Should England have it's own Parliament?

Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

I think Helen raises a good point though. I think that the official figures will not include many Citizens that have a British Passport, which can be acheived within 3 years of living in Britain.

Why do you think that? I don't understand why the official figures would not include the kind of individual you're describing.

I was in Tooting the other day and it's a heavily muslim area. The guy I was with - a councillor as it happens - asked me to guess how many in the ward are of Asian descent. I guessed 60, based on the numbers of people on the street. The real answer is around 20. He knows this because he campaigns and they maintain very up-to-date databases of who lives where. It's a community that he's intimately involved with.

The point is that just looking around and guessing is not a valid way of assessing the ethnic makeup of an area. This discussion began because I refuted Helen's notion that London, if it had a parliament, would probably be governed under Sharia law.

I know she was just making a silly comment, but the dispassionate facts, not made by someone who just vaguely feels that there are a lot of foreigners about, is that a small % of Londoners are Muslim, and even fewer are interested in Sharia government.

Originally posted by HelenConway

Look disco can you please get back on topic and if you want to take your grievances about London's ethnic mix take it on to another thread. This discussion is about a parliament for England.
Otherwise you are trolling.

I don't have any grievances about it. It's you that doesn't like it.

But I take your point. Since your error has been highlighted I'm sure we can move on.

My gosh, such an interesting rush of comments here while I've been at work.
Rather than individually quoting the posts which I felt needed a response I shall address the two which seem the most important to my discussions in the OP.

Again, a claim has been made that England needs the Scottish oil.
Previously I posted this report by the Governments Scotland Office:

www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk...

The main findings are:
• If all North Sea oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland there would only have been 9 years out of the last 27 when Scotland’s finances would have been in surplus.
• Including all North Sea oil revenues the last year of surplus was in 1988-89 and since then there has been 18 years of annual deficits with Scotland’s spending being greater than the tax raised in Scotland.
• Even if all oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland the total deficit would have outweighed the total surplus by £20bn since 1980-81.

This clearly makes a different case. As this has obviously been ignored or missed by readers of this thread, I would ask that if anyone disagrees with it then they need to provide a source to support their claims. If no such effort is made to counteract my case then it can only be held to be mere assertion on the posters part.

Another claim made, effectively that the English taxpayer has to accept extra per capita subsidy/funding due to the rural nature of Scotland.
Again, previously in this thread I provided a useful link showing the population density demographics of the UK.
Map here>> www.guardian.co.uk...
I also asked the question why an equally rural and poor area of the UK, the South West of England where I live has to subsidise Scotland?
Why is the spending per capita on SW England residents just £8588 compared to £10212 for residents of Scotland?

If anyone is passionate about this justification for poor rural areas of England having to subsidise Scotland, then again, please counter my examples with quoted sources, or reports to support your argument.
Assertions in this thread are deeply misleading without any attempt to support the various claims.

I do not claim to be absolutely correct in everything I raise in this thread, however I do make the effort to provide reading to support my claims. I am more than happy to reconsider my views if presented with some evidence to do so, but unsupported assertions are unhelpful to honest debate about serious constitutional issues.

*Edit* The Scotland Office link appears to be down at the moment with a placeholder page advising that the document is being virus checked - this is unusual and I read the entire document before posting it earlier in the thread, here's a Google search of the text just to show you that it has existed online Unavailable Link search
In the search results you will find other sites which have used the source, but unfortunately these could only be regarded as secondary information. I prefer to use primary sources and presumably the link will be available again soon.

Again, if anyone disagrees with this government report then it is up to the person making the claims to provide evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by grainofsand
My gosh, such an interesting rush of comments here while I've been at work.
Rather than individually quoting the posts which I felt needed a response I shall address the two which seem the most important to my discussions in the OP.

Again, a claim has been made that England needs the Scottish oil.
Previously I posted this report by the Governments Scotland Office:

www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk...

The main findings are:
• If all North Sea oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland there would only have been 9 years out of the last 27 when Scotland’s finances would have been in surplus.
• Including all North Sea oil revenues the last year of surplus was in 1988-89 and since then there has been 18 years of annual deficits with Scotland’s spending being greater than the tax raised in Scotland.
• Even if all oil revenues had been allocated to Scotland the total deficit would have outweighed the total surplus by £20bn since 1980-81.

This clearly makes a different case. As this has obviously been ignored or missed by readers of this thread, I would ask that if anyone disagrees with it then they need to provide a source to support their claims. If no such effort is made to counteract my case then it can only be held to be mere assertion on the posters part.

