To anybody who is still sceptical about the use of ‘new media’ in political debate, take note; I’m still pretty much engaged in the English devolution debate started on Twitter a few weeks back, continued on my blog and now continuing to rumble on, on Twitter!
Only today, the SNP minority administration in Holyrood has announced draft plans for a referendum on either full Scottish independence or what they are calling ‘devolution plus’ (giving further responsibility to the Scottish Executive for matters still currently the remit of Westminster). What happens to the draft referendum bill, let alone what the result of any referendum would be, is purely a matter of political speculation at this stage. What I want to explore is the English dimension to all this.
As I have previously said, I am a Unionist. I want the United Kingdom to continue as a sovereign nation state. I believe that we are stronger together than we would be apart.
But the United Kingdom as we know it today, evolved over centuries– and must continue to evolve and adapt if it is indeed to survive for the future.
Wales was effectively conquered in the 14th century, and legally subsumed into England during the Tudor period. Scotland has been conquered, regained political independence, itself secured the English crown peacefully, and in 1707 voted to join England in a political union creating a whole new country, Great Britain. Ireland too, joined this political union in 1801 to create a ‘United’ Kingdom, and ever since those various points in history the debate about ‘independence’ and ‘Home Rule’ have dominated domestic politics – right through to this present day.
Britain has never actually been a unitary state. Scottish law remained different to that in England and Wales, and for many years Northern Ireland had its own Parliament despite still sending Members to Westminster too.
Without a doubt, the UK of 2010 is politically a changed place. Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a firm reality and – with a few hiccups along the way – has been largely successful for those nations. But there is also clear unfinished business in our constitutional arrangements.
Firstly, we in England need to decide what we want our relationship to be with the other home nations. We need to decide how best our own political arrangements can be improved to allow decisions to be taken at the appropriate level of government, and in a fair way. As I said previously, I have an open mind about how to address the ‘English question’.
I am not a fan of regional assemblies and never have been. I don’t believe my constituents want one and it would be largely irrelevant to them. Had we had the referendum in the North West, I would have campaigned for a no vote. I can, however, see some logic in having a devolved English Parliament with similar powers to Holyrood, and a much smaller UK Parliament for all reserved matters.
And, though I still think it would be largely unworkable, because most bills do have a Scottish or Welsh dimension (however small), I can also see the logic of having the status quo at Westminster but with only MPs from English constituencies voting on ‘English-only’ matters. I’m sure other ideas can be added to this fairly inexhaustive list!
Perhaps a good model to adopt would be the Australian and Canadian federal system where each state (provinces in Canada) have their own legislature, government and Premier, and then a Federal Government and Prime Minister overseeing all the national politics. We are three-quarters the way there anyway!
Whatever the model, perhaps the starting point needs to be the establishment of a cross-party, cross-civic society Constitutional Convention. Let’s thrash out a devolution settlement for England and put an agreed position to the people and let them decide how we wish to be governed for the future. And, for someone who wants to defend the Union, importantly let’s debate what England’s political relationship should be within a modern United Kingdom.
Let that debate continue…
Before we have a constitutional convention I think we need a more broad-based national conversation for England to engage the public in debate over the English Question. The trouble with a constitutional convention is that we’ll get a load of politicians, union leaders, churchmen, self-appointed or government appointed civic leaders etc., all pontificating on what’s best for “the people”.
Let’s consult the people first and find our what they want, let’s have a national discussion with TV programmes, town hall meetings, online consultation. For too long England and English identity has been subsumed in Britain and British identity, and politicians of all hues have gone out of their way to suppress expressions of Englishness.
The constitutional convention that follows should take it’s lead from the public consultation, and it should start from the position that the people of England are sovereign and have the right to determine how they are governed, whether they want more local democracy, an English parliament or outright English independence.
I quite agree with Toque. If we leave it to the politicians and self selecting ‘leaders’, we will get what they want and not what we want.
Good one Toque!
Thank you Andrew
At last an MP who represents an English Constituency begins a debate over what form of Devolution England should have.
Lets hope others who will do the same. It is long overdue.
At least a Constitutional Convention would be the start of a process of rectifying the democratic defecit England is in. However I agree with Toque above the danger is Politicians etc could usurp it. A full debate amongst the English people would be better.
Again at least this is a beginning to that conversation that needs to be had.
I hope you will promote this idea amongst your colleagues and get them to sign up to it.
Best Regards
FloTom
Whether you have a Convention first, or engage the public first, a proper discussion needs to take place with all those groups in Toque’s reply (even the politicians!) so that any proposals brought forward can command fullest support.
