westminster whereas Scotland is a Labour stronghold. Double standard there.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England (#8)

by Loz on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:11:00 AM GMT

"Do you think it was fair for a nation that returned a dozen or so Tory MPs out of 70 be governed soley by a party that lacked any mandate north of the border?"

No which I why I favoured devolution

This statement only really supports my theory.

"Do you seriously think a nation that is only ten percent of the total UK population can seriously oppress the massive majority that reside in England? Do you seriously think that the 58 Scottish MPs are there to inflict their will on the Home Counties?"

Of course they do.

If the majority is small, then automatically they have a deciding vote.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England (#7)

by Loz on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 12:08:03 AM GMT

Yes I did.

Your:

"Labour relies on the Scots and Welsh MPs for a majority. It has been that way in recent times with the excpetion of the landslides of 1997 and 2001. Do you really want a situation where a Labour PM cannot pass legislation on Education, Health, Criminal Justice because we are excluding Scots and Welsh MPs? But then only be allowed to pass legislation on stuff like social security, economy and defence?"

Talk surprised me because it seems you are thinking of what is best for Labour and not what is best for the country.

Perhaps devolution did open up a can of worms in the sense, that scots having a fair ammount of devolved power yet still exercising a considerable voice over English policy.

Let me ask you.

DO you think it is right that an elected official should have say over policy which doesn't even affect his or her own constituency?

If that means dramatic change in our democracy, then so be it.

I am strongly in favour of the union, but also strongly against such an obvious injustice to the people of England.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England (#24)

by AJScobbie on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 12:57:14 AM GMT

I normally do not approach the constitution from the perspective of what is best for Labour...however I didnt think that would find favour on this website.

I absolutely have no problem with Scottish MPs having a say on policy that they cannot influence in their own constituency because they can and do influence devolved policy in their constituency.

You cannot have two classes of MPs without a constitutional revolution or indeed a Federal Parliament. And as for this revulsion at having seperate members of an English Parliament well this is just giving ground the the usual Daily Express revulsion at "bureacracy". If something is required for constitutional necessity then marginal costs are not an issue


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England (#27)

by Glass House on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:18:34 AM GMT

That's what Im advocating.

And English Parliament with seperately elected MEngPs, with Westminster being the 'federal' Parliament, dealing only with pan-UK issues


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England (#11)

by swatantra on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:35:31 PM GMT

Workable conventions have been built up over the years to overcome anomalies; saves bringing in more legislation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#9)

by Glass House on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:27:50 PM GMT

Loz is completely right on every count.

Over the last few months, I've come to the conclusion that an English Parliament (or some form of English votes for English laws) is inevitable. Whenever the Tories get in, it will be brought into existence.

So, we can do it on our terms (with PR), to ensure it doesn't become a permanently Tory dominated body or we can wait for the Tories to get into power, create a FPTP English Parliament and kiss goodbye to a chance of power in England.

I know some of us see it as a little England power grab by the Tories and a poor choice compared the English regional assemblies with the same powers as Scottish Parliaments, but:

  • There IS a constitutional problem. The West Lothian Question is not a Tory whinge - it's a real imbalance in the constitution.
  • A majority of English want and English Parliament
  • A majority of Scots want it
  • The Tories will do it anyway, but on terms that would be bad for effective representation generally and Labour specifically
  • English Regional Assemblies, despite their superiority over an English Parliament are just not going to happen in the short/medium term - the public don't want them. And this could be a step towards them in the long term.
  • It's electorally good for Labour to show that they are not favouring Scotland (especially is Brown becomes leader)

I'm a convert

 


Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#13)

by JR on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:24:34 PM GMT

I certainly support English devolution (equal to the powers that the other UK countries get), but I am very sceptical of an English Parliament. To me, 'devolving' power from a Parliament covering 60million people to a Parliament covering 50million people is not true devolution.

I come from the North of England and I can't help feeling that if an English Parliament comes about then the North will still be dominated by the South.

What I would prefer to see is an English Parliament which consists of nine regional assemblies. Where the assemblies would have powers for most of the issues like tourism, public transport, planning etc. but the assemblies would come together as one English Parliament for the big legislative issues like the education system. It may be complex but the UK is a very complex country. You can't put a price on democracy either.

