I would like to contribute to the ‘radical and distinctive’ LibDem platform of the Radical Association. We should be proud of our devolution process, freely achieved without unrest and violence. But it has created inconsistencies underlined by the Scottish and EU referendums:
- We are a Union of four countries, each theoretically equal within the Union…
- Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have a Parliament and First Minster
- England does not have a Parliament of its own, or a First Minister
- England does ‘host’ the ‘national Parliament’ to which the others also send ‘MPs’
- But England has way more seats (533) in this ‘national Parliament’ than the other three together (59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales, 18 in Northern Ireland)
- And this essentially English Parliament makes national decisions that affect us all
There is clearly something unbalanced and undemocratic about this. How to fix it? The LibDems have long campaigned for House of Lords reform. Let us go several steps further:
- The House of Commons becomes what it used to be – the Parliament of England
- This single chamber handles the affairs of England (like the other ‘home Parliaments’)
- The leader of the majority party in the Commons is the First Minister of England
- Next, abolish the House of Lords
- In its place, a new Assembly of Home Nations (a kind of Senate)
- In this Assembly each country elects an equal number of representatives or Senators (say 25, a total of 100)
So how does this work? Firstly, all four countries now have a Parliament and First Minister, all of equal standing. And the UK Prime Minister and national Cabinet are chosen from the new Assembly to form the UK Government, which must also include all four First Ministers.
Secondly, nationally important matters (like leaving the EU or invading Iraq):
- Are debated in each home parliament;
- If all four approve, the issue then goes to the Assembly of Home Nations;
- If the measure fails there, it goes back to the lower levels, or is shelved.
Lastly, devolved services and other powers continue to be the responsibility of the four country parliaments (subject to national frameworks approved by all four countries in the new Assembly).
Some will say this all too complicated, but it is no more so than what we have now. It avoids daft ideas like ‘English votes for English laws’ in the national Parliament. And it creates a true union of equal countries in a sovereign United Kingdom. It would also ensure that the UK has a truly national leadership. And we get rid of an anachronistic and undemocratic upper house.
Some will cry ‘England is grossly under-represented in the Assembly!’ One might reply, ‘so what?’ For centuries England has dominated – It is time to even the balance. We can also look at the USA, or Australia, with Senates that give their constituent states full political equality. Each state elects the same number of Senators (2 in the USA, 12 in Australia), irrespective of population or economic clout. Separate, elected state governments and leaders looks after state issues; national issues are debated and approved at the higher national level.
My proposal has only one House for national matters. But a check-and-balance exists: its decisions have to be endorsed by each Parliament (a kind of collective ‘lower house’). Throw in a manifesto commitment to PR (already used outside England) and we have a radical and distinctive new start.
* Chris works in international development, specialising in rural development, land and environmental issues.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Dominika the roving Braybrooke skunk is found again - in Corby
Starmer kills off Leveson two
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
Bye bye coal: A Net Zero milestone
Helen Dudden
Roland
Suzanne Fletcher
Joseph Bourke
Steve Trevethan
55 Comments
“We are a Union of four countries”
Oh dear, hide this from any Cornish commenters…
This is important, but is just rearranging the furniture. Radical means changing laws that oppress people such as our drug laws and use of arcane punishments such as imprisonment.
It’s not the best of all possible systems, but it’s better than the one that exists now.
Thank you for such an original and interesting plan!
(As someone originally from Cornwall, let me add that if the outer parts of the UK were treated less like colonies, we would all be better off. The way HMG’s governments treat celts it doesn’t deserve to have any!)
The Lib Dems have a real opportunity to support each part of the union’s distinct nationhood while also being pro-union, ironically at the moment the best at doing this seem to be the SNP who had speakers at the Plaid conference. While the merits of your suggestions may need debate it’s extraordinary how little attention is given outside of England. It’s also a little extraordinary how the plastic bag charge (which received positive reviews recently) took so long to spread around the UK when clearly a positive policy.
