Highlights of David Cameron's Stronger Together speech: "Better an imperfect union than a broken one"

Further to the earlier thread, here are highlights of David Cameron's 'Stronger Together' speech in Edinburgh earlier today.  It has a strongly Unionist flavour.

A great history: "Together, we turned a small, off-shore European island into the one of the most powerful countries known to the world.  In the 18th century, the Union helped create the sense of possibility that inspired the titans of the Enlightenment.  In the 19th century, what was Europe’s first common market brought unparalleled prosperity to both our countries.  And in the 20th century, we not only remained stable in the face of…the totalitarianisms that were the scourge of mainland Europe…but we confronted them side by side."

The challenge of separatism today: "We must confront and defeat the ugly stain of separatism seeping through the Union flag.  This is where I stand, here in this great and beautiful capital, an English politician in a Scottish city saying clearly today and for all time that Britain comes first.  For I believe that we are stronger together.  Stronger together: Scotland and England……more, much more than the sum of our parts.  And in every part of these islands I want people to hear me when I say this.  That if it should ever come to a choice between constitutional perfection and the preservation of our nation, I choose our United Kingdom.  Better an imperfect union than a broken one.  Better an imperfect union than a perfect divorce."

Together, we are stronger, safer, richer and fairer: "Britain is one of only five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.   We have a seat at the top table and are listened to in a way that other countries can only dream of.   So yes, together we are stronger.  It means saying loudly and proudly: together, we are safer.  Scotland and Wales punch above their weight in Britain's armed forces….and Britain punches above its weight in the world because of the expertise and bravery of those armed forces. So, yes, together we are safer.  It means saying loudly and proudly: together, we are richer.  The City of London overtaking New York as a global powerhouse……Edinburgh’s role as a great financial centre.  So yes, we are richer.  And it means saying loudly and proudly: together, we are fairer.  The NHS is the best of British……created by a Welshman and benefiting from the skills of doctors trained in the great medical schools of Scotland.  Stronger.  Safer.  Richer.  Fairer…together."

Gordon Brown doesn't get it: "He talks about values but Britishness isn’t just about values - liberty, fair play, openness - are general, unspecific, almost universal.  They are virtues which could be as easily associated with Denmark, say, or Holland.  Britishness is also about institutions, attachment to our monarchy, admiration for our armed forces, understanding of our history, recognising that our liberty is rooted in the rule of law and respect for parliament."

Don't blame each other for Britain's problems, blame Labour: "It’s easy to blame your neighbours.
But what we should be doing is blaming Labour.  So, to those in England who are angry about rising council tax, angry about the rising cost of living, and angry when they look across the border and hear about no prescription charges and free social care, I say this.  Don’t blame the Scots.  Don’t blame the Union... It’s not because of the Union that you’re being held back…it’s because of the Labour Government."

Barnett formula and Englishness: "We have not leapt on the Barnett formula bandwagon.  We have not sought to exploit these matters to foster a sense of English nationalism.  And we never will, because we believe in the Union and we will never do anything to put it at risk."

The Scottish Conservatives: "I know there is still a reluctance to openly support the Conservative Party in Scotland.  So let me say this.  Consider all our Party’s history, not just the recent past.  It was a Conservative Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, who set up the Scottish Office.  It was a Conservative Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, who elevated the Scottish Secretary to full Cabinet rank.  And it was the Conservative Party after the war that stood up for Scotland’s identity, and the life of Scottish businesses, against the attempts at nationalisation and centralisation by Labour.  We are a party of the Union and as long as I lead it that is how it will stay. And to the people of Scotland, I make this guarantee.  I will carry out my duty to nurture and support the Union whatever my Party’s political standing in any of the Union’s constituent parts.  I will fight for every seat in Scotland just as I will throughout the United Kingdom."   

Conservatives will fight for Scotland: "I want a Scotland where young people can fulfil their ambition of buying their first home.  I want a Scotland where businesses can innovate and create the jobs, wealth and opportunities that are so vital to local communities.  I want a Scotland where first-class health-care is the right of all, and not just a few.  I want a Scotland of opportunity, responsibility and security.  But I don’t just want this for Scotland.  But for all of the United Kingdom."

Download a PDF of the full 'Stronger Together' speech.

Comments

[Jonathan]

Bathetic Rhetoric - (takes out an onion.)

Every cliche except "Now please wash your hands". It will be old maids bicycling to communion next.

The Barnet formula set in aspic "forever". For all the extra votes he will buy in Scotland and lose in England, the most expensive and most useless bribe in the low history of politics.

This self-denying ordinance serves no one but Brown.

[Tony Makara]

I must say that as an Englishman hearing the Scots cry for independence and the way that leading Scottish politicans have blamed so many of their woes on the union, I have felt like giving up on the union myself. However whenever I read David Cameron's call to maintain the union I feel encouraged again. David is right in saying that the union gives all the home nations an international prestige and influence which would be lost otherwise. Another great speech and one that gives disillusioned Englishmen like me a reason to believe in our union.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

""Don't blame each other for Britain's problems, blame Labour: "It’s easy to blame your neighbours.
But what we should be doing is blaming Labour. So, to those in England who are angry about rising council tax, angry about the rising cost of living, and angry when they look across the border and hear about no prescription charges and free social care, I say this. Don’t blame the Scots. Don’t blame the Union... It’s not because of the Union that you’re being held back…it’s because of the Labour Government."

