English Regional Assemblies

[TheOstrich]

Ossie, on the first point you quote I was talking specifically about English regions, but maybe didn't explaining it well. Never mind.

No, I believe I understood what you were getting at, Frank - I was just trying to think of a format that got around the regions' squabbling. I was hypothesising that, given an English parliament, a devo-max type of fiscal autonomy for each sub-ordinate region would negate the problem you highlighted. If you up there in the Land of the Roses had complete control over tax-raising for your area - and how it was spent, as I had in Mercia, then why would we squabble? We may have different priorities when it comes to expenditure, but then that's up to us. And by devo-max, I'm thinking of control over education, policing, transport, infrastructure, tourism, job-creation, the lot - perhaps even types of welfare benefits.

Within the space of a few hours a few of us have come up with a different set of alternatives from those of the Westminster set. By being outside the bubble we have been able to think out of the box. This is the process that needs to be gone though by those who will eventually have to put something in place.

As you said to Aggers, we need a completely new model. I don't know to what extent the Scottish people had input into how the Scottish parliament was created back whenever it was, but I certainly think the English people need to push for their say on how the future "government" of England should look. It'll be interesting to see what sort of platform our political classes allow us to have .....

Its all looking rather complicated and rather expensive. Personally I would be satisfied with English-only MPs voting on English-only issues. I've no problem with Westminster remaining at the centre for the whole of England. It's the same in Scotland and Wales surely. Possibly with English-only voting MPs, the electorate will be re-vitalised as we have witnessed in Scotland - the turnout was phenomenal, so who knows, the English electorate could be inspired instead of being disillusioned.

I truely beleive we need to go further than just settling for English-voting MPs voting on English issues, medsec, I think that's only reinforcing the party political structure, and what I'd love to see is us moving away from the LibLabCon heirarcy - we need, if I can put it like this, a majority of Independants with no axes to grind.

Now, how to achieve that?

[Workingman]

we need, if I can put it like this, a majority of Independents with no axes to grind.

In principle, yes, but in practice it will never happen. With that in mind we need some pragmatic way to stop England always having the major say/vote over everything as far as the UK is concerned.

The UK tier of governance will have to be more democratic, in the 'nationwide' sense, than is currently is. It will be interesting to see how the politicians achieve that in a way that is acceptable to the majority. The current vogue for English only days and for Westminster to become the English parliament is not going down well if the comments pages of various media are anything to go by.

[Suff]

I think you counter that, Frank, by giving each regional Assembly Devo-max, just as we are giving Scotland.]

When, exactly, did Scotland stop being a Country, with a Monarch and a Parliament and become a "Region" of the UK? Then I'm castigated for calling England "Englandshire". When the English treat Scotland as "Scotlandshire". When people in England can "justify" regional devolution because a country full of Scots want to decide whether they want to dissolve an act of parliament and de-unify the already existing and merged parliaments and become an independent country again; they are treated as if they are a region.

It is beyond infuriating. It drives racism. There is no "English region" which has ever been a country in the last 1,000 years.

I must admit, on the other hand, I find it hilariously funny. Scotland, within the UK, has exactly the same relationship as the UK has in the EU. Budget, funding, power and ability to influence decisions. It is probably why most Scots have no issue with being in the EU, out of the UK. It just removes one more layer from the situation and they would have a lot more countries with whom they could work to get their position across. Oh and a veto they don't have in the UK parliament.

Now, those who are angry with the EU, for exactly the same reasons that Scotland is angry with the rest of the UK, are proposing exactly the same model for England. So when do we see the referendum to split the West Midlands from the rest of the UK, or turn Greater London into it's own state so that it can correctly control it's huge income without having to make laws and taxes for the rest of the UK. Because all of these regional assemblies will have exactly the same issues with Westminster that Scotland has today. Witness the Greater City Councils and their fights with Thatcher and their spending idiocy.

Labour, of course, would rather wreak total and complete mayhem in England than lose 49MP's in Scotland who give them a majority in the UK parliament. Well so long as the country is not hugely annoyed at them for doing what they said they were going to do and give loads and loads of money away that they don't have.

Every word that is said about giving English regions "Devo Max", "Just like Scotland" is one more nail in the coffin of another referendum on Independence for Scotland.

Of course, all of this takes away days and weeks and months of press space and online space which could be dedicated to our relationship with the EU. For which, I'm sure, all three parties will be greatly relieved.

You know that this entire discussion would be completely moot had the three parties simply encouraged the Scots to leave. Because then there would be no question about England having too much power or anything like that. Then England could have reorganised themselves internally to suit themselves.

Have you noticed the basic inconsistency? I certainly have. Stay, stay, stay, we need you, we want you. O Good you've stayed. Now, we have a problem, because you stayed we have a problem and we need to fix it.

Basic, simple logic. All three parties should have been voting yes. Unless today they are lying. So which was it? Lies to the Scots during the referendum? Or lies now about the mess that keeping Scotland has created?

Because this is what is driving my total impatience with the whole "English devolution" situation. Scotland didn't go away. It didn't just vanish because there was a No vote. They are sitting there listening to every word said. Waiting and waiting and waiting and....... Well, you get the picture......

[Workingman]

Sorry Suff, but you are way off beam.

