Tories urge English-only votes

was just watching a video on the BBC with Tory ex-minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind speaking to a BBC corespondent about how Only MPs for English constituencies should vote on English matters,

since Scotland, Wales and northern island already do this for their local matters



video

Wouldn't it be better to have a separate English parliament and a more federal system?

Ironic that Rifkind himself used to hold a Scottish seat until he was voted out in the 1997 election. Now that he inhabits a Tory safe seat in London (Kensington and Chelsea, no less), isn't this a bit hypocritical of Rifkind (who is Scottish himself, I should point out).

Parties shouldn't play politics with the union for their own political gain (especially if they're called the 'Conservative and Unionist Party'). It's not as clear-cut as they like to make out; the Welsh Assembly has different powers from the Scottish Parliament (so more legislation passed by the Commons affects Wales) and bills that superficially appear to only affect England may very well have knock-on effects for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (and vice versa, indeed).

It's pretty ridiculous that this is such a big issue after three centuries anyway. Haven't we got better things to do than pander to nationalists? Here I was thinking sorting out the mess in Iraq out (which our troops are in the middle of) or trying to eradicate hospital superbugs was more important. Silly me.

Originally posted by Ste2652
It's pretty ridiculous that this is such a big issue after three centuries anyway. Haven't we got better things to do than pander to nationalists? Here I was thinking sorting out the mess in Iraq out (which our troops are in the middle of) or trying to eradicate hospital superbugs was more important. Silly me.

Yes, silly you, principles, like football are more important than life and death. Mad.

Dont feel bad guys.

Afterall, when the # hits the fan the New York Yankees will team up with Manchester United and save the day right?

I mean you would sure think so with the way people go gaga over a freaking game.

It's pretty ridiculous that this is such a big issue after three centuries anyway. Haven't we got better things to do than pander to nationalists? Here I was thinking sorting out the mess in Iraq out (which our troops are in the middle of) or trying to eradicate hospital superbugs was more important. Silly me.

Why is it so ridiculous, I agree it is about high time that england had its own parliament, to decide on english issues. We can have westminster still there to decide on national issues.. Why should the english not have their own parliement?

After all us scottish and Welsh have thiers. A good thing for democracy maybe.

Why nopt have MEP's ya know english members of parliement just as we have msp's here in scotland, with us voting for mps to wesminster. Knows it would cost us the taxpayers more money. That the only way I can see how this is going to work... Other than that scrap all parliements/assemblies and restore central power to wesminster...

Its like QMV but in reverse. In Europe, bigger countries get less votes per head than the small countries, in the UK, the biggest country has the least say over its own affairs. The little 'uns have to get their blood somehow........

reply to post by spencerjohnstone


As I said, I think there are far more important issues to deal with than this issue... and that it's been three centuries since the union. Now personally I would say that Britain (England, Scotland, Wales and later Ireland/Northern Ireland) haven't done bad out of the union at all and will continue to do well out of it - better than they will alone, at any rate.

An English parliament is a more complex issue, for two key reasons:

1) England's size. About 50,000,000 people live in England... to have a single English Parliament would, in my opinion, defeat the purpose of devolution because it would have to take such a huge number of people into account. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are of a decent size for them just to have a single parliament/assembly. Which runs nicely into my next point.

2) England's diversity. The needs of the North East of England are much different from those of the South East, for example (in many ways... economically, socially, politically and culturally too I think). And because of the population imbalance between the north and south, the south would have the most seats in a single parliament meaning that the issues of northern England were not properly addressed. Legislation would be passed in favour of the south because of the sheer number of seats they had.

To remedy this, it'd probably be better to have at least four parliaments covering England (perhaps more... having about 5-6million per Parliament, just like Scotland has, might be best?) though I'm still not entirely convinced that there needs to be devolved government for England. I think I've mentioned before that I'm not a big fan of devolution.

Rifkind isn't proposing an English parliament, only an answer to the Midlothian question which Labour has ignored for 10 years, whilst at the same time, devolving power to Scotland and Wales. The main issue here is that MP's from Scotland can vote on English and Welsh only legislation.

He is proposing a "Grand Committee" made up of the already existing English MP's to sit when the Speaker of the House decides that the legislation being discussed affects only England. Your argument about the south having more votes doesn't really hold water when you consider there will be no change to the constituency make up. Unless you believe that the constituencies are already imbalanced?

Let's take the Higher Education Act, for example. Not only did Labour completely backtrack on an Election promise to not introduce Top Up fee's for University, but they only passed the legislation with a majority because of vote's from Scottish MP's (who do get a greater number of seats in parliament than their population should allow) , even though the Act only governs England and Wales.

To rub salt in the wound, Scotland themselves voted against such a move in their own parliament!!

See the problem?

Sorry, but this "Grand Committee" approach is simply not workable and it's grossly unconstitutional.

The Westminster parliament is elected as a whole to form an executive Government there is no provision for significant sections of its members to simply opt out of certain matters; and where does that process end? Under the Conservative's proposals Gordon Brown would not be able to vote on, (for example), transport policy matters in England, but would he be able to discuss such matters in cabinet, and if so why? What happens when a departmental minister is from a Scottish constituency, would he not be able to discuss and promote his own department's policies to the extent that they only affect England & Wales? What would happen if a Government had no English majority, should the party of Government even be setting the agenda for English policies in that circumstance?

No matter how valid the "West Lothian Question" may be this is certainly not the answer.

The problem stems from the fact that we have four parliamentary assemblies in the UK and all have different levels of power and authority. It is, to put it succinctly a right bugger's muddle. Soundings taken after Scottish devolution showed that there was no appetite for English regional parliaments and the cost of dropping yet another tier of government into the middle of an already over populated system would be horrendous.

