Writing on the party’s official website, Nick Clegg has challenged Gordon Brown and David Cameron to live up to their words on cooperation:
Shortly after I was elected as Leader of the Liberal Democrats, 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. Similarly, shortly before I was elected as Lib Dem Leader, the Conservative Leader made a posting on his website seeking support from the Liberal Democrats to build a “progressive alliance”. His approach was a little less personal and a bit preemptive, but I shall not hold that against him.
I would like to think that my opponents’ apparent wish to cooperate is a sign of a new age dawning in British politics – an era of political civility in which parties set aside narrow self-interest for the good of the country. More likely, it is the latest wheeze by Labour and the Tories to take the best of Liberal Democrat ideas and call them their own. That risk is well-known to my party. But I am prepared to take risks in working with others to address one of the greatest crises facing us today: Britain’s broken political system…
So, if Gordon Brown and David Cameron are serious when they say that they want to cooperate, here is the litmus test. They should join the Liberal Democrats in establishing an independent British Constitutional Convention that would bring together representatives from all political parties and from every corner of British society. Its remit would be the construction of a consensus on the reforms needed to reopen the political system and revitalise public trust.
The Convention would be inspired by its predecessor in Scotland, in which Labour and the Liberal Democrats were joined by voices from the trade unions, churches and other civil society organisations. By bringing together a cross-section of society, 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. I believe that the same can be achieved for reform at Westminster too.
You can read the full piece, including details of the topics which Nick believes should be covered by a Constitutional Convention, on the Liberal Democrat website.
UPDATE: The Observer has covered the story here:
Clegg has taken the initiative on constitutional reform by writing to Brown to propose the establishment of a new British Constitutional Convention, with members of all the main parties and non-political figures, to examine the country’s ‘broken’ political system. The convention, which would be modelled on the Scottish Constitutional Convention that paved the way for devolution, would look at electoral reform and at relations between Westminster and the devolved bodies.
Clegg wrote to the Prime Minister: ‘I believe that our politics is broken. A centralised, ossified Westminster system has, for years, simply failed to deliver the change and the empowerment of citizens that the British people deserve.’
Downing Street sources indicated that Brown would study the Clegg proposal with care. The Prime Minister may not accept his exact proposal for a new convention, but he will work with Clegg in the spirit of the constitutitonal reform statement he made to Parliament in July. In this, Brown pledged to work with other parties to examine issues such as the right of No 10 to declare war and to sign treaties through the royal prerogative powers.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
Reform makes first gain from Conservatives in this by-election cycle
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
Peter Martin
53 Comments
The British Constitutional Convention would examine the role and powers of Parliament and ministers; the way in which Parliament is elected and held to account; the relationships between the nations of the United Kingdom; the concentration of power in Whitehall; and the need to strengthen basic individual rights and liberties against the abuse of state power.
But not the Monarchy. Obviously.
A good start Nick.
All we need now is for the campaigns department to turn that into plain English so that we can stick it on a piece of paper and stuff it through letterboxes.
according to this article in the Scottish Sun-Herald today by Ian Mcwhirter the Lib/dems are in favour of an English Parliament. If they are the English should be told. If they are not the English should be told.
There is no need for a british constitutional convention. The Scots are moving forward with another Scottish convention and the Welsh are getting more powers to bring them in line with Scotland.
English Lib/dems are welcome to join in with the English Constitutional Convention.
http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.1932855.0.0.php
brief
The PM will find the Tories eager to surf this grievance, calling for an English grand committee in Westminster, and English votes for English laws. They will be joined by a new kid on the bloc – fresh-faced Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who looks more like a Cameron Tory than most Tory MPs. Clegg doesn’t have the sensitivities to the Scottish Question of his predecessors, Charles Kennedy and Sir Menzies Campbell. The LibDems support an English parliament as a matter of policy. Brown will have to think about how to do a deal with them in the event of a hung parliament.
I’ve looked at Clegg’s article but confused about who he is talking about. britain in politician speak means England nowadays.
Is he talking about England or the whole of the uk at a convention?
A British Constitutional Convention is nothing more than a delaying tactic.
There is already an English Constitutional Convention http://www.englishconstitutionalconvention.com/
Did Clegg attend its inaugural conference? None of the three largest parties in Westminster take England seriously.
Gadgie, any constitutional convention that covers the UK and Westminster would HAVE to cover the English Question by default, it’s one of the bigger issues facing us. But you cannot (and MUST not) separate it as a standalone issue, solutions to other issues affect it, and vice versa.