The derisive term ‘so what’ is an insult to the 55 million citizens of England and might need a little ‘finessing’ before you go large with this plan.
The USA and Australia are single countries with common loyalties to one single national flag. Tour Scotland and try and convince yourself of that.
The United Kingdom is four different nations and it’s a miracle it’s stuck together for as long as it has and if your plan for its survival is to tell the English to shut up and go away it might not last much longer.
The basic mistake behind this plan is that it begins from “Pure” principles rather than the very messy reality of 4/5/6 Nations of vastly unequal size & diverging politics.
If we are looking for International models then Canada has more to say to us than The USA, not all its States are equal, both Quebec & Nunavut have special status & there are 2 recognised National languages, before you get to the complex relationship with the “First Nations”.
a curious definition of democracy that the 1.8m people who live in N Ireland have the same voice over decisons affecting the whole country as the other 60m
If we are to create a federal Britain. I think it’s over-simplistic to attempt to divide Britain into the historic four nations. The distribution of population alone is enough to make such a system unworkable. Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London all have existing assemblies that can be expanded and further devolved within a federal system. However, England needs to be split into regional legislatures to provide equitable and meaningful self-determination.
The real conundrum is to come up with a funding formula that ensures that the richer regions help fund the poorer ones and the inevitable competition for wealth between them does not precipitate a race to the bottom. Perhaps a written constitution would be a start and within it a clear demarcation between regional and federal powers.
Following Brexit and a desire “to take control” , there is a real opportunity to move forward the debate on constitutional reform. Language matters so although we seek a federal system we certainly shouldn’t call it that. A 3 point plan would look like this.
1) An English Parliament is a non-starter but UK regional assemblies with First Ministers elected by pr makes sense
2) English Assemblies , Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland would have equal powers. All domestic policy would be devolved to them. Abolish council tax, institute a local income and land value tax
3) Reduce the House of Commons to 400 members with power over income tax. VAT , foreign affairs and defence. Abolis the House of Lords and replace with a House of Counties. Each of the 67 counties across the UK from Rutland to Yorkshire , London, Manchester et al would count as counties elect 4 members. House of Commons elected by population, House of Counties by geography.
This proposal would gain support across the Centre/Centre Left and I believe some Conservatives. More importantly it would allow for experimentation across education, healthcare while Westminster sets minimum standards.
An interesting idea. I particularly like that it recognises the four nations as equal partners in the UK.
However, as you can see from the comments above, the obstacle would be England. England won’t accept the rest of us as equal partners and instead wants to maintain imperialist domination, enslaving us with conformity, either directly, or indirectly in ways such as equating us with just one of their many regions. Good luck with persuading them otherwise. Meanwhile, independence remains the only realistically achievable solution.
‘Secondly, nationally important matters (like leaving the EU or invading Iraq):’
I can’t make my mind up whether this part of the proposal is intended to bring about policy gridlock of if it’s just a side-effect.
Presumably your nationally important matters would also cover things like secession from the union or moving to STV. Both vetoed, of course in the name of a union of equals.
‘•The House of Commons becomes what it used to be – the Parliament of England’
When was this?
What a load of old cobblers. ” Radical ” means of the root. This is just rearranging the Lego bricks at Westminster level. As for getting England to accept a vast domination in it’s influence over UK policy… Well good luck with that.
Al,
I am not in favour of English regional assemblies either. Didn’t we have a referendum which soundly rejected the idea?
Growing up British, I never felt anything other than that all the four components were our much loved kith and kin and for the English to be accused of imperialism, domination and enslavement is both serious and hurtful when we have tried to treat our neighbours as brothers and sisters.
Apart from the odd joke about haggis, we seem to have intermingled with perfect harmony and equality and to be charged with such terrible crimes it is little wonder that English smiles are fading.
We might have to confront the awful truth that the problem may be insoluble.
A Federal state as proposed here, must mean that the English voter counts less than the others. A regionalised England puts fracture lines where there are none now and creates North/South enmity where only minor joking and teasing exist .
