Peter, what makes you think there is as much or more demand for a regional body representing the four current counties you mention (and for similar arrangements elsewhere in England) than for a national English parliament? And in the same vein, what makes the author of the original post think that decentralisation and accountable public services are "the English Questions that the public really care about and which demand answers"? Have they tested this assertion in any sort of poll? Not that those issues aren't important - they are - but it's a convenient pre-judging of things to state, before you've even launched a review of English governance, that they're the most important things - because this means you don't seriously have to canvass support for an English parliament and then have to ignore it when it manifests itself too strongly.

That's why the Tories won't engage with the subject: they know that an English parliament elected under PR wouldn't put them in power other than in a coalition; whereas they still nurture hopes of an unrepresentative UK-wide parliamentary majority based on the greater support they have in England than elsewhere in the UK - meaning they need the present Union to stay in tact. The hypocrisy of this is outrageous: with one breath, they say Britain should be given a referendum on its governance as part of the EU; but then the idea of a referendum on England's governance, either inside or outside of a continuing UK, isn't even to be discussed, let alone taken seriously. But the fact that the Tories won't engage in the debate doesn't make the pro-English parliament position any less credible or worthy of discussion; nor does it invalidate discussion of more regional and local accountability. They should all be part of the mix; but not one without the other.

David, aka Britology Watch

Its all in the wording.

The BSA survey is flawed. Its’ questions do not spell out what the options are, which is why it flies in the face of other surveys (see http://cepbuckinghamshire.blogspot.com/ for details). Although arguably, it is not flawed if it gives you the answer that you want to hear.

The questions put to the people of Scotland and Wales in 1998 were unambiguous and it gave the Govt what they wanted. The NE referendum gave the Govt the wrong answer…so they got it anyway! (N.B. must try to frame questions better next time).

In a similar vein I love the way IPPR North are approaching “the issues raised by devolution” where they will “explore options for reform, including discussion of the pros and cons of an English Parliament”

Hurray, an impartial assessment! Finally, thank God someone’s going to listen after ten years… No, wait, hang on a minute...

“Crucially …it should also focus on what we consider to be the real problem facing England: the excessive degree of centralisation. How should power be decentralised within England?”

Would an EP solve the “real problem” facing England? How can it in the minds of the IPPR North?

“You’ll get a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging” Judge Roy Bean 1825-1903

Thanks for nothing IPPR. Have you ever wondered why a solution to the English question is proving to be so elusive? Do you think it is because giving England what our fellow Britons have been given is so unthinkable to NuLabour?

Gareth

Maybe I missed them but I wasn't aware of the existence of an "official" and separate Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland Army, consular and diplomatic service, foreign affairs representative - you know the usual official trappings of statehood on the global stage?

Your routine conflation of sub-national institutions of accountable governance boasting what are in reality quite limited competencies, with the notion that this constitutional arrangement represents official Nationhood on the global stage makes your viewpoint appear increasingly ludicrous.

It also, in an oblique fashion, betrays the disingenuous nature of the CEP's ultimate goal, which is of course to break up the United Kingdom and point England on an irrevocable pathway to isolationist oblivion.

"For example, the counties of Kent, Surrey and Sussex (West and East) combined, constitute a population and economic unit larger than Wales. There should be no reasonable barrier to such a Regional entity assuming competencies at least equal to those already granted to Greater London."

Apart from the fact that the north-east of the county of Surrey and the north-west corner of Kent are within the area known as "Greater London". If you're going to attempt to partition my country, at least have the decency to do so along her traditional boundaries!

Yes Gareth, and the fact that you even consider making such substitutions illustrates the truly absurd nature of your campaign goals.

And the fact that you think that national government for England is absurd - but not national government for Scotland, France, United States, Russia and Ghana - illustrates the absurdity of your position.

@Ian Campbell:

"There will be no serious decentralisation or democratisation of power in England while we have a Brown-led Labour government (see Simon Lee ‘Best for Britain? The politics & legacy of Gordon Brown’). When Prescott was DPM he was unable to prise away even quite limited powers from Whitehall. Would the Conservatives be any better? Conservative governments in the 1980s and 1990s carried forward the centralisation process."

This is an entirely sensible and pragmatic assessment of the situation.

