MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
A new settlement for England, and all Britons
By Andrew Rosindell (*) - The No vote in the Scottish referendum has kept the Union together, for now. I fear however, that the issue has not gone away. We must act soon and take this opportunity to secure the future of the United Kingdom. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNot London. Leave that for the UK as a whole. It is always said that England is more than just the South East.
Nov 13th, 2014 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Somewhere like Coventry. More central.
@1
Nov 13th, 2014 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lol, with all the 'sent to Coventry' jibes, I don't think so. This is a really good article and highlites the lob-sided devolution the Labour Party started in the 1990's.
I don't live in London but I have no issue with the English Parliament being in London. If it was to bit situated outside London, it would need to be located considerably further north than Coventry.
The biggest stumbling block to all of this is the Labour Party not willing to relinquish the voting rights of their Scottish MP's on purely English matters. They should accept that there is no way the English will tolerate that any more and it needs to stop right now.
Four federal states spending only what they raise in taxation in their own countries, no Barnet formula favours, that will be a much fairer country. I'm sure the first thing the Scottish will say is, “what about our oil revenue”, well are they happy to reimburse the rest of the UK for the total infrastructure costs in getting it out of the sea, that we all paid for, I doubt it.
Big changes ahead but I think we will all have a fairer nation in the end.
York....would be more central to Angleland.....stuff the Saxons...
Nov 13th, 2014 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britworker
Nov 13th, 2014 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Federations need fiscal equalisation in some form otherwise they lose their reason for existence. It is something that Australia learnt very early on in our existence.
Indeed, the UK could learn a lot about federal structures from Australia comsidering we so successfully merged the Westminster system with a federal structure.
In truth, the best option is to clarify relationships. One nation, three provinces!
Nov 13th, 2014 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@4
Nov 13th, 2014 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reason that the devolved parliaments came about was because Scotland and Wales felt that they were unfairly represented at Westminster and they would be fairer and happier managing their own political and fiscal affairs. Are you saying that after all their complaints and demands and getting exactly what they want, that they will be fiscally worse off??
Australia is one nation, the UK are four nations with traditionally four snouts in a collective trough. We should from now on only have our own snouts in our own troughs for better or worse, after several years it should become very clear who was being subsidised and who wasn't.
If Scottish MPs cannot vote on much at Westminster, and can't vote on anything at Holyrood, there is not a lot of point in having them.....
Nov 13th, 2014 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What if Scotland had the Falklands model - keep the oil, and have someone else pay for defence?
@7
Nov 13th, 2014 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They tried that this year and decided against it. What matters in Scotland can Scottish MP's not vote on? Not sure what that means? The point is that the English cannot vote on Scottish matters but they can on ours, it sounds ridiculous but that is what is happening right now.
The point of this article is that cat is now out of the bag as regards English devolution and we will accept not one scrap less of what is being handed out elsewhere in the Union.
What a truly great article lets hope it's put into practice, Well done Andrew Rosindell
Nov 13th, 2014 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 8 - Westminster MPs, representing Scottish (or English) seats, cannot vote on most things to do with running Scotland. Those matters are decided at Holyrood in Edinburgh.
Nov 13th, 2014 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, an MP, of any party, representing a Scottish seat at Westminster is a bit of a waste of space. If they are also not allowed to vote on “English” laws, then why have them at Westminster at all? What else have they got to do to fill the time? This needed to be sorted out before the next Election, as the electorate north of the Border will have worked this out..... Shambles.
If certain politicians get their way,
Nov 13th, 2014 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland will go,
Break up England into regional governments,
Then hand it over to our new Euro overlords, or masters, bit by bit, region by region,
Until great Britain is no more than a northern province of France,
As the saying goes,
Divide and conquer,
United we stand, and by political decisions we fall…
Just my opinion.
.
@10
Nov 13th, 2014 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem confused, a Scottish MP at Westminster would vote on UK matters, that would seem logical and sensible, but they shouldn't vote on English only matters. You do know the difference between the UK and England don't you ?
I am not surprised Andrew Rosindell, of Romford would like the new English Parliament to be in the City of London and not Westminister. Much easier commute!
Nov 13th, 2014 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
@11
Nov 13th, 2014 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pre devolution that would be a good point, however we are where we are and an equal federal system is the only way forward now.
We all run our own separate countries and come together at Westminster in a UK only remit.
