I swore blind that I would not get drawn into what promises to be a long running battle over Scottish independence but Simon Hughes’ call for an English Parliament to answer the West Lothian Question has prompted me to pen this piece.
Scottish Nationalists wrongly claim that there is an easy solution to the West Lothian Question – independence for Scotland. They fail to remember that we still have devolution in Northern Ireland, Wales and the London Assembly. Independence for we Scots doesn’t make the issue go away for others.
We still refer to it as the West Lothian Question but it is as much the West Bromwich question or the West Kensington question. Why should Simon Hughes get to vote on issues relating to policing and transport in West Bromwich when his counterparts representing that area don’t get a say over the Met or London’s transport issues?
I posed this question 10 years ago to former Scottish Secretary and Kensington MP, Malcolm Rifkind. Rifkind had taken against devolution having been a keen supporter in his early career. I challenged him that the Tories, the main opponents of devolution, had never complained about the existence of Stormont before 1974 when it sent a majority of Unionists to bolster the Westminster Majorities. Why complain now when the boot was on the other foot? That consummate performer couldn’t give a convincing answer.
Our constitution is littered with anomalies. We have an asymmetric quasi federalism in the UK and there are not easy routes towards correcting the constitutional anomalies relating to that. The UK is made up of three and bit Nations who are not equal in terms of size or whose elected bodies are not equal in terms of powers. Scotland has a law making parliament and Northern Ireland and Wales have assemblies with varying degrees of powers; and then we have London with a directly elected Mayor and Assembly. The question of the appropriate route for devolution in England is thus fundamental.
Devolution was demanded by the non English nations of the UK in response to the feeling that Government was too remote and that Whitehall and Westminster no longer understood what our needs were. Would setting up an equally remote additional Chamber representing the whole of England really bring government closer to the people? Is the best form of devolution an English Parliament or would it be Regional Assemblies able to drive economic development of their areas forward more effectively?
Devolution was also demanded because as Nations, there was a deep desire to reflect that sense of national identity within the political system. Scotland always has had separate legal, educational and religious institutions. Regional identities can be strong in England but are they defined as well as elsewhere?
Home Rule was also demanded because we felt, rightly or wrongly, that our Government in the 80’s actively hated us. I do not believe that we have that any more but until Westminster starts to give us the feeling that we are not at best taken for granted there I fear nationalists will have the upper hand.
Ultimately the desire for Home Rule in Scotland, Wales and Ireland was a desire that grew from the bottom up and was not imposed upon us by patrician politicians telling us what we needed. England’s grassroots need the time to develop their own desire for answers, and indeed their own answers to this question. What is clear is that we are not going to have a mathematically pure and equal solution to this issue.
28 Comments
See, nobody can quite agree as to what area our overlords should rule over.
I’m going to start the Headington Commune and declare UDI for OX3 🙂
Few English people – of whom I am one – want an English Parliament in the same way that Scots do in the face of perceived persecution yet, in the face of the SNP’s one-sided attempt to smash our highly successful union, an English Parliament is the only fair option for my country. I am not enthusiastic about it, just pragmatic.
This is the kind of zero-sum politics which nationalism always generates, which is why I am first and foremost vehemently against any nationalist confection. Nationalism is always negative and destructive and will have unintended consequences for us all, whatever the current blandishments of the SNP
The best option for the UK remains the long-standing Lib Dem notion of a federal system for the UK in which there would indeed be an English parliament.
Why shouldn’t England have a Parliament?
I got into lots of arguments about this a few years ago when the English Parliament campaign was getting a head of steam up.
What on earth is the difference between me in Oxford having my taxes decided by someone from Edinburgh South West or someone from Tatton? I have as little (or as much, either way) with someone from Willie Hague’s Richmond constituency as I do with someone from Ming’s Fife one.
Nobody consulted the ordinary folk of these islands when they decided to merge monarchies in 1601 or aristocracies and government in 1707. It was solely a decision for the ruling classes. Indeed nobody was asked whether they wanted to be in England or Wessex eight hundred years before that.
States are founded in conquest and expropriation (just think of the number of their new northern citizens killed or exiled by the new post 1707 state).
Federalism doesn’t go far enough IMO. It ought, as Proudhon suggested, to be “confederation” – power from the lowest level only collaborating where necessary.
So, as I say, all power to the Headington Commune and its confederates both in these islands and around the world!
And back in the real world a federal system is the best we can hope for.
