Monday, August 6, 2007

My Argument Against an English Parliament

At the risk of losing most of my new readership (thanks Michael;) and heh...the BBC), I’m doing a longer piece today, in which I’ll outline my arguments against a separate English parliament.

I’ve put my thoughts in point-form for the sake of clarity and brevity.


1.England, as the most populous nation, has a much closer identification with Westminster than any of the other three countries. 529 out of 646 seats are English constituencies and no UK government can govern without a very large minority of English seats.

2.An English parliament would be as remote from the English people as the UK one undoubtedly is. Simply removing the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would not solve this modern problem of lack of political connection and the resulting voter apathy.

3.England, like the rest of the United Kingdom, is not a homogeneous entity. MPs from the urban areas vote on rural issues (e.g. the hunting question); the residents of cities of northern England have much more in common with people living in Glasgow, Cardiff than Belfast, than with their fellow Englishmen and women in Tunbridge Wells or Epsom.

4.An English parliament (assuming it wasn’t part of a full independence scenario) would create yet one more legislative layer with the resulting administrative bureaucratic and of course, financial costs.

5.At present, 117 MPs for non-English constituencies sit in the House of Commons. How many of these actually vote on solely English matters? Bearing in mind their attendance records, I would guess very few.

6.The fiasco surrounding Prescott’s attempts to set up regional assemblies proved that for many (or even most) voters in England, bread and butter issues are far more important than constitutional ones.

7.The political divide in the United Kingdom is very much a left/right one, not one of geographical division. A Scottish or Welsh socialist or conservative believe in the same core political philosophies as their English counterpart; yes, of course they have a regional bias, but that is also apparent within the different areas and constituencies of England.

8.Asymmetrical devolution works elsewhere (most notably within Spain), where certain regions have more nationalist tendencies than others. If the N.Irish, Scottish and Welsh have their own legislature, is it necessarily to England’s economic and cultural advantage that it follows suite? Do other regions in Spain suffer due to the fact that Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia enjoy greater autonomy? Quite clearly the economic figures say “No”.


9.I’d guess that one of the major reasons that the campaign for an English parliament has gained strength over the last few years is the fear that English identity (in comparison to the Scottish, Welsh and N.Irish one) has been weakened by the various "devolution projects". I don’t believe this to be true; I think that the separatist movements within N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales have helped to focus English minds on their own place and value within the United Kingdom. It’s much more common now to see the St George Cross at England games than the Union flag now for example; but an English parliament will not create a stronger English identity, a greater awareness of their history and the freedom to practise their culture (e.g. celebrating St George’s Day) is needed for that.

10.It’s probably clear for anyone who’s been reading this blog since its inception that I am a UK Unionist by conviction; I believe that the United Kingdom has, by and large, worked damn well over the years and it’s in the long-term economic, social, political and cultural interests of all four constituent parts of the UK that it remains in place. An English parliament would be the final nail in the coffin of the United Kingdom as a nation; for those English reading genuinely interested in the future well-being of your country, I believe you should be joining our fight to maintain the unity and integrity of our common nation, not looking to tear it further apart.

For alternative, provocative and interesting point of views on the topic of the English parliament, I’d like to point you in the direction of The Witanagemot Club.

17 comments:

wonkotsane said...

1. Westminster is still the British parliament.

2. It doesn't matter whether it's closer, it's about who they're answerable to and who they're working for. As long as they're working solely for England like MSP's, AM's and MLA's do for their countries, it's fine.

3. Lowland MSP's vote on Highland issues and vice versa. South Wales urban AM's vote on North Wales rural issues and vice versa. Not a problem. The regional rural affairs spokesman for the West Midlands Regional Assembly is a Birmingham City councillor.

4. Would we need 650 British MP's if we had an English parliament? No. Not more government, different government.

5. University top-up fees and Foundation Hospitals would both have failed if it wasn't for Scottish Labour's whipped MP's voting on this English-only matter. The full smoking ban proposed for England was watered down to a partial ban by an amendment introduced by a Scottish MP.

6. No, it proves that English people don't want their country balkanised and that they aren't prepared to accept half-hearted, half-baked, gutless glorified parish councils as an alternative to a national government.