Hello all,
I certainly hope that in any conversation or constitutional convention concerning England’s future Cornwall and the Cornish question would get a fair hearing.
The Cornish are an historic nation of the southwest of Great Britain. They have their own lesser used Celtic language, related to Breton and Welsh, more distantly to Scottish, Manx and Irish Gaelic. Alongside the Cornish language can be found specific sports and sporting tradition; Cornish music, dance and cuisine and a distinct political culture. These phenomena are all bound up together with a popular self-perception as being other than English, as being Cornish Britons. More authentic Cornish culture can be found here: http://www.cornishculture.co.uk/
The ethnic data from the 2009 Cornish schools survey showed that 34% of children consider themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English. The results from the 2001 UK population census show over 37,000 people hold a Cornish identity instead of English or British. On this census, to claim to be Cornish, you had to deny being British, by crossing out the British option and then write ‘Cornish’ in the “other” box. This does not represent a mere clerical error or poorly thought through wording. This represents a denial of the right of the Cornish to describe themselves in terms of their identity. It might seem trite to complain about something that happened years ago, but the 2001 census will remain relevant until the next one (in 2011). How many more people would have described themselves as Cornish if they did not have to deny being British or if there had been a specific Cornish tick box? How many people knew that writing ‘Cornish’ in the “other” box was an option? This was extremely poorly publicised. How many ticked British but feel Cornish British would have been closer to the truth.
Over the last few years various Cornish groups and individuals have been campaigning for the Cornish to be recognised for protection under the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM). Such recognition would be a powerful tool to ensure correct treatment and protection of the Cornish national minority and its culture. The UK’s Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) in its shadow report on the FCNM produced on the 30th of March 2007 advised the government that the treaty could be extended to protect Cornish culture and also raised concerns about the lack of legal equality for minorities in the UK. Recently the Council of Europe has also suggested that the FCNM could be extended to include the Cornish.
This officially sanctioned silence on the existence of a Cornish identity must stop. Why will the government not ask the Office of National Statistics to include a Cornish tick box on the 2011 census? The ‘Life in the United Kingdom’ handbook, required reading for all who wish to immigrate to the UK, quotes the census heavily when describing the regions and ethnic diversity of the UK. Why are the Cornish not mentioned once? Why has UK government so far blocked all attempts at ensuring the Cornish are recognised under the FCNM and ignored the advice of the CRE and CoE?
In 2008 some decided that enough was enough and started to collect funds for a court action to challenge the governments’ decision to exclude the Cornish from the FCNM. The purpose of the fund was to pay much of the costs involved in pursuing a legal action against the UK Government. The action was deemed necessary after government’s constant, dogmatic and wholly irrational, refusal to include the Cornish within an international treaty designed to, among other things, introduce educational pluralism in their traditional homeland and thus bring to an end the forced assimilation of the Cornish people. Sadly not enough pledges of money where forthcoming. Even if £40,000 in pledges were collected this was deemed insufficient.
With the arrival of the New Labour government in the United Kingdom in the mid 90’s a process was engaged that resulted in devolved governmental bodies being given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. At this time the government also made the offer of devolution to any ‘English region’ that could prove an interest. Following a popular campaign for a Cornish assembly supported by a petition of 50,000 signatures the government reneged on its promise adding that only what it considered to be a ‘region’ could be offered an assembly. For them Cornwall was but a subdivision of a larger and somewhat artificial Southwest region. For many Cornish residents however Cornwall is one of the six Celtic nations of the European Atlantic arc and a constitutional royal duchy.
Over the last 3 centuries Cornwall has gone from being on the leading edge of the industrial revolution to being one of the poorest regions of Europe. In recent history Kernow has qualified for Objective One Funding from the EU as have many regions of the former communist block. Today little has changed with Cornwall still qualifying for European funding. Low wages, unskilled ‘Mc Jobs’, poverty, social problems, drugs, and rocketing housing prices are the often hidden face of the optimistically named “English” Rivera. Coupled with this Cornwall have seen the ‘centralisation’ of services, institutions and government bodies, followed by the skilled jobs they entail, out of the Duchy. This process has been much to the benefit of various undemocratic and faceless ‘South West of England’ unelected governmental bodies and quangos.
