Letter to the Department of Constitutional Affairs / Ministry of Propaganda

Dear Mr Copeland,

I am writing to complain about the conduct of your department. The pro forma response that you send out to any complaint about the lack of an English parliament is misleading. It goes like this:

"The Government does not believe that there is any groundswell of opinion in favour of an English Parliament. The British Social Attitudes Surveys between 1999-2003 showed that support for an English Parliament averaged 16%."

This is misinformation. The first part of your statement - that the Government does not believe there is any groundswell of opinion in favour of an English parliament - is obviously incorrect, why else would Lord Falconer and others feel the need to attack the idea of an English parliament if there is no support for it?

The second part of your statement is so misleading as to be embarrassing. The 1997 Scottish referendum asked people to choose between two options; they were:

1. I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament; or
2. I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament

By contrast the British Social Attitudes Surveys (1999-2003) that you cite asked a leading question. Respondents were asked to choose between rule from Westminster, regional devolution or an English parliament.

I shouldn't have to explain to you why this is a leading question, and why it is not comparable with the Scottish referendum question but I will.

Firstly, people are asked to choose between three options, a sovereign Westminster, regionalism and an English parliament, as if all three were mutually incompatible - they are not.

Secondly, people are asked to choose between Westminster and an English parliament when Westminster has traditionally been the English parliament, and the seat of English Government since the early middle ages. The inference being that an English parliament would not be at Westminster.

Thirdly, an English parliament based on the Scottish model would be subordinate to Westminster so it would involve devolving power rather than transferring ‘rule from Westminster’. As the surveys were conducted during a very Eurosceptic period in British politics it is hardly surprising that the English public expressed a desire for a sovereign Westminster.

Times have changed since The British Social Studies Surveys (1999-2003) were conducted. First we had the Foundation Hospitals vote (2003) in which foundation hospitals were imposed upon England by the votes of non-English constituency MPs contrary to the collective wishes of English constituency MPs. This was followed by the vote on Student top-up fees (2004) in which the Scottish MPs again imposed a measure on England that had been explicitly rejected by the Scottish Parliament for their own constituents.

Following on from these democratic absurdities (‘constitutional anomalies’) YouGov (February 2004) conducted a poll that showed 24% of people supported an English parliament. 24% is two percent more than The British Social Studies Surveys (1999-2003) found to be in favour of regional assemblies (22%), and also two percent more than the percentage that voted in favour of the north east elected regional assembly (22%) - for which we were told there was 'grassroots support'.

The exact breakdown of results from YouGov was as follows:

1. England should have its own English Parliament 24%
2. England should be made up of nine Regional Assemblies 11%
3. Don't know 7%
4. Continue with status quo 12
5. Banning Scottish & Welsh MPs from voting on English issues 47%

This indicates that 71% of the population are in favour of either an English parliament or English Votes on English Matters. However, because the Government, the Lib Dems and the Constitution Unit have since described EVoEM as 'unworkable' it is reasonable to suppose that many of those previously in favour of EVoEM would now by in favour of an English parliament. As a conservative estimate let’s put the figure in support of an English parliament at 40%.

A later YouGov poll carried out for The Times (April 2005) showed that 70% (72% if you remove Scottish respondents from the equation) of those questioned believed that it was unfair for Scottish MPs to vote on English matters - a figure extremely close to the 71% that wanted either an English parliament or English Votes on English Matters.

In response to your boss’ unfounded rejection of an English parliament the BBC website is presently running a poll on whether there should be an English parliament. At the time of writing 3005 people have voted and 74.18% are in favour of an English parliament with just 25.82% against the idea.

All three major UK parties remain opposed to an English parliament and yet, despite the overwhelming lack of marketing or political support, the idea continues to gain support. Public support for an English parliament is now at a level that eclipses any support that was ever shown for regional assemblies, so to say that there is no groundswell of opinion in favour of an English parliament is a downright lie. Support for an English parliament is bound to grow as the Labour majority decreases and the West Lothian Question becomes raised with increasing regularity, and it will become a clamour when Gordon Brown, an MP democratically unaccountable to any electorate, anywhere in the UK, on issues devolved to Scotland, becomes Prime Minister. Alternatively, if the Conservatives get in and institute some form of English Votes on English Matters (why would they even consider this if there is no support for an English parliament?) then the UK will rapidly disintegrate into constitutional chaos – at that point in time an English parliament becomes a necessity not an option.

Whilst I do not expect you to support calls for an English parliament - you are, after all, in the employ of the Scottish Raj - I do expect you to impart up-to-date and relevant information to the public. Lord Falconer is a member of the Government, albeit one of Tony's unelected cronies, and he clearly understands there to be a groundswell of opinion in favour of an English Parliament. And as for The British Social Attitudes Surveys (1999-2003) you can stop citing that now because it was misleading to begin with and, in light of subsequent events, it is hopelessly out of date.

Bury your head in the sand all you want, prostrate yourself at the feet of Lord Falconer to your heart’s content, but please, please, cut out the lies. You are supposed to be the Department of Constitutional Affairs, not the Ministry of Propaganda. All you are doing is creating resentment and frustration; resentment against the Scots and Welsh that will ultimately damage the Union, and frustration that you so blithely cast aside concern at the lack of English political representation that people outside of government's ivory towers perceive to be a serious and widespread political concern.

Yours,

Since I mailed that letter I have been reliably informed that Mr Copeland is being even more economical with the truth than I previously thought. The figure of 16% that he quoted is infact the percentage of Brits that supported an English parliament - amongst the English support stood at 23%.