In the face of rising nationalism we may have to face a much different future, less happy and friendly than the past we have known
It’s interesting but equal status for all the nations in a unicameral national chamber would be disastrous. For a start you could end up with 40 of the 100 seats held by nationalist parties. An English Parliament is a must to deal with purely English matters, elected per Scottish and Welsh counterparts.
Not sure using the Ulster Banner, which I understand has no legal status these days but is divisive, was a good idea.
English Parliament in Brum plz
Al 12th Sep ’16 – 7:29pm
“An interesting idea. I particularly like that it recognises the four nations as equal partners in the UK.
However, as you can see from the comments above, the obstacle would be England. England won’t accept the rest of us as equal partners and instead wants to maintain imperialist domination, enslaving us with conformity, either directly, or indirectly in ways such as equating us with just one of their many regions. Good luck with persuading them otherwise. Meanwhile, independence remains the only realistically achievable solution.”
You realise that there’s a difference between being “equal partners” and saying that the average Scot is worth 10 English people which is what this awful idea suggests?
With Westminster being a bit of a wreck (turn it into a museum please) how about a new parliament in the centre of the UK, yes Brum?. I am all for a federal system where we can debate ALL issues that nationally concern us. The parts of the country Scotland etc.will have to be less nationalistic but can still maintain their originality It is an idea to take seriously in the future. Planning from now.
Barry,
When did we have a referendum ‘which soundly rejected’ the idea of regional assemblies in England?
The only way devolution can work in England is regional assemblies. They don’t need to be of equal status with the NI, Scottish and Welsh governments, and in fact if you look at other many other federal countries, don’t need to be. An you could still have a senate with equal numbers of senators from the four home nations. An English parliament just means a continuation of the same Westminster agenda, just with more tories.
And as we’re on devolution, while I’m sure some areas might make it work, these metro mayors are not going to work in the long term, and will just reinforce the labour/Tory two party politics.
“So how does this work? Firstly, all four countries now have a Parliament and First Minister, all of equal standing. And the UK Prime Minister and national Cabinet are chosen from the new Assembly to form the UK Government, which must also include all four First Ministers.”
Coalition government, perpetually. I can’t think of anything worse!
This general objection is further amplified by the four country veto on contentious issues such as war, it is a recipe for indecision and stasis.
I don’t think English votes for English laws is an elegant or decisive solution, but it’s several steps above what is proposed here.
Here’s a challenge: design me a new constitutional system that devolves power to England (somehow) and yet still preserves the decisive governance at a national level that enables the activist foreign policy this nation still supports…
Anmaw,
We weren’t asked here, but I thought there was a pilot one held in Yorkshire maybe? and was kicked so far into touch that the rest were cancelled?
It was at least ten years ago, as far as my failing memory goes.
Exactly, you weren’t asked so how was it ‘soundly rejected’?
FYI it was the NE regional assembly that was rejected. However if you look at the powers the assembly would have had, it is no wonder it was rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_England_devolution_referendums,_2004#Assembly_proposals
Ed Davey at the time said he believed the result would have been different if the assembly had been given more powers – I know it’s not scientific but the one person I know who voted in the referendum voted no because he thought it would just be another layer of bureaucracy with no power. Also lets not forget that Wales only just voted yes for its Assembly (50.3 to 49.7). Do you think the result would be the same today?
‘ there was a pilot one held in Yorkshire ‘
No, the North-east – further north than Yorkshire.
This party, more than most, shouldn’t be bound by the idea that the result of a referendum is binding for ever, despite changes in circumstances and opinions.
The sheer inbalance in population between England and the other three parts is a major problem. A parliament that treats England as a single unit replicates many of the disadvantages of a single UK ruled from Westminster. There are at least two compelling reasons for giving more autonomy to English Regions:
English Regions (and Cornwall) do have very distinct economies, traditions and ethoses and would better manage many matters within their own regions.
The government and administration gets more complex and remote as the population size of the unit of government increases. I suspect 1 – 5 million is the optimum size.
