« Dominic Grieve announces plan to restore trust in crime statistics | Main | Notes on Conservative foreign policy »


Interesting set of results! Seems there's a majority in favour of looking at Boris Island! Good.

We want a Church of England but not a Parliament for England?
Let me guess,it's ok for the English to have the C of E because the Welsh,Irish and Scots have their own churches,but it's not ok for the English to have their English Parliament,I really wonder why that is?
Those Welsh,Irish and Scots in the party are still damaging England and English democracy is being denied to 53million of us here in England.It's time this kind of thing was stopped once and for all,obviously,this Union we are supposedly in is for the benefit of the 3 smaller countries but at the cost of the hugely larger England and it's peoples.This will be seen foe exactly what it is by the voting public in England,a kick in the teeth by the Conservative and pro Welsh,Irish and Scottish Unionist Party,will we ever learn?

I think those who want to go back the seaside resorts miss the point, as does the party. It is not about where you have your conferences it is about when and what happens.

Hotels are cheaper out of holiday season on Friday and Saturday evenings and many people would like to attend who cannot because of work commitments. This suggests we should have weekend conferences. A Leader's speech on Friday would secure extensive media coverage in the weekend press, Saturday and Sunday events would get coverage into the next week.

Policy discussion is now completely absent. We should address that with proper Policy Forum meetings, behind closed doors, probably two or three a year. Representatives from Constituencies can be delegated to attend, provided with briefs and encouraged to present ideas and research of their own. This allows talent spotting and engagement with the policy making process from the grass roots.

We should also be firmer with cities wishing to host our events. We bring huge amounts of business and they should support us with better deals on accommodation and facilities. The organisers also need to be more open about the accommodation available. Short-stay apartments are a feature of most city centres, but they were not listed as options in the "official" guide.

A couple could easily stay for less than £40pp a night in Birmingham if they rented a 1 bed flat for three or four nights. I did this and had the equivalent of a hotel suite with double bedroom, lounge, kitchen, bathroom, sky TV, WiFi - all for £75 a night! The only downside was I had to make my own breakfast, but I went to the Tesco Express round the corner and got what I wanted for my stay for £10 and I had fresh milk for my tea!

How would a directly elected party chairman differ from the directly elected leader?

John Moss I absolutely agree with you that there should be an increase in policy discussion - with conclusions being fed back to the leadership as in the old days of the CPC.
I was absolutely horrified the other day to talk to a member of a London Association who told me that there were moves afoot to actually close down their active Conservative Policy Forum (CPF) branch!


That would be terrible - debating policy is the main point. Why bother campaigning otherwise?

Incidentally, had he won the leadership at his last attempt, Fat Ken was going to abolish the whole CPF.

The idea of the whole party membership electing the Chairman of the party is just plain daft!
And to be honest, it really would screw the equally elected leadership, which might be why its been suggested?

Have we not learnt all the lessons of the last 15 years yet? Why oh why does anyone think that tying the shoelaces of the leader at the starting line in the campaign end up achieving anything other than defeat for that leader while damaging the party?

A lot of your respondents will mistakenly believe that an English Parliament means 'more politicians' (on generous salaries, expenses and pensions). It does not. As proposed by the Marquis of Salisbury and endorsed by Lord Strathclyde, the House of Commons itself could become the English Parliament while the House of Lords, reformed and elected, would become the British Parliament. This would mean fewer politicians, it would require no new buildings and it could be accomplished with minimal fuss and very little cost. The Clarke-Rifkind proposals on the other hand do not go far enough - no English Executive,for example, which many senior MPs, e.g John Redwood, agree would be essential. There has to be an answer to the 'English Question', which was left in abeyance by the Labour govt's devolution Acts. It is worse that that as it is clear that the Labour party intends that England should become the national equivalent of Middlesex, a forgotten administrative unit that is occasionally manifested in sporting contests. England is to be regionalised and no political expression of an English national interest is to be permitted (Michael Wills). Only the Conservative party is in a position to offer a policy that could allow England national control over its own domestic policies - but unfortunately Mr Cameron does not want to take on that job. In the end, the English will say that they have had enough of the Union, of the Tory party and of the Scots - and who can blame them?