Another claim made, effectively that the English taxpayer has to accept extra per capita subsidy/funding due to the rural nature of Scotland.
Again, previously in this thread I provided a useful link showing the population density demographics of the UK.
Map here>> www.guardian.co.uk...
I also asked the question why an equally rural and poor area of the UK, the South West of England where I live has to subsidise Scotland?
Why is the spending per capita on SW England residents just £8588 compared to £10212 for residents of Scotland?

If anyone is passionate about this justification for poor rural areas of England having to subsidise Scotland, then again, please counter my examples with quoted sources, or reports to support your argument.
Assertions in this thread are deeply misleading without any attempt to support the various claims.

I do not claim to be absolutely correct in everything I raise in this thread, however I do make the effort to provide reading to support my claims. I am more than happy to reconsider my views if presented with some evidence to do so, but unsupported assertions are unhelpful to honest debate about serious constitutional issues.

Why are the Torries so keen to keep Scotland in the UK if we don't pay our way? They have no support up here so why not let us leave? Should this not suit the Torries and England?

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Why are the Torries so keen to keep Scotland in the UK if we don't pay our way? They have no support up here so why not let us leave? Should this not suit the Torries and England?

That is irrelevant to the OP asking if England should have a parliament similar to Scotland with it's own MP's voting on solely English issues, instead of a situation where non-English MP's can vote on English only issues.

It is also irrelevant to the question of fairness regarding distribution of English taxes in the UK.

These are the questions I posed originally and am interested in discussing, as stated many times.
If you disagree with my position then please explain why and provide sources to counter my own.
If you wish to ask why you feel the Conservative party is allegedly keen to keep Scotland in the union, that is a seperate issue which you may like to start your own topic on. In this discussion I consider it a sidetrack.

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Why are the Torries so keen to keep Scotland in the UK if we don't pay our way? They have no support up here so why not let us leave? Should this not suit the Torries and England?

That is irrelevant to the OP asking if England should have a parliament similar to Scotland with it's own MP's voting on solely English issues, instead of a situation where non-English MP's can vote on English only issues.

It is also irrelevant to the question of fairness regarding distribution of English taxes in the UK.

These are the questions I posed originally and am interested in discussing, as stated many times.
If you disagree with my position then please explain why and provide sources to counter my own.
If you wish to ask why you feel why the Conservative party is allegedly keen to keep Scotland in the union, that is a seperate issue which you may like to start your own topic on. In this discussion I consider it a sidetrack.

It's not irrelevant, if England wanted their own Parliament they would have it! Why don't they? That's the question.
Looking into this question will also answer the question of distribution of English taxes. It's all linked, undoubtedly.

Originally posted by DrunkYogi

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Why are the Torries so keen to keep Scotland in the UK if we don't pay our way? They have no support up here so why not let us leave? Should this not suit the Torries and England?

That is irrelevant to the OP asking if England should have a parliament similar to Scotland with it's own MP's voting on solely English issues, instead of a situation where non-English MP's can vote on English only issues.

It is also irrelevant to the question of fairness regarding distribution of English taxes in the UK.

These are the questions I posed originally and am interested in discussing, as stated many times.
If you disagree with my position then please explain why and provide sources to counter my own.
If you wish to ask why you feel why the Conservative party is allegedly keen to keep Scotland in the union, that is a seperate issue which you may like to start your own topic on. In this discussion I consider it a sidetrack.

It's not irrelevant, if England wanted their own Parliament they would have it! Why don't they? That's the question.
Looking into this question will also answer the question of distribution of English taxes. It's all linked, undoubtedly.

Scotland leaving the union is irrelevant to this discussion and there is a separate thread currently running where you can ask party political questions about the Tory intentions.
This thread is about the status quo where Scotland, England and NI have their own devolved administrations deciding their own allocation of taxes with no influence from English MP's.
Non-English MP's can influence budget decisions in England through their vote in the UK houses of Parliament.

If you scan back to page 11 you will find the most recent poll results showing 49% of English voters wanting an English parliament and 34% so far undecided.

If you do not wish to adhere to the specifics of this thread I shall not respond to your off-topic comments.
My position is clear and my questions and concerns are equally clear, with supporting links from various sources. Your unrelated questions and assertions remain irrelevant to this specific debate.

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by DrunkYogi

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Why are the Torries so keen to keep Scotland in the UK if we don't pay our way? They have no support up here so why not let us leave? Should this not suit the Torries and England?

That is irrelevant to the OP asking if England should have a parliament similar to Scotland with it's own MP's voting on solely English issues, instead of a situation where non-English MP's can vote on English only issues.

