United for how much longer?
Three hundred years ago today the proud Parliament of an independent Scotland voted to form a union with England. From that day to this Scots have argued whether Rabbie Burns was right to say that they'd been "bought and sold for English gold". The governments in Westminster and Edinburgh dare not organise a celebration of this anniversary which is so vital to our nation's history (beyond, that is, ).
Last week I had the privilege of reading the original hand-written minutes of the Parliamentary debates about the Union (watch my report here). Lord Belhaven's warning jumped from the page:
- "I think I see the Honest Industrious Trades-man loaded with new Taxes and Impositions, disappointed of the Equivalents, drinking Water in Place of Ale, eating his saltless Pottage"
The Earl of Cromartie wrote that he was rather more enthusiastic about becoming British:
- "May we be Brittains; & down goe the old ignominious names of Scotland; of England... Brittains is our true our Honourable denomination."
So, will this be the year the union is strengthened or fatally weakened?
The polls - - appear at first sight to tell a confusing story. In truth, the story is rather simple. Many voters want to give Labour a kicking in May's elections to the Scottish Parliament. Many believe that the best way to do that is to vote SNP even if they do not support independence. The polls show that support for breaking the union is no higher than it has been provided people understand the question they're being asked. Ask them whether they back "independence" and as many as half say they do (it is, perhaps, like asking if they support "freedom"). Ask a harder question about breaking away from England - as our 91热爆 poll did - and the figure plummets.
So, the politics of the next few months will involve the nationalists playing down their plans for independence by promising a referendum on the issue one day rather than pledging a swift, clean break. Labour, on the other hand, will play up the uncertainty the Nationalists will create and the economic consequences that will pose.
Meantime, the Tories are pondering whether to embrace calls for "English votes for English laws" - supported in our poll today. It is tempting them because it's popular, it highlights Gordon Brown's Scottishness and many believe it's fair. Mr Brown's nightmare scenario is that the SNP become Scotland's largest party, delay a referendum on independence until they can raise the fear of Tory rule from Westminster again and that that proves enough to persuade Scottish voters to abandon caution and take a giant leap into the unknown.
It's one more reason why 2007 promises to be intriguing.
I'm 
Comments
The answer is simple, really. We need a Federal Union. A Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish parliament, acting on local affairs, and a single UK parliament on UK-wide affairs.
Read the commentary for yourself, THEY, THEY, as opposed to what? Them and us. I have grown up listening similar remarks by the English/British Broadcasting Corporation. Time to let wee brother stand on his own (like wealthy Ireland and Norway) after 300 years
'The Times they are a changin'
300 years ago both the Scottish and the English parliaments voted themselves out of existence to form a new British parliament. It may have been a marriage of convenience initially but Nick is right that the Act of Union was the pivotal event in our shared English/Scottish history. Coming together as Great Britain brought huge benefits for both countries. It鈥檚 lamentable that current political considerations have obscured the historical significance of the Union and denied us (in both countries) the celebrations it deserves. We celebrated the centenary of the Entente Cordial in 2004 with more gusto than the 300th anniversary of the birth of Britain. If politicians want to save the Union and inspire Britishness, how about a public holiday? 16th January should be our 4th of July!
I think it's impossible to make a reasonable argument against the proposition that, since English MPs no longer have any influence over Scots domestic law, Scottish MPs should no longer have any say in English law. So far there's been surprisingly little complaint about this quite blatant unfairness from the general public but that seems to be ending as the English begin to fully understand the extent of the legislative powers which were devolved to Scotland, the over representation of Scottish MPs at Westminster and the unfair allocation of public money to the Scots.
It sometimes seems that, for all the Scots complaints about English imperialism (which are themselves hypocritical - Scottish businessmen were fundamental in building the British Empire, it's was the complaints of the Scots companies selling opium in China about the Chinese government's banning of the trade which led to the Opium War and our posession of Hong Kong), they are the colonial power in that they send representatives who vote in support of whatever unpopular scheme Blair wants to foist upon the English provided it won't apply in Scotland (e.g. university tuition fees) in return for an assurance that English taxes will continue to flow north.
At least, however, Blair has now got even traditional Labour voters so angry at him that there's a good chance the SNP will win the Scottish elections next year, at about the same time as a Scottish prime minister is appointed in England. Hopefully that will bring the matter to a head as things can't go on like this.
Frankly I believe GB's recent statement on Scottish Independence is more because he is terrified of the West Lothian question than because he believes the Scots would ever leave the union.
Personally I don't see the need for an English Parliament, but I do see the need for Scottish MPs to refuse (or be denied the right) to vote on English only acts.
Justin.
Nick
The story here is, unusually in politics, much more simple than it appears.
It is fundamentally wrong for Scottish MPs to vote on matters which only affect England, when English MPS have no vote on similar matters in Scotland.
Unless the Government addresses this, this issue will not go away regardless of how the Scots vote in the forthcoming elections.
Despite the protestations of messrs Blair and Brown, it is not beyond the wit of man to address this issue, by a mixture of splitting relevant legislation and a convention by which Scottish MPs abstain in England-only matters.
The fact that the Government would thereby lose their Parliamentary majority is not a valid reason for inaction, though one suspects it is the real reason for their bluster.
It's also 50 years this year since the start of what has become the European Union but I bet the celebrations in Britain will be muted at best for that as well!
It's a pity because all four British countries have done jolly well out of both unions. But we love a good grumble and hate to recognise when we're well off!....
"Ask them whether they back "independence" and as many as half say they do (it is, perhaps, like asking if they support "freedom"). Ask a harder question about breaking away from England - as our 91热爆 poll did - and the figure plummets."
