Stephen Crabb MP: The devolution experiment is leading to socialism and separatism

Stephen Crabb, MP for the Welsh constituency of Preseli Pembrokeshire, worries about the Party's wholly positive line about devolution because of its tendency to encourage continuous calls for greater spending and its potential to cause huge and permanent damage to the United Kingdom.

One of the most enduring images for me of the rugby world cup final came during the national anthems. The camera moved along the line of English rugby players who were pumping out ‘God Save the Queen’ like their lives depended on it. The camera shot then switched to a miserable grey figure in a long coat making odd mouth movements.

The reason Gordon Brown looked so painfully out of place among the excited and optimistic England fans is that he cannot escape his ‘national’ problem. When it comes to projecting an expansive aura of leadership that appeals to all parts of the UK, he just cannot pull it off. 

No amount of repetition by him of the words “Britain” and “British” can hide the fact that Gordon Brown personifies the current slide towards national fragmentation.

As well as highlighting the complex psychology that drives our PM, Tom Bowyer’s now widely-read biography of Brown has been useful for the light it sheds on the extraordinary influence wielded by the Scottish Labour Party over British politics during the last ten years. Brown is both a product and champion of this dark corner of the national political landscape and has already played a key role in undermining the Union.

One of the legacies of (Scottish) Labour’s decade of constitutional vandalism is a confused and unstable devolution settlement for the composite parts of the United Kingdom, all generously underwritten by English taxpayers. 

If only the problem was as straightforward as just the West Lothian conundrum. When one also considers the current fiscal realities whereby English taxpayers are funding generous benefits in Scotland and Wales which are unavailable and unaffordable in England it is not hard to understand why anger over devolution is rising.

The controversy this week over free prescription charges in Scotland (Wales already has these) suggests that the limits of English patience with this situation have now been reached. 

But, as someone with strong roots in Scotland and Wales, I remain a ‘devo-sceptic’ for other reasons. 

Over the last ten years my opposition to devolution in Scotland and Wales has been driven by a belief that, far from satisfying the nationalist tendencies in these countries, devolution would foster and feed an increasingly separatist and socialist discourse in which sensible Conservative policies that could promote national cohesion, economic liberalism and smaller government would find little oxygen for survival.

Although other colleagues in the party have reversed their previous opposition to devolution, I maintain that the devolution experience so far has proved rather than disproved my original concerns. By giving institutional expression to the forces of separatism, devolution has given these a new lease of life. 

While there are plenty of petty rows in the Welsh Assembly to fill the pages of the Western Mail each day, what is striking about the Assembly now is the huge level of agreement between all the parties. In fact, the principal political fault-line lies not between the parties in Cardiff Bay but between all the Assembly politicians and what is known down there as “Westminster”. 

In the aftermath of the election in May, all the parties at Cardiff Bay were in negotiation with each other to form a coalition. At the heart of all their sets of proposals was a united aim to secure greater devolution for Wales (disregarding the views of Welsh people who only voted by the tiniest of margins for a limited form of devolution at the referendum).

Much of the current background noise of Welsh politics is a rising chorus of anti-Westminster rhetoric from all parties. It is the “Welsh Government” versus the “Westminster Government”. And this is with Labour in power in both places! Just wait until there is a Conservative Government in London and then the full anti-Westminster venom will be unleashed in a spectacular way.

Furthermore, devolution has created a politics which is based overwhelmingly around calls for greater public expenditure and freebies for various sections of the population. In Wales we have seen the implementation of free bus travel, free swimming lessons, free higher education and free prescriptions for certain deserving groups. Not to be outdone, our own manifesto at this year’s Assembly elections promised free lightbulbs (low energy) for all households.

With political decisions over many public services now devolved but the entire fiscal system reserved to Westminster, the dominance of socialist rhetoric is guaranteed. It is implicit in the nature of the devolution settlement. In the absence of any mechanism to ensure a line of accountability between Welsh taxes and Welsh expenditure, all Assembly politicians are incentivised to ramp-up calls for greater spending in Wales. Short-term tactics aside, I cannot see how this situation is desirable in the long run. 

Our official party line on all this can be summarised:

“Devolution has made the Union stronger and Conservatives are committed to making the devolved institutions work for the people of Scotland and Wales.”

But I am not alone – either among Welsh or English colleagues – in worrying about this position.

So what are the options for a future Conservative Government?

Abolition of the devolved institutions is not currently saleable. It is very difficult to see how abolition could happen unless the administrations in Scotland and Wales proved so catastrophic that this became a necessity. Thanks to generous funding from English taxpayers and EU grants (English taxpayers again) this kind of collapse would probably never occur. 

This means that we should now be looking at a re-balancing of the devolution experiment.

The case for some form of law-making body for just England is certainly becoming irresistible. This could include a First Minister for England. The UK Prime Minister would then become a kind of Head of State (which is presumably what Brown was pretending to be when he paraded alongside Presidents Sarkozy and Mbeki in Paris on Saturday). 

Reform of the relevant Whitehall machinery is also necessary. The roles of Secretary of State for Scotland, Wales and (to a lesser extent) Northern Ireland have become emptied and somewhat meaningless under devolution. Peter Hain did two of the jobs for almost three years. Throw in Scotland as well and we can have one streamlined Department of Celtic Affairs. A reduction in the number of MPs in Wales and Scotland would go hand-in-hand with this.

A future Conservative Government could even look at some form of limited fiscal devolution to create the impression of a fairer and more responsible devolved system. 

But I am not convinced that a re-balancing of the one-way devolution project will ultimately make it safe. 

Together with uncontrolled immigration and relentless European integration, devolution has the potential to cause huge and permanent damage to our country. The United Kingdom is being slowly dismembered and hollowed-out in full view, and with the tacit consent, of the political classes. 

By creating multiple and competing poles of national authority and decision-making, and by financing them in such an egregiously unfair way, Brown and his Labour colleagues have sown the seeds of deep division and resentment and set in motion the break-up of the Union.

Comments

[englandism]

Eloquently and accurately put.

There is a train wreck coming as a direct an inevitable consequence of matters put in train by Labour in 1998. The masterplan was to confirm the Labour hegemony in Wales and Scotland but the outcome has been entirely the reverse.

In Wales Plaid is in power and in Scotland the SNP is now a ‘government’ in name but not in law. The nationalist parties will, as stated, promote the anti-Westminster cause relentlessly because this will facilitate sustained power at the expense of the national parties based at Westminster.

