The West Lothian question

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

Debated here -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/?id=newsnight

Eric Joyce, Labour MP for Falkirk, is evasive and simple - a sure sign that he knew he was defending the indefensible.

Simon Hughes, Lib Dem MP, was a typical Lib Dem - proposing a series of fudges.

Most sensible of all was the English Democrat representative who proposed a federal structure - a UK Parliament dealing with UK matters and devolved governments for England, Scotland, Wales and NI.

[ANDY-J3]

It would have to entail devolved regional governments otherwise it wouldn't be any more democratic than it is at present with policies for the north east for example being determined by politicians from south east England and vice versa. The north east has already overwhelmingly rejected the idea of having a regional assembly in a poll, probably because of the increased taxation it would entail, so while there is clearly an anomaly regarding questions of representation and fairness and regional assemblies are the obvious way of addressing it there is lttle point of imposing them on an unwilling electorate.

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

Regional assemblies are not equivalent to devolved parliaments. That's the main reason it was rejected. English people have no loyalty or sense of tradition to a civil servant-drawn boundary any more than people in Glasgow have a sense of loyalty or tradition towards Strathclyde. A regional assembly was not proposed, and probably wouldn't have been accepted, in Scotland so it's baffling that people believe they would be received with great cheer in England.

It would also make no sense for purely legislative reasons to carve up England into regions whilst retaining Scotland and Wales as separate nations. It would create the very anomaly that you suggest.

[ANDY-J3]

The apparent reason it was rejected was because there was a belief that it would lack any real power or resources. However consider the following statement from a pro devolution spokesman-

"Most people when asked agreed for the case for devolving powers away from London, but felt that what was being offered was not strong enough to make a difference to their region."


http://www.theclarion.co.uk/the_nort...s/061104h.html


Therefore it would seem that there is a desire for devolved government with real powers primarily because the people of the north east don't feel that London governments can deal adequately with the specific problems of their region such as poor health and high unemployment. That is always going to be the problem with an English parliament. England is a big country with far greater cultural and economic diversity than a small nation like Scotland, so an English parliament will still be dominated by MPs from urban England legislating on issues that affect the peripheries. People in the industrial north might question whether anything has really changed except for the fact that there is an extra layer of government, financed by the taxpayer which does no more to address the specific problems of their region than the current Westminster government. Enacting English devolution would be papering over the cracks without addressing the real issue of how to bring more genuinely representative government to the people who live outwith the south east of England, and only regional parliaments can really do that.

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

Scotland is economically and culturally diverse too. Aberdeenshire is vastly different from Ayrshire, economically and culturally, yet I saw no demand for a federalist regional structure to be imposed on Scotland. Edinburgh and Glasgow have more in common with Liverpool and Manchester than they do Inverness and Stirling but governing a diverse land does not seem to have bothered the Scottish Parliament.

Even if one was to accept your view that only a regional assembly would answer the local democratic needs then there would still be anomalies. People in Cheshire governed from Manchester, for example. It would be regional but would hardly make any difference to someone in Cheshire whether decisions are made in Manchester or London. So carving up England into artificial regions is hardly helpful nor bringing representative government.

Balkanizing England is simply a non-starter and would not represent an equal constitutional structure with Scotland and Wales - which is all that's being asked.

[ANDY-J3]

First we have to accept that no political system will be perfect-there will always be anomalies and some group who feel their viewpoint is neglected. Equal constitutional structure sounds great in principle but would it work in practice? You yourself are an advocate of smaller government and less bureacracy in the UK yet you are supporting the formation of a whole new strata of politicians and bureaucrats financed by taxation. There is already a framework of local councils in place, all of whom are intent on serving the interests of their local communities-the way forward, if regional parliaments are no longer an option, is to devolve powers from central to local government rather than worry about the vagaries of the current constitutional structure.

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

It would hardly be a new strata of politicians and bureaucrats - matters relating to England would be devolved to the English parliament and should result in some reduction in the numbers required at Westminster and Whitehall. I'm not in the business of advocating the creation of more political jobs, it is true, but as I didn't vote for devolution in Scotland, I'm not responsible for the mess. The situation is as it is and a solution has to be found from somewhere.