You take the high road...

[Worthy4England]

I believe Sigmund Freud understood this better than most (he was writing about the internal Collapse of Austria-Hungary) when he wrote...

"it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and in ridiculing each other...".

With each passing year it becomes increasingly evident that this country spectacularly failed in its political imagination not to push through the idea of regionalism when it had the chance (Hesseltine stole the idea from the French, his increasingly vocal calls largely fell on deaf ears), and instead pursued the ludicrously London-Centric policies that now pervade every strata of Government. Unless that idiotic policy direction can somehow be diverted, which I doubt, then this slow process of breakdown will continue.

That the Tory's are most vocal about an English Parliament just goes to show how stupid and hypocritical they can be when they put their minds to it. I'm sure they'll be happy to see a Parliament purely for The People's Republic of Surrey, where voting rights are only ceded to those who pay a six figure sum in income tax.

You were doing so well until the last sentence. I thought they all had better accountants than someone who'd leave them exposed to a 6 figure income tax bill...

[Lord Kangana]

Apologies, should have read "those who avoided/evaded a six figure tax bill".

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Leaving the practical difficulties to one side, the logical need to solve the West Lothian question is unassailable, isn't it?

[William the White]

Leaving the practical difficulties to one side, the logical need to solve the West Lothian question is unassailable, isn't it?

That it needs addressing is unassailable since the Tories have decided to raise it. But it was clearly ignorable since 1977 when Tam Dalyell asked it.

Indeed Gladstone raised the issue (when dealing with Irish ?Home Rule) in 1886.

So the unassailable logic has endured two world wars and the loss of an empire without destroying parliamentary democracy.

In my view it has now to be dealt with but can only be answered with the clearly expressed agreement of the English people - as was done with Scotland and Wales! So, not a question of logic but of political choice.

For once I find myself in overall agreement with The Spectator...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massi ... asking-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Leaving the practical difficulties to one side, the logical need to solve the West Lothian question is unassailable, isn't it?

That it needs addressing is unassailable since the Tories have decided to raise it. But it was clearly ignorable since 1977 when Tam Dalyell asked it.

Indeed Gladstone raised the issue (when dealing with Irish ?Home Rule) in 1886.

So the unassailable logic has endured two world wars and the loss of an empire without destroying parliamentary democracy.

In my view it has now to be dealt with but can only be answered with the clearly expressed agreement of the English people - as was done with Scotland and Wales! So, not a question of logic but of political choice.

For once I find myself in overall agreement with The Spectator...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massi ... asking-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gladstone's version of the problem was rather decisively ended by the formation of the Irish Free State, was it not?!

But yes - the mystery for my generation is how this mismatch has been allowed to limp on since 1977.

[a1]

how much money has it cost ?

have the william wallaces paid extra on their income/poll/whatever tax to pay for it ?

carnt see if by some miracle the english democrats or whoever get in, that seven years later they'd get to have a similar vote ..

a yes vote wouldve meant it (scotland) wouldve been begging for bog paper in 4 years time.

[William the White]

Leaving the practical difficulties to one side, the logical need to solve the West Lothian question is unassailable, isn't it?

That it needs addressing is unassailable since the Tories have decided to raise it. But it was clearly ignorable since 1977 when Tam Dalyell asked it.

Indeed Gladstone raised the issue (when dealing with Irish ?Home Rule) in 1886.

So the unassailable logic has endured two world wars and the loss of an empire without destroying parliamentary democracy.

In my view it has now to be dealt with but can only be answered with the clearly expressed agreement of the English people - as was done with Scotland and Wales! So, not a question of logic but of political choice.

For once I find myself in overall agreement with The Spectator...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massi ... asking-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gladstone's version of the problem was rather decisively ended by the formation of the Irish Free State, was it not?!

But yes - the mystery for my generation is how this mismatch has been allowed to limp on since 1977.

Yes the Gladstone problem was partially dealt with by the Free State.

Partial because of the existence of Stormont and the election of MPs from the six counties to the Commons as well.

Perhaps of little concern to the Conservative and Unionist Party that spent many of those years in power.

[Montreal Wanderer]

[

Indeed Gladstone raised the issue (when dealing with Irish ?Home Rule) in 1886.

Gladstone's version of the problem was rather decisively ended by the formation of the Irish Free State, was it not?!

