Rifkind calls for amendment of Ken Clarke's answer to the West Lothian Question

Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP has just issued a statement explaining why Ken Clarke's answer to the West Lothian Question is inadequate.

This is the key section of his argument:

"By leaving the Second Reading to be voted on by all MPs this will mean that legislation that only applies to England could receive a Second Reading and be approved in principle even if it was unacceptable to a majority of MPs representing English constituencies. Thus the legislation on tuition fees, foundation hospitals or fox hunting would still have been approved.  Such legislation, under the Clarke proposals, would now be subject to amendment to meet English wishes which is very much to be welcomed. However, these amendments could not reverse the basic objective of such a Bill which had been approved by the House of Commons as a whole, as any attempt to do so would be designated a “wrecking amendment” and ruled out of order."

He then proposes this solution:

"There could be a requirement that at Second Reading and at Report stage, for a vote to be carried on amendments to an England-only Bill, the vote, to be declared carried, would need a majority both of the House as a whole and of MPs representing  English constituencies."

Here is a PDF of Sir Malcolm's full response.

Comments

[Man in a Shed]

Same problem as before:

A Conservative government wouldn't need it.
A Labour government would just abolish it.

If this is such a great idea why don't we abolish the Scots Parliament and Welsh assemblies and have the same for their legislation ? ( Thereby saving the English tax payer a large amount of cash ).

They must try harder !

[David Belchamber]

It is very encouraging to see tory MPs looking with such critical detail at possible future legislation, in stark contrast to Blair's "back of an envelope" solution to the latest problem to hit him.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind would add gravitas to a tory government and I hope that both he and John Redwood, of the older brigade, will be in it.

[Jake]

So what if the " English" MP's voted one way and the Whole House voted the other. You would have a straight forward case of The English v The British.

This scenario is quite likely to happen.

Won't work. Won't solve the problem. More fudge a la Rifkind. Its a quagmire.

It does not leave England with her own parliament and self government and will not save the Union.
On the other hand an English Parliament and English government within a devolved British Union, will.

[cosmic]

The devolutional mess created by NuLabour is not stable. Sticking plaster solutions won't make it stable.

You can either go back to the status quo ante by abolishing the Scottish Parliament etc. - virtually impossible.

Or, there has to be even-handed settlement, which may be the constituent nations go their own ways, or may be a federal UK, anyway, it involves an English Parliament.

I don't like it, I think the pre-1998 union was a better solution and the practical difficulties of working through this mess may end up with everyone getting things they didn't want and didn't bargain for. However, we are where we are, and it turns out we are standing on a sandbank.

[Ken Stevens]

Mr Clarke produces an elderly, flea-ridden mouse of a proposal.

Sir Malcolm suggests picking off a couple of the fleas.

[johnC]

The only workable and logical solution is an English Parliament. Anything else is unfair and inadequate.

There is an interesting parallel to the dilemma faced by the General Synod over the ordination of women as bishops. The only workable and logical solution is a Third Province for those unable to accept the innovation.

In both cases, liberal elites are trying to wriggle out of facing up to the only logical and workable solution to their divisive actions.

[Chris SE9]

A complete dog's breaksfast from both of these former ministers. This policy is being thought up just to appease all the little Englanders in the Tory ranks.

[doriangrape]

Oi, Rifkind and Clarke. Enough playing patronising patricians piddling about with arcane procedures and pusillanimous palliatives.

Which of these has a certain ring to it?

What do we want? An English parliament! When do we want it? Now!

What do we want? The second reading of the pink paper in the committee stage of an English grand directorate except when there is an R in the month and it also applies to Welsh daffodil plantations and/or exceptions applying to tri-partite plebiscite of Scottish MPs not sitting when English MPs are standing in the division lobby.

When do we want it? Not mandated but agreed in principle to further explore at an indeterminate relative when in coextensive consultation with peer reviewed focus subject to reverse engineered time constraint imperatives.

You Decide!

[doriangrape]

'This policy is being thought up just to appease all the little Englanders in the Tory ranks.'

Err...but it doesn't. As you may have gathered although I do agree with your first bit.

[wtf]

People don't want an English Parliament. The English Democrats got less than 1% of the vote standing in the Sedgefield, Crewe and Nantwich and Henley by-elections.

If anyone wants an English Parliament they should go and join the English Democrats. People are happy with the Conservatives' position on this matter, judging by our recent electoral success.

[johnC]

'People don't want an English Parliament'

Let's have a referendum to see if they do, and agree to accept the result.

[cosmic]

"People don't want an English Parliament. The English Democrats got less than 1% of the vote standing in the Sedgefield, Crewe and Nantwich and Henley by-elections."

What that says is that people don't want the English Democrats, but that's not the same thing at all.

[David Lindsay]

There is no West Lothian Question.

If the Parliament of the United Kingdom were to enact legislation applicable in Scotland, then that legislation would prevail over any enactment of the Scottish Parliament.

There is simply no doubt at all about this, and anyone who doesn't like it should have voted No to devolution. I bet they didn't.

At present, it merely chooses not to do so. But it should do so, not least to make the point.

After all, hasn't Gordon Brown any views about such matters in his own constituency? Now he has the chance to give effect to those views. He should take that chance.

[cjcjc]

People don't want an English Parliament?

In the sense of a new body - of course they (we) don't.

As a subset of the Westminster parliament - of course they (we) do!!

[Ken Stevens]

wtf
"People are happy with the Conservatives' position on this matter, judging by our recent electoral success."

Whether on this or any other topic, surely you don't seriously believe that the massive Tory success had anything to do with national or local policies, as opposed to sticking two fingers up at the present government?

[Ken Stevens]

David Lindsay
"..anyone who doesn't like it should have voted No to devolution.."

