Comments on: Clegg calls for a British Constitutional Convention (updated) http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html Our place to talk - an independent website for supporters of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 08:55:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Gavin http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37339 Gavin Thu, 03 Jan 2008 01:54:10 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37339 Some of the people on this thread would get on like a house on fire with the SNP trolls who haunt other corners of t'internet. Do we at least agree that the right to self-government is not conditional on nationality or ethnicity? The SCC was not about the government of Scottish people other than in the sense of 'people living in Scotland'. Happily, that includes a lot of English people and a number of people from a range of different nationalities. You may not like some English MPs (or others) who you reckon aren't English, but if you really think they're that bad, I'm afraid you will need to campaign to elect someone else in their place. Clegg's idea is a good one, and a natural beginning to tackling the issues you're apparently keen on tackling. Devolution is asymmetric because the demand for devolution was (very) asymmetric. There was never a conspiracy - just democratic politics. England and Wales could have their own 'Claim of Right' in precisely the terms of Scotland's as far as I can see (at least if they want to!). It makes sense to look at a UK level at the whole constitution (including the funding mechanisms) to establish what the nature of the Union is, and to tackle other UK-wide issues. Proposals for England could sensibly follow from that along with revised proposals for Scotland and Wales for each to consider. If England desperately wants to move to a referendum on devolution faster than that, there's nothing stopping it - I've never heard of the English Constitutional Convention before this thread but if it's serious, broad-based and open-minded about the options then good luck to it. To get the SCC to work, though, it took a lot of patience, and gradual building of consensus over a decade around detailed proposals and a solid footing in civic Scotland as much as party political involvement. Bear in mind that neither the SNP nor the Tories ever took part. PS - for anyone interested in the SCC, the info is all online at http://www.almac.co.uk/business_park/scc/. (Website very much from the olden days!) PPS - For the person interested in signatories of the Claim of Right, I would be very surprised if all 149 were not those attending from among the SCC's 200ish members listed in the appendix of the SCC's final report (see link). You will see some of the people representing religious groups, business organisations, unions &c are fairly obscure, so it may be hard to that extent to be sure with some of the signatures - but I expect you could write to most of these people and ask them if you really want to book them all in at the Tower of London individually. It's not a government/parliamentary document, so the FOI response is more helpful than you might have got. Some of the people on this thread would get on like a house on fire with the SNP trolls who haunt other corners of t’internet.

Do we at least agree that the right to self-government is not conditional on nationality or ethnicity? The SCC was not about the government of Scottish people other than in the sense of ‘people living in Scotland’. Happily, that includes a lot of English people and a number of people from a range of different nationalities.

You may not like some English MPs (or others) who you reckon aren’t English, but if you really think they’re that bad, I’m afraid you will need to campaign to elect someone else in their place.

Clegg’s idea is a good one, and a natural beginning to tackling the issues you’re apparently keen on tackling. Devolution is asymmetric because the demand for devolution was (very) asymmetric. There was never a conspiracy – just democratic politics.

England and Wales could have their own ‘Claim of Right’ in precisely the terms of Scotland’s as far as I can see (at least if they want to!). It makes sense to look at a UK level at the whole constitution (including the funding mechanisms) to establish what the nature of the Union is, and to tackle other UK-wide issues.

Proposals for England could sensibly follow from that along with revised proposals for Scotland and Wales for each to consider. If England desperately wants to move to a referendum on devolution faster than that, there’s nothing stopping it – I’ve never heard of the English Constitutional Convention before this thread but if it’s serious, broad-based and open-minded about the options then good luck to it. To get the SCC to work, though, it took a lot of patience, and gradual building of consensus over a decade around detailed proposals and a solid footing in civic Scotland as much as party political involvement. Bear in mind that neither the SNP nor the Tories ever took part.

PS – for anyone interested in the SCC, the info is all online at http://www.almac.co.uk/business_park/scc/. (Website very much from the olden days!)

PPS – For the person interested in signatories of the Claim of Right, I would be very surprised if all 149 were not those attending from among the SCC’s 200ish members listed in the appendix of the SCC’s final report (see link). You will see some of the people representing religious groups, business organisations, unions &c are fairly obscure, so it may be hard to that extent to be sure with some of the signatures – but I expect you could write to most of these people and ask them if you really want to book them all in at the Tower of London individually. It’s not a government/parliamentary document, so the FOI response is more helpful than you might have got.