So what you are saying Nick is that if you ask the same question in different ways you can expect different responses? Surely not!
Of course less scots support will support the idea of independence if the question features words like "seperation" or "divorce" with such negative connotations. Which is why Unionist parties strive to use those words at every oppurtunity in addition to their relentless scaremongering.
Thankfully more and more people are waking up to the fact we scots have the intelligence, ability and resources to govern ourselves in a manner similar to any other European nation our size and we do not need Westminster running the non-devolved affairs any longer. Not because we are anti-English, we simply wish to run our own affairs. Surely you cannot begrudge the Scottish people their right to self-determination if that is what we desire?
Of course this will cost Gordon Brown and Labour dearly, but given the current government's policies and the events of the last few years I doubt many ordinary citizens of this country will shed a tear for him or his party.
I personally support separate Scottish and English Parliaments but it is a matter of personal opinion and one that none of the main westminster parties will support because they are either too scared or have got Scots running the show, who want a good carreer- I wonder who I mean???
P.s. Nick I missed the 10 o clock news last night is there any chance you can do a link to your video on the act of union???
Thanks
I am Welsh and I live in Scotland and would not be in favour of either of those countries leaving the Union, it would make my life a lot more difficult to start with and I'm sure there are plenty of people in similar situations as well as the economic and cultural downsides to ending the Union. I think it would be unnecessary to have an English parliament but I can see the need to address the West Lothian question though. A reasonable solution would be that MPs only vote on legislation that applies to their constituency, this would then be fair for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The solution has to be more complicated than just Scottish MPs not voting on English matters because different pieces of legislation can effect England, England and Wales or all of the UK but a Labour government has a lot to lose by this so are obviously resisting it.
One more thing, it does make me angry when people assume that Wales is part of England.
Not only is it the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union but also election time in Scotand and Wales. Labour are expecting tough going in both countries. That is why Brown and Hain have been warning of the "danger" of independence. When expressing dissatisfaction with Labour their supporters will usually defect to the Lid-Dem, SNP or Plaid, rather than vote Tory.
So they have started to raise the spectre of nationalist resurgence early this time. We'll hear more and more over the next 3-4 months.
Why not suspend Scottish MP's rights to vote on matters that affect England and Wales alone? Surely as English and Welsh MPs are deprived representation on such Scottish matters then Scottish MPs should be denied votes on matters that don't concern them.
Labour opened this can of worms and must now face the consequences.
If we were to bring in the english votes only on english matters, this could lead to a situation where only an englishman could be PM. Thus effectively prevent wales, scotland & NI from positions where we truly make a difference to the UK. Independence would inevitably follow.
Invitations were sent out from: "The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Master of the Royal Mint" to a reception tonight at the Scotland Office, to celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Union.
Today, when the inflation figures are out with a bad 3pct, is Gordon at the Treasury?, will he be at the party?
Nah, he's gone to India with a trade mission.
Is this what the Union means to Gordon Brown? Stir it up then keep your head down.
OK - So Labour dominance of (smaller, more numerous) Scottish seats gives them a majority in the UK parliament.
Scotland then gets its own Parliament to decide the majority of issues that affect people's lives (Tax being the obvious exception).
The next PM is likely to be a Scotsman, as well as at least 30% of the Top Cabinet posts.
BUT...
How dare the English think about electing themselves a Conservative Government! - That means divorce!
Question: Who would want to be in such a union with such a partner!?
Celebrations of the Union are probably muted because the English lost financially from the deal, while for the Scots it was a marriage of convenience - owing to the Darien catastrophe which had bankrupted the country.
The hare-brained scheme to found a Scots colony 'to trade with Africa and the Indies' was doomed to failure from the start. The trading post chosen, the isthmus of Darien, was little more than pestilential swampland in the heart of Spain's American territories. Yet almost every Scot with a few coins to invest did so, encouraged no doubt because the scheme was William Paterson's brainchild, and they subsequently lost every bawbee. At least they did not forfeit their lives, as did Paterson's wife and so many hundreds of the settlers of 'Caledonia'.
The Treaty of the Union included a clause enabling every investor large and small to get their money back, and five per cent capital to boot. As GM Trevelyan states in his history England Under Queen Anne: 'By putting his hand into his capacious pocket - a gesture to which he was now gradually accustoming himself - John Bull did something to wipe out, if not the memory of the dead who had been so dear, at least the abiding sense of a still unrequited wrong that the word Darien conjured up in every Scottish heart.'
Only the uncharitable would opine that John Bull has been 'putting his hand into his capacious pocket' to subsidise Scotland ever since.
What has happened to assurances that "devolution will take away demands for independence" given by the likes of Blair and Dewar. Other than wasting millions on the folly that is Holyrood and the now annual cost of the separate administration the only positive achievement is a reduction in unemployment through the inevitable support staff needed for any such administration. To suggest an "English" parliament is frankly unbelievable. We already have a surfeit of politicians and if we carry on like this, will eventually find that politicians, their staff and various support agencies will outnumber the rest of the population.
As an an Englishman living in the Scottish Highlands, I have a vested interest in thisissue. As with so many other things, this government rushed into devolution without thinking through the consequences.Having created a situation which is probably untenable in the long-term, we need to take the opportunity to modernise the Union into a federal structure, with individual, and equivalent, parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
To counter the arguments of additional cost and bureaucracy, I would give all those MPs the dual function of sitting in their own national parliaments and also in the federal parliament one week a month.
Doing this would make the best use of our political talent, and incidentally would probably improve the government of Scotland by repatriating the Scottish politicians who chose to ignore the Holyrood parliament and remain at Westminister, condemning their country to be governed by the second (or possibly even third) team.
