Don't they allow Scottish MPs to travel outside London? Are they prevented from seeing their constituents?
You've been listening to Alex Salmond too much. Evil "Westminster" is in fact the elected government of the whole UK. The fact it sits in Westminster is of no special relevance.
The statement I was responding to was that Scotland should have solved the West Lothian question prior to devolution in 1999. Scottish MPs were part of a UK government and Westminster parliamentary system so how could they independently solve this. This matter was up to the UK government of the time to fix but they failed to do so.
My response had nothing to do with Alex Salmond or as you put it 'evil Westminster'.
They originally got devolution by Act of Parliament back in 1920. No referendum. The Good Friday agreement did have a referendum of course, but devolution was already a fact by then.
Indeed devolution to Northern Ireland was revoked for a period of time at the hight of the troubles and only returned after the Good Friday agreement.
I don't think it was up to the Scottish Constitutional Convention to solve what was essentially an issue for the Westminster legislature, and in which it would be appropriate for non-Scottish MPs to provide an input.
And it doesn't just affect Commons MPs either. What about Lord Strathclyde and other Peers from Scotland? Must the Leader of the Lords absent himself from Lords business that concerns only England? And without a formal devolution settlement, what constitutes an "England-only matter" anyway? Definition by way of powers devolved to other institutions is fraught with problems - particularly if there's legislation that can legitimately be argued to have secondary impacts on other nations.
This is why a hasty patch applied to the Westminster legislature is bound to be riddled with bugs. Time for UK 2.0.
Yes, that would be all fine and dandy if the Labour-created West Lothian Question hadn't been around for over a decade already. The parties have had 13 years to sort this out and what has happened? Nothing. Clearly, like Miliband, you put shallow party politics above the democratic rights of the people of England.
EH? talk about doublethink, it's taken this long to 'sort' out because fundamental and far reaching changes to the the union and the way this country is governed are things that NEED to take time, and if you think 13 yeas is a long time in the history of this great nation, ...well.... it isn't it's a very short time indeed,
and I love the "clearly" bit, because I have to laugh that you then mention putting "shallow party politics above the democratic rights of the people of England" priceless,
See, both Miliband and Cameron agree, and I also agree, we certainly can not have a situation where the people of Scotland get preferential or better treatment than the people of England from a British government,
the bit where we part company comes when Miliband and lots of us to the left believe so much in the democratic rights of the British people that we want to give them the SAME democratic rights that the people of Scotland just enjoyed IE a period of debate and consultation in which all sides of the argument have an equal and fair chance to put their points to the English people, after which the English people get the chance to have a democratic referendum,
The Tories on the other hand don't think we deserve the right to a full consultation and discussion, and certainly not a democratic vote, they want to push ahead and get it done and dusted before May next year, changes that will impact on this nation quite possibly for centuries to come, rushed through in just over half a year, and why might that be I wonder?
It wouldn't be because the Tories are QUITE CLEARLY putting "shallow party politics above the democratic rights of the people of England" would it?
tell me, where did you or the Tory party stand on devolved powers for the north of England before Friday morning? when it became clear that rushing this 'new Tory policy' through in a matter of weeks, just might secure an actual election victory for the Tories?
Because I have always complained about the preferential treatment of London and the south east compared to the north of England, and oddly enough, it was always Tory posters shushing me or anyone else who dared raise the issue, but miraculously since Friday morning it has become Tory policy and must be rushed through before tea time tomorrow.
Because Like the Scots, us in the north have always known that the Tories have our interests close at heart,.....
EH? talk about doublethink, it's taken this long to 'sort' out because fundamental and far reaching changes to the the union and the way this country is governed are things that NEED to take time, and if you think 13 yeas is a long time in the history of this great nation, ...well.... it isn't it's a very short time indeed,
and I love the "clearly" bit, because I have to laugh that you then mention putting "shallow party politics above the democratic rights of the people of England" priceless,
See, both Miliband and Cameron agree, and I also agree, we certainly can not have a situation where the people of Scotland get preferential or better treatment than the people of England from a British government,
the bit where we part company comes when Miliband and lots of us to the left believe so much in the democratic rights of the British people that we want to give them the SAME democratic rights that the people of Scotland just enjoyed IE a period of debate and consultation in which all sides of the argument have an equal and fair chance to put their points to the English people, after which the English people get the chance to have a democratic referendum,
The Tories on the other hand don't think we deserve the right to a full consultation and discussion, and certainly not a democratic vote, they want to push ahead and get it done and dusted before May next year, changes that will impact on this nation quite possibly for centuries to come, rushed through in just over half a year, and why might that be I wonder?
