Lord Falconer, worried
A very good article from John Lloyd in the FT:
Polls show that, even if the Celts would not vote for separation, the English would. Falconer told me that at a recent Hansard Society debate with Malcolm Rifkind, “half the audience were supporters of an English parliament, angry”.
Alfie's first hand account of that meeting demonstrates the intellectual rigor of Falconer's argument:
"Look, if England got its own Parliament, and the Union broke up.... what would happen to all the Scottish people living in England - and all the English people living in Scotland?"....
The heckling stopped - stunned. What was this overblown, overpaid, overpensioned and overweight buffoon going on about? Was he saying that all these people would be expelled back to their native countries because England got a little national democracy? Yes he was.... A collective moan of "For God's sake" rose from the audience..... Just then, the man who had travelled from Carlisle shouted out "What the hell are you talking about - what about the 400,000 French people living in London?"
Falconer gurned like a fish miming to the Sound of Silence..... Nothing came out.
In a speech to the ESRC Devolution and Constitutional Change Programme, March 2006, Lord Falconer informed us that, "One of the purposes of devolution was to ensure fairness to the nations of the UK." Apparently "fairness" dictates that England alone should forgo national representation.
Trackback URL for this post:
- Login to post comments
"Look, if England got its own
"Look, if England got its own Parliament, and the Union broke up..."
That line is a clue to one of the most important reasons while England will not get a parliament.
An English Parliament does several things:
1. It means the creation of an English Parliament for English Laws and a UK Parliament for UK laws. This is a federal form of Government and it would mean the complete reorganisation of the current central functions of Government, something which was avoided with the provincial solution of Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments which remained subsidary to the combined English/British Parliament. Any examination of the political structure of the UK is fraught with danger as England and Britain are unentangled.
2. The creation of an English Parliament means that the idea of Britain as a nation not a political union takes a body blow. The end of the Union may be coming anyway but an English Parliament will hasten it as it becomes apparent that British is not a national identity but a political union.
3. Most of those like Lord Falconer simply can't get their heads round the idea that England and Britain are not the same thing. For them the West Lothian Question is a question of parliamentary procedure and rules not the imposition of one nation's MP's on another.
Cameron, Clegg, Rifkind, Falconer, Ming Cambpell and their ilk, Scots, English, Welsh or Northern Irish are all Unionists and if some English are upset or angry that they don't have their own Party then that is worth it to save the beloved Union.
The only way you'll get an English Parliament is by supporting the SNP. Why don't you donate some money now. It might appear to be a joke but I'm serious.
Lord Falconer's comments sum
Lord Falconer's comments sum up the paucity of the Unionist argument.
"What would happen to all the Scottish people living in England - and all the English people living in Scotland?” argument is laughable and outrageous.
Seems to me that Unionists are now believing their own propaganda.
That people actually think for themselves without slavishly believing their nonsense must have come as a shock to the panel.
Dougthedug, Brown has already said he will do whatever it takes to save the Union.
As you say an English Parliament will probably lead to the breakup of the Union.
David Cameron is not in favour either.
Without Labour or Conservative support or representation in the Commons, an English Parliament remains a distant prospect.
Supporting the SNP might be the quicker option to getting the job done.
Supporting the SNP might be
Supporting the SNP might be the answer -but I would like to see some a specific timeline for an Independence Referendum. At the moment it appears that such a choice depends on the political winds.
Typo in the second last
Typo in the second last paragraph of my first post
"...if some English are upset or angry that they don’t have their own Party..."
should read
"...if some English are upset or angry that they don’t have their own Parliament..."
Michele:
Timeline for an Independence Referendum is 2010 as stated in the 2007 SNP Manifesto.
However as the SNP are a minority Government in Holyrood they'll have to get one of the unionist parties to agree to support the bill for a referendum as well.
The previous Labour group leader of the MSP's in the Scottish Parliament Wendy Alexander was shouting, "Bring it on!", for an independence referendum but she got the boot and Labour in Westminster has re-asserted control over the British Labour Party in Scotland with the appointment of Jim Murphy MP as a very proactive Secretary of State for Scotland. He's kicked the current group leader of the Labour MSP's in Holyrood Iain Gray into touch and as far as the media and the British Labour Party goes Iain Gray is now invisible. It just became too dangerous to let the Scottish Group Leaders of the Labour MSP's in Holyrood to carry on believing that they actually had some control of the Labour Party North of the Border. Especially with loose cannons like Wendy who were a dream come true for the SNP.
In the end it will come down to a judgement by the Lib-Lab-Con alliance on whether refusal of a referendum is more dangerous to the Union than holding one.
Sometimes things move in this
Sometimes things move in this flawed democracy of ours by popular campaigns, certainly when espoused by the popular media. If politicians realise they will be extremely unpopular (and may therefore lose their seats) if they oppose an English parliament, they might start to change their tune. At the moment, they think they can get away with the claim that they don't need to address the issue because there isn't enough popular support for it. It's up to the people to demonstrate that there is, as in the meeting you report on (on a small scale). Reform won't come from within the UK parliament unless they feel they have to do it; and it's only popular pressure that will make them budge.
"Polls show that, even if the
"Polls show that, even if the Celts would not vote for separation, the English would. Falconer told me that at a recent Hansard Society debate with Malcolm Rifkind, “half the audience were supporters of an English parliament, angry”.
The Celts? Ancient white tribe? Where do they come into it?
Good that Lord Falconer's thick skin seems to have absorbed some of the feeling from those desiring democracy for England at the Hansard Society debate though.