To begin to address the above problems many in Cornwall, including Cornish nationalists Mebyon Kernow, have called for decision making powers to be devolved to a Cornish body of governance. Cornwall Council’s Feb 2003 MORI Poll showed 55% in favour of a democratically-elected, fully-devolved regional assembly for Cornwall, (this was an increase from 46% in favour in a 2002 poll). In 2000 The Cornish Constitutional Convention launched a campaign that resulted in a petition signed by 50,000 people calling for a fully devolved Cornish assembly. The campaign generated support from across the political spectrum in Cornwall. To date it has been the largest expression of popular support for devolution in the whole of the United Kingdom. The UK government has ignored all requests for greater Cornish home rule. For information and updates on the campaign for a Cornish assembly you can visit their website at: http://www.cornishassembly.org/
So it must be asked why the government is being so stubborn when it comes to giving the Cornish any form of devolution or recognition? Perhaps the answer rests in out constitutional subsoil.
Even if the UK government, Duchy authority, or history curriculum are loathed to touch the subject, Cornwall does in fact have a distinct constitutional history as a Duchy with an autonomous parliamentary legal system called the Stannaries. If you ask about the constitutional nature of the Duchy, if you are not ignored, then you will be told that the Duchy is a “well-managed private estate which funds the public, charitable and private activities of The Prince of Wales and his family. The Duchy consists of around 54,648 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England”. However this seems to fly in the face of the 19th century the legal arguments of Duchy officials, which defeated the UK Crown’s aspirations of sovereignty over the Cornish foreshore. The Duchy of Cornwall at that time argued that the Duke had sovereignty of Cornwall and not the Crown. On behalf of the Duchy in its successful action against the Crown, which resulted in the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act of 1858, Sir George Harrison (Attorney General for Cornwall) made this submission:
That Cornwall, like Wales, was at the time of the Conquest, and was subsequently treated in many respects as distinct from England.
That it was held by the Earls of Cornwall with the rights and prerogative of a County Palatine, as far as regarded the Seignory or territorial dominion.
That the Dukes of Cornwall have from the creation of the Duchy enjoyed the rights and prerogatives of a County Palatine, as far as regarded seignory or territorial dominion, and that to a great extent by Earls.
That when the Earldom was augmented into a Duchy, the circumstances attending to it’s creation, as well as the language of the Duchy Charter, not only support and confirm natural presumption, that the new and higher title was to be accompanied with at least as great dignity, power, and prerogative as the Earls enjoyed, but also afforded evidence that the Duchy was to be invested with still more extensive rights and privileges.
The Duchy Charters have always been construed and treated, not merely by the Courts of Judicature, but also by the Legislature of the Country, as having vested in the Dukes of Cornwall the whole territorial interest and dominion of the Crown in and over the entire County of Cornwall.
In the book “The Cornish Question” by Mark Sandford that was published by the Constitutional Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London in 2002 it states that – “The existence of the Duchy of Cornwall was once of constitutional significance, but is now essentially a commercial organisation”. Considering that this commercial organisation is the largest landowner in Cornwall and claims to be nothing but a private estate and company, you would think it reasonable to expect there to be an official date of change-over from an official body of constitutional significance into a purely private commercial organisation.
The charters that created the Duchy, the first of 1337 being published in 1978 as Statutes in Force Constitutional law, give the Duke the powers of: “The King’s Writ and Summons of Exchequer” throughout Cornwall. These powers of the Duke of Cornwall represent the powers of government and they are certainly not what you would expect from a simple private landed estate something. Research reveals that the public spirited Crown Estate provides cultural support and housing for the public everywhere in the UK except Cornwall. It is also subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The Duchy of Cornwall is the analogous body in Cornwall but, in a departure from its historical role, it now claims to be a private estate with exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000. A stratagem designed to deter investigation into Duchy constitution and Cornish history perhaps?
In the Cornwall Submarine Mines Act 1858 it states that the Duchy of Cornwall is a ‘territorial possession’ of Britain. So, sometime between 1858 and the present day, a territory of Britain transformed into a private commercial organisation, when, if at all, did this happen? When Cornish MP Andrew George raised questions on the 16th June 1997 about the affairs of the Duchy he was told that there is an injunction in the House of Commons that prevents such questions being raised.
In my opinion these are questions that should be deemed important enough to be answered by someone in authority, whether that authority is a Government office or the Duchy of Cornwall. Claiming a national territory and making it your own private business whilst denying the indigenous population its history and identity is no small affair. An attempt has been made to separate the Duchy of Cornwall, which is not subject to English tax legislation, from the territory of Cornwall, the argument being that the Duchy has a separate existence to the geographical area of Cornwall and holds property outside the area. The argument is spurious and flies in the face of the Duchy case of 1856. It seems no coherent description of the Duchy is available and all attempts to obtain a clear picture of this strange Janus faced body have been ignored.
