[TRS-T]

Will England be getting a parliament any time soon?

[gladders]

Not any time soon. Frankly, if England constitutes 80% of the UK, you won't get a parliament. England is already sufficiently dominate that a separate Parliament is just redundant. In fact, giving it a parliament will hasten the end of the Union.

[Rakas21]

England getting getting its own parliament would simply add another layer to an already excessively bureaucratic government.

Rather than an English parliament what is needed is greater devolution of powers to local authorities.

[meenu89]

(Original post by Rakas21)
England getting getting its own parliament would simply add another layer to an already excessively bureaucratic government.

Or a solution in terms of English MPs only being allowed to vote on English issues.

[boba]

like the poster above said they could just be a rule about only english mps being allowed to vote on england specific things, but then we could of implemented that rule with scottish and welsh mps rather than them having their own parliaments

[callum9999]

Hopefully never. I personally think it's ridiculous Scotland, Wales and NI get their own parliaments at all - it makes a complete mockery of the Union. In my book you're either part of the UK or you're not - if you aren't happy with there just being a UK government then tough, separate and see how far your own government will get you...

[callum9999]

(Original post by gladders)
Not any time soon. Frankly, if England constitutes 80% of the UK, you won't get a parliament. England is already sufficiently dominate that a separate Parliament is just redundant. In fact, giving it a parliament will hasten the end of the Union.

I don't think that's a fair argument. Kent only has something like 3% of the population - does that mean Kent County Council should be given Parliamentary powers?

[L i b]

If we assume that support for devolution in Scotland began in earnest in the 1950s - which is a bit of a **** assumption in the first place - it took one petition where 2 million (of a 5 million population) signed in support of Home Rule, two separate referendums, a constitutional convention, a cross-party campaign, several generations and the tireless work of a lot of committed politicians.

England has displayed none of that. Even if a poll could be fashioned to suggest support for an English Assembly, the English people really don't give that much of a toss either way. Personally, I think it'd be a terrible idea.

[gladders]

(Original post by callum9999)
I don't think that's a fair argument. Kent only has something like 3% of the population - does that mean Kent County Council should be given Parliamentary powers?

Um, I don't get what your point is? Kent, as far as I know, is content being part of England.

[gladders]

(Original post by meenu89)
Or a solution in terms of English MPs only being allowed to vote on English issues.

Again, I think such an idea will lead to the end of the Union. It's an unstable solution, and will make Parliament look absurd.

For one thing, there's no such thing as an exclusively 'English' issue. Certainly not a single Act is passed which impacts England alone. Most are England and Wales, or Britain, or England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or the whole of the UK. None are just England. In order to pass a law we'd have a whole myriad of complicated rules stating when certain MPs would be entitled to vote, which would be near incomprehensible, and would consume a lot of Parliament's time debating when they apply or not. It just won't last.

Secondly, again, England is so dominant that it would essentially mean England dictating to the rest of the Union. It would be another cause for Scotland to leave.

[TRS-T]

(Original post by callum9999)
Hopefully never. I personally think it's ridiculous Scotland, Wales and NI get their own parliaments at all -

But if they all have one, England should have one as well.

[gladders]

(Original post by TRS-T)
But if they all have one, England should have one as well.

Why? England already has all it needs in the UK Parliament, which it has 80% of. And it's already been made plain that the English don't care enough. And I've already pointed out that such a desire will jeopardize the Union.

If you want to end the UK, then fine, push for one - although you should come clean and declare for English independence. But if you want to maintain the Union, then an English Parliament is certainly not what you want.

[Psyk]

(Original post by gladders)
For one thing, there's no such thing as an exclusively 'English' issue. Certainly not a single Act is passed which impacts England alone. Most are England and Wales, or Britain, or England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or the whole of the UK. None are just England.

Isn't that situation a side effect of the strange non-uniform devolution we have? The reason most acts affect more than just England is because there isn't a clear separation of powers between the different governments. Some powers are devolved to the Scottish parliament, but not the Welsh assembly for example. But there are some things that are devolved to all the devolved governments such as education. So surely most acts related to education passed by the UK government affect England only.

(Original post by gladders)
Secondly, again, England is so dominant that it would essentially mean England dictating to the rest of the Union. It would be another cause for Scotland to leave.

Is that really any different to the situation now? English MPs dominate Parliament. I agree that it could weaken the union, but I disagree with your reasoning. People, especially in England, might think the UK government is pointless if most things are devolved to the national governments. It shouldn't really change the situation in Scotland at all. In fact some people in Scotland might think it's better, because the MPs they voted for will be focussed on UK wide issues that affect Scotland, and not be bogged down with England specific matters.

Personally, I'd support English regional assemblies rather than a single English parliament.

[gladders]

(Original post by Psyk)
Isn't that situation a side effect of the strange non-uniform devolution we have? The reason most acts affect more than just England is because there isn't a clear separation of powers between the different governments. Some powers are devolved to the Scottish parliament, but not the Welsh assembly for example. But there are some things that are devolved to all the devolved governments such as education. So surely most acts related to education passed by the UK government affect England only.

Yes and no - it's a simple fact of the geographic enormity of England. It's impossible to effectively delineate English laws which have no impact on the other nations - as much as the SNP don't like to admit it, the other nations are extremely closely bound to England - both inside and out of the Union.

