This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
This will get the Nats all excited....
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34599998
Post edited at 16:24
In reply to Gone for good:
It is England and Labour that are messed up by the brain damaged EVEL idea not Scotland and the SNP.
EVEL is stupid because it provides a veto to English MPs but not the ability for English MPs to appoint a government for England. They can block every law a UK government whose majority depends on Scottish MPs tries to get through but the English MPs can't actually bring forward their own legislation or appoint ministers to run England. So, in theory you could get the situation where nobody can pass any laws that affect England for a whole parliamentary cycle. The first Labour government that gets in will be pretty much forced to repeal EVEL.
Although, it's all theoretical: they way things are looking Scotland will be independent before Labour get a commons majority.
> This will get the Nats all excited....
It is England and Labour that are messed up by the brain damaged EVEL idea not Scotland and the SNP.
EVEL is stupid because it provides a veto to English MPs but not the ability for English MPs to appoint a government for England. They can block every law a UK government whose majority depends on Scottish MPs tries to get through but the English MPs can't actually bring forward their own legislation or appoint ministers to run England. So, in theory you could get the situation where nobody can pass any laws that affect England for a whole parliamentary cycle. The first Labour government that gets in will be pretty much forced to repeal EVEL.
Although, it's all theoretical: they way things are looking Scotland will be independent before Labour get a commons majority.
8
2
In reply
And how are they going to gain independence Mr Tom. The once in a generation referendum has been and gone. Unless you are suggesting that Labour won't get a commons majority for another 24 years.
> Although, it's all theoretical: they way things are looking Scotland will be independent before Labour get a commons majority.
And how are they going to gain independence Mr Tom. The once in a generation referendum has been and gone. Unless you are suggesting that Labour won't get a commons majority for another 24 years.
1
2
In reply to Gone for good:
Well if the scaremongers manage to convince enough white home counties homeowners to vote No to continued EU membership (which, scarily, seems entirely possible) then I would be amazed if a new Scottish independence referendum wasn't held - and passed - in fairly short order, to regain EU membership for Scotland. Followed no doubt in due course by as many other parts of the UK as then felt misrepresented, leaving a proudly independent SE Englandshire which would have about as much clout on the world stage as does Switzerland now.
> And how are they going to gain independence Mr Tom. The once in a generation referendum has been and gone. Unless you are suggesting that Labour won't get a commons majority for another 24 years.
Well if the scaremongers manage to convince enough white home counties homeowners to vote No to continued EU membership (which, scarily, seems entirely possible) then I would be amazed if a new Scottish independence referendum wasn't held - and passed - in fairly short order, to regain EU membership for Scotland. Followed no doubt in due course by as many other parts of the UK as then felt misrepresented, leaving a proudly independent SE Englandshire which would have about as much clout on the world stage as does Switzerland now.
15
1
In reply to john arran:
Really? I don't believe the SNP have the constitutional right to hold a referendum on a whim. I believe that right is held by the Westminster government who I don't see granting another referendum any time soon.
Really? I don't believe the SNP have the constitutional right to hold a referendum on a whim. I believe that right is held by the Westminster government who I don't see granting another referendum any time soon.
2
3
6
4
1
In reply to john arran:
Ooohh....sounds like a typically thuggish SNP threat. What do you think might happen? Will Jimmy Krankie and her cronies March south a la William Wallace? Didn't end too well for him did it.
Ooohh....sounds like a typically thuggish SNP threat. What do you think might happen? Will Jimmy Krankie and her cronies March south a la William Wallace? Didn't end too well for him did it.
3
9
In reply to Gone for good:
I think it's fairly clear that it would be far more than an SNP issue if it were to get to that point.
I think it's fairly clear that it would be far more than an SNP issue if it were to get to that point.
2
1
In reply to Gone for good:
We can but hope
> Unless you are suggesting that Labour won't get a commons majority for another 24 years.
We can but hope
3
8
In reply to john arran:
I agree. Jimmie Krankie on the march would be everyones problem. A sign that it is time to put national differences aside.