I think the hardest part would be to decide who heads the federal government and thus represents the UK. Having the individual national Prime Ministers take in turns might be fair, but probably isn't practical. Perhaps having them elected by the federal parliament's MPs might be the best solution.
Whatever we choose to do, inaction is not an option. The 300-year old Union has been de-stabilized by the current arrangements and we have to do something. It is a case of use it or lose it.
Just how many levels of government do we want? Local Concellors, County Councellors (or equivalent), MPs, MEPs etc. Seems to me like a self fullfilling prophecy.
Lets get rid of them all!
The present atmosphere of discontent north and south of the border is entirely, in my view, due to the recent, distarstrously bungled attempt at devolution which resulted in the half-hearted Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, both born of luke-warm popular support in their respective referenda. To preserve the Union, stengthen it even, we must solve this conundrum. Maybe a Constitutional Convention should be summoned to debate and resolve the issues in the expectation that the Union should survive for the next 300 years.
Simple really ,they have been mucking around with the House of Lords looking to reform it so why not make the Commons the English Parliament and the Lords the UK Parliament, which would deal with matters which affect us all
Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story.
Now Sark rins over Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English stell we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
O would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
The 拢2 pound coin is the modern equivalent of the hireling traitor's wages.
Nick once again you manage to grasp the public and political opinions north of the border"DECISION TIME"come what may in Scotland is massive! and the great thing about it IS!everyone who can vote, can have the chance to make a MASSIVE decision,yes Sir,it promises to be a very exciting "TIME"
English only voting on English only matters - its that simple. And I say that as a Scot. If the boot was on the other foot and English MPs voted on Scottish matters then we'd be the first to complain. The so-called West Lothian question needs to be addressed and hopefully this would quell some of the ill-feeling which I'm really sad to see has developed between Scotland and England. The SNP play the "freedom" card, spouting their Braveheart rhetoric which I find quite embarrassing, and bang the "Scotland's oil" drum which they have done so since the 70s. So when the oil runs out in 20/30 years, then what? I don't believe we are any nearer to Scottish independence than we have been in the past but, even so, the West Lothian question must be addressed sooner rather than later and the only way to solve the problem is either an English Parliament or English only voting on English matters. If Labour cannot see this then they are bigger fools than I thought.
Personally I have no problems with the Union & proud to be Britsh.
However this problem has been created by having a seperate Scottish Parliament etc & the ludicrous position of Scottish MPs for example being able to vote on legislation that has no bearing on their constituencies.
So unless this abnomally is rectified & soon the movement to break up the Union will only grow & potentially be unstoppable.
The Union has long outlived its prime purpose of shoring up Scotland after the Darien disaster.
England should leave a United Kingdom of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, so the Celts can collectively sort out their own problems at their own expense. Let them keep the royal family too.
An English cabinet without all those interfering Scots will be an extra bonus.
Once the UK Parliament let Scottish MPs vote on English-only issues, a split up became inevitabe.
Two issues for you:
What do rural Scots think about being ruled from Edinburgh? Perhaps one of the other parties should play the SNP at their own game and offer devolution within Scotland.
Also, how would independence affect Northern Ireland? Would Scotland pay part of the security bill for example.
I support the Act of Union; however, I cannot help but believe that devolutuion has been botched.
I note Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander's comment: "The great outcome of devolution is it allows people to demonstrate their identity within the United Kingdom and, at the same time, not break up the United Kingdom."
Tony Blair's comments regarding a single class of MP, demonstrates a selectively short memory. Prior to devolution, purely Scottish and Welsh legislation was referred to the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees. Prior to devolution, the parliamentary system allowed the Scots and the Welsh to have a discrete voice on legislation. Why cannot an English voice be heard?
How does the current constitutional settement allow the English "to demonstrate their identity"? Any honest and rationale person cannot help but accept that it does not.
The West Lothian question has to be resolved. It cannot be ducked.
If Scotland wants to go it alone could London go it alone too please? I'm bored of my taxes being spent North of the border!! ho ho ho
Nick, this has all come about because of Labour, the people of England and Scotland got on fine before this ridiculous devolution settlement.
Labour has always toyed with devolution, in the sixties Wilson was warned that the rancour as a result of devolution would endanger the United Kingdom, so he didn't go forward with it. The problem is that Blair doesn't care about the consequences of his actions, look at the mess he has made of Iraq, he is a very irresponsible and arrogant individual and I believe he is the worst PM that Great Britain has ever had.
Nick, this has all come about because of Labour, the people of England and Scotland got on fine before this ridiculous devolution settlement.
Labour has always toyed with devolution, in the sixties Wilson was warned that the rancour as a result of devolution would endanger the United Kingdom, so he didn't go forward with it. The problem is that Blair doesn't care about the consequences of his actions, look at the mess he has made of Iraq, he is a very irresponsible and arrogant individual and I believe he is the worst PM that Great Britain has ever had.
The current frustration on the part of the English and the rampancy of the SNP were entirely predictable consequences of Labour's self-serving and blatantly unfair devolution "settlement". Having embarked on this folly, seismic shifts are now in train: a separate English parliament is unnecessary and talk of it is a red herring designed to appeal to English voters' desperation to avoid further layers of government; having English Westminster MPs as sole arbiters of matters which apply solely to England is the least bad outcome in the circumstances.
The Labour ministers who rubbished the "West Lothian question"* must now see the flock of Scottish chickens coming home to roost.
(* For those who cannot remember Tam Dalyell's famous quote
"For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on British politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?" )
Blair and Brown may bluster, but Dalyell got it right!