This pressure applies to Labour but to a far greater extent, to the Conservatives who are perceived, incorrectly, as the party of England. Labour sees advantage in compounding this misconception:

‘Ms Alexander accused the Conservatives of playing up to English nationalism, seen in their repeated references to Gordon Brown's Scottishness.

She said the Tories also attempted to create resentment over Westminster subsidies for Scotland, while Alex Salmond in turn tells Scots the North Sea oil revenues are used to subsidise England.’

Conservatism is equated with English nationalism and England with Westminster and yet, in reality, neither applies. The English identity has no representation.

Or as Max Hastings put it in yesterday's Mail:

'The old American slogan, hurled at the English before 1776, was: "No taxation without representation."

Today we should be telling the Scots: "No more donations while you've got over-representation." '

‘The case for some form of law-making body for just England is certainly becoming irresistible. This could include a First Minister for England. The UK Prime Minister would then become a kind of Head of State’

An English legislature (commons), a British senate (lords). The infrastructure is already in place.

[Robert Thompson]

An English parliament, far from strengthening the Union, would weaken it. Logically, it makes no sense to argue that different poles of national decision making threaten the Union and then argue that another national decision making body will strengthen it. Inevitably, an English parliament will spend all its time arguing against its rivals in Edinburgh and Cardiff, as well as Westminster itself. The Prime Minister would be reduced to the role of a referee in a permanent boxing match between the different nations. I can think of no better way to hasten the demise of the Union.

Conservatives should argue that Scotland and Wales live on the money that they earn. The taxes raised in Scotland and Wales should stay there and the governments in both places decide their national spending priorities accordingly. At a stroke, socialism in both countries will have been dealt a mortal blow, as the administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff would have to make cuts in the size of the state and boost enterprise instead of increasing their demands upon the hard pressed English taxpayer. No longer will England be the milch cow of the Union and the sense of grievance towards the Celtic fringe will disappear.

[englandism]

FYI

Following the Telegraph and Mail we now have the Times and Spectator:

Magnus Linklater
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article2726650.ece
'Healthy torrents of money north of the Border'

James Forsyth
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/289461/why-is-it-the-money-that-gets-the-english-so-cross.thtml
'Why is it the money that gets the English so cross?'

[Iain]

"I can think of no better way to hasten the demise of the Union. "

So what you are saying is that England and English people should be denied an equality of representation, for the good of the Union. In other words putting the Union ahead of equality.

May I suggest that when the entity of state becomes more important than the equality of its citizens, its lost the moral right to continue in existence!

[Sam S]

Devolution was a quick and cynical fix by Labour to quell the anti- unionist sentiment. Now Britain will have to endlessly deal with the completely unfounded whining by Alex Salmond when we could be focusing on better things.

[Matt Wright]

Agree with Robert that an English parliament would make matters worse which is why the ultra-nationalist minority want it. I think the posts are missing the point. What really matters is democracy and making the right decisions for the people. For the most part better decisions would be made the closer they were made to the people. Labour completely bungled devolution because it was only intent on party political games. What is needed is proper devolution. We need to look at what decisions are best made at what level of Govt, remembering that there have always been different tiers of Govt on the islands of Britain. At the moment parts of Wales, England and Scotland feel left out. Even if there were an English parliament and in fact more so if there was, parts of England would feel left out. Imagine how Sunderland would feel run by Birmingham or the West Country would feel run by Manchester or how everyone would feel run by another bureaucracy in London!! The issue is to look at what can be devolved to counties and to communities and indeed to individual and their families. That must be the Modern Conservative aim as it is in many other parts of the World. As for the Union, this again has become a muddled and overly emotional debate. Most people want a Union. Indeed if there were no Union people across the islands of Britain would be saying - "wouldn't it be a good idea if we all worked together". The idea of how we work together has to be re-argued and re-born.

Matt Wright

[Robert Thompson]

In response to Iain, the issue over devolution is not primarily one of representation but one of money. Deal with that issue and much of the sting surrounding devolution will have been drawn.

An English parliament would be expensive and unnecessary and would add very little to the quality of government in this country. Indeed, it is likely to detract from it.

[Graham]

The basic idea behind devolution was to create two Labour Princedoms which they would run for perpetuity. This has blown up in there faces with the election of the nationalist parties. A problem that they hoped that would be left to us to solve, (The fighting between Westminster and the two assemblies when they are run by different parties) is now their problem and I hope they like it.

The problem facing us is what to do about the constitutional vandalism done by this government.; There is now no way that the assemblies may be go rid of, there fore other answers must be found. This must start in Westminster with a reallocation of seats and stopping Welsh and Scottish MP voting on English issues. If the only way to solve this is an English parliament so be it, but answers are needed not just to solve this bit of constitutional vandalism but of the vandalism done the constitution of the UK.

[Robert Thompson]

In response to Iain, the issue over devolution is not primarily one of representation but one of money. Deal with that issue and much of the sting surrounding devolution will have been drawn.

An English parliament would be expensive and unnecessary and would add very little to the quality of government in this country. Indeed, it is likely to detract from it.

[Iain]

"In response to Iain, the issue over devolution is not primarily one of representation but one of money. Deal with that issue and much of the sting surrounding devolution will have been drawn. "

Sorry money is about decisions, and who is taking them. Today Cameron asked why Gordon Brown is going to strip English schools of the saving from their budgets. Gordon Brown is also calling the tune on whether England still keeps A levels.

And as for an English parliament being an unnecessary expense. Rubbish, for we already elect the MP's, whose time is under utilised , we already have the building, we already have the institutions of state, all it requires is the constitutional settlement to create the constitutional forum of an English parliament.

[Richard Calhoun]

An English Minister of Parliament would be a shambles.

The only way to sort out this whole sorry Labour mess is to have a referendum in each of the Countries within the Union.

This referendum should offer:

1/ Independence

2/ A 'New 'Union' with fiscal powers passed to the regions from Westminster and powers to run Health, Education, Transport and the Police.

If the 'New Union' was chosen it would be the end of the Assemblies and the beginning of a chapter in the UK

I firmly believe that the electorate in all 4 countries would vote for the 'New Union'

It is only the politicians that are pro the new Assemblies, I wonder why?

[Robert Thompson]

The resentment that exists in England towards Scotland and Wales does not lie in arcane political argument over the West Lothian question but in the perceived unfairness of Scottish and Welsh freeloading at the English taxpayers' expense. I am certain that if Scottish and Welsh devolution cost England nothing then it would hardly be a political issue in England.

Those who want an English parliament with an English Prime Minister must first demonstrate how this would actually improve the administration of England and/or Britain without further burdening the taxpayer.

