- the key conclusion , upon which we agree , is that there should be an English parliament . I don’t really see why it should take the form of the PR model – this has never been so far as I know , a feature of English constitutional
practice . An EP must be a specifically English entity – just as the Scottish parliament was re-set up to be specifically Scottish – and that means majority voting – a central feature of English debate since the so called ” Dark Ages ” .

I am not sure , but I think that Scottish parliaments prior to 1707 were also majority voting – in which case their new parliament is , in as sense , “unScottish ” – Blair pulled a fast one there , probably to head off the SNP.

Macarnie ,
Yes , the new UK would be a sort of federation . The word is strange and seems rather continental , though I don’t think that it would be , as practiced .
Closer , philosophically , to home , think Australia – which is a federation – the new UK could be along the same lines , perhaps , rather stronger national governments .

Rate This: 0  0

Rate This: 0  0

1)Wrong . I want England to have its own parliament . But as with the Scottish model it will be difficult to deny England the PR model .
This in turn will dictate the Federal model

2) I did mean ‘vigour’. Your point (5) would
confirm its use quite apposite. I will accept ‘rigour ‘ but please refer to (4) below

3) What is your point ?

4) Nonsense . This statement indicates a lack of intellectual rigour . You cannot conceive an English parliament without conceiving how it is elected. I recommend you review the US 18th C constitutional debate and in particualr the ” Federalst ” papers

5)Possibly due to a lack of intellectal rigour and vigour ?

rgds

Rate This: 0  0

2. The English do not lack intellectual vigour . There are a considerable number of keen minds in England – and in Scotland also – who recognise that the present British constitutional situation is unbalanced in the extreme , is discriminatory and is unsustainable. ( by the way , don’t you mean intellectual rigour ?)

3. There is a point that after 298 years since the act of Union , many of the English , much more so than the celts , a very confused re British and English parliaments . They tend to cotton pretty quickly on considering and learning about the matter , though – unlike the politicians of all parties .

4. The party political makeup of an English parliament is entirely conjectural – and also entirely irrelevant to the debate . The key point is that we have a parliament again – basic home rule .

5. As to why the Conservatives , who possibly have the most to gain from there being an EP , have not been pushing the idea for the last 6 years , – it is a complete mystery . Probably , the cause is an ongoing refusal to accept the constitutional changes brought in by Blair coupled with the above confused thinking ( held by many Conservative MP’s !), and a lack of alacrity to seize the opportunity presented ( if the situation were reversed and Blair perceived that an EP provided him with an opportunity you can be sure he would have dashed in and made it his own ).

Rate This: 0  0

I dont, as John suggests, ” pretend that all comments on the imbalance of the constitution and the gigantic political and financial overprivilege of the celts within the UK doesn’t really exist and any such comment is just English anti Scottishness”. What I am suggesting is that the English in addressing these constitutional matters lack intellectual vigour by retreating into what I regard as the ‘atypical little- englander’ rant. Refreshingly, quite often these anti-scottish rants become more expansive by incorporating ecumenical anti-europeaness !!!

Neither John and Macarnie acknowledge the political reality that the UK was a de facto federation prior to devolution.

The concept that a truly federal UK would by default create ‘Conservative England ‘ is politically naive. Stripping out non-conservative Scottish and Welsh seats cannot avoid the stark political reality that Labour is the majority ‘English ‘ political party. Current polls for the forthcoming general election suggest this will be the continuing political reality. .

The devolved Scottish assembly is voted by proportional representation (PR) and does not have an over-all majority . Nothing in England’s poltical demography suggests that that an independent England,even under PR, would be “Conservative England ”

These two fundemental points might go some way to explain why the Conservative party is not playing the ” Federal” card

The ” Midlothan question ” was raised by a Scottish Labour MP but the Conservative party has never answered it, notwithstanding the Conservative party would be,ostensibly,the major beneficiary

rgds

robert

Rate This: 0  0

re Federation .

I cannot say that the detail of the semantics here particularly bothers me . In effect it would be a federation of the United Kingdom . By virtue of it not being a continental entity and being a British one , I have no doubt that , in practice , it would be quite different both in flavour and in practice from a continental federation . When Cromwell abolished the monarchy in 1649 he effectively set up a republic but , very sensibly , refrained from calling it thus – we had a “Commonwealth ” instead – a much more acceptable and less threatening word to the English . The Commonwealth went on to be very successful – for a while .

It was ,though , one thing – English – and we need to get it back .

Rate This: 0  0

Therefore, in the name of fairness, we do need an English parliament,but without Confederation, . I do not wish to be a part of a Europe which denudes me of rights( and responsibilities) which we have enjoyed since 1215

Rate This: 0  0

The latter from R Trythall was revealing – he really wants to pretend that all comments on the imbalance of the constitution and the gigantic political and financial overprivilege of the celts within the UK doesn’t really exist and any such comment is just English anti Scottishness .

I sense a feeling of relief from the regular BJ blog contributers that the topic has veered away from the imbalance of the constitution against England ,ie no English Parliament ,and onto more congenial matters . This represents , of course , a central feeling in Conservative circles – that if one keeps on dreaming of the old United kingdom as it was before 1998 then it might somehow be there again . In particular , if one attempts to ignore the English Question

( ” oh ,all right then ,you can English votes on English matters – now what’s wrong with that ! “)- – well plenty is wrong with that – it ain’t a parliament is what ’s wrong – and it is typical of the dismissive attitude to all things English which the British establishment deploys and has always deployed – but it won’t work any more .

- then it might go away – and , anyway , to go on about such things will simply rock the UK boat even further and endanger its sinking – - – and what about all those Scots in the Conservative party – it is important not to offend them you know .

Get realistic boys and girls and stop dodging the true question. The constitutional question is absolutely central to the whole political situation in what is still , just about , the United Kingdom .
There is an obvious and gross inequity in the its governance and probably the only way of saving the UK is that there be an English Parliament and that , in effect , the UK become a federal state .

What is curious is that such a developement which is becoming widely popular in England -whenever the question is asked – has not been seized upon with alacrity by the Conservatives given its basic attraction in that part of the UK where Conservative support is strongest – England – and why so many Conservatives opt to ignore the whole area of debate .

Curious .
And self defeating .
And I am sure that the celts can’t believe their luck that the Conservatives haven’t twigged on this one yet.

Rate This: 0  0

Rate This: 0  0

Your article in Telegraph of the 14th April , was well below your usual high standard.

Your suggestion of constitutional inequality between Scotland and England is a nonsense. If such inequality exists, then it has been vested by a UK democratically elected Westminster parliament, the same UK parliamentary system which has now reduced Scotland’s UK parliamentary representation in the forthcoming election.

To rubbish Brown just because he is a Scot is childishly asinine. It is on a par with rubbishing Oliver Letwin because he is vertically challenged, or rubbishing you for your coiffure.

In your mini anti-Scots tirade you conveniently forget to mention that Brown’s national credentials are , and always have been, avowedly ‘British’.This contrasts starkly with yours, which have become increasingly ‘Little Englander’.

You and Jeremy Paxman would benefit from reading Linda Colleys ” Britons Forging the Nation 1707-1837 ” . She stresses the Scots disproportionate positive contribution to Briton and Britishness. Surely ‘Little Englander-Anti Scots’ ethos is not based on envy ?

C’mon Boris …raise your game ….this article was a very lazy piece of journalism

rgds

Robert Trythall

Rate This: 0  0