Fiona C that was an excellent posting and really sums up what is now horribly wrong with the Union
i.e. Labour has attempted to eliminate England as a country.
Not every Scot holds truck with Labour, thank God.
Why no celebrations today Nick? Events dear boy, events!
Gordon Brown had organised a bash this evening I understand to celebrate the Union, but *cough* had to go to India urgently, with Alistair Darling.
nothing to do with hiding from the highest inflation rates in 15 years I hasten to add! (More on my blog BTW)
I understand though there will be something on the aniversary of the first joint sitting at Westminister.
Frankly it is stunning that there is nothing to mark the whole raison d'etre of our country - the United Kingdom - save for a verbal joust on the Today programme and a fairly anodyne comment from Tony Blair.
Regardless of whether one supports separation, there should be some form of recognition.
I think independence (dissolving the Union, separation) would be a bad move for us Scots. We already have our own Parliament and we run yours. Why would we want to change that?
In any economy there is a flow of taxes and duties from wealthier high activity areas to poorer low activity ones. You might as well say Edinburgh subsidises Cornwall as England subsidises Scotland.
There are a whole range of taxes and duties the origin of which is not differentiated in the treasury's figures.
In addition Scotland subsidises a huge raft of high paid "head office" jobs in companies, the civil service, research and development, sport and the arts, organisations like the 91热爆 and so on, which are all located in London and the SE of England.
Oh and according to the Unionists North Sea Oil was supposed to have run out 10 years ago.
I'm amazed so many English people think England subsidises Scotland. The day that ever happens we'll be given our independence whether we want it or not.
Many people in the regions of England also resent being ruled from London, just as some Scots do. We see all the money spent in London, then Londoners get all the best facilities and transport network, and who is going to end up paying the bill for the olympics (undoubtedly the UK taxpayer)?
My suggestion is that it's London that should leave the UK, not Scotland! The people of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland would all be far better off!
Its the 21st century. Surely we have reached the stage as a society both politically and economically to allow Scotland to go their own way, if that is what they wish.
Membership the European Union should make such an arrangement easier than at any other time since Union. Scotland will be free to negotiate their own terms with Brussels.
Whats more there is a hidden benefit too. The experience gained during the move to independence will come in very handy when we come to the inevitable partitioning of Iraq.
The apparent inequity of Scottish MPs voting on English business is irksome to some, but it's worth looking at the context.
In fact every time the UK Parliament votes to spend more or less on English and Welsh services, roughly 10% of that amount it is added (or taken away if it's a cut) to the Scottish block grant under the Barnett formula.
This might be unsatisfactory, but it does mean Scottish MPs have a material interest in English matters on behalf of their constituents. So it isn't completely lopsided, even if untidy and bizarre. Why is it still like this? Simple, it's a painless way to allocate money to Scotland without debating it ad infinitum
If you take away Scots' right to vote on English issues, you'll have to deal with this anomaly (probably with new fiscal arrangements) or you will just shift the inequity so that Scots MPs have no say over the size of the Scottish budget.
Labour will never resolve the "West Lothian" question as they rely on their Scottish MPs to give them a working majority.
For the same reason, any incoming Conservative government would surely rapidly resolve it.
Labour sowed the devolution wind. It almost certainly wasn't the stupidest thing they've done (there's a lot of competition after all), but ultimately it may hurt them more than most in the long term.
Ireland and Norway are not good examples of independent states. Ireland owes its life to the EU funds and Norway owes its high standard of living to being outwith the EU as it keeps its gas/oil revenues
Leave the UK, Scotland! Really! It's all the same to the Sassanachs; most of Ireland left the UK nearly 100 years ago and yet the average English person wouldn't be entirely au-fait with the constitutional status of the two islands and would still presume the entire island of Ireland was still in the UK. They're pretty sure France is a foreign country but if you speak the same language, things get a bit confusing for them! Having worked in UK directory enquiries once, I got an Englishman ask me, in all seriousness, for the number to the Scottish Embassy in London.....
Money was the reason Scotland entered a union with England, money was the reason the UK kept together for so long but at the end of the day, money is no reason for a country to stay together. Scotland has had a taste of self-government after over two centuries of rule from Westminster and it should come as no surprise to anyone that a country with so much talent, wit and ability of its own should wish to re-assert its place amongst nations.
I have no doubt that within the next decade or two, Scotland will be sitting between Saudi Arabia and Senegal in the UN. My only question is will Scotland be a republic or something like Canada or Australia?
Lets face it guys, all this talk is getting us nowhere. What we need is a government that puts its money where its mouth is and gives both England and Scotland the chance to solve this issue once and for all via a straight-forward referendum
The English Referendum should ask:
Do you want an English Parliament? Yes/No?
The Scottish Referendum should ask:
Do you want Scotland to be independent from the UK? Yes/No?
Simple eh?
So Labour, what are you waiting for?
If the union splits asunder, what would be the legal position regarding our membership of the EU? We are members as the UK, so would England as a seperate country have to re-negotiate entry again? More to the point would we be allowed a referendum? I think if we were, I predict we would be ex members.
Anyone out there know the legal ramifications of this.
Regards
Leo
Having only English MPs voting on England-only legislation in the house of commons will solve nothing: indeed, it will aggravate the present nonsensical situation in which the parliament at Westminster tries to do the impossible, functioning as a federal all-UK legislature on all matters not devolved to Scotland, Wales, or (we hope) Northern Ireland, meaning primarily foreign affairs and defence, while simultaneously acting as a parliament for England (parallel with the parliaments or assemblies of the other three nations) despite having masses of non-English Members. We need two main radical measures: a new separate elected parliament for England, with a much smaller federal parliament at Westminster responsible mainly for foreign affairs, defence, and human rights; and the devolution to the four National parliaments of virtually everything else, from health and education to sport and culture, including the same taxing powers as, say, the individual American or Australian States.
