Appointed Chancellor rules out democracy!

It must be nice to be Mr. Blairs best mate. You get handed a powerful job, ostensibly more powerful than the office of the Prime Minister. You get to help formulate policy, pass laws and wear a frock, stockings and a wig!

Now this unelected Scotsman has decided that the English do not and should not have a Parliament. Nice. A remarkable politician, a man who, when practising as a barrister, advised British Nuclear Fuels in cases against leukaemia victims, British Coal against trade unions over pit closures and sent his four children to public schools. A pillar of New Labour in effect.

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, is set to strongly reject the idea of an English parliament, in a speech to a conference on devolution.

Delicious irony.

linky

Yet another 'I know best' scenario from an appointee.

I'm interested to know if there is much popular support for a federal United Kingdom or conversely, dissolving the current devolved assemblies of Scotland and Wales? I believe these are the only two logical developments for the current half-hearted constitutional mish-mash that the Lord Chancellor seems to support.

Didn't the British government lose a referendum on devolved local government for the North east that demonstrated a lack of enthusiasm for yet another layer of politicians?

I heard his interview on Today this morning, and I must say I nearly spat my toast out to hear this bloody Scot saying that the English were absolutely delighted with the fact that legislation on the health and education services in England were only being passed because of the massed ranks of Labour's scottish MPs. All of who know very well there was no chance of their own voters having to put up with foundation schools or top up fees for universities since that is all devolved to Edinburgh for Scotland.

Well here's one Englishman who feels very strongly indeed that scottish MPs should have the same rights to vote on English matters that English MPs have on Scottish matters, no more, no less. We don't need an English parliament and more blood sucking politicians, we just need English MPs to be able to form themselves into an English Grand Committee, in the way that Scots MPs used to do for Scotland.

As for the Scottish parliament and Welsh assemby, if the Scots and the Welsh want more layabouts battening onto them at public expense that's their business IMHO. I'm perfectly happy for them to organise their own affairs if only they would extend me the same courtesy. Personally I'd prefer one national parliament, but Labour have given the other nations the pornography of this childish nationalism (for their own electoral advantage) and if that's the way its going to be I want the same for England.

This devolution is a bodge. Personally I would like the UK to be broken up into 8 or 9 states which had full legislative power over everything.

Localised democracy!

I'm tempted to say that England is getting what she deserves for treating Scotland like a guinea pig and retarded relative for so many years, but to be honest I quite agree with you. Either we should have four local parliaments and one central for deciding the overeaching issues or we should just have one.

A poor, backward and downright rebellious relative. One who spent a long time flirting with the French many years back...

What the hell are Scottish MPs doing in Westminster? Get the sods out of there. Ditto Welsh and Irish.

I agree. There are two states of affiars:

1) We are a union. Power is in Westminster. End Of Story.
2) We are something else.
Either a very small federation with a total of 4 parliments - one for each and another centeral lot, or seperate countries.

Oooh, tough one that!
Bye! Thanks for all the... Erm, thanks!! Good luck by yourself - we'll stop bankrolling you now.

The areas used to be useful in previous centuries for various reasons. Now that time is passed. These fringe areas should know to keep their mouths shut considering the money they get given. But no like spoilt brats they come back for as much as they can get.

My assessment is that we have nothing to loose and everything to gain. If I'm wrong I'm pleased to listen.

How come England gets a raw deal? I don't want a full blown parliament, but I would like to see English MPs get to vote seperately on England-only things. Having a full-blown seperate parliament would just be an exercise in how to waste billions of pounds.

Well, we've been trying to relieve you of the burden of Ulster for some time now

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The areas used to be useful in previous centuries for various reasons. Now that time is passed. These fringe areas should know to keep their mouths shut considering the money they get given. But no like spoilt brats they come back for as much as they can get.

So now you have pillaged everything useful from the 'home' countries, you feel justified in throwing away the shells?

Frankly, as Ireland and many other countries the English thought could never survive without their 'patronage' have proven, Scotland and Wales in Europe would be a lot better off without your imperial condescension. (Not least by getting effective reparations via the insane amount the UK pays into the EU.)

I thought it was the March for Independence? both are the same thing.
Pilledged Scotland of what exactly?

The UK does give too much to the EU. But then as the net transfer to Scotland alone is over a billion pounds I think we'd win out of it.

