Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

English Independence? watch

  • View Poll Results: Would you vote for an independent England or an English parliament?
    Separate England now
    12.77%
    Separate England after the secession of one other nation
    1.06%
    Separate English Parliament within the UK
    27.66%
    Separate English Regional Assemblies within the UK
    7.45%
    Separate votes for English laws at Westminster
    18.09%
    Status Quo
    10.64%
    Re-establish primacy of Westminster (reverse devolution)
    20.21%
    Other (specify)
    2.13%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    No where near as much as you hear english people complaining about "subsidising" Wales and Scotland.
    Considering that Wales and Scotland use their funding to pursue populist policies that are perceived to be at the expense of the populace in England receiving the same treatment, yes we do complain a lot.

    Rightly or wrongly, Welsh and Scottish administrations clearly have different priorities to Westminster, with free prescriptions and cheap/free university tuition amongst other things. This is a major source of consternation for a lot of English folks.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Considering that Wales and Scotland use their funding to pursue populist policies that are perceived to be at the expense of the populace in England receiving the same treatment, yes we do complain a lot.

    Rightly or wrongly, Welsh and Scottish administrations clearly have different priorities to Westminster, with free prescriptions and cheap/free university tuition amongst other things. This is a major source of consternation for a lot of English folks.
    But the exact same can be said about English local council plans that are technically subsidised by the rest of the country.
    Granted the WAG (and scottish parliament) have powers that extend further than local councils in England, but the principle is exactly the same.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think we need an English parliament. It's the only logical answer to the West Lothian question - especially as we have devolved institutions in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But the exact same can be said about English local council plans that are technically subsidised by the rest of the country.
    Granted the WAG (and scottish parliament) have powers that extend further than local councils in England, but the principle is exactly the same.
    It's not quite the same. I don't think anybody has a problem with the concept of redistributing tax revenue to pay for improvements in poorer areas in greater need, but it's when you have fundamentally different policies between England and the other nations that seem to disadvantage the English even though they're paying for these expensive Scottish and Welsh policies in the first place; that's when people get angry. Tuition fees, for example - English students get completely and utterly shafted in comparison to Scottish and Welsh students, and much of this has been allowed because of Scottish influence in particular - without Scottish Labour MPs voting for the initial implementation and first rise of fees we might've still had free education in this country. England also subsidises the Scottish executive's policy of free education, bizarrely to the disadvantage of English students.

    I think that we English would just like greater control over how our taxes, the vast bulk of the UK's revenue, are spent in England. Whether that entails a separate England or an English Parliament is another question.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    I'm Scottish, but live in England. Do I get to vote in this referendum? Will I still be allowed to live in England or will I be punted back north of the border since I'm not sure if Scotland and Wales would automatically become members of the EU and if they don't, then would I be an illegal immigrant?
    Yes you would, as there would be no legal way to exclude you. There is no legal distinction between an English person and a Scottish person, it's only based on where they currently live.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Devolution should never have happened, and should be scrapped at the first chance.

    For now, just let English MP's vote on English matters.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    It can be semi autonomous, countries in the Empire had that, but we annexed Wales a long time ago!
    And then, after some time, they went independent. Woot, Canada!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    It's not quite the same. I don't think anybody has a problem with the concept of redistributing tax revenue to pay for improvements in poorer areas in greater need, but it's when you have fundamentally different policies between England and the other nations that seem to disadvantage the English even though they're paying for these expensive Scottish and Welsh policies in the first place; that's when people get angry.
    Disagree. Its the same principle. And if you have a problem with "subsidising" Wales, then you also should have a problem in "subsidising" other areas within England.

    You may say its different. But really it isn't. We have schemes like the planned BRT in Bath using millions upon millions of UK government money for a scheme that would only benefit Bath.

    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    Tuition fees, for example - English students get completely and utterly shafted in comparison to Scottish and Welsh students, and much of this has been allowed because of Scottish influence in particular - without Scottish Labour MPs voting for the initial implementation and first rise of fees we might've still had free education in this country.
    Or perhaps you could also say that it is Englands fault for voting Tory that they now have £9k fees.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    England also subsidises the Scottish executive's policy of free education, bizarrely to the disadvantage of English students.
    That's just backward nationalistic clap-trap. Scotland contributes more than its fair share to the UK exchequer, it doesn't need subsidising.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well i'm english but I like to think of England, Scotland and wales as one nation as I believe were stronger for it and that why I voted for 'reverse devolution'. I think if we had one parliament which worked in the interests of the UK this would decrease beauracracy and eradicate the 'west lothian question'.

    I don't see why devolution is necessary, under the old system scots and welsh still had a say in the westminister parliament so it's not as if though they were being ruled by the english in any way.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ultimate mashup)
    Well i'm english but I like to think of England, Scotland and wales as one nation as I believe were stronger for it and that why I voted for 'reverse devolution'. I think if we had one parliament which worked in the interests of the UK this would decrease beauracracy and eradicate the 'west lothian question'.

    I don't see why devolution is necessary, under the old system scots and welsh still had a say in the westminister parliament so it's not as if though they were being ruled by the english in any way.
    Devolution was meant to make the whole independence issue go away. Donald Dewer and co thought it was the best way to keep the UK together.

    The problem is when the Scots and Welsh don't vote tory but end up with tory governments. Then the issue of independence will arise until eventually it will happen.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Do people who voted for an English Parliament really know what that means?