I approve this initiative and statement by Mr Clegg, very well done sir.
MatGB – the Scottish Constitutional Convention did not take English matters into account. How many Lib dems signed the Scottish Claim of Right which promised to make Scottish interests paramount?
I don’t trust any of these British MPs to look after England’s needs.
Quite right Steve, any politicians who signed the scottish claim of right should be barred from taking part in any convention.
That includes two scotsmen sitting in English seats. George Galloway and Malcolm Rifkind.
Well no, it wouldn’t would it. The Scottish convention was specifically for and about Scotland, which doesn’t contain England.
But a UK convention would address England, because England is part of the UK. And given that the overwhelming majority of Westminster MPs are English, and that the proposal as put forward calls for more than just MPs to be involved (sortition has been proposed, feel free to look it up), your distrust is either blinkered myopia or posturing to make a misguided point.
In case you haven’t been paying attention, the Lib Dems are the party most in favour of a redressment of the balance of power, have been calling for reform since way before ’97, and have a coherent set of proposals put forward.
Scottish Lib Dems are part of the same federal party, but the English Lib Dem party is a separate entity within the federal system, and thus your point is doubly invalid n’est ce pas?
Please, please, don’t let this thread devolve into the frequently seen elsewhere blinkered attempts to point score of the more lunatic fringe EP campaigners, as attacking those most likely to listen only destroys your chances of being listened to.
“But a UK convention would address England, because England is part of the UK”.
We don’t need non English MP’s addressing England’s democratic deficit, they’re the ones who gave us the lemon in the first place.
If English Lib/Dems are a seperate entity with in a federal system, what are Lib/Dem policies for England? please reply with out using the word britain or british.
An answer to the English Question is a prerequisite for answering the British Question.
England needs to be asked how she wishes to be governed before we work out how that ties in with the rest of the United Kingdom. Call it what you want – English / British Constitutional Convention – the bottom line is that the Scots and Welsh and Irish should have no part in England’s constitutional design. That is a matter for the English, just as the Scottish Constitutional Convention was a matter for the Scottish to the exclusion of everyone English.
Your terms of reference for a British Constitutional Convention are so vague that it cannot be construed as an attempt to solve the urgent need to solve the English Question. What is needed is for all parties to join in the existing English Constitutional Convention.
The Union is in grave danger of breaking up since England is being most unfairly governed following devolution to Scotland. At least we now have one party led by an Englishman (Cameron rejoices in his Scots name when he speaks North of the border).
Have to say that I am a bit perplexed by Iain McWhirter saying “The LibDems support an English parliament as a matter of policy.”
When did this happen?
And if Nick has any sense he will stick to his all party constitutional talks rather than be drawn into Gordon’s web like Ming was. It made us look like we were would support Labour only.
We have to keep equidistance between the other parties.
He should tell Gordon to stuff his carve up of the constitution. Constitutions are for the mass of the people. Not political cliques.
I object to the idea of a British Constitutional Convention .
What is needed is an English Constitutional Convention not a British one . ie involving English people only and not anyone who isn’t . Its no business of other peoples with other parliaments . and that goes for the Welsh too .
It really is insulting to the English that the Scots should be invited to be part of a Convention to determine the government of England . They have had their convention .It resulted , eventually , in a Scottish pariament . They should have the sense and the politeness to keep out of English affairs.
I am amazed that Clegg actually spells this out in his article on the Lib dem website and then blythely goes for a British CC . So much for his regard for the democratic rights of the English .
And I object to anyone who thinks that the only purpose of a constitutional convention is to talk about a Parliament for England.
That’s what all these comments boil down to really. The only issue the commenters care about is an English Parliament. Anything that doesn’t deliver that directly and straight-away is wrong, irrelevant and stupid. Oh of course.
Well wake up and look around you. That isn’t the only issue in the world. It isn’t the only objective to judge proposals by. There are many people in England who are happy to talk to and discuss issues with those outside England. You don’t have to hate the rest of the world and retreat into a little England bunker. Come on out into the sunshine!
Rubbish . Thats a typical anti English attempt to try and get the English to belt up about the lack of democracy for England .
There are numerous issues to discuss but in the case of this particular issue the forum in which to discuss it is in England by the people of England . Scotland and Wales have had / are having their own discussions and welcome to them . The issue of how the English decide to be governed doesn’t concern them , thats all .