In present day Cornwall the playing field is tilted against the indigenous Cornish identity. The impression promoted is that the Cornish nation has only ever been an insignificant sub-division of some awe-inspiring, all-powerful, fully homogeneous, fixed and eternal England. With the English education system encouraging English nationalism in Cornwall at the expense of the indigenous Cornish identity, the exploitation of Cornwall has been acceptable to the state while the absence from English law of the international right to an enforceable equality before the law has protected the Duchy authority from an effective legal challenge. The result is that the Duke of Cornwall’s fortune from Cornish assets continues to relieve England from paying tax to support the heir to the throne whilst all moves that would empower the Cornish, hence threatening the Duchy, have been stifled. The Duchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association website explores these Cornish constitutional issues in much greater detail: http://duchyofcornwall.eu/
When the UK government and Duchy authority finally decide to be honest about the autonomous position of the Duchy of Cornwall within the UK perhaps then an open debate about Cornish devolution and our future governance can begin.
This is fascinating, I had no idea that the Cornish people considered themselves separate from England. I intend to learn all there is to learn about this.
As far as further devolution goes in the UK; are we not in danger of weakening the position of the UK by effectively chopping it up that we risk becoming an insignificant player globally?
Andrew, I did start a campaign on Labour Space called “A National Conversation for England“, but unfortunately, despite the fact that it was once the top campaign, it just received a completely dismissive reply from Ed Miliband. This is Ed’s reply:
Three times I have sent Ed this letter, but to date he has failed to respond or even acknowledge it.
It’s unfortunate that Labour are unwilling to tackle the issue of English identity, democracy and governance. The longer you leave it the more capital the far-right make from the political vacuum.
Unfortunate, but totally unsurprising.
It shouldn’t be surprising though. Labour people (dare I say it (stereo-typing), working class and northern people) have, in my opinion, a more authentic idea of England than the Tory shire horse Anglo-Britishness.
There’s no reason why Labour cannot be pro-English. Maybe Labour, if they have to win back England from the Tories, and as devolution progresses in Scotland and Wales, will come around to the English dimension by default. Maybe MPs like Andrew, Frank Field, Blunkett, and some on the progressive left – Compass types – will push for it (the Fabians won’t, they’re too obsessed with Britishness). It sounds implausible at the moment because the Labour Party has been top-heavy will Scottish big-hitters for years, mostly due to the fact that Scotland became a Labour enclave and hotbed for left-wing thought during the Thatcher years. The English Labour Party may yet assert itself, if only because it must to win back England from the Tories, or because the BNP or English Democrats, or some other party begins stealing its core vote.
When Brown has gone, and in the light of the IPPR and Simon Lee’s forthcoming studies on the English Question, maybe then the Labour Party will reassess their opposition to England.
Thanks Andrew for keeping the subject going.
I can see that as a unionist you see things as stronger together than apart – you have to say that though don’t you?
From my personal English nationalist perspective though the (current) Union means there is no England. No recognition, no representation – nothing.
So England would obviously be stronger as an independent nation as it means going from a state of non-existence to existence. Zero strength to strength.
England would be stronger apart.
Do you really believe this statement to be true?
“From my personal English nationalist perspective though the (current) Union means there is no England. No recognition, no representation – nothing.”
What about the British Parliament? I am fairly sure they are our representation.
I don’t accept that entirely. For me, there is a constitutional issue which needs resolving as a consequence of the various post-1997 devolution settlements, but there never was a single unitary state. The UK has always been full of political anomalies; the issue is whether that is suitable for the future. Personally, I acknowledge change is required to redress an imbalance. How we do that is the debate I hope to have helped to create on this blog!
“What about the British Parliament? I am fairly sure they are our representation.”
Well you answer your own point – the British Parliament represents the UK not England. It’s MPs are loyal to the UK not England – they put the UK first, not England. It wouldn’t be so bad if they put their constituents first but most don’t even do that.
Of which around 70% are representatives from English constituencies… and they all would put their constituency interests first. The issue isn’t about how many times an MP refers to ‘England’ in a debate surely, but about how we finish the business of constitutional reform in the United Kingdom, to answer the ‘English question’.
I think recognition is important. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all recognised and called as such. England doesn’t get mentioned or recognised. Often it’s referred to as “the regions” despite the English not having being consulted on these regions. The British government recognises the other home nations but not England. Whilst it fails to recognise England, the English will always get a raw deal. Of course this is deliberate as allowing Scottish MPs to talk about the territory of England as the “regions” or “our country” or “the country” helps them hide the fact that they are not responsible to the English electorate.
70% of “British” MPs might represent constituencies in the territory formerly known as England – but they don’t represent England. This is the crux of the matter to me.
