XPost: soc.culture.scottish, soc.culture.irish, uk.media.tv.misc   
   From: allan@EASYNET.CO.UK   
      
   "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.   
      
   All I'm saying is that an English Parliament or devolution to the regions   
   (already a dead duck) would be workable. I can't see how your government   
   within a government, cabinet within a cabinet, departments within   
   departments, at Westminster would be!   
      
      
   >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.   
      
   Which has nothing to do with devolution! Scotland and Wales have already gon   
   e to PR in the devolved elections. The next obvious step is for PR in the   
   Westminster UK elections. The problem is neither of the main parties   
   particularly want it.   
      
      
      
    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.   
      
   I think I have a better regard for the average English person than you seem   
   to have. The Scots public were faced with a much bigger democratic deficit   
   than the English currently are, or are ever likely to be because of pure   
   demographics. The problem was solved by civilised politics. I can't imagine   
   why the English would be any less civilised. Besides I am advocating a   
   referendum for an English parliament. You don't need to convince me that   
   there is a problem!   
      
      
   > > 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 discussion is mostly really about Scotland though. The Welsh Assembly   
   is a different animal from Holyrood altogether.   
      
      
      
      
   >   
   > > 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.   
      
   For a start the idea that everyone was governed the same and the same rules   
   applied to everyone is simply not true. The existence of the Scottish Office   
   is ample proof of that. All that has happened is that the powers of this   
   office has now been transferred to a directly elected body. The way that   
   England is governed hasn't changed. I've already stated that I'm in favour   
   of an English Parliament hence I am more in line with JNugent than you are.   
      
   Secondly the voting system does not only affect the English electorate   
   unfairly. For instance Labour opinion is often almost classed as Scottish   
   opinion. It isn't! The skewed electoral system gives Labour a huge majority   
   of Scottish seats from a minority of the vote.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > But there's no guarantee that fixing the FPTP problem will resolve   
   anything.   
   > It's an orthogonal issue. It would still be possible for English issues to   
   > be decided against the wishes of the English electorate, while Scottish   
   > issues were decided by Scotland.   
      
   Devolution and the Voting System are really seperate subjects. I never said   
   that fixing the voting system would fix the WLQ.  All I said was that   
   devolution was not to blame for the archaic voting system.   
      
      
   Allan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)