More rights for Scotland following there no vote, so can the English now have there own parliament..

Another level of administration for us to pay for, but hey the rest of the uk has it so we need someone to fight our corner.

You will end up with more politicians funded by taxpayers.

What some Tory MP's are saying is that don't want non English MP's voting on issues that only affect England. But this would mean a massive problem for any party in government including MP's representing England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. They may hold a majority including the non English MP's, but take away the non English MP's and they can be outvoted by the other parties. It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win many seats in Scotland and Wales.

If you end up with a separate English parliament, you will also have a federal parliament for all UK nations based at Westminster. I suspect that this will mean more politicians and not MP's that will sit in an English parliament, as well as a federal parliament.

It would easier to change the electoral system to proportional representation, so that all votes counted. The Tories would have MP's representing Scotland, based on the 20% of votes they get overall, whereas they don't currently win any seats. UKIP would win seats based on their level of vote. Parliament would genuinely represent the way that the UK had voted.

Now if only the media and tories had not sabotaged the last referendum

After careful consideration, I have decided only to be governed by the party that will save the tax payer money. Any request to serve me will be considered along with other applications. Lol..

I dont want an English parliament. The current set up is flawed but I do not want a devisive set of cliques scattered about the land each costing us money and claiming they are right.

Boundary changes to constituencies are well overdue but thanks to Cleggy wont happen. That shouldnt be a matter for parliament as it is an administrative matter.

More rights for Scotland following there no vote, so can the English now have there own parliament..

It's an interesting question, and ultimately one that is for the English to decide. The problem is that the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments exist because of decades of pressure and campaigning on the part of the Scots and Welsh. I just don't see that sort of pressure in England.

It's an interesting question, and ultimately one that is for the English to decide. The problem is that the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments exist because of decades of pressure and campaigning on the part of the Scots and Welsh. I just don't see that sort of pressure in England.

That might change now, Antone... friends of mine who have never had any interest in politics and I believe one of them has never voted are now taking an interest.

That might change now, Antone... friends of mine who have never had any interest in politics and I believe one of them has never voted are now taking an interest.

That has been a welcome effect of the whole referendum campaign, and not only in Scotland, it would seem.

To be clear, I am not speaking against the idea of an English parliament, or regional devolution. It's a matter for the English and I wish them the best whatever they decide.

I have been contacted by my MP on this and provided my opinion.

There should be no rush to make massive changes. If politicians have promised Scotland more powers under devomax, then that should be honoured. But don't go changing Westminster to have 2 types of MP. Ones that can take part in everything in Westminster and those that look at English issues. The current rules set out in Erskine May don't allow it.

England is the major power and more English MP's will become ministers. If the public in England want their own parliament, then set up a new parliament. Westminster can be the federal parliament.

The idea of regional parliaments is ridiculous. We already have local government but they can only do what finance allows and that has been cut and cut by central government. In the shire counties we have district and county councils funded by council tax and central government. We don't need, for example a midlands government. We need proper funding for our local services.

Antone, I don't think the English felt a need for their own government until devolution happened and we seem to have less benefits than Scotland or Wales. I won't comment on NI as this came about due to such different reasons.

Did they not attempt to impose Regional parliaments during the Blair term.. I think Prescott was the one pushing for them.. and the voters rejected this idea ?

Can't we have a system similar to the Canadian model which is believe is a type of federal government?

Can't we have a system similar to the Canadian model which is believe is a type of federal government?

I can see the Kippers loving that one, considering they bang on about an imagined Federal Europe and no thanks for the UK

Did they not attempt to impose Regional parliaments during the Blair term.. I think Prescott was the one pushing for them.. and the voters rejected this idea ?

I think "impose" is a strong word but yes, the idea was mooted by Prescott and others, and voters in the north east of England were asked to vote on the matter in 2004. They did indeed reject the idea, although I'm not totally convinced that they would do so if they were asked again. Friends of mine in the NE seemed to be both sympathetic to the idea of Scottish independence and worried by it, feeling, I think, that they are also poorly represented by Westminster.

I dunno. As I've said, I have no objection to the idea of regional devolution for England or indeed, an English Parliament. But it needs to be clear what specific problem is being solved. If the only issue is the West Lothian Question, for example, it strikes me that there are easier ways to solve it.

 

Antone, I don't think the English felt a need for their own government until devolution happened and we seem to have less benefits than Scotland or Wales. I won't comment on NI as this came about due to such different reasons.

Sure, yes, and of course these issues should be revisited when the need arises. One thing that strikes me about the idea of an English Parliament is that it would, for the most part, be indistinguishable from Westminster in terms of its political makeup. Perhaps a little more Tory-leaning, but not hugely so I don't think. The Scottish Parliament made a major change in the way Scotland is governed, and I'm not convinced an English Parliament would have the same effect.