We could get into how well so many of the old colonies are doing... I guess the average person in Africa loves civil war Ireland? Rather like America's view on cuba - better off if it wern't there at all, although it is a good break for the Adlantic storms.

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I thought it was the March for Independence? both are the same thing.
Pilledged Scotland of what exactly?

The UK does give too much to the EU. But then as the net transfer to Scotland alone is over a billion pounds I think we'd win out of it.

We could get into how well so many of the old colonies are doing... I guess the average person in Africa loves civil war Ireland? Rather like America's view on cuba - better off if it wern't there at all, although it is a good break for the Adlantic storms.

America is doing pretty well for itself...

America is a mix of colonies from England, France and Spain, going south in that order. America nearly spoke French, remember?

With an empty continent, or rather one that is empty with the right genocidal mindset they did have the odds in their favour, but have by most standards done well.

But it is very likely America would have been given independence at the same time as or before Canada was as it would be viewed as a land that was fit for self government. Unlike Northern Ireland...

Originally Posted by Idaho

This devolution is a bodge. Personally I would like the UK to be broken up into 8 or 9 states which had full legislative power over everything.

Localised democracy!

I completely agree, I think the best system for the UK would be to have a very strongly federalist system, it is one thing the US system does very well.

As to this matter I have two points, firstly I don't think an English Parliament is necessary, Westminster is the parliament for England and on a lot of issues the rest of the UK. I too don't have a problem with Scottish and Welsh MP's voting on legislation which only effects England.

The reasons for the second point is not only does legislation aimed at 'just England' actually involve Scotland and Wales - and NI - but we are a union and unless we are going towards a federal system or a breaking up of the union, all MPs at westminster should vote on all bills made there.

'English only' bills directly effect Scotland and Scottish people because for instance, if top up fees are introduced - or otherwise - in England it has a direct impact on Scottish universities, as it stands they are likely to gain more applicants, etc. Just like if there was a bill giving everyone who owned a house in England £1m quid, I bet it would effect people in Scotland too, as you would likely see a lot of them moving down south. All this is with the incessant demand for English MP only voting in Westminster, is a thinly veiled attempt by the Tories to reduce Labours majority and significantly weaken it's electorial position. Scottish and Welsh seats have already been reduced, it is not as if there is a huge amount of them, if the Tories did well in Scotland would we really be seeing these arguments put forward? I am damn sure that the only Tory Scottish MP votes on 'English only' matters, it is double standards by a desperate party.

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Pilledged Scotland of what exactly?

Well, their oil revenues recently.

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

We could get into how well so many of the old colonies are doing... I guess the average person in Africa loves civil war

Yes, it would be tedious discussing Australia, Canada, New Zealand, India, South Africa and so on. As for Africa, they are still crushed by economic dependence and many debilitating factors inherent in the continent such as malaria. Civil wars in ex-colonies of the Empire is depressingly familiar - I wonder why if they had been helped so much by the British? Perhaps because the imperialists always sought to impose independence conditions (such as partition, a favourite) that they knew would lead to civil war.

Whatever, there's no point in discussing national aspirations with an English imperialist. All I can do is ask you to put your national pride into a scenario where your beloved country was a subject nation of say, the Germans. Would you yearn to be free, or be happy to be looked after by the "God-appointed superior" race?

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Ireland? Rather like America's view on cuba - better off if it wern't there at all, although it is a good break for the Adlantic storms.

Aye, and your stag parties would have to go all the way to Prague

Odd that the successes were all given independence... and the ones in the list that took it then had a civil war.

Africa is a combination of disease and imperialism. You make it sound that the Europeans tore down successful nations when they went out there! There was no countries of the size there are now, and it is unsurprising they've degenerated so far since. It's hardly one or two are a mess, more like the majority, regardless of natural assets

It's the fault of disease? Is there no disease in India?

Oil. Yeah, twas nice. Oil can be bought, and it was the taxes NOT the oil that the UK got. And still the monet flows to the scots as a net value: oil vs. earnings of London...

One can yearn to be free, and that be a bad idea. Is it a coincidence that all the successes you list have a parliment based on the UK model?

OK, I feel myself getting angry and nationalistic now, so I will cede the field to you.

Anyway, your argument is with Scotland and Wales, I already live in a free republic.