This would solve at a (big and radical, admittedly) stroke a mass of problems: it would satisfy most Scottish (and Welsh, English, etc.) nationalists by giving each of the four nations almost unlimited power to manage all their own domestic affairs, it would make governments much closer and more accountable to their electorates, it would rid us of our existing obsessive over-centralisation (leading us to the insane situation in which MPs sitting in London determine whether and where members of a private club in Land's End or Aberystwyth may or may not smoke a cigarette in it!!!), it would solve the West Lothian Question, it would give the present House of Lords a vital and useful role as a Senate of the Four Nations, it would revive an active interest in politics and it would save the Union. The only serious objection to it is that it might condemn England to a long period of Tory government: but that might help to wake up the English Labour Party and motivate it to work and listen harder instead of sitting back and relying on Scotland to supply it with a majority.
Is it really too radical for, say, a Labour government led by Gordon Brown?
Brian Barder
Scotland should have independence, and then they will able to sit at the childrens table of world politics (joining the mighty Luxemburg and Portugal)
and leave the big issues to the English grown ups.
With a Scottish sample of 543 the 91热爆 have got a nerve calling this a poll -This sample is too small statistically to form a view considering the size of the voting population in any of the countries 'surveyed'
Regardless of your views either way I would suggest that you ignore the 91热爆 - their 'polls' equate to "8 out of 10 cats prefer.." yeah right I believe that result too!!!
It's an interesting debate, and one which has been raised on the Prime Minister's Petitions site. The West Lothian petition is :
I do not understand why everyone is so exercised about Gordon Brown being a Scot. Westminster is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. If England wants its own legislature, it should set one up. Westminster could then be reduced to about 100 MPs representing the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
It also has escaped everyone's notice exactly what the background of each of the party leaders actually is.
Tony Blair - a Scot by descent and place of birth
David Cameron - a Scot by descent, and born in England
Menzies Campbell - a Scot by descent and place of birth.
It would be desparately sad if the political opportunism of two Scots ((Blair and Cameron) resulted in the disintegration of the Union that has had the greatest influence on World affairs over the last three centuries.
The way forward is clearly to have a federation of the four countries with the Queen as Head of State,
We are reaching a stage where devolution would hardly enhance England nor make much difference. The flood of migrants, both legal and illegal continue to swamp the UK, altering the basic character of the country. Within at the most, two generations, the UK, especially England will cease to be a nominally Christian, white country.
The Scots, especially, probably know they are better off remaining in the UK, for the present at least. They receive funding from London, better health & geriatric care, & supply both Houses of Parliament with Scottish-born members.
The tragedy will be that eventually Scotand will bail out, whilst still remaining "The 91热爆 of the Brave", leaving England drained of her Scottish doctors, engineers and scientists, becoming the refuge of all the EU rejects.
As Southern Ireland is the only part of the original Union to leave,the following deserves to be taken into any debate.
The UK ended in 1922 when Southern Ireland left after what was the first and hopefully the last Civil War in the UK.
Southern Ireland has had to surrender most of the rights it won to the EU--it's more under Brussels thumb,that it ever was in the UK.
The rump UK--England,Wales,N.Ireland and Scotland--should and must stick together.
separate parliments in any Country is devisive,it leads to: suspicion ,begrudgery and hatred--remember the Balkans.
The push for self determination has always been with the Scots... however, it has taken a stroke of real genius by New Labour to rattle 50 million English cages as well.
It's amazing what a bit of vindictive asymmetric devolution will do isn't it? Everyone gets it apart from the English.... and apparently, we cannot have it because the whole world will fall apart, the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse will saddle up and pestilence will engulf the whole country, apparently.
I'm afraid Tony, Gordon and all the rest of the cerebral legislative pygmies that thought this constitutional camel through in the late '90's, the cat's out of the bag. The English have finally woken up to the unfairness of it all and are clearly pushing for a Parliament for England.... not for unelected regional assemblies, not the current constitutional mess, not the flawed EVoEL 'solution' by the Tories.... but an English Parliament - it's called 'democracy'.
It is simply outrageous that England is the only country in Europe without a national parliament. What sticks in the throat is that British serviceman are dying in Iraq supposedly to give the Iraqis democracy - it's a pity that our glorious leaders fight so hard to deny 50 million people in England the same priviledge.
One thing's for sure, the people of England are speaking, the politicians better pin back their lugs and start listening, because if they do not, then the Union really will be in danger.
Scotland must regain its independence from a corrupt and increasingly authoritarian British state. The authority for our institutions should come from the people who live in Scotland not handed down from the monarchy and from parliament to devolved parliament.
The economic arguments for independence were won 30 years ago. The message is still controlled by the British state but the people are not so much put off as alienated by the scare old scare tactics and misinformation. We are used to it!
Issues and stances that are important to the British political state increasingly are the ones which alienate most Scots (trident, British foreign policy, soveireignty over our land aang institutions, etc ,etc, etc).
I am wary, however, about the prospect of an increased terrorist threatin a post independent Scotland after seeing Bin Laden's Scottish independence video on youtube last night. Scary man.
To Leo - as far as I'm aware both Scotland and the rest of the UK would continue to be EU members, without having to re-negotiate, as they would be successor states to the United Kingdom which joined in 1973.