[Automated Robot]

An English Parliament is no answer.

Do not imagine that Welsh and Scots are precious about devolution, or love their Assemblies and politicians more than an Englishman reveres the MPs in Westminster.

Rather they enjoy the benefit of the subsidies that have become identified with devolution and the Assemblies.

Phase out the Westminster subsidy and phase in tax raising powers to the Assemblies. These expensive baubles will lose their lustre when the Scots and Welsh are faced with the cost of funding them.

[John]

Stephen Crabbe:

An excellent assessment! I fully agree.

Much as a return to the old Union might well be the best option as you say there is little chance of it.

I believe that there is a need for the Conservative Party to take a far more radical approach on devolution as part of a complete overhaul of the British Constitution than as previously been discussed.

The West Lothian Question is but one example of how Labour has abused our constitution and democratic system over the past 10 years and seems to be intent on doing so for as long as it is in power. No longer can we trust this Government and as a result Parliament to safeguard our constitution in a just and equitable manner.

There is a need to the balance of democracy between the four home nations before the Union crumbles completely. The Union needs to be restored to its former unity and there are numerous practical reasons for doing so. The four home nations are better unified than they are divided on issues such as border security, terrorism, defence and foreign affairs.

I have debated repeatedly on issues relating to the interference of the EU, Devolution, The Barnett Formula and the need for all four Home Nations to have devolved assemblies over recent months and you have touched on many of those. So I will not go over this ground. However, there is one point which you do not mention.

That issue is the level of representation provided to the English based voters and consequently the level of service that is provided by representatives to their voters as a result.

In my view representation is the very basis of democracy and it would seem that the question of representation has been left to drift for far too long under Labour.

If devolution had not been introduced the ratio of constituents to MPs across the UK would be 1 MP to 93,000 constituents. For many years the number of MPs has not kept up with population growth so that throughout the 20th Century the number of constituents per MP has grown steadily (70 years ago the ratio was 1:75000). Since 1961 this has increased by 10,000 constituents per MP and that includes the period between 1981 and 1997 when it actually fell marginally.

The inference is that this ratio worsens to some extent under Labour and definitely has done so in the last 10 years. Based on the latest population projection information this ratio will have increased to 1:115,000 (MP/Constituents) by 2050 if nothing is done. There is a strong argument that representation should increase as the population increases.

At the same time it is clear that MPs are under increasing pressure from their constituencies and their responsibilities in parliament. At some point the tipping point will be reached (if it hasn't already) where MPs are no longer able to cover both their responsibilities in Parliament and constituency to a satisfactory level. This is not the MPs fault but the fault of a system which is failing them as much as it is failing constituents.

I believe that the current ratio of representatives to constituents is beyond the tolerance of providing the level of service needed by constituents as well as running the country competently at the same time.

However, with the introduction of National Assemblies, for those regions the issue has to a great extent been rendered redundant for the foreseeable future.

I imagine MPs in those regions can refer devolved issues to their National Assembly compatriots and consequently from a constituency perspective, potentially, have a lesser workload and potentially provide a better service.

By including the National Assembly members as well as MPs, the representation ratio for Scotland is reduced to 1:26000, for Wales it is 1:30000 and Northern Ireland it is 1:15000.

Which leaves the question of England? Of course just as in every other way that the Devolution Act discriminated against the English based voter, the representation ratio will be 1:93000 at the next election.

As ever under this Labour Government the English based voter has got a raw deal.

Now I do not pretend to favour increasing English levels of representation to that of the other regions. It is simply not practical. However provision of an English assembly with seperate representatives would reduce the ratio to more acceptable levels (possibly partially off-set with a reduction in Parliamentary seats?).

Furthermore, whilst not interfering with the National Assemblies, as Scottish and Welsh parliamentary constituencies have a lower average voter base than English constituencies there is room for a further small reduction in the number of constituencies in those regions. This would increase their ratios to some extent. By doing all these things you would go some way to provide greater parity of representation across the UK.

Of course, in taking on such an undertaking there is likely a need to increase the amount of powers devolved to national assemblies and this must be done in such a way as to ensure that the overall authority of Parliament is maintained as well as each assembly having discreet control over specified areas. However, I do not see this as an insurmountable issue.

If done in an appropriate controlled manner this could not only strengthen National Assemblies and address the West Lothian Question but also strengthen the Union, Parliament and improve trust in politics generally.

[John Leonard]

Just a few other observations:

Any English assembly should be separate from Parliament and democratically elected. However, some substantive efforts should be made so that National Assemblies are represented directly in Parliament.

EVEL is just a stop gap which will not stand the test of time. The potential inconsistencies of excluding Scottish and Welsh MPs from fully undertaking certain ministerial rolls will bring such a proposal into disrepute.

It would be a positive symbolic and practical gesture if the Conservative Party provided a spokesman for English Issues who could support the relevant Shadow Cabinet Ministers in discussing matters pertaining purely to England. Alternatively it could be added to one of the current portfolios identified (Communities?) in the shadow cabinet. This makes sense as there is no opposite number of any sort for the ‘Regional Ministers’ (not that they seem to do anything).

Furthermore, I believe that in making such changes to our democratic structure the whole question of the roles and responsibilities of each of the democratic structures and their representatives and how they relate to each other should be reformed and then communicated in a way that people understand. In doing this in a sound manner it will destroy pointless arguments about such things as ‘2 classes’ of MPs. Parliament should primarily address British matters, national assemblies should primarily address national issues.

For completeness on the representation issue The EU average representation ratio equates at 1:675,000. So there is not much chance of individual representation on EU matters! UK representation ratio in the EU Parliament is 1:775,000 so we even get screwed there. Not that the EU is a democratic construct or is ever likely to be……

[David McEwan Hill]

Utter bollocks. The SNP Government in Edinburgh is pro-business, pro-enterprise and has already cut down on the number of government departments to make Government less expensive and less wasteful and help to make Scotland more productive and more prosperous. The notion that "devolution is causing socialism" is puerile rubbish. What devolution has done is throw a bomb into the cosy assumption that the Taffies and the Jocks would meekly accept whatever funding settlement the Westminster Government would toss to them. This is now under serious scrutiny and the grand lie that England subsidies Scotland will be exposed as exactly that. I can't understand why the rabid right wing and the right wing press in England keep on about this. They are dismantling the Union they profess to support by so doing. Not that that worries me.

