Hit the Road Jock
Fergus Shanahan in Friday's Sun:
Click to enlarge.
Click to enlarge.
posted by Gareth at 1:15 pm
1 comments
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
English Parliament Petition
To add the English Parliament Petition logo to your blog or website, copy and paste the code below.
posted by Gareth at 3:29 am
1 comments
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Canon Kenyon Wright's speech
On Tuesday afternoon Canon Kenyon Wright CBE addressed the English Constitutional Convention in the Stranger's Dining Room at the Houses of Parliament. Pictured here with Mike Knowles (Chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament) who was chairing the meeting.
Kenyon Wright was one of the architects of Scottish devolution. He served as Executive Chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention (1989-1999), and was a member of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament. He also chairs People & Parliament, which carried out an extensive nationwide survey of the expectations of the people for Scotland and for the new Parliament.
In 1999, Canon Wright was awarded a CBE “for services to Scottish Devolution and Constitutional Reform”, and in 2000 was given an Honorary D.Litt. from Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, on similar grounds.
Canon Wright and his colleagues on the SCC expected Scottish devolution to be followed by a round of English regional devolution. He was a supporter of devolution to English regions and recently he was working with the new Constitutional Conventions in the English Regions. However, following the rejection of regional assemblies by the people of England he now sees English regional assemblies as "a complete non-starter", and in light of England's "growing sense of national identity" Canon Wright has now come out in favour of a "strong English Parliament, alongside Scotland's and a strengthened Welsh legislature".
Also speaking at the ECC were Mark Gill (Ipsos MORI) who explained to the Convention the methodology and relevance of the recent MORI poll that indicates that 41% of voters support an English parliament.
Looking around the room I could see a number of influential faces that I recognised. I'm pleased to report that Sir George Young MP (the intellect behind English Votes on English Matters) was there, had he taken heed of my recent letter to him? So was Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy, who I recently interviewed on the CEP Blog. Simon Hughes MP turned up for ten minutes, polished off a load of sandwiches and volauvents, and then let himself out without so much as a by-or-leave. A couple of other MPs that I didn't recognise also made their presence known during the Questions and Answers phase of proceedings and I am reliably informed that there were a number of others, from all parties, including several Lords.
Canon Kenyon Wright's speech was extremely well delivered and very well received because it was full of useful tips for the ECC that can be drawn from the experience of the SCC. Following is my transcript of Canon Kenyon Wight's speech to the ECC.
------ Canon Kenyon Wright, 24th October 2006 ------
Can I just say right at the start that I very much agree with the remark that has just been made, that the way forward is to convince people that constitutional matters are not dry and dusty, but affect their lives. That’s what happened in Scotland; it worked in Scotland for two fundamental reasons.
First, because we rediscovered something about our own heritage - our own constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people.
But second, because of things like the poll tax. In other words the Scottish people saw that measure after measure after measure was being imposed upon them against the manifest will of at least 80% of Scottish MPs and Scottish opinion. And I think it was that….In other words….people came to realise that justice to them depended not on who governed us, anymore, but on how we were governed. So that the link was made very, very clearly.
As I was coming down today – a beautiful day, I came down on the train – through England’s green and pleasant land, I was reflecting on how different England and Scotland are in many ways; I live in the midst of the mountains, in the Trossachs. But also [reflecting on] how much we need each other and how much we should be together, but on the basis of equality, on the basis of an equal way forward. And that, it seems to me, is the way.
Scottish identity is a very real thing, and has been for years. In the 15th Century a Spanish ambassador to the Court of one of the King James’ of Scotland wrote to the Spanish Monarch and said, and I quote, ‘nothing pleases the Scots so much as abusing the English’.
[laughter]
15th Century. I’m afraid there has been that element in Scottish history! But I hope that now we have our own parliament and identity that those days are firmly behind us.
The last thing you obviously need is another Scot telling you what to do. I expect you feel you have plenty of them already. Some have been mentioned. England and Scotland are obviously different; ‘Vive la Difference’ do I hear you say? However, in the Scottish Constitutional Convention we explicitly recognise that our success must be the forerunner of further constitutional change.
We produced two reports
One in ‘91 called Towards Scotland’s Parliament which was a preliminary report because we expected the ‘92 General Election to make change, but of course it did not from our point of view. And we therefore worked harder and harder to produce a much more substantial document ‘Scotland’s Parliament Scotland’s Right’ which was the basis on which the legislation was formed, and it was very faithfully formed.
I was given an account on every part of the new legislation, and on comparing with the recommendations of the Scottish Constitutional Convention it was very close to that.
The Scottish Convention admittedly expected us to be followed by constitutional change in the form of regional elected governments in England, as has already been said. Leading to a kind of, what David Steel called, differentiated federalism, with varying powers for various areas. But two things have clearly changed my personal view. The first is of course the north east referendum and the very massive rejection, and the fact that regional government is for any foreseeable future a complete non-starter. So that door is closed, whatever we think of its wisdom or otherwise.
But second, and this is perhaps more important I have actually become convinced, is that England has a growing sense of national identity every bit as strong as ours. And that an English parliament if the people want it, and that’s very important - ‘if the people want it’ we have always said that – is as much your right as we claimed it to be ours.
We started with something called the Claim of Right for Scotland.
The first meeting of the Scottish Constitutional Convention did not begin with a political goal; we had a constitutional goal, of course,
It began with a fundamental statement of principle, the so-called Claim of Right for Scotland. And the Claim of Right for Scotland said: "We do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs". So it was a principle recognition of the sovereign right of the people.
