As promised, the follow-up blog to yesterday’s Scottish Unionist pow-wow at Westminster.
Except there’s not that much to report that wasn’t already known; their constitutional commission could apparently be up and running "within two months", a "secretariat" is to be established with "external" devolution and taxation experts funded by, not only Holyrood, but also Westminster (that could prove to be a very interesting debate in the House of Commons). Next meeting of the "Scottish Six" is planned within the next few weeks, though this time in Edinburgh rather than London (good move), where the remit and membership of the Commission will be decided.
And that’s it really, the paradox of Unionist parties attempting to stop Scottish independence by talking about more independence for Scotland remains, although I hope that behind the close doors matters of a more immediate tactical concern (ie making life as difficult as possible for the SNP Administration without simultaneously creating more public sympathy and support for it) were discussed.
What was revealing for me, however, was the reaction, bordering on hysterical at times, from the various self-appointed Spokemen for the Scottish Nation towards yesterday's meeting. For example, I read with amazement (and bear in mind, I'm scarred veteran of a couple of the more robust Ulster sites), the vitriol, bitterness and downright hatred rained down on the Scottish Six and indeed, on Unionists generally, in the comments section of The Herald- thankfully, in the interests of good taste, it has now been removed. The Six, are not my favourite UK politicians by any stretch of the imagination, but they do represent parties which won a combined total of 65% of the electorate last May; they represent a majority of the Scottish people, those Cyber-Bravehearts who believe they are replaying Bannockburn everytime they switch their computer on, would do well to bear that inconvenient fact in mind.
Oh and by way, something else to ponder on while they're at it, latest "You Gov" poll- 27% of the Scottish people favour the independence option, confirming my opinion that this result was a freak one, out of synch with the general trend.
The second observation is a short one.
The Campaign for an English Parliament have rushed out a press-release decrying the fact that with this meeting, England was being "excluded from the affairs of the union".
Whatever the Scottish Six or their commission decides, the final decision to implement their proposed measures will be taken by Westminster. 550 out of Westminster’s 650 MPS represent English constituencies, any changes to Scotland’s constitutional status can therefore not occur without a majority of English MPs voting for them. And if those MPs, by continuing to value the concept of a United Kingdom, adopt an attitude in such matters which is too "British" or "Unionist" for the majority of their English constituents, then they will surely lose their seats at the next election.
No?
12 comments:
I admire your dedication to your Unionist priciples, I'm not a Unionist and I wonder is there a "plan B" for the day which strikes me as inevitable that Scotland gets a form of independence that will be for all intents and purposes an end to the UK as you know it.
Can you ever accept a post Union scenario? It might happen sooner than you think.
Can you ever accept a post Union scenario?
I'm a democrat, so if you mean, I'd take up arms or militarily attempt to prevent the break-up,of the union, then an emphatic "no" is the answer. But I would fight tooth and nail, using every democratic means possible, to prevent the break-up and destruction of my nation..
It might happen sooner than you think.
We live in interesting times, but, no, I don't think it will.
A majority popular will for separation doesn't exist in any part of the UK.
That's not to say that there isn't presently a risk, but I think that, to a large extent, that is one of the Unionist political establishment's own making.
Faced with their first ever real effective opponent in Salmond, Unionism in Scotland is all over the place at the minute. English Unionism would appear to have gone into an extended hibernation, leaving the field open for the English nationalists to exploit the indisputable unfairness of the assymetrical devolved system.
Brown, Straw and NUlabour just get peoples' backs up and ultimately damage that concept of "Britishness" which they profess to love everytime they attempt to wrap themselves in the Union jack...they should shut up and start working a bit more effectively behind the scenes- they've lost the propaganda war.
Ironically, I think the situation in NI and Wales is not that bad in comparison.
Reading back my answer here, it's a bit confused, you ask some good questions, it would probably make more sense if I use them as a basis for a post.
"550 mps represent English constituencies"
How many of them MP's are Englsih
support England and represent England. You make it sound so plausable when in actual fact most of the mp's are not English and as we have heard in the press and the web dont support any devolution for England. So in shortyour statment means nothing.
Clear enough
C Wade
You make it sound so plausable when in actual fact most of the mp's are not English and as we have heard in the press and the web dont support any devolution for England.
The majority aren't English?
MPs may indeed be voted out for their actions at a subsequent General Election - but by then the damage is done.
And although the majority of MPs are for English constituencies, what percentage of these consider themselves to be ENGLISH? And in contrast, what percentage of Scottish MPs consider themselves to be Scottish? 96%? 98%? - Probably 100%!
And of course, within England, we have a sizeable percentage of MPs who don't even identify with English people. MPs like Ian Gibson who is fond of waving a saltire and has even described his (English) constituents as "inbred". Or Malcolm Rifkind who when an Edinburgh MP even resigned a ministerial position as a protest whilst demanding the creation of a Scottish Parliament. But who then as an "English" MP refuses to even countenance the granting of an right to us English.
Sorry, I garbled the last sentence above. Rifkind demanded a Scottish Parliament for Scotland, but refuses to countenance an equal right for England, preferring to treat us as if we were a colony in the old British Empire, with limited self-government overseen by the our colonial masters the Scots.
Wildgoose,
My answer to C Wade's post was a bit glib and I probably should expand....
The Union has always been a matter of life and death (unfortunately literally on too many occasions) in NI, Scottish and Welsh political MPS all, without exception, have a publicly expressed view on the devolution question. Devolution/the Union/Independence is the core topic of political interest in all three countries around which things like health care provision, education systems etc revolve.