[David McEwan Hill]

As a matter of interest the area of UK in receipt of largest per capita Government funding is London and the South East of England.
The present furore about spending in Scotland is entirely bogus. None of the plans of the present Scottish Government to spend Scotland's money requires any extra funding from Westminster. It is all taken ouit of presnt revenues.
Devolution is about allowing Scotland (and Wales) to spend their money as they see fit. That's the object of the whole exercise

[sanddef]

Well done, you've just returned Welsh Conservative electoral prospects back a decade. Most generous of you to give SO much ammo to the other parties. Every success in finding a new job after the next election. Congrats ;)

[Alan Jones]

There is a cogent and compelling case for weakening the Union. The British constitution is full of anomalies and its constituent nations are not accorded their rightful status as national entities. Neither is Wales represented on the union flag. The peoples of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall are fundamentally different from their English neighbour in terms of culture, psyche and the structure of society and have always been so, despite the unionist attempts to subvert this to conform with an English stereotype. They are not on the way towards separatism. They are asserting who they really are.

[Dale]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN BY THE EDITOR.

[Dale]

Why has my comment been overwritten? I think that 'diplomatic (insert word for male genetalia here) envy' is an excellent and very apt term.

[Scott]

Devolution is just forcing people in England to realise that they live in a multinational state.

[Richard Calhoun]

David McEwan Hill

Would you support a referendum on :

Independence
or
The Union

If the Union full fiscal powers to the regions, ie Glasgow & Edinburgh

[Bexie]

My Vox Pop on this (in the pub as usual) is that there is a genuine feeling of resentment around England that they:

1) are being taxed to death
2) are getting little for it
3) have no control over either the level or use of it being ruled by an occupying Scottish force.

There are a number of issues here, not least of which is the imbalance that has crept into our political system, where one party has in effect a 10% voting advantage over the other. I worry that without strong leadership on this subject, people are going to become restive over the taxation without representation element of this problem.

Elsewhere, people have suggested that Celtic MP's be barred from voting on subjects that they would not be permitted to vote on in their own constituency's. This is a solution that I would fully support, which would give the English back control over their own affairs without the cost of another level of government.

[englandism]

Alan Jones

'culture, psyche and the structure of society'

So you've never had a Big Mac, watched Corrie or been to a football or rugby match then?

Structure of society? Is that about the feudal lairds of Scotland and the clan system?

'Devolution is just forcing people in England to realise that they live in a multinational state.'

Physiologically speaking, it's a bit like finding out that one has an appendix but having no idea what it is actually for.

[Tom M]

The issue here is, as a number of people have said, not to do with money but to do with accountability. The argument is that the devolved assemblies aren't directly accountable to the people, because there is no direct link between the money they spend and the taxes that are collected from their voters - indeed, the biggest issue is that not all the money they spend is collected from people who are able to vote for them at all (a pheneomenon that has historically been known as taxation without representation, and has caused its fair share of trouble over the years).
It doesn't matter whether scotland is a net recipient or net contributor to tax revenues - what matters is that the spending pledges the Scottish government make have no direct relationship with the taxation people experience, which means there is no real accountability.
This is the same issue that currently prevails with the council tax - voters cannot express their disatisfaction with levels of council tax at council elections, because the vast majority of council spending is dictated by central government - there is no direct accountability between the taxes a council raises and the money it spends.
The way to provide accountability is to give the elected body direct responsibility for raising its own revenues, so the Scottish parliament would spend the money it raised itself, no more. The obvious outcome of such an arrangement would be a federal model similar to the US, where state governments control their own budget independant of federal govenment. And that means the effective end of the union.
So you can have devolved government with accountability and no union, or you can have (as we do now) devolved government within the union but no accountability. I have yet to hear anyone propose a solution that would allow you have fully accountable devolved government within the union as it currently stands.
The question for the Tories is do they stand up for the union, or accountability? Speaking personally I'm for accountability - I never really got the whole mystique of the union - it was a creation of its time to suit the politics and politicians of its day. I find myself being far more sympathetic with the idea of English nationalism than unionism these days - I fail to see why the English should continue to be the only nation in the world who can't assert their own identity - even Cornwall's at it these days.
Thats the real issue I think devolution has caused - it has given legitimacy to the idea of english nationalism, and thats going to be a very hard thing for any government to reign in.

[Philip]

Haven't had much time to read the posts on this, so I hope I'm not repeating what may have been said....

Cut Westminster funding to Wales and Scotland so that English taxpayers do not subsidise things the devolved administrations are responsible for. (But could EU grants undermine any such move? If so, another problem caused by our EU membership…) Also, substantially reduce the number of Westminster seats in Scotland and Wales. Then if the Scottish and Welsh feel the pinch in taxes and job losses, then perhaps they will be more open not only to the Conservative vision of a smaller state and lower taxes, but also to the scrapping of the devolved bodies. They could be offered more funding (although not Barnet levels), and promise of equal say and representation at Westminster to England.

In the meantime, I do not agree with a separate English First Minister, or English parliament and so on, as I feel these could add to the threat to the Union already posed by Labour's devolution. I agree with English only MPs voting in Parliament for matters affecting only England.

[welshspin]

Britain's constitution and territorial governance arrangements have long been asymetrical. It's not just soctland, wales and northern ireland - look at the Isle of Man or the channel islands!

The distinguishing feature about England is it's sheer overwhelming size as a portion of the whole. It is a certain fact that if a genuine demand for an EP were to arise then the major parties would respond - as Labour eventually did in respect of national sentiment in scotland and wales, despite it's own stauchly pro union and devo sceptic rearguard.

Fiscal devolution might lead to greater responsibility on the part of the scottish and welsh governments, but the issue is surrounded by pitfalls and could if not considered carefully actually increase the centripedal pressures towards the break up of britain. Losers will always be more vocal than gainers. Many scots and welsh regard their generous public spending as an implicit part of the bargain involved in sublimating themselves into a single country massively dominated by england.

The conservatives are right to accept that devolution is likely to be impossible to unwind. How it will develop is an open question and may well depend on the success that the SNP government in edinburgh have in provoking reaction in england. It is worth recognising that an english parliament is exactly what those who aspire to full independence for sctoland wales, or indeed cornwall, would hope to see. An EP would in effect be more powerful than the union parliament itself - challenging the supremacy of the house of commons in a way the governments in cardiff and edinburgh could never do. EVEL as John Leonard points out is going to be impossible to apply in prtactice and will only make matters worse.

