Devolution for England
“It’s worked in Scotland and Wales!”
If you would like to comment on a particular block, click on the pale blue bar to the left of the text. If you would like to view the comments on a particular block, click on the speech balloon.
2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?
An English parliament would give England the same kind of representation that Scotland and Wales were granted in the late nineties and put an end to the anomaly of England-only laws being voted on by MPs whose constituencies lie in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland.
It would allow the articulation of a civic conception of English national identity - based not on race and exclusion, but on place and participation - as has happened to some extent in Scotland and Wales.
3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?
An English parliament will provide a focus for those issues that are currently decided by the British government - which is comprised of MPs from across the nations of the UK - issues such as healthcare and education.
The establishment of devolution involved referenda in both Scotland and Wales; there is every reason to expect that there would be a public vote within England on the question of a national parliament and this will reinvigorate a sense of popular soverieignty, perhaps leading to more decisions being made through the use of plebisites.
4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?
An English parliament could sit in the Commons at no extra cost.
5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?
In November 2006, an Ipsos Mori poll for the Sunday Telegraph found 68% support. In January 2007, a telephone survey conducted by ORB (Opinion Research Business) for the BBC last year found that 61% of people in England were in favour. In April 2007, an opinion poll conducted by ICM for the Campaign for an English Parliament found 67% in favour.
Opponents have long suggested that an English parliament would lead to the break-up of the UK, but polling suggests greater support in Scotland and Wales for an English parliament than for either nation’s idependence!
6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.
As above, it has worked in both Scotland and Wales.
7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?
The arguments in favour: it’s popular amongst the general public who have seen the benefits in Scotland and Wales; it would allow decision-making on issues specific to England; and it would lead to the transformation of the UK into a federal republic.
The arguments against: it would make no difference to ordinary people; it would encourage the break-up of the UK; and it would reduce England to Tory domination.
Contrary to the opponents, an English parliament would provide constitutional balance within the UK; an English parliament would have a progressive majority.
Comments
-
James Matthews
I’d vote for one (in the unlikely event that I get given the chance) even though I could happiily do without a progressive majority.
-
E Justice
The Parliament at Westminster is not an English Parliament, I know it is full of “English” M.P.s but you never hear the word England pass their lips,incase they upset Scotland or Wales.
It is time to think of England . -
IMarcher
Re the question ‘Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure?’ please remember that the relevant electorate is the English one. The referendum for the Scottish Parliament was conducted in Scotland only, despite the fact that it affected the rest of the UK, therefore the referendum for an English Parliament should be conducted in England only - and, for equality with Scotland - any question of its effect on the rest of the UK should not be part of the consideration.
-
Scilla Cullen
An English Parliament following dedicated elections so that MPs to an EP would not have divided loyalties would be able to decide for England how the interests of the people of England should be protected and promoted within the UK. It would be a forum for the protection and promotion of the unique English culture and heritage. It would roll back the usurpation of the achievements of Englands men and women as British achievements and bring clarity and transparency to the teaching of history in schools as properly English, not British, history.
-
David Wildgoose
The usual complaint we here is that “England is too big” for its own Parliament - which of course would imply that the even larger UK is definitely to big for its own Parliament - which illustrates just how stupid the complaint is.
An English Parliament could, by definition, only deal with English matters. Just like the Scottish Parliament can only deal with Scottish matters. The size of England is irrelevant.
The real reason for objecting to giving the people of England democratic equality with those in Scotland, etc., is that then Westminster MPs would be forced to choose between standing for an English Parliament and standing for a new federal UK Parliament. They just don’t want to upset their cosy little Westminter bubble, John Lewis list and all.
-
Jim Gash
With England still in chains and under the control of the British Raj. Whats this Democracy you talk of?
Free England now with it’s own parliament. Now that would be Democracy. -
Neil Murray
I would like to see the House of Lords scrapped and its chamber used for an English parliament. Elections would be held under the same form of PR as we have in Scotland.
-
Richard Corbett MEP
Devolution to England as a single entity is hardly de-dcentralisation, as 85% of the UK’s population lives in England. The “English” Parliament envisaged here would just be the House of Commons, minus, for certain votes, the Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish members, with all the complications that that implies.
-
Tommy Nobody
Will this English hating UK government ever actually ask the English people what they want? Democratic referendums obviously don’t work unless the answer is what the politicians want. For example the Irish NO vote on the Lisburn Treaty, Pro Euro leaders and MEPs lined up to tell the Irish how wrong and stupid they were and that they didn’t know what they wanted. As for England under this Scottish EUK government I’m not holding my breath.