Actually, those anti-EU people should be supporting Scottish independence with open arms, as I'm pretty sure one of the first things an independent England would do would hold a referendum on leaving the EU. (which the eurosceptics would almost certainly win) Meanwhile the Scots would embrace "independence in Europe" and we might even get the Euro up here as well!
What I have not seen debated anywhere is the value of the Union to the English. Specifically, is there any? What do the English get back for their 拢11 billion contribution to Scotland? The major export would appear to be politicians and broacasters, for better or ill.
I do not doubt that there are talented Scots working in this country but there are also talented Australians, Americans and Germans, none of whom we feel the need to subsidise. Let us ask the English whether we feel any need for the Union any longer.
Were it not for one issue I would favour the federal option. That issue is Trident. The Scots do not want nuclear weapons of mass destruction in their country and must be allowed to vote on that. This would not be possible in a federal system where defence and foreign affairs were reserved to a UK Parliament.
On the other hand if Parliament did the sensible thing and voted against Trident renewal .....
Why no celbrations? .... Many of us north of the border see nothing to celebrate.
As someone with British nationality (not English, Scottish, Welsh or N Irish) if the Union goes kerput I presume I will be stateless; and there are millions like me in the UK. Would we get a choice of which nationality we move to I wonder? I rather fancy becoming Welsh, it would be interesting to know the feeling of being universally disliked.
Labour do not need their Scottish MPs for their majority and Scottish seats make up less than 10% of the Westminster total. Some of these comments above are just plain wrong.
I look forward to the day when Scotland will completely run it's own affairs and not be accused of running England's.
I also look forward to Gordon Brown becoming an English citizen if he wants to remain Prime Minister...
The treaty of union was a sham and still is. I don't see the 91热爆 national news site leading with an article about the union. There wasn't a 5 minute lead story on Midlands today about how Birmingham and the midlands have profited from the union with Scotland.
This isn't a union, this is subjegation.
It seems to me that if two nations marry and can't come to mutually satisfactory terms with each other in 300 years, they probably never will. As with most failed national unions, Czechoslovakia, Yougoslavia, the USSR for example, the citizens of each region don't consider themselves first and primarily part of the united whole. In the US where I live, I've been a resident of 5 states and felt completely comfortable and at home in all of them always. That's not true in Scotland or England. Looks like the long honeymoon is over. Next stop, divorce court?
I鈥檓 glad people can see beyond the rhetoric of fear and greed, the illusions of some repressive United Kingdom, and the glorious never-never land of independence. Where people live and work together common rules help ease cooperation. Where people diverge you get clutter, overhead, cost. Life is a compromise. There are many options on the table but you can鈥檛 have everything. Nothing new, here.
In another time and place people who didn鈥檛 pull their weight or talked of independence would鈥檝e been very much out of favour in a way that led to one outcome: execution. I鈥檓 not especially in favour of the death penalty but the troublemakers in ghetto communities and the elitists who call for independence might like to consider the advantage they gain from being part of a greater and more cooperative whole.
My guess is, like the silliness over ghettos, the silliness over independence will lead to a better quality of legislation and engagement. The louder the cries of discontent, the more the system will mould itself to the situation, and the further away hand waving dreams of rejection and elitism will get. As they say in Japan, the nail that stands up gets hammered down. Ironically, people are providing their own hammer.
Carry on.
WHY DONT WE SCRAP THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND USE AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT, SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT, WELSH AND NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLIES AS THE SECOND CHAMBER IN PASSING BILLS. THIS WOULD ANSWER BOTH THE QUESTIONS OF THE REFORMATION AND THE NECESSITY OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AS WELL AS THE WEST LOTHIAN QUESTION.
An English parliament? Let's see. 拢100 million for a feasibility study. 20 years of arguments over where it will be sited and finally at a cost of 拢500 million and rising a site is finally found in the Dome for the new parliament building. 500 MPs at 拢100,000+ per year plus expenses. An army of bureacrats and civil servants recruited to service the new parliament and paid for out of taxes. A whole new avalanche of interfering and taxes as the new parliament tries to justify its existence.
Of course Brown or whoever would then become the President of the United States of England and the Lesser States (USELESS for short). My taxes are far too low anyway and as a teacher we haven't had a new initiative for at least a month.
This sounds like just the sort of ridiculous idea that might happen.
I have always considered myself to be British.
Were there to be a great divide, I would consider my self nationalistically orphaned. Even though I have lived all my days in Warwickshire, I don't consider myself to be English. I value too greatly the cultural influence on the other side of both our land borders, for that to be the case.
Whilst watching Newsnight last night, I was deeply angered by what the Sun Newspaper's representative was saying. He symobolises the truth that many Londoners are out of touch with the rest of the UK (not just Scotland and Wales), because their world only consists of what enters the gravitational pull of the M25's borders.
The Scots and especially the Welsh I consider to be like brothers and sisters to me. My feeligns would not change should those notions be unrequited.
Yes there are issues like the West Lothian question that need to be resolved... but we must listen to the voices of wisdom, and not those who wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The UK ceased to exist as an entity when Blair was elected. Is there a route back from the abyss?
Look at the Telegraph web site (horror) commments section, a lot of bile and rage with good reason.
The extraordinary thing about our endless debate in Britain about this issue is that we consider full independence, devolution or full union as options - but never federalism. The fact is that a federal Britain in which states powers were properly protected on the one hand and controlled on the other might just be viable. Proper planned federalism looks, of course, quite different to the strange looking animal we have in the UK - where a mix of devolved and central powers, excessive ministerial power in the regions and EU power externally make our system chaotic at best and dysfunctional and worst. While we are at it, we should review the constitutional position of the monarchy too - but that's another question.