Can you Scots feel it??? The hard cold steel being pressed through your back now that the English kept you in the Union and still have a grip on your oil?
Nov 13th, 2014 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“During the referendum campaign we heard a great deal about Scotland and the aspirations of the Scottish people. That’s fine, but now is the time for England to find its voice.”
“As an Englishman, I for one was overjoyed by the news that our Scottish cousins were keen to stay as part of the Union, but we must now ask, at what cost to England? Many English people, with justification, regard the current arrangements as unfair.”
“There can be no second best for the people of England.”
I guess Scotland really is the backwater to England.
What a crock of crap.
Britworker
Nov 13th, 2014 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you don't have some form of fiscal equalisation then there is no reason for the UK to exist and the four nations will go their seperate ways because there is nothing to be gained being part of the UK. If you would be happy with that then go ahead. However if you feel the UK is a worthwhile entity then you have to compromise on some points.
As for Australia, yes you are correct we are one nation. However what is usually unknown is that each Australian state is sovereign. The full legal implications of this has never been fully tested. Each Australian state has a distinct legal personality that puts it on the same footing as a sovereign nation. They have chosen to pool curtains parts of that sovereignty in the Commonwealth.
For instance, if Australia becomes a republic, then every state must become one too as each state has its own legal relationship with the Queen. Any changes to the relationship with the Queen or to the monarchy has to be approved by all states AND the federal government. Technically it could be argued that Victoria has its own Queen. Our federation is much more complex than most thing.
And it works. We have had over 100 years to work out the kinks. The UK could learn a thing or two if it is moving to a more federal structure.
However I like the idea of not electing new politicians but just having them sit in 2 different parliaments. Saves money and would be a very British solution.
I cannot see why there can't be four different parliaments where the countrymen of each vote on their country's issues, and get linked up with video link to vote on British issues .
Nov 13th, 2014 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why the need for duplicating MP's?
Northern Ireland MP's-elected in NI, vote on British issues via videolink-no NI MPs in Westminster.
Exactly the same for Scottish and Welsh MPs, elected in their countries with no duplication at Westminster.
Westminster for English MP's because it's in England.
@16
Nov 14th, 2014 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Australian correlation will only go so far when it comes to comparisons with the UK. Your states have evolved together under one flag, our countries have evolved and devolved separately under four flags, with different laws and assemblies and benefit formulas, to be honest it is a right fucking mess.
If we are to stay together as the UK, which I hope we do, then English devolution has to brought in line with the other three countries on a fair level with complete parity.
What you have to understand is that UKIP are likely to be the third largest political party after May next year. Like it or loathe it, they are the voice of English nationalism and they will have more MP's than any party from Wales, NI or Scotland. If you think they are going to sit back and watch whilst ever more autonomous rights are devolved to the other three countries whist England is excluded, which we have been up to now, you need to rethink, its not democratic and will bring a faster end to the UK than anything you suggest, remember England represents 85% of the UK population.
The biggest shock in next years election will be in north of England. Strong labour heartlands are shifting to UKIP. UKIP will be the second largest party in the north.
The only solution for the UK is four separate federal entities, that is the only way we will survive.
mmmmm
Nov 14th, 2014 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you must have only one man in charge,
one government, or else you will run the risk of opening a can or nasty worms,
sadly we have politicians that care not ,,what you want , I want or the majority wants,
they want, what they want, and will do everything and anything to get it,
until something better comes along, then it is better to stay with, and improve what we have..
just an opinion.
18
Nov 15th, 2014 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't you drop the pretence and change your name to Engworker.....
It's fairly obvious to everyone.... that you are an English nationalist....
If UKIP is the voice of English nationalism was is it called United Kingdom Independence Party...?
Maybe you never thought that one through...if ever there was a voice of “English” nationalism it would be the Conservative party...is it dominant in Scotland?, Wales..?...
I'll give you a clue where it is most dominant...it begins with ENG...Doh!
@18
Nov 15th, 2014 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0We have a healthy democracy in England, yes UKIP in my opinion represents a fair national voice for England that has been lacking for a very long time, but we also have several other mainstream parties too, unlike north of the border where after May next year, they will have only ONE single nationalist party in charge of absolutely everything and only one agenda, that doesn't sound very democratic to me. I'm glad in England, Wales and NI we have healthy democracies.
Only the future will tell..
Nov 15th, 2014 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!