I agree. Jimmie Krankie on the march would be everyones problem. A sign that it is time to put national differences aside.
2
1
In reply to john arran:
I love posts like yours makes everything seem like fact and a foregone conclusion. A poll I seen recently put support to remain in the EU in Scotland at 57% compared to 55% in England. It is not even proven yet that the average Scottish voter is definitely more pro European than the average English voter. Taking the general election as a guide to how far out these polls can be you are just as likely to see a swing of Scottish voters voting to leave than English voters. Another poll puts only 51% of Scottish voters as voting to remain in the EU and 49% to leave. It is just too close to call.
I can see it now England voting to remain Scotland voting to leave .... how would that be dealt with by the SNP?
> Well if the scaremongers manage to convince enough white home counties homeowners to vote No to continued EU membership (which, scarily, seems entirely possible) then I would be amazed if a new Scottish independence referendum wasn't held - and passed - in fairly short order, to regain EU membership for Scotland. Followed no doubt in due course by as many other parts of the UK as then felt misrepresented, leaving a proudly independent SE Englandshire which would have about as much clout on the world stage as does Switzerland now.
I love posts like yours makes everything seem like fact and a foregone conclusion. A poll I seen recently put support to remain in the EU in Scotland at 57% compared to 55% in England. It is not even proven yet that the average Scottish voter is definitely more pro European than the average English voter. Taking the general election as a guide to how far out these polls can be you are just as likely to see a swing of Scottish voters voting to leave than English voters. Another poll puts only 51% of Scottish voters as voting to remain in the EU and 49% to leave. It is just too close to call.
I can see it now England voting to remain Scotland voting to leave .... how would that be dealt with by the SNP?
5
In reply to Gone for good:
Well, for starters the Argentinians are going to piss themselves laughing the next time HM Govt need to assert the the God-given right of the people of the Malv... sorry, the Falkland Islands to self-determination.
> What do you think might happen?
Well, for starters the Argentinians are going to piss themselves laughing the next time HM Govt need to assert the the God-given right of the people of the Malv... sorry, the Falkland Islands to self-determination.
1
2
In reply to Gone for good:
It was Bonnie Prince Charlie, not William Wallace that marched south.
Edward II, the English king that had Wallace executed got defeated by Wallace's boss, Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn and kicked out of Scotland.
> Ooohh....sounds like a typically thuggish SNP threat. What do you think might happen? Will Jimmy Krankie and her cronies March south a la William Wallace? Didn't end too well for him did it.
It was Bonnie Prince Charlie, not William Wallace that marched south.
Edward II, the English king that had Wallace executed got defeated by Wallace's boss, Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn and kicked out of Scotland.
5
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Wrong. Wallace launched at least one attack.
wrong. That would be Edward I who had him executed. You got the last bit right though since Edward II was a useless general unlike his father. Bannockburn would have probably gone rather differently with him in charge, more along the lines of Falkirk.
> It was Bonnie Prince Charlie, not William Wallace that marched south.
Wrong. Wallace launched at least one attack.
> Edward II, the English king that had Wallace executed got defeated by Wallace's boss, Robert the Bruce at Bannockburn and kicked out of Scotland.
wrong. That would be Edward I who had him executed. You got the last bit right though since Edward II was a useless general unlike his father. Bannockburn would have probably gone rather differently with him in charge, more along the lines of Falkirk.
3
In reply to Alan M:
Surely its was SNP policy all along? After all they are the party of Scotland, any suggestion that SNP policy does not match the views of the People of Scotland, or indeed that the People of Scotland do not agree with SNP policy is no doubt some sort of thoughtcrime.
> I can see it now England voting to remain Scotland voting to leave .... how would that be dealt with by the SNP?
Surely its was SNP policy all along? After all they are the party of Scotland, any suggestion that SNP policy does not match the views of the People of Scotland, or indeed that the People of Scotland do not agree with SNP policy is no doubt some sort of thoughtcrime.