It wouldn't be because the Tories are QUITE CLEARLY putting "shallow party politics above the democratic rights of the people of England" would it?
tell me, where did you or the Tory party stand on devolved powers for the north of England before Friday morning? when it became clear that rushing this 'new Tory policy' through in a matter of weeks, just might secure an actual election victory for the Tories?
Because I have always complained about the preferential treatment of London and the south east compared to the north of England, and oddly enough, it was always Tory posters shushing me or anyone else who dared raise the issue, but miraculously since Friday morning it has become Tory policy and must be rushed through before tea time tomorrow.
Because Like the Scots, us in the north have always known that the Tories have our interests close at heart,.....
I am from the North too but you do not speak for all of us. By that I do not mean me as an individual, but that not all towns and constituencies are labour strongholds. It is a myth that The North only votes Labour.
I must admit that having seen a lot of your posts today I have stopped reading them all as the majority are so long I lose interest. I don't disagree with everything you are saying so please do not take this the wrong way, but can you keep it shorter and to the point? You are adding to the debate so I do want to hear from you but whilst I don't mind the odd long post, I lose the will when they are too long and I am sure I am not the only one thinking that
NHS funding in England
Education in England
Transport in England
Environment in England
Taxation in England
Businesses in England
Culture, Media and Sport in England
Pensions in England
Land registry, planning, rail regulation, etc. etc. etc.
Legislation on foundation trust hospitals and tuition fees in England was forced through with the votes of Scottish MPs.
On a more fundamental level, English voters need to know that when they vote for their local MP that MP will attend a parliament where only English MPs can vote on legislation that affects England. It is nothing more than a question of democracy.
EH? talk about doublethink, it's taken this long to 'sort' out because fundamental and far reaching changes to the the union and the way this country is governed are things that NEED to take time, and if you think 13 yeas is a long time in the history of this great nation, ...well.... it isn't it's a very short time indeed,
and I love the "clearly" bit, because I have to laugh that you then mention putting "shallow party politics above the democratic rights of the people of England" priceless,
See, both Miliband and Cameron agree, and I also agree, we certainly can not have a situation where the people of Scotland get preferential or better treatment than the people of England from a British government,
the bit where we part company comes when Miliband and lots of us to the left believe so much in the democratic rights of the British people that we want to give them the SAME democratic rights that the people of Scotland just enjoyed IE a period of debate and consultation in which all sides of the argument have an equal and fair chance to put their points to the English people, after which the English people get the chance to have a democratic referendum,
The Tories on the other hand don't think we deserve the right to a full consultation and discussion, and certainly not a democratic vote, they want to push ahead and get it done and dusted before May next year, changes that will impact on this nation quite possibly for centuries to come, rushed through in just over half a year, and why might that be I wonder?
It wouldn't be because the Tories are QUITE CLEARLY putting "shallow party politics above the democratic rights of the people of England" would it?
tell me, where did you or the Tory party stand on devolved powers for the north of England before Friday morning? when it became clear that rushing this 'new Tory policy' through in a matter of weeks, just might secure an actual election victory for the Tories?
Because I have always complained about the preferential treatment of London and the south east compared to the north of England, and oddly enough, it was always Tory posters shushing me or anyone else who dared raise the issue, but miraculously since Friday morning it has become Tory policy and must be rushed through before tea time tomorrow.
Because Like the Scots, us in the north have always known that the Tories have our interests close at heart,.....
Can I ask what is so profoundly different about the people of Scotland and the people of England that they can't be granted the exact same powers via a devolved parliament?
I don't think it was up to the Scottish Constitutional Convention to solve what was essentially an issue for the Westminster legislature, and in which it would be appropriate for non-Scottish MPs to provide an input.
And it doesn't just affect Commons MPs either. What about Lord Strathclyde and other Peers from Scotland? Must the Leader of the Lords absent himself from Lords business that concerns only England? And without a formal devolution settlement, what constitutes an "England-only matter" anyway? Definition by way of powers devolved to other institutions is fraught with problems - particularly if there's legislation that can legitimately be argued to have secondary impacts on other nations.