7. Load of rubbish. The UK has always been a union of four distinct nations until the racist Liebour Party decided England had to go. There is no regional identity in England outside of London.

8. Spain is a country with historical regions. The UK is a union of four countries (ok, NI isn't strictly speaking a country) and no regional identity except in Scotland where the highlanders and lowlanders have bigger cultural and genetic differences than English and Lowland Scot have. England already is suffering because it has no devolution.

9. English people are taking to their English identity more but there is official policy of wiping it out. That's why the union flag has to be flown all the time, but only in England. That's why English institutions are being abolished and replaced with "British" institutions that still only operate in England. That's why kids are going to have Britishness lessons in school, but only in England. That's why British government policy is to divide England up and refer to it as "the regions".

10. No English Parliament is the final nail in the coffin for the union. I've seen so many unionists (myself included) abandon the whole concept of a union because it just won't work. It is completely broken now and the British establishment is now so anti-English that we will never get equality with the rest of the UK whilst Britain still exists.

Remember, we're not asking for any more than what the rest of the UK has. Why shouldn't English people be treated fairly and equally with the rest of the UK?

Anonymous said...

"English people are taking to their English identity more but there is official policy of wiping it out"
Very true but why is this so?
Gordon Brown is trying desperately to push "Britishness" in England while leaving devolution intact in Scotland, Wales & NI.
He lost power in Scotland and is doing his damnest, including a BBC boycott on Alec Salmond, to destroy their effectiveness.
In Wales they went to bed with their devil to retain power.
As an Englishman I would like Scotland to be independent and show us how to govern better - who knows maybe the Scottish Mafia will move up north away from the Westminster trough?
Colin

Terry Heath said...

Wonkotsane pretty well sums up where the holes are in these arguments, but here's my tuppence worth...

1. MPs vote on party lines, not national ones, so this is spurious. Also you ignore Ministers’ executive powers and the cabinet’s control over the Parliamentary timetable.

2. An English parliament would give the people of England equality with the Scots and Welsh.

3. England is more of an homogeneous entity than Wales, or Scotland.

4. An English parliament would not create another legislative layer, or more bureaucrats, because we would not need the unpopular regional quangos and there would be less work to do at Westminster. Democracy does have a price but I believe that disenfranchisement is too expensive!

5. Not true, see Wonkotsane’s answer above.

6. The fiasco surrounding Prescott’s attempts to set up regional assemblies proved that Regional Assemblies were not wanted. The 78% “no” vote showed that voters in England found constitutional issues to be very important.

7. The political divide in the United Kingdom is very much divided on national lines (see Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, plus home rule for NI).

8. Asymmetrical devolution is not working in the UK where nearly 70% of England’s voters are demanding equal rights.

9. An English Parliament would prevent the Scottish PM insisting that the Union flag is flown on public buildings in England, but the Scottish one to be flown in Scotland.

10. If you want to split the UK just give three nations generous welfare provisions, get one nation to pay for it (and put up with a second class health/education service) and give the other nations greater democratic powers to ensure these wrongs cannot be righted.

Those that oppose an English Parliament are threatening the Union. If that is their intent, they should admit it.

Alfie said...

Sorry - your arguments are flawed.... are you a government lackey in disguise?

The denial of democracy to an entire nation is too high a price to pay to preserve the status quo. The union is a busted flush - even GB Gordon Brown thinks so - why else did he sign the Scottish claim of right which states that Scottish interests are paramount?

I want a national voice - just like every other democratic country has, and what is wrong with that - why is it SOOOOO difficult for the English to have national representation?....

Hey, I've just had a really great idea - why don't we ask the people? Let's have a referendum on an English Parliament? According to polls, 67% of the English population are in favour of one ...... Or do you and your fellow unionists know better? Is the English question just too dangerous to allow the people to decide? Joe Stalin would be proud.

England has to have its own Parliament - 75% of Westminster time is currently taken up with English only issues, yet Foundation hospitals and Tuition fees are voted through on the strength of a nodding dog claque of Scottish Labour poodles. Why do we have to have such interference from Scots, Welsh and NI MPs?.... An EP would mean the end to the bloated club of 650. We will have smaller more focused government - and that government and the First Minister will be answerable to the people of England - it's called democracy (Gordon Brown take note!) We can then have a federal UK with a small council of the Ises in place of the Lords - and if that doesn't work then tough, everyone can go their own way.