Lib Dem Member, That is because an English Parliament is the only issue of importance. We are being bled dry and fragmented. I just happen to think that our national survival is imoportant. It has only been that way since the Lab/Con/Lib.Dems were hijacked by a Scots/Welsh consortium of self interested nationalists that are hell bent on destroying a nation that they genetically regard as enemies.
An English Parliament is inevitable, the sooner this futile skirmish is over the better because the growing resentment will fester to a massive anti Scot/Welsh backlash. The reason you are able to summerise the postings as “The only issue that the commentators care about” is both self evident and indicative of the needs of the English. In relation to your final invitation to “come out into the sunshine” that is exactly what we are trying to do.
MatGB your pretentious patronisation would be breathtaking if it were not so unsurprising, n’est ce pas? (give me strength).
Firstly, English MPs as you call them comprise a significant number of non-English people, mainly Scots, but also Welsh, South African and German. Most of these are the most vociferous in the eradication of England, such as Peter Hain and all of the Scottish Lib Dem MPs. Charles Kennedy’s words still rankle with millions of English people.
You shoot yourself in the foot with your own argument “The Scottish convention was specifically for and about Scotland, which doesn’t contain England – But a UK convention would address England, because England is part of the UK.” This borders on idiocy frankly.
The motivation of English nationalists is to secure England, politically, socially, economically and culturally. The English Consitutional Convention addresses the political aspect. By its very nature a British Constitutional Convention would place England’s needs last. Anything “British” places England last “for the sake of the Union”. Please note the British/Irish Council had no English person at the table when giving away £51 billion of English money to 1.8 million Northern Irish people.
English needs should be settled through the ECC first, and then matters sorted out via a BCC if necessary.
I don’t trust Scots MPs to give England a fair deal, least of all those of the Lib Dem persuasion, if Kennedy, Campbell and Steele are anything to go by.
For that matter I don’t trust most of the self-loathing English MPs to give England a fair deal.
The undeniable fact is the English are persistently denied a democratic say in how England should be governed. The excuse is “it would cause the break-up of the Union”. So what? If the Union means that 85% of its inhabitants have to be disenfranchised and treated as nothing better than milk-cows who needs it?
I don’t feel empowered by a Union that systematically is removing my identity and bleeding my country dry.
Anything with “United” or “Union” in its title merely means the English pay, but have no say.
I am very much for an English Parliament (and the Welsh Assembly to also become a parliament) so that all four countries/regions in the UK are given the same priviledges.
It seems the Scottish devolution was messed up in that it left obvious democratic deficit in terms of the West Lothian question which should of been tackled at the same time.
However I have no problem with a British convention as if we change the current ludicrous rules and exclude the Scottish MPs from issues that only effect England and Wales – then they will need to be part of this. Also I’m sure there are plenty of Scottish, Welsh and Irish constitional issues which need tidying up.
Also it is rather silly and xenophobic to exclude MPs who sit in English seats but were born elsewhere (particularly Scotland) from such talks. As they were voted in by presumably mainly English voters then they have a democratic mandate to serve their consistuenents as best as they feel fit. The same as any English person who was voted into office outside England.
Dear GaffaUK, There are plenty more Scotsmen sitting in English seats that I have no problem with. What I do object to is Scotsmen in English seats that signed the Scottish claim of right.
“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”.
Now, there are some English MP’s who do object but I would go further and include those that now are sitting as English MP’s.
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34373
EDM 266 CONDUCT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND THE SCOTTISH CLAIM OF RIGHT14.11.2007
Davies, Philip
That this House recognises that the Prime Minister is a signatory to the Scottish Claim of Right in which he declared and pledged that in all his actions and deliberations the interests of the Scottish people `shall be paramount’; believes that by declaring that the interests of the Scottish people should come first he has committed himself to discriminating against the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland; considers this to be incompatible with being the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in which office the interests of all UK people should be equal; and calls on him publicly to disassociate himself from and withdraw from the Scottish Claim of Right.
I always wince when I see people writing about simply excluding Scottish and Welsh MPs from certain debates from issues that “only affect England”. The process of making modern legislation isn’t just as straightforward as this would imply. For example, it bothers me that David Cameron doesn’t understand how parliament makes law. What do we (taxpayers!) pay him for?