I'm in England. I don't recall ever being presented with such a choice.

[Helen]

David Lindsay
"..anyone who doesn't like it should have voted No to devolution.."

Are you an MP by any chance? No one else in England has ever been given the choice, excpet in polls, where more than 60% consistently support an English Parliament.

[David Lindsay]

If that's true, Helen, then it's because they don't understand how devolution works. The Parliament of the United Kingdom remains supreme. If that were not the case, then the SNP would have declared "job done" and wound itself up by now.

You do all realise, don't you, that an English devolved body on the Scottish or Welsh model would never have a Tory (or any other) majority? Devolution is deliberately designed that way.

[Ken Stevens]

David Lindsay
So, learning from practical experience of Scottish etc devolution, just first past the post system for English parliament!

[Helen]

Democracy isn't your concern then David? Just self-preservation.

[Helen]

"Don't give the English an English Parliament. They might get the government they vote for."
Not much then to separate you from McLabour, eh? That's the reason they spout as well.

Shame on you. Shame on your Master, too.

[Teck Khong]

With all this haemic mess, I really wish we could be truly United Kingdom again.

[David Lindsay]

Ken Stevens, no chance. As much as anything else, the English would throw it out in a referendum if it were to be elected by FPTP (which would still have delivered Labour majorities in 1997, 2001 and 2005, anyway).

If it ever got that far: the Lib Dems would vote against it in the Lords, as would easily enough Old Labourites and High Tories to kill it in that case.

It's not going to happen and, as I've already set out, there is no need for it. If Cameron wins, then why would you even want it, especially as it would be Labour-run at least as often as not?

But, like Clarke, you seem to presuppose a Labour victory next time, though with more Tory than Labour MPs in England. Is that really the best that you are hoping for? I think we should be told.

[Ken Stevens]

Teck Khong
"I really wish we could be a truly United Kingdom again"

If only! There must surely have been better ways to improve the governance of the Union in a manner equitable to all.
But it doesn't seem to be an option on offer.

David Lindsay
I'm unclear. Are you suggesting that if there was a referendum result greatly in favour of an English parliament, that any major party would try to block the necessary legislation? That would be electoral suicide!

As to the political complexion of an English parliament at any given time, that is not the point. This is an issue above manipulation of perceived political advantage - or should be, anyway. If an electorate votes any particular way, that is democracy.

Hey, are you an MP of a Scottish constituency in cunning disguise? Having lost half your job to MSPs, you now fear losing much of the remaining Westminster bit of it ;-)

[Helen]

David Lindsay, your opinions will change to whatever the leader-of-the-day tells you to think. Therefore, you will unashamedly be altering your opinions rather a lot before the next GE - and afterwards, no doubt.

[Dale]

"If the Parliament of the United Kingdom were to enact legislation applicable in Scotland, then that legislation would prevail over any enactment of the Scottish Parliament."

No, you see, you simply do not understand the way devolution works.

YES Parliament IS supreme, but there is a constiutional convention that it would not legislate on matters controled by the scottish parliament(unless the sewellmotion was used).

"There is simply no doubt at all about this, and anyone who doesn't like it should have voted No to devolution. I bet they didn't."

Who had a choice in the matter? Crtainly none of us that have been screwed by the result.

"At present, it merely chooses not to do so. But it should do so, not least to make the point."

It would be a constitutional outrage, there would be rioting in the streets.

"You do all realise, don't you, that an English devolved body on the Scottish or Welsh model would never have a Tory (or any other) majority? Devolution is deliberately designed that way."

Um, why would it have to use the additional member system, why not open list pr/stv/av/fptp?

"As much as anything else, the English would throw it out in a referendum if it were to be elected by FPTP (which would still have delivered Labour majorities in 1997, 2001 and 2005, anyway)."

First of all, I'm pretty sure the english wouldn't 'throw it out', I know when people are desperate to try and find arguments against something, they clutch at straws, make vague assertions that could not possibly be proven either way, and just lie outright, but please don't insult our intellience by trying to pass this off as a sensible reason to get people to oppose an english parliament.

"It's not going to happen and, as I've already set out, there is no need for it. If Cameron wins, then why would you even want it, especially as it would be Labour-run at least as often as not?"

I think this is the best part, we should reject democracy because we might be in power net time.

Why have elections at all, why don't we storm buckingham palace and institute David Cameron as our head of state governing by decree. Then there would be no need for messy parliaments.

For the record, I oppose the creation ofan english parliament, but I am amazed by the pathetic flimsy excuses why we shouldn't have one.

[David Lindsay]

Leader of what, Helen?

[David Lindsay]

Dale, there cannot be any such "convention". The thing hasn't existed for long enough. And even if there were, a "convention" is not the law, which is as I set out.

If Cameron gets in, then this will all be forgotten about, including by you. But you all seem very tellingly convinced that he isn't going bto get in, and that the best you can hope for is a majority of English seats alone.

[Helen]

So - the PM, who is a Scottish MP, will decide on English-only policies, which will then be discussed by English MPs (subject to the whip system, headed by a Scottish MP), which will then be discussed by everyone, including Scottish and Welsh MPs (and Irish of course). It will then be voted on by all and sent to the Lords. The Lords will vote on it - including unelected Scots and welsh, subject to the whip system currently headed by a Scottish MP for Labour.

So Scottish PM sets the agenda. Scottish PM lets his whips loose and Scottish MPs get to vote on the legislation anyway?

And what exactly is English-only, when everything is subject to the Barnett Formula? Duh!

[Dale]

"Dale, there cannot be any such "convention". The thing hasn't existed for long enough. And even if there were, a "convention" is not the law, which is as I set out."