It is odd to say the least that there are English voters out there who think England is in thrall to this tiny nation called Scotland or even to its sometime MPs. Let me see if I can suggest something that may not have occurred to you - England houses: the UK Parliament, The huge majority of professional bodies HQs, the huge majority of Private Sector, Voluntary Sector and Public Sector HQs, most Union HQs, most Financial Sector HQs (inc the Stock Exchange), most sporting activities are centred on London, the 91热爆 (or is it EBC?), ITV, the Lottery, the Armed Forces HQs (inc. the jazzy new MOD HQ), virtually all of the top paid jobs in the UK, most foreign Embassies, and the list goes on. Throughout my lifetime, the growth of the economy within 'England' has always outstripped the growth of the economy in 'Scotland'. Could it be that England is in actual fact reaping the benefits of holding the levers of control for the UK as a whole?
We should try an experiment. Let us relocate a fair proportion of the above facilities and powerful people to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and then let us see if England manages to maintain its economic advantage that it now appears to have. I suspect that the proceeds of the union would be more failry distributed without the supposed handouts to the provinces.
The reasons that Ireland have prospered would not repeat themselves if Scotland were to go it alone...mainly because 35-40 years ago Ireland was like a third world country and before we welcomed the eastern bloc to the European Union...it was the poorest area in Europe thus receiving maximum funding from the EU for many years.
Additionally it has no NHS and no major defence commitments. So that automatically makes it a few billion euro better off every year and lastly Ireland has attracted inward investment through world class education and a 12.5% corporation tax rate and dont think Scotland could do the same...they have a 拢6 billion shortfall to plug (thats including the wealth of North Sea Oil)
To speak of separate 鈥淓nglish鈥, 鈥淪cottish鈥 or 鈥淲elsh鈥 nations is surely ridiculous. Coming from someone whose grandfather was born in Aberdeen (grandmother from Glasgow), there is only the British nation in the UK.
What differentiates the English, Scots, Welsh as to nationality? Different accents? Well, the English have different accents, too: the Lilliputians鈥 accent is far different from the Londoners鈥, the latter鈥檚 way of speech is different from a Mancunian (sp).
Is it different ethnic origins? At least with regard to the Scots, the leading part of the latter region of the UK is not Celtic at all, but Anglo-Saxon, who until recent times spoke a English dialect called Scots.
Is it the clans and the kilts that differentiate the Scots and English? As we know now, the 鈥渢raditional鈥 clans and their identification with various kilts, is almost total fiction. (The kilt was invented by an Englishman).
As for the Welsh, they鈥檇 been under the dominion of English kings for so long, have been intermarrying with the latter so long, that there is scarcely anything to differentiate them ethnographically from the English.
All this leaves aside the common ethnic origins of English, Welsh and Scots in Norse (ie. 鈥淰iking鈥) invasion and infiltration from the seventh to the twelfth centuries鈥 (the reason so many English- and Scotswomen and men have 鈥渟on鈥 at the end of their names).
In the U.S., the Kennedys would boost that they didn鈥檛 have a single drop of 鈥淎nglo-Saxon鈥 blood in their veins, but how do they know? Again with the Irish, there is very little to differentiate them as to ethnicity from the English, as indeed the most 鈥淓nglish鈥 people I鈥檝e come across in Canada are those who have come from Ireland.
Dismembering the UK at the behest of stupid, fictional nationalism would be a historical tragedy.
Thanks
R.B. Glennie
Ottawa Canada
The most interesting idea I have read thus far is the House of Commons becoming the English Parliament and the House of Lords being overhauled and turned into the parliament for the UK as a whole.
This would require the construction of no new buildings. The British House of Lords could deal with matters affecting the entire UK, while the English House of Commons, like the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly (hopefully).
Another solution, though not seemingly popular, would be the regional assemblies approach. However, the regions should be based on areas that people identify with. For example, Cornwall could have an assembly rather than a "Southwest" Regional Assembly. Kent and Yorkshire also have historical identities.
Something Labour could have done for regional government is devolve the powers currently allowed the Welsh Assembly down to a revised Greater London Assembly. The GLA is already in existence.
In any event, the West Lothian question needs to be addressed. However, the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are here to stay.
I see no reason why Scotland or Wales could not provide a PM. However, those cabinet ministers for areas develoved to Scotland and Wales should go to English MPs. For example, the UK Health Minister should probably be an English MP unless an English Parliament is created.
Devolution wasn't necessarily "bungled". I think from observations it's been a success, but something that it is in process. Like Federalism in America, the story is not finished, but continually evolving.
MAybe the best solution would be to aboulish devolution altogether: One parliament, whcih sets laws for the entire UK, with no difference or notice paid to the location. THis would help with the Ulster situation as well, since then there would be no issue of being treated as second rate citizens.
What might be worthwhile is another Reform Act, which would correct the iombalance in size of constituencies, keeping the same number but changing the boundaries of them as necessary to correct the population. This should perhaps be done every hundered years or so.
IF there was a return to the governemnt set out by the Act of Union, this would also, for a time, stop Labour destroying the House of Lords, making it into a genuine house of review again.
Scotland has historically been subsidised financially by the UK, but to my mind the reciprocal costs have been way too high. To name but one: the price paid by Scots in the little family squabble between the English inbreed gentry and their German cousins in WWI.
That said, the case for Scottish independence can be made in two words: "Margaret Thatcher". What that vile woman did to Scotland was unconscionable.
Colin Stewart Campbell
Stockholm, Sweden
It will be a lot quieter in England when they take their bagpipes home.