I see a lot of anti-imperialism opinions and I want to intrude and say that I wish England/the UK would have conquered more of the world. The most dominant colonial power in Africa was France so it’s not a good comparison. Wonderful thing about the UK (and yes the US too) is that their greedy, imperialistic expansion has largely benefited the former colonies. For the UK we have: Australia, Canada, India, Singapore, the United States, and many more. The US has...well, the Western half of the US as well as Germany and Japan to its credit. Who would have thought those warlike, authoritarian nations would be peaceful capitalists? Just imagine how much better South and Central America would have been if the English beat the Spanish there.

France was GIVEN most of North Africa to stop them moaning over having their arses handed to them by Germany in 1871. They got it because no one else wanted it.

Just imagine how much better South and Central America would have been if the English beat the Spanish there

Oh no you don't. Its bad enough losing at cricket to the bloody Ozzies, a world in which Argentina or Paraguay was a major force in test cricket would be too much...

Here's my thoughts:

Either a Union, a.k.a. the working system we had ten years ago, or a Central Parliament in Westminster then one for Scotland, Wales, the South West, South and South East, North East, North West and a seperate one fro Northern Ireland.

As to independant countries, well most of the money is in Egnland, most of the tourism is everywhere else, along with the cary bastards we want in the army. I think we're better off united.

I would imagine that London gets a lot of tourism all by itself.

One can argue for smaller and smaller units functioning in a federation, but will this help matters, or merely increase the number of bureaucrats? Lots of little parliaments, all with their own small civil services, with even more to ensure that the units work together. My money would be that they wouldn't in any case.

And what powers to cede? Separate laws? Separate passports?

And then these small, voiceless units then run to the EU for a worldwide voice... and ANOTHER level or so of bureaucracy...

I stand by the Union. The devolved parliaments in Scotland and Wales were, IMO, only established because of Northern Ireland. Northern Irelan was given its own assembly so that all parties could become part of the political process, hopefully leading to peace. But this made it politically necessary for similar bodies in Scotland and Wales.

End result? One suspended, two acting as money-sinks. Extra levels of beaucracy, more politicians with no real purpose. Relative peace in Northern Ireland.

Why on Earth would anyone want more assemblies filled with self-serving politicians wasting taxpayer's money on nonsense? It is bad enough with local councils and central government as it is.

Originally Posted by English assassin

Well here's one Englishman who feels very strongly indeed that scottish MPs should have the same rights to vote on English matters that English MPs have on Scottish matters, no more, no less. We don't need an English parliament and more blood sucking politicians, we just need English MPs to be able to form themselves into an English Grand Committee, in the way that Scots MPs used to do for Scotland.

As for the Scottish parliament and Welsh assemby, if the Scots and the Welsh want more layabouts battening onto them at public expense that's their business IMHO. I'm perfectly happy for them to organise their own affairs if only they would extend me the same courtesy. Personally I'd prefer one national parliament, but Labour have given the other nations the pornography of this childish nationalism (for their own electoral advantage) and if that's the way its going to be I want the same for England.

One of the reasons that the Scots and the Welsh tend to be pro devolution is that the English MPs dominate Westminster. This means that the English MPs always used to decide on policies for Scotland and Wales rather than the representatives of Scotland and Wales. It's basically the same as you getting angry about a certain appointed Scot and Labour's dominance in Westminster increasingly relying on the Welsh and Scottish fiefdoms of Labour.

I'm not particularily happy about you English getting upset but I hope that you now have some understanding of how frustrating the previous settlement was.

One of the reasons that the Scots and the Welsh tend to be pro devolution is that the English MPs dominate Westminster.

Yeah, you'd think the Scots getting the Poll Tax a year before England was up there with the potato famine the amount we hear about it (not from you personally)

Well that's democracy, we'll be needing different parliaments for black people and pensioners and people whose surname is Smith at this rate. Still, as I said, if Scotland and Wales want more politicians that's their business, so long as they don't vote on English matters

Originally Posted by English assassin

Yeah, you'd think the Scots getting the Poll Tax a year before England was up there with the potato famine the amount we hear about it (not from you personally)

Poll tax: yep, I'm sick of hearing that line too

Still, as I said, if Scotland and Wales want more politicians that's their business, so long as they don't vote on English matters

That's fine as long as the English ones don't vote on ours (which in Wales' case they still tend to do as the assembly doesn't yet have decent powers).

Yes, yes, either a proper union such as that which was agreed to in the first place or a devolved assembly for each nation. Scottish-English equality is supposed to be a key thing in the constitution, and if one has more right over itself then it is hardly in keeping with it...