2
2
In reply to KevinD:
A little raid into Northumberland not really 'marching south' in a significant way.
If wishes were fishes....
> Wrong. Wallace launched at least one attack.
A little raid into Northumberland not really 'marching south' in a significant way.
> Bannockburn would have probably gone rather differently with him in charge, more along the lines of Falkirk.
If wishes were fishes....
Post edited at 23:06
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Aside from it wasnt a little raid and by any reasonable definition it does fall under marching South. It was a significant raid lasting several months covering both Northumberland and Cumbria. There is evidence on the tax records of serious disruption.
Also why did you choose charlie instead of the various other Scottish leaders who invaded England? Its not like there arent plenty to choose from.
I was just commenting your piss poor knowledge of history and attempt to connect william wallaces death with bannockburn.
> A little raid into Northumberland not really 'marching south' in a significant way.
Aside from it wasnt a little raid and by any reasonable definition it does fall under marching South. It was a significant raid lasting several months covering both Northumberland and Cumbria. There is evidence on the tax records of serious disruption.
Also why did you choose charlie instead of the various other Scottish leaders who invaded England? Its not like there arent plenty to choose from.
> If wishes were fishes....
I was just commenting your piss poor knowledge of history and attempt to connect william wallaces death with bannockburn.
2
In reply to Gone for good:
I thought this was going to be a thread about Evel Knevel. No motor bikes, no snake river gorge, no hospitals. Rubbish
I thought this was going to be a thread about Evel Knevel. No motor bikes, no snake river gorge, no hospitals. Rubbish
5
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
It is a mess but it's also incredible that the SNP seem to object to the principle. Yes, decisions on English matters have knock on effects, in Scotland, just like the reverse. Yet the SNP see devolution as a right but EVEL as right out . Breathtaking double standards.
It is a mess but it's also incredible that the SNP seem to object to the principle. Yes, decisions on English matters have knock on effects, in Scotland, just like the reverse. Yet the SNP see devolution as a right but EVEL as right out . Breathtaking double standards.
4
2
In reply to MG:
You are very much misunderstanding their tactics.
EVEL now creates a two tier system of MPs. The SNP will cry "unfair". Why? Because it suits their purpose which is to further division in the union and drive forward the nationalist agenda. Nothing to do with standards.
You are very much misunderstanding their tactics.
EVEL now creates a two tier system of MPs. The SNP will cry "unfair". Why? Because it suits their purpose which is to further division in the union and drive forward the nationalist agenda. Nothing to do with standards.
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Heres a good link describing the Wallace inspired invasion of Northern England.
http://deremilitari.org/2014/05/william-wallaces-invasion-of-northern-engla...
Of course you are coreect in saying that Bonnie Prince Charlie got further south, as far south as Derby at one point, but Wallace certainly marched his Army southwards and York was under serious threat.
Heres a good link describing the Wallace inspired invasion of Northern England.
http://deremilitari.org/2014/05/william-wallaces-invasion-of-northern-engla...
Of course you are coreect in saying that Bonnie Prince Charlie got further south, as far south as Derby at one point, but Wallace certainly marched his Army southwards and York was under serious threat.
In reply to Father Noel Furlong:
Precisely, but I would imagine most of electorate, North and South of the border, can see through their crying game and it is certainly duplicitous by most peoples understanding of that word.
Precisely, but I would imagine most of electorate, North and South of the border, can see through their crying game and it is certainly duplicitous by most peoples understanding of that word.
In reply to MG:
I think you've misunderstood their objection to it as I did initially. The SNP are all for devolving power to England. They can't be anything else both morally and for the furtherance of their own agenda. What they are against is the shortcut of using Westminster to do it. What EVEL says is that Scotland, NI and Wales have their own governing bodies but that the UK Parliament is also the English Parliament. It gives the lie to the notion of equality within the union and says (deliberately or not) that England is central and everyone else is peripheral.