A Church of England ,but no English Parliament,this says it all,Why would English People( if these were English People who answered)not want there own Parliament?????

Tory Members? what about the survey that goes out to people who are not necessarily Tory Members?

Have you discounted the views of the non tory members on this survey and especially on the English Parliament question?

As Ian Campbell rightly says at 11.34:

"Only the Conservative party is in a position to offer a policy that could allow England national control over its own domestic policies - but unfortunately Mr Cameron does not want to take on that job. In the end, the English will say that they have had enough of the Union, of the Tory party and of the Scots - and who can blame them?"

Typically, Blair created this mess because - as with Iraq - he couldn't think things through to their logical conclusion (what was Brown doing at the time? Only plotting to bring the PM down?).

Again, as Ian points out: "There has to be an answer to the 'English Question', which was left in abeyance by the Labour govt's devolution Acts".

This might be achieved by the Marquis of Salisbury's proposal or more simply by allocating time in the HoD for debates to be designated "of interest to England only".

So as an Englishman this result is a confirmation that voting Tory is a waste of time for England.

Two thirds of English people persistently show in polls that they want an English Parliament. Exactly the opposite to this poll of mainly (not exclusively) Tories. I suspect if you took out the non-Tories then your survey would show an even higher proportion not wanting an English Parliament. You're completely out of touch with the English electorate.

Because David Cameron and other Tory MPs couldn't even be bothered to vote, England now has Regional Grand Committees. 78% of English people do not even want regions let alone Grand Committees. The Tories are nothing less than traitors to their natural constituency, England.

To rub salt into the wound the Tories are fielding a plethora of Scottish candidates in England (Cumbria has at least 3) because they haven't a prayer of being elected in Scotland.

The Tories are just a bunch of gutless numbskulls who kowtow to the Scots and stab the English in the back for the sake of the Union. If they had the balls to call Salmond's bluff on independence they would command a modicom of respect, but they don't. Instead Cameron would sell the north of England into slavery in return for half a dozen MPs in Scotland.

The Tories actually believe they are popular because they lead the polls. No. They are merely less unpopular than Scots-led Labour. Nobody trusts the Tories and their talk-big politics.

They bellow "no no no" about the EU, but sign "yes yes yes" and give away our rights. The evidence is irrefutable.

The Tories are an out of touch has been party.

gotcha. you rigged it.

55% for Boris Island is a pretty damning verdict on Theresa Villiers's policies!

Horay for Boris island!

Regarding the policy discussions not happening, I think there's a comparison with business.
In recent years big companies have been getting bigger to the point where nothing happens and there's little innovation and the customer has no influence.
With the recession, this will cut out some of the big players and cut others down to size which will give breathing room for small companies to thrive.
Similarly for politics, I think Labour are getting bigger which means the conservatives have to to compensate - but the foundations are weak and Labour will collapse and we'll see more dynamic parties who listen to the people coming up. The Conservative party would then have to adapt to survive and do the same.
At the moment we are in the political recession where it's all bad though, we just have to ensure that it doesn't go further down.

@Stephen Gash

English for the English then? lovely sentiment you have there, but I think we're quite happy to not pander to spitfull little balls of hate like you.

Being rational is far more constructive and this does happen to be a unionist party, so what do you expect? I would project that the reason so many people want an English parliament is frankly down to feeling of betrayal by Labour in regards to governance and a complete skewing of the balance of self determination across the union in their reckless chase for votes. Which in itself is remarkable as Labour hates self determination, but then Labour would sell the country to the devil for eternal suffering if promised they could stay in government.

I agree with the airport idea, would prefer conferences in Cornwall.. oh well, agree with election of party leader and with keeping the Church.