I'm not sure about this, Crayons. Irish Home Rule versus the Irish Free State plus Northern Ireland are somewhat different concepts. I don't think dividing the island was a consideration for Gladstone, while we are still living with the consequences of that later division.

[thebish]

I'm not sure it has to be any more complicated than designating certain bills 'English Bills' and only letting English MPs in the HoC vote on it. Not sure what would happen re: the Lords but I'm sure that's not an insurmountable problem.

When the Welsh and Scots did it they understandably wanted there to be brand new assemblies in the country, with separate politicians. I'm not sure there's any need or appetite for that in England.

it doesn't need to be complicated - it wouldn't be at all complicated if we merely set up a separate English Parliament with seperately elected English representatives to mirror what they have in scotland and wales. westminster then continues as the UK parliament.

WHY is it being assumed that for scotland and wales, devolution means a separate parliament with separately elected representatives - but for England - it has to be a subset of Westminster's UK MPs?

if there is no appetite for that in England - well - that means England doesn't really want it. but why can't we be asked in a referendum like the scots and the welsh were???

simple question: yes or no - do we want a separate English parliament to decide devolved English issues?


it's only complicated if you decide (for no apparent reason) that devolution has to look totally different for England than it does for wales and scotlans - and so you try to subdivide Westminster and end up with different power groups in a single parliament for different issues...

if it's good for the scots and the welsh - the the feck not simply do the SAME for England?? why should England's affairs be arranged differently??

EITHER - have an equivalent English Assembly

OR - subdivide westminster for england, scotland and wales matters and abolish the welsh and scottish assemblies

BUT - don't do both!!

[thebish]

well - surprise, surprise!! a few days later - seemingly forgotten the will of the people decided for a generation!!

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/t ... -1-3548270

[Lord Kangana]

"his likely successor Nicola Sturgeon"....

Its all getting a bit fishy north of the border.

[Jakerbeef]

if it's good for the scots and the welsh - the the feck not simply do the SAME for England?? why should England's affairs be arranged differently??

EITHER - have an equivalent English Assembly

OR - subdivide westminster for england, scotland and wales matters and abolish the welsh and scottish assemblies

BUT - don't do both!!

So you're saying, having the affairs of your country governed/affected by someone else is......less than ideal?

Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about eh

[Worthy4England]

if it's good for the scots and the welsh - the the feck not simply do the SAME for England?? why should England's affairs be arranged differently??

EITHER - have an equivalent English Assembly

OR - subdivide westminster for england, scotland and wales matters and abolish the welsh and scottish assemblies

BUT - don't do both!!

So you're saying, having the affairs of your country governed/affected by someone else is......less than ideal?

Makes you wonder what all the fuss was about eh

Maybe not as less an ideal than having to set up your own national bank.

Which I suspect was at the heart of much of the nervousness.

[thebish]

if it's good for the scots and the welsh - the the feck not simply do the SAME for England?? why should England's affairs be arranged differently??

EITHER - have an equivalent English Assembly

OR - subdivide westminster for england, scotland and wales matters and abolish the welsh and scottish assemblies

BUT - don't do both!!

So you're saying, having the affairs of your country governed/affected by someone else is......less than ideal?

no - I'm saying that having one apparatus for devolution for scotland and wales and then insisting that the English apparatus for devolution has to be totally different, is stupid and wrong!

[Prufrock]

I don't get why, other than it's different.

Subdividing Westminster to run Scotland and Wales wouldn't have worked because for whatever reasons people gave a massive shit about it being *in* that country. You could set up a brand new English Parliament, and build a new building, but why bother? Westminster is already in England. If it suddenly turned out people really cared about that then fine, build one, but it doesn't seem they do to me.

The strongest argument against to me seems to be the funding knock-ons, but if Scotland gets powers over tax too surely that'll be less of a problem for them at least?

[William the White]

I don't get why, other than it's different.

Subdividing Westminster to run Scotland and Wales wouldn't have worked because for whatever reasons people gave a massive shit about it being *in* that country. You could set up a brand new English Parliament, and build a new building, but why bother? Westminster is already in England. If it suddenly turned out people really cared about that then fine, build one, but it doesn't seem they do to me.