An English only parliament would require huge constitutional change to the extent that Wales would become an independent nation away from the UK by default.

The constitution between England and Wales is very different to the union between England (and Wales) and Scotland and about 200 years older. It is one of the reasons Scotland has a parliament and the Welsh an assembly.

To deny Wales a say on English matters goes right to the core of the England/Wales unique relationship and would tear up the Laws in Wales Act from the 16th century and thus the UK.

Also, people seem to forget that a lot of our law has been handed to Europe and MEP'S vote on matters for the UK, not for four seperate nations.

An English only parliament would be impossible without huge constitutional change to the extent that the Scot's "Yes" campaign would eventually win as the UK would break up to accomodate an English parliament and there would be no UK nation with EU membership.

It's an interesting question, and ultimately one that is for the English to decide. The problem is that the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments exist because of decades of pressure and campaigning on the part of the Scots and Welsh. I just don't see that sort of pressure in England.

Unfortunately for England, it is not only for the English to decide, it is for the English and Welsh to decide English matters.

Blame England for this anomaly, not Wales, it was the English who annexed Wales and enacted this "union," although union is not quite the accurate word to use.

Also, there was no real call for a Welsh parliament until mooted by New Labour. And it is an assembly, not a parliament as there cannot be a Welsh parliament, just like there cannot be an English parliament, due to the English/Welsh union.

An English only parliament would require huge constitutional change to the extent that Wales would become an independent nation away from the UK by default.

 

The constitution between England and Wales is very different to the union between England (and Wales) and Scotland and about 200 years older. It is one of the reasons Scotland has a parliament and the Welsh an assembly.

 

To deny Wales a say on English matters goes right to the core of the England/Wales unique relationship and would tear up the Laws in Wales Act from the 16th century and thus the UK.

 

Also, people seem to forget that a lot of our law has been handed to Europe and MEP'S vote on matters for the UK, not for four seperate nations.

 

An English only parliament would be impossible without huge constitutional change to the extent that the Scot's "Yes" campaign would eventually win as the UK would break up to accomodate an English parliament and there would be no UK nation with EU membership.

Very interesting post. I don't think Cameron can be serious about EV4EL meaning changing Westminster rules to stop some MP's from voting on some legislation/divisions. It is too complicated and I cannot see the parliamentary authorities allowing it. What do you do about the House of Lords ?

Think the outcome will be that the Tories will have to agree to Labours plans to have some form of constitutional convention to look at all the issues.

Cameron's bluffing because an English parliament is a complete non-starter, just like a Welsh parliament.

To accomodate either means an end to the UK as a union.

Sure, the English regions could have assemblies, akin to the Welsh model. Eg, the county of Dorset would have no say on matters for Humberside, and vice versa, but the union survives with a UK govt.

Labour has it spot on, there has to be a thorough look into this issue as it is extremely complicated to change things and retain the UK.

Cameron would know this and is just appealing to english votes for 2015 as he believes it is what they want to hear.

What Cameron is essentially advocating is a non-violent, (at the moment at least), version of Russia's argument with regard to Crimea/Ukraine.

An English historical claim to govern 3 other nations whilst ignoring constitutional Acts of Law, essentially what Russia have done.

More rights for Scotland following there no vote, so can the English now have there own parliament..

it seems only just and fair that the west Lothian question is sorted and soon, certainly at the same time as any more powers are given to Scotland, I think the referendum in Scotland has exposed these unfair practices.

it seems only just and fair that the west Lothian question is sorted and soon, certainly at the same time as any more powers are given to Scotland, I think the referendum in Scotland has exposed these unfair practices.

Certainly the anomalies of law and regulation that exist must be addressed e.g. the Limitations Act, either Scotland adopts the LA 1980 or England gets the same deal as Scotland 5 years and debt is extinguished.

Same goes for the NHS free prescriptions for all of charges levied for all.

If the Government consider the union "one nation" equality must surely be paramount.

No problem with Scotland having it own laws and even spending their tax money on the NHS if they want. My problem is they havent raised any taxes, just spent more of ours. No doubt Salmond didnt use those powers he has had for years as there is no bigger turn-off for a policy than having to pay for it and the No vote would have been much bigger.

Certainly the anomalies of law and regulation that exist must be addressed e.g. the Limitations Act, either Scotland adopts the LA 1980 or England gets the same deal as Scotland 5 years and debt is extinguished.

 

 

Same goes for the NHS free prescriptions for all of charges levied for all.

 

 

If the Government consider the union "one nation" equality must surely be paramount.

But Scotland has it's own law, as does England, and both did before the union.

Neither countries were required to give up or adopt the other's law when forming the union. Why must that now be the case?

And it is irrelevant what this Govt consider is the nature of the union or what they may want.

It takes more than just the Govt of the day to change a constitutional union.