English devolution - a good idea?

2

Comments

  • clinchclinch Posts: 11,574
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    bass55 wrote: »
    Sorry I probably didn't explain it clearly. The level of power would be disproportionate because a Scottish Parliament, representing the interests of 5 million people, would have equal status with an English Parliament representing 50 million. If English devolution were to happen, devolved regional assemblies of roughly equal size would surely make more sense.

    I have no objection to English devolution in theory, and I think it could be a viable option for the future, but as present I am satisfied with how things are. As I said, I think it has the potential to create more problems than it solves.

    I don't understand what you mean equal status. An English Parliament would simply deal with devolved matters for England, just like the Scottish Parliament deals with devolved matters for Scotland. MPs in the UK Parliament would be elected as now to deal with matters that were not devolved. Solves the problem of Scottish MPs forcing unwanted English only legislation on the English, as happens now. Scrap the lords.
    English Parliament in York, the historic capital of the north.
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,547
    Forum Member
    flagpole wrote: »
    Why ?

    If i don't get a say on matters devolved to wales why should you get a say on them in england?

    I'm not saying you should. But it might mean that a government with a slim majority would be unable to carry out its manifesto commitments on England-only matters, because its Scottish and Welsh MPs wouldn't be allowed to vote for them.

    Now that might be a good thing, but it does demonstrate that there are problems with the HoC acting both as a UK and an English Parliament at the same time.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,967
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Also can we not have one "English Parliment", we should have one in the North, one for the South West and one for London/South East...
  • jjwalesjjwales Posts: 48,547
    Forum Member
    ITN Source wrote: »
    Also can we not have one "English Parliment", we should have one in the North, one for the South West and one for London/South East...

    What about the Midlands? :)
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,967
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jjwales wrote: »
    What about the Midlands? :)

    Posibbly but I think it should be split between North and South, the Southern Midlands are either or will become part of the London Communter Belt...
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Without the devolution of tax raising measures it rather looks like a more expensive way of spending money allocated from central government. Such a devolution would also have a significant impact on what the regions could raise.
  • clinchclinch Posts: 11,574
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ITN Source wrote: »
    Posibbly but I think it should be split between North and South, the Southern Midlands are either or will become part of the London Communter Belt...

    Starting to sound like Heseltine's 1974 destruction of the counties. Let's draw some lines on a map and create some faux administrative areas, rather than sticking with something with thousands of years of history with which people have some sort of affinity.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,967
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    clinch wrote: »
    Starting to sound like Heseltine's 1974 destruction of the counties. Let's draw some lines on a map and create some faux administrative areas, rather than sticking with something with thousands of years of history with which people have some sort of affinity.

    Times have changed since they where first made, back then London covered the square mile, now it covers all of Middlesex, Northern Surrey, Far Western Essex, Far North-West Kent and bits of Herfordshire.

    With the Communter Belt, it expands as far as Suffolk, the South Coast, Bournmouth/Poole, Oxfordshire, Northamption and Cambridgeshire, house prices, the green belt and HS2 will extend this even further.

    Besides, England is no longer one united nation...
  • RecordPlayerRecordPlayer Posts: 22,648
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I believe the UK shouldn't be so London centric.

    Would we need a visa?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,232
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Home rule for Cornwall with Rick Stein for President!
  • clinchclinch Posts: 11,574
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ITN Source wrote: »
    Times have changed since they where first made, back then London covered the square mile, now it covers all of Middlesex, Northern Surrey, Far Western Essex, Far North-West Kent and bits of Herfordshire.

    With the Communter Belt, it expands as far as Suffolk, the South Coast, Bournmouth/Poole, Oxfordshire, Northamption and Cambridgeshire, house prices, the green belt and HS2 will extend this even further.

    Besides, England is no longer one united nation...

    So we will now move overnight to Northland and Southland? The border between the two will probably be painted through someone's back garden in Stoke or Nottingham, I guess. As I said, it sounds just like the 1974 reorganisation, and where I live there are still made-up local government districts that are hated by the locals.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,967
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I believe the UK shouldn't be so London centric.

    I agree (I live in London), however it should be done by devleoping the North/Scotland/Wales rather than weaken London and theSouth East.
    Would we need a visa?