Having units in this band is actually more efficient, leaving an English Assembly and the UK parliament to run things that they absolutely must run.
Following the link it seems the rejection rate was very high indeed which doesn’t look promising for a break up of England. I hold no value in Ed Davey’s opinion. After any vote everyone seems to know how and why all the other votes were cast when they only the motives for one of them (their own).
We can all only speculate, but based on this one emphatic sample I don’t see the English agreeing to their country being broken up along arbitrary and artificial fracture lines just to create new ‘nations’ to balance up a federal system.
I accept opinions will differ but my vote would be a loud ‘No’ to the loss of England.
Barry, Yes the NE did soundly reject the idea of a assembly with a lot of ‘power’ to ‘promote’ things, but no power to enact change. Just as the Welsh nearly did. However I suspect that a lot of people in the NE regret the their decision after seeing how the power and influence of the Welsh and Scottish parliaments has grown since their initial foundation.
You are clearly very patriotic about England but let’s not forget that (just like every other country in the world) it’s just a fossilised medieval line on a map, and sometimes those lines need redrawing to suit the present day.
Ian. Yes I largely agree, there are many distinct regional traditions within England (not to mention Cornwall) many of which align fairly well with the English regions. Funny that!
Having regional assemblies and a national parliament is an interesting idea. However I would argue that anything that needed to be handled at ‘National’/federal level could and should be done by the UK government, making an English parliament redundant?
Anmaw,
As to ‘just a fossilised medieval line on a map’ – try asking the Scottish if they would be happy to lose some of Scotland to a Northern English region and you will get a sense of the challenge involved in ‘redrawing to suit the present day’.
And it is more than just ‘patriotism’. The idea of ‘powerful regional assemblies’ is a complete non starter and the usual, I’m sorry to say. LibDem flight of pure fantasy.
The Scottish and Welsh borders have been there for some time (maybe millennia rather than decades). The Scots have a separate eduction system and legal system. They will soon have their own income tax.
Just think it through. Would there be separate legal, education and tax powers between, say Telford and Wolverhampton? Or between Kendal and Lancaster?
And if there weren’t these ‘powers’ what ‘powers’ would these ‘powerful assemblies’ have?
You either destroy England by creating completely separate nation states or you don’t break it up, in which case you are back at square one.
‘Just think it through. Would there be separate legal, education and tax powers between, say Telford and Wolverhampton? Or between Kendal and Lancaster?’
But Barry that happens already in the UK (and abroad)-probably the most obvious in the UK is in Chester/Saltney where the England-Wales border runs down the middle of a suburban road.
That’s the point of devolution. An English Parliament is not devolution-Whitehall is generally not the best decision maker which is why I don’t think there is any value in it.
I also completely disagree that you will destroy England by breaking it up into regions/states. You can still have a strong national identity with a federal system. Just look at the USA, Australia, Russia, India, Brazil etc etc.
But the Welsh English border is the existing national border separating two entirely different nations which have their own languages, cultures and heritages. These multiple new ‘regions’ will have to be nations and have the same powers as Scotland or they wouldn’t have equal footing in a federal forum.
This will lead to unbelievable artificial absurdities splitting areas of identical culture and history.
The USA, and all the other countries you mention have loyalty to a single flag.
You can’t avoid the impossible choice. If England also stays as one nation under one national flag you are back to square one with England outweighing the rest.
No wordsmithing can alter reality. You either give all four nations equal status (as per Tanner’s piece) in which case 95%+ of the English electorate have to be told that they are not involved in the democratic structures of their nation and if they complain they are told “So what?”.
Or you break up the English ‘entity’ and give each component the same deal as Scotland or else all you have created are big counties.
Neither has any chance of implementation.
This was my big fear over Brexit, that it would trigger a collapse of the UK and a divorce (pleasant or unpleasant) in these previously harmonious islands (well relatively harmonious).