England should still have one flag, it's own anthem and a national holiday (St. George's Day) in my view.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#16)

by Glass House on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 02:52:53 PM GMT

I think all of the concerns you raise are right - I think that devolving power from 60m to 50m people is far inferior to proper regional government. However, the people voted against it and so it's completely off the agenda now, probably for 20 years, so we have to make the best of the political situation we find ourselves in.

Maybe an English Parliament with strong locality working/regional working parties would be the way to go.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#17)

by doctordunc on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 07:01:29 PM GMT

(Apart from the guff about the flag and St. George) I completely agree that regional government is preferable to an English Parliament.

Good to see you're progressive on some issues (sorry just read your thoughts on grammar schools and am still reeling!)


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#18)

by Glass House on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 07:50:54 PM GMT

now now


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#19)

by Mark Wadsworth on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:11:05 PM GMT

Who says it's preferable?

English people on the whole WANT an English parliament (altho' it is not top of most people's priorities), they do not WANT an extra layer of regional government.

You might as well say, the Netherlands and Belgium are Luxembourg are too small as individual countries, they should be merged. They don't WANT to be merged (as far as I am aware) so just leave them alone. If the Flams and Walloons fall out and split up Belgium, who are you to say whether that is preferable or not?

Germany was divided for 45 years (serves them right) but the Germans (on the whole) WANTED to be reunited. The Czechs and Slovaks WANTED to split up the country.

Is it so wrong to allow a country to decide for itself?


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#20)

by Glass House on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:53:15 PM GMT

i dont think that doctordunc is saying that anything should be forced on anyone. He's just saying that he believes regional government is better.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#21)

by JR on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 09:55:43 PM GMT

(Since grammar schools are the key to social mobility - they are progressive, but that's not for here!)

I'm not saying that I don't want an English Parliament at all. I just want a Parliament that consists of nine regional assemblies where most decisions are made at the asembly level and some collectively as an English Parliament.

I certainly do not support a single English Parliament which rules over all 50million people. Either at Westminster with non-English MP's abstaining or a creation of a new English Parliament in a new location (like York). This to me, does not seem like devolution.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#22)

by Loz on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:07:31 PM GMT

I paticuarly like your last point.

Something I hadn't thought of.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#23)

by Loz on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:09:22 PM GMT

(the above was aimed at glass house) - I've not flip flopped!


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#26)

by HenryG on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 09:28:10 AM GMT

An English Parliament would consistently return the Tories.  Not something to frame all constitutional debate around, but to keep in mind all the same.  I think I'm right in saying that even Michael Howard's Tory Party won the most votes in England at the last general election.


[ Parent ]

Re: Should England have their own Parliament (#28)

by Glass House on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:20:31 AM GMT

No, but it was close


[ Parent ]

Who rules England (#29)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:22:57 AM GMT

It is true that the Tories got ever so slightly more votes in England that Labour - 8.1million against 8 million, but because of the way that votes are distributed under the FPTP system, Labour still has about 90 more English MP's than the Tories.


[ Parent ]

Re: Who rules England (#30)

by Glass House on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 11:48:03 AM GMT

I thought Labour just squeaked it in England.


[ Parent ]

What can't speak... (#31)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 12:54:52 PM GMT

... can't lie


[ Parent ]

Re: What can't speak... (#32)

by Glass House on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:03:30 PM GMT

wow. cheers for setting me straight


[ Parent ]

Re: What can't speak... (#33)

by swatantra on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 02:21:15 PM GMT

Lets face it. Even Regional Assemblies will be heavily Tory dominated. We must inttroduce PR now, in all elections. Its the only saving grace for Labour, particularly in the South East where we are outnumbered. Look what happened in Scotland; if it weren't for PR, Scotland would be a Tory-free zone.


[ Parent ]

Re: What can't speak... (#34)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 03:46:02 PM GMT

Swatantra, did you follow my link from 12.54?

Quite clear that FPTP favours Labour (in England at least) and the Tories are far too gentlemanly to  complain.


[ Parent ]

What about Northern Ireland (#35)

by Mark Wadsworth on Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 03:54:58 PM GMT

Imagine the boot were on the other foot, and the people in NI (2 million people) voted by referendum (as I believe is foreseen as a possibility in some legislation or other) to leave the UK (60 million people) and re-unite with the Republic of Ireland (4 million people).

How would you all respond?


Should England have their own Parliament without the voices of Scotland and Wales? | 35 comments (35 topical)