It is also irrelevant to the question of fairness regarding distribution of English taxes in the UK.

These are the questions I posed originally and am interested in discussing, as stated many times.
If you disagree with my position then please explain why and provide sources to counter my own.
If you wish to ask why you feel why the Conservative party is allegedly keen to keep Scotland in the union, that is a seperate issue which you may like to start your own topic on. In this discussion I consider it a sidetrack.

It's not irrelevant, if England wanted their own Parliament they would have it! Why don't they? That's the question.
Looking into this question will also answer the question of distribution of English taxes. It's all linked, undoubtedly.

Scotland leaving the union is irrelevant to this discussion and there is a separate thread currently running where you can ask party political questions about the Tory intentions.

If you scan back to page 11 you will find the most recent poll results showing 49% of English voters wanting an English parliament and 34% so far undecided.

If you do not wish to adhere to the specifics of this thread I shall not respond to your off-topic comments.
My position is clear and my questions and concerns are equally clear, with supporting links from various sources. Your unrelated questions and assertions remain irrelevant to this specific debate.

edit on 31-1-2013 by grainofsand because: Typo, again.

How is Scotland leaving the Union irrelevant to a debate about whether England should have it's own Parliament?
If you mean a devolved Parliament then you should have said so in your OP!!!

As for 49% of English voter's wanting an English Parliament, if the Torries don't want it it wont happen!

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
How is Scotland leaving the Union irrelevant to a debate about whether England should have it's own Parliament?

Because Scottish independence is clearly a separate constitutional issue unrelated to my comments in the OP.

If you mean a devolved Parliament then you should have said so in your OP!!!

It is pretty clear in the OP and every other poster so far has been able to understand that. If you were unable to from the original post and subsequent pages then I would suggest that is your own fault. Now you understand it though it is time for you to remain on-topic.

As for 49% of English voter's wanting an English Parliament, if the Torries don't want it it wont happen!

Again, another unsubstantiated assertion on your part.

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by DrunkYogi
How is Scotland leaving the Union irrelevant to a debate about whether England should have it's own Parliament?

Because Scottish independance is clearly a separate constitutional issue unrelated to my comments in the OP.

If you mean a devolved Parliament then you should have said so in your OP!!!

It is pretty clear in the OP and every other poster so far has been able to understand that. If you were unable to from the original post and subsequent pages then I would suggest that is your own fault. Now you understand it though it is time for you to remain on-topic.

No it's not clear, do you think im psychic? If you wanted it to be clear you should have said it in the OP instead of trying to back track!

As for 49% of English voter's wanting an English Parliament, if the Torries don't want it it wont happen!

Again, another unsubstantiated assertion on your part.

Unsubstantiated yes! but then again there is a high percentage chance it's true, don't you think? Then again going with your blind attitude probably not.

reply to post by DrunkYogi
The intentions of the OP have been clear to everyone else as I've already said. If you were unable to see that this thread is a separate issue to the Scottish Independence one currently running then, yes it is unfortunate that in 15 pages you appear to be the only person who missed it. That is regrettable but implies more about you than the quality of my writings in the original post.

Your opinion of my attitude is again irrelevant to this discussion. I have remained to the point and factual with reasoned arguments supported by various sources, and I shall continue to do so.
It would be helpful and appreciated if you refrained from continuing with your off topic emotionally charged assertions.

I am happy however to continue a healthy debate about my points in the OP and any other arguments I have made so far. If you agree or disagree on any specific points please feel free to present your case with any relevant sources to support your comments. That is my sole concern here, considering an important constitutional question relating to England - your personal assertions are unfortunately not what could be considered rational and mature debate.

*Edit*
I have so far enjoyed reading many of the contributions to the questions I have raised in this thread.
The debate over an English parliament is a developing concern for many English voters who feel strongly about the issue, although with few platforms aside from The English Democrats and The Campaign for an English Parliament.
As such, I intend this thread to be a serious debate to raise the profile of the campaign and increase knowledge of the concerns I, and many others have. Grassroots yes, but with the high page ranking of ATS threads in Google there will be people who stumble upon this during a search about the topic at hand, so I feel it is useful no matter how small the impact may or may not be.

If anyone has serious and reasoned contributions to make about the OP then of course they are absolutely welcomed, but unsubstantiated assertions and emotionally charged irrelevant coments are unhelpful to this discussion. If the thread dies due to lack of interest then that's just life, I shall remember it fondly, but as OP I am passionate about preventing the debate from crashing to the depths of some gun control or religious topics, and I will continue to defend sensible discussion

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by DrunkYogi

 

The intentions of the OP have been clear to everyone else as I've already said. If you were unable to see that this thread is a separate issue to the Scottish Independence one currently running then, yes it is unfortunate that in 15 pages you appear to be the only person who missed it. That is regrettable but implies more about you than the quality of my writings in the original post.