> It is a mess but it's also incredible that the SNP seem to object to the principle. Yes, decisions on English matters have knock on effects, in Scotland, just like the reverse. Yet the SNP see devolution as a right but EVEL as right out . Breathtaking double standards.
I think you've misunderstood their objection to it as I did initially. The SNP are all for devolving power to England. They can't be anything else both morally and for the furtherance of their own agenda. What they are against is the shortcut of using Westminster to do it. What EVEL says is that Scotland, NI and Wales have their own governing bodies but that the UK Parliament is also the English Parliament. It gives the lie to the notion of equality within the union and says (deliberately or not) that England is central and everyone else is peripheral.
Post edited at 09:49
3
1
In reply to john arran:
Is there anything wrong with having "about as much clout on the world stage as does Switzerland now"? Switzerland is a fine country with a rich populace with a high quality of life. And it doesn't get involved in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. Sounds like a good plan to me!
> ... having a proudly independent SE Englandshire which would have about as much clout on the world stage as does Switzerland now.
Is there anything wrong with having "about as much clout on the world stage as does Switzerland now"? Switzerland is a fine country with a rich populace with a high quality of life. And it doesn't get involved in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. Sounds like a good plan to me!
5
In reply to MG:
The shameful thing is the way this is being covered by the media, in particular the BBC who are basically just repeating the Tories script. It is the Tories that have breathtaking double standards: if they actually wanted to devolve power to England they would propose an English parliament.
The obvious and logical solution is that England should have its own parliament and Westminster should be the 'federal' government for the UK. With its own parliament England can have its own government and instead of just vetoing laws that affect England proposed by the UK government MPs in the English parliament could legislate for England. In this system all MPs at Westminster have exactly the same status and all the nations have a devolved government.
EVEL is a nonsense system cobbled together by the Tories to entrench power in Westminster and gain advantage over Labour. They don't like the idea of an English parliament because it would take a lot of spending power away from Westminster and potentially out of London. EVEL keeps all power centralised and has the nice side effect of making it near impossible for Labour or a Labour/SNP coalition to govern since any legislation affecting England could be vetoed.
> It is a mess but it's also incredible that the SNP seem to object to the principle. Yes, decisions on English matters have knock on effects, in Scotland, just like the reverse. Yet the SNP see devolution as a right but EVEL as right out . Breathtaking double standards.
The shameful thing is the way this is being covered by the media, in particular the BBC who are basically just repeating the Tories script. It is the Tories that have breathtaking double standards: if they actually wanted to devolve power to England they would propose an English parliament.
The obvious and logical solution is that England should have its own parliament and Westminster should be the 'federal' government for the UK. With its own parliament England can have its own government and instead of just vetoing laws that affect England proposed by the UK government MPs in the English parliament could legislate for England. In this system all MPs at Westminster have exactly the same status and all the nations have a devolved government.
EVEL is a nonsense system cobbled together by the Tories to entrench power in Westminster and gain advantage over Labour. They don't like the idea of an English parliament because it would take a lot of spending power away from Westminster and potentially out of London. EVEL keeps all power centralised and has the nice side effect of making it near impossible for Labour or a Labour/SNP coalition to govern since any legislation affecting England could be vetoed.
7
3
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
The English don't want a separate and expensive English parliament. This rather important democratic point seems to have been missed by you, and the SNP. Much more efficient to use MPs in that role, which is the tangled messy and probably unworkable proposal being put forward. A better version of it would make sense. In opposing it on principle, the SNP are just showing themselves to be opportunistic, hypocrites. Again.
The English don't want a separate and expensive English parliament. This rather important democratic point seems to have been missed by you, and the SNP. Much more efficient to use MPs in that role, which is the tangled messy and probably unworkable proposal being put forward. A better version of it would make sense. In opposing it on principle, the SNP are just showing themselves to be opportunistic, hypocrites. Again.
2
3
In reply to MG:
The idea that the UK parliament and more importantly the UK government can simultaneously function as an English parliament and government representing only English constituencies *is* wrong in principle as will become painfully apparent the first time the party with a majority at Westminster does not have a majority in England.