So when all those MPs, Labour and Liberal Democrat; and all those representatives of local government; and of the churches; and of the academic community; and of the Trade Union movement; when they all lined up to sign that claim of right at the first meeting of the Convention, I tell you this - most of the MPs didn’t know what they were signing!
[laughter]
…Because they were signing something which was a direct contradiction of the claim of Westminster to absolute sovereignty, within our unwritten constitutional system. Because if the people are sovereign then Parliament still has an important role but it’s not an absolutist role.
But that is by-the-way, and I won’t go too much into that.
But I do say, therefore, that it’s quite irrational for those who signed that Claim in Scotland, from different political parties, now to deny that same sovereign right to the people of England. It’s irrational.
[Hear, hear]
And therefore, could the Claim of Right for Scotland be followed by a Claim of Right for England? That’s up to you, but I don’t see why not.
Indeed, I hope that our rediscovery of our own national identity has actually contributed to the growing sense of English nationhood. Not ‘nationalism’, I don’t like to use that word, but national identity. We started with a fundamental principle that is not Scottish, but universal: The sovereignty of the people.
Now there’s a long road ahead of you, and we had a long road. We started in ’89, we published our final statement in ’95 we achieved our parliament in ‘99, through our referendum in’ 97. You know all the history, but it was a long hard road. Yours will be different from ours, I know that. I can’t give you much advise on that except to suggest that some of the milestones on our journey might be relevant. But on how they are relevant is for you to say, not for me.
We progressed in four basis stages from that first principle that I spoke of. First we brought together the broadest cross-section of Scottish society in living memory. Believing that "politics is too important to be left to politicians". The Convention included politicians, of course, but it went far beyond that as I have already said.
We were genuinely saddened by the refusal of the Conservative Party and, incidentally, the Scottish National Party for different reasons, opposite reasons, to take part in the Constitutional Convention. Indeed, to the very end we kept vacant seats for them as a mark of the fact that the doors were open to the end. Mind you, if I’m honest, part of me wanted them there and part of me was very glad that they weren’t because it was damned difficult to get the consensus in the first place. If the SNP had been there it probably would have been nigh impossible. We were genuinely saddened by that however because we hoped for an immaculate work by all; whatever their views on devolution; for them to actually have been a part of the shaping of the consensus for the future which we were working on rather than standing aloof.
And to us it’s very welcome that David Cameron now sees that as a mistake – that holding aloof from the work of the Convention. Especially of course, as I never tire of reminding them, how the electoral system allows the Scottish Conservatives to have a significant representation in the Scottish Parliament that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. In the first Scottish Parliament they wouldn’t have had a single member - they had eighteen out of 129, a very substantial and real representation. Indeed, George Robertson is on record as saying that he thought it was the only example in history of a party creating an electoral system that would deprive it of a majority. Because the electoral system had the effect *and* was designed to have the effect that first, no party could gain a majority without the majority of the votes and second, that the representation of parties should be at least roughly, broadly, according to the number of votes that they received.
There are criticisms of it and many people want to change it, but I don’t want to go into that now. The fact is that among 129 people in the Scottish Parliament we have 7 Socialists, 6 Greens, 1 Senior Citizens Unity Party, and 3 Independents: 17 people out of 129 representing smaller groups and parties, and fairly representing them according to the votes that they received along the way.
So the first thing we did was that we brought together a cross-section.
Secondly, we planned in detail and via a consensus method unique in Britain’s adversarial politics. We had a rule that nothing could ever be passed without at least the consent of every major group in the Convention; we never took a vote one any major issue, there had to be consent. I could tell you stories if you wanted me to about how difficult that was, and the times that we almost despaired of achieving on the numbers in the Parliament, I won’t go into that, but that’s a good example…or on the financial arrangements, and so on.
So we wanted a fairer electoral system, more open, more participative ways of working, and real and substantial powers but firmly within the United Kingdom. Incidentally it was important to us that the powers of the Scottish Parliament were defined by exclusion, not by inclusion. In other words everything except that which was specifically reserved to Westminster – defence, foreign policy, macro-economic policy, social security policy, and so on – everything except those areas specifically reserved were devolved. Instead of trying to define every single small thing as they had tried to do in the ’79 attempt, which as you of course know failed.
The third thing I would say was that we campaigned to ensure that the Scottish Parliament was, in the words of the late John Smith, the ‘settled will of the Scottish people’. And I was delighted the other day to hear David Cameron use exactly those words. I don’t know if he knew that he was quoting John Smith, but he actually said it and it must be clear to the Conservatives now that the Scottish Parliament is the settled will of the Scottish people.
Fourthly we saw our parliament as a means, not an end, we called it ‘the central institutional of a new political and community culture in which power is really shared with the people’.
Finally, the Scottish Parliament accepted four principles. The four principles were, in a nutshell, I won’t quote them in full:
Power sharing - executive, parliament and people.
Accountability - executive and parliament to the people, not just at elections. Real accountability
.
Participative approach to the development of policy.
And fourthly equal opportunities.
It has these as its fixed starting point. It hasn’t always lived up to them let me say. If you ask me if the Scottish Parliament is exactly what it should be then the answer is ‘no I don’t think it is’. I think it’s gone the wrong way.