However I cannot concur with your subsequent conclusions about the role of any independent English Parliament. In the first instance, given the instictively centralising nature of the incumbent administration and your admission that a Conservative successor is likely to maintain a similar stance, FPTP means that your notion of an independent England is doomed from the outset.

Secondly, even allowing for an English Parliament I fail to understand how this might lead to a decentralising revolution. Much is made of historical precedent and every single Parliamentary body tends to reserve power to itself once established.

Decentralisation should be a bottom up citizen driven process in which extant territorial units, or groups of them, should be enabled, if their populations demonstrate a clear democratic preference, to draw down powers from above.

For example, the counties of Kent, Surrey and Sussex (West and East) combined, constitute a population and economic unit larger than Wales. There should be no reasonable barrier to such a Regional entity assuming competencies at least equal to those already granted to Greater London.

Regional Assemblies were always going to be another tier of Govt, in thier current form RDAs are unelected quangos who currently achieve very little in return for the funding involved, radio 4 have a discussion on this. An English Parliament need not be another tier of Govt because like England's Scottish counter parts they would deal with secondary legislation, leaving primary legislation to the UK Govt. Each parliament would send a number of delegates to the UK Govt to enact primary legislation, dual mandate MPs if you like and dont tell me MPs would not have the time, how many sit on committees and sub-committees etc..did not Des Brown have a dual mandate that being the Minister for Scotland ( note despite Scotland having it's own Parliament it still has a Scottish Minister, what for?) and Defence Minister

One thing continues to puzzle me. Why is it that an English Parliament is portrayed as an extra and unwanted tier of governance by opponents but they never question the extra tier of brussels government.?

Yes Gareth, and the fact that you even consider making such substitutions illustrates the truly absurd nature of your campaign goals.

England as a stand alone entity would constitute just such an extra (and therefore surplus to requirements) tier of governance

Substitute 'England' for 'Scotland', 'France', 'United States', 'Russia', 'Ghana' and you might appreciate how ludicrous you appear to me.

And in those polls, which ask for opinions on the Independence of Scotland, the support for just that, is much higher in England than in Scotland.

Surely that tells you something?

The thing about the English, is that we only talk about it when prompted and even then, only when we feel there are no Scots in the vicinity to take offence.

But once the floodgates open, the fury really pours out.

Ignore the English at your peril. It won't be us shedding tears of sorrow when the Union breaks up. Far from it.

I agree with the author's advocacy of an urgently required wholesale review of England's governance.

It is also encouraging to note that the idea of real options being offered (to the electorate in the form of a referendum?) is gaining credence.

I am convinced that the current shape of the English Regional Map is an important factor in driving negative sentiment towards the principle of English Regional Devolution.

This is why I am firmly in favour of the British Constitutional Convention route as a vehicle through which the entire British public can be engaged.

This device would enable many seemingly taboo topics to be addressed simultaneously, such as the role and identity of the British Head of State, the voting system used to elect representatives to sovereign democratic institutions and crucially for the devolution process, the dimension and scope of power dispersal across the UK.

Given that England (outside London), has not yet been offered any form of effective sub-national accountable governance, a referendum offering two mutually exclusive options - i.e. either an all-England body or an array of Regional Parliaments (not necessarily following the shape of the current English Regional Map) boasting similar competencies - might be offered simultaneously to the English electorate. This democratic choice could settle the matter once and for all.

One thing continues to puzzle me. Why is it that English Regional Assemblies were portrayed as an extra and unwanted tier of governance by opponents but are perfectly acceptable within the context of an established English Parliament? Surely within an constitutional arrangement encompassing all of the UK's current elements, England as a stand alone entity would constitute just such an extra (and therefore surplus to requirements) tier of governance or are certain groupings just making the rule up as they go along?

[...] Fellow IPPRer Guy Lodge is kicking his heels up over at Our Kingdom. [...]

1) More 'neutral' wording of BSA survey. To recap, here are their questions:

With all the changes going on in the way different parts of Great Britain are run, which of the following do you think would be best for England?

- England should be governed as it is now with laws made by the UK parliament

- Each region of England should have its own regional assembly that runs services like health

- England as a whole should have its own new parliament with law-making powers.

Would the following wording, and more significantly ordering, not also have been neutral and even more accurate? But the responses, I'm sure, would have been very much more in favour of an English parliament:

- England should have its own parliament, like that of Scotland, with law-making powers

- Each region of England should have its own regional assembly, like the Welsh Assembly, running services like health

- England should be governed as it is now with laws and policies made by the UK government, including by Scottish and Welsh MPs whose constituents are not affected by them?