A sensible Tory response must be based around the core principle of providing government functions at the most appropriate level depending upon the complexities and economies of scale involved. The issue then becomes one of how the principal can be translated into england where local government - with the arguable exception of London - has effectively disappeared as an independent force and become little more than cyphers carrying out the policies dictated by whitehall departments. This process goes back decades and is a result of the polices of both main parties.

As conservatives have always known, once you start tinkering with the constitution the whole applecart risks becoming unbalanced. How (and whether) the conflicts between a cameron government and those in cardiff and edinburgh could be finessed we will have to see, but the conservatives should not commit themselves at this stage to further piecemeal changes without being clear about their long term vision for the union. There is no necessary reason to be frightened of changing relationships with the political evolution in scotland, wales and northern ireland that is taking place but equally no need to force the process and stir up separatist agitation.

[Dale]

Welshspin@02:32

The channel islands are not part of the UK, they are crown dependencies and technically have no relationship with the UK

[Ken Stevens]

Title:"The devolution experiment"
Experiment implies the possibility of reversal if it doesn't work. That seems a little unlikely. It is a project that therefore needs to be taken through to its logical conclusion, i.e. an English Parliament. Actually of course we already have one in Westminster. All that has to be done is to remove the present MPs of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies. A somewhat smaller UK Assembly and supporting governmental structure (existing ministry resources) could be located somewhere more geographically central to deal with defence and foreign affairs. Its members could be drawn from membership of the national parliaments and/or some form of direct election.

welshspin | October 26, 02:32
"Many Scots and Welsh regard their generous public spending as an implicit part of the bargain involved in sublimating themselves into a single country massively dominated by England."

Still 'bought & sold for English gold', then? They, along with England, were sublimated into a single country called Great Britain. If they are unable after all these centuries to accept that fact and that their own kind have had a fair share of the top governmental posts of the UK (.. and I'm talking historically here, rather than hysterically as regards more recent McMafia prominence), then they can go off and do whatever on their own.

Unless some genius can come up with an achievable vision for restoring the Union and making me genuine (rather than Broonite) British again, we must go forward and sort this mess out.

I am not anti Scots/N.Irish/Welsh. I am pro-British but, as that option vanished, I am pro-England.

[welshspin]

Dale - that is correct. I did not wish to get mired in technicalities, simply to point out trhat perfect symmetry and logic are not necessary for a functional british state.

Ken - Indeed, just as in 1706! Let's be clear though that it appears there are still significant majorities in all 3 devolved territorities (crap word i know) who continue to accept the 'british bargain', with all the swings and roundabouts that go with it. Where we differ is that i'm not convinced the British state is finished, but it is also clear that there has been a reaction against the highly centralised state that has grown up over the past century or so. That sentiment has been most pronounced in scotland, but has arisen elsewhere too (though not to a sufficient extent for Prescott's 'super regional assemblies' to be considered desirable). There is a challenge here for the conservatives to articulate a response to these concerns based around local accountability and civic responsibility. If the union does break up, then the union parliament will again become the English one - but this is not an inevitable outcome, and the conservatives should not be in the business of making it so.

[Matt Wright]

Re Alan Jones @ 8.39 - there may be differences between Welsh and English cultures but they are not "fundamental" differences as you try to portray. People a few miles west of the border still want decent health services, schools and bobbies. I have travelled all over the world and one truism is that there is "good in all communities". You seem to want to create division and portray differences where there are non. I have no doubt that most people in Wales wnat to have some form of Union. If there were no Union, people would be saying - "wouldn't it be a good idea if we all worked together on the same island" after all we are increasingly being told the same when it comes to tackling global problems and Plaid Cymru (the party of Wales) is a great supporter of the EU! I love living in Wales and support Wales in a distinct way but I dislike those that would try to drive a wedge between human beings for the sake of ultra-nationalism. There is something deeply disturbing about that form of extremism. Its also genetically rubbish as the blood of people in Britain and indeed in Europe and most of the world is totally intermixed. The nationalist arguments are leading nowhere and are deeply backward in nature. Its no wonder that ultra-nationalists in Scotland and Wales are egging on nationalists in England, I hope that the decent majority of Britain will wake up. I think they will the more the negative comments keep coming,

Matt

[Ekky Thump]

Good grief. You've had 10 years to get used to devolution and see the effects it is having on England. And still you refuse to do what is right and just. What a pathetic state of affairs this is.
It would increase the popularity of the Tories if they came out in the open and said Labour had made such a mess of devolution, that it is only right to allow every nation in the UK their own Parliament, with representatives from their elected governments to meet in the British Parliament to discuss UK business.
Any other road will lead to a far quicker end to the Union. Besides, Gordon is going to get there before you and render you useless.

[Toque]

Good to see a Conservative challenging the 'devolution has made the UK stronger' fallacy.

"The question is: is the UK stronger as a result of devolution or not? I think it is stronger, because people in Scotland say: ‘Oh we have our parliament now, that is a fair settlement.’” - Tony Blair

“Our proposals have been designed to preserve the Union, the sovereignty of Parliament and the separation of powers.” - Lord Irvine of Lairg The Lord Chancellor

“I feel that devolution has strengthened the UK.” - Alistair Campbell

“Devolution has strengthened the UK, preserving the union on the basis of a fairer partnership.” - 2001 Labour Party Manifesto

“Devolution has strengthened Britain because it has allowed the different parts of the UK to give expression to their diversity whilst celebrating the values that bind us together as a nation.” - Tony Blair

“devolution has not meant the break-up of the UK. It makes our nation stronger and more dynamic.” - John Prescott

“Devolution has strengthened the United Kingdom, not weakened it, as opponents once claimed.” - Peter Hain

“It is increasingly clear that devolution has strengthened the United Kingdom.” - Tony Blair

“Devolution has created a system which better responds to and reflects the needs of the people and I believe that strengthens the United Kingdom.” - Rhodri Morgan

“Devolution has strengthened the Union between Scotland and England.” - Bridget Prentice

“Our view is that our devolution proposals will strengthen the UK.” - Henry McLeish

[Dave B]

If we are to stay in the EUssr, then there has to be an English Parliament, before the English will ever accept Forced states (Regions) on are people.
When will the Mandarins, with a common purpose, get into their thick heads that you cannot have a Union within a Union.
The longer this injutice of apartheid by the ruling elite against the English continues, the bigger the backlash.