There are many bits of legislation that don’t extend to the whole of the UK, or to different parts of it in different ways – and that’s always been the case even before devolution. Take, for example, the Criminal Justice Act 2003. A large proportion of it applies to the UK; then there are some parts that apply only to England and Wales. Then a couple of parts that modify certain sections of it by changing the wording slightly in their application to Scotland and Northern Ireland (and probably Wales too). Then there are bits that just apply to England, bits that just apply to Scotland, bits that just apply to Wales, and bits that just apply to Northern Ireland.
Now, in reality how would you deal with this in Parliament if MPs were only allowed to vote on legislation that extended to a country that their constituency was part of. Second reading would be a nightmare as you’re supposed to take the bill as a whole. Committee and Report stages would be more possible, but a logistic nightmare as it would be musical chairs as different people were allowed in and out depending on which bit you were discussing . . .
In reality, what’s the difference between Scottish MPs voting on something that affects me in London and Northern MPs doing the same? Or Cornish ones? Indeed, no one is kicking up a fuss about UK MPs voting on legislation affecting dependant territories.
GrammarPolice: There is a big difference between Scottish MPs voting on such issues in Westminster as Tuition fees for England and Wales (and making the difference in how the vote went) when those same English and Welsh MPs CANNOT vote on Tuition fees in Scotland
AND
British MPs voting on specific local issues which only effects a region – say Cornish fishing rights- when Cornish MPs can also vote on fishing rights on other British regions.
See? The West Lothian question creates a ONE way voting system where a minority can and does impact a majority as opposed to a system where everyone can vote on everyone’s business be it local or national.
Gadgie: Well you will have to explain this to me then. If MPs signed a Scottish Claim of Right for devolution then what’s the problem? That is – I don’t mind a Scottish devolution and a Scottish Parliament as long as there is an English Parliament and a vote for English devolution which only the English can vote on. If there is a conference to discuss British constitutional issues then English isn’t the ONLY discussion point and these things also impact the Welsh and Northern Irish so they should come along with the Scots.
Do you have a list of all the MPS who signed this Scottish Claim of Rights? If so – and if you really wanted to exclude all those of Irish, Welsh, Scottish and any English MP (of any original nationality) who signed such a Claim Rights to a conference to discuss BRITISH consitutional issues then it will be as effective and ludicrous as a UKIP conference in a rainy seatown town.
The Lib Dems policy paper 83″ for the people, by the people” does not come out in support of an EP. However it is stated that devolution to S and W has resulted in a new anomaly. Para 6.31 on the English Question states that during the 1980’s the Conservative Govt used its majority in the House of Commons to force through highly controversial legislation that applied only to Scotland. i.e poll tax. Scottish voters were effectively disenfranchised and increasingly frustrated by the government’s activities. This gave urgency to the cause of Scottish devolution. I suggest there are parallels now applying in England.
“I always wince when I see people writing about simply excluding Scottish and Welsh MPs from certain debates from issues that “only affect England”. The process of making modern legislation isn’t just as straightforward as this would imply.”
The logical extension of this would surely be that only 2 MPs were eligible to vote on the Southampton Boat Show Act
Tom – although I agree that applying the polltax to Scotland a year before England encouraged the drive for devolution – I believe logically the two are very different.
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 – whereas now we have a minority part of the UK which can vote on certain issues by themselves with the EXCLUSION of the other parts of the UK whilst be able to vote on issues which do not directly effect them – e.g. tuition fees. The West Lothian question is simply undemocratic whilst the Poll Tax vote was democratic (but unfair and bad politics).
The bulk of Scottish MP’s sitting at Westminster signed the Scottish claim of right. If they wish to take part in a British Constitutional Convention aimed at holding the United Kingdom together I would expect them to reject their oaths.
As far as I’m concerned they all are closet Scottish Nationalists rather than unionists and would have only Scotland’s interests at heart rather the interests of the whole of the uk.
Just one more point, why should our English representatives to Westminster have to share a chamber with Scottish Welsh and even Adams and Mcguiness Nationalists ? what have the English to gain from it?
If a Scottish MP signed the Scottish claim of right then why does it break ‘their oath’ if they attended a British Constitutional Convention?
Clearly not ALL Scottish MPs are closest Nationalists – are all English MPs closest English Nationalists?
If you are interested in an English Parliament like myself then I believe it is more likely to happen if it is a major topic in a British Constitutional Convention if the Scots, Welsh and Irish are there.