Our very success created, of course, the anomaly that you have to struggle with. The so-called West Lothian Question. In a nutshell that’s the undemocratic nonsense that MPs from Scotland can vote and decide on Education or the NHS in Gloucester but not in Glasgow, in Edgebaston but not in Edinburgh. This raises the real possibility that MPs from Scotland could actually hold the balance of power to impose policies in England against the will of most English MPs. Mind you, in parenthesis, let me say we in Scotland had to live with the opposite reality that policies like the poll tax and many others, hated and rejected in Scotland, could be forced on us by English MPs. However, we Scots must be gracious enough to recognise that two wrongs do not make a right, and that one democratic deficit does not justify another democratic deficit.
But that dangerous anomaly of the West Lothian Question will not be ended simply by banning Scottish MPs from voting in the Commons on English matters. That creates more problems than it solves for it would create an English parliament without an English government and executive. And could easily lead to a situation where one party had the majority in the Commons as the UK Parliament while another party had the majority when it sat in effect as an English parliament. English policy and law could be in direct contradiction to UK policy. That is tolerable in Scotland because we have a legislature with its own executive and civil service to implement policy in all devolved areas. It’s worth noting too that the devolution settlement gives us power – I’ve already said that - in all areas not specifically reserved.
The obvious solution is a strong English parliament, alongside Scotland and a strengthened Welsh legislature; all part of a reformed and renewed and healthier union - United Kingdom. And with Northern Ireland too, although I admit that there is in Northern Ireland such a….the situation is so different because of the understanding of constitutional matters, and because constitutional matters are the primary issue that divides the politics. But I don’t want to go into that.
But your task is even greater than ours, for England is so much larger and diverse. But you must succeed, not just for England, but for us too. For we have a common interest in power shared and limited, and in reversing the widespread and corrosive cynicism of our formal politics and politicians.
That will not weaken or destroy the Union. It will certainly change it. Right? It will certainly question some of its constitutional presumptions but it will not destroy the Union, it may well save it. An English parliament would join hands with Scotland’s parliament as a promise, not a threat, unless it be the threat of a good example.
The initiative here has to come from the people, not just the formal political parties. I commend to you the recent report of the Power Inquiry chaired by Lady Helena Kennedy which showed with massive evidence, the disengagement from, and even contempt for – their words – formal politics, though not lack of interest in political issues.
They showed that and they made proposals for change that I am actually perusing in Scotland with the Executive and the Civil Society. And they conclude "An alliance for change needs to be built amongst the most clear-sighted politicians, but only a sustained campaign for change from *outside*' - the emphasis is theirs - 'the democratic assemblies and parliaments of the UK will ensure that meaningful reform occurs. We the people have to stake our claim on power’.
That is what we did in Scotland. I believe that it is what you must do.
[Applause]
Kenyon Wright was one of the architects of Scottish devolution. He served as Executive Chair of the Scottish Constitutional Convention (1989-1999), and was a member of the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament. He also chairs People & Parliament, which carried out an extensive nationwide survey of the expectations of the people for Scotland and for the new Parliament.
In 1999, Canon Wright was awarded a CBE “for services to Scottish Devolution and Constitutional Reform”, and in 2000 was given an Honorary D.Litt. from Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, on similar grounds.
Canon Wright and his colleagues on the SCC expected Scottish devolution to be followed by a round of English regional devolution. He was a supporter of devolution to English regions and recently he was working with the new Constitutional Conventions in the English Regions. However, following the rejection of regional assemblies by the people of England he now sees English regional assemblies as "a complete non-starter", and in light of England's "growing sense of national identity" Canon Wright has now come out in favour of a "strong English Parliament, alongside Scotland's and a strengthened Welsh legislature".
Also speaking at the ECC were Mark Gill (Ipsos MORI) who explained to the Convention the methodology and relevance of the recent MORI poll that indicates that 41% of voters support an English parliament.
Looking around the room I could see a number of influential faces that I recognised. I'm pleased to report that Sir George Young MP (the intellect behind English Votes on English Matters) was there, had he taken heed of my recent letter to him? So was Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy, who I recently interviewed on the CEP Blog. Simon Hughes MP turned up for ten minutes, polished off a load of sandwiches and volauvents, and then let himself out without so much as a by-or-leave. A couple of other MPs that I didn't recognise also made their presence known during the Questions and Answers phase of proceedings and I am reliably informed that there were a number of others, from all parties, including several Lords.
Canon Kenyon Wright's speech was extremely well delivered and very well received because it was full of useful tips for the ECC that can be drawn from the experience of the SCC. Following is my transcript of Canon Kenyon Wight's speech to the ECC.
Can I just say right at the start that I very much agree with the remark that has just been made, that the way forward is to convince people that constitutional matters are not dry and dusty, but affect their lives. That’s what happened in Scotland; it worked in Scotland for two fundamental reasons.
First, because we rediscovered something about our own heritage - our own constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people.
But second, because of things like the poll tax. In other words the Scottish people saw that measure after measure after measure was being imposed upon them against the manifest will of at least 80% of Scottish MPs and Scottish opinion. And I think it was that….In other words….people came to realise that justice to them depended not on who governed us, anymore, but on how we were governed. So that the link was made very, very clearly.
As I was coming down today – a beautiful day, I came down on the train – through England’s green and pleasant land, I was reflecting on how different England and Scotland are in many ways; I live in the midst of the mountains, in the Trossachs. But also [reflecting on] how much we need each other and how much we should be together, but on the basis of equality, on the basis of an equal way forward. And that, it seems to me, is the way.
Scottish identity is a very real thing, and has been for years. In the 15th Century a Spanish ambassador to the Court of one of the King James’ of Scotland wrote to the Spanish Monarch and said, and I quote, ‘nothing pleases the Scots so much as abusing the English’.