The real world? The Headington Commune would be the size, population wise, of several half-Cantons in Switzerland. Oxfordshire would be the size, population wise, of Vermont (and even plenty of people there want to go further and secede). Malta’s about the size of Rutland, population wise isn’t it? Where’s Bonkers when you need him 🙂
And when the citizens of Jack Straw’s Lane wish to secede, what happens? And if Harberton mead goes UDI, where is your commune? There was an amusing exchange a few years ago – sadly I have lost the reference – in which an Orcadian politician suggested that the Orkneys might secede from an independent Scotland, in response to which a nationalist politician called Salmond blustered about how this would be impossible.
We must do what is practical.
On a more parochial note, to illustrate how absurd this whole nationalism farrago can get, if Headington secedes, will I still be able to travel from near Witney to watch my team, Oxford United, play? Indeed, would Oxford United be allowed to remain in the English league?
Nationalism is a cul de sac
Thanks for the comments all. There was a legendary tale of Jo Grimond filling out his expenses and when it asked for his local railway station he put Stravanger!
I never mentioned the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands which has far more autonomy than any where else in the UK!
Not sure I buy the notion that all Nationalism is evil though. The European revolutions of 1848 were about throwing of Imperial Oppressors and were also liberal revolutions -they difference there was they were really being oppressed. I think we Scots may have had a case with Thatcher I just don’t feel any more oppressed than your average Geordie these days!
Yes, nationalism always turns out badly. Just ask the Irish if they regret no longer being British subjects, or the Norwegians if they regret no longer being part of Sweden, or the Lithuanians if they pine for the Soviet Union, or the South Sudanese, or the Slovaks, or the Slovenes, or the Canadians, or anyone from any of the other dozens of countries that gained their independence from another at some point in their history. I’m sure they all regret going down that cul de sac.
This article is full of holes. Firstly, the West Bromwich Question is fallacious and vacuous. The laws for England are decided by the UK parliament and policing in England falls within that remit. There has always been a level of autonomy afforded to police constables. The London Assembly has nowhere near the powers of the Scottish parliament, indeed Scotland has its own system of jurisprudence.
The England-hating devolutionists have always wanted to hive off London from England to make it a city state, as a prelude to breaking up England altogether. When this has been achieved the still intact nations of Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland can go their merry way of independence leaving the English utterly disenfranchised. Job done for the EU-philes and England-haters.
Secondly, there was little or no demand for devolution in the nations outside of England. Both the Welsh and Scots rejected devolution and were told to think again. The Welsh had their second referendum result fiddled to ensure the Welsh Assembly was established. Last year 35% of Welsh voters turned out of whom 63% voted for increased powers. This was hardly a grab-yer-throat demand was it? Just 22% of the total electorate. Nervertheless tthe Welsh Assembly had its power increased.
BTW Monmouthshire was moved to Wales from England in the ’70s and the people there have always voted “no” in Welsh Assembly referenda. Hardly a ringing endorcement for the much-vaunted localism the LibLabCON bangs on about.
Using the same rules applied to the Welsh referenda, we in England would certainly have an English parliament if we were given a referendum on one. So, why can’t we have one?
The main reason we don’t have an English parliament is because we are in the United Kingdom. If we were not in the UK then England would have its own parliament by default. That is enough reason for England to get out of the UK.
Ivan, having an Irish mother I can answer that. She is proudly Irish and still hates to be called British even though she has lived here for a good 30 years.
She doesn’t regret Irish independence and I doubt any of her brothers and sisters do either, what they regret and are sorry for is the ruinous state of ireland. All my young irish cousins are emigrating in order to find jobs.
The hatred my mother has for the ruling classes of Britain, or well its more Ireland being ruled by Britain, is still incredibly destructive in my view.
I call myself British (and I mean to include her Irishness in that) and she visibly still dislikes it. Boxing Day before last, I raised the fact that the Irish were still British because Ireland belong to the British Isles. My mother was having none of it. She still hated being called British in any sense.
Stephen my point was that there is a London Assembly and a Mayor with a range of devolved powers from Westminster not devolved to the by the people of West Bromwich. Why always cast this inequity as a Scotland thing when it is just as valid as elsewhere .
Your branding of people who want to stay in the UK but want more power decentralised as English Haters is fallacious and vacuous to coin a phrase. It really defies logic. It is a valid criticism of some nationalists, but not all, and certainly is not part of the devolution mantra which still sees a role for a constitutional link with England. I don’t hear any sounds from North of the border for London to be cast adrift in fact the only person I can recall ever advocating something like that was Lord Archer. My main point was that this is asymmetric and will always be so.