Well part of my objective certainly achieved, a flood of interesting and valid comments. I retract the ‘so what’ remark, a bit flippant and misplaced. To the many who raised points about the English regions etc, I was in fact going to include them at one point as constituent elements of the new House of Home Nations (or whatever we call it), but then saw that this would take us away from the idea of ‘four equal countries’ – England would still have the ability to easily outvote the other three… (and adding this would have breached the 500 word guideline for Voice articles by a mile…). The underlying point is to go for a radical reform instead of fudging it in a classically British way. Nicola Sturgeon’s proposal to Cameron that (pre Referendum) that all four countries had to agree on a Leave vote, underlines what I am trying to get at. A complicated topic and one that needs a good debate, and some concrete ideas to get it going and fuel it. We got one started for sure just now, let’s keep it going and create something distinctive and radical for a new LibDem manifesto.
Chris
You could still have a equally weighted senate/assembly of home nations as you outlined above, complete with regional assemblies in England, and potentially any of the other Home nations.
I think federalising the UK would bring about all sorts of interesting possibilities both within the UK, and beyond: for example the British crown dependencies and even the British Oversees Territories could be invited to become part of the new federation.
‘The House of Commons becomes what it used to be – the Parliament of England’
Chris, just out of interest, are you aware that in the medieval period (to which I assume you are referring), that, at various different times, there were Scottish, Welsh, Irish, French and Belgain (Calias and Tornai) MPs/constituencies in the ‘English’ Parliament?
I agree with much of what Stevan and Barry are saying ,no surprise there as often they are right on these things!
I am not fully clear whether an English parliament , or English votes for English laws, plus, is the solution, with more power to Wales and NI, having parliaments , and thus less input in the Houses of parliament in Westminster, but we must put the nonsense that is English regional assemblies , to bed!
There is no such thing as a region , politically, as in this idea, desperately clung to by democrats , social or liberal, who dare not be patriots of an English hue , only mildly , and British.The false identity is based on political correctness, not regional concerns. The Tory model of city wide powers is better, an alternative would be county powers , mini versions of the US States , all of which , as in our counties , have a notion of what that feels like, throughout. Even as a Londoner , who has lived in Nottingham for years , I have a sense of what Nottingham and Nottinghamshire is , and feel it , but no idea what sort of identification the East Midlands conveys even to those of us based there !
If this party ,and more so , Labour , and even the Tories, had bothered to include England more in the vocabulary and policy ,of the recent many years , instead of certain people , in other parties, mocking white vans, and backing white elephants , we might not have had a yes, to Brexit !
I know something we could be promoting , as radical and distinctive, the Liberal Democrats !
There is so much this party could have done, and yes, sometimes did ,and could do again, and more, if it would get real, and , as the Americans say on both counts, wake up and smell the coffee, and get with the project !
‘The Tory model of city wide powers is better’
Except city/metro mayors are a (very) poor mans form of devolution. It is also one which reinforces two party politics at the expense of the smaller parties like us.
‘an alternative would be county powers , mini versions of the US States’
You are aware that most US states have counties and cities within them? These normally have their own forms of governance. If you are talking about devolving serious amounts of power the English counties are generally too small to be compared to US states (or indeed the states in most other Federal countries), hence why regional parliaments are the obvious way to go. I would fully support counties being given more powers as well.
‘radical and distinctive’
How is an English Parliament this? It’s just transferring power from one body in Westminster to another.
>But England has way more seats (533) in this ‘national Parliament’ than the other three together (40 in Wales,..
About to be 29 in Wales, if the boundary changes go through. (Which commenters on my local paper’s website are cheering as ‘fewer fat-cat politicians, noses in trough’ etc. They regard AMs in the same way).
It’s an interesting idea. But, the anti-England commenters seem to forget that Wales can’t stand on its own feet financially (even less so when EU funding stops) and the chances of Scotland doing so aren’t stacking up so well now the oil industry’s in the doldrums. Nationalists are quick to decry English ‘imperialism’. Before complaining ‘our NHS is struggling because our settlement from Westminster has been cut’.