I totally agree with liam's comments. The federalism where locals deal with their own affairs is the best policy for the survival of the union. The West Lothain Question is a cause of m,ajor problems and should be stopped. Even if the Scots want independance, as Alex Salmond continues to rant, it is not economically viable. The fact is that when 60% approx. of the UK economy comes from London and the south east, no country in the union except England could possibly consider independence. The cultural matters that were expressed on the Newsnight debate are true, but culture and the arts cannot run a country. Scotland and England work well together, as we saw with the empire. As for Mr Campbell's comments about the 'English Inbreed Gentry', is this the same bunch of inbreds who conquered Scotland?
"Three hundred years ago today the proud Parliament of an independent Scotland voted to form a union with England."
Well yes but I think the argument that it is either Alex Salmon and the link is broken: so the notion that to vote for Gordon Brown in coalition with others to stop it is a false.
Many English are happy with the prospect breaking up the mess of devolution that was invented since 1997. They want an independent Englsh voting system. They are probably correct to think that a Scotland with SNP as the largest party may be a better alternative and without necesarily breaking up the union. We would all be equal partners in the UK.
I've heard a lot of commentators say that some English voters won't accept a Scottish Prime Minister and are upset at the number of Scots in cabinet. I thought we were all supposed to be British?
If it's because of the West Lothian question, ie MPs from Scottish Constituencies voting on English matters, I can understand that at a back bencher level - but to complain that cabinet ministers and the PM are Scottish is verging on racist.
Devolution may have raised more questions than it answered, but something had to be done from the previous arrangement, the English voter is now feeling the same sense of inequality that angered many Scots during the Thatcher years, with the Tories a small minority in Scotland yet a majority in England leading to the Poll Tax being introduced in Scotland before the rest of the UK - so much for the Conservatives being the 'unionist' party, I get the impression that the Tories saw Scotland as some sort of policy lab rat.
I think a party in rule of a country, which the country has wholeheartedly rejected was a much more democratic imbalance than the West Lothian question.
I think that both England and Scotland, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland have gained a lot from the union, the Union is greater than the sum of it's parts - England may have a inflated sense of self worth and aggrandisement which grates with the other home nations at times but if it was to calmly review the situation it would realise it had gained from the union.
Personally, as a proud Scot I do understand the emotional desire for an independent Scotland, but I think in reality our interests are much better served in our union with the other home nations, I also believe that Labour have lost a great opportunity to celebrate the birth of the UK and that 2007 should have been a year of celebration throughout the UK.
Scotland having a parliment was undemocratic and unfair. Whilst i have no problem with it in principle, as it stands it is totally undemocratic and the only reason Blair doesn't want England to have its own parliment is becuase if it did we would have a conservtive prime minister. Blair needs his Scottish back benchers.
The truth is the english don't want blair they certainly don't want brown and they don't want the labour party.
The West Lothian question always makes me laugh. For years English MPs were happy to vote on things which had a direct impact on the people of West Lothian (poll tax, anyone?) but as soon as the boot was on the other foot the whining started.
Just be thankful that you don't have to live in Northern Ireland with a devolved government that's almost as bad when it's suspended as when it's sitting.
Funny how the English don't like the Scots interfering in what they consider their local internal affairs in light of how many governments and lives in how many places around the world the English have interfered in thoughout history. What's the matter England, when the shoe is on the other foot, is it a lot less comfortable?
As it happens a question was asked by Philip Davies MP in the House of Commons on Tuesday-16th January- whether Scotland would automatically assume membership of the EU should it become an independent state? Mr Hoon MP replied and I quote, "By virtue of the United Kingdom's EU membership, Scotland is part of the EU. If Scotland were to leave the UK, it would not automatically assume membership of the EU. The terms under which an independent Scotland might become a member of the EU would have to be negotiated".
Should the UK be able to remain in, and I rather feel that as it would no longer be the United Kingdom of Great Britain, it too should have to come out of the EU and renegotiate because of changes to Commissioners and voting etc. As under the Treaty of Nice, there are only 27 places for nation states, therefore one country that used to be IN the EU would have to remain out. However, other complications arise from repudiation of the Treaty (and Act) of Union 1707 because Article 11 of the Treaty of Union 1707 also embodies the substance of the Act of Settlement of 1701. If the Union is destroyed it may also affect all the Members of the Commonwealth. (end of the Commonwealth?)
A far greater problem then arises. The United Kingdom as it is now, would no longer exist? Would we, because the British Parliament that ratified the EU Treaties no longer exists ever be able to repeal the European Communities Act 1972?
The only way round that problem would be to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 before any such split by the Treaty of Union 1707. If we have to come out anyway, and renegotiate, it will not matter will it? The "loop hole" that has been given (by MP's) as the excuse "That Parliament is still sovereign because it can always repeal the European Communities Act 1972", will no longer be available, certainly NOT to an ENGLISH Parliament, only the original British Parliament that ratified it. As no Parliament may BIND plus the destruction of our Constitution-brings into play a whole host of other interesting cases. Far too many to place here, but I hope this sets many minds thinking.
The argument that because the English interfered in Scotland unfairly, it is acceptable for the Scots to do the same is ridiculous. In any event, that situation occured when there was no devolved government, and therefore no separation between devolved and reserved matters.
The current position is untenable, whereby English health and education policy is decided by the votes of Scottish MPs, with no quid pro quo. The simple solution is for the Speaker to decide on English-only issues, perhaps with an appellate procedure, and for English MPs only to be allowed to vote on them.
This does not appear to be rocket science but the existing unfair position has been allowed to continue by the government, in order that it can maintain its majority over English matters.
Incidentally, I am a Scot, who like most Scots, does not believe the current position is fair or sustainable.