The penalisation of the English, fiscally and democratically is not a good enough excuse to preserve the union - not when 3 of the 4 countries of that oh so fabled union are ruled either wholly or in part by Nationalist politicians.

Anonymous said...

So thats all right then O'Neill .

Your litany is very much one of Union at all costs .At all costs to the English that is . Complete with the blindness to reality which accompanies your way of thinking .

Fundamentally you are saying that The English , but not the Scots and Welsh , must be denied any national recognition for the sake of the Union . You are implicitly accepting also that it is the English who must pay for the Union .

Worse , you go out of your way to state that English aspirations and democracy must be actively supressed by the British state for the sake of your Union .

Your naked enmity for the English when put like that ,causes myself , as a unionist who still (just about )believes in an English parliament within the union am beginning to doubt that is now a viable option given the rigid antagonism to English democracy which you British have always espoused .It used to be surrepticious . It is now naked .

Lots of English , probably the majority , will go straight for complete indepenedence . After all , England , unlike Scotland , was never asked if it wanted to be British in the first place .

Anonymous said...

So thats all right then O'Neill .

Your litany is very much one of Union at all costs .At all costs to the English that is . Complete with the blindness to reality which accompanies your way of thinking .

Fundamentally you are saying that The English , but not the Scots and Welsh , must be denied any national recognition for the sake of the Union . You are implicitly accepting also that it is the English who must pay for the Union .

Worse , you go out of your way to state that English aspirations and democracy must be actively supressed by the British state for the sake of your Union .

Your naked enmity for the English when put like that ,causes myself , as a unionist who still (just about )believes in an English parliament within the union am beginning to doubt that is now a viable option given the rigid antagonism to English democracy which you British have always espoused .It used to be surrepticious . It is now naked .

Lots of English , probably the majority , will go straight for complete indepenedence . After all , England , unlike Scotland , was never asked if it wanted to be British in the first place .

O'Neill said...

I'll attempt to deal with the core of the other comments later;
in the meantime regarding "anonymous'" points:

"Your litany is very much one of Union at all costs ."

My "litany" is that the Union has worked very well to date and that its dismantlement would be an economic, cultural, social and political disaster for all 4 parts of the Kingdom. If someone provided me with a solid argument as to why that wouldn't be the case, I'd certainly listen to it.

At all costs to the English that is .

All citizens of the UK pay income
and various other taxes; some regions, Merseyside and Tyneside spring to mind for some reason as examples, get a higher proportion back than they pay in to the central exchequer, but that's the case in most western countries.

Complete with the blindness to reality which accompanies your way of thinking .

The reality, as I see it is, that devolution has not delivered and is not capable of delivering anything of benefit to Scotland, Wales or N.ireland. A Unionist (as you say you are) should be arguing against and pointing out the absurdies of the devolution system, not looking to extending it.

Fundamentally you are saying that The English , but not the Scots and Welsh , must be denied any national recognition for the sake of the Union .

See my point above. Devolution was by no means accepted as the 100% best option in either Scotland or Wales. It is also not anti-Scottish/Welsh to argue and point out (as I regularly do) why I believe devolution is not to either country's benefit. I have attempted to do the same with regards to England in the post above, that does not make me anti-English in any way.

You are implicitly accepting also that it is the English who must pay for the Union .

If I was arguing that I believed that all countries, with the exception of England should have their own parliament, then you may have a point.

Worse , you go out of your way to state that English aspirations and democracy must be actively supressed by the British state for the sake of your Union .

You've pulled that out from my post? Where exactly did I say that?
In point 9, I said that, for avariety of reasons, the English are prevented from freely expressing their culture and being proud in their own history.
I should have maybe made myself a bit clearer, I think this is wrong-I'm certainly not calling for the supression of English aspirations.
Re democracy, we still live in a democracy, you still have the right to vote in a whole variety of elections, including the the referendum for an English parliament, if and when it comes. I'm not calling for the supression of your democratic rights.