This is why a hasty patch applied to the Westminster legislature is bound to be riddled with bugs. Time for UK 2.0.
What constitutes a "Scotland-only matter" in that case? Why are the Scots regarded as such a separate species that they needed their own parliament in the first place?
No-one has yet answered the question of why Scotland needs a Scottish parliament and yet the English don't need an English parliament.
NHS funding in England
Education in England
Transport in England
Environment in England
Taxation in England
Businesses in England
Culture, Media and Sport in England
Pensions in England
Land registry, planning, rail regulation, etc. etc. etc.
Legislation on foundation trust hospitals and tuition fees in England was forced through with the votes of Scottish MPs.
On a more fundamental level, English voters need to know that when they vote for their local MP that MP will attend a parliament where only English MPs can vote on legislation that affects England. It is nothing more than a question of democracy.
Are there many parliamentary votes on these things?
How much integration is there with the same issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
It looks to me like you've simply selected a bunch of subjects and claimed that only the English should vote on them. What next, state lines and people outrunning the police because the law is different next door?
Fragmentation will drive up costs and reduce effectiveness. I can see why Tories might like the idea, it would certainly help them privatise what little remains if they can 'take out' the opposition. Unfortunately, the public will be the losers in all this, but when have Tories ever worried about the greater public...
The statement I was responding to was that Scotland should have solved the West Lothian question prior to devolution in 1999. Scottish MPs were part of a UK government and Westminster parliamentary system so how could they independently solve this. This matter was up to the UK government of the time to fix but they failed to do so.
My response had nothing to do with Alex Salmond or as you put it 'evil Westminster'.
And I was responding to this comment of yours:
How could Scotland propose any solutions when prior to 1999 all politicians were based at Westminster? Did you want all the people of Scotland to write down their answers on the back of a postcard?
It seemed that you thought Scottish MPs were stuck in Westminster and unable to communicate with the people if Scotland. This sounded like Alex Salmond's version of Westminster, a place where Scottish people have no say. Hence the linkage.
Clearly Scottish politicians were always able to propose such things. That's why the SNP exist after all. The 1999 referenda didn't propose anything other than the principle of devolution and whether people wanted limited tax raising powers. Scotland voted for both, Wales only voted for devolution.
Are there many parliamentary votes on these things?
How much integration is there with the same issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
It looks to me like you've simply selected a bunch of subjects and claimed that only the English should vote on them. What next, state lines and people outrunning the police because the law is different next door?
Fragmentation will drive up costs and reduce effectiveness. I can see why Tories might like the idea, it would certainly help them privatise what little remains if they can 'take out' the opposition. Unfortunately, the public will be the losers in all this, but when have Tories ever worried about the greater public...
Can you tell me what the point of the Scottish parliament is then? If there's so much integration across the Union via Westminster then what is the point of it? Surely it's just an empty talking shop and all the new powers coming its way are irrelevant?
Can you tell me what the point of the Scottish parliament is then? If there's so much integration across the Union via Westminster then what is the point of it? Surely it's just an empty talking shop and all the new powers coming its way are irrelevant?
I've not argued for anything, just wondering why it's become a burning issue for the English (some) since Scotland rejected independence and took up Dave's offer?
No just wondering why Scotland and Wales had to battle and campaign for years just to achieve a referendum on whether they should have devolution but now England will receive these powers without having been asked if they want them.
Its not devolution..its just stopping the scottish mps from voting on England or England+Wales only issues..if they had any integrity they wouldnt, but they have. Its a disgrace.
I've not argued for anything, just wondering why it's become a burning issue for the English (some) since Scotland rejected independence and took up Dave's offer?
Fancy having a go at answering the question anyway?
Are there many parliamentary votes on these things?
How much integration is there with the same issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
It looks to me like you've simply selected a bunch of subjects and claimed that only the English should vote on them. What next, state lines and people outrunning the police because the law is different next door?
Fragmentation will drive up costs and reduce effectiveness. I can see why Tories might like the idea, it would certainly help them privatise what little remains if they can 'take out' the opposition. Unfortunately, the public will be the losers in all this, but when have Tories ever worried about the greater public...