[laughter]
15th Century. I’m afraid there has been that element in Scottish history! But I hope that now we have our own parliament and identity that those days are firmly behind us.
The last thing you obviously need is another Scot telling you what to do. I expect you feel you have plenty of them already. Some have been mentioned. England and Scotland are obviously different; ‘Vive la Difference’ do I hear you say? However, in the Scottish Constitutional Convention we explicitly recognise that our success must be the forerunner of further constitutional change.
We produced two reports
One in ‘91 called Towards Scotland’s Parliament which was a preliminary report because we expected the ‘92 General Election to make change, but of course it did not from our point of view. And we therefore worked harder and harder to produce a much more substantial document ‘Scotland’s Parliament Scotland’s Right’ which was the basis on which the legislation was formed, and it was very faithfully formed.
I was given an account on every part of the new legislation, and on comparing with the recommendations of the Scottish Constitutional Convention it was very close to that.
The Scottish Convention admittedly expected us to be followed by constitutional change in the form of regional elected governments in England, as has already been said. Leading to a kind of, what David Steel called, differentiated federalism, with varying powers for various areas. But two things have clearly changed my personal view. The first is of course the north east referendum and the very massive rejection, and the fact that regional government is for any foreseeable future a complete non-starter. So that door is closed, whatever we think of its wisdom or otherwise.
But second, and this is perhaps more important I have actually become convinced, is that England has a growing sense of national identity every bit as strong as ours. And that an English parliament if the people want it, and that’s very important - ‘if the people want it’ we have always said that – is as much your right as we claimed it to be ours.
We started with something called the Claim of Right for Scotland.
The first meeting of the Scottish Constitutional Convention did not begin with a political goal; we had a constitutional goal, of course,
It began with a fundamental statement of principle, the so-called Claim of Right for Scotland. And the Claim of Right for Scotland said: "We do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs". So it was a principle recognition of the sovereign right of the people.
So when all those MPs, Labour and Liberal Democrat; and all those representatives of local government; and of the churches; and of the academic community; and of the Trade Union movement; when they all lined up to sign that claim of right at the first meeting of the Convention, I tell you this - most of the MPs didn’t know what they were signing!
[laughter]
…Because they were signing something which was a direct contradiction of the claim of Westminster to absolute sovereignty, within our unwritten constitutional system. Because if the people are sovereign then Parliament still has an important role but it’s not an absolutist role.
But that is by-the-way, and I won’t go too much into that.
But I do say, therefore, that it’s quite irrational for those who signed that Claim in Scotland, from different political parties, now to deny that same sovereign right to the people of England. It’s irrational.
[Hear, hear]
And therefore, could the Claim of Right for Scotland be followed by a Claim of Right for England? That’s up to you, but I don’t see why not.
Indeed, I hope that our rediscovery of our own national identity has actually contributed to the growing sense of English nationhood. Not ‘nationalism’, I don’t like to use that word, but national identity. We started with a fundamental principle that is not Scottish, but universal: The sovereignty of the people.
Now there’s a long road ahead of you, and we had a long road. We started in ’89, we published our final statement in ’95 we achieved our parliament in ‘99, through our referendum in’ 97. You know all the history, but it was a long hard road. Yours will be different from ours, I know that. I can’t give you much advise on that except to suggest that some of the milestones on our journey might be relevant. But on how they are relevant is for you to say, not for me.
We progressed in four basis stages from that first principle that I spoke of. First we brought together the broadest cross-section of Scottish society in living memory. Believing that "politics is too important to be left to politicians". The Convention included politicians, of course, but it went far beyond that as I have already said.
We were genuinely saddened by the refusal of the Conservative Party and, incidentally, the Scottish National Party for different reasons, opposite reasons, to take part in the Constitutional Convention. Indeed, to the very end we kept vacant seats for them as a mark of the fact that the doors were open to the end. Mind you, if I’m honest, part of me wanted them there and part of me was very glad that they weren’t because it was damned difficult to get the consensus in the first place. If the SNP had been there it probably would have been nigh impossible. We were genuinely saddened by that however because we hoped for an immaculate work by all; whatever their views on devolution; for them to actually have been a part of the shaping of the consensus for the future which we were working on rather than standing aloof.
And to us it’s very welcome that David Cameron now sees that as a mistake – that holding aloof from the work of the Convention. Especially of course, as I never tire of reminding them, how the electoral system allows the Scottish Conservatives to have a significant representation in the Scottish Parliament that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. In the first Scottish Parliament they wouldn’t have had a single member - they had eighteen out of 129, a very substantial and real representation. Indeed, George Robertson is on record as saying that he thought it was the only example in history of a party creating an electoral system that would deprive it of a majority. Because the electoral system had the effect *and* was designed to have the effect that first, no party could gain a majority without the majority of the votes and second, that the representation of parties should be at least roughly, broadly, according to the number of votes that they received.
There are criticisms of it and many people want to change it, but I don’t want to go into that now. The fact is that among 129 people in the Scottish Parliament we have 7 Socialists, 6 Greens, 1 Senior Citizens Unity Party, and 3 Independents: 17 people out of 129 representing smaller groups and parties, and fairly representing them according to the votes that they received along the way.
So the first thing we did was that we brought together a cross-section.