]]> By: Charles Packard http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37338 Charles Packard Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:39:17 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37338 MattGB - “I’m missing something here. Perhaps someone can explain what is objectionable in this text” Because it is contradictory to believing in the sovereignty of Westminster. Since they have signed up to this declaration of unlimited Scotish sovereignty they are bang to rights in not believing in the sovereignty of Westminster. Unless of course they didn't actually believe in what they were signing up to which then puts a big question mark over their integrity. Brown won't repudiate it and will try to ignore it because by doing so he will hand a powerful argument to the nationalists and undermine the impression that Scots are sovereign over their affairs instead of Westminster. MattGB – “I’m missing something here. Perhaps someone can explain what is objectionable in this text”

Because it is contradictory to believing in the sovereignty of Westminster.

Since they have signed up to this declaration of unlimited Scotish sovereignty they are bang to rights in not believing in the sovereignty of Westminster.

Unless of course they didn’t actually believe in what they were signing up to which then puts a big question mark over their integrity.

Brown won’t repudiate it and will try to ignore it because by doing so he will hand a powerful argument to the nationalists and undermine the impression that Scots are sovereign over their affairs instead of Westminster.

]]> By: daveb06 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37317 daveb06 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:26:50 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37317 P HARRIS states that he is a Little Englander Sir the only Little Englanders I know of are ENGLISH CHILDREN. I also notice when the ENGLISH question comes up it is Mr Cleggs stock answer, "here we go again the Little Englanders". So when the Lib/Dems come knocking for your vote, remember what Clegg called you and ram it down their throats as you slam the door in their face. P HARRIS states that he is a Little Englander Sir the only Little Englanders I know of are ENGLISH CHILDREN. I also notice when the ENGLISH question comes up it is Mr Cleggs stock answer, “here we go again the Little Englanders”. So when the Lib/Dems come knocking for your vote, remember what Clegg called you and ram it down their throats as you slam the door in their face.

]]> By: daveb06 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37315 daveb06 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:11:30 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37315 MatGB states that people get what they vote for do they really, well I clearly remember the people of the northeast of ENGLAND NOT NOT voting for regional assemblies and yet our dear PM still insisted they have one, oh no sorry it was the unelected EU that insisted they have one Mr Brown just followed orders now where have I heard that before. MatGB states that people get what they vote for do they really, well I clearly remember the people of the northeast of ENGLAND NOT NOT voting for regional assemblies and yet our dear PM still insisted they have one, oh no sorry it was the unelected EU that insisted they have one Mr Brown just followed orders now where have I heard that before.

]]> By: gadgie http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37312 gadgie Wed, 02 Jan 2008 19:32:21 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37312 As an example of this british constitution read NHS Constitution, it is for England (English regions) only. Have you no pride Lib/Dems? As an example of this british constitution read NHS Constitution, it is for England (English regions) only.
Have you no pride Lib/Dems?

]]> By: Patrick Harris http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37302 Patrick Harris Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:31:38 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37302 I find it laughable yet indefensible that devolution for Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland is cheered and the possibility of the same for England is jeered. To my mind (a Little Englander (sour and bigoted), a logical consequence of the emancipation of 3 out of 4 countries (of one Union) is emancipation for the 4th. Am I mad or just misguided? I find it laughable yet indefensible that devolution for Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland is cheered and the possibility of the same for England is jeered. To my mind (a Little Englander (sour and bigoted), a logical consequence of the emancipation of 3 out of 4 countries (of one Union) is emancipation for the 4th.
Am I mad or just misguided?

]]> By: gadgie http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37286 gadgie Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:37:35 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37286 I fail to see how a british constitutional convention can be convened whilst there are more powers planned for Scotland Wales and probrably Northern Ireland. No one will know what parts of any constitution will be rejected by Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland parliaments. The end result would be non English MP's voting through a british constitution on England only, as usual. I fail to see how a british constitutional convention can be convened whilst there are more powers planned for Scotland Wales and probrably Northern Ireland. No one will know what parts of any constitution will be rejected by Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland parliaments. The end result would be non English MP’s voting through a british constitution on England only, as usual.