    Since immgration comes under "foreign affairs" (under my proposal), it would remain with Westminster, thus you would not need a visa to travel within the UK, however I think the regions should be allowed to offer work permits, travel visas and citizenship themselves...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,967
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    clinch wrote: »
    So we will now move overnight to Northland and Southland? The border between the two will probably be painted through someone's back garden in Stoke or Nottingham, I guess. As I said, it sounds just like the 1974 reorganisation, and where I live there are still made-up local government districts that are hated by the locals.

    The Border (in my view) should be Shewsbury-Stafford-Burton upon Trent-Derby/Nottingham Metropolitan Area-Newark on Trent-Lincoln-Skegness

    Also they would be called "England" for the North and "Londonshire" (in the long run just "London") for the South

    I know what you mean about the 1974 reorganisation, but it was needed to reflect the changes that have taken place since they where created, especially when it came to metropolitan areas...
  • starman700starman700 Posts: 3,113
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ITN Source wrote: »
    The Border (in my view) should be Shewsbury-Stafford-Burton upon Trent-Derby/Nottingham Metropolitan Area-Newark on Trent-Lincoln-Skegness

    Also they would be called "England" for the North and "Londonshire" (in the long run just "London") for the South

    Hold your Horses as an East Anglian which was a tradition region for centuries,i take issue being labelled in with the South East .

    We could have our own capital at Cambridge or Norwich and it would work pretty fine.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,967
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    starman700 wrote: »
    Hold your Horses as an East Anglian which was a tradition region for centuries,i take issue being labelled in with the South East .

    We could have our own capital at Cambridge or Norwich and it would work pretty fine.

    I suppose a "East Anglian" region could cover Norfolk and Most of Suffolk, that would mean the capital will be at Norwich...
  • anndra_wanndra_w Posts: 6,557
    Forum Member
    They should consult the people of England and have a serious discussion about what form of devolution would best suit either or England or England's regions. The problem with Westminster though is that unless they are forced to they won't relinquish any power. When they do relinquish power it's as little as they can get away with.
  • starman700starman700 Posts: 3,113
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ITN Source wrote: »
    I suppose a "East Anglian" region could cover Norfolk and Most of Suffolk, that would mean the capital will be at Norwich...

    I added Cambridgeshire/Cambridge as originally part of the east of it fell under the old Kingdoms boundery before the majority of the fens were drained

    Essex of course is separate as well.

    i just dont like the way Londonshire seems to be encroaching on the East these last few decades.
  • starman700starman700 Posts: 3,113
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ps im for Devolvement with a Northern capital if it fell to that,Maybe Manchester
  • Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Avoid having capitals in major cities
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,967
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    anndra_w wrote: »
    They should consult the people of England and have a serious discussion about what form of devolution would best suit either or England or England's regions. The problem with Westminster though is that unless they are forced to they won't relinquish any power. When they do relinquish power it's as little as they can get away with.

    I suggest the formation of parties for regional devolution (a London/SE Regionalist Party would do very well in my view) to gain enough seats for the 3 main parties to accept English Self-Government.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,967
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    starman700 wrote: »
    i just dont like the way Londonshire seems to be encroaching on the East these last few decades.

    Well that is what happens when you don't build enough houses and have a Green Belt...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,967
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    starman700 wrote: »
    Ps im for Devolvement with a Northern capital if it fell to that,Maybe Manchester

    Would Yorkshire and Liverpool object to this?

    Personally I support this choice for a Northern/English Capital...
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    ITN Source wrote: »
    I suppose a "East Anglian" region could cover Norfolk and Most of Suffolk, that would mean the capital will be at Norwich...
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »
    Avoid having capitals in major cities

    Surely the capital of the Eastern region should be in Upper Caistor.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    starman700 wrote: »
    Ps im for Devolvement with a Northern capital if it fell to that,Maybe Manchester

    Manchester is considered a southern town by those in the real north, so somewhere like Ripon, Richmond or Harrogate would be much better
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,967
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Manchester is considered a southern town by those in the real north, so somewhere like Ripon, Richmond or Harrogate would be much better

    The home of "Corrie" is not in the "real North", then where does it start, Newcastle? :D

    What about Leeds? (Ripon + Harrogate are part of the Leeds City Region anyway)
Sign In or Register to comment.