This is not about Scotland, it is about the "English problem". If you follow a selection of comments pages in England's media you will find that the majority of English are fine with Scotland's devo-max and want it delivered, as promised, and to the time-scale discussed. They are also wise enough to know that the English problem is a complex one and that it cannot, in any way shape or form, be done in tandem with, and on the same time line, as devo-max, hence the discussions.

The English, with the exception of Bristol, decided against Mayors with executive powers. For most of us one BoJo is one too many. It follows from that that we will not be for City States either. We also gave Prescott a good spanking when it came to regions, and for good reasons. if we had English regions they would be at each other's throats, but with London and the South East always dominant - a sort of microcosm of the UK.

We would also have problems within the regions. Take a hypothetical North region. It would have five of England's seven largest cities within it: Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bradford and Sheffield. Each of those would be fighting for what is best for it, but when necessary they would come together to form a formidable bloc against other regions. Meanwhile down in the south west and Cornwall there would only be Bristol to fight for that region. So, regions are not exactly flavour of the month either.

What the English want is not some scheme cobbled together by politicians, unelected political journalists and unelected Think Tanks. We do not want the Status quo or status quo lite, we want something new: different. Doing that in a way that is fair to all of the English is going to take time, and it is going to have to be sold to a majority of the English in order for it to be put in place.

[Suff]

WM I'm well aware of the "English Problem" but nobody discussing the problem seems to understand that talking about the English problem in the same sentence as Scottish Devo Max is highly insulting to the Scots. It's not the same and it's not even in the same ballpark.

The "English Problem" is more like the divisions between Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen than anything to do with England/Scotland. The English Problem is intra country. The Scottish Devo max is Cross country.

Every time they are mentioned in the same sentence, it shows a complete and utter lack of care for the way in which the discussion is perceived outside.

Just something I want people to be aware of. But, of course, it will continue the way it will continue. I notice that Nicola Sturgeon has already stated that another referendum is not just on the cards but will be put in the SNP manifesto for the next Scottish Parliament if it is considered that Westminster renaged on it's promise. Note that this is a Scots interpretation of whether they feel Westminster has renaged, not an English interpretation.

So whilst this whole discussion goes on about English rule for England and devolution of internal English powers, the words Scotland and Devo Max need to be totally and completely excluded.

[cromwell]

English "regional assemblies" were voted down by the Geordies ten years ago. The "regions" of England were created only twenty years ago, after the Maastrict¡ht treaty made it easier to do so. They are an EU idea.
The idea being that England, as a nation, may be strong enough to secede from the European Union. But a "region" never would be.

The "regional" devolvement of powers is a subject which perfectly encapsulates our mainstream politicians and the EU. The EU never takes any notice of a democratic decision that it disagrees with, so ten years after their rejection, EU regional assemblies are back on the agenda.

And every one of our dishonest, useless, lying politicians pretends that this is purely a national issue and nothing to do with the EU, which is why I despise them all so much.

[Kaz]

Scotland has had a democratic referendum, with a high turnout and voted against it. Surely we are not going to get this dragged up over and over again by politicians who cannot accept the will of the people?

As a United Kingdom do we not have bigger things to worry about?

Addressing the original theme of this thread, I've decided I'm against the ideas of Assemblies, I think it would just be a gravy train for local politicians

[Workingman]

Suff, once again it is you who brings up the Scotland issue, but it is all straw man stuff. The very first time Scotland was mentioned in the whole thread was in the sentence you highlighted from Ossie's post. Taken in context is was simply a comparative and Ossie could have used the Falkland Islands to make his point.

It is also not about the EU, a subject both you and Cromwell are mightily against. The "regions" being discussed are English regions within England, for the purpose of running England. On this particular subject the EU and Scotland are not even peripheral and nobody, but nobody has dissed either place. England and how it is run is for the English to decide and we are increasingly making it clear to the politicians that they are going to have to listen to us.

[cromwell]

OK WM, I still think they are EU regions (witness Miliband and Clegg having a fainting fit over an English parliament but being very happy with a regionalised England) but let´s say that they aren´t.

I can´t see the point in them, tbh. It could be a race to the bottom, with one region or city dropping it´s business rates to try and undercut their neighbour. But Kaz has nade a good point, the idea of our low calibre local politicians being given more money and power - it doesn´t bear thinking about. You could have a better conversation with a table top than with many of our local councillors.

An English parliament would do for me, England isn´t so massive that it needs subdividing. But imo even though more than 50 per cent favour an English Parliament and less than ten per cent want regional assemblies, regional assemblies are what we will get.

[Workingman]

I can´t see the point in them, tbh. It could be a race to the bottom, with one region or city dropping its business rates to try and undercut their neighbour.

Cromwell, it you read the whole thread that is similar to what others have said.

But imo even though more than 50 per cent favour an English Parliament and less than ten per cent want regional assemblies, regional assemblies are what we will get.

Apart from the last phrase that is also a theme in this thread. The difference this time is that there are strong feelings about what the "bubble dwellers" will be allowed to do. There is a groundswell of people who are not happy with executive Mayors or City Statelets, and although Regions are more popular, they are still not acceptable to the majority.

We have an opportunity here to flash mob our MPs' email and to take back democracy.