WE are not blaming the Scots - we just want the same benefits.
You forgot to mention two other problems that we blame not only on Labour but also on the Conservatives; the dictatorship of Brussels causing loss of our sovereignty and the enforced loss of the control of our borders, which are open now to unlimited immigration from and via the EU.

Never mind your praise of our British "greatness", togetherness and past history - for that it what is, history - unless you get a grip of the real problems facing England we wont have much of a future - if the Scots continue to overwhelmingly vote for the likes of Broon, the SNP and Socialism neither will they within the Union; the English will not want to put up with it and will need to leave of their own accord – never mind what Cameron wants.

[Votedave]

I know David Cameron won't agree with me on this (and I might add that there are very few things on which we are at odds), but the Union would be strengthened in my view if the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were to be scrapped. I have expressed this view on numerous occasions on the Webcameron forums.
I knew back in 1997 that the SNP would eventually become the largest party and begin to nail the coffin of the UK which is why I have opposed devolution right from the start. Labour has done more damage to the Union in the last 10 years than anyone has done in the 300 years of the Union's existence.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Posted by: Jonathan | December 10, 2007 at 19:18

Good post, Jonathan

[Iain]

"But what we should be doing is blaming Labour."

Is he stupid or something? Yeah blame Labour, but their constitutional mess remains even if we get rid of them, for Cameron's doesn't seem to want to change matters.

So even if we blame Labour, we get nothing different from Cameron!

[Dave H]

"Better an imperfect union than a broken one"

Better no union at all and a free England!

[Richard North]

Which "union" is he talking about? The one with a red, white and blue flag, or the one with the yellow ring of stars? And is membership of the latter (and organisation dedicated to the destruction of nationalism) compatible with the continuation of the former?

[Tony Makara]

"Labour has done more damage to the Union in the last 10 years than anyone has done in the 300 years of the Union's existence."

Votedave, I second that emotion. I too feel that we have lost something since Labour have tampered with our union. Its not surprising that our brother nations are bickering and at variance with each other. Labour have opened a door and let the demons out! David Cameron is right, we should be blaming Labour, they started all this.

[John Leonard]

I decided not to comment before David Cameron's speech as I wanted to read it before forming my opinion. Having read it, I am deeply disappointed. It seemed little more than hollow rhetoric aimed at placating the Scots and was devoid of substance.

Its core message seemed to be that Scots need not be worried as Cameron does not propose to do anything to upset them. Well I'm sure we will all feel better after that!

I doubt that they will be fooled by such a speech and its lack of substance suggests that there is as little desire within the Conservative Party to address the real issues as there is within Labour and the Libdems. It will likely also cause further concern among English voters and reduce the impact of recent Conservative successes.

I agree with David Cameron that there are far stronger reasons to keep the Union than to break it up. I agree that the four home nations are stronger together than apart.

I agree that the current issues are as a result to the incompetence and self interest of the Labour Party.

However, that does not justify using a smokescreen of accusations of nationalist zealotry to obscure the current inequalities that now exist.

Neither does it justify the veiled slurs against those who want to see the current inequalities removed.

Nor does it justify giving a speech devoid of substance.

Yes there are a small minority who want to break up the union for nationalistic reasons but throwing insults at them will not make them go away.

Only substantive policies that voters in all four Home Nations see as reasonably equitable will push the nationalists back into the obscurity they so richly deserve.

It is not to say it is better to put up with an 'Imperfect Union' than no union at all. Cameron should be providing a vision of a better Union.

Disregarding those growing numbers in all of the four home nations who no longer see the socialist tainted Union Jack as a symbol of national pride will not rejuvenate the Union. Only providing better devolved democracy will.

Unfortunately, when it comes to democratic matters the Conservatives currently just do not seem up to the challenge.

There are the vague promises of repatriation of powers from the EU that only raise more questions than answers.

There is the deluded, self interested, nonsense that state funding of political parties will eradicate the sleaze surrounding political parties.

Lastly, there are the insincere, shallow and flawed proposals of EvFel and the EGC that will somehow 'magically' resolve the democratic inequalities between the four home nations.

Until the Conservatives come up with substantive, consistent and realistic proposals on these matters (ideally based on a truly egalitarian localist theme) such prevarication as this speech will only further erode the trust of the British people in its major political parties but I suppose at least Cameron didn't use the word 'Britishness'(sic).

[voreas06]

Cameron has got this wrong, the tone is wrong and the pig headed union or nothing approach is wrong. What is needed is not the present fudge but fundamental constitutional reform, Grand committees and English votes for English MPs is tinkering, if he truly wants to save the union then a fair and what is perceived to be fair settlement is the answer, it is also what people are looking for. What is needed is either a federal solution(cue labour rubbish "well, I have never heard of a federal system where one partner is so much bigger than the rest"), or the powers at holyrood (or equivalent, ideally indeed more) devolved down to a town and county level. Any other solution is just a sticking plaster.
It was equally a mistake to take the tone with the English that he does, it reeks of being back on the old heir to Blair agenda. There is absolutely no harm in saying yes the English have a very valid grievance over West Lothian and possibly even over the Barnett formula, and then leave it at that, The Scots, Welsh etc tend to agree and all people of Britain would ultimately prefer a fair solution to selfish advantage because they are wise enough to know it will last if it is fair.