I'd have thought there must be debates and votes on bills relating to many of those subjects. Otherwise what are the MP's doing?
What constitutes a "Scotland-only matter" in that case? Why are the Scots regarded as such a separate species that they needed their own parliament in the first place?
Well, those aren't questions I'm qualified to answer, but I'd hazard a guess that the campaign for Scottish devolution was more organized, and had had a long time to plan and present their case. Be that as it may, the situation is what it is, and we must make the best of it.
No-one has yet answered the question of why Scotland needs a Scottish parliament and yet the English don't need an English parliament.
The two propositions are scarcely equal in value. Scotland covers a population of only 5 million or thereabouts. Scottish devolution, thereby, brings power much closer to the people. Are we going to get equal representation in England? We'd need to have a Parliament with around 1,300 members if we are. If not, then what we are getting is an ersatz devolution, scarcely any more democratic than what we already have. Are we second-class citizens, then? And people want this? I despair of my country sometimes, I really do.
Can you tell me what the point of the Scottish parliament is then? If there's so much integration across the Union via Westminster then what is the point of it? Surely it's just an empty talking shop and all the new powers coming its way are irrelevant?
To answer the second point, I didn't say there was 'so much integration', I asked how much there was. You don't seem to know but it didn't stop you running up a quick list did it. I also asked if there were a lot of votes on the issues, as you appear to not want Scottish MP's voting. I don't suppose you know that either. Still, doesn't stop you claiming we need an 'English parliament' does it...
I am from the North too but you do not speak for all of us. By that I do not mean me as an individual, but that not all towns and constituencies are labour strongholds. It is a myth that The North only votes Labour.
I know, I don't think I implied that I speak for everyone in the north, and if it sounded that way it was unintentional, and living in the constituency of Hexham in Northumberland I am also well aware that that there are places 'oop north' that don't vote Labour, as Hexham is a staunch Tory outpost, I don't think they have had a Labour MP here since before the war, I actually met the local Tory MP really nice bloke, as it happens, doesn't mean I am about to vote for him though.
I must admit that having seen a lot of your posts today I have stopped reading them all as the majority are so long I lose interest. I don't disagree with everything you are saying so please do not take this the wrong way, but can you keep it shorter and to the point? You are adding to the debate so I do want to hear from you but whilst I don't mind the odd long post, I lose the will when they are too long and I am sure I am not the only one thinking that
Well, as for the length of my posts, I'm old ya see, and grew up before the text and twitter generation, and as such I tend to try to go to some detail to explain my points rather than one sentence or one paragraph replies,
You are certainly not the first to mention the length of my posts, and I know you won't be the last. although you are certainly one of the more polite people who have,
I can't promise to be any shorter, and of course no one forces you to read them.
The two propositions are scarcely equal in value. Scotland covers a population of only 5 million or thereabouts. Scottish devolution, thereby, brings power much closer to the people. Are we going to get equal representation in England? We'd need to have a Parliament with around 1,300 members if we are. If not, then what we are getting is an ersatz devolution, scarcely any more democratic than what we already have. Are we second-class citizens, then? And people want this? I despair of my country sometimes, I really do.
You could certainly argue that, in an English parliament and with England's greater population, you could have more MPs and more constituencies. I don't know how you can argue that "English votes for English laws" is 'scarcely' more democratic than we have now...
To answer the second point, I didn't say there was 'so much integration', I asked how much there was. You don't seem to know but it didn't stop you running up a quick list did it. I also asked if there were a lot of votes on the issues, as you appear to not want Scottish MP's voting. I don't suppose you know that either. Still, doesn't stop you claiming we need an 'English parliament' does it...
Do you think Scottish MPs should ever be able to vote on English-only matters? Yes or no will suffice.
I'd have thought there must be debates and votes on bills relating to many of those subjects. Otherwise what are the MP's doing?
So how many votes are there?
I mean votes that go to the lobby, not the agreed 'the aye's have it' that happen in parliament for minor changes. With those, no-one knows who agrees to it or where they're from, it's only when opposition to something that a lobby is called for.
What constitutes a "Scotland-only matter" in that case? Why are the Scots regarded as such a separate species that they needed their own parliament in the first place?
No-one has yet answered the question of why Scotland needs a Scottish parliament and yet the English don't need an English parliament.