I suspect that those who agree with the island airport do not live in Essex or Kent or know the Thames Estuary area at all. Enviromentally and politically it would be a disaster.
Only someone as stupid as Boris could have brought up the proposal.

A Church of England ,but no English Parliament,this says it all,Why would English People( if these were English People who answered)not want there own Parliament?????

Posted by: I Albion | January 10, 2009 at 11:41

Surely this is the only relevance.
Was the poll conducted only with English or was that not a factor in the poll count ?

Surely only England can decide this question.

Posted by: Stephen Gash | January 10, 2009 at 12:11

Excellent comment Stephen.


Thanks for that constructive comment Jack!

I am about to move house to be directly under a flightpath (approx 500yds from the end of the runway) and I hope the airport I'm living near expands to rival JFK.

I'd have a third runway in my back garden if I had one.

IMBY please.

I wonder why it hasn't dawned on government, since Boeing are laying people off because of a lack of demand in passenger aircraft, airlines have taken flights off the list, and tourism generally is set to spiral downward, that there may in fact be less of a need for a new runway at all?

It makes no sense to develop plans based on what was happening at the height of economic growth and whilst knowing we're now in recession to not re-check the data as to whether it's actually still needed. Not unless the backhanders have already been paid of course as that would obviously require it to proceed come what may.

I might accept the party's position on an English Parliament if the UK manifesto included a commitment to scrap devolution and dissolve the Scottish Parliament Welsh Assembly! We either have an equal Union or we don't. Unfortunately David Cameron seems to want it both ways.
I'm an ex Tory supporter and will remain so until the party either supports an English Parliament English First Minister and English Government or the scrapping of devolution and return to Westminster rule.

Derek at 15:04

Thoroughly agree.

And if present-style devolution can't be reversed, then UKIP solution:

"We would retain national bodies but replace national representatives with Westminster MPs from that nation: The 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament would be replaced by the 55 Scots Westminster MPs,
the 60 Welsh Assembly Members replaced by the 32 Welsh Westminster MPs, with similar arrangements over time in Northern Ireland with its 18 MPs to normalise UK affairs.
To be fair to England, the 545 English Westminster MPs would meet the same week a month in Westminster for English days in an ‘English Parliament’, debating English-only legislation. MPs would divide time between national Parliaments and Westminster for devolved or Union business.
The House of Commons would sit as National Parliaments for a small part of each month and the majority of time as a unified United Kingdom chamber."

Absolutely ridiculous and anomalous to uphold a Church of England but not a Nation thereof.

How many graduate interns paid for by the state will the party employ. And how many will Labour?

60% do not favour an English Parliament. This is the mirror image of national opinion (60-odd consistently in favour)so it looks like the Conservatives are out of step on this one, but why?

I always though we were in favour of the Union, so why would so many oppose fixing its greatest wrong, and therefore its greatest threat?

Is there any party prepared to represent England now the Conservatives are happy to see us sold down the river?

Just like Westminster, I suspect that a lot of pseudo Brits of the Welsh, N. Irish and Scots variety couldn't stop themselves from having a dabble in the above survey, just like the English had a say in devolution - oh wait a minute no one asked us (the English).
Your own flagship newspaper commissioned a ICM poll to find out whether, or not, an English Parliamenmt should be established - 68% said yes.
Something sounds a bit fishy to me but I suspect your survey is the result of political misrepresentation. You lot must be going to that EU school - The School for Liars.

I suppose I will have to remain an uneducated, bigotted and sour Little Englander and spoil my ballot sheet at the next election - again!.

I am astonished by the figures against an English Parliament and would ask the editor for quite a lot more transparency.
This is so comforting to DC's position and so contrary to expressed opinion on this site and to numerous opinion polls I do not know who this hitherto entirely silent majority are or whence they come.
I regard an English Parliament as a certain vote winner and am continuously disappointed by DC's self-denying ordinance on the subject.

How many voted?
How did Party members and non members vote?

Its an extraordinary result.