[Jack Baines]

"Better an imperfect union than a broken one"

What sort of NONSENSE is this?, all Cameron has done today is gain maybe 1 new scottish voter and lost about 10'000 English ones!.

The "Union" is null and void as of 1998!.

English Parliament NOW!!!!!

[Tory Heaven]

Well I was present for Mr Cameron's speech today, and I must say I was impressed by what he had to say. He is clearly awake to the fact that the two great threats to the Union from English Nationalists centre on (1) the West Lothian issue, and (2) perceived financial unfairness in favour of Scotland at the expense of the English taxpayer.

One the first point, he was right to pledge the Conservatives to consider this issue thoroughly and then issue a policy statement on it. Rushing into further constitutional change would be undesirable, although clearly something has to be done as we cannot continue with the lop-sided Constitutional position we have at the moment, bequeathed to us by a New Labour party which excels at Constitutional wrecking. If we cannot (alas) undo devolution then whether we go forward by way of some sort of federalism or else by establishing an English Grand Committee needs proper and full consideration, and I was pleased to see Mr Cameron commit to that exercise.

As for the second issue, I was also delighted to see him avoid jumping on the 'let's bash the Scots for all these benefits they are getting' bandwagon. That sort of
politics of jealousy, of the type stirred up by Simon Heffer in the Teleghraph, is incredibly damaging to national unity, and blindly ignores the fact that various regions of England also receive different levels of state funding (indeed the London metropolitan area receives the highest per capita government spending of all UK areas, including Scotland) - should that mean that Southern Englanders should gripe at the North of England and demand that they get no more government spending than the South? Mr Cameron sensibly realises that it is inevitable that some parts of the UK are going to need higher government funding, whether in London because of high infrastructure costs caused by the population concentration, or in rural areas because of the geographically dispersed population. As he rightly said today, the problem - if some English voters perceive that they are being hard done by - is not one caused by the Union, it is the result of the Westminster Government not delivering the kind of policies that voters want. And the way to resolve that issue is for English voters to favour a change of Government. By all means, let's look again at the formula for how the various regions of the UK are funded, but there is no immediate, obvious answer to the fact that some are bound to require higher state funding than others. That does not mean that we should not be reducing state spending dramatically, in all regions, but again that is an issue of the colour of the Governments in charge - high spending Labour in England, and high spending SNP in Scotland - rather than the result of the Union.

So, all in all, I thought Mr Cameron's remarks today were very positive. The Union needs an articulate defender, and Mr Cameron looks like he might just be the man for the job. Keep up the good work D.C.!

[Yet Another Anon]

Together, we turned a small, off-shore European island into the one of the most powerful countries known to the world
The United Kingdom included Ireland, and still includes 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster, it includes Orkney Islands, Western Isles, Shetland Isles - it is important to remember that the UK is more than just mainland England, Scotland and Wales!

[Tartan Tory]

Why didn't the bbc cover this on Reporting Scotland after news at ten?

Utterly ridiculous.. a man being locked in a pub loo for four days was apparently considered news by the bbc tonight.

Shame on the them.

The speech was fantastic today and a great start for davehearts attack in Scotland. Scotland is ten percent of the population. Cameron should spend ten percent of his time here.

[Jenny Lloyd]

Better an imperfect union than a broken one - better an imperfect union than a perfect divorce ? I THINK I know what he was trying to say but this is a stupid comparison. Surely everyone knows that a perfect divorce is better than an imperfect union. Perhaps what he meant to say is that a perfect divorce is hard to achieve but that a union is worth striving for. On the other hand maybe he shouldn't have bothered with the family analogy because it's so - saccharine ! He is seriously going wrong and I'm going back to Gordon now.

[IRJMilne]

"Surely everyone knows that a perfect divorce is better than an imperfect union."

That's somewhat debateable.

Meanwhile, votedave has become the first person I have seen writing on this website in favour of reversing devolution other than myself.

I am happier with this speech than any previous Cameron speech. For the most part, it's jolly good.

[James Maskell]

"So let me say this"

Hes on the stage in mid speech...hes allowed to say what he wants without having to beg permission. He does this in every speech and its an annoying little phrase which serves no purpose.

[englandism.com]

"Better an imperfect union than a broken one"

Yes, some time ago I faked my death using the Reggie Perrin stylee coastal disappearance mullarkey. Then I grew a really nice crop of ZZ Top facial fungus and lived in the family home in a priest hole using my death re-fund to fund the marriage and a pad in Central America.

Having fessed up I have now totally alienated the wee bairns and me and the missus are now in the nick.

But, hey, we're still together, innit?

"Better an imperfect union than a broken one"

Get in your canoe Dave, your time is up.