[Fred Forsythe (Not the)]

“Conservatives should argue that Scotland and Wales live on the money that they earn.”
--------------------------------------------
The Barnett formula is used as a smokescreen to hide the real predation and nepotism.
Sensible and informed Englanders want to control ALL of their affairs and Money. Having the likes of Brown and others that have signed
“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount. “
Behind the Barnett smokescreen they have:
----------------
Pledged £50 Billion to Northern Ireland so that they can form their own government.
-------------------
Continued to promote the destruction of England by denying her nationhood and destroying her structure by imposing regionalisation against the stated will of the English people.
------------------------
Continued to deny English students access to free education in Scotland whilst offering that facility to ever other country of Europe.
----------------------
The Air Ambulance in Scotland is financed by the NHS, in England it is financed by charity events and begging in pubs.
------------------------
BBC to set up a new Gaelic TV station £18million at launch.
-------------------------
Research Funding to UK University's dived by total of New Undergraduates.
England £3,559.01 per student.
Scotland £5,493.69 per student.
Or another way of looking at it!
Scotland had 7.68% of new undergraduates yet received 11.51% of all UK Taxpayers Funded Research Monies.
--------------------------------
Continue to promote road charge per mile taxation schemes, identity cards, access to personal information in England that is not applicable to their homeland.
---------------------------------
Allow free aged care in Scotland.
“As we (Daily Telegraph 27-06-06) report today, the cost has risen from L200 million to L240 million in only two years and, with the new SNP government promising to index-link future payments, that total will continue to rise.”
This is at English expense, whilst forcing our aged to disinherit their families in order to pay for the same services in England.
-----------------------------
Alistair darling proposes to use English money to re nationalise the railways in Scotland in order to circumvent the exorbitant travel costs of England. It is termed a ‘pilot scheme’ but whatever the outcome Scotland will end up with a National subsidised rail service.
----------------------------------
Scots received more than £3,000 a head on welfare and benefits in 2004-05, 45 per cent more than the British average of £2,072.
------------------------------
In enterprise and economic development spending per head was £123, 12 % above the British average of £109 a head.
----------------------------------
“The Work and Pensions Secretary said that Scotland would lose £380 million a year in council tax benefit if the SNP replaced the charge with a local income levy. He said: "Let us be clear, if there is no council tax in Scotland there will be no council tax benefit."
-------------------------------
Scottish cities will be exempt from new congestion charge laws
Motorists in England are facing punitive congestion charges of up to £10 a day but north of the border it's a different story.
-------------------------------
300 call centres in Glasgow alone, this is the result of job funnelling by influential Scots in England. They are about to go for reductions in corporate tax in order to encourage English and world based companies to relocate.
------------------------------------
In England a man/woman has to give half his/her private pension to his ex-wife/husband.
She/he gets half even if the pension was earned before the marriage. In Scotland this clause was specifically excluded. If you consider that these arrangements are to prevent public benefits being paid to the wife you can now appreciate the advantage to Scotland where public money will go to divorcees that would be excluded from benefit in England.
---------------------------------------
Gordon Brown quietly slashed by a third this year’s hospital building and equipment budget in one of his last acts as chancellor. The new prime minister cut the capital budget of the English NHS for 2007-08 from £6.2bn to £4.2bn. However, Mr Brown avoided equivalent cuts to the Scottish and Welsh NHS budgets.
-------------------------------------
Another example of how we are being taken to the cleaners.
Attendance Allowance claims Disability Living
As a % of population Allowance
2.4% England England =4 %
2.8% Scotland N Ireland =10 %
3.6% Wales Scotland =6%
3.7% N Ireland Wales =8 %
-------------------------------------
“First Minister Alex Salmond has insisted he will take just one parliamentary salary. Earlier it had emerged he has been paid by both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament since he became an MSP in May's Holyrood elections. Mr Salmond said he would continue claiming his MP's salary and repay the money he has received from Holyrood.”
------------------
And in the House of Commons yesterday, a minister said that the G8 had benefited the "Scottish" economy by some £500 million. More than 10 times the amount it cost to host it.
-----------------------------
At over 8 million the population of the South East is the largest of any UK region accounting for one seventh of UK residents the economy is broadly based and accounts for a higher proportion of fast growing sectors than any other UK region and exports more than any other region in absolute terms, only being exceeded in exports per head by Scotland. This is as a result of job and business exporation from England to Scotland. AND THEY STILL GRAB SUBSIDY
----------------------------------
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (gpeev@scotsman.com)
A mass walk-out of prison guards in England and Wales yesterday left ministers in shock, in a move which threatens to embolden other public sector workers unhappy with pay deals.
Prison officers in Scotland said they had no plans to strike, as the Scottish POA struck a separate pay rise of 3.5 per cent, compared with the staggered 2.5 per cent given to officers in England and Wales.
-----------------------------------
England uninvited to the Brussels ‘Constitutional Convention’
A major E.U.-wide conference, lasting over two years, began this spring in Brussels. It is being held to discuss the constitutional future of the E.U. - in particular, to develop a written constitution for the coming Euro-state. Representatives from many ‘E.U. regions’, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, will be invited because they have law-making powers. Wales may get an invitation as their Assembly has limited law-making powers. But England isn’t invited, nor will any part of England be invited to meetings of this ‘Constitutional Convention’ - not unless and until we get regional government here.
----------------------------
From the horse's mouth -
The Union benefits Scottish science “As senior members of the Scottish science community, we are very concerned to note that in the current debates about possible separation of Scotland from the Union no consideration appears to have been given to the effect on Scottish science.” “Currently, we punch well above our weight in terms of funding from UK sources (such as the research councils) and in our role within the UK science infrastructure. Separation would inevitably lead to disruption of these ties with detrimental consequences for the health of the Scottish science base and for the long-term viability of the Scottish economy and society. Therefore, we wish to endorse the Union.”
This is signed by about 50 eminent Scottish scientists.
-------------------------------------
The executive spent £558,000 on enabling Scottish organisations to stage Tartan Week events in New York, with a further £100,000 going on marketing.
The Scottish executive funded 15 events in New York, Boston and Washington during the nine-day event this year.
The report said this had been "successful" investment, gaining more media coverage in the US and in Scotland than the previous year.
-------------------------------------------
Protest over multi million pound redevelopment of Edinburgh
19 Apr 2007 (Updated)
Protesters from 'Save Our Old Town' (SOOT) demonstrated on the Royal Mile outside the City Chambers today as the Council discussed the £300 million development plans of both the Canongate and Market Street.
------------------------------------------
Scottish cheers over aircraft carrier deal
The award of a multi-billion pound defence contract has been hailed as a "great day" for Scotland's beleaguered shipbuilding industry.
Scottish Secretary Helen Liddell told BAE Systems staff that the £2.9bn contract would trigger the "rebirth of the Clyde".
And Chancellor Gordon Brown said the contract was "great news" for Babcock's dockyard at Rosyth, in Fife, which will assemble the two new aircraft carriers.
Shipyard workers, who had gathered at BAE Systems sites in Glasgow, cheered the news that they will have a lead role in the deal.
Mr Brown, who is due to visit Rosyth on Friday, said it was "great news" for the yard, for Fife (His own constituency) and the whole of Scotland. (His own country).
---------------------------------
Blair’s first act as Prime Minister of the UK was to legislate the Land Reform Act. This allows Scottish residents to force landowner to sell their property to Those Scottish residents. Then they get government and lottery grants to do just that. Some have become very rich indeed.
“A Scottish Land Fund is needed (funded from the National Lottery) to ensure that the scope for supporting viable community action is not unduly constrained by resource implications”.
THIS HAS BEEN LIKENED TO MUGABE’S GRAB OF WHITE OWNED FARMS.
“Story in full ISLANDERS behind Scotland's largest community buy-out will today receive a lottery windfall of over £2 million to help with the purchase of a huge part of the Western Isles.
The South Uist Estate covers 92,000 acres and will see almost the whole of South Uist, the majority of Benbecula and all of Eriskay passing into community ownership.
I don’t think that lottery cash will be made available for poor Londoners to buy back Mr Blair’s London properties.
---------------------------------------------
25% of Britain’s billionaires come from Scotland, Scotland is 5% of Britain’s population. This has only come about in the last 10 years.
-------------------------------------------------
Whilst purporting to be the government of Britain they have ring fenced their own country by giving it a separate government. In effect they are but a government of England, composed of foreigners many of whom have no accountability whatsoever to the English voter and have made public oath to effectively use England to enrich and develop their own country. It is a situation that is so absurd that it would not stand scrutiny of if it was proposed as a plot for a film. The English are a laughing stock north of the border, they rioted over the poll tax, they would turn to outright terrorism if the English even contemplated ten percent of what this Scottish dominated government is doing to us.