Nobody said the English don't need a parliament. The Scots aren't in anyway special they just battled over the years for the right to be allowed a parliament and home rule. What they got was a referendum on whether they wished devolved powers and at the 2nd attempt democratically got them.
This takes me back to my original point nothing was handed to Scotland or Wales so if it is the will of the people of England then they should campaign for it and demand a referendum on what they want.
Comments
The statement I was responding to was that Scotland should have solved the West Lothian question prior to devolution in 1999. Scottish MPs were part of a UK government and Westminster parliamentary system so how could they independently solve this. This matter was up to the UK government of the time to fix but they failed to do so.
My response had nothing to do with Alex Salmond or as you put it 'evil Westminster'.
Indeed devolution to Northern Ireland was revoked for a period of time at the hight of the troubles and only returned after the Good Friday agreement.
And it doesn't just affect Commons MPs either. What about Lord Strathclyde and other Peers from Scotland? Must the Leader of the Lords absent himself from Lords business that concerns only England? And without a formal devolution settlement, what constitutes an "England-only matter" anyway? Definition by way of powers devolved to other institutions is fraught with problems - particularly if there's legislation that can legitimately be argued to have secondary impacts on other nations.
This is why a hasty patch applied to the Westminster legislature is bound to be riddled with bugs. Time for UK 2.0.
Such as?
EH? talk about doublethink, it's taken this long to 'sort' out because fundamental and far reaching changes to the the union and the way this country is governed are things that NEED to take time, and if you think 13 yeas is a long time in the history of this great nation, ...well.... it isn't it's a very short time indeed,
and I love the "clearly" bit, because I have to laugh that you then mention putting "shallow party politics above the democratic rights of the people of England" priceless,
See, both Miliband and Cameron agree, and I also agree, we certainly can not have a situation where the people of Scotland get preferential or better treatment than the people of England from a British government,
the bit where we part company comes when Miliband and lots of us to the left believe so much in the democratic rights of the British people that we want to give them the SAME democratic rights that the people of Scotland just enjoyed IE a period of debate and consultation in which all sides of the argument have an equal and fair chance to put their points to the English people, after which the English people get the chance to have a democratic referendum,
The Tories on the other hand don't think we deserve the right to a full consultation and discussion, and certainly not a democratic vote, they want to push ahead and get it done and dusted before May next year, changes that will impact on this nation quite possibly for centuries to come, rushed through in just over half a year, and why might that be I wonder?
It wouldn't be because the Tories are QUITE CLEARLY putting "shallow party politics above the democratic rights of the people of England" would it?
tell me, where did you or the Tory party stand on devolved powers for the north of England before Friday morning? when it became clear that rushing this 'new Tory policy' through in a matter of weeks, just might secure an actual election victory for the Tories?
Because I have always complained about the preferential treatment of London and the south east compared to the north of England, and oddly enough, it was always Tory posters shushing me or anyone else who dared raise the issue, but miraculously since Friday morning it has become Tory policy and must be rushed through before tea time tomorrow.
Because Like the Scots, us in the north have always known that the Tories have our interests close at heart,.....
Like?
From what I've seen the NHS in England only covers England. Is that a relevant example?
I am from the North too but you do not speak for all of us. By that I do not mean me as an individual, but that not all towns and constituencies are labour strongholds. It is a myth that The North only votes Labour.
I must admit that having seen a lot of your posts today I have stopped reading them all as the majority are so long I lose interest. I don't disagree with everything you are saying so please do not take this the wrong way, but can you keep it shorter and to the point? You are adding to the debate so I do want to hear from you but whilst I don't mind the odd long post, I lose the will when they are too long and I am sure I am not the only one thinking that
NHS funding in England
Education in England
Transport in England
Environment in England
Taxation in England
Businesses in England
Culture, Media and Sport in England
Pensions in England
Land registry, planning, rail regulation, etc. etc. etc.
Legislation on foundation trust hospitals and tuition fees in England was forced through with the votes of Scottish MPs.
On a more fundamental level, English voters need to know that when they vote for their local MP that MP will attend a parliament where only English MPs can vote on legislation that affects England. It is nothing more than a question of democracy.
Can I ask what is so profoundly different about the people of Scotland and the people of England that they can't be granted the exact same powers via a devolved parliament?