[Simon Denis]

By all means let's try to save Great Britain, but not at any price. Frankly, I'd far rather be divorced from Scotland than continue under the current arrangements. Whether or not certain areas of England get preferential funding, at least they are covered by reciprocal political arrangements. The Scots, on the other hand, have been perfectly happy for some years to have their cake and eat it - drawing on English largesse whilst depriving the English people of the same; doing all this at Labour's behest, safe in the knowledge of their semi-independence. It wont' do. Clearly, in all areas of government now ceded to Scotland, Scottish MPs have no further English rights. The left may whine and squeal about lop-sided federalism, but they set the bandwagon rolling by federalising on national lines in the first place. Just because it's the biggest boy in the British playground, England does not deserve to be bullied, insulted and robbed by all the rest. So, as a first step, we should see a pledge to reserve English matters to English votes at Westminster. If the Scots people chose to see this as an affront - when it is in fact a perfectly just and equitable arrangement - we will know that the Union is - properly speaking - doomed. It is masochistic to stay married to a partner who whores herself to the EU, denigrates you whenever possible and costs you a great deal of money.

As a tail piece, I am disquieted by Mr Cameron's reference to nineteenth century Great Britain as the first ever Common Market. It was in fact an unitary state. Is Mr C subliminally preparing himself for European citizenship?

[Michael McGowan]

Tory Heaven, why on earth does the Union need a defender? It is an empty political construct long past its sell-by date. The only people who benefit from the Union are the Labour Party who set up devolution in its current form so that they would have an everlasting Scottish block vote in the UK Parliament funded by English taxpayers. That is why Labour are so scared that the SNP will undermine them in what they arrogantly regarded as their rotten borough. As a force north of the Border, the Tories are a rump and deservedly so.

From a more principled perspective, England's destiny no more depends on it being united with Scotland than it does on being united with Ireland or indeed France. On the eve of the Union in 1707, England was doing very nicely thank you very much. It was the Scotia Nostra who wanted Union, not the other way around. Even you must realise that the last century plus of British history has been bedevilled by political attempts to lock together nations (England and Ireland) which wished to pursue separate but related paths and which could have done gracefully so if wiser counsel had prevailed.

[James Maskell]

What does England gain through the Union? What is the purpose of the Union at present?

[J Hutchings]

Regardless of the content , Mr Cameron's speech was quite threatening to the English . Essentially he said that he will accept the Blairite constitutional changes which are tough on England but thats OK because the Union needs it , in his opinion .
His message to the English was " just belt up and put up with it ". Oh , if you insist , we will perform a little procedural change with the British parliament . You can have a " grand " committee ( tee hee ) .

Real ancien regime stuff .

Why oh why cannot the Conservative party for once make a leap of imagination and initiate change instead of always trailing in its wake . Women's suffrage is now part of the scenery but they opposed it at first . This is the same type of situation . English self rule will come regardless of whether Mr Cameron wants it or not .

There is an opportunity here for the Conservatives to stride clear past Labour and go for a federal UK . That this could be be to their own electoral advantage is a plus . Another plus might be that , in Mr Cameron's vastly overprivilged Scotland , they will see the point straight away and approve .
If you want to preserve the UK , this is the way . Simply setting you face against England's reasonable democratic demands will end it .

[Malcolm Dunn]

Sometimes I really wonder .Mr Camerons speech was not for one minute threatening to the English nor did he say that he will accept Labours constitutional changes nor did he suggest that anyone belts up. What speech did you read J Hutchings?

[Iain]

J Hutchings, I agree, the Conservatives seem to have no more ambition than to be camp followers to Labours constitutional changes. The Conservatives seem to have no strategic idea to what needs doing, other than to fiddle around at the edges of what Labour have done. So essentially what we get from the Conservatives is Labour policy with only minor alterations.

I also agree with your assessment in what needs doing, unfortunately in the paucity of thinking at the Conservative party, and their lack of will to do anything on this matter means that English people will have to wait for Labour to see it in their political advantage to give England a parliament and federate the UK before anything is done on the matter, which no doubt the Conservatives, having got on the wrong side of the argument, will come around to supporting, of course when they have been reduced to a rump of a political force, just as they have in Scotland!

[J Hutchings]

To Malcom Dunn
Mr Cameron said "We have not leapt on the Barnett formula bandwagon.---- And we never will, because we believe in the Union and we will never do anything to put it at risk."

same speech as you read Malcom

and he also conspired with Labour in perpeuating the myth that there is still a single "British " NHS .
There is not . There are four effectively separate ones with the English NHS in receipt of vast financial and political discrimination from the British government .

[Vernon]

Why is this thread still going on? It's clear that Iain and others are not listening to the arguments and are simply using this as an excuse to perpetuate their calls for an English Parliament.

Please, get this into your heads. There is NO threat to the English from the current constitutional settlement or by David Cameron's eminently sensible and reasonable speech yesterday.

England is NOT being dominated by Scotland. It used to be possible to argue that Scotland was dominated by England, but devolution has addressed that issue.

While it is not perfect, the devolution introduced in recent years does address a decades-old problem: namely that 80% of the UK (England) was taking some domestic political decisions which the other 20% (Wales and Scotland) (NI is a special case) did not like.

Devolution has allowed those minorities some flexibility to adjust some of those policies in a way which is more in tune with their will, as expressed by their local electorates.

It doesn't work the other way around because England and the English are not and never have been a minority in the UK. They dominate it, electorally and politically. England is the core, centre and body of the UK, so how can it devolve from itself?

[J Hutchings]

Vernon , thank you for your input . Your ignorance of British constitutional history is rather painful .