Your naked enmity for the English when put like that ,causes myself , as a unionist who still (just about )believes in an English parliament within the union am beginning to doubt that is now a viable option given the rigid antagonism to English democracy which you British have always espoused .It used to be surrepticious . It is now naked .

Yes, my enmity for the English is so naked, that I did a post at the weekend about the discrimination faced by English students in Scotland. This is the first time that I've made an argument against an English parliament. I make regular arguments and posts about the absurd parliaments in cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh. You should perhaps recheck the definition of Unionist, apparently it's not just Cameron and Paisley that are struggling with its true meaning.

And just on a question of semantics, if you consider yourself a Unionist (just) do you not also consider yourself as British?

of English , probably the majority , will go straight for complete indepenedence . After all , England , unlike Scotland , was never asked if it wanted to be British in the first place .

I've said before that I believe Independence referendums should be help simultaneously in all four countries immediately- the Union is
perceived to be under attack as never before and it would benefit us all if we knews exactly where we stand.
I'd be pretty confident of the result in all four parts of the UK...including England.

O'Neill said...

wonkotsane,

2. It doesn't matter whether it's closer, it's about who they're answerable to and who they're working for.

An MP is ultimately answerable to his or her constituents, not his country surely?

4. Would we need 650 British MP's if we had an English parliament? No. Not more government, different government.

It’s not the number of MPs which causes the additional legislative layer; it’s the division of responsibilities (something which is presently causing controversy in Wales). If you believe in the retention of Westminster in addition to the English parliament, then more administrative bureaucracy is inevitable. If you don’t believe in the retention of Westminster, then you’re effectively arguing for independence and that’s a completely different can of worms..

7 There is no regional identity in England outside of London.

People in Yorkshire, Merseyside, the North-east etc etc may argue otherwise…..

8. Spain is a country with historical regions. The UK is a union of four countries (ok, NI isn't strictly speaking a country) and no regional identity except in Scotland where the highlanders and lowlanders have bigger cultural and genetic differences than English and Lowland Scot have.

The Basques or Catalans have their own separate language, history and cultural identity, if you asked a typical Basque or Catalan, do you think they’d say they belonged to a mere region of Spain?

10. No English Parliament is the final nail in the coffin for the union.

Well, on that point, at least, we agree.

It is completely broken now and the British establishment is now so anti-English that we will never get equality with the rest of the UK whilst Britain still exists.

So are you in favour of just an English parliament, or complete independence from the UK?

Why shouldn't English people be treated fairly and equally with the rest of the UK?

The problem is with how NuLabour's "the devolution project" has been inequitably carried out. If you in any way believe in the concept of the continuing United Kingdom that's what you should be aiming your fire at and attempting to change.

O'Neill said...

Alfie,

Alfie

Sorry - your arguments are flawed.... are you a government lackey in disguise?

LOL! I hold Brown and NULabour personally responsible for the constitutional mess we are presently in.

Hey, I've just had a really great idea - why don't we ask the people? Let's have a referendum on an English Parliament?

Is the English question just too dangerous to allow the people to decide? Joe Stalin would be proud.

It might surprise you, but most real Unionists I know are democrats.

If it was up to me you’d get your referendum (but see my last point;).
Don’t confuse us with those politicians for whom unionism is a mere expediency.

The penalisation of the English, fiscally and democratically is not a good enough excuse to preserve the union - not when 3 of the 4 countries of that oh so fabled union are ruled either wholly or in part by Nationalist politicians.

Despite the propaganda, in those three countries, separatist parties are a minority interest, (Salmond’s a minority govt, SF are in coalition with hardline Unionism and Plaid Cymru are very much junior coalition partners).

But if you believe the Union is "fabled", then do you believe the UK’s worth perserving or not?
If not then why are you wasting your time merely with the English parliament?
Let’s have your referendum on full English independence and the destruction of the Union. Still confident you’d get 67% in favour of that?

O'Neill said...

wonkotsane

Sorry, I misread your comment
10. No English Parliament is the final nail in the coffin for the union.

Well, on that point, at least, we agree


My answer on this is per the one I gave to Terry

Terry Heath said...

O'Neill, did you reply to my (Terry) post? Can you tell me what time because I can't see it.