]]> By: MatGB http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37280 MatGB Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:47:45 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37280 Gaffa just gave the answer I was going to, and has my interpretation. I can (now) see how it could be interpreted in a different way (I didn't before), but in context it's a statement explicitly about devolution to Scotland and thus isn't an assault on anything else. I don't think there are many people in favour of the Barnett formula, and the Lib Dem belief in localism and locally raised taxes would see such things almost completely replaced by honest and open tax raising powers—politicians should be responsible for raising the money they spend, whether it be at the Parish council or the glorified county council that is Holyrood. I like the Lib Dem policy on this issue, it's one of the reasons I decided to actually join just over two years ago, and I don't regret it. The way England and Britain is governed is a mess, and it needs fixing. Top down solutions don't work, people need to be asked, it needs to be discussed, consultation needs to happen. Not just over the status of England and Scotland within the Union, but also about how MPs are elected, the party system overall, and similar. That's why I'm backing this overall reassesment. That's why I think this, with the Convention and referenda plan, is a great idea. Gaffa just gave the answer I was going to, and has my interpretation. I can (now) see how it could be interpreted in a different way (I didn’t before), but in context it’s a statement explicitly about devolution to Scotland and thus isn’t an assault on anything else.

I don’t think there are many people in favour of the Barnett formula, and the Lib Dem belief in localism and locally raised taxes would see such things almost completely replaced by honest and open tax raising powers—politicians should be responsible for raising the money they spend, whether it be at the Parish council or the glorified county council that is Holyrood.

I like the Lib Dem policy on this issue, it’s one of the reasons I decided to actually join just over two years ago, and I don’t regret it. The way England and Britain is governed is a mess, and it needs fixing. Top down solutions don’t work, people need to be asked, it needs to be discussed, consultation needs to happen. Not just over the status of England and Scotland within the Union, but also about how MPs are elected, the party system overall, and similar.

That’s why I’m backing this overall reassesment. That’s why I think this, with the Convention and referenda plan, is a great idea.

]]> By: GaffaUK http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37276 GaffaUK Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:18:36 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37276 Phoenix - I took the below to mean the following... ‘We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount [IN REGARDS TO THE ISSUE OF SCOTTISH SOVEREIGNITY] As I say I as understand MPs have a duty for their constituency and not necessarily the country as a whole. If funny that you criticise the Scottish creating their own devolution and wish English do the same but don't mention the Welsh and the Irish. So as an Englishman like myself you are primarily concerned with England. Fair enough. So it is natural that the Scots will look after their interests. For instance if there was to be a big Japanese car plant to built in the UK do really think all MPs will look objectively at the issue and vote place it in the region which they consider best? Of course not - each MP will lobby for their own patch - be it West Lothian or West Cornwall. So rather than criticise the Scots for devolution I suggest we criticise the unfairness in the current situation in regards to a lack of English Parliament rather than bang on that Scots shouldn't put Scotland first as if all MPs put the country as a whole first. Phoenix – I took the below to mean the following…

‘We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount [IN REGARDS TO THE ISSUE OF SCOTTISH SOVEREIGNITY]

As I say I as understand MPs have a duty for their constituency and not necessarily the country as a whole. If funny that you criticise the Scottish creating their own devolution and wish English do the same but don’t mention the Welsh and the Irish. So as an Englishman like myself you are primarily concerned with England. Fair enough. So it is natural that the Scots will look after their interests.

For instance if there was to be a big Japanese car plant to built in the UK do really think all MPs will look objectively at the issue and vote place it in the region which they consider best? Of course not – each MP will lobby for their own patch – be it West Lothian or West Cornwall.

So rather than criticise the Scots for devolution I suggest we criticise the unfairness in the current situation in regards to a lack of English Parliament rather than bang on that Scots shouldn’t put Scotland first as if all MPs put the country as a whole first.

]]> By: Steven Ronald http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37275 Steven Ronald Tue, 01 Jan 2008 23:12:38 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37275 As a Scotsman (currently living in England) - I can only sympathise with the English people above who want this debate to be more English-centric. The fact that the democratic deficit of the West-lothian problem is currently a reality is a disgrace and I wish more Scots would speak up against it. As a Scotsman (currently living in England) – I can only sympathise with the English people above who want this debate to be more English-centric. The fact that the democratic deficit of the West-lothian problem is currently a reality is a disgrace and I wish more Scots would speak up against it.