Sadly, what we have left ourselves with is a half baked system of devolved government which originates from a whole string of compromises designed to keep Scottish and Welsh Nationalism in check whilst not giving them enough freedom to actually threaten the Union. Backtracking on Scottish devolution is not an option whilst replicating the system in England would be costly and unpopular and none of that even begins to address the Welsh situation where their assembly has far less power than the Scottish version, (although their model may actually be the most appropriate for all the home nations even though the Scots would never have been satisfied with its limited authority).

I won't be holding my breath in anticipation of any significant changes anytime soon.

In that case, we have two options in order to sort this mess out.

First, go down the federal route, akin to Germany. I know some will chime in and say "well, the English were offered regional assemblies".

My answer to that would be, so?

England has been a United country for over 900 years. It makes no sense to have it broken up into some artifical "regions" that have bugger all power. No one suggested breaking Scotland into Highlands, Lowlands and the various islands, did they? So why can we not keep our national integrity?

Separate Parliaments for each of the Union members with powers over domestic policy. If we got rid of the Queen, this would be even easier. We could then dispose of the need to have a UK Parliament on top of National parliaments and just have a President with a cabinet for issues of UK wide significance.

Secondly, break up the Union.

Those are the two options I see. If any one else could propose something that would be good, but can we cut the crap when it comes to "constitutional" matters, because we all know, we don't have a constitution, so it's just a way to scare people into not dealing with the issue.

There is a very real problem that is not being addressed.

EDIT: Also, if anyone thinks that English people just don't care, may I suggest you go to the BBC Have your Say Forums about the issue. There is currently 144 pages of comments, of which, 95% (both Scots, Welsh, English and foreigners) support the idea of the English actually being in control of their own country.

[edit on 29/10/07 by stumason]

A single English parliament is conceivable although we would still have to address the problem that the Welsh Assembly has significantly less power that the Scottish parliament so they too would probably have to be brought up to the same status.

There are, however, two serious issues to be overcome.

1. Cost: foreign policy, defence, security and most treasury matters are still managed on a UK basis and realistically they must remain there; it would be inconceivable that these areas of government could be run by a President and cabinet without reference to a UK parliament. This means, of course, that we need a two tier parliamentary system, (in addition to anything up to three tiers of local government), which will be horrendously expensive and a bureaucratic nightmare.

2. Quality: being the cynic that I am I fail to see where we will find politicians and public servants of sufficient quality to fill all these posts when we appear to struggle to populate our existing institutions with individuals of suitable standing and ability.

I fear that we have got ourselves into a position which we cannot reverse out of and from which we can only move forwards at absurd cost and at a very real risk of terminally damaging the Union.

reply to post by stumason


No, you missed my point. I'm saying that Rifkind's proposal won't solve the issue, and the only way to solve it is to scrap devolution altogether (my preferred option, given the circumstances. But I know it won't happen - the genie is out of the bottle) or placate the English with their own Parliament or, better still, Parliaments. I wasn't referring to UK Parliament constituencies in my post - I was referring to theoretical constituencies of a single English Parliament (which, like the UK Parliament, would certainly be based on population; constituencies of roughly a certain number of people). Due to the sheer number of people living in the South East, especially with London, this would mean that the South would have a large number (the largest minority by far) of seats and therefore a single Parliament for England would not work for 'England' as a whole but for the South East which means that the issues and concerns of the rest of England are ignored or sidelined - how long until people start grumbling about "us southerners subsidising the north", as we presently hear about Scotland? Thus it goes on. Part of the reason for splitting up England was due to its sheer size (50,000,000+ is a lot of people for one parliament. The US has states which, if you average it out, contain 6million each... or about the same population as Scotland). For a federal system to be effective, power has to be devolved to significantly lower levels than the central government - England as a whole can't offer this due to its size and its large population, especially when compared with the other Home Nations.

This isn't about 'destroying' England at all - it's simply about good, democratic and effective government that's closer to the people it governs. I don't see any feasible way for a single English parliament to do that. There's no reason why you can't still support an English sports team or say you're English or what have you. As I said, it's a state of mind.

The problem will be compounded because those calling for a single English parliament haven't thought through the way it might work and the imbalances that need to be addressed. They've just got this idea of England in their head and they won't let it go. That's a bad way to alter a system of government. It has to be carefully considered, with petty nationalism taken out of the deliberations completely so we end up with a fair and democratic result. We do have a constitution, by the way - you're thinking of one like the US Constitution, which is written down. If we didn't have one then there'd be no Parliament, no monarchy, no prime minister, no cabinet... no method of governing our country - it is the constitution that has sustained these institutions and dictates their powers and duties. Constitutions are very complex things and take various forms... but that's a debate for another day.

However this problem is solved (and it needs to be), this has to be done with a great deal of care and attention (with all parties being involved so that, even if Labour lose the next election, whoever replaces them carries on the constitutional change as agreed without the election upsetting things).

[edit on 29/10/07 by Ste2652]

Why would a President and cabinet not work for UK wide issues? It works well enough in the USA? State legislature, then Federal (congress/senate) then the executive.

*cough*

Well...

It kind of works, anyway.... I'm sure we could put in a few improvements...



Whatever happens, something will have to give eventually. This issue is gaining momentum every year and one day will come a time when the Scots MP's are called upon by Labour to vote in something the English really[i/] don't like.

Also, I'd just like to be clear. I'm not anti-Scottish. I'm all for they're own determination, be it with us, or on their own. But the double standard cause by devolution, where the Welsh got screwed along with us English by a bunch of Scottish Blairites, is creating friction where there should be none.