> The English don't want a separate and expensive English parliament. This rather important democratic point seems to have been missed by you, and the SNP. Much more efficient to use MPs in that role, which is the tangled messy and probably unworkable proposal being put forward. A better version of it would make sense. In opposing it on principle, the SNP are just showing themselves to be opportunistic, hypocrites. Again.
The idea that the UK parliament and more importantly the UK government can simultaneously function as an English parliament and government representing only English constituencies *is* wrong in principle as will become painfully apparent the first time the party with a majority at Westminster does not have a majority in England.
7
1
In reply to MG:
How do you know?
> The English don't want a separate and expensive English parliament.
How do you know?
6
In reply to MG:
It would only be hypocritical if they were opposed to devolution for England and English representatives taking English decisions. They aren't opposed to that. What they are opposed to is having UK representatives and a portion of the UK parliament take English decisions.
> In opposing it on principle, the SNP are just showing themselves to be opportunistic, hypocrites. Again.
It would only be hypocritical if they were opposed to devolution for England and English representatives taking English decisions. They aren't opposed to that. What they are opposed to is having UK representatives and a portion of the UK parliament take English decisions.
Post edited at 12:59
5
1
In reply to DaveHK:
Are you seriously suggesting we add yet another layer of politicians a la Holyrood into the political system and build another parliament building when there is a perfectly good building in existence? Maybe the Scottish people felt a Scottish parliament building was worth £600 million but I can think of better ways of spending that kind of money never mind the cost of running it and paying for a bunch of second rate political representatives.
Are you seriously suggesting we add yet another layer of politicians a la Holyrood into the political system and build another parliament building when there is a perfectly good building in existence? Maybe the Scottish people felt a Scottish parliament building was worth £600 million but I can think of better ways of spending that kind of money never mind the cost of running it and paying for a bunch of second rate political representatives.
2
In reply to Gone for good:
To be fair we could build a new English Parliament and a new UK parliament for the cost of the necessary repairs to the Houses of Parliament.
The idea of using one set of MP's for both devolved and non-devolved issues is not a bad one - one could conceive Monday-Wednesday being for devolved issues and Thursday - Friday for UK issues. BUT now the Welsh, Irish and Scottish assemblies/parliaments exist applying this idea to England alone does appear daft.
To be fair we could build a new English Parliament and a new UK parliament for the cost of the necessary repairs to the Houses of Parliament.
The idea of using one set of MP's for both devolved and non-devolved issues is not a bad one - one could conceive Monday-Wednesday being for devolved issues and Thursday - Friday for UK issues. BUT now the Welsh, Irish and Scottish assemblies/parliaments exist applying this idea to England alone does appear daft.
3
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Well you could extend that logic to any building over 100 years old. All old buildings cost serious money to maintain and repair. Given the current 'austerity ' culture a bit of thriftiness wouldn't go amiss. As for MPs carrying out a dual role I can't see that being too great a burden to bear. You really have to ask what the hell the MPs from the devolved countries actually do with their day!
Well you could extend that logic to any building over 100 years old. All old buildings cost serious money to maintain and repair. Given the current 'austerity ' culture a bit of thriftiness wouldn't go amiss. As for MPs carrying out a dual role I can't see that being too great a burden to bear. You really have to ask what the hell the MPs from the devolved countries actually do with their day!
Post edited at 17:31
In reply to Gone for good:
A cheap shot.
As you know, that building was, regrettably, way over budget in the end.
(PS: to the admins of this website: your special characters - e.g. '£' signs in this case - don't seem to survive the quoting process.)
> ... Maybe the Scottish people felt a Scottish parliament building was worth £600 million ...
A cheap shot.
As you know, that building was, regrettably, way over budget in the end.
(PS: to the admins of this website: your special characters - e.g. '£' signs in this case - don't seem to survive the quoting process.)
Post edited at 20:50
This new set up is pants.
Get rid of the Lords, replace it with an elected UK wide chamber.
Abolish the commons and replace it with an English Parliament.