1,816 Tory members were surveyed from 22nd to 28th December.

I trust these surveys much more than threads.

Threads are useful insofar as they contain powerful arguments. They are not necessarily representative of wider opinion - only of those who are energised on an issue.

eg here:


Can you trust ConHome surveys?


I'm all for an English Parliament, I do not favour "Boris Island" which is fear would do more harm than good and do prefer either a Third Runway at Heathrow or at Gatwick or indeed both. As to the Church of England, I would wish to see it remain as The Church in Law Established

I'd pose the argument if people voted no to an English parliament that they could well have voted no as a vote to uphold union and therefore voted no to devolution ?

Just a thought.

Secondly, if all who voted were actually English then I'd find it quite a staggering result. If the question had been framed as If the countries are devolved would you want an English parliament, then I feel quite likely the result would be different.

I suggest that as a question or something similar so as not to give the wrong impression over this poll.

Surely NO must in any case mean yes now since Lisbon so if they can do it we can do it too I'd think?

There can be little doubt that some of the wording on certain questions can lend weight to a certain result.

For example, when the survey asked about Heathrow expansion a few months ago, the panel were opposed, but the question gave no alternatives. So when the vast majority of people who commented were saying 'we should build the third runway and high speed rail', they could have voted either way, as the choice was either third runway or high speed rail, not both or something else. This was interpreted as support for Villiers's policies.

If you then look at the Boris Island question above, the vast majority have expressed a view that is very contrary to the Villiers stance - 55% favour looking at Boris Island as an alternative to Heathrow (definitely against party policy) and 24% could easily be interpreted as in favour of Heathrow (again, against party policy), leaving just 21% in favour of the Villiers line (and for all we know that may be because they want mass expansion at Gatwick and Stansted instead of Heathrow or Boris Island).

As much as I would like to think that 4 months of c-fit (http://www.c-fit.org.uk) has led to the party's aviation policy losing nearly two thirds of its support among the panel, it's more likely that both questions are so open to interpretation because of their complexity that little can be read into the headline answers.

English Parliament? Party of the Union?
There is a tension between these 2 phrases. However as Scotland had a separate legal system long before the arrival of the Scottish Parliament, and Northern Ireland has some differences, then devolved "home rule" for a defined list makes sense and matters such as defence etc should be ruled on by a Parliament of the Union.
It is tricky to follow all the way through, because, for example, Policing could be a very contentious issue as to whether it should be a Home Parliament or Union Parliament area of remit.
Also going for an English Parliament could logically lead to disestablishing the Anglican Church as the Church of the Union as it is now, to an English only established church .
If this issue really does rise, I would suggest very considerable thought being put into the solution, otherwise the Union could shatter. And would a Conservative Party want that to their credit?

Maybe the figure against the English Parliament just reflects the distaste many Tory members have for more elected assemblies and more salaried politicians.

I imagine if you asked the same members if they were against the Scottish, Welsh and Ulster parliaments, they'd probably had said yes too.

Derek, I understand you're now an ex-Tory suppporter as a result of this, so tell us who YOU WOULD VOTE FOR INSTEAD?

"Also going for an English Parliament could logically lead to disestablishing the Anglican Church as the Church of the Union as it is now, to an English only established church."

It is not the Church of the Union;it is only Established for England.
That this gives it a pan-UK primacy in certain aspects of governance is something that I would find objectionable, were I not English.

Cleethorpes Rock

"..reflects the distaste many Tory members have for more elected assemblies and more salaried politicians"

UKIP solution (as set out above) is for fewer, not more.


On this topic, he is fortunate indeed to have the choice of UKIP or English Democrats.

People like R. Baker 09:46 forget that England's rise through it's empire and industrial revolution owes a massive debt to the Celtic fringe.

The Celts have played a major part in Britain's/England's recent history not to mention the raw materials it needed to expand and power an empire. Look at Welsh coal for example....

