Should England have it's own Parliament?

reply to post by HelenConway

How is your solution workable - the scottish despise the English and the Northern English are proud English.

Helen the Scots do NOT despise the English. My sons' father is from Manchester. My brother's wife is from London and my son's girlfriend is also from London. BTW - all of the English partners moved to Scotland (including my brother's in laws who, despite being university lecturers could afford no more that a terraced home in London and now live in a Victorian villa).

These days if you travel to the Scottish islands you will be hard pushed to hear a Scottish accent - I have met children born and raised here with London accents.

It has been Westminster governance that the Scots have objected to....not the English people.

reply to post by grainofsand


You said it yourself - you like the weather. Life's about choices and you made yours. There are reasons for the higher per capita spending in Wales, Ireland and Scotland as I'm sure you're aware.

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by grainofsand

 

You said it yourself - you like the weather. Life's about choices and you made yours. There are reasons for the higher per capita spending in Wales, Ireland and Scotland as I'm sure you're aware.

Your viewpoint does not justify English taxes subsidising Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland's superior public services while their MP's have a vote on solely English issues in parliament...or are you suggesting it does? I would be interested in your case for the defence.

Originally posted by HelenConway

Originally posted by threewisemonkeys
Hate to point out the obvious here but England already has its own parliament, it just imposes it's will on the Scottish and Welsh. In fact with a devolved Scotland and Wales, there would be little left but an English parliament.

That is disinformation !!!!!!!!!!!!!

England does NOT have its own parliament - Scottish MPs can vote on English matters.

If it is an English parliament why are MPs from constituencies not in England voting on matters that are of no conern or business of theirs.

The labour govt used Scottish MPs to vote on english matters - all the time.

it's not the scotts im worried about...they rightly so look out for Scottish interests and tow the line with regards with english matters...Europe is the biggest threat having unelected foreign MP's forcing legislation
in one hand while taking away our national rights in the other...if ever England,Scotland,Wales were to reunite to fight a hostile take over which in my opinion is whats happening in Europe ..well the time is now

Originally posted by sitchin
it's not the scotts im worried about...they rightly so look out for Scottish interests and tow the line with regards with english matters

No they don't. The Scottish MP's voted on the university tuition fees relating to England while happilly offering a cut price option for the Scot's through their own parliament. All subsidised by English taxes and no English elected representative had any say in that. Still got no issues with it?

Originally posted by christina-66
It has been Westminster governance that the Scots have objected to....not the English people.

No objection to the subsidy to Scottish services from taxpayers in England.
No objection to the situation where Scottish MP's can vote on solely English matters in Westminster but English MP's have no say in how their own taxes are spent in Scotland.
Hmm, as I said earlier, I am very interested in hearing your case for the defence. As I see it there is none.

reply to post by grainofsand


Hey - I'm having a dinner break. I'll be right back at you

reply to post by grainofsand


Well, that constitutional anomaly isn't new. It's called the "West Lothian Question", named after Tam Dalyell's parliamentary constituency. He's the one who voiced concerns about the relationship between the two parliaments after a Scottish home rule settlement.

There's other anomalies too. The office of Secretary of State for Scotland still hasn't been abolished. He sits in the British cabinet to represent Scottish interests but comes from the governing party at Westminster ... and I don't remember Scotland voting Tory/Liberal in 2010.

Of course there's a reason for that. A secret reason. Because in an extreme emergency (imminent war etc) the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments are to be dissolved and all executive authority placed in the hands of the Regional Commissioners, each a Cabinet grade secretary of state. That's why that redundant Scottish position remains, it's to ensure that London always retains control over Edinburgh, even under dire circumstances.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by grainofsand

 

Well, that constitutional anomaly isn't new. It's called the "West Lothian Question", named after Tam Dalyell's parliamentary constituency. He's the one who voiced concerns about the relationship between the two parliaments after a Scottish home rule settlement.