Your opinion of my attitude is again irrelevant to this discussion. I have remained to the point and factual with reasoned arguments supported by various sources, and I shall continue to do so.
It would be helpful and appreciated if you refrained from continuing with your off topic emotionally charged assertions.

I am happy however to continue a healthy debate about my points in the OP and any other arguments I have made so far. If you agree or disagree on any specific points please feel free to present your case with any relevant sources to support your comments. That is my sole concern here, considering an important constitutional question relating to England - your personal assertions are unfortunately not what could be considered rational and mature debate.

edit on 31-1-2013 by grainofsand because: Typo

The title of your post was " Should England have it's own Parliament" Unless im very much mistaken the word Devolution does not appear! Does it? Now that my friend implies more about your careless, unthinking, shoddy start to your thread than my replies since.

There are no Emotionally charged assertion's. You did not include the word Devolution, this is a fact is it not? A yes or no will suffice.

Okay lets get technical. England already has the majority of MPs in parliament. Once Scotland leaves ( I am Scottish ) which will happen i cannot see it going any other way. Don't you think England will ultimately have its own Parliament as you hold the majority over other nations and once Scotland leaves your majority in the house of commons will be vast ?

reply to post by Snoopie


Yes I think that is exactly what will happen.

reply to post by DrunkYogi
Rather tiresome, but for your benefit, again, I repeat, you are the only person who didn't get it after 15 pages.
I don't particularly care that you didn't and I'm sure no-one else does. You are aware now, it is time to remain on-topic.

Originally posted by Snoopie
Okay lets get technical. England already has the majority of MPs in parliament. Once Scotland leaves ( I am Scottish ) which will happen i cannot see it going any other way. Don't you think England will ultimately have its own Parliament as you hold the majority over other nations and once Scotland leaves your majority in the house of commons will be vast ?

I agree, it looks probable that a majority of Scots will vote to leave the union.
I also agree that as the referendum debate grows in mainstream media, the issues of tax distribution and the West Lothian question will be raised in profile to a much greater extent among English voters, and it is likely there will be greater calls for an English parliament where (after independence) Welsh and Northern Irish MP's will still have a say in solely English budget votes.
That involves a lot of, as yet unknown, if's though, and my concern is the current situation we know now.
Pertinant questions which I do not feel should have to remain on a back-burner while waiting for Scotland to make their decision.

If you feel these questions should wait for the Scottish electorate to decide I would be interested to know why.
I feel the Scottish independence issue should not affect the valid question right now, or delay the debate in any way.

reply to post by grainofsand


"Rather tiresome, but for your benefit, again, I repeat, you are the only person who didn't get it after 15 pages".

Look, im tired too. Why don't you just admit that your title was misleading? Have you never been wrong before?
I have and when im wrong i admit it. This will be my last reply to you so the ball is in your court!

Again i reiterate that the title of your thread was " Should England have it's own Parliament".

I even cut and pasted the title into Microsoft Word and did a word search, i was looking for the word Devolution! You know what, unsurprisingly, i did not find it..........

reply to post by DrunkYogi
Scotland has it's own Parliament and is still part of the United Kingdom, you assumed independence where it was never mentioned. Everyone else understood the OP, you didn't and indicates more about your good self than the quality of my writings in this interesting discussion.
I am glad that was your last post here as this is a place for on-topic reasoned discussion about an important constitutional question, your contributions so far have not fitted that description.

*Edit*
I repeat again, I have so far enjoyed reading many of the contributions to the questions raised in this thread.
The debate over an English parliament is a developing concern for many English voters who feel strongly about the issue, although with few platforms aside from The English Democrats and The Campaign for an English Parliament.
As such, I intend this thread to be a serious debate to raise the profile of the campaign and increase knowledge of the concerns I, and many others have. Grassroots yes, but with the high page ranking of ATS threads in Google there will be people who stumble upon this during a search about the topic at hand, so I feel it is useful no matter how small the impact may or may not be.

If anyone has serious and reasoned contributions to make about the OP then of course they are absolutely welcomed, but unsubstantiated assertions and emotionally charged irrelevant coments are unhelpful to this discussion. If the thread dies due to lack of interest then that's just life, I shall remember it fondly, but as OP I am passionate about preventing the debate from crashing to the depths of some gun control, socialist healthcare or religious topics, and I will continue to defend sensible discussion