Your point about Scotland having rejected devolution in 1979 is incorrect. The referendum was won albeit by a small majority.
Ivan – points well made. I don’t see belief in the Nation State as at odds with liberalism and you have to have a sense of identity if you are moving towards a Nation State. I see no problem with being patriotic and loving your country. I do with that being taken a stage further and hating another persons country or culture.
If Europe circa 1848 was positive nationalism did the grandchildren of those revolutionaries inevitably morph into a negative nationalism 70 years later when things started to go wrong?
Nicola,
The hatred my mother has for the ruling classes of Britain, or well its more Ireland being ruled by Britain, is still incredibly destructive in my view.
Are you suggesting that it was nationalism or the fight for independence that caused that hatred? I rather suspect it was precisely the other way around.
Paul,
Ivan – points well made. I don’t see belief in the Nation State as at odds with liberalism and you have to have a sense of identity if you are moving towards a Nation State. I see no problem with being patriotic and loving your country. I do with that being taken a stage further and hating another persons country or culture.
Actually I’m not in the least bit patriotic, or particulaly bothered about my national identity as a Scot. I just happen to be less unpatriotic about Scotland than I am about the UK. I support Scottish independence because I think an independent Scotland will be better governed, but also because anything that diminishes the power and international standing of Westminster, anything that punctures British nationalism, anything that weakens or even just shakes up the moribund UK constitution is, by definition, A Good Thing, ultimately for all the people of these islands.
Nationalism is by its very nature divisive. It has caused more conflict in the world than almost anything barring that perennial evil, religion (and I speak as a good churchgoer!). There are examples of countries which have achieved independence and Ireland is a good one but it also illustrates the continuing problems which nationalism cause.
I am a relaxed Englishman, very happy to be English and comfortable never to have to wave my flag vigorously. It is onyl when I am faced with people telling me how much better their country is that I start to twitch and think about why I think England is better for this or that reason. It is negative competition.
Coming back to Ireland, it interests me because, in my experience, it has moved from an aggressive hatred of many aspects of Britain to a relaxed and positive confidence in itself as a partner country in Europe. During the period when I experienced Irish nationalism there was division and conflict. I don’t see that now (with the regrettable exception of minority elements in Northern Ireland.
Positive examples like this don’t detract from the bloodbath of the early 20th century in Europe, when nation states asserted their identity and slaughtered millions, or the more recent abyss of the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, which is less than 20 years ago. The Baltic states are also very interesting since their independence from Russia has led to nationalism and discrmination against non-nationals, mostly Russians. This, it can be argued, is these people getting their own back on an old imperial overlord but where does that stop? Should Russians in the Baltics wear red stars to distinguish themselves?
Yes, this is over-dramatising but nationalism is on a scale which includes discrimination and racism.
The alternative to nationalism is patriotism, a positive view of one’s country and a elebration of all the good things. Scots can celebrate their identity and their powerful role in the union for over 300 years. It is a sense of inferiority which leads to nationalism; pride leads to patriotism.
The debate over Scottish independence is a Pandora’s box. If opened, we are all going to lose out.
Thanks for the original article, Paul. It has stimulated a lively debate.
Paul Edie said “I never mentioned the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands which has far more autonomy than any where else in the UK!”
That is because those islands are not within the UK nor the EU. They are crown dependencies and this special relationship goes back many centuries.
Ivan
Posted 25th January 2012 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
Yes, nationalism always turns out badly.
You left out Bosnia and Kosovo from your examples.
Guess you never hear/read Welsh nationalists telling anyone (including fellow Welshmen/women) who disagrees with them even slightly to “— off to England, then”.
It’s bad enough the attitude of “I support two teams: Wales and anyone who plays England”.
Until we had a united kingdom, we had wars between England and Wales, England and Scotland.
Breaking it up may not lead to another Culloden, but the devolution debate is already stirring up resentments and divisions.
United we stand. Divided, we end up with a bunch of poxy little states with as much clout as Lichenstein or Luxembourg.
You left out Bosnia and Kosovo from your examples.
I’m not really sure what point you’re making here. In both of these cases nationalism and ethnic tension led to the desire for independence, not the other way around, and the violence that occurred was at least as much the fault of the Yugoslav/ Serbian nationalists who opposed the independence of these regions as it was the fault of the minorities who sought their own states.