Even such things as education legislation, really; you might get individual regulations and clauses which are exclusive to England, but largely they are at the very least England and Wales.

Is that really any different to the situation now? English MPs dominate Parliament. I agree that it could weaken the union, but I disagree with your reasoning. People, especially in England, might think the UK government is pointless if most things are devolved to the national governments. It shouldn't really change the situation in Scotland at all. In fact some people in Scotland might think it's better, because the MPs they voted for will be focussed on UK wide issues that affect Scotland, and not be bogged down with England specific matters.

But a Union Government (with a separate English government) would make it even more apparent how dominant England is. For example: a Labour Union Government, and a Conservative England government. The Union would seek to expand the welfare state, and the Tories would seek to reduce spending. As England is so overwhelmingly large, its economic policies would effectively dictate the spending policies of the entire Union.

The present situation - England and the Union as one - recognise this reality and reconciles it: England's dominance is irresistible, but is at least tempered by the voices and votes of the other nations.

Personally, I'd support English regional assemblies rather than a single English parliament.

That may well be the answer - but at the moment the desire isn't terribly high. That might change eventually but only organically and spontaneously; government legislation on high to create such bodies will certainly fail.

[megan.c]

(Original post by gladders)
Again, I think such an idea will lead to the end of the Union. It's an unstable solution, and will make Parliament look absurd.

For one thing, there's no such thing as an exclusively 'English' issue. Certainly not a single Act is passed which impacts England alone. Most are England and Wales, or Britain, or England, Wales and Northern Ireland, or the whole of the UK. None are just England. In order to pass a law we'd have a whole myriad of complicated rules stating when certain MPs would be entitled to vote, which would be near incomprehensible, and would consume a lot of Parliament's time debating when they apply or not. It just won't last.

Secondly, again, England is so dominant that it would essentially mean England dictating to the rest of the Union. It would be another cause for Scotland to leave.

Tuition fees?

[gladders]

(Original post by megan.c)
Tuition fees?

Thanks to the Barnett formula, even this impacts the others. The Barnett Formula is unpopular, and the government is trying to find an alternative, but I don't think find one any time soon.

[megan.c]

(Original post by gladders)
Thanks to the Barnett formula, even this impacts the others. The Barnett Formula is unpopular, and the government is trying to find an alternative, but I don't think find one any time soon.

Welsh and Scottish MPs voted to give English students debt for the rest of their lives whilst making sure their own students get off with either a more reasonable amount or nothing at all. I'm not familiar with the Barnett formula, but if this really would mean literally everything effects everyone then the problem should be eradicated in the first place by solely having a parliament for the UK.

The only instances where people get different treatment due to geographical location should be matters of local councils such as recycling and local public spaces. Genuinely can't understand the justification of the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly.

[gladders]

(Original post by megan.c)
Welsh and Scottish MPs voted to give English students debt for the rest of their lives whilst making sure their own students get off with either a more reasonable amount or nothing at all.

So did English MPs. Scots and Welsh MPs can only ever make such a difference when English MPs are split down the middle.

I'm not familiar with the Barnett formula, but if this really would mean literally everything effects everyone then the problem should be eradicated in the first place by solely having a parliament for the UK.

It would indeed - but then you face angering the Scots, Welsh, and Northern Irish. Again, it leads to the end of the Union. It might happen someday - a time when Scottish nationalism becomes again completely identified with Unionism - but today is not that day.

The only instances where people get different treatment due to geographical location should be matters of local councils such as recycling and local public spaces. Genuinely can't understand the justification of the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly.

It's what the Scottish and Welsh people want. There were and are certain justifications for devolution - there's a balance to be struck between autonomy from London and utter domination by it. I think the present situation hits the sweet spot that preserves the Union that is on the whole beneficial to England and the other nations.

The solution to the English Question is to stop asking it.

[callum9999]

(Original post by gladders)
Um, I don't get what your point is? Kent, as far as I know, is content being part of England.

Well if Kent was given an option between remaining part of England, or separating and being given an additional budget to spend as they wish, I'm sure that would change very quickly... Perhaps somewhere like Cornwall, where there actually is an independence movement (however small it may be) would be a better example then.

(Original post by TRS-T)
But if they all have one, England should have one as well.

Either way, a change has to be made. I would rather expel the other countries from the Union (or in practise, just get England to leave - I'm sure that's much easier) than have each separate country have it's own parliament. There is absolutely no need for it whatsoever and makes a complete mockery of the Union (in my opinion). They may argue that they provide unique things for their populations because their voices aren't heard loud enough at Westminster - but what exactly do they do? Free prescriptions, subsidise university fees etc. - none of those are things England doesn't want as well...

[bishbash72]

(Original post by gladders)
Not any time soon. Frankly, if England constitutes 80% of the UK, you won't get a parliament. England is already sufficiently dominate that a separate Parliament is just redundant. In fact, giving it a parliament will hasten the end of the Union.

So let me get this straight, the nation of the UK that has the MOST people deserves the LEAST representation?

While Scottish MPs can vote for English tuition fees that their constituents will never have to pay, there'll be a need for an English Parliament, or at the very least, some kind of resolution to the Westlothian question with Westminster.