]]> By: LeePykeryng http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37268 LeePykeryng Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:37:18 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37268 The trouble with some English MPs there on a gravy train with the EU,they need to be sorted!.... Frank Field is a great MP for the ENGLISH!i just wish he would join aENGLISH PARTY The trouble with some English MPs there on a gravy train with the EU,they need to be sorted!…. Frank Field is a great MP for the ENGLISH!i just wish he would join aENGLISH PARTY

]]> By: Phoenix http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37267 Phoenix Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:20:59 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37267 I an sorry I did not quite read you question thoroughly. I quote the relavent section of the claim of right below. I interpret that as putting Scottish interest above all else and that includes both England and Britain. 'We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.' I an sorry I did not quite read you question thoroughly.

I quote the relavent section of the claim of right below. I interpret that as putting Scottish interest above all else and that includes both England and Britain.

‘We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.’

]]> By: Phoenix http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37265 Phoenix Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:13:10 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37265 I think that I have answered your question. The oath does not have a 'best by' date it is ongoing. There is an EDM (266?) calling for Brown to renounce it, he won't. In words on one syllable. The signatories are the reason that Scotland has its own parliament and we have no English parliament. No representation. They are the mindset that perpetuates the Barnett formula and advantages given to their own country. I would see nothing wrong with the wording of the oath, for Scotland, I just wish that the 560 English MPs would sign and English one and adhere to it with the same tenacity. If you see nothing wrong with giving away our oil and fisheries then I for one don't want to belong to the same party as you. These people run Britain. They ensured a parliament for their own country whilst fighting tooth and nail to ensure that the English remain British. Now if you want to continue please explain in more detail as I am too long in the tooth to be led into long diatribe by a few syllables. If it is not self evident you may have a problem or you are not English. If you do not object to the leadership of our main parties belonging to an exclusive club dedicated to the furtherance of their own country at the expense of (yours?), then there is little else I can offer. If on the other hand you are a Scot, I do understand. I think that I have answered your question.
The oath does not have a ‘best by’ date it is ongoing. There is an EDM (266?) calling for Brown to renounce it, he won’t.
In words on one syllable.
The signatories are the reason that Scotland has its own parliament and we have no English parliament. No representation.
They are the mindset that perpetuates the Barnett formula and advantages given to their own country.
I would see nothing wrong with the wording of the oath, for Scotland, I just wish that the 560 English MPs would sign and English one and adhere to it with the same tenacity.
If you see nothing wrong with giving away our oil and fisheries then I for one don’t want to belong to the same party as you.
These people run Britain.
They ensured a parliament for their own country whilst fighting tooth and nail to ensure that the English remain British.
Now if you want to continue please explain in more detail as I am too long in the tooth to be led into long diatribe by a few syllables.
If it is not self evident you may have a problem or you are not English.
If you do not object to the leadership of our main parties belonging to an exclusive club dedicated to the furtherance of their own country at the expense of (yours?), then there is little else I can offer. If on the other hand you are a Scot, I do understand.

]]> By: MatGB http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37263 MatGB Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:39:17 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37263 Um, Phoenix? You didn't answer the question I set. What is wrong with the text of the claim? It's done with, settled, finished, the Parliament exists, they pledged to campaign for the Parliament. There is nothing in that text that says they'll put the interests of Scotland over England or Britain, only that they'd campaign for Scotland to have a Parliament to decide specifically Scottish issues. So come on, answer the actual question, what within the text (not who signed it, the actual text) is wrong—one of us interprets it different to the other, obviously, so you'll have to point out the problem with it that I don't see. Um, Phoenix? You didn’t answer the question I set. What is wrong with the text of the claim? It’s done with, settled, finished, the Parliament exists, they pledged to campaign for the Parliament.

There is nothing in that text that says they’ll put the interests of Scotland over England or Britain, only that they’d campaign for Scotland to have a Parliament to decide specifically Scottish issues.

So come on, answer the actual question, what within the text (not who signed it, the actual text) is wrong—one of us interprets it different to the other, obviously, so you’ll have to point out the problem with it that I don’t see.