FFA for the regions.
Nobody has the balls to do it though.
Get rid of the Lords, replace it with an elected UK wide chamber.
Abolish the commons and replace it with an English Parliament.
FFA for the regions.
Nobody has the balls to do it though.
In reply to Ken Lewis:
Personally I don't think it is nobody has the balls more nobody knows what to do with England. Unfortunately Labour set out on the devolution plan with no real plan for England other than to basically ignore the issue, it's not like the West Lothian question only appeared last week.
To me the SNP claim of EVEL destroying the UK is just reactionary the current devolution settlement would have eventually destroyed the UK also, more and more people in England have started (and it will continue to grow) to question the devolution settlements.
While nowhere near perfect EVEL is a start and to me a better start than anything else that had been proposed.
The Labour regional devolution plan was flawed due to the lack of regional identities and no powers. The current city region plan is chaotic at best just look at the antics going on with the 5 councils on Merseyside and not all of England can take part. No one has asked if people want an English parliament but I get the impression that there is little appetite in England to pay hundreds of millions of pounds and then to elect even more elected members when we have thousands of the buggers at local and national and EU level already.
England.....what do you do with us?
> Nobody has the balls to do it though.
Personally I don't think it is nobody has the balls more nobody knows what to do with England. Unfortunately Labour set out on the devolution plan with no real plan for England other than to basically ignore the issue, it's not like the West Lothian question only appeared last week.
To me the SNP claim of EVEL destroying the UK is just reactionary the current devolution settlement would have eventually destroyed the UK also, more and more people in England have started (and it will continue to grow) to question the devolution settlements.
While nowhere near perfect EVEL is a start and to me a better start than anything else that had been proposed.
The Labour regional devolution plan was flawed due to the lack of regional identities and no powers. The current city region plan is chaotic at best just look at the antics going on with the 5 councils on Merseyside and not all of England can take part. No one has asked if people want an English parliament but I get the impression that there is little appetite in England to pay hundreds of millions of pounds and then to elect even more elected members when we have thousands of the buggers at local and national and EU level already.
England.....what do you do with us?
1
In reply to Alan M:
Devolve heavily to county level - thats where English identity resides and its also generally a sensible sized block of people - many of the traditional counties are as big as Scotland or Wales in terms of population.
> England.....what do you do with us?
Devolve heavily to county level - thats where English identity resides and its also generally a sensible sized block of people - many of the traditional counties are as big as Scotland or Wales in terms of population.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
But what would you do with the Metropolitan Counties/districts such as Merseyside? The North of Merseyside want to be called Lancashire, the middle parts wants to be Liverpool and people in Liverpool don't really like the term Merseyside at all and want to simply be Liverpool or the Liverpool city region but the other parts of the county such as St Helens, Knowsley etc etc are not Liverpool and should not be dealt with as Liverpool or under a Liverpool banner.
> Devolve heavily to county level - thats where English identity resides and its also generally a sensible sized block of people - many of the traditional counties are as big as Scotland or Wales in terms of population.
But what would you do with the Metropolitan Counties/districts such as Merseyside? The North of Merseyside want to be called Lancashire, the middle parts wants to be Liverpool and people in Liverpool don't really like the term Merseyside at all and want to simply be Liverpool or the Liverpool city region but the other parts of the county such as St Helens, Knowsley etc etc are not Liverpool and should not be dealt with as Liverpool or under a Liverpool banner.
Post edited at 22:51
In reply to Alan M:
the cities are a difficulty no mistake - the big ones are big enough to be there own unitary authorities, many of the smaller ones should be county towns.
Removing power from county councils was a massive error.
the cities are a difficulty no mistake - the big ones are big enough to be there own unitary authorities, many of the smaller ones should be county towns.
Removing power from county councils was a massive error.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
The problem is that got tried and got met with meh from the population.
That and central government are kind of fond of the central bit of things.
> Devolve heavily to county level - thats where English identity resides and its also generally a sensible sized block of people - many of the traditional counties are as big as Scotland or Wales in terms of population.