Strange, because in the wikipedia article on constitutional conventions it seems to say this:

'The Westminster Parliament will not legislate on a devolved matter without first seeking the consent of the Scottish Parliament (since 1999, the Sewel convention, later renamed to Legislative Consent Motions).'

"If Cameron gets in, then this will all be forgotten about, including by you. But you all seem very tellingly convinced that he isn't going bto get in, and that the best you can hope for is a majority of English seats alone."

Kindly do not tell me what I will and wont remember and what I do or do not think.

[Teck Khong]

Ken (at 17:36), I can understand how and why some portfolios were devolved, but on the whole, I cannot help but think an unnecessary layer of administration has resulted that creates a new set of inequalities.

The biggest of such anomalies I find is healthcare; to discuss this fully would take columns of space!

It may be a nostalgic dream, but if ever there was the political will, we could roll back a substantial part of devolved government in exchange for more robust governance of the Union.

[Alex Swanson]

in the wikipedia article

Wikipedia is a great resource, but there's no guarantee that anything is even accurate, never mind a legal authority.

[Ken Stevens]

Teck Khong
".. healthcare; to discuss this fully would take columns of space.."

I don't think it needs columns of space - though if you're a medic, I'm sure you could manage to do so, with illegible handwriting of course ;-)

It is simply that this should not have been a devolved matter. People moan, rightly, about postcode lotteries in England. Of similar inequity is the lottery according to which side of an internal border one lives (accepting that this might work in both directions in some respects, i.e. this isn't an anti-Celt rant).

[Ken Stevens]

Re sewel Convention, why bother with Wikipedia when one can Google direct to source? .....

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02084.pdf

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/Sewel/KeyFacts

[Nigel Syson]

A typically unworkable solution from Clarke. Only English MPs should vote on English matters. Thus Scots & Welsh MPs should not vote on English matters which would be the mirror image of Scottish & Welsh issues they cannot vote on in Westminster.

Alternatively reduce Scotland to 20 MPs at Westminster and Welsh MPs by a third. Like Northern Ireland representation pre 1979.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I tried to read Kenneth Clarke's 'solution' veryb carefully at least twice, and aboth times was not any wiser at the end as to what exactly was proposed, as far as I could see it obfuscated more than it clarified!! But maybe Mr. Clarke would put it down to me being a woman!

One thing I do know is that I am sick to death of being confronted with someone Scottish EVERY time a Ministere is interviewed, from almost any ministry these days, the Minister of Health being the exception - but I expect there ARE others that one just doesn't get to see interviewed. This is NOT Scotland!

[E Justice]

A complete sell out,My we have some English MPs to be proud of.
If we did not know before how little these MPs think of England,we know now.
Is there a Cromwell in the house?

[wtf]

Patsy, there are only 4 Scottish cabinet ministers so I don't know what planet you're on. Maybe you just feel that way because you're a narrow-minded, inward looking, backward little Englander and a racist who hates anyone that is in any way different from you? Have you tried therapy? If you are a member of the Conservative Party I suggest you leave, because in case you hadn't got the message, people like you are NOT WANTED!

My goodness! A Scottish prime minister!! Imagine the venom from ConHome contributors if we ever have an ethnic minority PM.

[Rod Sellers]

Patsy, there are only 4 Scottish cabinet ministers so I don't know what planet you're on. Maybe you just feel that way because you're a narrow-minded, inward looking, backward little Englander and a racist who hates anyone that is in any way different from you? Have you tried therapy? If you are a member of the Conservative Party I suggest you leave, because in case you hadn't got the message, people like you are NOT WANTED!

My goodness! A Scottish prime minister!! Imagine the venom from ConHome contributors if we ever have an ethnic minority PM.

Posted by: wtf | July 01, 2008 at 20:14

COME ON EDITOR - THERE HAS GOT TO BE A LIMIT - AND THIS POSTER HAS CROSSED IT !!!

[Gerard Charmley]

All those fulminating about the current situation and suggesting that the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament be abolished, just remember that there are Conservatives in Scotland and Wales, and this does not help us. The Conservative party is not an English nationalist party, and it was the impression that it was whoch left us with no seats in Scotland or Wales after the 1997 election. Here in Wales, Conservatives have learned to live with the assembly, and are now the opposition, for an English Conservative Central Office to suggest abolition of the assembly would be grounds for divorce. Devolution is here to stay for the present. We must live with it.

The idea of partial exclusion of some MPs will not work. It was suggested with reference to Ireland in 1895 and thrown out. An English Parliament, elected under the same rules and sitting in Birmingham, would be the best option. Give the National Assembly for Wales the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, in order to create a federal United Kingdom. Home Rule all-round, if you will. Welsh Conservative leaders such as Forrestier-Walker and Lord Dynevor supported this in 1919, and I cannot for the life of me see why this is so repellent to many Tories today. The 'fuel for independence' argument is false, at least in Wales, and if Scotland does want independence, then coercion is not the answer there.

[Iain]

"My goodness! A Scottish prime minister!! Imagine the venom from ConHome contributors if we ever have an ethnic minority PM."

Have you heard anyone complain of Scots representing English seats? No neither have I, the issue here is accountability and representation, with the issue about Scottish elected politicians dictating policy in English matters, policies that won't effect their constituents because of devolution. Its just that people abbreviate it to 'Scottish Politicians'. As for 'only 4 Scots in Cabinet', one of them Brown, who makes the rest of them irrelevant, for he dictates policy, its his 'vision' which is being foisted on mostly English people, and that makes having a Scottish elected politician, who is essentially the First Minister of England, unacceptable until either the Scottish Parliament is done away with putting us in the same boat, or England gets its own Parliament.

