Brown as PM for England

With the return to an assembly in Northern Ireland not very far way, and Wales having an assembly and Scotland having a parliament.

Why should we have a Scot as first minister in England, and yes I make the split between between England and the rest of the union.

Is it time for regional assemblies in England?


Me, yes I think if Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland can have their own assemblies/parliaments, why can not the regions in England have their own assemblies. I think a parliament is just too much and some things need a national view.

As there is not assembly just for England, we have to accept whoever is prime minister, but can you see the Scottish parliament electing an English as first minister?

Brown as PM for Great Britain - That's the system we have. Change it if you do not like it

But as the first minister so to spoke of England. No

England does not have a first minister or a devolved government so Brown will not be "First Minister of England". There is no such role called "First Minister of England" or "Secretary for England".

Is it time for regional assemblies in England?

Hell no.
Too many elections. Either we scrap the main UK parliament and have it replaced by an English parliament. Then have a National executive instead of a national parliament, or we keep things the same.

We cannot have an English parliament and keep the main parliament.

The next PM should be someone the people want, Someone who the people deicide best represents there interests and will tackle issues important to the people not some clown who get's voted in because of nationality, skin colour etc.

Originally posted by infinite
England does not have a first minister or a devolved government so Brown will not be "First Minister of England". There is no such role called "First Minister of England" or "Secretary for England".

Is it time for regional assemblies in England?

Hell no.
Too many elections. Either we scrap the main UK parliament and have it replaced by an English parliament. Then have a National executive instead of a national parliament, or we keep things the same.

We cannot have an English parliament and keep the main parliament.

So why are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so special?

If regional assemblies are good enough for Wales, why not The Midlands or the South East?

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
So why are Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so special?

Because the Scottish closed theirs and Englands became the UK parliament. Wales and Ireland were under direct control of England that time.

[qupte]
If regional assemblies are good enough for Wales, why not The Midlands or the South East?

Wales has a national assembly, not a regional one.

Plus, English voters rejected regional assemblies.

I'm still surprised that there seems to be a kind of "us" and "them" situation after three hundred years between the Scots and the English. A bit of friendly rivalry, sure, but I fail to understand why some individuals see someone born in Scotland as 'foreign' or having no right to have anything to do with England. The same is true in reverse. What absolute, utter rubbish.

Originally posted by Ste2652
I'm still surprised that there seems to be a kind of "us" and "them" situation after three hundred years between the Scots and the English. A bit of friendly rivalry, sure, but I fail to understand why some individuals see someone born in Scotland as 'foreign' or having no right to have anything to do with England. The same is true in reverse. What absolute, utter rubbish.

- Given the family connections between English, Scot, Welsh and Irish I honestly think this branding of the non-English guys as somehow unfit and alien is not going to play well at all - outside of the Alf Garnet element.

.....but then again, let them, if that's the demographic they wish to appeal to.

But why is an assembly Ok for Wales but not for example Cornwall, which has a long history and many who are independantly minded.

Again, what makes Wales and Scotland so special that they can have some of the decisions made locally?

Not all theEngland has had a vote on local assemblies and I have to say the last attempt was botched by the Government. I think looked in the wrong place for an English assembly. The Government tried Labour heartlands rather than looking at the best place that would accept the concept of an English regional assembly.

Obviously one may debate this (and having known some Cornish people I realise they would, very vigorously) but the Welsh like the Scots are a recognised nation.
Clearly that is why and it is why they were such a priority first with devolution.

Obviously the mechanisms for triggering devolved assemblies in England might do better and may be subject to future changes but at heart it all comes down to the people of the region wanting them and pressing for that change.

Sadly this has been, in England so far, the point at which the idea has fallen.

But glad to see you aboard with the devolution ideal Freedom ERP.

Text "Plus, English voters rejected regional assemblies"

Oh really???

http:// www.southeast-ra.gov.uk

[url]http:// www.eera.gov.uk

http:// www.nwra.gov.uk

Look like Regional Assemblies to me!!!

Heres what wikipedia states about these "phantom" assemblies


en.wikipedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">http:// en.wikipedia.org...

The setting up of regional assemblies is not necessarily a question of nationalism or identity but about the need to address the different economic requirements of regions. The current council systems reinforce national economic programmes rather than allowing each region to set their own. For example, in the North of England, there is a desperate need to gain business investment to secure a long term future for its occupants. Scotland, with its national assembly, can attract investors and negoitiate terms that are favourable to investment and economic growth.

Currently much of the economic growth in some regions of England is dependent on services. In this way, jobs come and go, companies can shut up shop and set up business in India where labour is much cheaper. Who can blame them, that is what they do. By de-centralising goverment and allowing some responsibilities to be removed from what can be corrupted council systems, there is the possibility for real investment strategies to come into effect. The need for this is apparent when you constantly have calls for the office of the deputy Prime minister to become involved in planning arguments in the North.

Although a relatively small country, the effects of a more localised investment strategy could be massive on the standard of living in certain depressed regions, it is for this reason, among others, that i am strongly in favour of regional assemblies.