    It'll mean yet another layer of politicians telling us what to do, and yet another hideous building built to put them it.

    No thanks.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Devolution was meant to make the whole independence issue go away. Donald Dewer and co thought it was the best way to keep the UK together.
    I've often wondered how they thought appeasement would benefit their supposed stance. I'd very much like to have a word with Lord George Robertson, who was the man who suggested devolution would kill Scottish nationalism 'stone dead'.

    What they have instead done is give the Nationalists a platform for their views, and indeed legitimised them as an alternative social democratic political party - if not as an independence movement - in the minds of many after they were handed over the reigns of the Executive.

    I've got the same sort of contempt for them as I have for Unionists who are naive enough to think that an independence referendum would kill off Scottish nationalism. Of course it won't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    it was the scottish who created the union with england. dont believe the old myth about 'bought and sold for english gold', scotland was a financial backwater in the 1690s and it's economy was in ruins. They went cap in hand to the english parliament, the same way the irish did to the EU. England didn't create the union with scotland, most historians agree that the decisions of the english parliament of this time were reluctant, had no direction, and were mostly done on the fly. so its more surprising that england agreed to the union, then scotland did. after scotland merged with england's economy, it went on to become one of the wealthiest regions of europe
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    If only to rectify the situation where Welsh MPS can vote in the Welsh Assembly and Westminster, where Scottish MPs can vote in the Scottish Parliament and Westminster, but English MPs can only vote in Westminster.

    If we don't get say on their matters, they shoudn't get say on ours.


    But having said that, it does all sound rather petty. We all know both Wales and Scotland would die on their arses without England.
    Wales-yes

    Scotland-no
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carlsberg)
    it was the scottish who created the union with england. dont believe the old myth about 'bought and sold for english gold', scotland was a financial backwater in the 1690s and it's economy was in ruins. They went cap in hand to the english parliament, the same way the irish did to the EU. England didn't create the union with scotland, most historians agree that the decisions of the english parliament of this time were reluctant, had no direction, and were mostly done on the fly. so its more surprising that england agreed to the union, then scotland did. after scotland merged with england's economy, it went on to become one of the wealthiest regions of europe
    Did you just make that up?

    I'm serious.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Occlusal)
    Did you just make that up?

    I'm serious.
    The English parliament wasn't as bothered about the Union as the Scottish parliament. The scottish people were against but the parliament signed the bill.

    It was the Scottish King James who inherited the English throne and wanted a United Kingdom, not the other way round.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The English parliament wasn't as bothered about the Union as the Scottish parliament. The scottish people were against but the parliament signed the bill.

    It was the Scottish King James who inherited the English throne and wanted a United Kingdom, not the other way round.
    Thats not what they teach you in Scotland haha :P . Our teachers try to tell us the English wanted the Union as they wanted more control over the Scots.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    The English parliament wasn't as bothered about the Union as the Scottish parliament. The scottish people were against but the parliament signed the bill.

    It was the Scottish King James who inherited the English throne and wanted a United Kingdom, not the other way round.
    Wasn't there something about the English imposing trade restrictions on Scottish goods too? So if the Scottish parliament didn't agree to it they'd have faced even worse economic problems. And wasn't there some disagreement about royal succession laws?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carlsberg)
    it was the scottish who created the union with england. dont believe the old myth about 'bought and sold for english gold', scotland was a financial backwater in the 1690s and it's economy was in ruins. They went cap in hand to the english parliament, the same way the irish did to the EU. England didn't create the union with scotland, most historians agree that the decisions of the english parliament of this time were reluctant, had no direction, and were mostly done on the fly. so its more surprising that england agreed to the union, then scotland did. after scotland merged with england's economy, it went on to become one of the wealthiest regions of europe

    (Original post by Occlusal)
    Did you just make that up?

    I'm serious.

    (Original post by Renner)
    The English parliament wasn't as bothered about the Union as the Scottish parliament. The scottish people were against but the parliament signed the bill.

    It was the Scottish King James who inherited the English throne and wanted a United Kingdom, not the other way round.

    (Original post by Occlusal)
    Thats not what they teach you in Scotland haha :P . Our teachers try to tell us the English wanted the Union as they wanted more control over the Scots.
    The Scots and English shared a king under James VI but the acts of union weren't signed until over 100 years later.

    The English had made 3 previous attempts in the 1600's to "merge" with Scotland. First under James VI, when the English or Scottish people didn't want it. Then when they were members of the commonwealth under Cromwell there was an act of union, but when Charles II came to the thrown, the Scots were punted out of the Commonwealth and Union negotiations were suspended. Since then most of the running was done by the Scots but towards the end of the 17th century Scotland's economy was getting worse and worse and the English were refusing to enter negotiations.

    Then Scotland's nobles decided that the best way to solve their financial problems was to start their own empire. The Darien episode was a complete disaster and Scotland was bankrupt. They went cap in hand to the English and looked for a bailout. The English's main priority was to prevent the Scots from choosing a different monarch and so stopping them from having a potential enemy on their doorstep. The Scots nobles were given "compensation" for the Darien scheme and the Scottish exchequer bailed out. The Scottish people were vehemently against the union.

    What followed was the most prosperous time in the history of Scotland. It became one of the most powerful regions within the British Empire and the world. Then it all went wrong.

    This is why the state should have no control over education. It leads to indoctrination of whatever slant the powers that be want you to think. Very dangerous.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.