Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): There is a real danger that the debate about English devolution is becoming sterile, with the debate crystallising into two irreconcilable camps.
On the one side you have individuals who put all their emphasis on an English Parliament, and regard any talk of decentralisation below this level at best premature and at worst a plot to break up England - not to mention something that has already been rejected by the public.
On the other side you have the regionalists who regard any mention of England or English identity as dangerous or racist, who believe that there is not a serious question of English national identity to be addressed, and that those who do are trying to break up the Union.
I believe both these extremes are wrong, and are now getting in the way of moving forward.
It is important that we find a solution that addresses the national character of England and that answers the democratic deficit that has developed. But to simply say that England should be treated in exactly the same as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ignores the real problem of the centralisation of power, the diversity of identity and the fact that you can't govern a nation of the 50 million in the same way as you govern a nation of 5 million.
Meanwhile, the patchwork model of regional government, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland sitting as equivalents to a number of roughly equal sized English regions, is based on essentially the same fallacy of trying to shoehorn in like with like: in this case on the basis of population size rather than national identity.
With that said, the death of regionalism is often overstated. The referendum in the North East would at least have been more vigorously fought over if the government had been prepared to give the proposed assembly meaningful powers, and thus given the "yes" campaigners something to actually fight for. Opponents of regionalism often forget that a much larger region, Greater London, with a population greater than Scotland and Northern Ireland put together, voted overwhelmingly in favour of devolution in 1998. Finally, it is also worth pointing out that it took the people of Wales two goes to say 'yes'.
Both regionalists and supporters of an English Parliament reject the richness of English local cultural identity at their peril. England cannot be artificially broken up into 9 roughly equal units, but that isn't to say there aren't many parts of the country that have a strong regional identity and are big enough to devolve many more decisions to. Essex, with its 1.3 million people (only 300 hundred thousand less than Northern Ireland), could, if its people wanted it to, provide lots of the services that have been devolved to the Welsh Assembly or Northern Irish Assembly. Several counties are larger still. Cornwall is larger than Wyoming, Luxembourg, Malta and three Spanish Autonomous Regions. Shouldn't we be presuming that such areas can withstand devolution - rather than that they can't?
Many supporters of an English Parliament will accept that, but consider it to be a second order priority. They argue that we need an English Parliament to solve the West Lothian Question first, which can then hand power over to the counties and cities. But would it? The Scottish Parliament has not exactly been forthcoming in giving local authorities more power. While the SNP are pressing ahead with directly elected health boards, their proposals to replace Council Tax with a local income tax will actually reduce the autonomy of local authorities, by not allowing them to vary the rate. Meanwhile, in London, Mayor Livingstone is constantly clashing with local authorities.
Parliaments and Assemblies are power hungry beasts by nature: why would an English Parliament be any different? At least the GLA and Scottish Parliament themselves represent a major shift in bringing power closer to the people. How would an English Parliament, covering a population of over 50 million, be able to claim the same?
So where does this all leave us? To make progress we need to address the national, regional and local levels, and how they might interlock, all at the same time. Localists and regionalists need to recognise that England is a nation, that Englishness is a cultural identity and that both must be reflected somewhere in our constitution (for example, who will represent us on the British-Irish Council?). Meanwhile supporters of an English solution need to look beyond the West Lothian Question and recognise the importance of giving English people meaningful control over their own lives. I am not saying that if we do this we will all agree, but at least we may have a chance of finding a way forward.
Winding each other up can be fun - but it only really suits those who want to maintain the status quo.
Comments
I think this is one of the best articles on devolution and the English question I have ever read.
It would be if it ended with a proposal instead of being punctuated with question marks.
A while ago, it seemed that Peter Facey was in favour of an English Parliament. Or at least some form of national devolution for England. Now it seems he is fence-sitting.
Surely it is up to a nationally representative parliament to decide how England is governed internally? Surely, an English Parliament MUST be put in place before we debate England's counties/regions, etc?
May we ask why Peter Facey suddenly finds this concept rather difficult? The regionalist agenda is undemocratic. Simple as that. We're not rejecting regions. So long as an English Parliament, representing the people of England, makes the decision. Not the over-centralised, anti-England UK Parliament which is currently discriminating against every man, woman and child in England.
And before anybody squawks "what about the Union"? may we state that Nu Labour should have thought of that before. Currently the "Union" is working against England and the political scene is as currupt as can be.
The so-called "Union" is killing itself, and sadly so is the EU. Dictatorships never last.
You still have not answered my question "who am I". If you intellectuals want to lead us prol's out of our "Lark Rise to Candleford" mentality - http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/larkrise/ - you will have to give us a good reason to follow you "Squires".
http://ourkingdom.opendemocracy.net/2008/01/26/three-new-quangos-continue-assault-on-local-democracy/#comment-17772
For those who want a bit of nostalgia; times when we prol's new our place, have a look at http://www.localhistories.org/19thcentengland.html
"Conversations" with the entire "British" electorate.
As an Englishman I was not in on the "conversation" over devolution for Scotland.
As an Englishman I was not invited to contribute to the "conversation" dealing with Welsh devolution.
As a southern Englishman I was not involved in the conversation regarding devolution for the North East of England.
As a tax payer (English) I am only allowed to pay the tab.
I think this is one of the best articles on devolution and the English question I have ever read.
Personally I am a strong supporter of an English Parliament, particularly a Parliament that runs England in the old English way - A very, very light touch. The British Empire was run the English way, which is why each country effectively ran itself and on independence the majority indigenous population already had control.
My view of an English Parliament is one that runs central issues only and leaves the historic Counties, Cities and Towns to get on with running ALL local issues that only they understand and should therefore directly control. To meet the unfettered funding for this, the local Councils should either take over certain direct taxation from the Parlaiment, or should have representative and equal voting rights on the Revenue apportionment committee for England.
Whatever happens, English matters should be decided by English people and that can only be done under an organisation with power that truly represents the people of England, (not Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the EU). That means an English Parliament.
The pro regionalists are eu regionalists and have no time for English Identity and the English democratic deficit.Britishness will be killed off in favour of regional identities as soon as they have England in the EU.
I agree with this article that the debate is sterile, but it is sterile because the debate is not aired in the main stream media. This leads to a shouting match in cyber space. I would dearly like to see an MP stand up in Parliament and tell Brown to stop this stupid and false britishness campaign aimed solely at the English . When a law is England only at Westminster I want that acknowledged verbally,The toriesare as much to blame as new labour.
This is an eminently reasonable, might I say even very English, balanced view between two poles of an argument - not sure I'd call them 'extremes', although there are extreme exponents of them. As a supporter of an English parliament myself, I'm not opposed to local devolution along the lines that Peter suggests with his examples of Cornwall and Essex - although whether the Cornish nationalists would be content to be an autonomous / devolved English county-region is another matter; and I wouldn't view them as 'extreme' for wanting full independence.
It's not this sort of transfer of decision making down to a more local level that is a problem but the breaking up of England into super-regions, which - as Peter rightly observes - is often accompanied by contempt or distaste for any idea of English national identity or of an English nation per se.
I think, however, that Peter is mistaken in viewing an English parliament as necessarily having centralising tendencies like those of the UK parliament and government; although he's right to signal this as a potential issue. In a sense, it IS rather jumping the gun to presume that an English parliament, simply because of England's population, will inevitably be more centralist than the Scottish parliament or regional assemblies. For the present, an English parliament seems a highly distant possibility, so let's not ascribe to it all the worst (by implication, English-dominated) characteristics of the Westminster parliament in order to throttle an EP before it is even conceived, let alone at birth.
In my view, the federal UK model - which Peter does not touch on - presents the best possibility for balancing the different levels of governance: local, regional, national, federal / UK, and European, of course. A system of checks and balances between these different levels should / could ensure that none of them become too powerful at the expense of the legitimate right for, and importance of, representation and decision making at each level. This could be a way to ensure that English national priorities neither take too much of an upper hand against those of the other nations of the UK or of English counties / regions; while ensuring that the overall UK and EU authorities do not override and dictate against the wishes and needs of England, as they arguably do now.
David, aka Britology Watch
I do not "think" that the break up of England is a plot, I damn well know it is.
If it were not for the requirements of the EU (just look at the apropriate website and see the "regions" of the Arc Manche etc) Commission to make the UK more manageable, the UK would be sailing along quite nicely, fully intact and all member country's subjects being treated equally. Scotland, Wales and London all fell for the "devolution" ruse and are now paying the price in the drive for independence although where London thinks it will go is beyond me, London is the Capital of England and no amount of spin, lying, re-mapping or geographic gerrymandering will change this fact.
When all is settled and Scotland and Wales become "independent" Britain will disappear and England will re-emerge as a sovereign country, all will remain members of the Commonwealth which will answer the question of what to do with the Monarchy, devolution will have turned out to be just a fancy and a huge waste of time and money. As for the EU, in 20 years time people will say the European "what"?.
Peter wrote:
"Localists and regionalists need to recognise that England is a nation, that Englishness is a cultural identity and that both must be reflected somewhere in our constitution (for example, who will represent us on the British-Irish Council?)"
Dear I say Cornwall is a nation and 'Cornish' a national / old / indigenous (you choose) minority identity. This was reflected constitutionally (and could be again) in the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall which was charged at its creation with the civil administration of Cornwall. Unlike any county of England the sherif of Cornwall was and still is appointed by the Duke.
Other than that, good article!
There is no "North East" of England. The north of England was divided and weakened because to keep Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland and County Durham as the north of England would have reinforced and highlighted the real north/south divide, namely, the English/Scottish border.
English people identify with their ancient counties and should be allowed to decide their own form of English home rule.
Devolution has been concerned only with what the Welsh and especially the Scots want and denying the English a voice.
The people of Sedgefield rejected a unitary authority by 76% in a local referendum, but still had one foisted on them, just as they had a regional assembly imposed.
Regionalism is specifically designed to abolish England, as many statements by Ministers and other politicians have made obvious.
If its a choice between keeping England or the Union, I choose England.
Peter,
Perhaps Unlock Democracy would like to take the lead on this and come up with a solution that is acceptable to both camps.
Why not lead us out of the darkness?
Those of us who engaged over many frustrating months with the former ODPM regarding devolution in England can confirm that it was indeed "..a plot to break up England..". Regional devolution was held to be the 'English equivalent' of Scottish and Welsh devolution (although the same degree of devolved powers was never on offer).
There was not then and there is not now in the Labour Government any interest in offering England any kind of national political representation or national voice. The Government's intransigence on this issue and its unmistakable determination to prevent any political expression of Englishness (see Simon Lee 'Best for Britain' for a better exposition than I can make) means that instead of campaigning for simple constitutional justice for England some of us now have to campaign as nationalists.
The vast majority of those campaigning for an English Parliament , not all of them nationalists, would be only too happy to see powers devolved ('returned' is perhaps the correct word) to English counties. The regions as devised by the Government have existed only since the end of WWII. With the exception of Yorkshire, they have no cultural or popular identity that requires representation. They are artificial unwanted agglomerations and those who persist in promoting them can hardly be surprised if we suspect their motives.
In the unlikely event that the Government ever agreed to devolve power back to the English counties, or return to them powers stripped away from them over the past 30 or more years, we would still need some kind of national political representation for England. UK MPs are elected to consider UK interests, not English interests. Who speaks for England? Where are England's representatives in the British-Irish Council or in the EU, let alone in the UK?
For better or worse, the Government set up national assemblies in Scotland and Wales to provide a 'focus' for those nations. It is not unreasonable to expect that England should be offered the same.
[quote]On the one side you have individuals who put all their emphasis on an English Parliament, and regard any talk of decentralisation below this level at best premature and at worst a plot to break up England [/quote]
Quite untrue, as a general rule we favour increased powers for a local government tier along similar lines to the present one, e.g. counties and metropolitan areas.
[quote]the fact that you can’t govern a nation of the 50 million in the same way as you govern a nation of 5 million.[/quote]
Funny, the British Parliamentary system seems to function well enough with 60 million people in it.
[quote]With that said, the death of regionalism is often overstated.[/quote]
Only because of necromancers who keep wishing to reserrect it.
[quote]Finally, it is also worth pointing out that it took the people of Wales two goes to say ‘yes’.[/quote]
So plainly the answer is to keep asking until you get the right result.
[quote]Parliaments and Assemblies are power hungry beasts by nature[/quote]
By your logic, then, we should come out of Europe (huge parliament, remote from anyone) and even treat Westminster with suspicion. Actually, I think I'm starting to like you :-)
[quote]Localists and regionalists need to recognise that England is a nation, that Englishness is a cultural identity and that both must be reflected somewhere in our constitution ... Meanwhile supporters of an English solution need to look beyond the West Lothian Question and recognise the importance of giving English people meaningful control over their own lives. [/quote]
Welcome to the Campaign for an English Parliament, Peter. A true devolving of power from a much reduced British Parliament to the National Parliaments of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and from them to local councils.
Peter
Thank you for this rational and coherently argued contribution to the "English Question" debate. Your phrases summarise in a succinct fashion, much of what I have been trying to convey in the OK forum.
I do believe that there are inherently centralising tendencies within the idea of an all-England political body and that they should be resisted. However, I also accept that "English values" have to be respected in some form but that does not mean that cultural and historical factors should override other more current and therefore relevant factors, such as economic ties, political and constitutional considerations.
My own view is that the vehicle provided by the desire to create a written British Constitution offers the most credible route to an equitable solution because it will involve all of the parties required to achieve an inclusive settlement.
However, without attempting to set pre-conditions, such a strategy will only succeed (and engage with the British public) if there is goodwill on the part of all participants and a realistic prospect of progress towards a comprehensive solution.
Specifically, this would initially require a step-change in the attitude currently emanating from the Whitehall inner sanctums of opaque power. An orthodox "we know best" top-down ministerial culture has not only engendered widespread public disillusion and disengagement from the democratic political process but this same philosophy has also effectively shattered any meaningful attempts to disperse power and influence to sub-national tiers of governance within England.
In addition, an integral element of any "conversation" with the entire British electorate (but with obvious resonance amongst those residing in England) should be the potential to reshape the official English Regional Map because this factor has contributed in no small measure to public antipathy towards the concept of English devolution.
I concur with your assertion that there is a pragmatic and settlement to this conundrum available, if we (the British peoople) really want it. Exchanging insults will not provide a genuine pathway to that goal.
[...] at Our Kingdom, Peter Facey (Unlock Democracy) calls for English parliament campaigners and regionalists to break [...]
An English Parliament is an opportunity to reinvent the nation.
How about abolishing political parties and having MPs vote by conscience or in accordance with their constituents views?
Throw in a 20% flat rate tax half of which to be allocated in accordance with the payees conscience. Then we'd start to see what the people really want.
Gareth! wash your mouth out. They don't do "proposals" on the Peter and Philip Show.
You and I know that this site is a classic example of talking the talk and no walking the walk. Nothing said here will change anything, it is just esoteric spleen venting.
I am thinking of starting the "None of the Above Party", because we have to fight fire with fire; for the following reasons:-
There will have to be a general election in the next couple of years and we the people can do absolutely nothing to select the person(s) we wish to vote for; they will be presented to us. You will know more about Britney Spiers than you will about the candidate; and, we don't have any of those primary things, like the yanks have, to sort out the runners and riders.
There is no alternative - apart from a coup d'etat - to getting a name on a ballot paper, so you have got to have a least ten mates who can write their names on a proposal form. They will stand for the "None of the Above Party", which we will register with the commission.
We will now have given the populace the biggest protest vote opportunity they will ever have. No risk of tactical voting cock-ups in marginal seats. If they are pissed off with the present system they are bound to vote for us. If not, they won't. They can go back to whining on sites like this for ever more.
In case, by accident, we get to form a government, we will have to have a policy or better still an Ideology. I suggest we nick the Ten Commandments on Direct Democracy's home page, middle class England will go for it big time; Our poster will look like a tablet of stone; the bottom line will say "Its a rollover week. vote for us".
As running the country will be a pain, we will sub-contract most of it to the the Cities and the Counties. We will just do the bits that are only do-able at national level - defence; trade; treaties; national security and federal budgets and taxes etc. We can do a bit of socio-economic balancing by handing out some of this cash, per capita, to the Counties. Nothing too complicated. We will get into flat taxes and vouchers pretty quickly. Anything Estonia can do, we can do better.
The country may be in complete chaos after a few months so we may have to sub-contract Tesco or WalMart management to sort it. They are much better at running big things than any bunch of career politicians.
I was going to start the "Don't Vote: Teach the Buggers a Lesson Party", but that needs some more work. Must go now. I have an interview with Mr Conway MP for a research post, lovely jubly.
Peter et al
We can all campaign till the cows come home for the likes of STV variants; list systems; referendums and UDI for Cornwall; but, the problem is here and now and I am not getting any younger.
There is no chance that the current occupants of the green benches are going to give away anything that might threaten their current standard of living.
The only weapon we have is the system as it currently is. We have to use it to defeat itself. The None of the Above Party - lets call this a working title for the moment - will only frustrate the current hegemony at Westminster. For the voter, it is a simple case of putting a cross against us or them on a ballot paper they understand. All the usual lobby fodder from the other parties, will still be on the ballot paper.
The simple 1,2,3,4 / FPTP ballot papers proved too difficult for the Scots to handle, remember?
Before we can change anything, we have to get our hands on the levers.
Ray Bell, on February 1st, 2008 at 6:48 pm Said:
“Well Ray his point is we were supposed to be living in ONE state and then it became obvious that we were never living in ONE state. It became obvious that certain groups were out for themselves.”
"I’ve no problem with being out for ourselves. After all, I’ve lost count the number of times things have been imposed on Scotland without our consent - POLL TAX anyone? It’s a bit much to cry foul when it happens to England after long last."
So Ray, you have no problem with the scottish being "out for themselves"? Er yeah, us English have known that for years Ray. The scots have not suddenly discovered selfishness after all. The problem many English people have with your type of attitude Ray is that you scots have complained for years about the English being out for themselves, but now you say you have no problem with it. I s'pose you don't care about your double standards. Oh you don't know what I mean? Here's one for you. The scottish parliament has virtually all scottish people sitting as members, but you lot have the neck to whine when scottish mp's at Westminster are reduced in number! You are hypocrites! You like the idea of the scottish being out for themselves, but think it's your divine right to try and stop the English having the same attitude. Why shouldn't the English be out for themselves to Ray?
And if youre going to reply to anything I post then you need to rebutt my words with the truth, NOT lies! ! Poll tax anyone? George Younger anyone? George Younger was the one who "imposed" the poll tax on scotland wasnt he Ray? He was a scot!!
The poll tax was not "imposed" on scotland as one Malcolm Rifkind, himself a scot, states below:
Mr Rifkind's letter from The Scotsman (22/9/2006)
I have read your report (16 September) of David Cameron’s remarks.You report him as saying, on the community charge or poll tax, that “the decision to treat Scotland as a laboratory for experimentation in new methods of local government finance was clumsy and unjust”.
It has often been suggested that the decision to introduce the poll tax in Scotland a year earlier than in England was to enable it to be tested. This is untrue, as those active in Scottish politics at the time will confirm.
The background is well known. Scotland, which had suffered a rates revaluation, was in uproar about the unfairness of the domestic rates system. Rates were also unpopular in England and the government decided to abolish them and replace them with the community charge or poll tax throughout Britain.
For various technical reasons it was going to take much longer for the legislation to be prepared in England than in Scotland. George Younger, [ a scotsman] who was then Scottish secretary, persuaded the [UK] Cabinet that the legislation should be introduced as soon as possible in Scotland and should not have to wait until the English were ready. His Cabinet colleagues accepted this request.
At no time was its timing pressed on Scottish Office ministers by Margaret Thatcher or English colleagues.
Introducing the poll tax a year earlier in Scotland was a mistake [but] that does not alter the historical reality that the earlier introduction in Scotland was decided by Scottish Office ministers because of the unpopularity of domestic rates AND NOT because of any pressure from Mrs Thatcher or other colleagues.
(SIR) MALCOLM RIFKIND, MP
House of Commons
London
Ray, you need to stop making deceitful posts. You are making yourself sound like a clone of Anthony Blair and Gordon Brown. Oh, theyre both scotsmen to. Just like you Ray!
Ray:
"I’ve lost count the number of times things have been imposed on Scotland without our consent"
Such as? And by whom? You don't say exactly who you're referring to Ray? Why not? "Imposed on scotland"?What Ray, like the poll tax you mean? "imposed" by a scotsman wasn't it? A scotsman Ray and you're trying to make out it was "the English" who forced it on scotland! Sad, very sad! You are trying to make it sound like it was just English mps involved when you and I both know that the UK parliament has mps from scotland, wales, N ireland and England sitting in it and these mps are of many nationalities not just English.
Ray:
"It’s a bit much to cry foul when it happens to England after long last."
I am not not crying foul; i'm merely exposing the scottish hypocrisy and social welfare victim mentality Ray! The fact that you lied about the poll tax to try and make the English look bad and win an internet argument proves the lengths to which scottish people like you will go to to hang onto power Ray.
"It" Ray? Oh I think you've got your heed up yer harris Ray!
The It being deliberately imposed on the English right now in 2008 was never imposed on the scottish EVER! The it of deliberately withholding lifesaving cancer drugs ONLY from English cancer patients never did happen to scottish cancer patients in the past did it Ray? Or are you going to invent some ficticious event in order to further run down the English? The deliberate withholding of cancer drugs is just one thing that scottish Blair and Scottish Brown have imposed on the English. These types of things were never imposed on the scottish by the English in the past Ray. West Lothian anyone? Barnett formula anyone? Scots mps forcing through legislation at Westminster England anyone? English people being forced to pay more to study than other students anyone? Ray, stop making up fairy stories. Stop acting immature and debate the issues...if you are capable!
Ray:
"The Welsh MPs all voted against Tryweryn being flooded, but it still happened. That’s what the UK is like. That’s why it has to change."
You are insinuating that "the English" were responsible. Westminster does not only have English mp's sitting in it and it was that way fifty odd years ago to.
Stop trying to make it sound like it was a group decision with the English. As with other countries, including scotland and wales, the people at the top make the decisions and the common man and woman have to live with it. Formulate a real argument instead of just English bashing. And no, your argument is not justification for what is going on now, i.e. criminal, anti-democratic, anti-English, so-called devolution.
In the past Welsh supposed UK MP's will have had a hand in many Capel Celyn type situations in England.
England has been bricked over many times and the ancient hearts of towns ripped out for ring roads. All this for faster transport to make money for the exchequer and a lot of that money will have gone to Wales. I read in the Cheshire papers recently that Plaid were complaining that the green belt around Chester was creating more incomers in to Wales. What they are saying is we will send Welsh MP's to Westminister to encourage mass immigration into England, they will create more wealth for Wales, but we don't want the immigrants or the English in Wales. Double standards indeed.
Ray:
"I’ve no interest in imposing my will on London - I don’t live there, or have any interest in the place. I’ve a vague interest in Wales, and have links there, but it must be the Welsh who choose, not their conquerors."
"It must be the welsh who choose"? Really Ray? Your language sounds like it's you who are wanting to choose for them. "Must be"? You are not welsh so why do you think you have the right to tell them how to act?
Yes Ray and it must be the English who choose to! What about that? Oh of course youre a hypocrite and believe in one law for the welsh and another for the English. Right Ray? You try to justify this by waffling "I’ve lost count the number of times things have been imposed on Scotland without our consent" and other such "gems"!
"Conquerers"? Oh for crying out loud, if the welsh are conquered how come they have an assembly? They arent conquered. Anyway, if youre talking about the Normans you should just say so. After all, it was them who ransacked the place. That's why wales has all them Norman castles. Yeah that's right. they aint welsh castles at all. The tourist board there call them welsh castles ha! ha!
Ray Bell, on February 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 am Said:
“England has been a nation state for far longer than Scotland or Wales”
This statement is highly questionable. Wales, yes, but Scotland is much more complicated. There was an “Alba” (Scotland) when England was in pieces. And it is only arguably the Norman conquest which hammered the Anglian, Saxon, Danish and Brythonic parts together… but until the 1300s, the English language was in severe danger.
Your statement is highly questionable Ray. scotland and England became unified at about the same time. As for "wales" it had never been a country even before the Romans! It was a lot of warring, bickering kingdoms.
Alba? What does that have to do with scotland? Alba means white. As for England being in pieces well, there was Angeln before there was England. A bit like there is now a new England in the USA. England in pieces"? What are you implying anyway? Are you referring to the Saxon heptarchy?
Oh yeah Ray and scotland was never "in pieces" I suppose? Where does the name scotland come from Ray? Scotti anyone? Picts anyone? Norse western islanders anyone, norse shetland islanders anyone, norse orkney islanders anyone?
The Norman conquest? ha! ha! Please. Who do you think Robert De Bruis was then Ray? He was Norman! Oh yeah Ray, the Normans were big in scotland to. Whilst im on the subject, what the about the Fresians Ray? Closest known relatives of the English aren't they Ray? Theyre more or less Angles and Saxons in disguise Ray. Dumfries? Yeah, you've guessed it Ray. It isnt "keltiq", no it means "Hill of the Fresians" Ray. Because they lived there Ray.
Angle, Saxon and Dane were all from roughly the same geographical area Ray. Which is why they had no problem eventually uniting into one country.
The English language was not in "severe danger"! Oh for crying out loud, lowland people in scotland spoke "inglis" for three hundred years. Guess what "Inglis" was Ray? Yeah, English!
Hotspur
Who raised the spectre of "nasty southern English tories" - I certainly didn't mention them?
First of all let us recall that only three Northern English Regions were offered potential referendums in the Bill I referred to; subsequently two of those proposed plebiscites (for NW.England and Yorks-Humber) were initially suspended and ultimately withdrawn. No Southern English MP's, Tory or otherwise, were involved in any shape or form.
It might also surprise you to learn that a significant element of the pressure brought to bear upon the élite I was actually referring to; namely Downing Street plus various Whitehall based ministers and their advisors, came from the very same Northern English Labour MP's you allude to, who quietly informed said decision makers that they did not favour the emergence of parallel elected (accountable) tiers of governance outside their sphere on influence.
In plain terms they did not want to see the establishment of alternative loci of power and influence on THEIR patch, potentially undermining THEIR power base. They wanted to retain their privileged status within the UK's political and constitutional hierarchy. Just another facet of the intrinsically centralised unitary state we live in.
"Localists and regionalists need to recognise that England is a nation". Quite right Peter. They also need to recognise that nations elect their own Parliament, Government and First Minister.That's what most English people want for England!
Acorn
I am fortunate enough to reside in a semi-rural community (effectively at the southern extremity of the Greater Manchester conurbation), which has not suffered anything like the same extent of decline evident across much of the country. This is due in part to its affluence and also to the relatively older (and hence more traditional?) demographic profile of its residents.
The Parish Council still functions and as far as I am aware Wards are still contested. The Parish Council was instrumental in leading a campaign to save the local Post sorting office (we still have an actual Post Office) in the village. Of course it didn't make a blind bit of difference but it did at least demonstrate a sense of local community spirit.
Thanks Peter for the STV detail. Interesting piece on the home page "Perish the Parish".
I don't know about your Parish, but here in the New Forest, half the Parish Wards are not contested; not enough candidates for an election. My experience - an ex councillor - is that the same lack of interest is spreading up the system, rapidly.
People are just so pissed off with the system, they will vote for anything; just for the chance of a change. Not that they could tell you what a Parish Council does!
"As an Englishman I was not in on the “conversation” over devolution for Scotland."
And as a Scotsman I was not in on the conversation over devolution for Wales or London. What's your point?
The London-centric political élite come from all parts of the uk ,why is always portrayed as nasty southern English tories trying to stiff the rest of the uk?
Peter Davidson should know that New Labour and Lib/dem MP's in the North East of England would not touch the regional assembly question again with a barge poll and rightly so.
@Acorn in the New Forest
Sorry to burst your bubble but I think you will find that "None of the Above Party" is a proscribed phrase in terms of electoral law. Cynics will claim that such a move is deliberately designed to frustrate the protest campaign you are trying to promote - I sympathise with the cynics in this instance.
Others will argue that having "None of the Above" on the ballot paper mihgt confuse some of the (rapidly diminishing number of) individuals who wish to exercise their democratic franchise in the traditional manner.
However, I do have a constructive suggestion for an alternative protest vehicle, through which you can express your displeasure with the current democratic (or lack of) arrangements
Join Make Votes Count and campaign for a fair voting system. One which empowers both the ordinary voter and collective electorate at the expense of organised political parties by providing real choice in the polling booth because:
Candidate lists put forward by the parties can be ranked thus enabling voters to express a clear political preference whilst still exerting individual candidate selection.
It does not create two types of elected representative, one with a direct link to the constituency and one drawn from a top-up list.
It not only maintains the constituency link but actually strengthens it because the vast majority of voters within each individual enlarged constituency will be able to point to at least one elected representative who they placed in their ranked list of preferences.
It obliges candidates from the same party to compete not only against political rivals but also members of their own party.
It eliminates tactical voting.
It allows the individual voter/collective electorate real choice. Sophisticated expression of collective opinion arises from this composite form of preference.
It remains relatively simple for the individual voter to understand and participate, just 1,2,3,4 on the ballot paper.
It is flexible and can thus adapt to different geographical circumstances. Smaller seat numbers in rural areas, larger in urban (dense population) areas.
Multi-Member STV does all of the above and still manages to deliver a broadly proportional overall outcome.
http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=48
See you at the next meeting?
Acorn - They don’t do “proposals” on the Peter and Philip Show.
Shouldn't that be the Peter and Peter show? Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy calling for English nationalists and regionalists to step back from our entrenched positions, and Peter Davidson, also of Unlock Democracy, who's a fanatical Euro-federalist hell bent on balkanising England (also responsible for this site) and the abolition of nations.
"So long as an English Parliament, representing the people of England, makes the decision. Not the over-centralised, anti-England UK Parliament which is currently discriminating against every man, woman and child in England"
No it should be a question of open public debate decided finally by a referendum. Imposing an English parliament on the people of England and Cornwall without a referendum would be undemocratic.
If an English parliament is what people want that is what they should have but everything must be done to make sure their choice is fully informed.
"The simple 1,2,3,4 / FPTP ballot papers proved too difficult for the Scots to handle, remember?"
Actually, they weren't quite so simple. Two ballots on one piece of paper, and a third on another, and all decided by completely different systems. Very clumsy.
That said, I favour PR. The problem with the None of the Above party is that folk confuse it with the folk who didn't get off their backsides and vote at all.
Well sweetness and light lasted a long time didnt it. Firstly I am a localist and a regionalist (I voted yes in the London referendum) so I not lecturering others. For me the centralised nature of England is what I am trying to change, I dont simply want to change the flag and replace a centralised United Kingdom with a centralised England. My article was simply trying to say that we both have to try and address the issues and if we dont it will be those who say that its all too difficult who will win.
I dont think we can simply go for a localist approach on its own and ignore the English dimention or visa viser and that we now need to find a way to address both at the same time. And yes Peter and I are both from Unlock Democracy, myself as Director and Peter as a elected Council member. We dont always agree, but then as members of a organisation that believes in pluralism we dont always have too.
We will come up with our proposals and I hope that those who call for a English approach and a voice for the English people will also come up with a way to give voice and power to the localites and regions (whether it is the city region of London or the County of Cambridgeshire) at the same time. As I said we probably still wont agree but at least we will make progress. But maybe winding each other up its actually too much fun.
"...to simply say that England should be treated in exactly the same as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ignores the real problem of the centralisation of power, the diversity of identity and the fact that you can’t govern a nation of the 50 million in the same way as you govern a nation of 5 million."
This is just your opinion. Why do you assume it to be correct?
Why shouldn't the English be treated in exactly the same way as the scottish, welsh and n irish? Your reasons for denying the English self determination are not valid. Again, the English are being patronisingly talked down to. There was no big pontification prior to scotland and wales having their devolution votes.
"Centralisation of power"? Er, didn't scotland, wales and NIreland get more power? How is that more centralisation? Yeah I know, you're implying that only England is "centralised"! Well, that is because we have a non-Englishman (Scotsman Gordon Brown) as dictator in chief. You implying that the English can't be treated equally with the scottish, welsh and n irish because England is centralised is a red herring. Plus, we have been disenfranchised so it isnt anything to do with us. Oh but anyway, insinuate it's our fault anyway ah, i.e. condemn us for wanting equality by implying that we cant have equality because of some bogus reasons that aren't our fault.
"Diversity of identity"? When was this used as a valid reason for NOT granting political equality and self-determination to a whole ethnic group? Let me get this straight. You are saying that England should not have a parliament because of "diversity of identity"? (I will assume that you mean England the country has several different ethnic groups within it's borders and that this somehow disqualifies it from being able to have it'sown parliament?)
Since when did this disqualify a country from have a parliament? Do you support the idea of a united Ireland and a united Ireland having it's own parliament? You can't! There is too much "diversity of identity" there. Oh yeah, you've got united irishmen, catholic unionists, protestants in the republic, catholics in the british north, you've got chinese there, youve got Lithuanians there and then of course, there's those poles. Oh no, there's far too much "diversity of identity" there for a united ireland to have its own parliament. Don't you agree Peter? You have to agree because it's your view.
By your logic, the USA should have no congress. Infact, by your "logic", a lot of countries shouldnt have parliaments. What about India? What about Nigeria? Oh Nigeria shouldnt have a parliament. Nigeria has more than 250 ethnic groups, including Hausa and Fulani 29%, Yoruba 21%, Ibo 18%, Ijaw 10%, Kanuri 4%, Ibibio 3.5%, Tiv 2.5% . Oh and while i'm at it, scotland has several different ethnic groups within it's borders to. Did you campaign against them having their own parliament on the grounds of too much "diversity identity"? Of course not! Which is all anyone needs to know.
"you can’t govern a nation of the 50 million in the same way as you govern a nation of 5 million."
Explain to me why not. The USA has roughly 290 million people; it's governed in the same way as scotland. And what about the EU?
Peter Davidson...a fanatical Euro-federalist hell bent on balkanising England.
How can he be a euro federalist? The eu shouldnt even have a parliament. Too much "diversity identity"!!
“As an Englishman I was not in on the “conversation” over devolution for Scotland.”
And as a Scotsman I was not in on the conversation over devolution for Wales or London. What’s your point?
Well Ray his point is we were supposed to be living in ONE state and then it became obvious that we were never living in ONE state. It became obvious that certain groups were out for themselves.
As far as the UK goes, the English should not have been excluded from any vote concerning the UK's future. We were, and as you know, that is his point.
If the whole debacle was done democratically, i.e. properly you should have been able to vote in the welsh devolution vote AND London vote. The people who wanted to ruin England were never going to act democratically. Why would they? They wanted their own way and were going to get it by hook or by crook. I dare say that if the English had voted en masse a scottish parliament would not have materialised.
Obviously, the whole thing was done that way to get us all fighting each other. We've been fighting each other ever since. The EUrolanders must love our naivety!
"England has been a nation state for far longer than Scotland or Wales"
This statement is highly questionable. Wales, yes, but Scotland is much more complicated. There was an "Alba" (Scotland) when England was in pieces. And it is only arguably the Norman conquest which hammered the Anglian, Saxon, Danish and Brythonic parts together... but until the 1300s, the English language was in severe danger.
Yes Ray, just another error in a contribution riddled with inconsistencies.
Christine Constable refers to the word fact three times in her contribution. What a pity she did not bother to check her facts before pressing the "Submit Comment" button!
@Christine Constable: In fact regionalisation of England has never had much public support and certainly in the opnion polls I have seen it rarely achieves 10% support"
wrong!
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/1991_october_guardian_october_poll.pdf#search=%22English%20Regions%22
wrong!
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/1995_january_guardian_january_poll.pdf#search=%22Devolution%22
wrong!
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/1997_april_bbc_first_time_voters_poll.pdf#search=%22English%20Regions%22
and yet again, completely and utterly wrong!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1884081.stm
So when Christine Constable boldly claims in her opening line that she thinks: “Peter Facey’s analysis is flawed.” we are entitled to question the objectivity of her judgement and the veracity of any subsequent conclusions. One can only assume that any evidence contradicting her ideology is routinely excluded from the reasoning process?
However, she would be entirely justified in stating that backing for an English Parliament has increased in recent years whilst support for English Regions has waned markedly since 2002. Is it mere coincidence that this decline corresponds with the publication of the Regional Assemblies Preparations Bill in November 2002, when it became apparent that a London-centric political élite had successfully undermined any attempt to transfer meaningful power to accountable English tiers of sub-national governance?
Perhaps a logical conclusion might be that ordinary people, prior to this event, believed English Regional Devolution meant precisely that; transfer of real power to closer more immediate tiers of accountable governance, whilst publication of the Bill confirmed the entrenched culture of centralisation within Whitehall?
Maybe the people of the North East took one look at the competencies slated for their nascent Regional Assembly and concluded, quite logically, that the proposals did not represent real devolution. Perhaps they were just collectively saying “thanks but no thanks”?
@Acorn in the New Forest: "The only weapon we have is the system as it currently is. We have to use it to defeat itself."
An interesting comment given my own views about the most credible route to a fairer voting system. As a committed campaigner on this issue I have to say that your idea is simply a non-starter. It cannot deliver.
In my opinion the only realistic scenario in which fair (proportional) voting might emerge is a hung parliament. You probably realise that with FPTP only a very small number of key voters in marginal constituencies actually change the overall election outcome one way or the other. Approx 16000 for the 2005 election, some predictions for the next one reduce that total to 8000.
If one could devise a strategy to predict, with a degree of certainty, the identity an location of those voters in advance, that knowledge would be invaluable in enhancing the prospects of meaningful reform.
@Ray Bell / @Acorn in the New Forest
“The simple 1,2,3,4 / FPTP ballot papers proved too difficult for the Scots to handle, remember?”
The confusion surrounding the most recent Scottish election cycle has now assumed almost legendary proportions.
Conspiracy theorists amongst us might be tempted to claim that this was a deliberate attempt to discredit STV by holding two different elections (Parliament and Local Authorities) each using a different electoral method and all on a single ballot paper. If that isn't a recipe for disaster (increased levels of spoiled papers), I don't know what is!
There is now growing pressure to change the electoral system used for the Scottish Parliament to STV. Either way elections for local authorities and the Scottish Parliament on should not be held on the same day!
Therefore I stand by my claim that STV is relatively simple.
Peter D
Have a look at http://www.eoni.org.uk/index/faqs/pr-stv-voting-system-faqs.htm
In the paragraph titled "How does it work?", the kids are exercising a multiple transfer of votes, not a single transfer - agree?
Be that as it may, how many candidates do you need in a constituency to make this system recognisably proportional to the average voter?
Hence, how many Westminster constituencies would be needed and could they be existing Counties / Unitaries (eighty)? That is, areas that have a traditional identity to the voters. (None of my constituents have a clue where the current Parliamentary constituency boundary is).
Sorry to lower the tone of the debate, but the plumbing will have to be sorted to make this a winner.
"Well Ray his point is we were supposed to be living in ONE state and then it became obvious that we were never living in ONE state. It became obvious that certain groups were out for themselves."
I've no problem with being out for ourselves. After all, I've lost count the number of times things have been imposed on Scotland without our consent - POLL TAX anyone? It's a bit much to cry foul when it happens to England after long last.
The Welsh MPs all voted against Tryweryn being flooded, but it still happened. That's what the UK is like. That's why it has to change.
I've no interest in imposing my will on London - I don't live there, or have any interest in the place. I've a vague interest in Wales, and have links there, but it must be the Welsh who choose, not their conquerors.
I think Peter Facey's analysis is flawed.
Firstly the only way the English question will be solved is for the people of England to be given the chance to discuss the options, and then the chance to vote on them.
It is largely irrelevant to debate an English Parliament, Regionalisation or English Grand Committees as if any of these are solutions which have the consent of the people - none of them do. What we do know however, is that in Scotland and Wales a Parliament/Assembly was opted for and in the North East Regionalisation was rjected by 79%. In fact regionalisation of England has never had much public support and certainly in the opnion polls I have seen it rarely achieves 10% support, whereas we know that support for an English Parliament has repeatedly hit support levels of between 60-68% (BBC/ICM/Yougov/MORI).
So in that respect Peter is wrong to make the assertion that an English Parliament has less support than regionalisation, it is more popular FACT.
Why wouldn't a nation expect a Parliament? That is surely the embodiment of a nation state and certainly England has been a nation state for far longer than Scotland or Wales, so I think it rather impertinent to question why England would want one. We have until 1707 always had one, and since 1707 have had a British botch, which (finally) we are seeing it for what it is.
The English Parliament lobby, are simply democrats. They object to having to non elected bureaucrats and placement lording it over the taxpaying public. They want it to be democratically accountable and not the free for all QUANGOFEST we are all so heartily fedup with.
Counties are the embodiment of "regional" identities, they have a long and historic track record in this country and there is nothing incompatible with devolving power to County level. Granted it might not cross the t's and dot the i's of the Euro Regionalists, who want to steamroller the regional concept across the emerging balkans of Europe, however, surely the people of England have the right to be consulted on devolution and the right to vote on the model they would like to have.
Too right Peter that 50 million people should not be treated the same as just 5 million, if it was good enough to have a public debate and a referendum for 5 million, then we should be having many times greater the public debates and democratic processes in England - although you will agree with me perhaps that there is no sign of it, which is an absolute disgrace and a betrayal of democracy for the people of England.
No, the fact remains, until the rag bag of politicians at Westminster sit up and take notice of the increasingly digruntled English electorate and start treating England with the respect it deserves, the people of England will continue to view Westminster and the people in it with distrust, cynicism and despair.
England deserves her own First Minister, own national Paraliament, National Identity and the absolute right to determine her own devolved future. Anyone who objects to those basic democratic rights is quite frankly anti democratic and wrong.
@Acorn in the New Forest
Multi-Member STV is a hybrid, which attempts to find a compromise between majoritarian and proportional voting systems. I believe STV retains many of the benefits of both principles, whilst minimising their negative aspects.
STV is often referred to as Multi-Member to differentiate it from AV, which uses the same voting method as STV but the crucial difference is AV's retention of single member representation.
Some die-hard defenders of FPTP criticise STV by claiming that it is NOT proportional. I suppose if you extend the principle infinitely, they are correct. For STV to achieve 100% proportionality (for a UK general election) the multi-member constituency in question would have to be the entire country with 650 or so seats up for grabs.
Each party contesting this hypothetical election would put forward a number of candidates up to a maximum dictated by the number of MPs' required for the Commons - at present this is just over 650. You can imagine the length of the ballot paper involved and the percentage of spoiled votes recorded; close to 100% would be my guess, so that idea is a non-starter.
The proportionality equation is simple. Using STV in a single member constituency (i.e. AV) gives 0% proportionality. The higher the number of seats within the constituency the closer to the 100% proportionality target the election becomes. Of course the higher the number of seats the more one also moves away from maintaining the constituency link.
This is why I favour multi-member constituencies with either 3, 4 or 5 MP's - no more, no less. In rural (less densely populated) areas the number would be 3, thus tending to limit the overall geographical size of the constituency. Conversely, densely populated urban areas would have 5 MP's elected. Many multi-member constituencies would equate to distinct areas - for example I think that Edinburgh has five current constituencies so this would become the Edinburgh (multi-member) constituency, electing 5 MP's. Some smaller largely rural counties might also be natural 3 member constituencies.
Introducing STV would also deliver a window of opportunity to reduce the overall number of MP's because one could redraw all of the boundaries and just reduce the overall total number of MP's elected. That is a slightly separate issue though.
So you are correct in saying that each voter would be expressing a multiple transfer of their vote. In a 5 member constituency they would put 1,2,3,4,5 according to their preferences (so up to 4 transfers). In my opinion this feature delivers some form of direct connection with the elected representatives for virtually every voter because it is very good chance that at least one of the preferences listed by each voter will be elected, unless of course the voter in question supports a very marginal/extreme party and votes a straight party ticket, i.e. every preference for the same party. This circumstance would only apply to a very small number of voters.
In STV there is a device called a quota, which is used to establish the point at which the first MP is elected and transfer of second preferences begins. The quota principle ensures that voting preferences are not wasted. I know the idea of a quota sounds complicated but it isn't really and it should be noted that FPTP also uses a quota system, which is the number of votes cast for the candidate coming second + 1. In both cases the quota can only be established after the total number of votes is known.