What constitutes a "Scotland-only matter" in that case? Why are the Scots regarded as such a separate species that they needed their own parliament in the first place?
No-one has yet answered the question of why Scotland needs a Scottish parliament and yet the English don't need an English parliament.
Are there many parliamentary votes on these things?
How much integration is there with the same issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
It looks to me like you've simply selected a bunch of subjects and claimed that only the English should vote on them. What next, state lines and people outrunning the police because the law is different next door?
Fragmentation will drive up costs and reduce effectiveness. I can see why Tories might like the idea, it would certainly help them privatise what little remains if they can 'take out' the opposition. Unfortunately, the public will be the losers in all this, but when have Tories ever worried about the greater public...
It seemed that you thought Scottish MPs were stuck in Westminster and unable to communicate with the people if Scotland. This sounded like Alex Salmond's version of Westminster, a place where Scottish people have no say. Hence the linkage.
Clearly Scottish politicians were always able to propose such things. That's why the SNP exist after all. The 1999 referenda didn't propose anything other than the principle of devolution and whether people wanted limited tax raising powers. Scotland voted for both, Wales only voted for devolution.
Can you tell me what the point of the Scottish parliament is then? If there's so much integration across the Union via Westminster then what is the point of it? Surely it's just an empty talking shop and all the new powers coming its way are irrelevant?
I've not argued for anything, just wondering why it's become a burning issue for the English (some) since Scotland rejected independence and took up Dave's offer?
Its not devolution..its just stopping the scottish mps from voting on England or England+Wales only issues..if they had any integrity they wouldnt, but they have. Its a disgrace.
Fancy having a go at answering the question anyway?
I'd have thought there must be debates and votes on bills relating to many of those subjects. Otherwise what are the MP's doing?
Well, those aren't questions I'm qualified to answer, but I'd hazard a guess that the campaign for Scottish devolution was more organized, and had had a long time to plan and present their case. Be that as it may, the situation is what it is, and we must make the best of it.
The two propositions are scarcely equal in value. Scotland covers a population of only 5 million or thereabouts. Scottish devolution, thereby, brings power much closer to the people. Are we going to get equal representation in England? We'd need to have a Parliament with around 1,300 members if we are. If not, then what we are getting is an ersatz devolution, scarcely any more democratic than what we already have. Are we second-class citizens, then? And people want this? I despair of my country sometimes, I really do.
To answer the second point, I didn't say there was 'so much integration', I asked how much there was. You don't seem to know but it didn't stop you running up a quick list did it. I also asked if there were a lot of votes on the issues, as you appear to not want Scottish MP's voting. I don't suppose you know that either. Still, doesn't stop you claiming we need an 'English parliament' does it...
I know, I don't think I implied that I speak for everyone in the north, and if it sounded that way it was unintentional, and living in the constituency of Hexham in Northumberland I am also well aware that that there are places 'oop north' that don't vote Labour, as Hexham is a staunch Tory outpost, I don't think they have had a Labour MP here since before the war, I actually met the local Tory MP really nice bloke, as it happens, doesn't mean I am about to vote for him though.
Well, as for the length of my posts, I'm old ya see, and grew up before the text and twitter generation, and as such I tend to try to go to some detail to explain my points rather than one sentence or one paragraph replies,
You are certainly not the first to mention the length of my posts, and I know you won't be the last. although you are certainly one of the more polite people who have,
I can't promise to be any shorter, and of course no one forces you to read them.
You could certainly argue that, in an English parliament and with England's greater population, you could have more MPs and more constituencies. I don't know how you can argue that "English votes for English laws" is 'scarcely' more democratic than we have now...
Do you think Scottish MPs should ever be able to vote on English-only matters? Yes or no will suffice.
So how many votes are there?
I mean votes that go to the lobby, not the agreed 'the aye's have it' that happen in parliament for minor changes. With those, no-one knows who agrees to it or where they're from, it's only when opposition to something that a lobby is called for.
Nobody said the English don't need a parliament. The Scots aren't in anyway special they just battled over the years for the right to be allowed a parliament and home rule. What they got was a referendum on whether they wished devolved powers and at the 2nd attempt democratically got them.
This takes me back to my original point nothing was handed to Scotland or Wales so if it is the will of the people of England then they should campaign for it and demand a referendum on what they want.