]]> By: Phoenix http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37262 Phoenix Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:32:42 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37262 MattGB "I’m missing something here. Perhaps someone can explain what is objectionable in this text:" The people below signed this document and are elected to run our Country in the interests of all of the British, 85% of which are English. These people paid to run Britain have decided to give absolute priority to the 10% that comprises their own country---Scotland. One of their signatories is the Speaker of the House of Commons. He who is none political and impartial, the one that will decide on which legislation the English MPs get to vote on if we ever (God forbid) get Eng Votes on Eng Matters) It's like asking the board of Asda to run Tescos. No problem with the Oath if they are SNP and members of only the Scottish Parliament. Just suppose that the 80% that comprise the English element of Westminster made public oath to look after just the English. If you want it more graphic how about if White MPs signed to give priority to Whites.... Got it. Look below, particularly at McLiesh to see why we object. That is probably the most graphic example, they usually manage to hide it better. He couldn’t hide that so he was repatriated into the top job as his reward. Just imagine the rest of the iceburg. Do some research on the names and look at what committees they are on. Then consider that they are under oath to put Scotland first. Take a good look it seems that Scots nationalists are well represented in the LIB DEMS, especially at leader level. It only proves one thing, we English are like turkeys voting for Christmas. Happy Christmas to all Lib Dems. I’m in the English Democrats. All of these have pledged to prioritise Scotland. And yes for that read ‘Stuff England!’ Elspeth Attwooll MEP LIB DEM (Leader EU) Gordon Brown Malcolm Bruce LIB DEM (ex Leader) He is a former leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and is now President of the Scottish Party. Menzies Campbell LIB DEM (ex leader) Denis Canavan Robin Cook (dec) Alistair Darling Ian Davidson Tam Dayell Donald Dewar (dec) Brian Donohoe George Foulkes Now Labour Peer. George Galloway (Now Respect) Nigel Griffiths James Hood Charles Kennedy LIB DEM David Marshall Michael Martin SPEAKER Henry McLeish LAB On Tuesday 23 March 1999, England gave away an estimated 30% of attributable oil revenue to the Scottish Parliament on the orders of a former First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. Henry McLeish (Fife), – Was made the British minister responsible at Westminster at the time of devolution, for drawing up the new territorial boundaries, by his fellow Scotsman Blair. “2 years later he followed Donald Dewar back to Scotland and like him was made First Minister under Labour. Thomas McAvoy John McFall John Reid George Robertson Lab (ret) John Smith (dec) David Steel LIB DEM (ex Leader) Gavin Strang MattGB
“I’m missing something here. Perhaps someone can explain what is objectionable in this text:”

The people below signed this document and are elected to run our Country in the interests of all of the British, 85% of which are English.
These people paid to run Britain have decided to give absolute priority to the 10% that comprises their own country—Scotland.

One of their signatories is the Speaker of the House of Commons. He who is none political and impartial, the one that will decide on which legislation the English MPs get to vote on if we ever (God forbid) get Eng Votes on Eng Matters)
It’s like asking the board of Asda to run Tescos.
No problem with the Oath if they are SNP and members of only the Scottish Parliament.
Just suppose that the 80% that comprise the English element of Westminster made public oath to look after just the English.
If you want it more graphic how about if White MPs signed to give priority to Whites…. Got it.

Look below, particularly at McLiesh to see why we object. That is probably the most graphic example, they usually manage to hide it better. He couldn’t hide that so he was repatriated into the top job as his reward. Just imagine the rest of the iceburg.
Do some research on the names and look at what committees they are on. Then consider that they are under oath to put Scotland first.
Take a good look it seems that Scots nationalists are well represented in the LIB DEMS, especially at leader level.
It only proves one thing, we English are like turkeys voting for Christmas. Happy Christmas to all Lib Dems. I’m in the English Democrats.

All of these have pledged to prioritise Scotland. And yes for that read ‘Stuff England!’

Elspeth Attwooll MEP LIB DEM (Leader EU)
Gordon Brown

Malcolm Bruce LIB DEM (ex Leader)
He is a former leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats and is now President of the Scottish Party.

Menzies Campbell LIB DEM (ex leader)
Denis Canavan
Robin Cook (dec)
Alistair Darling
Ian Davidson
Tam Dayell
Donald Dewar (dec)
Brian Donohoe
George Foulkes Now Labour Peer.
George Galloway (Now Respect)
Nigel Griffiths
James Hood
Charles Kennedy LIB DEM
David Marshall
Michael Martin SPEAKER

Henry McLeish LAB
On Tuesday 23 March 1999, England gave away an estimated 30% of attributable oil revenue to the Scottish Parliament on the orders of a former First Minister of the Scottish Parliament.