And even in spite of the horrible way they gained their independence, what do you think the result would be if you asked the people of Bosnia or Kosovo today if they’d like to be re-integrated into Serbia?
Guess you never hear/read Welsh nationalists telling anyone (including fellow Welshmen/women) who disagrees with them even slightly to “— off to England, then”.
It’s bad enough the attitude of “I support two teams: Wales and anyone who plays England”.
Until we had a united kingdom, we had wars between England and Wales, England and Scotland.
Breaking it up may not lead to another Culloden, but the devolution debate is already stirring up resentments and divisions.
But these attitudes already exist! And they’ve always existed. They aren’t being caused by the debate, they are the (partial) cause of the debate.
Of course there are bigoted fools in Wales, and there are bigoted fools in Scotland, and as a Scot who’s lived in various parts of England I can assure you that there are plenty of bigoted fools in England too. That is the case now and it will be the case after the referendum, whatever the outcome. There are fools everywhere, at all times.
United we stand. Divided, we end up with a bunch of poxy little states with as much clout as Lichenstein or Luxembourg.
Amusing that you decry (and indeed insult) the two richest little countries on the planet, whose citizens enjoy the highest standard of living. Yeah, wouldn’t want to be anything like them.
See, here’s the thing. I don’t care about what clout “we” have, because this “we” isn’t really a “we”, it’s a “they”, and for the entirety of my life “they” have been people I don’t particularly like, most often Tories. What I care about is how well the country is run in the interests of its citizens. If we can be a bit more like Luxembourg or Liechtenstein then that will be precisely the progress I seek by supporting Scottish independence.
Do you know what sort of person cares about the “clout” wielded by the leaders of his country more than the standard of living of his fellow citizens?
A nationalist, that’s what sort.
“Guess you never hear/read Welsh nationalists telling anyone (including fellow Welshmen/women) who disagrees with them even slightly to “— off to England, then”.”
Welsh people have been —ing off to England since the Middle Ages. And English people have been —ing off to Wales since that time, too. Which is why Welsh nationalism will never win an ounce of support outside the Welsh-speaking areas.
“Breaking it up may not lead to another Culloden, but the devolution debate is already stirring up resentments and divisions.”
Culloden had nothing to do with Scottish nationalism. It was a dispute between those who wished to impose an absolute Stuart monarchy on the whole of the United Kingdom and those who wished to retain the Hanoverian monarchy that ruled in conjunction with Parliament. The majority of those fighting on the government side at Culloden were Scots. Those who rebelled agains the Hanoverian monarchy were tricked into so doing by the French.
See how phony these resentments and divisions actually are?
Ivan,
re: Luxembourg and Lichtenstein.
If average standard of living was the only value which counted you may have a point, but it’s not.
Both those states benefit from the geopolitical situation they exist within which is created by their physically dominant neighbours, while a lack of transparency in their government causes increases in social inequality at the same time as reducing social mobility.
Nor do smaller nations necessarily produce higher standards of living – you can talk to Andorra or San Marino about that.
Scotland would see little benefit from cost savings related to independence, without any guarantee of an upside.
If Scotland (or Wales, or wherever, for that matter) wishes to be an integrated modern economy then Scotland should be seeking to lead on integrating the world economy by eliminating divisions and by improving competitiveness and productivity – not raising new borders.
That ‘independence’ takes on such an important symbolic position shows the irrelevance of the people proposing it. Because if it were about better government, why would they wish to prevent neighbours from recieving the same advantages?
I’m offended by Alex Salmond claiming Scotland is the 6th richest country in the OECD, and claiming Westminster is to be blamed for holding Scots back. I know he intends to cause offense, but I also know it is an unsustainable political position in the event secession is achieved.
So how long before a ‘Salmond for King’ campaign starts up?
Because without him Scottish nationalism is dead – no other public figure approaches the required level of ruthless cynicism.
“the Norwegians if they regret no longer being part of Sweden”
They never were. Between about 1350 and 1814 they were part of Denmark. After 1814 they established their own constitution and government but shared a King with Sweden. They also shared a diplomatic service with Sweden. This was a major issue in 1905, because Norway had developed one of the largest merchant navies in the world, and needed good consular representation in major ports world-wide, which the joint monarchy wasn’t providing.