The basics of this are that the United Kingdom is the Union of two previously separate kingdoms each with their parliaments and institutions . The disparity in their sizes is irrelevant . The old parliaments were abolished and new British one set up for ALL of the new UK . It so happened that in 1998 ,as the result of Labour machinations , ONE ONLY of the kingdoms received its parliament and self government back while the other was compelled to continue under UK/British rule replete with systematic financial and governmental discrimination against that country .

This rule included rulers from the country which had just received its parliament back .

Unremarkably , this arrangement has caused dicontent in the second country .

Until the other country receives its parliament and intitutions back , complete with self rule , perhaps under an overarching and continuing British parliament dealing with pan British only affairs but not with the internal affairs of either country , then you can stand by for much more of the same .

[Vernon]

J Hutchings,

Thank you for your input in return. I don't believe I went into our constitutional history in my first post above, but my knowledge of it is rather better than yours I suspect. (Incidentally, your ignorance of punctuation is rather painful: there is no need to put a space before a comma or full stop, it makes your arguments even harder to follow.)

Yes the Scottish and English Parliaments were officially suspended at the time of the Union. But in practice, the English Parliament continued to form the basis of the UK Parliament, including the fact that the new Parliament sat in the same place as the English one had.

However, fascinating as all this is, it is fairly irrelevant to the current discussion - let's address your more hysterical claims:

ONE ONLY of the kingdoms received its parliament and self government back while the other was compelled to continue under UK/British rule replete with systematic financial and governmental discrimination against that country .

What are you talking about? There is NO systematic financial or governmental discrimination against England in the current set-up. If you are jealous that Scotland have no tuition fees or free prescriptions - that is their decision, they decide how to spend their budget on those issues. So if you want those benefits for England and the wider UK, join and/or vote for a political party that advocates those policies at a UK level.

This rule included rulers from the country which had just received its parliament back .

As I explained at great length yesterday, this issue is a complete red herring. Anyone from any part of the UK is entitled to be elected to the UK Parliament. Anyone who is elected as an MP is eligible to be appointed prime minister or any other minister by the Queen.

Their nationality is irrelevant. We have previously had a Canadian prime minister as well as several Scots, Irish and a Welshman over the centuries. Neither is their constituency relevant to this debate either, since we are talking about their Executive role as a minister in government, not as a Member of Parliament.

And for the last time - they are NOT rulers! The Queen is. Ministers govern us, MPs represent us.

[Iain]

"If you are jealous that Scotland have no tuition fees or free prescriptions - that is their decision,"

But their MP's made it their decision to deny English people the same benefits, for the carrying vote on Top up fees was the Scottish MP's vote, and the person to say that Home Care for the elderly couldn't be afforded in England was Gordon Brown, which pretty much rubbishes you whole argument that there isn't any financial or Governmental discrimination in England!

[J Hutchings]

Vernon , thank you for your concern as to my punctuation .

You say :
"Yes the Scottish and English Parliaments were officially suspended at the time of the Union. But in practice, the English Parliament continued to form the basis of the UK Parliament, including the fact that the new Parliament sat in the same place as the English one had. "

That is precisely where you are wrong . Regardless of location or the trappings of the new parliament it was consciously a new parliament for a new state ie Great Britain .

re finance , you also said :

"What are you talking about? There is NO systematic financial or governmental discrimination against England in the current set-up."

Difficult to know where to start on this one Vernon . Look up Barnett Rules though and branch out from there .

Also , consider why it is that the average size of an constituency is larger than the average size of a Scottish constituency and why this has ever been so in a supposedly United Kingdom where equal democratic treatment of all the inhabitants is supposed to be a sine qua non .

Your remarks as the nationality of various British PM's are interesting . However , that was when we still had a Union state unaltered by the Scotland Act .
You might have noticed that I carefully said that IMHO the Union parliament of the UK should continue

provided that there is also an English Praliament and internal English self rule

just like Scotland's !

[Michael McGowan]

Iain, I suspect that Vernon is being deliberately obtuse about the point you are making.

[Vernon]

J Hutchings, Iain,

We are clearly never going to agree on the rights and wrongs of this so I can barely bring myself to waste energy arguing with a brick wall. However, I must point out the central logical inconsistency in the last post:

You might have noticed that I carefully said that IMHO the Union parliament of the UK should continue

provided that there is also an English Praliament and internal English self rule

Either you support the Union or you support an English Parliament, but to support both is just plain silly. Quite apart from the fact that if you take England out of the Union you rip the guts out of the Union, why on earth add yet another layer to the already multi-layered system of local government in this country? It's just more bureaucracy and expense to create administrators and systems to deal with issues which are already dealt with perfectly well at a UK level. An English Parliament on top of the UK one would be a complete waste of time and money.

You still fail to answer my main point. Why does England need "self rule" when England accounts for 80% of the UK and therefore has massive dominance when deciding UK-wide policy?

The only alternative answer to that which holds any water is for the UK to break up and England to govern itself. That's a perfectly valid political position for you to hold, but not one I can share as an Englishman who is proud of our shared British history and considers our nation enriched by the talents and people of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the rest, alongside the achievements of great Englishmen. So if you seek "English Independence", fine - but don't pretend to support the Union and don't hijack the Conservative and Unionist Party as a Trojan Horse for your views.

[J Hutchings]

"Either you support the Union or you support an English Parliament, but to support both is just plain silly"

Not at all Vernon . It is plainly logical and highly workable . Your points re cost and beaurocracy are irrelavant . Yes , democracy is more expensive than dictatorship , it always has been .
So what .

The core of your lack of perception is that you consider the British parliament in some way to be an English one . I don't and never have .
In 1707 , the English , along with the Scots , gave up their individual parliaments in an incredibly far seeing act and commenced a new history . The result was world shaking .

Scotland fell out of this in 1998 but England is not allowed to do so. Instead we are forced to continue under direct British rule which has British attitudes and priorities
( incuding an all-pervading disdain for the English )
and that is what you do not comprehend .

[englandism.com]

Did anyone notice that the Welsh are asking for representation on the Union flag and Scotland is upset that God Save the Queen mentions crushing seditious Scots in a latter verse?

So the govt is looking to change both of these fundamental symbols of national cohesion and identity at the behest of the supposedly oppressed periphery. Yet. Again.

A bit like the constitution.

Is this a good idea Vernon?

And, as the solitary defender of the union, how d'yall feel about the Police in England getting shafted whilst McPlod gets the full pay cheque? A bit like the English nurses and the pay settlement that favoured the Scots and shafted the English.

Is a Scottish police officer/nurse of more value than an English version?

All, hail the Union. Not.

'The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, provoked an almighty row, with threats of industrial action, last Thursday when she announced a 2.5% increase for police officers in England and Wales.

The problem was not the figure but the fact the award will be backdated only to December 1, and not to September 1 as the Police Federation of England and Wales had expected.

To make matters worse, the 2.5% awarded to Scottish officers will be backdated to September 1.'

[Iain]

"You still fail to answer my main point. Why does England need "self rule" when England accounts for 80% of the UK and therefore has massive dominance when deciding UK-wide policy?"

Vernon, for a very simple reason, our MP's should be our representatives, but they aren't, they are lobby fodder, as a result rather than looking after their constituents interests, they instead march through the lobbies according to the demands of the party whips, which as Labour are the largest party its according to Brown's demands. This is why we need an English parliament, so that English people can vote for an executive to pursue their interests, and that's why EVFEL won't work, because it doesn't matter if we have EVFEL when there might be a Minister from a Scottish seat telling them how to vote!

[David]

"our MP's should be our representatives, but they aren't, they are lobby fodder, as a result rather than looking after their constituents interests, they instead march through the lobbies according to the demands of the party whips"

None of that has anything to do with EVFEL. You'd arguably still have the same situation (assuming one accepts that criticism).

[Thomas]

Hmm ,so Cameron wishes to maintain the Union. If there had been an election in October and Cameron had become PM, does anyone out there doubt but that he would be on his way to Lisbon with pen at the ready.

[Vernon]

I can't believe I'm bothering to keep coming back on this, but some of the arguments on here are so ridiculous and the "facts" so distorted that I just can't let it go.

our MP's should be our representatives, but they aren't, they are lobby fodder, as a result rather than looking after their constituents interests, they instead march through the lobbies according to the demands of the party whips... This is why we need an English parliament, so that English people can vote for an executive to pursue their interests

Why do you expect elected representatives in an English parliament to behave any differently? Of course they are going to follow the party line, otherwise they'd be kicked out of the party. That applies whether we have a Labour, Conservative or Monster Raving Loony administration.

The core of your lack of perception is that you consider the British parliament in some way to be an English one . I don't and never have .

I am perfectly well aware of the difference between the British parliament and a purely English one. But the fact remains that the British parliament is based in London, the capital of England as well as the UK, and the vast majority of its members are English.

we are forced to continue under direct British rule which has British attitudes and priorities ( incuding an all-pervading disdain for the English )

You are arguing as if England is an occupied nation - "under direct British rule" for God's sake? What a ridiculous bit of hyperbole, and one which exposes your core prejudices. How many more times do I need to say this?? Britain is made up of 80% English, 20% Welsh, Scot and others. What part of that do you not understand?

Your fundamental argument that English concerns are ignored is flawed, given such a population spread. There are no "English-only issues". The issues concerning Cornwall are as different from those concerning Yorkshire as they are from those facing Scotland, Wales or London.

London also has a devolved administration, and now sends more MPs to Westminster than Scotland does. But do you object to having government ministers with constituencies in London? Are they somehow "anti-the rest of England"?

[John Leonard]

Vernon:

I posted early on this thread so have not been involved in your debate here. You will note I tried to avoid the usual emotive rhetoric on such matters and made it very clear that I am in favour of the Union.

However, I also favour an English Parliament on democratic representation grounds and favour the reform of the Barnett formula not because I want to penalise the Scots but because it is a severely flawed method of allocating funds.

I do not accept the argument that you cannot have a separate English assembly as well as a UK Parliament. Its purely a case of appropriate structure, funding and allocation of responsibilities.

To deal with the Barnett Formula I will give you an recent example of why it is so flawed. Gordon Brown, not so long ago, authorised the funding of the London Crossrail project. Under the Barnett formula Scotland will receive funds for it (Alistair Darling admitted as much)? Why? What has it to do with Scotland and why should they benefit from such a project when as far as I know the regions in England, other than London, will not receive a penny and in anycase it has no direct effect on any region bar London. The basis on which Barnett calculations or developed is wrong. it is based on a proportion of departmental public spend not on specific need.

I fully support providing subsisides to any part of the UK if they need it but why should those regions under the Barnett Formula benefit automatically purely because and administrative tool requires it?

You also claim there are no English only matters. Possibly true, but there are English/Welsh only matters. You only have to look at the areas of Criminal Justice and Prisons to know that the Scottish have had separate arrangements from the rest of Britain for many years. Prior to devolution this did not matter because a single elected body oversaw all matters but now Scotland have autonomy from the UK Parliament it creates the situation where you have a Chancellor of the UK Parliament (or as you might like to think the English Parliament) elected to a Scottish seat who systematically blocked much needed capital expenditure for English and Welsh Prison building for 10 years. This occurred at the same time as the Barnett Formula provided its recipients the biggest windfall they have received since its inception. Now I will not make comment other than to say that I can understand why others have taken a cynical view of this.

Now for the justification of an English Parliament. If you calculate the ratio of national (National Assembly & UK Parliament) elected representatives to voters in each of the four home nations you find this:

In Northern Ireland there is one representative for 15,000 voters

In Scotland there is one representative for 25,000 voters.

In Wales there is one representative for 30,000 voters.

In England there is one representative for 93,000 voters.

Now you may try and disagree but to me it seems that the English based voter is getting far less democratic representation for its tax pound than the other three home nations and IMHO as a result there is insufficient focus by our representatives on large parts of England. Too often do we hear MP's complain that they do not spend enough time reviewing proposed legislation. Is it then any wonder that increasingly the legislation turns out to be flawed or unworkable?

I don't consider that providing exactly equal representation is realistic but by providing a separate English Parliament and devolving exactly the same powers to all four Home Nations assemblies will likely rectify the current issues to an acceptable extent and significantly dissipate the ill feeling that currently exists. To me this seems to me to be no more than good democratic practise and common sense.

By doing so we have a far better chance of saving the Union than carrying on down the current route to eventual damaging separation.

As you repeatedly point out, the most ridiculous fact is that the English based voter makes up 80% of the voter base. So how the UK Parliament can continue to treat them with such disregard seems to me to be lunacy.

If they do continue in this vain, the likely outcome will be that the English based voters will eventually tire of this and demand the end of this perceived discrimination and in doing so will likely bring down the Union for once and for all. I doubt that such an event will be good for anybody in the UK.

Now I am a Unionist and Cameron is right in saying that we are stronger together but as I said in my post earlier empty rhetoric will not save the Union. He needs to put forward substantive effective policies that restore parity and rationale to British democratic matters and to this date that is what he has failed to do.

So my question to you is do you want a better democracy for the British people or should we just muddle along the road toward the end of the Union?

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

YOU MUST LEAVE AN AUTHOR NAME OF SOME SORT IN FUTURE.

[Vernon]

John Leonard,

Thank you for your post. You make many good points, and I appreciate that you have done that without descending into hyperbole or personal abuse like some of the more hot-headed correspondents on this issue who have rather riled me over the last couple of days.

I do accept your points about the anomalies in funding due to devolution. If you read some of my earlier posts on this thread and on the other one, I have said several times that I consider the current devolution settlement to be imperfect: that while I support Scotland and Wales' right to devolve some powers within the UK, to answer the old charge of the English domination of the minorities, the process by which that has happened is undoubtedly flawed and needs some reform. Labour seem unlikely to sort it out as it's not currently in their interests; there is therefore an opportunity for Cameron to lay out his thinking on that and potentially grab the initiative.

My main arguments on this board have been with those who argue either that devolution should be reversed (I disagree for the reason above), or that the Scots (and Welsh and Northern Irish) now have no right to be part of the UK-level government because they are taking decisions which affect England - talk of "apartheid rule" and so on. I think that is a dangerously inaccurate and morally dubious line to take. I don't care if the Chancellor or prime minister is Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish, South African or German - if they have been elected as MPs, as all those nationalities have been in the current parliament, they are eligible to hold ministerial posts.

I think the only substantial disagreement between us is that you consider an English parliament the solution, and I don't. I think the overwhelming dominance of England within the UK parliament makes it an unnecessary and expensive extra layer of bureaucracy. I also think that the size of England, and the huge regional differences within the country make it impossible to distill "English-only" issues. Much simpler to reform the funding rules. That is surely the most sensible policy for the Conservative party to adopt, but it needs careful thought and negotiation.

Anyway, I think we have done this topic to death so this will be my last comment on this one - I shall ignore any further personal insults attempting to goad me back. I have stated my views, that is all. I was pleased to note that several people have agreed with me, but clearly quite a few haven't. Plenty of advice both ways for David Cameron to take on board.

[Michael McGowan]

Vernon, I agree with you that devolution should not be reversed and that the mere nationality of a politician should not preclude participation in Westminster politics.

The "overwhelming dominance" argument about England is however very weak. It is the standard excuse trotted out by the apologists for the status quo: a pretext for doing little or nothing. If this argument had any merit, then we would see in the US a lopsided federalism involving smaller states being routinely bulldozed by New York State and California. In fact we see nothing of the kind. A proper federal system is explicitly designed to prevent that happening. That is why the electoral college delivered Bush his first presidency even though he won slightly fewer votes. Equally weak is the argument about "huge regional differences" within England. The same is equally if not more true of California and New York State yet each has an identifiable political psyche and one fully-functioning elected state government. Furthermore, there are some pretty glaring divergences between parts of Scotland, so if the argument has any merit, Scotland should not have devolution either.