In England is that really the case?
Yes, the CEP and, to a lesser extent, the English Democrats are running pretty professional campaigns, but for the average English person in the street how high in their list of priorities is, for example, the question of an English parliament?
Irrespective of how much pride they take in the fact, the vast majority of MPs representing English constituencies were born in England, the vast majority are English. You say a sizeable % don't even identify with the English people, I'd counter that with my impression that a large majority have never even expressed a view on the topic of "Britishness" versus "Englishness" or the various constitutional issues that I mentioned earlier. They don't need to, because, unlike Scotland, wales, NI, for a majority of their constituents it simply isn't a hot enough topic.
That's not to say there isn't an inherent unfairness at the heart of the assmetrical devolution system, there quite clearly is. More that there simply isn't the groundswell of public opinion in England to force them (the MPs) to take a stance one way or the other on the issue.
Just as a matter of interest, what's your MP's views on the subject? Has he expressed any?
She (my MP) is one of "Blair's Babes" who takes a strictly party line. She is in favour of ID cards and she publicly lambasted (in the newspaper the Sheffield Star) those Labour MPs who rebelled against the imposition of tuition fees on English students when the Scottish Parliament had already rejected fees for Scottish students and Labour had stood on a manifesto commitment not to introduce them. A piece of legislation that was passed by the votes of Scottish MPs whose own constituents they knew would not be affected.
The tradition of our representative democracy is that the people elect someone from amongst themselves to represent them and make the binding decisions that affect their lives.
Nowadays of course, the Scots et al elect such a person to decide such matters for them in their own Parliament whilst simultaneously sending another person to rule over (and over rule) the English in our Parliament.
But if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland insist that the English should have no say in decisions affecting them, then the same applies in reverse. MPs for non-English constituencies should have no right to speak and vote at Westminster.
Yes I know Defence and the succession to the Crown are reserved matters. I'm sure the various parties can get together to deal with such issues. After all, it doesn't seem to bother the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
"I read with amazement...the vitriol, bitterness and downright hatred rained down on the Scottish Six ..."
As you say 65% of Scots voted for Unionist parties. Simple arithmetic says that 35% of Scots didn't. The anger shown was because a "Constitutional Commission" has been set up in the Scottish Parliament with a basic remit to disenfranchise a third of the Scottish electorate by ignoring their views on independence in the deliberations of the Commission.
"..the comments section of The Herald- thankfully, in the interests of good taste, it has now been removed."
I don't like the political views expressed on many sites but I would never approve of their removal as I believe in free speech. For someone who has taken advantage of the internet to express your own views it's hypocritical of you to approve of the removal of opinions you don't like. You may approve of censorship but I don't.
As one of those "Cyber-Bravehearts" who posted on the Herald, I do bear in mind the inconvenient fact that the majority of the unionist parties have in Holyrood has just ensured that my views and the views of the third of the electorate who voted for independence as I did have been excluded by the Lib-Lab-Con alliance as not acceptable for consideration.
I regard the "Scottish Six", aka the "Six Stooges", with distaste.
wildgoose
Believe it or not, I once went to hear the Dalai Lamai speak (it wasn't a private audience btw, there were another 5,000 there!).
Anyway, somebody asked him about why we've got such crap politicians, corrupt, self-serving etc.
His answer was "Look in the mirror!" It wasn't really the answer the questioner was after, but in a democrcay it's undoubtedly a true one.
You've coherently and intelligently set out your views (and if I recall correctly, you might even be standing for the English Democrats), but my main point stands, if you don't convince enough of your fellow constituents of the validity of your argument, well, then the majority of your fellow constituents don't rate it as importnat a matter as you do.
I don't think the average English person, compared to the average Scot, N.Irish or Welsh places much importance on the constitutional question. Hence the majority of your (ie the English) politicians completely ignoring the question of an English parliament
For someone who has taken advantage of the internet to express your own views it's hypocritical of you to approve of the removal of opinions you don't like. You may approve of censorship but I don't.
Dougthedug,
I don't get that many comments on here, but of the ones that I do, I'd say about 90% disagree with what I've posted.
But they do it in a way which attacks my argument, instead of me personally and as a result, I've only ever removed one comment on here from a person who, when faced with one of my posts, delivered the stunning deconstruction that I was a "c*nt". The concept of freedom of speech has not been damaged by my deciding not to let that comment stay.
People, generally, don't attack the Unionist argument in The Herald and The Scotsman, they attack the Unionist, be it a politician or simply some punter who's had the nerve to disagree with their world-view. Quite a few of the NI sites operate with the comments policy of "play the ball, not the man" and again, by doing so I don't belive they have damaged the concept of freedom of speech
I've been viewing the sites dealing with the pro's and con's of the union with great interest. I'm English, but being born in the mid 1950's to a working class family in Salford, considered myself British first and English second. This is based on the lack of a proper English identity amongst my generation and class, and the fact that my culture and beliefs were basically very similar to my conterparts in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Swansea, Belfast and Derry. I don't buy the ethnicity angle, like most working class people where I live, I am a mongrel mixture of Irish and indegenous northern England. I go on holiday and socialise and drink with Scots, Irish and Welsh people because we have a common bond of British culture. Nobody seems to mention that beyond all the rhetoric, we actually mix well and get on! I am greatly saddened by the amount of venom aimed at 'the English' as if all the woes of the world would go away if there was an independent Scotland. We are very lucky we have lived in times of a strong Britain, we'd be letting down the people who gave everything in two world wars to squander it for tribal reasons.
Post a Comment