[Ekky Thump]

And not one word about the need for equal democratic rights for the English. Fairness and equality are English values, though. Not British.
If England doesn't get her own Parliament and equal access to democracy, then the Union can go to hell in a handcart. And our British rulers along with it.

[Fred]

Toque, nice list.
I note that the English voice is once again conspicupous by its absence.

[Ekky Thump]

Here's some more to go with Toque's list

Free central heating for all of Scotland's pensioners, regardless of income; free eye and dental checks for Scots;

Andrew Dillon, the NICE chief executive, blamed the delays on a government decision to cut his budget by £3.5 million, leading to one of the three assessment committees being scrapped. But he admitted it was unfair that English patients had to wait longer than Scots for potentially life-saving drugs.
A total of 63 drug appraisals are awaiting decisions in England, compared to just 29 four years ago;

England pays higher stealth taxes to the Scottish Chancellor, which he divides up between the Celtic fringes. England gets the least back. These include tolls, congestion charges, government licences introduced only in England and prescription fees.

The top up fees for England's students was forced onto us by a majority of only 5 votes. If Scots had not voted, the fees would not now apply.

The ban on smoking in public places in England was held up by a Scottish MP - John Reid, who argued for changes not applicable in his own country.

Overseas aid is not a devolved issue, yet the Scottish government sends millions of pounds to Malawi, in the name of scotland, as well as taking credit from the British donations, made separately by the British government.

England is the ONLY country not allowed to promote itself abroad, separately from the British tourist Board. The last figures available on the internet to promote tourism are thus; England is allocated a paltry 20p per person per year, compared to £3.77 for Scotland and £4.03 for Wales.

Bowel cancer claims thousands of lives in Britain every year, so the Government is to provide funding from general taxation for NHS screening of the disease. Fortunately, for those living in Scotland, screening will be provided for people between the ages of 50 to 74.
Unfortunately, for those living in England it will only be available for people between the ages of 60 to 69. Why a 70-year-old English person living in care, funded by the sale of his/her house, and suffering from undetected bowel cancer, should be expected to subsidise the care and screening of a Scottish resident of identical age, beggars belief.

A man denied cancer treatment in England was told by his MP to move to Wales. Brian Jago, 69, from Brockenhurst, Hants, has multiple myeloma, a blood
cancer and the treatment needed to save his life is available in Scotland, Wales, NI and the rest of Europe, but denied in England. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Many of these cases do not make the newspapers and those that do, rarely mention that it is only in England where the drugs are refused.

Day-case patients – as a result of the PCT deficits, day patients are increasingly being made to pay for their own drugs in England. Dr Jackson, consultant anaethetist at York Hospitals NHS Trust said local specialists had resisted the rules but they were now being enforced around the country as trusts slide further into the red.

Malnutrition - It was reported on the BBC news that “"Patients in English hospitals are not routinely screened for malnutrition unlike the rest of the UK" Professor Elia said: "It is surprising that in England it has not been made mandatory for all patients to be screened for malnutrition on admission to hospital as it has in Scotland.
Malnutrition costs the over £7.3 billion a year, more than double the bill for obesity.
The report estimated that around 30 per cent of hospital and nursing home patients are malnourished, but the government gives the problem a low priority in England.

Scottish and Welsh patients who use English hospitals still receive the drugs available in Scotland, but denied to the English patient in the next bed.

To get his foundation hospitals and university top up fees through in England, against the wishes of English MPs, Mr Blair had to rely on the votes of his Scottish MPs. These are now reported to be failing miserably. No wonder the Scottish didn’t want them for Scotland.

Scotland’s teachers receive higher pay and work less hours than those in England.

School meals – the school children of England have approx 37p per child, spent on school meals, whereas in Scotland, they spend over £1.00 each.

Home care for the disabled in Wales is provided free of charge.

In Scotland, the debts for the Skye Bridge were paid off, costing £27m and this bridge is now toll free.
The Erskine Bridge is to have its tolls abolished next year, costing around £14,000 per day. The tolls were only 60p for cars.
Another bridge is to be built across the Forth and this is expected to be toll free, as well. The bridge is estimated to cost between £100 and £120 million.

In England, the Humber Bridge has the most expensive tolls in the whole of the UK, costing £2.50 for a car to cross just one way and £10 for a bus. The Chancellor raked in more than £18 million last year from this one bridge.

Cancer patients in Lincolnshire have to attend the Hull Royal Infirmary for chemotherapy, and the only way they can get to the hospital is over the bridge, which costs them £10, plus petrol, plus parking fees at the hospital car park. It cost one lady more than £500 to complete her treatment at the hospital.