Another feature of STV is the fact that the runner up - i.e. the candidate coming just outside the medal positions and thus failing to be elected, is automatically installed as a substitute. This eliminates the necessity to hold by-elections because, in the event of an incumbent MP dying or becoming unfit to serve for whatever reason, the substitute is automatically elected without the need for another election.
Hope this info explains a bit more about STV. To be honest I don't think most ordinary voters will be too bothered about the detailed mechanics of the counting process. All they want to know is that their vote contributed in some way to the constituency result, which, in the vast majority of cases, it will.
Derek
You assume too much
What "English people want" is very much determined by the options on offer.
During the period 1991-2002 (see the opinion polls referred to above), it would seem that ordinary people were in favour of devolved English Regional tiers of accountable governance.
The reality presented by New Labour in the form of subsequent legislation and referendums bore no resemblance to these aspirations, which was in turn a massive factor in determining why the people of the North-East flatly rejected what was eventually offered to them. That sham process effectively poisoned the well of public goodwill toward the concept of English Regional Devolution; hence more recent opinion polls now demonstrating stronger support for an English Parliament.
If ordinary people were offered a mutually exclusive choice between:
• Either an all-England Parliament (located no doubt in London)
• Or an array of robust, semi-autonomous, self-financing Regional Parliaments (boasting some degree of historical and cultural relevance).
I am convinced that they would eschew the populism of an English Parliament and choose instead more localised and immediate governance.
Provided that real and substantive choice is on offer, I am happy to abide by the wishes of the English Electorate.
Are you?
The best means of securing an English parliament is the dissolution of the UK. This means independence for Scotland and Wales, and the lifting of the artificial boundary in Ireland.
Christine Constable writes:
"The English Parliament lobby, are simply democrats"
OK so far so good but then she goes on to write:
"Euro Regionalists, who want to steamroller the regional concept across the emerging balkans of Europe"
So the CEP is not full of rabid europhobes then? You are just democrats with NO other agenda? I suppose the English Constitutional Convention would claim the same?
Philip Hosking - Christine Constable is a member of the English Democrats who are open in their objections to the EU. The CEP, their partners in the English Constitutional Convention, are a single issue group with no official policy on the EU.
I don't find it logically inconsistent that nationalists who support a nation state for England apart from the UK should also support the nation state apart from the EU. Why you assume they are only supporting an English Parliament to get away from the EU I don't know. Why cannot the English Parliament be an equally valid aim?
I have even heard anti-EU voices argue that any break up of the UK would weaken our resistance to Europe. So the EUsceptics come down on both sides of the argument. Either way, the motives of CEP and ED members do not change the basic thrust of the argument for an English Parliament, which is what you should be confronting.
Peter Davidson -
"Provided that real and substantive choice is on offer, I am happy to abide by the wishes of the English Electorate.
Are you?"
Yes! I am sure most of us can agree on democracy, we are just trying, in these debates, to spell out the offers that should be put to the people. And I suppose rehearsing arguments should the 'Union at all costs' politicians ever deign to give the people a say.
"with no official policy on the EU" is the key phrase here.
Phil... why do you call "europhobes " as "rabid"? Just wondering... as there seems no need to be insulting.
"So Ray, you have no problem with the scottish being “out for themselves”? Er yeah, us English have known that for years Ray."
I want Scottish independence, not Scotland living off England or vice versa. I don't support Scots votes on English issues, or Scotland living off English subsidies. Or vice versa.
"You English" need to stop looking for external scapegoats (Welsh, Scots, Irish, French, Germans, Brussels) etc, and improve things for yourselves. The scapegoats are holding you back.
I have no interest in Scots representation in Westminster. Get rid of it. And the Welsh and Irish representation too. You are wrong if you think I do.
"The scottish parliament has virtually all scottish people sitting as members"
Ever heard of Mike Russell, Roseanna Cunningham or Bashir Ahmad? Robin Harper, Mark Ballard etc etc Why don't you look up where they were born?
"The poll tax was not “imposed” on scotland "
No one in Scotland voted for it. Scotland was used as a guinea pig, and we rejected it. If only they'd noticed when they brought it south of the Border.
"Oh, theyre both scotsmen to. "
Tony Blair is an Englishman, like Mike Russell, Roseanna Cunningham, Robin Harper and Bashir Ahmad etc are Scots.
"The it of deliberately withholding lifesaving cancer drugs ONLY from English cancer patients never did happen to scottish cancer patients in the past did it Ray?"
Here come the scapegoats again.
This is nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament, and everything to do with the fact that English MPs won't vote for it. Put the blame where it's due.
"You are insinuating that “the English” were responsible."
No Welsh MP voted to destroy Tryweryn and Capel Celyn, and no Welsh I know of, ever wanted it. It would have benefitted Liverpool and little else.
"Oh for crying out loud, if the welsh are conquered how come they have an assembly? They arent conquered."
The Welsh were conquered. Look up your history book. In fact, take a long drive around Wales, and take a note of the large number of Norman castles everywhere, like Cardiff, Caerphilly, Caernarvon etc.
The Assembly came centuries after the Welsh were conquered.
"Alba? What does that have to do with scotland? Alba means white."
Alba means Scotland, like Cymru means Wales. But then of course, you don't know much about the neighbours do you?
"Norse western islanders anyone, norse shetland islanders anyone, norse orkney islanders anyone?"
What is the current name of the Western Isles constituency?
I am all for self-determination for the Shetlanders. End of story.
"The Norman conquest? ha! ha! Please. Who do you think Robert De Bruis was then Ray? He was Norman!"
Again, you display your ignorance. The Normans invaded England, Wales and Ireland. They were actually INVITED in by David I.
Who was Robert Bruce's mother, and which was her first language? (Clue, not French or English). Do your research.
"Dumfries? Yeah, you’ve guessed it Ray. It isnt “keltiq”, no it means “Hill of the Fresians” Ray."
That derivation is long discredited Mr/Ms Anderson. Anyway, there are plenty of other Gaelic placenames in that region, such as Auchencairn (which is not P-Celtic), Troqueer (which is Brythonic).
"The English language was not in “severe danger”! "
It was actually. Again, do your research. French had a fairly good crack at killing it off, and what we call English today is semi-French. Even down to the plurals in -s.
Stop blaming other people, and start improving England. Getting rid of the House of Lords and the Monarchy would be a start.
Post new comment