Wales is subsidised by England, but had English people not gone there to mine it's valleys it would have remained a much less populus land. English pit owners created the Valley's towns which today are now poor as the closure of the pits took away many jobs.

I do not disagree with why the pits were closed but am making the point that had the needs of the British/English government not lead them to Welsh coal these towns would not exist!

England may not now need it's Celtic neighbours to help man it's Navy, or their raw materials, or their geographic/strategic co-operation with defence but the situation we now find ourselves in is directly related to a time when it did.....we should, together, be proud of this history and accept our obligations that history has created.

Re Anton
A directly elected Party Chairman would be responsible for the organisation of the Party. The Party Leader would remain responsible for the political policies of the Party. This would be similar to the position at a local level in the Constituency Association. Nobody has ever suggested that the MP appoint the Constituency Chairman.

We have had eight Party Chairmen in the last ten years. The inevitable result is that decisions relating to the organisation have been totally concentrated on the short term with very little long term thinking going on. For example Party membership has more than halved in those ten years. Membership should be a priority for action but it is not given the priority it deserves. If the Party Chairman were accountable to the members perhaps it would be.

Rather sympathise with John Strafford's point of view here. Whilst there is a danger of building an alternative power base to the leader by electing a party chairman the curent situation with a desperately weak chairman should not be allowed to continue.

I was born Scots but have lived all of my adult life in England (I'm 55) and thus would want an English Parliament. As regard the Church of England it is only the Church in Law Established here in England (not in Wales), in Scotland the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) is the Established Church and indeed it is the convention that the Queen, when she is in Scotland and for the duration of her stay there is a Presbyterian and for example when in Balmoral she attends the local Kirk at Crathie and not an Episcopal Church which is the equivalent of C of E north of the border.

Amen to all the above who favour an English Parliament. And er... Amen to the C of E as well.
It's nothing to do with hate and all to do about justice. Little Englanders don't exist - we are Big Englanders who have gone about our business too quietly for too long. This movement is relevent and especially now, when times are hard, for there is no better time than now to be able to run the country ourselves, something we are clearly unable to do now and are unlikely to be able to do with the next Conservative government. A Grand English Committee is not the answer. Whether our opponents like it or not, England is a nation (not a collection of regions), it has been since the beginning of the tenth century but we've been asleep for too long.
With our finances in meltdown, the English Question is more important and more relevent than ever. So, come on you Tories - give me a reason to vote for you next time and give us what we want and deserve: An English Parliament. You never know, it might just preserve your precious union.

Until the Scotland Act 1998, although knowing myself to be English ,I considered myself to be British and answered to that designation. Now if anyone asks if I am British I say "no, I am English".

That Act fundamentally destabilised the British state and yet it would seem that 68% of the correspondents to this survey are trying to kid themselves it 'aint so.

(I suspect that if the same question were put to the generality of Tory party members in England -not the UK-and also to the population of England the result would be wildly different)

It is plainly obvious to anyone with even an inkling of history or of the elementary principles of representative democracy that for three nations within a Union to have parliaments and yet one to be denied the same is unfair. Arguments as to geographical size are irrelevant.
For the whole governmental spend of the overall union/state to be permanently skewed, as it is via the Barnett Rules ,on the basis of NATIONAL discrimination in favour of the three and against the one - the one without any national representation-
is doubly unfair.

Time for the Tory party to grow up and make contact with reality.
Reality is that the parliament at Westminster is a British parliament and it is the parliament of the British state which callously occupies and exploits England. The only way to reinstate any equity into the British Union is for there to be an English parliament for England just as there are corresponding bodies for Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland. Egland must also have its own civil service, ministers, first minister and budget - just as the Tory party approves of Scotland having!
The British parliament should and must hand over the entire internal governance of England including all the relavant ministries and expenditure to the English parliament.

Whatever is left after that will still be witin the ambit of the British parliament and government to deliberate on - though they have been on hols for the last 5-6 weeks and don't seem to eager to bestir themselves.