2) How would your review of English governance, which is not seriously looking into the issue of English devolution but limiting its remit to decentralisation and accountability of public services (admittedly important concerns), be complementary to the government-backed review of Scottish devolution? Or are you so desperate to win government endorsement for and participation in your review that you are excluding devolution from its remit? Isn't 'English governance' something of a misnomer if it is not linked to the idea of government of English affairs by the English? Your form of 'English governance' is really UK governance of / in England but devolved to a more local level, e.g. the old regionalisation chestnut. Admittedly, 'UK governance' usually means just that (UK governance of England), in that any review of the 'governance of Britain' relates largely, if not exclusively, to England, given that the Scottish and Welsh are embarked on defining and establishing their own forms of governance.

So yes, we need a review of English governance; but we need it to be integral and made the explicit focus (rather than the denied reality) of the government's review of the governance of Britain.

David, aka Britology Watch

Guy,

presumably you would concede that respondents to the BSA survey are not sure what kind of ‘new English parliament’ they are voting for.

The wording doesn't say that it would handle services like health (as the regions option does) but only that it would have 'law-making powers'. As such it could be interpreted as an alternative to the UK Parliament - ie a sovereign/independent English parliament.

Why not ask a question like that which was used for the Scottish referendum.

1. I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament; or

2. I do not agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament

See what result you get then.

The key point is surely that made by Gareth - why not ask the English people the same question that was used for Scotland?

Whether the British Social Attitudes Survey or the commercial polls are right is immaterial. What matters is that while the Scots, Welsh and N. Irish have been asked in a referendum what form of government they wish to have, the people of England have not.

Shortly the Welsh may be offered a law-making Parliament. The Scottish Parlliament is seeking greater autonomy. Yet the English still have not been asked.

It is quite simply an affront to the people of England that a government which trumpets democracy abroad so signally fails to apply it at home.

I see yet again the British establishment cant help themselves, on the NATCEN site we have the BSAS which includes no doubt a survey across Britian, yet they also have surveys dedicated to Scotland and Wales, so in the application of fairness why no English survey solely put to the people of England. How many people outside of England was the English question about govenance of England put? Rather skews the answer does it not.

There will be no serious decentralisation or democratisation of power in England while we have a Brown-led Labour government (see Simon Lee 'Best for Britain? The politics & legacy of Gordon Brown'). When Prescott was DPM he was unable to prise away even quite limited powers from Whitehall. Would the Conservatives be any better? Conservative governments in the 1980s and 1990s carried forward the centralisation process.

An English Parliament, breaking free of the British establishment and the votes of Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish MPs, elected by PR as is the Scottish Parliament and the NAWA, could well trigger a massive decentralisation process.

"Greater London should be abolished (this would be convenient for English Parliament advocates because it would eliminate a major obstacle to their aspirations"

Does anyone know why London would be a major obstacle to an EP?

Is this to do with the myth that London has devolved powers, the myth that Londoners do not feel English, or is this something new?

@Little Englander - thanks for letting me know about the boundaries of Greater London

It is perhaps instructive that you automatically assumed I was referring to the historical boundaries of Kent and Surrey. Maybe you think Greater London should be abolished (this would be convenient for English Parliament advocates because it would eliminate a major obstacle to their aspirations), then England could move back to the original 39 county set-up?

Believe it or not, my statement was based on 21st century county council and unitary authority boundaries, not ancient County Cricket Team demarcations.

So, let’s hear it for Middlesex!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middlesex_County_Council

After all, you won’t be alone in yearning for times past?

http://www.middlesexcountycouncil.org.uk/

"It also, in an oblique fashion, betrays the disingenuous nature of the CEP’s ultimate goal, which is of course to break up the United Kingdom and point England on an irrevocable pathway to isolationist oblivion." Really? where does it say either on the CEP website or in any of its publications or indeed in any one of the speeches, in any one article, that the CEP wishes to see the break-up of the Union, nor has anyone in attendance at committees, conferences etc..from the CEP stated as such, but lets put this question to those who feel the CEP's ulitimate goal is the beak-up of the union, what the hell does England get from staying in the union that it could not get from being independant within a federal UK?

Peter, Just spotted your last comment, which must have been in the moderation queue when I was adding my last one. Gareth - and I agree with him - clearly believes England is as much of a nation as Russia or the USA. It's obviously not currently a state, as per the "trappings of statehood" to which you refer. You're missing the distinction between nation and state. And because of this misapprehension, you reveal that your regionalisation programme is based on a denial of nation status to England (which is exactly why supporters of English-national political bodies are so wary of the regionalists). By your own words, you are revealing that you regard England as a "sub-national" unit - hence no reason why it shouldn't be (further) sub-divided into regions. QED: thanks for providing a demonstration that regionalism is based on denying nationhood to England.

David, aka Britology Watch

The extent to which Scotland and Wales are 'sub-national' would be open to some debate in Scotland and Wales. Have you ever been?

You fail to understand that Scotland and Wales are not regions, they are nations. Power was devolved on the basis of nationhood, the same needs to be done for England. The Scottish Parliament is a national institution.

"Scotland is a proud historic nation" - Tony Blair.

The CEP's aim is for an English Parliament - in or out. So far we have only campaigned for an English Parliament within the Union because we believe that it is a desirable and popular and acheivable goal. We don't believe there is much demand at all for an independent England, and contrary to your opinion there is no large-scale support for that within the CEP. However, speaking personally, I will say that the blinkered and steadfast Brito-centric position of the Establishment and Euro-federalists like yourself is tempting me to do otherwise. It would be a beautiful day when your British passport was ripped up and replaced with an English passport - I can picture the revulsion on your face, and the whight-knuckled hand-wringing as the 'far-right' Cross of St George replaces your precious Union and EU flags on town halls across the country. That would be a picture almost worth breaking up Britain.

"isolationist oblivion" - really, where do you get this stuff? It's the same sort of pathetic nonsense that is trotted out by Gordon Brown and Alexander in their unfounded attacks on the SNP.

So, lets here it for Middlesex, here, here I say, the forgotten county amongst the West, South and East Saxon counties but let us not forget the English Parliament was once in this great county, Middlesex although not considered a county anymore thanks to the Greater London Act 1963, it still houses 3 of the great sporting arena in the World, Wembley for football, Lords for Cricket and Twickenham for the Rugby, not bad for a forgotten county

David

You can interpret my statements any way you like - feel free to indulge your consitutional fantasies at my expense.

First of all let's not get too fixated on the Regional example I supplied, which is precisely that - just an example by way of comparison - and I did qualify my statement with the words "clear democratic preference".

Mind you, I wouldn't be the first to allude to such a Region; try looking up a copy of the Times from 19th April 1968 and you will see what I mean.

Secondly, you know very well that the words "sub-national" within the context of my posting refers specifically to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and for that matter equally to Greater London, as extant tiers of accountable governance.

I am not confusing the concept of a nation with that of a state but this common misunderstanding does seem to be the root cause of Gareth's problem.

"QED: thanks for providing a demonstration that regionalism is based on denying nationhood to England."

To be fair Peter never denies this, unlike his colleagues at the CfER and his allies amongst the John Prescott brigade he doesn't deny that England is surplus to requirements. He has a visceral hatred of nationalism, and he's not overkeen on the nation-state itself.

@Barry (The Elder)

You carry on deluding yourself if you want to.

I did use the word “oblique” This is after all a hidden agenda within the English Nationalist cause.

“what the hell does England get from staying in the union that it could not get from being independant within a federal UK?”

Can I suggest that you read up on the fundamental constitutional differences between a unitary (as in the UK) and a federal state (as in Germany).

For example, you will recall the response of Mrs. Thatcher to those islands of democratically legitimate power from which she was excluded during the early 80’s – namely the Metropolitan counties of Greater London, Greater Manchester, et al.

Her oh so democratic response - well she simply abolished them! Under a federal constitution, no such option would be legally available to this or any future UK administration.

Don’t think that this idea hasn’t already crossed David Cameron’s mind – if Ken wins again in London and Mr. Cameron manages to dupe enough floating voters at the next general election he will give it some serious consideration! Mind you I don’t think he’ll go for it due to the massive negative political fall-out resulting from such a outrageous strategy.