[Votedave]

The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly should never have been established, never mind an English one. On this issue, unlike most, I am at odds with David Cameron.
Both should be abolished. This Labour government has done more harm to the Union in the past 11 years than anyone else has managed in 301 years.

[Ken Stevens]

Votedave

I'd run with that -- but it seems a remote option.

[Dave J]

"The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly should never have been established, never mind an English one. On this issue, unlike most, I am at odds with David Cameron.
Both should be abolished."

This is the attitude that is potentially going to stand idly by complaining about yesterday while the UK gets torn completely apart tomorrow.

The pre-1998 UK simply does not exist any more, and no one is going to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again: any government that tried would see rioting in the streets and unilateral secession (at least by Scotland, if not by Wales) in a matter of days. Whether that is normatively a good or a bad thing is completely beside the point: it is the reality you are confronted by, and ignoring it will only make things worse.

Anything short of full constitutional equality for the four home nations will only further contribute to, rather than solve, the destabilizing and delegitimizing mess that you rightly ascribe to Labour's imposition of assymentric devolution on the UK. That means an English Parliament, a Welsh Parliament and a Northern Irish Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, a federal UK. What is the problem with the most elegant and simple resolution to this crisis?

[Iain]

"Anything short of full constitutional equality for the four home nations will only further contribute to, rather than solve, the destabilizing and delegitimizing mess"

Yes the failure of the British political establishment to put in any equitable solution is probably the best weapon the SNP has, for we all, apart from Westminster, can see the constitutional mess and Alex Salmond can contrast his tidy solution to the British mess. If the British establishment could , just for once , stir themselves, and put in a federated solution where we had home nations of equals, Alex Salmond would then have his work cut out to push for independence. Unfortunately the British political establishment has vision only for their next mortgage claim anything more is beyond them.

[Yet Another Anon]

"There could be a requirement that at Second Reading and at Report stage, for a vote to be carried on amendments to an England-only Bill, the vote, to be declared carried, would need a majority both of the House as a whole and of MPs representing English constituencies."
This would be the worst option of all, in a situation in which there was a majority for one party in the House of Commons nationally, but a different one in England (or no majority in England) or a Minority Government nationally, but a majority for one party in England this could lead to gridlock with parliament nationally and for the English MPs as a whole voting different ways - this could affect both Labour and Conservative governments - I think actually that parliaments based on historic regions of England would be better - Cornwall, Mercia etc... or perhaps to have some kind of seperate voting by English MPs, but the hybrid proposals are a total dogs breakfast and by trying a compromise situation will please no one.

[Matt Wright]

I think the problem in all this is that people and communities don't seem to figure in it! The whole devolution thing was a sham aimed at some form of political advantage not real devolution. Devolution means giving people at a local level power not re-arranging the nature of centralisation. What we should be doing as Conservatives is adbancing real devolution as it is the only honest and sustainable solution.

[cosmic]

"The whole devolution thing was a sham aimed at some form of political advantage not real devolution."

Yep, and judging by some of the exchanges on the internet, it's released something very nasty and not at all what NuLabour thought it would be like. Rather than assuring them of power for the foreseeable future, it might just lead to them to oblivion and take us as much interwoven peoples (English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish) to a place we don't want to be.

However, they've uncorked the bottle and the genie is out. There's no sense at all in trying to ignore the genie in the room. There's already an elephant in the room (the EU) and it's getting decidedly cozy; to say it's crowded might not be putting too fine a point on it.

[Scott]

I'm glad some of you have your head screwed on. The talk of abolshing the Scottish Parliament is hilarious. You obviosly have absolutely no idea how far the debate and attitudes have moved on in the last 15-20 years in Scotland. Abolish the Scottish Parlaiment and you would actually witness civil unrest shortly followed by UDI. People in Scotland are passive unionists, the vast majority are not passionate hardliners who would accept losing our parliament for a second time.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Actually wtf - whatever your name is @ 20.14 there may only be 4 'cabinet' ministers, but there are at least another three, probably junior ministers, if not more who are also Scottish, who are interviewed.

If and when we have an ethnic PM, we will have an ethnic PM, OK!!

What a funny little man you are.

[StevenAdams]

A fair amount of views above first say that devolution is an unholy mess, and then go on to say we should have more of it via an English Parliament.

Perhaps Ken Clarke had proposed this as a small rebalancing of fairness, bit one that doesn't further fragment the union. A consciously small change... not an unwitting obfuscation.

[Ken Stevens]

Scott
"..losing our parliament for a second time..."

Therein lies the difficulty.

The 1707 Union was of parliaments, both Scottish and English parliaments becoming one. By, in effect, referring to having regained a parliament, then by definition you are rejecting that parliamentary union.

I accept that there is no going back to pre-Devolution, nostalgic though I am for it. So we need to go forward by going further backwards to the position before Scotland lost its parliament. Scotland has now regained its parliament. Just the one to go, then!

[Adam McNestrie]

I’ve just realised what’s so funny about Ken Clarke’s surprisingly modest to resolve the West Lothian problem. The changes he recommends are supposed to protect English people from colonial rule by technicality (the deliciously hyperbolic “Scottish Raj”) and Parliament from the criticism that it is illegitimate. But what they do instead is protect Scottish MPs from boring, humbrum committee work.

Clarke’s proposals will create the “dreaded” two classes of MP, but not in the way that the constitutional lawyers have been worried about. We won’t have MP’s and demi-MPs, but rather sweated English MPs bearing the whole weight of Parliamentary tedium upon their shoulders and leisured Scottish MPs living upon the expropriated surplus of their colleagues labour. If the lumpen Parliamentariat becomes sufficiently downtrodden, if the Scots MPs exploit them with sufficient vigour, then – who knows? – we might even end up with a revolution.