The strongest argument against to me seems to be the funding knock-ons, but if Scotland gets powers over tax too surely that'll be less of a problem for them at least?

My understanding is that the Barnet formula will continue - or so it was pledged.

[thebish]

I don't get why, other than it's different.

Subdividing Westminster to run Scotland and Wales wouldn't have worked because for whatever reasons people gave a massive shit about it being *in* that country. You could set up a brand new English Parliament, and build a new building, but why bother? Westminster is already in England. If it suddenly turned out people really cared about that then fine, build one, but it doesn't seem they do to me.

The strongest argument against to me seems to be the funding knock-ons, but if Scotland gets powers over tax too surely that'll be less of a problem for them at least?

because if you sub-divide westminster only for English matters - then it is quite hard to see who you are voting for if Westminster is still primarily the UK parliament but also (with a sub-division) the English Assembly.

also it continues to give the impression that Westminster IS basically the English Parliament - which it isn't.

why pour so much confusion into the mix when we already have up-and-running working models of the apparatus we deem perfectly up-to-the-job and sufficient for devolved issues?

[Prufrock]

You could do that, but you don't need to. I don't think it's particularly confusing. You elect an MP to represent your constituency. He or she would then vote on anything that affected your constituency. Some of it might be Britain-wide, some of it just England. I don't think it's that baffling. Sure, it being different to the Scottish and Welsh systems makes it a muddle, but if there's one thing the constitutional history of this country teaches it's that sometimes a muddle works!

I'm not saying you'd have to do it that way, you could spend loads of cash having a separate one, but I just don't get why you'd *need* one. I don't think the people even of Coppull, say, would find it tough to vote for someone who was going to vote in Parliament on things that affected Coppull.

[thebish]

You could do that, but you don't need to. I don't think it's particularly confusing. You elect an MP to represent your constituency. He or she would then vote on anything that affected your constituency. Some of it might be Britain-wide, some of it just England. I don't think it's that baffling. Sure, it being different to the Scottish and Welsh systems makes it a muddle, but if there's one thing the constitutional history of this country teaches it's that sometimes a muddle works!

i don't know why you'd opt to deliberately design a muddle though, when there is a perfectly clear and working model already being used for the other constituent partners.

and - it would be very confusing. The UK would elect a UK parliament - a party (or a coalition of parties) would form that government - yet - in the same building, a subset of those MPs would constitute a separate body over which the ruling party or coalition may not have any mandate or majority - thus leading to a huge conflict within the same parliament over who is actually setting the agenda and running the country. we'd end up with a prime minister and a leader of the English parliament (first minister) - quite possibly from different parties - but using most of the same MPs to do very different things with different coalitions for different issues...

If you REALLY don't think it would be confusing - then why not simply have the European Union Parliament subdivided - we already elect MEPs - so that in full session it decides europe-wide issues - and then subdivide it nationally to decide national issues. that way we can save all the money you seem to think we need to save and MORE!!! we wouldn't need Westminster or the scots or welsh assemblies at all. job done!

[Hoboh]

You could do that, but you don't need to. I don't think it's particularly confusing. You elect an MP to represent your constituency. He or she would then vote on anything that affected your constituency. Some of it might be Britain-wide, some of it just England. I don't think it's that baffling. Sure, it being different to the Scottish and Welsh systems makes it a muddle, but if there's one thing the constitutional history of this country teaches it's that sometimes a muddle works!

i don't know why you'd opt to deliberately design a muddle though, when there is a perfectly clear and working model already being used for the other constituent partners.

and - it would be very confusing. The UK would elect a UK parliament - a party (or a coalition of parties) would form that government - yet - in the same building, a subset of those MPs would constitute a separate body over which the ruling party or coalition may not have any mandate or majority - thus leading to a huge conflict within the same parliament over who is actually setting the agenda and running the country. we'd end up with a prime minister and a leader of the English parliament (first minister) - quite possibly from different parties - but using most of the same MPs to do very different things with different coalitions for different issues...

If you REALLY don't think it would be confusing - then why not simply have the European Union Parliament subdivided - we already elect MEPs - so that in full session it decides europe-wide issues - and then subdivide it nationally to decide national issues. that way we can save all the money you seem to think we need to save and MORE!!! we wouldn't need Westminster or the scots or welsh assemblies at all. job done!

You have let their secret out bish.