Secondly, we planned in detail and via a consensus method unique in Britain’s adversarial politics. We had a rule that nothing could ever be passed without at least the consent of every major group in the Convention; we never took a vote one any major issue, there had to be consent. I could tell you stories if you wanted me to about how difficult that was, and the times that we almost despaired of achieving on the numbers in the Parliament, I won’t go into that, but that’s a good example…or on the financial arrangements, and so on.
So we wanted a fairer electoral system, more open, more participative ways of working, and real and substantial powers but firmly within the United Kingdom. Incidentally it was important to us that the powers of the Scottish Parliament were defined by exclusion, not by inclusion. In other words everything except that which was specifically reserved to Westminster – defence, foreign policy, macro-economic policy, social security policy, and so on – everything except those areas specifically reserved were devolved. Instead of trying to define every single small thing as they had tried to do in the ’79 attempt, which as you of course know failed.
The third thing I would say was that we campaigned to ensure that the Scottish Parliament was, in the words of the late John Smith, the ‘settled will of the Scottish people’. And I was delighted the other day to hear David Cameron use exactly those words. I don’t know if he knew that he was quoting John Smith, but he actually said it and it must be clear to the Conservatives now that the Scottish Parliament is the settled will of the Scottish people.
Fourthly we saw our parliament as a means, not an end, we called it ‘the central institutional of a new political and community culture in which power is really shared with the people’.
Finally, the Scottish Parliament accepted four principles. The four principles were, in a nutshell, I won’t quote them in full:
Power sharing - executive, parliament and people.
Accountability - executive and parliament to the people, not just at elections. Real accountability
.
Participative approach to the development of policy.
And fourthly equal opportunities.
It has these as its fixed starting point. It hasn’t always lived up to them let me say. If you ask me if the Scottish Parliament is exactly what it should be then the answer is ‘no I don’t think it is’. I think it’s gone the wrong way.
Our very success created, of course, the anomaly that you have to struggle with. The so-called West Lothian Question. In a nutshell that’s the undemocratic nonsense that MPs from Scotland can vote and decide on Education or the NHS in Gloucester but not in Glasgow, in Edgebaston but not in Edinburgh. This raises the real possibility that MPs from Scotland could actually hold the balance of power to impose policies in England against the will of most English MPs. Mind you, in parenthesis, let me say we in Scotland had to live with the opposite reality that policies like the poll tax and many others, hated and rejected in Scotland, could be forced on us by English MPs. However, we Scots must be gracious enough to recognise that two wrongs do not make a right, and that one democratic deficit does not justify another democratic deficit.
But that dangerous anomaly of the West Lothian Question will not be ended simply by banning Scottish MPs from voting in the Commons on English matters. That creates more problems than it solves for it would create an English parliament without an English government and executive. And could easily lead to a situation where one party had the majority in the Commons as the UK Parliament while another party had the majority when it sat in effect as an English parliament. English policy and law could be in direct contradiction to UK policy. That is tolerable in Scotland because we have a legislature with its own executive and civil service to implement policy in all devolved areas. It’s worth noting too that the devolution settlement gives us power – I’ve already said that - in all areas not specifically reserved.
The obvious solution is a strong English parliament, alongside Scotland and a strengthened Welsh legislature; all part of a reformed and renewed and healthier union - United Kingdom. And with Northern Ireland too, although I admit that there is in Northern Ireland such a….the situation is so different because of the understanding of constitutional matters, and because constitutional matters are the primary issue that divides the politics. But I don’t want to go into that.
But your task is even greater than ours, for England is so much larger and diverse. But you must succeed, not just for England, but for us too. For we have a common interest in power shared and limited, and in reversing the widespread and corrosive cynicism of our formal politics and politicians.
That will not weaken or destroy the Union. It will certainly change it. Right? It will certainly question some of its constitutional presumptions but it will not destroy the Union, it may well save it. An English parliament would join hands with Scotland’s parliament as a promise, not a threat, unless it be the threat of a good example.
The initiative here has to come from the people, not just the formal political parties. I commend to you the recent report of the Power Inquiry chaired by Lady Helena Kennedy which showed with massive evidence, the disengagement from, and even contempt for – their words – formal politics, though not lack of interest in political issues.
They showed that and they made proposals for change that I am actually perusing in Scotland with the Executive and the Civil Society. And they conclude "An alliance for change needs to be built amongst the most clear-sighted politicians, but only a sustained campaign for change from *outside*' - the emphasis is theirs - 'the democratic assemblies and parliaments of the UK will ensure that meaningful reform occurs. We the people have to stake our claim on power’.
That is what we did in Scotland. I believe that it is what you must do.
[Applause]
posted by Gareth at 6:21 pm
0 comments
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Sir George Young MP / English Votes on English Laws
Letter in response to Sir George Young MP.
Dear Sir George,
On Wednesday I attended the Conservative Party Fringe 'English Questions' event.
From the floor I took issue with your preferred solution to the West Lothian Question: 'English Votes on English Matters'. Specifically I asked you whether the Democracy Taskforce would be recommending this policy to the Party, and whether it would be Conservative Party policy for the third general election in a row.
You replied that you did not want to comment because you did not want to ‘preclude any particular outcome’ - as if you might reveal the secretive workings of the Taskforce of which you are a part and thereby prejudice your own findings.
I have written to many Conservative MPs on the matter of EVoEM - including Oliver Heald - and none of them are prepared to explain (or cannot explain) how this policy of yours would work.
Everybody who has given this policy any serious consideration has concluded that the policy is 'unworkable'. This includes the Lib Dems, the Labour Party, the Constitution Unit, The Campaign for an English Parliament and many prominent constitutionalists.