To read more of my views link to my blog, Just who the hell are we?, on wordpress.com:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

[Letters From A Tory]

Rifkind has given his response to the West Lothian question based on principle - Ken Clarke has given his response to the West Lothian question based on politics.

I prefer the former.

[Walter West]

Regarding comments on having an Ethnic Minority Prime Minister - I seem to recall we already have. A Lord Beaconsfield, otherwise known as Benjamin Disraeli, did that job a few years back (middle of the 19th Century). He was a Tory too.

Anyhow, as for how to deal with the mess than Blair landed us in ... I think I would rather have Regional Assemblies than an English Parliament - with the proviso that they took powers down from national government and not up from local government.

[Ken Stevens]

Walter West
"Regional Assemblies than an English Parliament .."

OK -- provided that it applied throughout Britain, e.g. Highland Region, Lowland Region, South Wales Region, North Wales Region, etc.

Then no need for an English parliament, nor a Scottish one or Welsh assembly. However, current partial devolution is nation-based, so English regionalisation not acceptable.

[Walter West]

I'd be more than happy with that - and I would stick with 'London' as a region as and of itself (being no larger than it currently is).

I think 'nation-based' devolution would be more of a threat than 'region-based' - but is has to be coupled with powers going out from the centre.

[Ken Stevens]

Walter West

That's sorted, then!
Perhaps you could mention it to Mr Cameron next time you see him ;-)

[Jake]

"That means an English Parliament, a Welsh Parliament and a Northern Irish Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, a federal UK. What is the problem with the most elegant and simple resolution to this crisis? "

The problem is in the minds of the British political class who

a. don't like the English

b. take a painfully long time to shift on
most things although in this case the
argument has been going for about 10
years and quite a lot progress has been
made and I suspect the argument is
sinking in rather better and more widely
than is generally appreciated.

wtf's choleric rantings are part of the
process and would not have
been out of place in the lead up to the
Corn Law debate or the 1832 Reform Act
( which was passed in the end and the
world did not end!)

Is it only me but I still find it amazing that a country which more than any other in world history has presided over and been intricately involved both directly and indirectly in the setting up of most of the world's most successful federal states eg India, Canada , Australia , the USA - a form of government by the way which is integral to the peace and success of those countries-
is so blankly and bewilderedly hopeless when presented with the obvious need to do likewise right here at home in the British Isles.

[Ken Stevens]

Jake
"..I still find it .amazing that a country which .... been . involved ..in the setting up of most of the world's most successful federal states ..is so ... hopeless when presented with the .. need to do likewise .. at home."

Isn't there a saying about the cobbler's kids being the worst shod?

[Teck Khong]

Ken Stevens (July 02, at 12:13), this is more complex than the cobbler's kids, as the problem is not about being shoeless or even clueless but about being misguided on vested political interests.

A right haemic mess, if I may say so.

[Dave J]

"A fair amount of views above first say that devolution is an unholy mess, and then go on to say we should have more of it via an English Parliament."

Are you serious or are you being facetious? It is not devolution per se that makes it an unholy mess: it is ASSYMETRIC devolution that has created second-class nations and second-class citizens within the UK. It is that which is polarizing, which is destabilizing, which is patently and obviously unfair, and which is therefore delegitizmizing.

[Opinicus]

I am really concerned that CCHQ is asleep on the job here.
Gordon Brown is a hater and a tactician -that, I think is unanimously agreed. He is also at the bottom of a political hole.

An English Parliament is (or could be defended as) the completion of Blair's devolution settlement.

There is growing evidence from opinion polls and blogs that the sense of unfairness is growing rapidly amongest the English outside the Westminster village and the more blimpish Conservative Clubs.

If I was as partisan and Tory hating as Brown, I would bring in an English Parliament with PR in a bill in the next year and a referendum before the next general election. Hey presto permanent Lab/Lib Dem alliance based on the centre left.

The only defence against this is to call for a federal solution with FPTP for all parliaments before Brown moves

We are sleep walking to disaster and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Wake up!!

[Ken Stevens]

Teck Khong
"..vested political interests..."

-- who are 'soleless' as regards acknowledging that sentiment towards Englishness is no more and no less valid than that proudly and justifiably displayed by other UK constituent territories.

[Ken Stevens]

The Justice Committee of the H of C has a review in hand: "Devolution: A Decade On" and I have found it interesting to read both sides of the argument in transcripts of oral submissions
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmjust.htm#evid

Noting that Daniel Kawczynski was a member when evidence was being heard from Mr Clarke, I wonder if he is able to say approximately when the committee is likely to publish its opinion?

[Teck Khong]

Ken Stevens (at 13:14), to describe those who steadfastly supported devolution and legislated the configuration the way it has turned out as soulless is being kind!

They would appear to have failed in understanding the unique stature that Britain had achieved up to that point and lost the wherewithal of how to build on our history.

Lacking statemanship and patriotic conscience would be better approximations.

I wonder what Churchill would say!

[Iain]

"They would appear to have failed in understanding the unique stature that Britain had achieved up to that point and lost the wherewithal of how to build on our history."

Or were they informed by their loathing and contempt for everything that makes us, so not value what we had? When we see their denigration of the people of this country, 'we are all lazy chavs'; the contempt for our culture, where its only tolerable if diversified to nothing; where they sign away our sovereignty to Brussels; they wreck our system of law; they deny us control of our borders; where to speak out against their actions is a thought crime; should it be a surprise that they have set out to destroy our constitutional settlement?

[Ken Stevens]

Teck Khong
"I wonder what Churchill would say!"

Oh well, if you're going bring some ancient Tory into the fray, how about:

"There is a forgotten - nay almost forbidden word,. . . . a word which means more to me than any other. . . .
That word is
"ENGLAND"

;-)

[Teck Khong]

All very lamentable, so long live England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.... until a gutsy leader comes along.