There are two basic problems with the UK. One is that England has a much bigger population that the other bits and can dominate them on most issues. (Greater London alone has a bigger population than Scotland.). The second is that experience shows that England is far too big to be governed efficiently as a unit, so its regions really needed devolved representative government. (Interesting that the Scottish Nationalists tend to centralise things in Edinburgh, which could be thought of as a more English than Scottish tradition.)
It wasn’t the wars of the twentieth century that started the quest for nation states across Europe from Ireland to Finland and Poland, or from Rovaniemi, Talinn, Lvov and Krakow to Dubrovnik. It was just that World War I and Woodrow Wilson offered solutions based on existing feelings. During the nineteenth century, peoples had developed a sense that they were being governed, often capriciously and badly, by people who didn’t share their language and culture (and in many cases religion) and that they didn’t have a say in their own destiny. In the nineteenth century this often coincided with wider education, including in the vernacular, and political activity.
The post-World War I settlements, meant that a lot of previously ruling elites found their lives turned upside down, and new governments and former elites handled this with more or less sensitivity, with differing results.
@Oranjepan
Ivan,
re: Luxembourg and Lichtenstein.
If average standard of living was the only value which counted you may have a point, but it’s not.
I didn’t say it was, I just pointed out that neither is “clout”, in direct response to cassie’s comment.
“That ‘independence’ takes on such an important symbolic position shows the irrelevance of the people proposing it. Because if it were about better government, why would they wish to prevent neighbours from recieving the same advantages?
But it’s you who wishes to prevent your neighbours from seeking better governance, not me. My hope is that Scottish independence will be the sort of event that might shake the constitutional tree right across the UK and ultimately lead to improvements in the way the other nations are governed too (if for nothing but purely selfish reasons, given that I live in England), but if it doesn’t then Scotland free from the dead hand of Westminster is still better than doing nothing, which is the one course guaranteed to lead to more of the same.
“I’m offended by Alex Salmond claiming Scotland is the 6th richest country in the OECD, and claiming Westminster is to be blamed for holding Scots back. I know he intends to cause offense, but I also know it is an unsustainable political position in the event secession is achieved.”
I seriously doubt he means to cause offence, I think his point is a counter to the familiar but rapidly crumbling unionist trope that Scotland is “too wee, too stupid, and too poor” to be independent. As for whether he thinks Westminster is to blame for holding Scotland back, of course he does, and so do I. I also happen to think the same thing about the English, and the Welsh, and the Northern Irish, individually and collectively. It just happens that in Scotland there’s a viable alternative, and I’ve yet to hear any coherent (never mind convincing) argument why the Scots shouldn’t take the opportunity given that it’s the only one going.
Ivan, I am a unionist because I believe in the shared union, not because I dismiss Scotland as too whatever. It is in no one’s interest for Scotland to secede from the highly successful union.
The coherent argument why the Scots shouldn’t be allowed to vote on independence is because it is not for Scots alone to decide as the decision will affect us all. A simple analogy is a shared house with a shared tenancy. If one party leaves the others will be adversely affected. Scotland is part of a union and its decision to secede will impact on us all. We should all therefore have a say and there must be a detailed consideration about what happens. Anything else is frankly selfish and I for one will respond accordingly to ensure that my country’s interests are best served.
I am increasingly reassured by the discussion though. As has been said above, if Alex Salmond goes the independence push disintegrates, just as the SNP nearly did a few years ago when he stepped down as leader. I will continue to argue vigorously for the union and its benefits for us all but I will also be more confident that, as Tolstoy said, time is the greatest of all warriors. Alex Salmond might just have created his own Achilles’ heel by planning for this in 2 years, rather than seeking to ride the wave he is on now.
@ wit and wisdom
“Ivan, I am a unionist because I believe in the shared union, not because I dismiss Scotland as too whatever.
OK, but why? Genuine question. What is it that you, as a liberal, see in the union – in the functional apparatus of the state – that you think is worth saving?
It is in no one’s interest for Scotland to secede from the highly successful union.
Obviously I disagree. I think it’s in everyone’s interests, most of all the people of Scotland.
The coherent argument why the Scots shouldn’t be allowed to vote on independence is because it is not for Scots alone to decide as the decision will affect us all. A simple analogy is a shared house with a shared tenancy. If one party leaves the others will be adversely affected. Scotland is part of a union and its decision to secede will impact on us all. We should all therefore have a say and there must be a detailed consideration about what happens. Anything else is frankly selfish and I for one will respond accordingly to ensure that my country’s interests are best served.