Gordon Brown's status as a scot is irrelevant in my opinion. he does not represent Scotland, he represents the UK and as I understand it national assemblies do not remove themselves from the Union they just gain some autonomous powers. Just some not all.

Interesting point, KilgoreTrout, but couldn't reform of current local government have the same (if not a better) effect? It's already in place, so there's no need to add in yet another layer of government with the regional assemblies. Or potentially make the councils impotent, making them a waste of money (I suspect a few of you will think this already, but... ).

But dj howls, none of the bodies you reference are elected. They are set up by interested parties.

I agree with you, KilgoreTrout, Gordon Brown being a scot does not matter in relationship to the United Kingdom. The electors of Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have a choice of first minister, yet England, and I, do not. England is a part of the United Kingdon, not "The United Kingdom".

Again, if regional assemblies are good enough for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, why not give all the people of England a say?

It is more about who councils report to and how funds are allocated. At the moment the further you move, in any direction, away from london you see disparity in the application of national policy. Who has the power and the means to attract long term investment? local councils certainly do not and under the current system you have incestuous relationships between councils, chamber of commerce, local companies and investment boards. Council governance cannot be given more power, for much of that system has already to some extent become corrupted to the benefit of the few. We need a system of more benefit to the many. That means policies that do not benefit just local investors and business people, but that benefit the work force at large. Large companies with growth potential are not being attracted to the regions in the most need of long-term employment opportunities. By unifying local councils under a regional assembly, you enable a more cohesive approach to investment strategy, power in numbers if you will. Councils would continue to take care of local matters, but the regional assembly would care for the economic development of the region as a whole. All of course in an ideal world!!!

I'm not sure England need's it's own Parliament, but at the very least, the Scottish MP's should NOT be allowed to vote on matter's that concern only England and Wales.

There is no valid argument why this is currently the case.

And, why is it that every top job in Government is taken by a Scot, but in actuality, they have very little say over what goes on in Scotland but rather run things in England and Wales?

Also, spending per capita should be equalised. Currently, Scotland (and every other region for that matter) get's over £2000/capita more than England. That's why Scotland can have free University and Wales and can have free prescriptions, but the English have to pay for it.

Why?

I notice that some have questioned the need to address these and why there is a "them and us" attitude. Because there is a "them and us" situation. The Welsh and Scottish get the power to be self-determined, but the English get a raw deal as a result?

Can someone explain (in non Labour-speak - Looking at you Smink) why any of this is fair?

Plus, the Cornish should have their own assembly. They are a seperate nation and up to the 1600's were reffered to as such. No annexation or Act of Union, just absorbed. How rude.....

So, basically, you're advocating the creation of these elected regional assemblies as a way of managing the economy at a local level (something which is too time-consuming for the Treasury itself to do) - it could work, I suppose, if it limited itself to that area alone.

I think the big argument against a single English Parliament is the fact that... well, England makes up the majority of the UK. Hence, obviously the UK Parliament is a lot more biased towards English issues because 84% of people in the UK live in England (that's not to say 84% of people in the UK are English, however... they simply reside in England). So you're going to have a huge English Parliament which would just make governance in the UK even more biased towards England at the expense of the rest of the union. Therefore it would have to be regional, on par with the Scottish Parliament at most.

But as I say, I don't have a problem with the UK Parliament looking after English issues. It doesn't really bother me at all.

Ste2652, agree with your point about "creating" an English parliament. There is no need. All i ask is the Scots butt out of English only votes, of which there are many. T

hat would satisfy the need for the English to be self-determined, like the Scots, but also remove the need for a whole new body to be setup.

Westminster is fine by us, just tell the Scots to bugger off for the afternoon when we're discussing something that doesn't concern them.

Originally posted by stumason
Westminster is fine by us, just tell the Scots to bugger off for the afternoon when we're discussing something that doesn't concern them.

Thats the problem.
You can't. The Act of Union and other laws relating to it state that certain MPs cannot be treated as "second class". Thats why you cannot have English votes on English matters within Parliament. And thats why the Tories dropped it. It would have created a constitutional crisis.

Originally posted by stumason
Westminster is fine by us, just tell the Scots to bugger off for the afternoon when we're discussing something that doesn't concern them.

Thats the problem.
You can't. The Act of Union and other laws relating to it state that certain MPs cannot be treated as "second class". Thats why you cannot have English votes on English matters within Parliament. And thats why the Tories dropped it. It would have created a constitutional crisis.

Originally posted by infinite
Thats the problem.
You can't. The Act of Union and other laws relating to it state that certain MPs cannot be treated as "second class". Thats why you cannot have English votes on English matters within Parliament. And thats why the Tories dropped it. It would have created a constitutional crisis.

So a "constitutional crisis" is what we need.

You've told me the "how", which i know already, but not the "Why".

Why is it that the Scots get to be self-determining but at the same stroke, get to Vote on matter's pertaining to only England and Wales? Don't tell me they don't, because they bloody well do.