Otherwise if you suggest that the English MPs get together by themselves and declare independence from not just Scotland but Northern Ireland and Wales then you are potty because the majority of English MPs wouldn’t support that. It’s hard enough to get them to discuss or agree on an English Parliament – as it seems the Tories want to hang on to old form of union which has gone and Labour either want to sink their heads in the sand and pretend their is no West Lothian issue or worst still try to break up England into Regional Assemblies.
GaffaUK
“Do you have a list of all the MPS who signed this Scottish Claim of Rights?”
Yes I do have the list requested from the Scottish Parliament under the freedom of Information Act.
Signatories include David Steel, Charles Kennedy and Menzies Campbell, along with Brown-Reid-Darling etc.
As an English person one should be very careful giving your support to those pledged to work against your interests. Although cross party some have more in common than is surface visible.
Below is an extract from the letter I received:
———————————
“REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: 2007-011091
Thank you for your request for information relating to The Claim of Right, which we received on 09 July 2007. Your request has been handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the following information is supplied with this letter.
List of signatories to the 1988 Scottish Claim of Right.
Twenty four of the one hundred and forty nine signatories cannot be clearly identified and are therefore not included in the list supplied with this letter. If you would like to view The Claim of Right, please contact my colleague, xxxxxxxxxxxx who would be happy to make arrangements for you to visit Holyrood to view it.
—————————————–
My Response:
“I appreciate the prompt reply to my request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.
I am not quite satisfied with the answer.
I am informed that;
“Twenty four of the one hundred and forty nine signatories cannot be clearly identified and are therefore not included in the list supplied with this letter.”
The word ‘clearly’ does not mean undecipherable. Are you saying that the twenty four signatories are unknown to any official in the Scottish Parliament or records department?
If so I find it astounding.
I would be very grateful to receive the full list of signatories at your earliest convenience.”
————————————-
Their Reply:
“The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 provides a right of
access to ‘recorded information’ held by a public authority. The
original ‘Claim of Right’ was presented as a gift to one of the deputy
Presiding officers. The ‘Claim of Right’ although itself an important
political and historical document is however not an official
parliamentary publication and there is no statutory requirement for
keeping this document or a record of the full list of signatories.
Consequently we do not have an accurate list of the signatories.”
—————————–
Now remember, this was signed 20 years ago not in the 12th century.
My signature is indecipherable but those who know it can recognise it instantly.
These 24 signatures that cannot be ‘clearly identified’ are on documents all over the place. I cannot believe that prominent people in politics do not have signatures that, whilst not readable, are not recognisable. Who these 24 are is of course intriguing and leads one to wonder if they wish to be recognised. I will do a bit of work and post a list of recognised signatories that are still in office and you have now motivated me to hunt for the missing 24.
I’m missing something here. PErhaps someone can explain what is objectionable in this text:
“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.
We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends:
To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland;
To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and
To assert the right of the Scottish people to secure implementation of that scheme.”
The Scottish people have the right to determine how they are governed. As do the English. Clegg’s proposal is to implement party policy, which is to call a convention and then have referenda to confirm it’s proposals. The English people should vote to determine how they are governed.
I have no clue why signing the above makes someone anti-English, and as someone who is English, I have no objection to the Scots wishing to govern themselves in some areas, just as I have no problem with the people of London having their own regional assembly—they voted for it, they got it.
There are some who acknowledge that their desire is for an independent England. That’s an honest position I can disagree with and debate. The rest? You CANNOT settle the question of whether England gets a Parliament independtly of the other issues surrounding governance, that’s been shown by the current mess caused by peacemeal reforms and devolution elsewhere. We have to analyse and go over the whole lot, and that’s why this convention is needed.
What, exactly, is the objection? Because it seems to be the best chance you have of getting what you want.
I’m not sure why people are getting hot and bothered by something that was almost signed 20 years ago and no legal status. Of more importance is the Scotland Act 1998 which did have legal status and was voted by the majority of UK MPs. And how does the Claim of Right translate to people ‘pledged to work against your interests.’? I do not support this Claim of Right but it is also a fait accompli in that the Scottish have devolution now. 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. If Scottish MPs are going to put Scotland before the rest of the interests of the UK then I would consider this fairly understandable in the same way an English MP should put the interests of England before Scotland or the rest of the UK.
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?
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.
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”.
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.
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?
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
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.
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 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.’
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
As an example of this british constitution read NHS Constitution, it is for England (English regions) only.
Have you no pride Lib/Dems?
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.
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.
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.
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.