I am completely aware of that. I made no claims that it was a recent development, just shared information about the injustice of the situation for the benefit of Scottish people who cry that they are somehow democratically ripped off. They aren't, but it could easily be argued that English taxpayers are.

There's other anomalies too. The office of Secretary of State for Scotland still hasn't been abolished. He sits in the British cabinet to represent Scottish interests but comes from the governing party at Westminster ... and I don't remember Scotland voting Tory/Liberal in 2010.

The Scottish secretary powers were diminished when Scotland gained their parliament. I don't see your point regarding the OP question supporting an equal status for England with it's own parliament where Scottish MP's have no say in English only matters?

Of course there's a reason for that. A secret reason. Because in an extreme emergency (imminent war etc) the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments are to be dissolved and all executive authority placed in the hands of the Regional Commissioners, each a Cabinet grade secretary of state. That's why that redundant Scottish position remains, it's to ensure that London always retains control over Edinburgh, even under dire circumstances.

That may or may not be the case, this is ATS of course so a conspiracy angle is always interesting. I would suggest that your point (again) has no relevance to the OP asking if it is time for England to have its own parliament where decisions can be made by English people, as Scotland, Wales and NI has. A further question of should English taxes subsidise Scottish, Welsh and NI services is equally related and as yet the case for the defence appears to be lacking.

reply to post by grainofsand


I don't think most Scots think the West Lothian situation is fair. But for reasons known only unto thine own highself, you seem to think the Scots regard the current settlement as an acceptable outcome. In that assumption you are simply incorrect ... the Scots regard West Lothian as unfinished business.

Labour didn't address the issue because they gained from it. The tories/liberals don't address it because it opens up divisions in the coalition.

For the record I think England deserves the constitutional arrangement that it's people agree on. And that isn't one Parliament-does-all for the whole of England, I think a regional system is a better fit due to the many variances within England.

I think my contributions are as relevant as yours. The thread has a natural flow, I don't think it's going offtrack, the lack of moderation in this and the Scottish thread is a welcome development.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by grainofsand

 

I don't think most Scots think the West Lothian situation is fair. But for reasons known only unto thine own highself, you seem to think the Scots regard the current settlement as an acceptable outcome. In that assumption you are simply incorrect ... the Scots regard West Lothian as unfinished business.

Labour didn't address the issue because they gained from it. The tories/liberals don't address it because it opens up divisions in the coalition.

.

In answer to your question before 'yes' that is exactly what I meant in my last post - our politicians are traitors, or most of them.

Prior to that I was referring to your assertion that you wanted the UK destroyed - so I was wondering about your agenda and why that was exactly ?

We are talking about people's lives here - that is why these discussions get heated and I blame Scotland for ruining England in the past 15 years, with their MPs and PMs.

However I would like to add that Labour kept Scotland sweet because without Scotland they would not have a majority in parliament and they would not be able to lord it over England and destroy her.

reply to post by christina-66


Right off the bat let me tell you that I do not like ANY of the UK's political parties and I detest how this country is run and who it is run by (and I don't mean local councillors or mp's or even mep's - these people are just cannon fodder for the electorate.) We have a system in place that rewards mediocrity and protects the corrupt (in fact if you're corrupt in this country these days you're more likely to go places - and not at Her majesty's pleasure).

As you are aware and has already been pointed out to you the West Lothian question is an old one....and there's a reason why it was never resolved when the Scottish Executive was created....labour was in power in Westminster and they wanted the power of those mp's votes.

It's not fair and I don't defend it.

Re the Barnett Formula - it's on its way out - and when it goes (assuming we don't vote for independence) the Scots will be circa £1200 per capita worse off, those in the North East of England will be £815 per capita worse off....and....those in London will be £1,042 worse off. Even Barnett stated his formula was unfair and was never meant to go on this long (it was based on population numbers only - not relative need).

I'm actually with you insofar as I do believe that England should have its own assembly. It's not me you should be putting in the dock - but the system that brought us to this.