Not too long, I pray.

[StevenAdams]

Dave J @ 13.04

I realise that it is the iniquitous arrangement that is the issue here, however it's also worth considering that by balancing this arrangement as you suggest would put the long term stability of the union at further threat.

For example, would there be as much consternation if the Barnett formula were more fair? If voting rights are more your concern, then would you be as upset without a Labour government in power using its Scottish voting base to insure against militant backbenchers in England? You may say 'yes' to both of these questions, however I believe that these are the nub of the issue for Joe Public... otherwise, where was the public's consternation when devolution was implemented? No - the anger came with its exploitation, not its implementation.

I agree that this is deeply unsatisfactory, but if we are indeed the Conservative and Unionist Party, then we need to think carefully about our policy, and not merely knee-jerk with calls for an English Parliament.

[Dave J]

"...by balancing this arrangement as you suggest would put the long term stability of the union at further threat."

Without remedying the situation in a genuinely equitable way, there IS no "long term" to consider, because the public will leave the politicians and the talking heads behind. The alternatives in the immediate short term, i.e., no more than five years and quite possibly far less, are a federal UK, or no more UK. That is why the Tories can ill afford to continue burying their heads in the sand, either by imagining the status quo is just fine, pining for an imagined happy perfection pre-1998, or thinking that some complicated and incoherent tinkering at the edges will make things better.

I admit that as an American I find it bizarre that you seem to treat so much of this as thrashing about in the dark trying to reinvent the wheel, when it is the UK that has spawned some of the most successful federal countries in the world. I have been attacked as condescending and patronizing for saying so here in the past, and I assume at this point that I probably will be again.

[Ken Stevens]

Dave J
"[..as an American...]...I have been attacked as condescending and patronizing"

I find it useful to know a detached viewpoint!

The fact is that it's England that seems to be making the running in trying to persuade its partners to stay, while those partners - including some of the supposedly unionist citizens thereof - seem to be keen on emphasising that they are semi-detached rather than conjoined. The price of continued Union, as perceived by English politicians, seems to be that England must masochistically deny itself any pride in or recognition of its nationhood in order to mollify its partners.

Sorry, no, that price is not worth paying.

It is nonsensical that there remains any doubt as to our unity. In a lesser timescale, the USA has melded into a somewhat larger Union, with constituents of considerably varying sizes and having had a nasty little civil war.

To make our Union work requires more commitment by England's partners, not the humbling of England in order to cosset their have-cake-and-eat-it nationhoodism. With such a demonstration of commitment, it would then be appropriate to consider how the inequalities of size could better be handled constitutionally in a revitalized UK. I was born and raised as proudly British. Now I am proudly English but ask nevertheless where is the inspirational leadership that could make me feel British again? It certainly isn't vested in constitutional anoraks squabbling over the minutiae of Commons procedures. "Tread softly and downplay the English thingy, old chap, lest the Celts get jittery"! In my experience, yer average Celt is made of sterner stuff than that. Despite being from such minor colonies, some of 'em even got into UK government from time to time, dontcha know ;-)

If re-Union is unacceptable or impossible then let us manage the transition from lovers to just good friends in an orderly manner.

[StevenAdams]

"Without remedying the situation in a genuinely equitable way, there IS no "long term" to consider, because the public will leave the politicians and the talking heads behind. The alternatives in the immediate short term, i.e., no more than five years and quite possibly far less, are a federal UK, or no more UK. That is why the Tories can ill afford to continue burying their heads in the sand, either by imagining the status quo is just fine, pining for an imagined happy perfection pre-1998, or thinking that some complicated and incoherent tinkering at the edges will make things better..."

I'm not sure what you're suggesting is likely here... mass riots? Civil war in the UK?!

This is a deeply unsatisfactory situation, and one that is self-imposed by this useless and impotent government. However, we are talking about the constitution and structure of our ancient society, that has been set on the road to break-up by Labour... and by making statements such as 'do something now or in five years there will be no UK' is thoroughly unhelpful.

I would rather see a measured response that sets a direction of travel back toward a stable union with happy partners, than a knee-jerk (and bad) reaction that merely continues down the same path that Labour have put us on.

[Ken Stevens]

StevenAdams
"..a measured response that sets a direction of travel back toward a stable union with happy partners.."

Awaited with bated breath (and with a genuine preference for it).

But which party is going to lead us back to harmony?

No indications of this so far. Just Broon's empty exhortations to Britishness and DC's jibes about sour little Englanders.
Anyone (- not me) presuming to mention that UK government seems to have an undue proportion of Scottish accents is pounced upon, yet, on another CH thread, an activist can express ".. concern that the campaigners for us should not have too many English accents..", albeit no doubt for sound tactical presentational reasons in a Glasgow seat!

The idea of an English parliament has been on the go for a few years now, so it's hardly a kneejerk response.
Just because the inadequate EVEL proposal has been around since 1999 doesn't make it a measured response, merely a stale one. That it has been repeatedly rolled out from storage demonstrates a lack of imagination and genuine Unionist fervour.

[Dave J]

"I'm not sure what you're suggesting is likely here... mass riots? Civil war in the UK?!"

No, it would never get that far precisely because the Union doesn't mean enough to justify it anymore. Just a breakup through only marginally- or outright extra-constitutional means that would then be presented to the "government" of a defunct UK as a fait accompli.

[Iain]

"I'm not sure what you're suggesting is likely here... mass riots? Civil war in the UK?!"

I don't think that should be dismissed as a distinct possibility, for the British political establishment are putting in all the necessary requirements for such a situation to occur.