The problem is that got tried and got met with meh from the population.
That and central government are kind of fond of the central bit of things.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I agree removing the county councils was a huge mistake. Just from an identity point of view I think most people in England relate to the county or the city first.
The only issue I can see with devolution to the counties etc is that England still wouldn't get devolution on par with the other nations of the UK. Every law impacting England as a nation would still be decided by the UK government so not really answering the English question at all. If you consider the devolution to Greater Manchester and control of Health budgets can that really be managed and consistent if it was passed to every county or city region of England?
They keep going on about the northern powerhouse when what they really mean is Manchester with a bit of Leeds. It was on the news tonight that the economy of Northern England would be the 10th richest in the EU if it was independent. Maybe a North of England assembly with economic powers (within set parameters) could be a way forward?
I agree removing the county councils was a huge mistake. Just from an identity point of view I think most people in England relate to the county or the city first.
The only issue I can see with devolution to the counties etc is that England still wouldn't get devolution on par with the other nations of the UK. Every law impacting England as a nation would still be decided by the UK government so not really answering the English question at all. If you consider the devolution to Greater Manchester and control of Health budgets can that really be managed and consistent if it was passed to every county or city region of England?
They keep going on about the northern powerhouse when what they really mean is Manchester with a bit of Leeds. It was on the news tonight that the economy of Northern England would be the 10th richest in the EU if it was independent. Maybe a North of England assembly with economic powers (within set parameters) could be a way forward?
Post edited at 23:24
In reply to Alan M:
I'm not sure that allegiance to county is as strong anymore due to people living out of their area of birth in larger numbers these days. I still relate to the Yorkshire that I was born in, but I am changed in my mind by Yorkshire no longer being divided into ridings(I was born in the west riding), but rather being split in a different way(south Yorkshire etc);whilst at the same time I live in Stamford which is officially of Lincolnshire address, but I actually reside in Rutland(which has variously been the smallest county, but at times absorbed into Leicestershire). I don't feel much loyalty to either South Kesteven in Lincolnshire or Rutland. At the same time I still feel part of the community of graduates of Glasgow university and am proud of both the university and the City. In a smaller degree I also will fly the flag for the university of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia. I am far from being alone in this sort of mixed background.
Then perhaps somebody else would make a swift straight forward decision to go ahead with the Cotswolds slashing rail line to the north, and produce a northern sea to sea rapid transit line from East to West through the conurbation as well.
> I agree removing the county councils was a huge mistake. Just from an identity point of view I think most people in England relate to the county or the city first.
I'm not sure that allegiance to county is as strong anymore due to people living out of their area of birth in larger numbers these days. I still relate to the Yorkshire that I was born in, but I am changed in my mind by Yorkshire no longer being divided into ridings(I was born in the west riding), but rather being split in a different way(south Yorkshire etc);whilst at the same time I live in Stamford which is officially of Lincolnshire address, but I actually reside in Rutland(which has variously been the smallest county, but at times absorbed into Leicestershire). I don't feel much loyalty to either South Kesteven in Lincolnshire or Rutland. At the same time I still feel part of the community of graduates of Glasgow university and am proud of both the university and the City. In a smaller degree I also will fly the flag for the university of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia. I am far from being alone in this sort of mixed background.
> Maybe a North of England assembly with economic powers (within set parameters) could be a way forward?
Then perhaps somebody else would make a swift straight forward decision to go ahead with the Cotswolds slashing rail line to the north, and produce a northern sea to sea rapid transit line from East to West through the conurbation as well.
In reply to Gone for good:
I suspect that many in England genuinely want an English parliament with control of their affairs without interference from Scots, Ulster or Welsh MPs in matters which do not affect their constituents directly. They viewed the last minute panic of the cobbled-together Indy Ref Pledge with horror, only increasing the belief that England is being short changed. Now they view it as a basic matter of fairness in the light of the extension of powers of the parliaments in the other home countries that England should have the same deal. I doubt many bother with the arcane niceties of such things as 'the Barnett Consequentials' to excuse Scots voting of matters they percieve as English only business.