You’ll know by now that I’m no constitutional expert. But I am English – and currently I am not represented as an English person anywhere.
Quote…Of which around 70% are representatives from English constituencies… and they all would put their constituency interests first….quote
You’ve got to be kidding! They do what the party whips tell them. That’s the big problem with a (essentially) two party adversarial system.
However you are quite correct to say ‘we need to finish constitutional reform re. the English question’
And the answer is; A parliament for England within a Federal UK. If you and all Labour/Tor/Lib MP’s continue to deny us this, you will miss the chance. You may then find the English more inclined to want total separation. Unless the Scots beat us to it of course.
The answer is an English Parliament.
The IPPR recently sent a survey about the English Question to every British MP in the House of Commons.
Of the 600+ MPs, only 114 could be bothered to respond. That statistic alone shows precisley why we need an English Parliament.
Unionist MPs in the British Parliament don’t care about the English. MPs in England have consistently failed their constituents. The number of questions asked at PMQs about all the disadvantages the English have heaped upon them since devolution can be numbered on two hands.
They just don’t care about the English.
Excellent post. It’s incredibly refreshing to see an English MP actually engaging in a constructive debate about English national government. Thank You.
It is indeed refreshing… this is what politics should be about, real debate. Excellent blog.
Glad you like it. It is good to engage in debate. Life would be boring if we all agreed and didn’t have different viewpoints and perspectives. When I agreed to do some blogging for Think Politics, I said I wanted to do so not just to be able to platform my own ideas, thoughts and views; but to create lively discussion… hope I can keep it up!
I really don’t see what a devolved England adds. England has asymmetrical devolution at present. You will never get symmetrical devolution even if England gets devolved powers due to NI, Wales and Scotland all being devolved to different extents.
If you created an English Parliament you would need representatives to be elected. To argue this should be English MPs goes against the method used in Wales with AMs and Scotland with MSPs.
With an English Parliament you would still need a UK Parliament to hold a UK Govt to account as there are many issues, such as foreign policy, national security etc. that need to be dealt with at a UK wide level.
This change would create great imbalance.
I see very little evidence of England suffering from not having its own Parliament, given the UK parliament is based in England and has the majority of MPs. This imbalance was the need for devolution to Wales, Scotland and NI, as the imbalance favoured England.
There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
The only reason this discussion about an English Parliament is taking place is because we are in the United Kingdom, a political artifice, a concoction of nations supposedly united.
It’s come down to a choice of England remaining as one country and the UK dismantling, or England being bust up for the sake of this spurious Union.
However, we still have the sword of Damaclese, Scottish independence hung over us (as if they should be the only ones to have a say).
If England is bust up into regions and Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland then leave the UK, the English will be disempowered without a country. Of course, that has been the plan for the most EU-sceptic nation since the UK joined the Common Market.
Great post Andrew.
I’m a unionist too and I firmly believe that this issue HAS to be addressed, under exactly the same terms that Scotland (and soon Wales) enjoys.
This can only mean an English parliament, but I like your reference to the Canadain and Australian models.
“Scotland has been conquered, regained political independence, itself secured the English crown peacefully…”
Your reading of history seems faintly anti-English to me! Conquering English, peaceful Scots?
It wasn’t meant to be a full and detailed historical account, rather a quick narrative of the evolution of the United Kingdom to set our current political structures into a modern context. Both Wales and Scotland were conquered by the English King Edward I, though the Scots did manage to secure their independence again through bloody battles with the English. And in 1603, the English crown did pass peacefully to King James VI of Scotland (who also became King James I of England) upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I. Not an anti-English reading of history at all, I hope (although maybe my half-Scots and Welsh heritage shines through from time to time!)
The Stuarts were a disaster. As soon as they took the English crown efforts were made to blow them up. Not because of the Catholics as the first example of Scottish spin would have us believe, but as Guy Fawkes put it “To blow all the Scottish beggars here present back to your mountains”. Then of course we had the civil war following 11 years of tyranny at the hands of the Stuart, Charles I. So your notion of peace seems to be in need of readjustment, I would suggest.
I don’t particularly want this to become a debate on the Stuart kings or the political and religious turmoil in both Kingdoms at that time. I certainly don’t dispute what you say about Charles I. The point I was make in the blog is in the context of the evolution of the UK, and was that the Scottish and English crowns united in 1603 on the death of Elizabeth I, and this happened in a peaceful manner.
@Ian Adderley
“I see very little evidence of England suffering from not having its own Parliament”
You’re obviously not looking then.
Tuition fees – English students leaving university on average £10000 more in debt than their Scottish counterparts – something that should be of particular interest to you as a trustee of the “British Youth Council”.
Prescription charges Scotland and NI £3.20, Wales FREE England £7.20
Road & ridge tolls – not in Scotland
Paid for eye tests and dental check-ups – not in Scotland
Care for the elderly – free in Scotland. In England – sell your house.
Less per person spent on the NHS in England
Less per person spent on education in England
The Barnett Formula – the consequences of which are above.
The balkanisation of England in “regions” without the consent of the people.
The rail-roading of the English people into the EU without our consent
Worst of all as far as I’m concerned is the insult caused by the lack of recognition for England which is “proud historic nation” just like Scotland.
All of the above would be rectified by an English Parliament representing the people of England.
All of what you say would be of signficance if English MPs didn’t get the right to vote on it. But those policies were all supported by English MPs, whether you like them or not.
There is a serious question re English votes on English laws, but that wouldn’t necessitate an English Parliament, it would simply require a change to prevent MPs not representing English constituencies from voting on matters only affecting England. This would not be an English Parliament, they would be UK MPs the same as those from other areas with devolved legislatures.
You also seem to be arguing that a lack of uniformity is a bad thing, which is an argument against devolution, not in favour of it. Further devolution would create a further lack of uniformity.
As for the EU, there was a referendum into the EC in the 1970’s. We’ve been a member of over 30 years. It was voted on before there were any devolved legislatures. You seem to conveniently skim over those facts…
As for other comments- everything I post is in a purely personal capacity unless indicated otherwise (and at no point have I indicated otherwise in these discussions.)
We’re fed up with going over this stale, inaccurate argument.
We English deserve our own First Minister and Executive every bit as musch as the Scots. If the UK cannot survive, tough.
If the English are too big for domestic politics, then why do we need Scotland and Wales to “punch above our weight” internationally.
The argument that the overwhelming number of Westminster MPs are English offers no defence for us being in a union with Scotland. In fact it strengthens the case for getting out of the Union.
The problem with the British Parliament is that every decision concerning England has to be made with one eye on Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. Every pound spent in England generates money for the rest of the UK whether those parts need the cash or not.
Devolution has made sure that England will never receive more spending per capita than the other UK nations, which is exaclty why the issue has to be fogged with English regions, that nobody actually wants.
There is no longer a sound reason for England remaining in the UK. The British Parliament is an excellent reason for England to get out of the UK.
“All of what you say would be of signficance if English MPs didn’t get the right to vote on it. But those policies were all supported by English MPs, whether you like them or not.”
As I’ve said several times on here, just because an MP is located in the territory formerly known as England does not make them an English MP. They are UK parliament MPs and party political MPs. 99% of the time MPs vote in accordance to the instructions of the party whips. They’re not voting for their constituents or for England.
“There is a serious question re English votes on English laws, but that wouldn’t necessitate an English Parliament, it would simply require a change to prevent MPs not representing English constituencies from voting on matters only affecting England. This would not be an English Parliament, they would be UK MPs the same as those from other areas with devolved legislatures.”
How come the Scottish people didn’t end up getting SVoSL? That would have worked. No, the Scots have, quite rightly in my opinion, got their own parliament back. England should have the mother of all parliaments back – the English parliament.
“You also seem to be arguing that a lack of uniformity is a bad thing, which is an argument against devolution, not in favour of it. Further devolution would create a further lack of uniformity.”
You call it uniformity – I call it equality and lack of equality is a bad thing. I’m not saying that services have to be identical between home nations. But they should be similar. It’s unfair for Scots to get >£1500 more per year from central government than English people – the consequences are everywhere. Scots, Welsh & Northern Irish people have double the representation that the English do. Labour spend a lot of time spinning about equality but the Barnett Formula is a hideous example of inequality as is the lack of dedicated representation for the English people.
You’re a Labour man and no doubt you would say that you stand for equality – why not equality for the English people?
“As for the EU, there was a referendum into the EC in the 1970’s. We’ve been a member of over 30 years. It was voted on before there were any devolved legislatures. You seem to conveniently skim over those facts…”
Well neither you or I have had a vote. My parents voted for membership of a common market not a federal EU. The EU we have today is totally different from the common market our parents voted on. If the initial referendum had been on membership of a federal EU and it had been clearly stated that this was the only referendum the people would ever get on the subject, it would have been rejected by the people by a massive proporion.
Essentially, our parents were lied to – when they were told it was a common market.
There should have been a referendum at every stage where the EU changed the rules. Such things have such far reaching consequences that they should not be left just to MPs with their questionable loyalties.
A refreshing change to see a thoughtful contribution to the English Question from a politician. I sincerely hope that others who represent English seats start to think seriously about the issue.