O'Neill said...

O'neill
I did and also to cassnadria, but they haven't gone up. I'll check at home as I copied them down on Documents.
But anyway, in the meantime, very briefly:

Your Points 1 and 7 are contradictions.

Your point 3; England is a homogeneous unit? Ethnically, geographically?

Your point 9. An English Parliament would not necessarily be happy to promote an English identity anymore than Westminster is. Would you really trust NULabour or even Hoody Dave and NUTories to be interested in doing this?


Your point 10: Devolution is/ will kill the Union.

Sorry for the briefness, hopefully for fuller reply this evening.

Terry Heath said...

I look forward to your full post. In the meantime, to clarify…

“Your Points 1 and 7 are contradictions.”
Point 1. The UK Parliament is divided on party lines and MPs come under the parliamentary party whip.
Point 7. The first class citizens of the UK have their own Parliaments, drawn up on national lines, ie the SCOTTISH Parliament and the WELSH Assembly. They voted predominantly for the SNP/PC and both parties are now in Government, albeit as the main force in a coalition.

Ergo, both statements are true in “UK Politics”, but my original post did not make this clear.

“Your point 3; England is a homogeneous unit? Ethnically, geographically?”

Politically, economically, historically and culturally.

Compare industrial, modern south Wales to touristy north Wales. Edinburgh has more in common with London and Manchester than it does the Western Isles and the Highlands that are Celtic in language and culture.

England is Europe’s oldest nation state whereas Wales has not existed as such, pre 1998. Scotland was always torn between the Catholic Highlands and the Protestant lowlands (Glasgow was the first British city to close its gates on Bonnie Prince Charlie). Apart from the civil war, which was more between Parliament and Crown, England has not seen such turmoil within itself.

At least we speak the same language in England.

“Your point 9. An English Parliament would not necessarily be happy to promote an English identity anymore than Westminster is. Would you really trust NULabour or even Hoody Dave and NUTories to be interested in doing this?”

No, but I’d trust an English idiot with my national identity before I’d trust a Scottish idiot bent on England’s erasure from the map.

“Your point 10: Devolution is/ will kill the Union.”

Devolution is here to stay. Turning back the clock is not an option, there’s no way we can stick this one back into the bottle, although I would like to.

We can’t stay where we are, so the options are to complete the process, or break the Union. That’s why I believe opponents to complete devolution are anti Union

O'Neill said...

OK Terry, I’ve modified my original a bit, in light of your subsequent comment.

“Your Points 1 and 7 are contradictions.”

Point 1. The UK Parliament is divided on party lines and MPs come under the parliamentary party whip.
Point 7. The first class citizens of the UK have their own Parliaments, drawn up on national lines, ie the SCOTTISH Parliament and the WELSH Assembly. They voted predominantly for the SNP/PC and both parties are now in Government, albeit as the main force in a coalition.

Ergo, both statements are true in “UK Politics”, but my original post did not make this clear.


OK got you now…but the electorate did not vote predominantly for SNP/Plaid Cymru or Sinn Fein, in each case the vote for pro-union parties was 60% plus.

“Your point 3; England is a homogeneous unit? Ethnically, geographically?”

Politically, economically, historically and culturally.


Got to disagree here.
Ethnically, England is much more mixed (due to post-war immigration) than the rest of the UK.
Politically it’s divided between a Tory South and a Socialist North.
Economically, much poorer North, service industry very much concentrated in the SE.
Historically- yes, you’ve got a point.
Culturally…I’m not sure…. how people see and enjoy themselves is the same in Yorkshire as it is in Surrey?

No, but I’d trust an English idiot with my national identity before I’d trust a Scottish idiot bent on England’s erasure from the map.

It’s the English “idiots” who (through political correctness and an extremely suspect equality agenda) who are the biggest threat to the English identity. If they ever get in charge, you’ll not even have a chance to fly the Union flag never mind the St George’s Cross

“Your point 10: Devolution is/ will kill the Union.”

Devolution is here to stay. Turning back the clock is not an option, there’s no way we can stick this one back into the bottle, although I would like to.