For example the constitutional mess in England where there is no representation and where a policy drift is the best we can look forward to. Add to this their policy to disenfranchise the electorate with their Brussels project leaving the people powerless to initiate change. Then throw in a serious economic down turn where people in an over populated country are scrabbling for resources while the political establishment fill their faces in the British tax payer funded trough, then all it would take would be a match.

No I think politicians would be making the most horrendous error if they assumed past passivity of the people can be taken for granted in the future, for they have removed all the checks and ballances which allowed us in the past to negotiate our way through troubled times.

[StevenAdams]

Ken Stevens:

I agree with much of what you say, though I just don't believe that a 'proportion' of Scottish accents in parliament - or anywhere else for that matter - is a valid element of the debate. Exploiting the funding/voting system by promising Scotland/Wales/NI exception from rules/taxes in order to pass through legislation that wouldn't pass without that support is the real concern, and one that can be dealt with, without some of the near-xenophobic hysteria that can hijack debates like this (though I recognise not by you). Such situations would include Student Fees (but not for Scottish youths) and 42-day Detention (DUP supporting the government in return for - I suspect - the retention of water rates).

The difficulty that the Cons face is that any really drastic pulling-back of power from devolved governments (be that through overhaul of the voting system or merely fairer funding) will be seen as an attack upon the regions. The opposition line will be that the cons are a party only for the Home Counties, rather than the only truly national party that we are. This should be approached carefully, given DCs success in promoting the party in the Northern cities, Wales and other areas that had otherwise been seen as no-go areas.

Iain:

your comments are just too hysterical, in my opinion. I disagree that this nation is on the brink of civil war ("all it would take is a match"). I agree that this government has screwed the successful economy they were handed and that current voting rights allow for serious abuse (as described above), but I also believe that the Cons current policy stances (referendum on Lisbon, massive simplification of the tax system.reduction of public expenditure, and a repositioning of voting rights in the Commons) are typical, measured Con responses.

Dave J:
what possible "extra-constitutional means" do you refer to, that would be capable of presenting the government of this "defunct UK" with some kind of fait accompli...??!! You say you're not talking about civil war, but that there is some other kind of "extra-constitutional means" that could do the trick...????

[StevenAdams]

Ken Stevens:

I agree with much of what you say, though I just don't believe that a 'proportion' of Scottish accents in parliament - or anywhere else for that matter - is a valid element of the debate. Exploiting the funding/voting system by promising Scotland/Wales/NI exception from rules/taxes in order to pass through legislation that wouldn't pass without that support is the real concern, and one that can be dealt with, without some of the near-xenophobic hysteria that can hijack debates like this (though I recognise not by you). Such situations would include Student Fees (but not for Scottish youths) and 42-day Detention (DUP supporting the government in return for - I suspect - the retention of water rates).

The difficulty that the Cons face is that any really drastic pulling-back of power from devolved governments (be that through overhaul of the voting system or merely fairer funding) will be seen as an attack upon the regions. The opposition line will be that the cons are a party only for the Home Counties, rather than the only truly national party that we are. This should be approached carefully, given DCs success in promoting the party in the Northern cities, Wales and other areas that had otherwise been seen as no-go areas.

Iain:

your comments are just too hysterical, in my opinion. I disagree that this nation is on the brink of civil war ("all it would take is a match"). I agree that this government has screwed the successful economy they were handed and that current voting rights allow for serious abuse (as described above), but I also believe that the Cons current policy stances (referendum on Lisbon, massive simplification of the tax system.reduction of public expenditure, and a repositioning of voting rights in the Commons) are typical, measured Con responses.

Dave J:
what possible "extra-constitutional means" do you refer to, that would be capable of presenting the government of this "defunct UK" with some kind of fait accompli...??!! You say you're not talking about civil war, but that there is some other kind of "extra-constitutional means" that could do the trick...????

[Iain]

"your comments are just too hysterical, in my opinion. I disagree that this nation is on the brink of civil war "

I didn't say it was on the brink of civil war, what I was saying was that the British establishment have put in all the necessary conditions. Where in England there is no leadership, where because of the EU project, they have made it impossible to respond to events, which on their own are pretty inflammable conditions, then add in a economic recession, where all the establishments can do is hand out platitudes because they have tied their hands, then all it would take would be a match, a match like , as we have seen most jobs created have gone to foreign nationals, what happens if employers carry on this discrimination and most of the people to carry the cost of redundancy are British people, and we have politicians saying that this is all to do with joys of them having signed us up to the EU?

[Ken Stevens]

StevenAdams

So good, he said it twice! ;-)

"the only truly national party that we are"
I'm not sure either of your basis for claiming this differentiation or that any major party can claim to be so whilst having subsidiary organisations in one territory but not another(- analogy to Scotland with own parliament but England covered by UK one!)

The porkbarrel politics (DUP/42 day)is possibly a separate aspect from devolution as such. Student fees etc are an aspect of devolution that I can accept as differing from region to region, according to regional preference and spending priorities -- but only if the currently omitted region also has scope to decide its own preferences and priorities and does not have to pay a levy to the other devolved areas on account of its own expenditure(cf London Crossrail project automatically resulting in an increased allocation to devolved areas)

Given the present realities, I wouldn't propose to claw back from devolution; simply complete the process, though from a standpoint of England being recognised as a national entity, with its own parliament, or some other substantial, equitable solution fulfilling the same purpose.

Alternatively, albeit a bit too radical for many and doubtless too constitutionally naïve on my part, revise devolution so that it applies regionally across the UK. E.g. a Highland and a Lowland Region, along with Midlands, North-east, London, etc.