Nevertheless it remains your party's policy and has been advocated at Conference by yourself, David Mundell and David Cameron. It was also advocated by the Conservative Party under the leadership of Iain Duncan-Smith and Michael Howard. But can I find a Conservative policy document explaining the practical workings of this policy? No, I cannot. Will anyone from the Conservative Party discuss this? No, they will not.
It seems that everyone that is anyone describes EVoEM as 'unworkable', yet whenever the West Lothian Question or an English Parliament is mentioned Conservatives seem to think that the very utterance of the phrase 'English votes on English Laws' is enough to absolve them of any obligation to even discuss the matter. I can tell you that it is not.
Would you please tell me what practical details the Democracy Taskforce is considering in relation to this policy? I have to tell you that I am not very impressed with the transparency of the Democracy Taskforce (it appears to be a closed shop) and I remain convinced that, in regard to the English Question, they will recommend whatever the leadership tell them to recommend. I do however hold a glimmer of hope that they might manage to report before the next Conservative manifesto is drafted.
The future of this Conservative policy is of the utmost importance. You are not a 'party ready for government' while you discuss this behind closed doors, and while your MPs blindly obfuscate over the English Question.
It is my view that English Votes on English Matters is a profoundly stupid and ill-conceived response to devolution to Scotland and Wales. The government that implements such a policy will at best disrupt the working of parliament - possibly leading to a vote of no confidence - and at worst they will be responsible for wrecking the Union.
I advise you, as a party, to participate in the English Constitutional Convention to begin the debate in England on how England should be governed. This is too wide a remit for an insular Democracy Taskforce to undertake. However, the English Constitutional Convention is just the beginning because the English Question cannot be resolved in isolation. Great Britain is greater England; England is the centre. You cannot change the centre without affecting the periphery. Likewise, you cannot change the periphery without it affecting the centre - something that Labour neglected to consider when they devolved power to Scotland and Wales.
My own observations on the failings of your policy follow. If you would kindly submit them to the Taskforce for their consideration (my objections to EVoEM are too lengthy to submit via the little web-submission form on the website) I would be much obliged to you:
English Votes on English Matters (EVoEM) could compromise the impartiality of the Speaker (an office dating back to 14th century).
EVoEM, as Jack Straw says, would create farcical divisions. There would be delays in bills while the poor Speaker, in consultation with lawyers, decided what was, and what wasn't, English-only, or English and Welsh-only, legislation. Or which parts of the bill were, or were not, English. Or English and Welsh. In actual fact - with the Barnett Formula in situ - it would be impossible to say that the Scots and Welsh shouldn't vote on English legislation as their budgets are decided as a proportion of the central purse. As the Kilbrandon Commission reported: "Any issue at Westminster involving expenditure of public money is of concern to all parts of the United Kingdom since it may directly affect the level of taxation and indirectly influence the level of a region’s own expenditure.” In the event that constitutional lawyers were not consulted on the status of bills then the Speaker's decision on whether or not a Bill was English would be deemed subjective, and would doubtless face legal challenges from Scottish and Welsh nationalists eager to disrupt the working of Parliament.
EVoEM prevents Scots voting on English legislation but it does not prevent England being governed in its entirety by the UK Government, and potentially that UK government would be unable to legislate for 85% of the UK (England) because it could be without a working English majority.
EVoEM creates different classes of MPs. You are correct that MPs already have different voting rights (Speaker, Deputy Speakers, Chairman of Standing Committees) but this division is not on the basis of nationality. The fundamental basis that Parliament works on - that all MPs, regardless of constituency, have equal rights - is removed.
Under EVoEM MPs from Scotland and Wales would still speak and contribute to debates in the Commons, they just won't be permitted to vote on the outcome. Why should they have any input into proceedings that do not concern them?
In comparison to a separate English parliament an EVoEM parliament would not improve parliamentary procedure. Westminster is already overburdened and does not act as an efficient scrutineer of legislation or executive action. Why should the Scots and Welsh have national legislatures to debate their laws whilst we English settle for EVoEM, with insufficient Parliamentary time to fully debate our national issues, and subject to the vagaries of the UK Government and the time constraints that the reserved legislative programme imposes upon English matters?
Under EVoEM a Scottish Prime Minister (for example Gordon Brown) would be excluded from the majority of legislation in the House given that he is democratically unaccountable to the English nation on devolved matters, and devoid of responsibility to his own Scottish electorate on the concomitant Scottish legislation. Under EVoEM the likelihood of anything other than an English Prime Minister ever again is incredibly small. Not a Unionist solution.
You believed that it was ‘inconsistent of the Government not to hold a referendum on the proposed EU constitution’ because it fundamentally altered the relationship between the member states and the European Union. EVoEM would be a major constitutional change that fundamentally alters the relationship between the nations of the UK and Westminster, and as such EVoEM should be subject to a referendum.
Under EVoEM the House of Lords will still be able to scrutinise English legislation but not that of the devolved administrations. Why should Neil Kinnock have any say on English legislation?
Under EVoEM there is nothing to stop non-English constituency MPs becoming ministers of English departments. So Scottish MPs (like Darling and Reid) can be in charge of English portfolios. Why should a Scottish MP should be barred from voting on education bills but permitted to head up the Department of Education?
If the Democracy Taskforce intends to revise EVoEM so that a Scottish MP cannot preside over English departments, we face the prospect of an almost entirely English UK cabinet (government). No bad thing some might say, but hardly fair to the Scots and Welsh who would face exclusion from the UK executive. If EVoEM is implemented I can envisage a time when the UK government implements a positive discrimination policy to get Scottish and Welsh MPs into Government, promoting them over more able English MPs to reserved portfolios such as defence.