[Scottish Conservative]

Well Michael the fear of the smaller states that they would be dominated by the larger ones was the primary reason for the new jersey plan which led in turn to the equal representation of all states in the US Senate with ie California and South Dakota each having 2 Senators. I wonder how our English Democrat friends on here would react if such a scheme was proposed when we get round to electing the Lords. LOL!! It would be funny to watch them getting all hot under the collar and foaming at the mouth!

[Scottish Conservative]

Well Michael the fear of the smaller states that they would be dominated by the larger ones was the primary reason for the new jersey plan which led in turn to the equal representation of all states in the US Senate with ie California and South Dakota each having 2 Senators. I wonder how our English Democrat friends on here would react if such a scheme was proposed when we get round to electing the Lords. LOL!! It would be funny to watch them getting all hot under the collar and foaming at the mouth!

[Michael McGowan]

I don't think they need to foam at the mouth because what you are describing isn't really relevant. The US constitution does not create an injustice whereby voters in Arkansas have a say over devolved matters in relation to Pennsylvania but not vice-versa. That is the unjustified privilege which Scottish voters have in relation to England. The 2 senator rule applies only in relation to Federal, not devolved matters. Legislation has to pass both Houses of Congress and in one House only, the smaller states get parity so that they are not totally overwhelmed by the big states. The smaller states cannot impose legislation on the larger states, especially as there is no whipping system in US political parties. Nor does South Dakota have the ability to impose policy in devolved areas on California. By contrast Scotland has the power to do so in relation to England via Scottish MPs. That is what people are complaining about: a lopsidedness which does not exist under the US Constitution.

[Scottish Conservative]

mmm Michael dont know if I agree with any of that.

You contend that the argument that England is overwhelmingly dominant is very weak because if you look at the US then the big states there are not dominant. However, because UK representation is population based whereas the Senate is not then your parallel actually demonstrates your very problem. England clearly dominates the legislature of the UK in a way that the bigger states in the US do not because legislation must get through the non-population based Senate. Since you actually draw attention to the fact that legislation must pass both houses (ie the Senate must assent) I really do fail to see how this supports your argument that there is a UK-US parallel. Clearly it is the fact that a non-population based House must assent that differentiates the US form the UK.

Its true there is no asymmetrical devolution in the US so your point concerning Arkansas and Pennsylvania is correct, but there are many other countries where that is not the case and have asymmetrical devolution which leaves them with similar situations to the UK one ie Portgual, Italy, Spain etc. So Scotland's position is not quite so uniquely advantaged as u and ur freinds care 2 believe.

You then argue that because there is no whipping sytem in the US then small states cant impose things on the bigger states like the Scots can to the English.

Firstly, all this stuff about weak parties in the US is exaggerated - by far the most important indicator of the voting record of a Senator or Represntative is his Party alliegance.

Secondly, I fail to see why a whipping system would increase the likelihood of this as it wouldnt be a small-state whip and a large-state whip so a weak whipping system would actually increase the likelihood of state-based voting patterns in the Senate, which is the very opposite of the conception you seem to have. Weak whipping cannot possibly be what prevents small-staters getting together, the very opposite in fact it would facilitate it.

Thirdly, your hypothetical seems to be based upon the notion that the small states would all gang up on the larger states and thus 'impose' things on them. The notion that by this definition the Scots can impose things on the English is beyond absurd as Scotland constitutes only 8-9% of MPs contrary to the wild ideas of those English nationalists whose sense of perspective leads them to believe we are in some kind of majority!

[Iain]

"The notion that by this definition the Scots can impose things on the English is beyond absurd as Scotland constitutes only 8-9% of MPs contrary to the wild ideas of those English nationalists whose sense of perspective leads them to believe we are in some kind of majority!"

Yes that would be the case if our so called representetives weren't the lobby fodder they are; note Labour MP's are going to march through the lobbies supporting this Reform Treaty on a three line whip even though they promised their electorate a referendum, so its not a question of how many MP's there are, but who is telling the lobby fodder how to vote, in this instant its the member of Kirdaldy and Cowdenbeath.

[Michael McGowan]

Scottish Conservative, I think Iain has dealt rather well with your last point (thanks Iain).I simply didn't follow your second point on a whip system. Your first point on the same topic attempts to minimise the striking contrast between the Westminster whipping culture and Congress. I don't really buy this one. There is much more diversity of outlook and action within the two US political parties, not least because the geographical scale, diversity and Federal structure of the US makes each of their parties a looser coalition. Put another way, US politics is much more local than in the UK.

I don't think I ever said that Scotland was "uniquely" advantaged. I simply said that asymmetrical devolution was unfair.....which it is. Wheeling in other examples of apparent unfairness doesn't really advance your cause.

I agree that we have no equivalent of the Senate here. I could understand you better if you were prepared to argue that there should be such an equivalent for non-devolved matters, and propose an objective basis for structuring it which didn't grotesquely favour one political party/part of the country. I know that the UK Parliament is dominated by England in relation to non-devolved matters. Why this requires the Scots to have a say in devolved matters affecting parts of the country outside Scotland
escapes me and many others too.