That there would be huge numbers of votes for such a proposal in England, which is the only part of the Union which electorally really counts for the Tory party, is simply a bonus.

dear unionist, you can not hold a union together if one part of it is constantly accused of thieving coal or oil from another member of the union.I don't want to be a member of a union that portrays me or my family as scum.

On Tyne side a lady in the audience
complained that free prescriptions, university tuition and care for the elderly in England should be a priority issue for any Cameron Government.

Mr Cameron responded: “I don’t want to do anything that will encourage a sense of English nationalism and distance between the two countries.”

What does Cameron mean by this, he will do something about it or do nothing about it so as not to encourage English Nationalism?
I refer people to my link to letters to the editors pages. you can run but you can't hide, the English public are demanding an English Parliament.

Cleethorpes Rock 17.34 I would probably vote for the only party to offer an English Parliament The English Democrats. I don't consider the UKIP proposals to be a solution to the English Question.
I live in a marginal constituency and the Tory candidate will miss my vote!

Tally, don't be so dramatic.

I didn't imply us English stole coal or oil, or are scum! I implied the Celtic nations have contributed to England's current status of world superpower and high-ranking economy and that through that contribution legacies were created. The poor Welsh valley towns only exist because of England's empire and that empire made England what it is today, therefore England is what it is today with the help of the Celtic nations.

It's your problem if what I said makes you feel like scum....I think you have an unnecessary guilt complex! lol!

"I implied the Celtic nations have contributed to England's current status of world superpower and high-ranking economy and that through that contribution legacies were created--"

How incredibly ignorant.Thats the British state you are talking about, Unionist. Not England. England never asked to be forced into Great Britain and to have Britishness rammed upon her.We were never consulted about the Union, unlike Scotland which was consulted at length, though you would never believe it from listening to Scotland's version of history.
In 1707, England was carefully bounced into a union she never asked for and which, if there had been an English national dabate on the matter - which was deliberately prevented from ever happening - would have resoundingly rejected such a thing.

England's current status is to be occupied by that same state and completely ignored and discriminated against by the political class of the Union, composed of all the three major parties. Until we have our own representation and government you can be sure the general increasing disenchantment with the British Union and all its machinations will simply increase.

But this poll on the BBC a couple of years ago said "most support an English Parliament" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6264823.stm

Has this changed? I personally think that David Cameron and the Tories are amazingly uncaring about England, letting the West Lothian Question, health apartheid and the Barnett Formula run rampant.

"Celtic nations", Unionist? The modern day peoples of Scotland and Wales are not members of some ancient white tribe! Surely Scotland and Wales are multi-cultural/multi-ethnic - just like England? This out-dated and always rather inaccurate Celtic thing sounds a very racist notion to me in the 21st Century.

Is it something some people like to play on in the smaller UK nations - some fake sense of kinship - so that they can gang on up England?

Or do they genuinely believe themselves to be "ethnically pure"? That really is a worrying notion!

Again, somre rather over-the-top interpretations of my view from Chris and Jake!

Jake, are you saying England, with all its people and might, had the British union forced upon them?! England entered a union because of advantages gained - and that's fair enough.

As for Jake's comments, I use Celtic as a term to describe the geographic areas of Wales, Scotland and Ireland which share Celtic history. It's just easier to group them together though the part they played in increasing England's/Britain's wealth differs. If you want to apply racist notions to the term Celtic being used to describe the Welsh, Scots and Irish then that's your problem and I don't understand your logic. Furthermore, it's the sort of knee-jerk labelling of words that left-wing socialists are guilty of!

The people of Wales, Scotland and Ireland aren't ethnically pure.
Celtic is used more a term to describe their history than their race.

Jake, I agree with much of what you say, it seems the Unionists want to build the Union now and for the future on inequality and discrimination , and believe that if they deny English people equality and ignore them then the British State can continue, a morally corrupt set of values on which to build a country, for if it relies on inequality to exist then its lost the argument to exist.