And history is extremely important to this discussion. If we don't know how we got here we'll never see the wood from the trees and we will never be able to move on. Divide and conquer has been an extremely effective tool of governance in this country. There is a divide - them and us. 'We' are ordinary people of all persuasions and 'they' are the elites. We have been run by the elites for centuries (a thousand years in fact) and they have rigged the system to ensure that they remain untouchable.

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by christina-66

 

. Divide and conquer has been an extremely effective tool of governance in this country. There is a divide - them and us. 'We' are ordinary people of all persuasions and 'they' are the elites. We have been run by the elites for centuries (a thousand years in fact) and they have rigged the system to ensure that they remain untouchable.

edit on 27-1-2013 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)

That is absolutely true .. but it has worked, you only have to hear Salmon and his ilk discuss the English and my blood boils. Even though I know this to be true - it gets a rise out of me.

reply to post by HelenConway


Helen you have presented nothing but sweeping generalisations of your impression of the Scots. If the shoe was on the other foot and I talked about the English the way that you do about the Scots I would be flamed.

reply to post by HelenConway


Your claims about the Scots PMs destroying England are just that, claims, they can't be measured or put to the test because they only exist in your own head, which as far as I see is closed to visitors.

But the Scots (and northern English and Welsh too) just have to look out their windows to see what used to be. All these gap sites where there used to be steelworks, pits, factories ... It was an English tory government with no mandate in those areas which destroyed manufacturing industry in the 1980s snd placed the financial sector on an altar ... the banks etc.

Not content with blitzing those areas once, they've now through the current economic depression managed to do it twice.

Yay for the English tories, those you'd have govern England permanently. I have to save you from that fate, Helen, I really do.

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by grainofsand

 

I don't think most Scots think the West Lothian situation is fair.

But they are happy to let the preferential situation continue.

But for reasons known only unto thine own highself, you seem to think the Scots regard the current settlement as an acceptable outcome. In that assumption you are simply incorrect ... the Scots regard West Lothian as unfinished business.

I don't see any Scots demonstrating for a reduced financial settlement, do you?

Labour didn't address the issue because they gained from it. The tories/liberals don't address it because it opens up divisions in the coalition.

Irrelevant, I don't see your assertions regarding the SNP.

For the record I think England deserves the constitutional arrangement that it's people agree on.

Thats nice to hear.

And that isn't one Parliament-does-all for the whole of England, I think a regional system is a better fit due to the many variances within England.

So you dont really thnk that England deserves the constitutional arrangement that it's people agree on if it's not regional as you suggest is best then.

I think my contributions are as relevant as yours. The thread has a natural flow, I don't think it's going offtrack, the lack of moderation in this and the Scottish thread is a welcome development.

Absolutely, just keep it related to the unjust situation where English taxes subsidise superior public services for Scotland, Wales and NI while English MP's can be voted against in Westminster on solely English issues when the same can not happen in the devolved administrations.

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by HelenConway

 

Helen you have presented nothing but sweeping generalisations of your impression of the Scots. If the shoe was on the other foot and I talked about the English the way that you do about the Scots I would be flamed.

I am presently what I see to be true. I am sorry if it does not concur with your reality. I know there are 6 million scots and most I would like to the same ratio as I would like any other nationality.

I supoort Scottish independence and you should be happy that so many people support your aims - surely.

Thank you for your feedback

reply to post by grainofsand


I think you ought to start chatting to your own mp's and demanding more for your money. Personal responsibility and all that.

reply to post by HelenConway


When was the last time you were in Scotland Helen?

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by grainofsand

 

I think you ought to start chatting to your own mp's and demanding more for your money. Personal responsibility and all that.

I have already done that with little success. It is irrelevant to the discussion though, and if that is the best reponse you can make to my considered argument about the unjust English funding of Scottish services while Scottish MP's have voting influence over English matters then you fail quite miserably...in public.