XPost: soc.culture.scottish, soc.culture.irish, uk.media.tv.misc   
   From: peffers50@btinternet.com   
      
   "Westprog"  wrote in message   
   news:e4pp3o$vch$1@news.datemas.de...   
   >   
   > "allan connochie"  wrote in message   
   > news:4470f4ea@news.greennet.net...   
   > ...   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > I agree that since there is huge constitutional overlap between the   
   > English   
   > and British administrations, that it will be a big job to untangle it if   
   > the   
   > constitutional problem is to be resolved. This applies whatever is done,   
   > however, beyond leaving things exactly as they are.   
   Why on Earth should there be any bother to unravel it? There was no trouble   
   unravelling the Scottish parliaments devolved powers and thus the English   
   Parliament would have exactly the same devolved functions. Of course the   
   English Parliament would get a block grant based upon the same criteria as   
   that given to the Scots. Where is the problem with that?   
   >   
   >> > > 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.   
   >   
   > That will only be possible if the problem is resolved. The English are in   
   > a   
   > position now where they are governed in great and little matters by a   
   > party   
   > which got fewer English votes. It is possible that they will soon be in a   
   > situation where they are governed in great matters and small by a party   
   > that   
   > obtains fewer MP's. The resentment that ensues will not necessarily   
   > express   
   > itself in reasonable ways. But resentment there will be. And it will be   
   > increased, not suppressed, when it is characterised as little Englander   
   > racist shaven-headed chauvinism. Which it will be.   
      
   Rubbish! There was never any question in the past 300 years when the boot   
   was on the other foot and Scotland had not the government her voters cast   
   votes for. What makes the English a special case?   
   >   
   >   
   > ...   
   >> > 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.   
   >   
   > The Welsh, however, were mostly lumped in with England, and they managed   
   > to   
   > extricate themselves to some extent.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > That's why the upset has been muted. And previously, when that situation   
   > arose, it was accepted because the feeling was that the same rules applied   
   > to everyone (With the exception of Northern Ireland, which was a special   
   > case). The British government governed everyone, and a local preference   
   > wasn't held to override the national will. Now the local preference of   
   > Scotland and Wales will always be implemented, and the local preference of   
   > England is ignored. The local preference of Northern Ireland is to be   
   > sorted   
   > out Real Soon Now, when they come to some kind of accomodation.   
      
   The only reason England would not get the same as Scotland and Wales is   
   because England has no parliament and no block grant.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)