EVoEM does not provide England with an English first minister and English frontbench. We potentially face the ignominy of a Scottish Prime Minister fielding questions from the opposition benches on legislation that he was unable to vote on, and that his government was, potentially, unable to legislate for. It would be up to the UK government to dream up pie-in-the-sky English solutions to English problems. MPs representing English constituencies will merely be able to react to proposals put forward by the UK government, rather than formulate legislation for the benefit of England.
EVoEM would result in a sovereign UK parliament that excluded non-English constituency MPs. This means that, in the eyes of the Scottish and Welsh, Westminster IS the English parliament. The Scottish and Welsh parliaments are devolved (and subordinate) to Westminster, whereas an EVoEM parliament would be a sovereign English parliament - almost a reconvening one might say. The problem with the British constitution - stemming from the 1707 settlement - is that the Union is not one of equals. The Scots (and the Welsh) see themselves on the periphery, marginalised, outgunned. Devolution '97 attempted to rectify this to a degree but placed the English at a distinct constitutional disadvantage. EVoEM seeks to correct the democratic slight against England but in doing so will once again marginalise Scotland and Wales. There are two solutions to this quandary: Federalism - in which each nation takes care of its own affairs but has an equal say in central government - or Separation. I advise you to choose the former and ditch EVoEM.
There’s a mischievous anarchist part of me that hopes that you do get into office and institute your mad-cap policy because it will inevitably result in a full-blown English parliament and executive. But at what cost I ask myself? I want an English parliament but the ends do not always justify the means. Your piecemeal approach to constitutional matters (the sticking-plaster-on-a-gaping-wound method) may have worked in the past when you were faced with a less savvy and constitutionally illiterate public, but they will not work now. There are now numerous well-organised lobby groups pressing for constitutional change, they are demanding a say, and they will not accept top-down solution imposed by whatever party wins the election. You would be well advised to involve them, or rather, let them involve you.
Gareth Young
Dear Sir George,
On Wednesday I attended the Conservative Party Fringe 'English Questions' event.
From the floor I took issue with your preferred solution to the West Lothian Question: 'English Votes on English Matters'. Specifically I asked you whether the Democracy Taskforce would be recommending this policy to the Party, and whether it would be Conservative Party policy for the third general election in a row.
You replied that you did not want to comment because you did not want to ‘preclude any particular outcome’ - as if you might reveal the secretive workings of the Taskforce of which you are a part and thereby prejudice your own findings.
I have written to many Conservative MPs on the matter of EVoEM - including Oliver Heald - and none of them are prepared to explain (or cannot explain) how this policy of yours would work.
Everybody who has given this policy any serious consideration has concluded that the policy is 'unworkable'. This includes the Lib Dems, the Labour Party, the Constitution Unit, The Campaign for an English Parliament and many prominent constitutionalists.
Nevertheless it remains your party's policy and has been advocated at Conference by yourself, David Mundell and David Cameron. It was also advocated by the Conservative Party under the leadership of Iain Duncan-Smith and Michael Howard. But can I find a Conservative policy document explaining the practical workings of this policy? No, I cannot. Will anyone from the Conservative Party discuss this? No, they will not.
It seems that everyone that is anyone describes EVoEM as 'unworkable', yet whenever the West Lothian Question or an English Parliament is mentioned Conservatives seem to think that the very utterance of the phrase 'English votes on English Laws' is enough to absolve them of any obligation to even discuss the matter. I can tell you that it is not.
Would you please tell me what practical details the Democracy Taskforce is considering in relation to this policy? I have to tell you that I am not very impressed with the transparency of the Democracy Taskforce (it appears to be a closed shop) and I remain convinced that, in regard to the English Question, they will recommend whatever the leadership tell them to recommend. I do however hold a glimmer of hope that they might manage to report before the next Conservative manifesto is drafted.
The future of this Conservative policy is of the utmost importance. You are not a 'party ready for government' while you discuss this behind closed doors, and while your MPs blindly obfuscate over the English Question.
It is my view that English Votes on English Matters is a profoundly stupid and ill-conceived response to devolution to Scotland and Wales. The government that implements such a policy will at best disrupt the working of parliament - possibly leading to a vote of no confidence - and at worst they will be responsible for wrecking the Union.
I advise you, as a party, to participate in the English Constitutional Convention to begin the debate in England on how England should be governed. This is too wide a remit for an insular Democracy Taskforce to undertake. However, the English Constitutional Convention is just the beginning because the English Question cannot be resolved in isolation. Great Britain is greater England; England is the centre. You cannot change the centre without affecting the periphery. Likewise, you cannot change the periphery without it affecting the centre - something that Labour neglected to consider when they devolved power to Scotland and Wales.
My own observations on the failings of your policy follow. If you would kindly submit them to the Taskforce for their consideration (my objections to EVoEM are too lengthy to submit via the little web-submission form on the website) I would be much obliged to you:
English Votes on English Matters (EVoEM) could compromise the impartiality of the Speaker (an office dating back to 14th century).