I am working in Australia at the moment, and think that the system of state (national) autonomy plus federal (British) representation could be a solution worth considering.
Yes, ironic given the British established the current Canadian federal system under the British North America Act 1867 and the Australian federal system under the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900 – all operating within a Westminster style system – and yet Home Rule became such a contentious political issue in the British Isles during the same era!
@Philip Hosking: Cornish was recognised neither as a distinct ‘national identity’ nor ‘ethnic group’ in the 2001 Census; but it should be mentioned that ‘English’ was not recognised as a distinct ethnic group in the same Census, either: only ‘British’ had its own ethnic tick box, and you had to write ‘English’ in. Strictly speaking, this is still the case in the 2011 Census, where there is no distinct ‘English’ ethnic group identity (nor Cornish), although ‘English’ is listed in the following grouping that basically just means ‘British’: ‘English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish / British’.
However, I gather from my Tory MP that the Conservatives are going to try to change the 2011 Census form if they’re elected, removing many of the questions they regard as superfluous and intrusive, which could include the ethnic ones. Might be worth pressuring your parliamentary candidates and eventually elected MP, if the Tories win, to try to get these discriminatory questions amended or removed. (Need to write that one up – note to myself.)
@Wyrdtimes: Re England as a ‘proud historic nation’, I should say that over a year ago, I ran a Downing Street petition that asked No. 10 to recognise England’s existence as a ‘proud, historic nation’ the same as Scotland, and extracted a reply that “England is a nation within the UK”. But you’re absolutely right that in its day-to-day words and actions, the government and the whole British establishment does absolutely nothing to encourage a proud, civic sense of Englishness, and everything to discourage it. That has to change.
Perhaps? just as a starting point Andrew. You could pop along and see Mr Brown and ask him to be honest when making speeeches on issues such as NHS, education, transport etc. Get him to tell everyone he is referring to England. Put him in front of a mirror to practise. E.n.g.l.a.n.d. Because so far he hss proven completely unable to say the word. I wonder why?
To be fair, on Tuesday both he and Ed Balls both spoke of government investment and reforms in “England’s schools”.
Do you mean this speech on education? http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page22580
Where he mentions Britain nine times but England not once?
No. But this all misses the point of the issue raised in the blog – the missing piece of the constitutional jigsaw.
Whreas if they were talking about schools in Scotland, they would refer to Scottish schools.
“English” is the word now avoided.
Geoff Hoon on Question Time and Harriet Harman on the Daily Politics, on the same day, admitted that Britishness was only to be rammed down the necks of pupils in England. Scottishness would be taught in Scottish schools and Welshness in Welsh schools.
Devolution was cited as the reason, but British Anglophobia is the truth of the matter.
Hoon went on to say that “English” might become a feature in the World Cup or in history lessons about slavery.
The nastiest bigots are those prejudiced against their own people and the British Establishment is chockerblock with Anglo-British English-hating bigots.
A federal system like Australia. Scrap the lords and elect a new British Parliament to sit there. Equal representation for all countries as it is in the Australian senate regardless of size of population and including Cornwall if that is what they want. England can then have the Commons with hopefully a much reduced number of MP’s. The English can then decide how they wish to devolve powers back down to the Shires and Counties of England.
Not in the speech on national TV he didn’t. He parked himself in front of a Union flag and spouted his usual ‘this country’ ‘our country’ nonsense!
In fact i have NEVER heard him say England in a political sense.
The English are a trusting lot – this coming election the Scots in Kirkcaldy will be voting for a fellow Scot to continue making laws for the English but not for themselves. They’ll be laughing all the way to the ballot box.
No, they will be voting for a Member of the British Parliament in Westminster, which has the remit of making laws affecting all parts of the UK, including in both England and Scotland. The issue is, having devolved some of those governmental functions to the home nations, do we need to make further constitutional changes to reflect those changes in England.
Andrew
Come on now. Did you really mean “having devolved some of those governmental functions…”
I am sure you are intelligent enough to know that these powers could never be taken back by Westminster and therefore this was a devolution of sovereignty over these areas.
Yes I did mean that, because that is what has happened. It may be highly unlikely that the devolved institutions are ever abolished, but they could be, and ‘direct rule’ could easily imposed again (as happened in Northern Ireland during the Troubles). The point a Scots Nat would make, no doubt, is that Holyrood is a creation of the Westminster parliament, it is not in itself a sovereign body – which is why they argue for full independence. The powers and functions they have, have been determined by Westminster statute and could be removed by Westminster statute by a future UK government if it had the mandate to do so. What has been left at Westminster though is a situation where all English functions remain the responsibility of the UK Parliament and UK Government. This debate should be about what we need to do (if anything) to address this English question.