We can’t stay where we are, so the options are to complete the process, or break the Union. That’s why I believe opponents to complete devolution are anti Union


Devolution in Wales was only actively supported by 25% of the population. The SNP claim support of only about 20-25% of the population. A government which contains Ian Paisley and IRA Commanders is not a recipe for stability. I’m firmly convinced there will be immnese pressure on the “devolution project within the next 5 years….that’s what I believe we should be getting ready to exploit, not copper-fasting the system with another

Terry Heath said...

Hi O’Neill. You said “Ethnically, England is much more mixed (due to post-war immigration) than the rest of the UK. “

Forget ethnic. England has a very rich genetic mix and it always has. I always say I’m 50% Irish and 100% English. I don’t say this because I’m crap at maths. I’m trying to say that genetically my mother’s side came from Ireland, but I have only ever lived in England, I consider myself to be English and that’s who I am.

There is a concept called “civic nationalism”. This is where anyone, regardless of race, place of birth etc etc, can subscribe to a set of values and call themselves a citizen of that nation. It serves a community very well when there is a large influx of immigrants and has been used by the USA very effectively. They swear allegiance to the flag and constitution of the United States, but they are really subscribing to the “American way”. No one else has taken a more diverse set of people and integrated them so effectively, whilst they can still hang onto their Italian-American, African-American, Jewish-American identity. This is the model I subscribe to.

“Politically it’s divided between a Tory South and a Socialist North.
Economically, much poorer North, service industry very much concentrated in the SE.”

Not as divided as North Wales and South Wales, or the Highlands and Edinburg/Glasgow. Yet they were treated as a whole.

“Culturally…I’m not sure…. how people see and enjoy themselves is the same in Yorkshire as it is in Surrey?”

Interesting choice of counties. May I answer with a single word? Cricket!

“It’s the English “idiots” who (through political correctness and an extremely suspect equality agenda) who are the biggest threat to the English identity. If they ever get in charge, you’ll not even have a chance to fly the Union flag never mind the St George’s Cross”

I agree with you there

“Devolution in Wales was only actively supported by 25% of the population. The SNP claim support of only about 20-25% of the population. A government which contains Ian Paisley and IRA Commanders is not a recipe for stability. I’m firmly convinced there will be immnese pressure on the “devolution project within the next 5 years….that’s what I believe we should be getting ready to exploit, not copper-fasting the system with another”

I think we agree that the current situation is bad, but we propose different solutions. You believe the devolutionary clock can be turned back. I wish it could, but believe it can’t. That’s why I am pushing for equal rights and you’re waiting for the others to change their minds.

Maybe we can have the same rights now and change our minds later if we wish to?

Gareth said...

"Ethnically, England is much more mixed (due to post-war immigration) than the rest of the UK"

Object to an English parliament all you want but please don't use this argument.

There are numerous nations across the globe with national parliaments that have an even more mixed ethnic heritage than England.

England may have immigration hotspots, pocket where there has not been sufficient integration into the common culture, but it does not have ethnic fault-lines that divide the country; and even if it did that would be no reason to deny the English nation the same right to self-determination that has been granted to the other nations in the union of nations.

O'Neill said...

Terry,

Do the English deserve equal rights? Yes.
We both agree on that.

I think this is the crux of our differences:

I think we agree that the current situation is bad, but we propose different solutions. You believe the devolutionary clock can be turned back. I wish it could, but believe it can’t. That’s why I am pushing for equal rights and you’re waiting for the others to change their minds.

Long-term devolution/independence will not deliver anything of value to any of the 4 countries, it’s just a question of how long (or tolerantly) the English are prepared to wait, before I’m proved right there.

Torque

There are numerous nations across the globe with national parliaments that have an even more mixed ethnic heritage than England.

Yes, of course there are.
But also it is a myth to believe there is a consensual English, N.Irish, Scottish or Welsh “civic nationalism”, to borrow a phrase from Terry. But one sovereign parliament at Westminster is as capable of governing equitably all the different ethnicities present in the UK, as a separate English (or Scottish or Welsh or N.Irish) parliament is of dealing with their own part of the nation. Tie that in with my thoughts on devolution, which I’ve given above, and you’ll see my arguments against an English parliament are not based on anti-Englishness, more pro-Britishness.