Another consideration is that so far, devolution has turned Wales into ‘a one party rules in perpetuity’ state, even with a part-PR voting system. The SNP may be losing a bit of its shine (though still deflecting any criticism of their running of the country on to the ‘Westminster funding’ argument), but they’re still in government in Holyrood (in perpetuity?). At least a Tory Westminster balances a Labour Senedd.
How would these proposals affect/address this?
Devolution is a fine concept. Makes very little difference to the lives of ‘ordinary’ people.
(Though Wales getting its first tax-raising powers will create some new jobs for those who have to collect it!)
If the UK is to survive (I don’t think it can BTW) then it will certainly need a radical proposal, but this isn’t it nor are any of the warmed over ideas being offered.
Two entirely separate concepts are being discussed and mixed in the same sentences sowing doubt, confusion and future disappointment. To be understood they have to be disentangled.
One is a Federal ENGLAND, and here the comparison with the USA holds water. You can sub-divide England anyway you like, counties, regions, statelettes, oblasts, Lander etc but it will remain a single nation with one voice.
The other concept confusingly intermingling is a Federal BRITAIN and here comparisons with the USA are completely invalid. The USA is one nation (there was a four year war costing 600,000 lives to prove exactly this point).
The problem is that in this case we have four different national allegiances and loyalties to four different national identities, but one is very much bigger than the other three and will have to be either ignored or destroyed to make a Federal Britain work.
Both have been suggested here and neither has a hope of working.
Clustering English counties together and giving them some resounding title is futile. Unless they have the same legislative independence as Scotland they remain just interdependent parts of a still too big England
If England had the same powers as Scotland, It would immediately use its power to leave.
I can imagine the people of Yorkshire, rightly, being upset that the people of Scotland, with a smaller population, has substantially more influence over national decision-making.
I think we need to continue to push for PR, so that all votes matter. Any government should give reasonable consideration to whether their policies unfairly impact on one part or another, and shouldn’t need to rely on a veto.
Barry
I’m pretty sure the Cornwall would differently.
Damn autocorrect on my phone and not being able to edit posts!
Anmaw,
You may be right. I wouldn’t presume to speak for Cornwall. They may want their own currency, taxes and education system, and keep themselves to themselves on the other side of the Tamar. The rest of us would also benefit when we charged them a £100 visa to cross the Saltash bridge.
Even if we grockles stop going they wouldn’t starve. They can live on Oggies.
There may be other areas which would welcome the disintegration and disappearance of England, I don’t know. My point remains that is exactly where the path to a Federal Britain inevitably and unavoidably leads. Any half hearted arrangement which leaves England intact means it out voices the rest.
Barry
I completely disagree. Much of the resentment felt in the three other nations and wider regions of England has come from the centralising dominance of Westminster, and the total lack of control people have over issues affecting them and their communities. Would a regional parliaments solve these issues? Of course not but they’d bring them a damn sight closer to home than Whitehall currently is.
And England (and Britain) won’t fall just apart if it’s a Federal country, just as Germany hasn’t. Even if there are Northumbrian, Cumbriac and Mercian revivals!
Again Anmaw the comparisons are wrongly drawn and you keep swapping England and Britain.. A Federal Britain is not to be compared with the Lander of Germany but with a new ‘Kingdom’ called Ruritania, comprising Germany, Luxembourg and Belgium. They couldn’t co-exist and Germany would have to be broken up for the grouping to function.
You have offered three names for your new nation states created from a disintegrated and destroyed England. I have always acknowledged that such a plan would work. The question is whether the English would accept it. I doubt it, personally.
I can’t repeat the problem any more starkly. If these new regions have less power than Scotland then they are just Super County Councils (and less democratic than now) and if they have the same power then they are new nations (like Scotland already is).
And it’s a good start but we will need another half dozen new nations. England is very big indeed.
Whatever the constitutional theory, if you have a federal union in which one partner has a huge majority of the population, decisions taken in its deliberative body without input from the others will have a big impact on the others.