I noted the Channel 4 program on John Adams in the fight for American independence, in this a historian called it an extension of the English civil war, where the same rights were being fought for, and when you hear the arguments that were being put at the time, of an uncaring Executive and where English people were finding themselves second class citizens it has a relevance today. As such it would seem that English people are going to have to fight for the same rights all over again just because the small men we have elected to represent us have miserably failed us.

In this the Unionist are going to have to decide if they are 'for us or agin us', if they are agin us they will surely lose as history shows when the Executive has made the Englishman a second class citizen. The only hope for a Union or British state is to be for us, then a Union can be federated and all people in the British state having equal rights, for Unionist to attempt to maintain the discriminatory status quo suggest they are in a state of denial of what has constitutionally happened with devolution.

dear unionist,I find that the rhetoric from unionists differs very little from irish welsh and scottish seperatists.
the seperatists hate us becauase they want rid of us. the unionists hate the English because they need us.

Unionist says"
Jake, are you saying England, with all its people and might, had the British union forced upon them?! "

You got it in one, Unionist. If you ever get around to reading up the history of the inception of the British Union , ie basically the union of England and Scotland, you will see that it arose principally in Scotland and dates right back to the late 16th century.The English were never particularly interested, those that were tended to be actively against the idea. Driving the idea were a small group of Scots nobility and in particular the House of Stuart.
The first words spoken by Mary Queen of Scots at the birth in Edinburgh of her son the future James1/V1 were " This is my son whom I hope shall first unite the two kingdoms of Scotland and England". That was on 19/06/1556.

When James V1 of Scotland duly became also James 1 of England in 1603 he tried to bounce the English parliament into having him proclaimed King of Great Britain.He tried three times 1603-5 each time rejected out of hand by the English parliament.

There were two brief unions in the 17nth century, in 1641-dissolved in the civil war, and in 1654-9 under Cromwell- ended at the (English) restoration by the English parliament. Neither involved unions of parliaments by the way- they were military, foreign policy and economic unions only.

The next big push by the Scots and English tiny yet emerging British political class was in 1702-3 when Commissioners from both countries met for 10 weeks over Christmas. At the end of that the English side walked away unconvinced of any benefit to England and dismayed at the potential disadvantages.This despite the urgings of the(Stuart)Queen Anne to reach agreement.

It should be noted that up until this time hardly anyone in either country,Unionist or non Unionist, had conceived of a parliamentary Union. A free trade union and a naval/military union were about the extent of it. This remained true right up to October 1707 when the proposed articles of Union were published in Scotland. Not published at all in England you will note.

The final push for Union in late 1707 was mainly in Scotland where the debate in the Scottish parliament was

1. long(from 3/10/1706-to 16/01/1707)
2.in detail, article by article(25 articles)and word for word.
It was finally passed by a large majority ie 110 votes for/67 against.

The idea of of federal Union, as opposed to Union of parliaments, was supressed largely because of the difficulties that Marlborough and Portland and Argyll- all strong unionists - had had in dealing with the federal Dutch states when raising support for the war with France.

Contrast that with the treatment of England.
Bill first read in the Commons 22/1/1707 and rammed through with a "committee of the whole House" and a short enabling clause ie effectively no dabate at all.

2/2/1707 Bill read out with no debate.

Committee in one day in one sitting.

29/2/107 Third reading, no debate and it was passed.

There had been plenty of opposition and it was mainly TORY opposition.

In the Lords, the Bill was forced through its three stages in three days. Opposition here was more organised and yet energetically beaten down by the Queen and her government. Just as in Scotland.
You might note that it was the Englishman Lord Haversham, who knew Scotland well, who proposed the idea of federal union.

Yes, Unionist, the British Union was forced on the people of England who had no idea what was being enacted in their name and were not consulted.

I think a good response to the poll on an English parliament would be to do what they do in the EU.
You said NO to an English parliament?
You didn't mean NO
You don't know what you are saying
You should keep on voting until you say YES
It's the European way!!

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker