Moderator: Sue Stirling's previous article provoked some heated discussion and debate - this her a response.
Sue Stirling (Newcastle, ippr north): It's always nice to see a blog piece inspire so much debate and while I can't possibly answer all questions I would like to focus on a few key points, especially the economic conditions within England. There is an unacceptably wide gap in wealth between the North and the rest of the country, broadly speaking.
I have no desire to define how authentic the English regions are or are not. Even if they are entirely fabricated, is it really a reason to ignore them as potential engines of development? Many of the socio-economic reasons behind North/South disparities cannot be tackled at local or national level, but can be done so at regional.
England is too big to be treated in a homogenous way, Italy and France have realised that regions work, and we must accept that no other country in Europe is so centralised.
Comments
AJC, on December 5th, 2007 at 12:00 pm Said:
“WHICH BIT OF ENGLISH PARLIAMENT DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND?”
What the point of it is. An English parliament may address the minor issue of the “West Lothian” question. However, it would *not* address the wealth gap within England to which this article refers and to which you prefer to turn a blind eye.
Oh yet another statement without foundation, i.e. evidence
Blind eye? You should know what it means ajc you turned a blind gordon brown glass eye to the statement “WHICH BIT OF ENGLISH PARLIAMENT DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND?” Why didnt you comment on that instead of amateurishly changing the subject? Five year olds can change the subject when they hear something they dont like.
ajc:
What the point of it is. An English parliament may address the minor issue of the “West Lothian” question. However, it would *not* address the wealth gap within England to which this article refers and to which you prefer to turn a blind eye.
How the hell do you know what the reestablished English parliament would do? You don't!
And yes it does have everything to do with English self determination! Us English cant change what foreigners have done to our country until we have self determination! Even a five year old can see that!
oh yeah im sure English assertiveness is a "bad idea" to someone like you. Let me tell you something. You created me! You and people just like you made me! Give yourself a big pat of the back. Whatever you do we win. Well done!
It's not changing the subject. Look at the top of the page, that's the subject. Not whatever you're talking about.
Possibly, but a six year old could count the members in the UK parliament and see that it is already *overwhelmingly* full of representatives for England. "Foreigners" aren't running it so we can pretty much guess what a "re-established" English parliament would be like: almost exactly the same as the UK parliament. It's not a panacea to the continuing and growing disparities within England, so these need to be addressed now rather than waiting for an irrelevancy.
"a six year old could count the members in the UK parliament and see that it is already *overwhelmingly* full of representatives for England. “Foreigners” aren’t running it so we can pretty much guess what a “re-established” English parliament would be like: almost exactly the same as the UK parliament"
Full of representatives for England? You are stating the obvious and saying, not much at all. Just because they're representatives it doesnt mean theyre English.
I like the way you put reps for England then say foreigners are not running it. Brown isnt English, neither is Mick Martin, Hewitt, Douglas Alexander, hain, or Browne and of course Gordon Brown got rid of various scots because he couldnt spout off about being British if the uk cabinet was full of scots. Blair isnt English neither was Reid or prescott.
An English parliament would be like the scottish parliament ie full of locals and not at all like it is now. And why shouldnt it be full of English people?
Do you object to that? So spell out why the scots and welsh and n irish are wrong for only having scots, welsh and n irish in their respective political institutions then. If youre going to object about the English parliament being full of English male and female English members then object about the scottish welsh and n irish doing the same. It has never been an issue with you before so why is it now? Go on, answer the question for once.
Why put reestablished in brackets? You do know that the English parliament existed before I take it? On seconds thoughts maybe you didnt know.
Firstly, you never seem to answer questions people ask you. Secondly, you appear to make up things as you go along, i.e. it's not a panacea etc. How do you know what a newly reestablished English parliament can achieve? All you people do is TRY to depress any English person with some get up and go. Stick your negative chit chat mate. We are never going to give up!
Do these regions even help economically? Does the Lake District really share a common interest with Manchester? It would make more sense to have genuinely local bodies that cover small areas that really affect each other, like the already existing shire counties. And beyond that cities working together, rural areas working together, coastal areas working together.
The problem of the North-South divide is not one of regions it is one of the sheer size and pull of London. It is a London/the rest divide. Relocation of central agencies as well as encouragement of business to other cities will help, and the areas around them could benefit as the South-East does from London. In that case it would be cities, not arbitrary regions.
Whatever, these are just my ideas. An important point, as everyone else has pointed out, is that these are decisions for the English people, fairly represented in an English parliament.
My original comments ...
1. We don’t want England broken up into “regions or Britian” or regions of the EU.
2. If England is better governed regionally then it should be a matter for an English Parliament, not for the British Parliament.
The Scottish Claim of Right - which Gordon Brown and several other ministers signed - says that Scotland has the sovereign right to determine the best form of government for itself. England should have the same sovereign right.
Any form of regional discrimination - positive or not (although positive discrimination is an oxymoron) - is conterproductive and undermines the English nation.
Whether other European nations are regionalised or not is an irrelevance. European nations have had regional structures in place for a long time, their electorate presumably agreed with regionalisation and their country wasn't going to be wiped off the map if they were broken into euroregions.
As has been said already in the comments, if England is better governed by regions then let it happen but only if that is the will of an ENGLISH government. You cannot preserve the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland whilst simultaneously dismembering England.
There is no regional identity in England, there has never been a regional identity in England and there will never be a regional identity in England.
Take a look at the top of this page:
"an openDemocracy project"
"a conversation on the future of the United Kingdom"
And what do we get:
people telling us how regions will be good for us.
The result of the only referendum on the issue was a decisive NO, and yet we're still hearing how they will benefit us.
When 21 out of 22 comments on a blog reject this and ask for an English Parliament, we get yet more blogs pushing regionalism.
Democracy is not about allowing us to post comments on blogs, it is about listening to what the people have to say. A conversation is not about allowing us to speak and ignoring our arguments, it is about engaging with us.
WHICH BIT OF ENGLISH PARLIAMENT DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND?
There is no rule for any of the devolved assemblies that the members should be born in the country. There would not be one were there an English parliament either, so I don't see why I should either give that idea any houseroom whatsoever, nor object to the Sottish or Welsh for doing what they never were doing in the first place. How's that for answering the question?
Yes, certainly an Englisah parliament has existed before, if you can could ever call it a purely English parliament - there were representatives for Wales in it before any for Durham. Anyway, its successor is the UK parliament. A not-very-devolved English parliament *as well* as the UK parliament is an entirely different thing. We can seriously ask ourselves if we either need or want such a thing, and so far, I've not heard any good reasons for it.
How do I know what a newly reestablished English parliament could achieve? Well, we can guess based on the evidence. As we guessed about the North East assemlby - what could it achieve? Not much because it had no powers to achive anything. What about the English parliament - how different would it be? Not much from what the present parliament is, so not likely to achive much then. Any more questions?
Sue Stirling,
I would like to know why you and your New labour pay masters stick so doggedly to the government zones created during the War? As a Cornishman I asked why I should care about an English parliament, but equally I could ask why I should care about a South West government zone that stretches from Swindon to the isles of Scilly and who's quangos seem intent on stripping Cornwall of government.
Why do you continue to ignore Cornwall case for devolution?
Terry Heath,
"Do you believe Scotland to be a nation state?"
No I don't. It is a nation but not a state. the UK is a state.
Tally,
"Hoskings wants a Cornish state but no English state, That opinion runs deep amongst our Celtic Brethren. They want the resources the English provide without having to acknowledge who pays the piper"
No I want the democratic voice of the Cornish public listened to. They want devolution to a Cornish assembly. As for your economic comments see the Killing of Cornwall by Kevin Cahill.
Sarah,
"Cornish devolution won’t ‘go away’ but he thinks he can put his fingers over his ears and chant no England and we’ll all shut up"
Do calm down. Sarah I know I don't speak for all of the Cornish please don't think that you and your band of exUKIP English nationalists speaks for England. Trust me to ignore the calls of you and your English nationalist friends I really don't have to put my fingers in my ears or sing. Oh and Sarah please don't confuse my lack of respect for reactionary rightwing English nationalists with a lack of respect for the English people, nothing could be further from the truth.
Its time the government put all the cards on the table and told the English public what the stakes are. We need a new and much more flexible approach to devolution and answering the English question that listens to the people and does not force upon them artificial government zones that nobody loves. We need a public debate that includes everything from an English parliament to asymmetric devolution, but if they chose the English parliament then they should be fully informed of the potential outcome.
"WHICH BIT OF ENGLISH PARLIAMENT DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND?"
What the point of it is. An English parliament may address the minor issue of the "West Lothian" question. However, it would *not* address the wealth gap within England to which this article refers and to which you prefer to turn a blind eye.
We English want an English parliament. Once we have an English parliament, we will then decide for ourselves how best to devolve power across our country. This is a constitutional issue, not an economic one. The things that you're rabbitting on about are the economic effects of the constitutional imbalance. You will not resolve the constitutional imbalance with any amount of fiddling with the economics.
Tony Kennick wants to know which factor is causing the failure of the "regional" system - where to start.
1 democracy and the inclusiveness of the local electorate.- non existent. All major decisions are made by unelected, unaccountable, quangos.
2. Funding, Region by Region worked out using a broad arbitrary method that sees rich getting richer and poor getting poorer.
3. It is more divisive and on a greater scale could lead to real conflict (as is already happening between Scotland and England) It will pit region against region.
4. I will not even mention the migrant factor.
that should be enough to be going on with Tony.
Your only plus would seem to be economic - money does not solve everything and is the root of most evils.
Philip Hoskins said “England is not a nation state, it is part of a multinational state the UK.”
Do you believe Scotland to be a nation state?
Philip also said “Why should the people of Cornwall or those from the English regions give a fig about an English parliament?”
I don’t know Philip, I just know they DO. Just because you and the Government chooses to ignore them does not make them cease to exist.
As for devolution with England, I’m sure it will be at the top of the English agenda, once we have an English Parliament.
Firstly, I would ask the question who is the IPPR? Certainly they are not neutral and secondly they are financed and supported by a range of politically involved people who are all (one way or another) Labour in outlook and agenda.
No one doubts that England could be better governed and that democracy could be better organised. It certainly can be.
What is the contention is that people from the IPPR and others of their ilk, have the arrogance to assume that for England Regionalisation is the ONLY answer available.
It is THE only answer available if we live in a dictatorship and the people are disenfranchised from the debate. The IPPR have no democratic mandate and have no business recommending anything and suggesting this is what the people of England want, they have no proof and quite frankly this is an outrage to thinking people.
Kate Schmeuker was part of the YES Campaign in the North East at the time when Labour had its venture into democracy. She is now one of the people writing on regionalisation for the IPPR - very detached I'm sure.
The people of the North East gave their verdict on regionalisation it was NO. In fact it was so emphatic 79% that these are the kinds of votes Labour can only dream about.
We all realise that Labour and the IPPR are supported and promoted by the Brussels agenda, and that England is planned to lose its identity and cohesion as a nation and be split into 9 Euro Regions.
All I can say is over my dead body, and the bodies of millions of other English people who point blank refuse to countenance the balkanisation of England.
What you are proposing is unwanted and has no support amongst the people of England. In fact, you are getting perilously close to creating the conditions for civil disorder if you continue to pressure to break England up.
Regions have no place in England. Counties are the future, all you will do in pushing this loathed agenda is alienating more and more people from not just Labour but from the EU, because many of the people see this as simply an EU inspired objective which we will fight tooth and nail.
The people of England deserve the same rights to a debate on devolution as Wales and Scotland.
The people of England deserve a referendum on the future of England, just like Scotland and Wales.
The People of England deserve a Parliament to clal their own and to be freed from the interference of people like you and the unrepresentative Labour government that dominates England through its Scottish and Welsh constituencies.
You have no support and your thinking is not only flawed, it has been a proven loser.
We can consider ways to devolve power from an English Parliament to strong county councils once the issue of an Enlish Parliament has come to pass, by that time Isincerely hope that you and the disreputable organisation that passes for the IPPR will be but an unpleasant memory.
Hoskings wants a Cornish state but no English state,
That opinion runs deep amongst our Celtic Bretheren.
They want the resources the English provide without
having to acknowledge who pays the piper.
It is time for a referendum in England on an English Parliament and Cornish home rule if they wish.
We will not have a Tamar question in place of a West Lothian Question.
It does seam that the original post got mobbed by argument on Nationalist lines so an important point was missed. Economic development is already devolved to regional agencies. So if the current system is failing what factor is missing?
Sue said “It’s always nice to see a blog piece inspire so much debate…”
Ever wondered why Sue? Ever wondered why almost 70% of England want an English Parliament despite the fact it has not been championed by any newspaper or major political party? Do you think this genuine groundswell of opinion is driven by a desire to regain equality with the Scots and the Welsh?
Sue also said “…and while I can’t possibly answer all questions.”
I can: the answer is an English Parliament. You could answer all the questions too, but you’re too afraid to ask us.
And “England is too big to be treated in a homogenous way”
No, not at all. As far as this Government is concerned, size is irrelevant, all that matters is the NATION. Why else would Mr Bean have arranged for power to be devolved to the NATION of Scotland and the NATION of Wales, when one is twice the size of the other?
M Anderson: "I fail to see your point. ... what does this have to do with English self-determination"
Nothing! It has *nothing* to do with "English self-determination". It has to do with the disparities in wealth *within England*. That is what the article is addressing. If you're not interested in that, you may try not posting on the subject. Otherwise you will just continue to convince those of us who *are* interested in it, what a bad idea English Nationalism is
Not true see Cornwall, you ignore the call for devolution from Cornwall for your own nationalistic reason but that won’t make it go away. In the north the public rejected what was offered at the time but not devolution in general. Devolution of real power to real natural regions would, I think, be a different story. Why not asymetric devolution, as found in Spain, to the regions and nation of the UK that want it.
Frankly an English Constitutional Convention that ignores the high degree of centralisation in England and wants an even more centralised English Parliament in London is living in a nationalistic bubble. Why should the people of Cornwall or those from the English regions give a fig about an English parliament?
Typical hypocrisy from our anything but England commentator. Cornish devolution won't 'go away' but he thinks he can put his fingers over his ears and chant no England and we'll all shut up. As usual recognition of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Cornwall is demanded but for 'England' not only is it not demanded we must have no such thing. Our Phil denies Cornwall is part of England and thinks that we 'English' should butt out but like the devolution for the 'Celts' crowd in New Labour and the LibDems thinks he should nonetheless be able to still dictate to us what we should do and how we should be governed.
English regionalism through the looking glass: Cornwall and the North-East compared: http://www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk/events/pisa03/sandford.pdf
Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism: territory, insurgent politics and the English question: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.0020-2754.2004.00140.x?cookieSet=1
England is one nation - it has regions - they're called counties.
I wouldn't rule out larger regions being potentially useful - but any decision should be made by the English people via an English Parliament.
I can’t possibly answer all questions
Can't or won't?
I'll repost my original comment:
What England ‘needs’ is the chance to have its say as a nation and for its democratic wish to be adhered to.
If that includes regions then so be it but I for one rather resent the way we are constantly railroaded into administrative and political regionalism when it’s quite clear that there’s very little appetite for it.
I’d like to know where Sue Stirling stands in regard to a more articulated and coherent policy to provide national government for the nation of England.
It is at the national level that England loses out as a whole. The block vote and the Barnett formula ensure that, per head of population, England gets the least funding. The devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern ireland have representatives in the British Treasury meetings that decide overall funding, England does not. When England is represebnted in those meetings and gets a fair share of the UK taxes the areas in which it should be spent and the definition of those areas is inalienably the right of an English Parliament and government not an imperial British right.
I'm sorry but regionalism in France and Italy are over bureaucratised and very inneficient means of dealing with disparities of funding. Why does every attempt to deal with funding to needy areas always come back to the break up of England? Divide and conquer perhaps? The English so far have overwhelmingly rejected regionalism, time for the politicians to take note and stop their little games with England and come up with a solution that will be accepted.
Regionalisation has been rejected. Opinion polls suggest people in England want devolution like Scotland and Wales. Why not settle it with a referendum?
"Not true see Cornwall, you ignore the call for devolution from Cornwall for your own nationalistic reason but that won’t make it go away. "
No Cornwall did not ask for Devolution within England, but FROM England. And "we" have not ignored this, the British government has. Some English believe that Cornwall should remain part of England, others would recognise it as a seperate Duchy with it's Stannary parliament as a legislating body.
The Cornish argument is a seperate argument to English Devolution, simply because the EU/British quislings would have Cornwall as part of the so called South West Region.
2) England is the oldest nation state.
England is not a nation state, it is part of a multinational state the UK.
"Why should the people of Cornwall or those from the English regions give a fig about an English parliament?"
An English parliament is the only real hope the Cornish have of even getting a referendum on their future. As for English regions, well why wouldn't people appreciate having their own parliament that passes a lot of it's powers back to the shires?
But, Sue, Italy and France have their own national governments. England doesn't. Yes, there may be a case for some form of regional government in England, whether by county alliances or formal reigons, but the Labour government insists that this is INSTEAD of any national devolution in England.This leaves England without a voice in the UK, EU or British-Irish Council, without a First Minister, without an Executive, without any national representatives elected to serve only their needs. The UK comprises four nations. Devolution in England, should be subject to the will of the people of England - who have never been asked in a referendum what form of government they believe best suits their needs. They have said, on the one occasion that they were asked, in the North East, that they did NOT want an elected regional assembly.
Devolution below national level within England should not be imposed by stealth or by decree. It should be under the supervision of an English parliament , ideally one elected on the same system as the Scottish parliament
Do you believe in democracy or not, Sue? Or do you believe that the administrative needs of the UK, as perceived by the Labour government, should override it in England? If the latter, then sooner or later you will face a rebellion. Meanwhile the only course open to us is indeed to become English nationalists and to make common cause with the SNP and Plaid Cymru. It is regionalism that is fuelling English nationalism.