Henry McLeish (Fife), – Was made the British minister responsible at Westminster at the time of devolution, for drawing up the new territorial boundaries, by his fellow Scotsman Blair. “2 years later he followed Donald Dewar back to Scotland and like him was made First Minister under Labour.

Thomas McAvoy
John McFall
John Reid
George Robertson Lab (ret)
John Smith (dec)
David Steel LIB DEM (ex Leader)
Gavin Strang

]]> By: GaffaUK http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37255 GaffaUK Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:53:17 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37255 You give the impression that it was the Scottish who wanted the Poll Tax but I suspect the majority of Scottish MPs didn't vote for it. A handful of Tory Scottish MPs at the time can be said to represent all of SCotland and it wasn't long before there was no Tory Scots left. And if most English MPs are gutless (as you imply) then maybe we don't deserve our own parliamnent? You give the impression that it was the Scottish who wanted the Poll Tax but I suspect the majority of Scottish MPs didn’t vote for it. A handful of Tory Scottish MPs at the time can be said to represent all of SCotland and it wasn’t long before there was no Tory Scots left.

And if most English MPs are gutless (as you imply) then maybe we don’t deserve our own parliamnent?

]]> By: Stephen Gash http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37250 Stephen Gash Tue, 01 Jan 2008 15:12:29 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37250 GaffaUK "MPs are normally going to consider themselves and their views first, then their party, then their voters, then their home nation and finally the UK. " This is so palpably not the case, it barely merits a response. Virtually all MPs are brown-nosing sycophants and rarely express their own views, especially gutless English MPs of the three main parties. There is a modicum of truth in what you say about "home nation" when it comes to Scots and Welsh MPs regardless of where their own constituencies are. Scots always put Scotland first, not least the likes of Rifkind, parachuted into a safe English seat. The UK has been declared to be of paramount importance by all three party leaders, not least Cameron and Brown. What they actually mean is England must continued to be screwed while Scotland benefits. Brown, Cameron and Blair have actually said this in not so many words. English voters come last, in fact they are disregarded. Why else do we have top-up fees in England, to name just one disadvantage in a long and growing list? There's none so blind as those who will not see. Oh, and you forgot the EU which is the gravy train which always foremost in MPs' thoughts. GaffaUK “MPs are normally going to consider themselves and their views first, then their party, then their voters, then their home nation and finally the UK. ”
This is so palpably not the case, it barely merits a response.
Virtually all MPs are brown-nosing sycophants and rarely express their own views, especially gutless English MPs of the three main parties.
There is a modicum of truth in what you say about “home nation” when it comes to Scots and Welsh MPs regardless of where their own constituencies are. Scots always put Scotland first, not least the likes of Rifkind, parachuted into a safe English seat.
The UK has been declared to be of paramount importance by all three party leaders, not least Cameron and Brown. What they actually mean is England must continued to be screwed while Scotland benefits. Brown, Cameron and Blair have actually said this in not so many words.
English voters come last, in fact they are disregarded. Why else do we have top-up fees in England, to name just one disadvantage in a long and growing list?
There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
Oh, and you forgot the EU which is the gravy train which always foremost in MPs’ thoughts.

]]> By: Stephen Gash http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37248 Stephen Gash Tue, 01 Jan 2008 14:57:05 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37248 If the Scots were entitled to a Scottish Constitutional Convention then the English should be given the respect of the English Constitutional Convention being recognised by the three main parties. Its inagural meeting was chaired by Canon Kenyon Wright an important figure in the SCC (who signed the Scottish Claim of Right, I believe) so a an English Parliament has support from outside English nationalism. However, most of our politicians insist on ramming Britishness down English throats. This causes resentment in England, but it also causes resentment in Scotland and Wales where people complain about the English means British attitude of politicians and media (wrongly in my view). The only thing that can possibly save the UK is an English Parliament, but if the UK cannot be saved, then I say again "good riddance". If the Scots were entitled to a Scottish Constitutional Convention then the English should be given the respect of the English Constitutional Convention being recognised by the three main parties.

Its inagural meeting was chaired by Canon Kenyon Wright an important figure in the SCC (who signed the Scottish Claim of Right, I believe) so a an English Parliament has support from outside English nationalism.

