XPost: soc.culture.scottish, soc.culture.irish, uk.media.tv.misc   
   From: allan@EASYNET.CO.UK   
      
   "Westprog"  wrote in message   
   news:e4mvbn$479$9@news.datemas.de...   
   >   
   > "allan connochie"  wrote in message   
   > news:446e3b60@news.greennet.net...   
   > ...   
   > > Firstly there is the problem of smooth government. It is disticntly   
   > possible   
   > > that you could have a governemnt with a clear majority being unable to   
   > pass   
   > > any English legislation at all as they have no majority in England. What   
   > > then? Do we let England stagnate or does the UK lose a PM and government   
   > > just because England voted for the opposition? Hardly democratic.   
   >   
   > I don't see why this should happen. There would be a national   
   > administration, and there would be English, Scottish and Welsh   
   > administrations. The English administration might be made up of different   
   > people to the British government, operating in the same building. It would   
   > be embarassing to the national government, but it wouldn't solve the   
   > problems by electing seperate representatives to an English government in   
   a   
   > new, expensive building.   
      
      
   I'll have to completely disagree with you on that. A mishmash of   
   administrations would be just that a mishmash. Likely to cause chaos. For a   
   start just look at the Home Office remit and that is only one governemnt   
   dept. You could quite easily have a government able to control half the   
   office's remit and not the other half. As for the cost of a building well if   
   an English Parliament, or perhaps an English Grand Committee (which you seem   
   to be suggesting) wanted to squat in the UK Parliament when it's not in   
   session then that is up to them - though quite how that would work eludes   
   me. The point I was making was the working of the UK parliament shouldn't   
   itself be a hostage to domestic English only issues.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > > Plus it is inconceivable that some of the main posts of cabinet could be   
   > > filled by men who couldn't have a say on much of the legislation. Hence   
   > > you'd be virtually excluding non-English people from the main government   
   > > posts. Again hardly democratic!   
   >   
   > The main posts of government would continue to apply to the entire   
   country.   
      
   Ah but that is what is being questioned. In a BBC poll over 50% thought it   
   was wrong for a Scottish MP to be Prime Minister. There have been serious   
   grumblings over John Reid's new position at the Home Office. I'm all for   
   English devolution but it has to be that...........English devolution!   
   English people taking control of internal English matters. That is different   
   from trying to prevent UK MPs obtaining important UK government positions   
   just because they are not English. As long as the union is in place then you   
   can't turn non-English Westminster MPs into second class MPs. People should   
   obtain positions in the UK government based on merit and not on what part of   
   the UK they come from.   
      
      
      
      
   >   
   > > If the English people feel they are at a democratic deficit then there   
   are   
   > > some obvious answers. They could vote for English independence and end   
   the   
   > > union completely. The could take the more likely route of devolution. It   
   > > seems pretty clear that most English don't want regional devolution   
   hence   
   > a   
   > > national English parliament on the line of the Scottish would be an   
   > answer.   
   > > That of course is for the English to decide on themselves. Another would   
   > be   
   > > a fully federal UK which would be my option if the union is to remain.   
   > > Neither of these options leaves anyone disadvantaged.   
   >   
   > As we saw in the last election, the ability of the English to decide for   
   > themselves has been severely circumscribed. English people voted against   
   the   
   > current government, but they are still bound by it. The Scots and Welsh   
   got   
   > their modicum of independence because the government chose to grant it.   
   Even   
   > if Labour fail to get a majority of English seats at the next election,   
   they   
   > are under no obligation to do anything.   
      
   The first part of your post is your opinion and it is of course as relevant   
   as anyone elses. However this last paragrpah seems to be based on complete   
   misconceptions. The ability of the English to decide for themselves has not   
   changed one iota from pre-devolution times. Internally, pre-devolution   
   Scotland was largely run by the Scottish Office and the workings of that   
   said office has been transferred, almost lock stock and barrel, to Holyrood.   
   That is a directly elected body rather than a body appointed by central   
   government. This hasn't changed how England itself is governed or how MPs   
   are elected to Westminster. In fact if anything Scottish opinion at UK level   
   has been weakened as part of the devolution settlement involves a reduction   
   of Scottish MPs. And again the Labour Party still obtained a clear working   
   majority from English seats alone. The fact that this comes from a lower   
   amount of votes than the Tories is due to the first past the post electoral   
   system and has nothing to do with devolution. Besides the said voting system   
   throws up unfair anomalies all over the place. For instance the 2001   
   election resulted in Labour gaining 76% of the Scottish seats from only 43%   
   of the vote! Devolution is not to blame for Westminster's archaic system   
   rather it is the Tory and Labour parties who insist on holding on to the two   
   party system of voting at UK level.   
      
      
   Allan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)