Just to remind all the English nationalists of a few of things.
1) There is no interest in devolution within ‘England’
Not true see Cornwall, you ignore the call for devolution from Cornwall for your own nationalistic reason but that won’t make it go away.
Oh hang on. I was under the impression, i.e. according to you, that cornwall wasnt part of England? You cant have it both ways.
If cornwall isnt in England then you cant go on
about people ignoring the call for devolution
to cornwall.
"for your own nationalistic reason..."?
What?
You think you have every right
to battle us for your own nationalistic reason[s]...to.
Oh I see. You are saying that we dont have that right.
You can have it, but we cant. Nice!
In other words, we cant decide for ourselves (about what shape England should take)
without you having the right to join in , but when the boots
on the other foot we can stay out of the cornwall debate full stop.
I think your behaviour
is inconsistent.
AJC, on December 5th, 2007 at 12:00 pm Said:
“WHICH BIT OF ENGLISH PARLIAMENT DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND?”
What the point of it is. An English parliament may address the minor issue of the “West Lothian” question. However, it would *not* address the wealth gap within England to which this article refers and to which you prefer to turn a blind eye.
"Wealth gap within England"? What?
All states have differing levels of wealth. Look at scotland and wales. They have differing levels of wealth. Glasgow and Edinburgh?
I fail to see your point.
Have the SNP "addressed the wealth gap in scotland? No!
And anyway, what does this have to do with English self-determination?
Craig Healey
The result of the only referendum on the issue was a decisive NO, and yet we’re still hearing how they will benefit us.
Got it in one Craig!
76% of those asked said NO!!!
What part of N--O, is it that is so difficult to understand?
When the people reject it and allow the establishment to push it through we shall be validating a dictatorship. If we do not start removing these people soon this despotism will be our new constitution.
Just to remind all the English nationalists of a few of things.
1) There is no interest in devolution within 'England'
Not true see Cornwall, you ignore the call for devolution from Cornwall for your own nationalistic reason but that won't make it go away. In the north the public rejected what was offered at the time but not devolution in general. Devolution of real power to real natural regions would, I think, be a different story. Why not asymetric devolution, as found in Spain, to the regions and nation of the UK that want it.
2) England is the oldest nation state.
England is not a nation state, it is part of a multinational state the UK.
Frankly an English Constitutional Convention that ignores the high degree of centralisation in England and wants an even more centralised English Parliament in London is living in a nationalistic bubble. Why should the people of Cornwall or those from the English regions give a fig about an English parliament?
Cornwall should have had a referendum on devolution instead the north-east of England did. Scotland will in time breakfrom the UK and, before that, Northern Ireland will inevitably forge closer ties with the Republic. There will again be (as there once was) the nation/state of the Kingdom of England and Wales.How do the Cornish wish to be seen and heard within that state ?
The funny thing about Philip, commonly spews divisive bile all over the place as Cornubian and Fulub-le-Breton, is that he is not even an ethnic Cornishman. Despite devoting so much time to this kind of autistic behaviour in regards to Cornwall, one of the biggest bemoners of so called "English nationalism" on the net, actually has a name which is Sassenach. LOL.
Hoskins
This interesting surname is a patronymic of Hoskin, which is of ANGLO-SAXON origin, and is from the Middle English (1200 - 1500) given name 'Osekin', a diminutive of the various personal names with the Old English pre 7th Century first element 'os', god, similar to the Old Norse 'as', and 'cyning', king. The addition in English of an inorganic H- to names beginning with a vowel is a relatively common phenomenon. The surname development since 1274 (see below) includes the following: Peter Osekyn (1306, Essex), Thomas Hoskyns (1463, Berkshire) and William Hoskyn (1472, Kent). The surname is very common in DEVON and can be found as Hoskin, Hoskyn, Hosken and Hosking, the patronymics include Hoskin(g)s, Hosky(n)s, Huskinson, Hoskis(s)on and Huskisson.
http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Huskinson
Fancy that. Fulub-le-Breton, or should we say Philip-Ye-Devon is a fraud. What is he running away from? What traumatic event happened in his life that punshed him into such crankery in regards to a culture which is not truely his own caste (the Cornish culture). I don't know about "imperialism", but this guy seems to be a thief, stealing Cornish culture for his own gratification and manipulating its history in a crankish manner to attack his own people (the English). Self-loathing. I think we should go watch a Plymouth game together, St George in hand. Scream it from the mountain tops, I certainly am gointing to propagate this fact in so called "Celtic League" (real mondus operi "Communist League") cricles.
Sorry to show you up like this Phil, hugs and kisses.
Post new comment