[cosmic]

I don't see any serious prospect of civil war or violence. As for 'extra-constitutional means", two years on we have a Tory government with a huge majority, seen as an English government, desperately trying to be a Unionist government and failing to please anyone. We have oil at $200 plus a barrel and economic recession. Salmond gains an overwhelming mandate for independence (whatever that means) in a referendum, partly stoked by the huge Tory majority. The Westminster parliament has primacy and could ignore it, or abolish the Scottish parliament, but that just wouldn't happen.

Salmond declares UDI, or Westminster bows to the inevitable, or Salmond gains an even more lopsided devolutionary settlement and the Union is broken or so damaged that it may as well be broken.

Far better to go for a balanced devolutionary settlement now than try and muddle along with a chewing gum and string fix which satisfies no one.

The other approach is to hope that the chewing gum and string bodge will hold for long enough for the issue to die down and things to return to normal. I don't believe that will work.

I'm sure that breaking the Union would not be a game, where everyone got what they wanted and nothing they didn't want. It's more likely to turn out that everyone gets little they want and mostly things they don't want and there are all sorts of consequences absolutely no one foresaw.

[StevenAdams]

Ooops... clearly had my fat fingers on the [enter] key a mite too long there... :)

Ken:
I don't believe that devolution affects Cons status as a national party... in the same way that I don't believe the USA's federalism affects the Republican/Democrat parties claiming to be national parties. The importance is that Con philosophies, under the Con banner, are represented across the union, albeit with local flavours... something that has some synchronicity with Conservative de-centralist principles.

Though I agree that different regions should have the autonomy to decide spending priorities, the difference with the Student Fees debate (if I remember rightly) is that the Bill would've been defeated in the Commons if it wasn't for Scottish MP's support - whilst they didn't have to impose the system in Scotland.

To be frank, I'm not irrevocably opposed to an England Committee, or some such; I am opposed, however, to merely continuing a process of breakup of the union.

Cosmic:
I see what you're getting at, but precedence doesn't support the argument. In the 1970's, when we discovered North Sea oil ("Scottish Oil" was the accusation at the time), there were very vocal calls for independence. Oil was at record price levels (in real terms very close to today's price), the global economy was in meltdown, the SNP was returning record numbers of MPs with over 30% of the vote, and referendums were returning 48% calls for independence (with many more calling for devolution).

This all happened with a backdrop of a Labour Party that was partially supportive of independence/devolution, albeit a weak government with a weak mandate.

What you're suggesting would happen against a backdrop of a strong and unified (newly elected) Conservative Party that is wholly opposed to independence (I believe!), and an economic backdrop that was improving (most senior economists accept that this slowdown/recession will have a much shorter life than previous examples... the peak being during the election coincidentally).

Fair enough, with a very weak pro-devolution/independence government, governing in a turbulent economic time, and whose electoral fortunes relied on further succession of Scotland... then maybe. But these are not those times.

[cosmic]

Steven,

I remember 1974 very well, with the oil crisis and a feeling that the country was on the rocks. I discussed Scottish Independence with a Scots friend, who made a very good argument for it, but actually thought it was a very bad idea because the whole history of Scotland before the Union had been one of bitter internal squabbles.

There was an upsurge in Scottish and Welsh Nationalism and there were plans for assemblies with unequal powers which looked like a sop and fizzled out, so in that sense the idea of putting a wet blanket over the matter and waiting for it to go away worked.

This is somewhat different. Labour established a Scottish parliament, which I'd say most Scots are in favour of - some aren't and they call it Follyrood. The SNP are not a few MPs at Westminster, they are seen as a devolved government, which is delivering things people want, and promising more. Salmond is a very skilful politician.

I suspect most Scots are presently in favour of the Union but want the Scottish parliament to remain, maybe with extra powers. The English response is that they are having their cake and eating it.

I don't see the Tories getting anywhere in Scotland any time soon, and I imagine that Labour will get a bloody nose North of the border too. What they'll have is that nice Mr. Salmond, in the nice Scottish parliament, which has done so much, a load of SNP MPs and a Tory English government imposing itself.

Referenda are crude things and motives for voting in them are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Wouldn't it become a vote of confidence in that nice Mr. Salmond and the nice Scottish parliament and against that nasty Tory lot who are not wanted in Scotland and are seen to have waged war on the country?

I think comparison with the 70s breaks down because of the fact that the Scottish parliament is established and the SNP are established and credible as a governing party with a heavyweight leader, rather than a few MPs who are colourful characters but useless MPs at Westminster.

Anyway, there's something else which is emotional and that's a growing sense of national identity, both sides of the border, and that can't be satisfied with a codge. It's also likely to be deaf to reason. As for a newly invigorated Conservative party, wholly opposed to independence - a question a lot of those who elected them would be bound to ask, is how much bending over backwards were they going to do rather than deal with the issues?

I'm not saying that Salmond will get his way with the referendum, but it's quite plausible that he will.

[StevenAdams]

Cosmic:

That's a fair point that there is now a credible devolved govt to give credence to the idea of further succession, but my point was that it's irrelevant if the Westminster govt doesn't want to pass any more powers along. The '70's analogy was to illustrate that even a weak govt with large pro-succession factions in the face of vocal calls for independence didnt succumb; nor did weak old Broon succumb to calls for referenda, despite his poor standing in Westminster and reliance upon Scot support from any quarter. I see no reason why a new Con govt would either.

I do agree that it's not beyond the realms of possibility whatsoever, but I don't believe it's policy and I don't believe we're near being forced into it.

Two small points worth making: that nice Mr Salmond won't be nice for long when his overspent budget promises (e.g. police numbers) start falling through as he realises that he cannot pressure more money from Brown as a) there's none left, and b) he won't be the PM much longer.

[StevenAdams]

oops... my second point was that no UK govt is going to give up North Sea oil revenue easily... which would be on the cards in any further devolutionary package.