Afterthought… Richard Corbett MEP, what is the point of a blog where readers are not allowed to comment? -
Al Wilson
Richard,
Swopping percentages, England may have 85pc of the UK’s population, but has only 56.1pc of the UK’s total of 943 politicians, since the devolved nations are doubly represented. The breakdown is:
Scotland 59 MPs and 129 MSPs = 188
Wales 40 MPs and 60 AMs = 100
Northern Ireland 18 MPs and 108 AMs = 126
Total 414 political representatives for the devolved countries = 43.9pc of UK politicians.
England has 529 MPs = 56.1pc.
(MEPs discounted).
———————-I wonder if you would care to answer a question put by Andrew Neil to the late Gwyneth Dunwoody:
Can you name another democracy in the world [besides England] where a cabinet minister can introduce a piece of legislation that does not apply to his or her constituency?
-
Sam
An English parliament really is an ill thought out idea. As Richard Corbett MEP rightly points out how is having a Govt of 60 Million devolved to over 40 Million going to make any difference at all to people’s lives in terms of brining Govt closer to the people and making it more accountable. If this were serious as a proposal it would be looking at regional assemblies which would be a real devolution of power. This though was totally rejected in the North East. perhaps thinking about empowering Local Govt far more strongly and brining in a proportional system of election for it (as in Scotland STV) would actually be a far more useful and progressive way of devolving power. Take the Sustainable Communities Act even further!!
-
adrianpotts
Unless you are in favour of the total break-up of the UK and possible civil war in Northern Ireland, this is one of the most dangerous proposals there is. If you want a portent of what the future would hold then just look at what happened to the old Soviet Union in 1990. The problem is that England IS too big to have its own parliament. It accounts for 85% of the UK population and 90% of the wealth and economic activity. An English PM would then have more power than the UK PM. The UK PM and the UK parliament would be seen as weak and irrelevant and would be undermined at every turn by the English government, just as Yeltsin undermined Gorbachev. The English parliament would demand an ever increasing say over foreign affairs because of its size and importance, thus alienating the Scots and Welsh. With the UK parliament weaker politically than the regions, break-up would be inevitable. Then with no United Kingdom to belong to, Northern Ireland has much less justification to be separate from the rest of Ireland.
A "Block" is any paragraph, image or code in a post. It will be highlighted in blue when it's selected:
The default "Block" is always the title block for the post, that is where general comments are posted:
To comment on any "Block" within a post, click on the comments bar next to that block:
To view comments about a "Block" within a post, click on the yellow comment indicator next to that block:
The default "Block" is always the title block for the post, that is where general comments are posted:
To comment on any "Block" within a post, click on the comments bar next to that block:
To view comments about a "Block" within a post, click on the yellow comment indicator next to that block:
Posting Comment...
December 21st, 2008 at 12:48 am
The usual complaint we here is that “England is too big” for its own Parliament - which of course would imply that the even larger UK is definitely to big for its own Parliament - which illustrates just how stupid the complaint is.
An English Parliament could, by definition, only deal with English matters. Just like the Scottish Parliament can only deal with Scottish matters. The size of England is irrelevant.
The real reason for objecting to giving the people of England democratic equality with those in Scotland, etc., is that then Westminster MPs would be forced to choose between standing for an English Parliament and standing for a new federal UK Parliament. They just don’t want to upset their cosy little Westminter bubble, John Lewis list and all.
February 24th, 2009 at 4:25 am
Unless you are in favour of the total break-up of the UK and possible civil war in Northern Ireland, this is one of the most dangerous proposals there is. If you want a portent of what the future would hold then just look at what happened to the old Soviet Union in 1990. The problem is that England IS too big to have its own parliament. It accounts for 85% of the UK population and 90% of the wealth and economic activity. An English PM would then have more power than the UK PM. The UK PM and the UK parliament would be seen as weak and irrelevant and would be undermined at every turn by the English government, just as Yeltsin undermined Gorbachev. The English parliament would demand an ever increasing say over foreign affairs because of its size and importance, thus alienating the Scots and Welsh. With the UK parliament weaker politically than the regions, break-up would be inevitable. Then with no United Kingdom to belong to, Northern Ireland has much less justification to be separate from the rest of Ireland.