Best of luck with the blog, I enjoyed finding your post today.
I disagree with the comment that an English Parliament would be unworkable. The English Parliament would work for England. It would focus on English needs without expensive distractions like Scotland and duck-houses.
What you are *actually* saying is that the UK couldn’t work with an English Parliament because legislation affects Scotland and Wales even to a small degree.
This is an admission that the UK has never worked. The Scots and Welsh allegedly wanted devolution because they reckoned the UK was not working for them. Now the UK patently isn’t working for England.
Unionists say the answer is to bust up England into regions, but power must still reside in Westminster with Scots and Welsh having their say. The one people who must never have a say are the English.
Technically, Scotland is now the largest geo-political part of the UK and that was precisely what Gordon Brown and his fellow Scots who signed the Scottish Claim of Right intended from the outset.
The UK never worked from day one. The reason why it was sustained for so long was the Empire. We didn’t need Scotland or Ireland for the reasons of empire, and we don’t need Scotland or Ireland for any reason now.
This is not arrogance, and even if it were, Scots have that particular kind of arrogance in abundance.
British MPs are now redundant in Wales and Scotland and an English Parliament would make them entirely superfluous. That is the only reason they oppose an English Parliament and everybody knows it.
I’ve been a member of the Campaign for an English Parliament since not long after it’s inception, it was formed by fairminded prople, who only wanted for England that which has already been given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that is still the case.
Yet the leaders of the UK National Parties still deny us the chance even of a referendum as was given to Scotland and Wales, theres something rotten at the core of UK politics and I don’t just mean the expenses scandals.
I would ask all who post comments here to just pose one question to all canidates at the next election. Will you promise, if elected, to scrap The Barnett Formula? I say that, as I look at Lord Barnett’s quote from the 11th January 2009. I ONLY MEANT THE BARNETT FORMULA TO LAST A YEAR, NOT 30!
and if they say no vote for someone else.
Andrew,
What do you think Labour would do in the event of a hung parliament in which the Tories had the majority of seats in England but were unable to form a UK Government because of their lack of Scottish and Welsh MPs?
Do you think Labour would ignore England and attempt to form a coalition with another party irrespective of the fact that it was the Tory Party that had the stronger democratic mandate for England?
Under the current political arrangements it is for the party/parties which can command a majority in the House of Commons who would be asked to form the United Kingdom Government by the Queen. The UK Government is, as we know, currently responsible for all the England-only ministries, as well as those government departments whose remit covers the whole of the United Kingdom. Any possible coalition government would probably have secured a majority of votes in England anyway (when their respective votes are combined), though it is quite possible a minority administration may not.
Thanks, it’s interesting to get an MP’s perspective.
First Past the Post isn’t about the number of votes, it’s about the number of seats. As you are probably aware the Tories got the plurality of votes in England at the last election, but Labour handsomely won more seats. So the number of votes is something of an irrelevance.
A minority Labour Government that relied on Scottish and Welsh votes to govern England would surely be in the realms of a constitutional crisis. I don’t think it would work. There would have to be another election if an alternative government couldn’t be cobbled together.
No that’s right, it is purely about which party (or parties) can command a majority in the House of Commons. If one or more parties can, then they are asked to form a Government. If no party can command a majority, and no coalition can be formed, then there are two alternatives: 1) the previous Government remains in office as a minority administration until it falls or 2) the Opposition is called upon to form a minority government possibly on the basis they won more seats, again governing until it falls. Either way, there would probably be a fresh election fairly soon.
I’m not sure I would go as far as to call the scenario set out in your post as a crisis, but such a situation would certainly highlight the English anomaly remaining in the UK constitution post-devolution in a way it hasn’t yet. It could well act as the impetus for proposals from all main parties for something to be done about it, too.
Well Andrew how do you feel that I as an Englishman living in England have only one vote that being for the UK Govt, yet our “Celtic” neighbours are allowed two bights of the political cherry. I want to vote in an election that produces a govt that decides what is best for England, that would have to be an English Parliament, I can not trust the British Govt to look after the interests of England, if they did they would give England a seat on the British Isles council, the British Govt caved in to the EU farming requests thus putting English farmers at risk ( I beleive English farmers are still waiting for EU grants via the British Govt) the Scots farmers did not have this problem because they had thier own representative in the EU.
In closing may I thank you for the debate on England, at least one MP can see the injustices that England have
I assume I would have been sent one, but I honestly don’t recall getting one.