There is also the attraction for Tory voters that an English Parliament, stripped of Welsh and, who knows perhaps one day Scots, Labour MPS would produce more, perhaps perpetual, Tory govts. I detect no great support (other than among local councillors) for greater devolution to local authorities. Most people, rightly in my experience, view councillors as completely incompetent.
The major obstacles are cost and a lack of talent. We can't even find 600 and odd decent MPs without having to find a new layer. Perhaps one solution might be to have a federal UK Parliament with far fewer seats since federal parliamentarians would have far less to do. It would also be the ideal opportunity to get rid of the unelected Lords.
Naturally Cameron et al don't want it because it threatens the union and with it their chance to posture as a major power. Personally I'd be quite happy to be like Switzerland, as suggested above. I have no wish to go along with the ludicrous delusion that we are somehow one of the world's policemen. We're scarcely a special constable fawningly scampering along behind a trigger happy sherif. And that has worked out so well recently, has it not?
I suspect that many in England genuinely want an English parliament with control of their affairs without interference from Scots, Ulster or Welsh MPs in matters which do not affect their constituents directly. They viewed the last minute panic of the cobbled-together Indy Ref Pledge with horror, only increasing the belief that England is being short changed. Now they view it as a basic matter of fairness in the light of the extension of powers of the parliaments in the other home countries that England should have the same deal. I doubt many bother with the arcane niceties of such things as 'the Barnett Consequentials' to excuse Scots voting of matters they percieve as English only business.
There is also the attraction for Tory voters that an English Parliament, stripped of Welsh and, who knows perhaps one day Scots, Labour MPS would produce more, perhaps perpetual, Tory govts. I detect no great support (other than among local councillors) for greater devolution to local authorities. Most people, rightly in my experience, view councillors as completely incompetent.
The major obstacles are cost and a lack of talent. We can't even find 600 and odd decent MPs without having to find a new layer. Perhaps one solution might be to have a federal UK Parliament with far fewer seats since federal parliamentarians would have far less to do. It would also be the ideal opportunity to get rid of the unelected Lords.
Naturally Cameron et al don't want it because it threatens the union and with it their chance to posture as a major power. Personally I'd be quite happy to be like Switzerland, as suggested above. I have no wish to go along with the ludicrous delusion that we are somehow one of the world's policemen. We're scarcely a special constable fawningly scampering along behind a trigger happy sherif. And that has worked out so well recently, has it not?
2
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Re an English parliament producing more Tory administrations- the Scottish parliament was designed to prevent the SNP ever gaining a majority. That worked well, didnt it...?
Similarly, who knows what would happen if there was an English parliament? I don't, but im pretty sure it wouldn't generate perpetual Tory majorities- two or three terms in, and there would be an adjustment, in one direction or another..
Re an English parliament producing more Tory administrations- the Scottish parliament was designed to prevent the SNP ever gaining a majority. That worked well, didnt it...?
Similarly, who knows what would happen if there was an English parliament? I don't, but im pretty sure it wouldn't generate perpetual Tory majorities- two or three terms in, and there would be an adjustment, in one direction or another..
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
You're obviously right, it is impossible to predict how the pack might reshuffle over the longer term but at the moment I think that's how many people foresee it. Right now it's hard to see where a serious challenge would come from but that could actually precipitate a Tory downfall. An over-confident and ill-disciplined Tory party, convinced that Corbyn could never win, might tear itself apart over, say, Europe and have some kind of suicidal SDP -style breakaway.
You're obviously right, it is impossible to predict how the pack might reshuffle over the longer term but at the moment I think that's how many people foresee it. Right now it's hard to see where a serious challenge would come from but that could actually precipitate a Tory downfall. An over-confident and ill-disciplined Tory party, convinced that Corbyn could never win, might tear itself apart over, say, Europe and have some kind of suicidal SDP -style breakaway.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...