Sorry, but the idea that any nation seeking independence should need the permission of the state from which it wishes to secede is simply absurd. To use your analogy, in a shared house with a shared tenancy if one party wishes to leave there is nothing the other can do to stop them. All they can do is negotiate the terms.
I am increasingly reassured by the discussion though. As has been said above, if Alex Salmond goes the independence push disintegrates, just as the SNP nearly did a few years ago when he stepped down as leader.
At the 2003 election under Swinney the SNP lost about 5% of the vote and 8 seats, all of which swing went to the pro-independence SSP and Greens. Clearly Swinney isn’t of the calibre of Salmond, but you can hardly say that the independence push disintegrated.
I will continue to argue vigorously for the union and its benefits for us all but I will also be more confident that, as Tolstoy said, time is the greatest of all warriors. Alex Salmond might just have created his own Achilles’ heel by planning for this in 2 years, rather than seeking to ride the wave he is on now.
Indeed he might, but the opposite may also be true, and I think in the long run time is the friend of the nationalists. After all, they only have to win the argument once, the unionists have to keep on winning it forever.
Ivan,
I’m not a unionist, nor am I a nationalist. I’m a liberal and a democrat.
It is wholly incorrect to claim I wish to prevent Scotland from seeking better governance, rather I caution against the headlong rush into a constitutional change which provides no guarantee whatsoever for improvements while increasing the risks of disadvantaging ordinary people – it is pure folly to gamble with the futures of millions.
Salmond has made his political career out of stimulating English nationalism – for it is he who promotes the view that Scots are “too wee, too stupid, and too poor” to be joined at the hip to the mighty English, all the while countering his own rhetoric in his own backyard. It’s excellent politics, but shoddy statesmanship – which is what Salmond is.
Similarly it’s bad statesmanship to claim ‘independence’ is either the only realistic or viable alternative to the current situation (though obviously we’re just mere mortals who shouldn’t expect to imagine the full spectrum of possibilities).
My position is clear: ‘independence’ is a misnomer at best and a growing irrelevance as the world becomes ever more interdependent.
Growing mobility means resident non-citizens are more common than ever, and putting more borders in place means more of these people will have their voting rights restricted, which in turn reduces accountability and legitimacy for those governments – indeed this is at the heart of this post’s ‘West Bromwich Question’.
Should Scotland gain independence in the manner Salmond proposes it will undermine his nation in comparison, though not fatally, and the country will be forced to make the painful change into an aggressive tiger economy or fall behind while constantly looking over their shoulder. I mean, not even all the oil in all the seas would fund the shangri-la the SNP thiks it can build!
“[nationalists] only have to win the argument once, the unionists have to keep on winning it forever.”
I agree, right up until the point at which the status quo changes, whereupon the dynamic immediately reverses – which has happened on multiple occasions. And then we will face the same old question again: are our differences or similarities stronger?
Do you want to do the Hokey-Cokey all over again, or do you think history started with the Settlement?
Personally I like the dance, but only after a few drams.
The real West Kensington question is the proposal by the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham in conjunction with the Rotten Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, to demolish the historic Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre, and the longstanding communities on the West Kensington and Gibbs Green estates, in order to build an 80-acre, 30-storey dystopia which will take 20 years to build and disrupt a wide area of London, ruin our skyline, lead to widespread congestion on the trains, the tube and the roads, and coincidentally net the Tories’ developer friends billions of pounds in profits: http://hflibdems.org.uk/en/document/earls-court-newsletter-august-2011.
The answer to the West Kensington question is of course NO, but is anybody listening?
I live in England. I paid £15 for a prescription yesterday. If I were in Scotland, I would not have to pay it. That’s why I support an independent Scotland and an iindependent England. That is the only answer to the West Lothian question. I do not see how splitting England into regions would be workable; for instance, woudl different counties have different levels of tuition fees or prescription charges. I understand that regional government fro England has almost always been rejected when it has been offered to the vote. On the whole, I do not think that the English are particularly “regionally-minded” people, London and Cornwall seem to the only exceptions.
Surely the liberal reform tradition is wedded to Home Rule which we fought so long and hard for with regard to Ireland. In essence this is the right to Dominion status, starting with Canada in 1836 and carried forward to India and beyond. It is a constitutional tradition that has been applied round the world and to places far less likely than Scotland. As such it is a matter for Scots voters to decide, as it was for Ireland, or Malawi or India or wherever. We can only wish them luck!