However, most of our politicians insist on ramming Britishness down English throats. This causes resentment in England, but it also causes resentment in Scotland and Wales where people complain about the English means British attitude of politicians and media (wrongly in my view).

The only thing that can possibly save the UK is an English Parliament, but if the UK cannot be saved, then I say again “good riddance”.

]]> By: Stephen Gash http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37247 Stephen Gash Tue, 01 Jan 2008 14:47:34 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37247 GaffaUK "One is the tyranny of the majority where the Scots were outnumbered in a debate (e.g. Poll Tax) which they were allowed to vote in like everyone else -" This old chesnut (roasted to a cinder). It was Rifkind and other Scottish politicians who asked for the poll tax in Scotland. Arguably it was Scottish demands that caused the poll tax to be rushed in. Thatcher's adviser said that the tax should be introduced over a period of 12 years. Thatcher would not have that, but it was never intended to be rushed in as it was. The rest of the UK had the poll tax which is forgotten. That was what the UK was all about. We were all in the same boat. The UK is dead and good riddance. I'm sick and tired of Scottish opinion overriding all else. Scotland has held England back since before the crowns were unified. Clegg's and Huhne's first action in their leadership handbag fight was to troop up to Scotland making promises to give more powers to the Scots. Neither will offer the English a referendum on home rule. "Liberal Democrats" - never has a party been more misnamed. GaffaUK “One is the tyranny of the majority where the Scots were outnumbered in a debate (e.g. Poll Tax) which they were allowed to vote in like everyone else -”
This old chesnut (roasted to a cinder). It was Rifkind and other Scottish politicians who asked for the poll tax in Scotland. Arguably it was Scottish demands that caused the poll tax to be rushed in. Thatcher’s adviser said that the tax should be introduced over a period of 12 years. Thatcher would not have that, but it was never intended to be rushed in as it was.
The rest of the UK had the poll tax which is forgotten. That was what the UK was all about. We were all in the same boat.
The UK is dead and good riddance. I’m sick and tired of Scottish opinion overriding all else. Scotland has held England back since before the crowns were unified.
Clegg’s and Huhne’s first action in their leadership handbag fight was to troop up to Scotland making promises to give more powers to the Scots.
Neither will offer the English a referendum on home rule.
“Liberal Democrats” – never has a party been more misnamed.

]]> By: Mr White http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37245 Mr White Tue, 01 Jan 2008 13:54:48 +0000 http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-calls-for-a-british-constitutional-convention-1888.html#comment-37245 Ive read the full piece from Mr Clegg on the Lib Dems website, and I note the following: "The Prime Minister phoned me to offer his congratulations and express his wish that we should work together on the issues that unite our country" - Gordon Browns country is Scotland (first and foremost), unless he has withdrawn his oath to the Scottish claim of Right. "But this is Britain - a country whose population has resisted the exercise of undue control and authority by the Powers That Be since the signing of Magna Carta in 1215" - Britain did not exist in 1215, this was a wholly English document. "The Scottish Constitutional Convention was able to obtain widespread endorsement for what became the blueprint for devolved government in Scotland: the settled will of the Scottish people." - OK, so the people of Scotland have been given democracy and are in no need of a British Constitutional Convention then? England and Britain are not interchangeable words, when will people stop mixing them up? It is ENGLAND not Britain that needs a voice for its people. The English Constitutional Convention already exists but is largely ignored by the main three parties. Why doesnt Mr Clegg acknowledge this? Ive read the full piece from Mr Clegg on the Lib Dems website, and I note the following:

“The Prime Minister phoned me to offer his congratulations and express his wish that we should work together on the issues that unite our country” – Gordon Browns country is Scotland (first and foremost), unless he has withdrawn his oath to the Scottish claim of Right.

“But this is Britain – a country whose population has resisted the exercise of undue control and authority by the Powers That Be since the signing of Magna Carta in 1215″ – Britain did not exist in 1215, this was a wholly English document.

“The Scottish Constitutional Convention was able to obtain widespread endorsement for what became the blueprint for devolved government in Scotland: the settled will of the Scottish people.” – OK, so the people of Scotland have been given democracy and are in no need of a British Constitutional Convention then?

England and Britain are not interchangeable words, when will people stop mixing them up?

It is ENGLAND not Britain that needs a voice for its people. The English Constitutional Convention already exists but is largely ignored by the main three parties. Why doesnt Mr Clegg acknowledge this?

]]>