EVoEM, as Jack Straw says, would create farcical divisions. There would be delays in bills while the poor Speaker, in consultation with lawyers, decided what was, and what wasn't, English-only, or English and Welsh-only, legislation. Or which parts of the bill were, or were not, English. Or English and Welsh. In actual fact - with the Barnett Formula in situ - it would be impossible to say that the Scots and Welsh shouldn't vote on English legislation as their budgets are decided as a proportion of the central purse. As the Kilbrandon Commission reported: "Any issue at Westminster involving expenditure of public money is of concern to all parts of the United Kingdom since it may directly affect the level of taxation and indirectly influence the level of a region’s own expenditure.” In the event that constitutional lawyers were not consulted on the status of bills then the Speaker's decision on whether or not a Bill was English would be deemed subjective, and would doubtless face legal challenges from Scottish and Welsh nationalists eager to disrupt the working of Parliament.
EVoEM prevents Scots voting on English legislation but it does not prevent England being governed in its entirety by the UK Government, and potentially that UK government would be unable to legislate for 85% of the UK (England) because it could be without a working English majority.
EVoEM creates different classes of MPs. You are correct that MPs already have different voting rights (Speaker, Deputy Speakers, Chairman of Standing Committees) but this division is not on the basis of nationality. The fundamental basis that Parliament works on - that all MPs, regardless of constituency, have equal rights - is removed.
Under EVoEM MPs from Scotland and Wales would still speak and contribute to debates in the Commons, they just won't be permitted to vote on the outcome. Why should they have any input into proceedings that do not concern them?
In comparison to a separate English parliament an EVoEM parliament would not improve parliamentary procedure. Westminster is already overburdened and does not act as an efficient scrutineer of legislation or executive action. Why should the Scots and Welsh have national legislatures to debate their laws whilst we English settle for EVoEM, with insufficient Parliamentary time to fully debate our national issues, and subject to the vagaries of the UK Government and the time constraints that the reserved legislative programme imposes upon English matters?
Under EVoEM a Scottish Prime Minister (for example Gordon Brown) would be excluded from the majority of legislation in the House given that he is democratically unaccountable to the English nation on devolved matters, and devoid of responsibility to his own Scottish electorate on the concomitant Scottish legislation. Under EVoEM the likelihood of anything other than an English Prime Minister ever again is incredibly small. Not a Unionist solution.
You believed that it was ‘inconsistent of the Government not to hold a referendum on the proposed EU constitution’ because it fundamentally altered the relationship between the member states and the European Union. EVoEM would be a major constitutional change that fundamentally alters the relationship between the nations of the UK and Westminster, and as such EVoEM should be subject to a referendum.
Under EVoEM the House of Lords will still be able to scrutinise English legislation but not that of the devolved administrations. Why should Neil Kinnock have any say on English legislation?
Under EVoEM there is nothing to stop non-English constituency MPs becoming ministers of English departments. So Scottish MPs (like Darling and Reid) can be in charge of English portfolios. Why should a Scottish MP should be barred from voting on education bills but permitted to head up the Department of Education?
If the Democracy Taskforce intends to revise EVoEM so that a Scottish MP cannot preside over English departments, we face the prospect of an almost entirely English UK cabinet (government). No bad thing some might say, but hardly fair to the Scots and Welsh who would face exclusion from the UK executive. If EVoEM is implemented I can envisage a time when the UK government implements a positive discrimination policy to get Scottish and Welsh MPs into Government, promoting them over more able English MPs to reserved portfolios such as defence.
EVoEM does not provide England with an English first minister and English frontbench. We potentially face the ignominy of a Scottish Prime Minister fielding questions from the opposition benches on legislation that he was unable to vote on, and that his government was, potentially, unable to legislate for. It would be up to the UK government to dream up pie-in-the-sky English solutions to English problems. MPs representing English constituencies will merely be able to react to proposals put forward by the UK government, rather than formulate legislation for the benefit of England.
EVoEM would result in a sovereign UK parliament that excluded non-English constituency MPs. This means that, in the eyes of the Scottish and Welsh, Westminster IS the English parliament. The Scottish and Welsh parliaments are devolved (and subordinate) to Westminster, whereas an EVoEM parliament would be a sovereign English parliament - almost a reconvening one might say. The problem with the British constitution - stemming from the 1707 settlement - is that the Union is not one of equals. The Scots (and the Welsh) see themselves on the periphery, marginalised, outgunned. Devolution '97 attempted to rectify this to a degree but placed the English at a distinct constitutional disadvantage. EVoEM seeks to correct the democratic slight against England but in doing so will once again marginalise Scotland and Wales. There are two solutions to this quandary: Federalism - in which each nation takes care of its own affairs but has an equal say in central government - or Separation. I advise you to choose the former and ditch EVoEM.
There’s a mischievous anarchist part of me that hopes that you do get into office and institute your mad-cap policy because it will inevitably result in a full-blown English parliament and executive. But at what cost I ask myself? I want an English parliament but the ends do not always justify the means. Your piecemeal approach to constitutional matters (the sticking-plaster-on-a-gaping-wound method) may have worked in the past when you were faced with a less savvy and constitutionally illiterate public, but they will not work now. There are now numerous well-organised lobby groups pressing for constitutional change, they are demanding a say, and they will not accept top-down solution imposed by whatever party wins the election. You would be well advised to involve them, or rather, let them involve you.
Gareth Young
Labels: devolution, england, English Question, politics, west lothian question
posted by Gareth at 3:02 am
1 comments
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Anthem 4 England
Anthem4England is a website committed to delivering a new national anthem for England. I urge all patriotic Englishmen and women to get over there and vote for our new anthem.
To add the Anthem4England logo to your blog or website, copy and paste the code below.
Labels: anthem, england, national anthem
posted by Gareth at 8:51 pm
0 comments