The government will not reduce the tolls on this bridge, saying if they do it for one, they will have to do it for all. The same argument does not apply to Scotland.

The announcements by the government on planning, housing and gipsy camps only apply to England. Reported in The Times of London, March 24, 2004 –
“The Government is attacking the English countryside with a ferocity not seen in peacetime. All land outside national parks is to be made available for suburbia. There is nothing we will be able to do to stop it.
A public meeting was held in Leominster. It was a small matter, a protest against a local strawberry farmer, John Davies, using one of his meadows for a 300-unit fixed caravan site. He wants to build a cinema, shop, disco and sports centre for 1,300 people. Initially aimed at seasonal workers, such plans are now the customary first step to a housing estate. Needless to say, the work is proceeding without planning permission. Control under the regime of John Prescott as
planning supremo has all but collapsed.”

Planning permission for wind farms will be easier to obtain as a result of new guidance issued to local authorities in August 2004. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has advised planning rules from 1993, issued before renewable energy programmes were developed, have been updated.
The Government has told councillors to ignore protests from residents who think wind farms are a scar on the landscape, not a reliable source of energy or do not produce enough energy.

Islanders on Gigha were given £3.5 million to help buy their island. Another £1.6 million helped the £4.5 million community purchase of the North Harris Estate, while £724,125 was given towards the £1 million purchase of Anagach Woods in Strathspey
The people on Gigha have built houses and sold them on at profit, and had a windfarm installed, from which they sell electricity. They are on their way to becoming millionaires. It was recently announced they are due another lottery windfall to buy further land to add to their portfolio.

The lottery fund is meant for charitable causes, not to make Scots rich landowners. Not for them, the Prescott dream of concreting over the countryside. That special treatment is reserved only for England.

Not having a national forum to promote English culture, as has been
proclaimed for Wales and Scotland, must make a difference - would the
British ruling class be so ready to denigrate our flag if we had a
parliament? The Scottish and Welsh flags (and nationalities) do not suffer the same insults from our ruling elite.

It is speculated that English Heritage (Times 13th March 2005) is being threatened with abolition.

The Welsh Assembly has called for powers to amend the Hunting Act in Wales. Scottish MPs voted on the Hunting Bill when it did apply to Scotland. A Scottish MP said it was their business because, “ foxes cross the border into England.” A similar argument is used for the railways and hospitals, that Scottish people use England’s resources when they cross the border.

Whilst separate bodies exist to promote Welsh and Scottish identities, those that contain the word England or English are being abolished altogether. England has no forum from which to promote its culture or identity.

Keep Britain Tidy only applies to England. There are separate bodies for Keep Scotland Tidy, Keep Wales Tidy.

There is a Scottish Labour Party, Welsh Labour Party, but no English Labour Party. They campaigned with the slogans, “Scotland forward not back,” “Wales forward not back,” and “Britain forward not back.” The only time the Britain logo was used, was in England.

There is a push to squash the English identity, by the government. A clue to the reasons why this should be can be found in a conversation between Neil Kinnock and a Scottish MSP, when discussing how best to protect the Barnett Formula, to the advantage of their own counties. Neil Kinnock said that Britishness must be pushed, to prevent what he called a 'nasty and lethal' form of English nationalism. Far-fetched or not, it is a fear that many senior Labour figures share.

West Lothian Question in Sport - Recently UK Athletics Ltd polled athletics clubs on proposed organisational changes in England. The crux of its proposals was to create more management bureaucracy through the establishment of nine new regions. Despite protests, all the Celtic countries were invited to vote on an essentially English matter.

Not surprisingly, the chief executive officer of Scottish Athletics wrote to
all his clubs urging them to vote "yes" to each of the four proposals. He
argued that any extra monies from the legacy fund (about £20 million) would
be a welcome addition to other finance streams already emanating directly
from Sports Scotland, and not via UKA. Only 15 per cent of all clubs
supported the proposed changes. So low was the response that only three out
of the four propositions were passed and only by a tiny majority.

The Association of GB Athletics Clubs asked for a recount excluding Celtic
clubs, so far without success. The West Lothian Question is alive and
kicking

Since Scotland and Wales are not only recognised as nations within the UK but also as regions within the EU, they can negotiate with Brussels for advantageous subsidies for their farmers. At present no-one can represent England in Brussels and the representatives from the English Regional Assemblies recently failed to negotiate the same advantages for English farmers as the Scottish and Welsh representatives did for their nations. An English Parliament would ensure that the concerns of England are taken into account in Brussels. Thus the CEP argues that most policy concerning agriculture and fishing should be devolved to an English Parliament from Westminster.

England has no direct contact with the European Commission

£25M BLACK HOLE FOR ENGLISH FARMS

In Wales, farmers who are being paid on a simpler, historic basis, already have most of their payment. And Scottish farmers, rewarded under a similar system, should be paid within days. But Defra has been overwhelmed by the task of handling England's vastly more complex scheme.

The Scottish Executive asked Berwick-upon-Tweed to turn its back on England and become part of Scotland. The sweetener offered to this town, was the higher funding it would receive from the Chancellor, as part of Scotland.

The Welsh Assembly is pushing for the Welsh language to be more widely used. Job Centres in England have to offer Welsh language phone numbers for job seekers, paid for by the English tax payer.

And finally, the reason why the Scots in power are pushing for the regionalisation of the Auld Enemy -

CHARLES KENNEDY ON HIS PLEASURE AT ENGLAND’S PREDICAMENT

The British Question

Lecture to the Scottish Council Foundation by Charles Kennedy MP, 30 June, 1999
(extracts)

There is, according to the old joke, no equivalent in Gaelic to the word mañana - nothing, as the crofter is supposed to have said to the tourist, "expressing quite that degree of urgency". By the same token, there is as far as I am aware no equivalent in Gaelic, or for that matter in English, to the word schadenfreude, a useful German expression meaning to take pleasure in the misfortunes of others. But it is not an emotion exclusive to the Germans.

Do I detect a certain schadenfreude among Scots at the apparent current turmoil among the English over their sense of national identity? If so, it is given extra savour because that crisis of identity is provoked at least in part by the creation of the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales. Suddenly it is Scotland which is forging ahead in a grand constitutional experiment, and England which is poring over its national navel and asking: who are we ... and why?

[Stephen Gash]

England gets two things out of the European Union and the United Kingdom.

1 An empty wallet

2 Neglect

Oh! How could I forget the third?

3 Abuse