Simon,
You are quite correct and a Federal Britain can’t operate under any model I’ve heard proposed.
But neither can the UK survive under the relentless pressure from Scotland’s nationalists.
The only end states here are either a disintegration of the UK or a disintegration of England which I don’t believe the English will accept.
A radical solution to preserve the UK, which might, and only might, work, would be a drastic relocation of the seat of the national parliament from London to one of the smaller nations (eg Scotland) but retain the same form as now or maybe to a Washington DC, Canberra or Brasilia model at some halfway point (I suggest Washington / Birtley!!) to break the atmosphere of southern dominance.
Anmaw: You say the centralising dominance of Westminster has caused resentment. Sure. But decentralising doesn’t actually make most people any happier, it just shifts some of the resentment to Cardiff or Edinburgh.
The Welsh Assembly squeaked into existence by just a very small majority in 1997. And if that referendum was rerun tomorrow, I’d not put money on the outcome. Lot of people just see the Bay as an extra tier of people living off taxpayers’ hard-earned
If you split England into regions, I’m sure there would be a vocal few in Wales wanting to do the same, by the way. Wales is far from being one big, happy, homogenised family.
And geographically, if you live in say Wrexham, Cardiff is no more accessible than London (same journey time by train).
What all this does do is create postcode lotteries: e.g. free prescriptions in Wales, walk a few yards over an invisible border and you have to pay.
I’m not sure how that benefits our island as a whole.
Barry yes I do keep swapping between a federal Britain and a federal England, because the two are inextricably linked.
However your argument seems to be against regional assemblies in England because a ‘federal’ England will break up eg ‘a disintegration of England which I don’t believe the English will accept.’ and ‘You have offered three names for your new nation states created from a disintegrated and destroyed England’ just from today. I don’t accept that thesis and (going back to my previous post) Germany is an example of why not.
Many other federal countries are asymmetrical (e.g. Canada, Russia) so I don’t believe this is a particular issue. Even if Scotland does decide to teave the U.K. I don’t believe Wales or NI will and that leaves an even bigger imbalance between the England and the rest. Going back to the original article a senate with equal weighting between the four home nations seems like it has potential to me.
Cassie: Yes 50.3 to 49.7 in 1997. The last available figures I can quickly find (2014) are
49% want more powers
26% the status quo and
12% the abolition.
It sounds like support is growing (massively) to me but feel free to find some more recent figures. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-29331475
Anwar,
I give up.
Some sub set of the LibDems can keep blowing these smoke rings because no one is listening. If they ever find a way into the public arena they will receive the same response as I have given but without my patient explanation and more derisive laughter.
An equal status senate will disenfranchise 90+% of English citizens. “So what” will be met with fury and this option is a non starter.
A senate with just big English counties will be the same power equation as Westminster and the creation of new English regions with the same powers as Scotland will be dismissed out of hand.
Non of the proposals are even novel, never mind radical, and all have failed on the arguments I have pointed out.
Barry, your derision of the Cornish this morning was hardly ‘patient explanation’.
‘A senate with just big English counties will be the same power equation as Westminster.’
This doesn’t even make sense and who has even said it anyway?
‘Non of the proposals are even novel, never mind radical’
You haven’t presented any options in your thesises – only more of the status quo, with general antagonisation of those who want change.
‘If these new regions have less power than Scotland then they are just Super County Councils (and less democratic than now) and if they have the same power then they are new nations (like Scotland already is).’
I missed this earlier in all the posts but it really is quite comedic. Or clearly shows how you don’t fully understand the nature of regional parliaments, states and nations.
Anmaw,
I won’t respond there’s no point, other voices will prick this balloon soon enough. However, I will defend my remarks about the Cornish (and you brought them up).
In my youth I served in the Royal Navy and spent years in “Guzz” (do I need to explain that?) and many happy hours were passed in glorious Cornish pubs verbally sparring with the natives. They gave as good as they got and were sound friends.
I’m pretty sure that Devonport is located in, erm, Devon.