Peter,

That's ok, glad to be of service. I wasn't sure whether you meant the administrative bodies that in most cases falsley use the names of our traditional counties or whether you meant the actual real counties in their traditional sense. The point that I was making though is that one of the fundamental flaws of the present regional structure in England is its total lack of historic identity, which would be perpetuated in the example you gave as it would divide Kent and Surrey. Surely if you favour regional government it would be easier to sell it to the people of England if it had some basis of historical identity to it? I assume you have stood in the town centres of Bromley, Kingston, Romford, Enfield etc. and told the residents that they should no longer identify with their county have you? BTW, yes I would be in favour of abolishing "Greater London" along with all the other bogus entities that have blighted England for far too long. Power should be devolved from country (and I mean England before you ask) to county to local level. I see no need for there to be a regional level, or a UK one for that matter.

Londoners do feel English. In the latest forced identity poll 44% chose 'English' and 41% chose 'British'.

No mean feat for such an ethnically diverse place, as we are told that certain groups don't consider English a plural inclusive identity.

@ Peter Davidson

Who's deluding who here, let me just say this for the record; having been on the NC of the CEP for over 4 years now I have never heard or seen in print from anyone in the CEP that wants to undermind the Union, I asked you to provide proof of any such statement and you can not, yet it is you who is deluding yourself, you assume a hidden agenda where there is none, the CEP has only one agenda and that is an English Parliament.

"For example, you will recall the response of Mrs. Thatcher to those islands of democratically legitimate power from which she was excluded during the early 80’s – namely the Metropolitan counties of Greater London, Greater Manchester, et al.

Her oh so democratic response - well she simply abolished them! Under a federal constitution, no such option would be legally available to this or any future UK administration."

Well thanks for putting me right, so under Thatcher democraticlly elected Metropolitian Councils were abolished and this could not happen under a federal constitution, sounds good to me, democratically elected by the people without fear of the UK state interfering even better, on the other hand under the UK unitary state as we have it, England has 8 unelected RDAs without mandate from the people, so in a nutshell under a federal state democracy rules, under a unitary state you get what your given, now I know your hidden agenda

Such a review must not ignore the nation of Cornwall. Which I suspect it will, and will just see it as being another part of Egnlad.

@Barry (The Elder)

It seems to have escaped your notice that I am also very much in favour of a federal arrangement for the UK.

However, unlike you I want a see a constitutional settlement based on a partnership of equals, not a lopsided structure where one dominant element is larger than all the rest put together, fatally unbalancing any semblance of sustainability.

Hidden agenda? - I have no doubt about your sincerity in campaigning for an English Parliament - it's what comes after that goal has been achieved that worries me?

Guy Lodge quote: "How should power be decentralised within England? How should our public services, like policing, be held to account? How can the quangos that rule so much of public life in England be more effectively democratised? These are the English Questions that the public really care about and which demand answers."

Well so far they've rejected English regions but the Constitution Unit and IPPR keep baging on about them. Sedgefield rejected Unitary Authorities by 76% in a local referendum, but still had one imposed. One thing that strikes the English people about "Europhiles" is that they don't believe in democracy, they just spout empty platitudes about democracy.

The scottish got a parliament even though a lot of scots didnt want it, the welsh and n irish got assemblies even though it was no forgone conclusion, BUT the English have to jump through hoops to get the same thing!!!!!! What a load of bollocks! Time to start getting mean methinks!!

Ray Bell, on March 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pm [in an attempt to somehow justify anti-English bigotry] Said:

"There has been plenty of anti-Scottish and anti-Welsh legislation in the past few centuries. The UK is not fair."

I have heard many people use this excuse as justification for their own anti English bigotry. You state that there has been "plenty" of anti scottish and anti welsh legislation in the past few centuries. I am assuming that you are inferring that the English are to blame for this? I thought Westminster was peopled by SCOTS, N. IRISH, AND WELSH, as well as English members? So how can you infer that it was the English who were to blame for the "plenty of anti scottish and anti welsh legislation"?

Surely if it is acceptable for welsh, N. Irish, and scottish Westminster members to vote on English matters in 2008, it was also okay for English members to vote on scottish, welsh and n irish matters in the past? Evidently, you dont think it was okay. Why would you say it's tit for tat otherwise? Anyway, using what's happened in the past as justification for doing wrong in the present is immature at best. We all know what it leads to at worst!

Also, I would like to see the "plenty" of past anti scottish/anti welsh legislation coming out of Westminster. I dont think there was plenty of anti scottish anti welsh legislation at all Ray! Plenty means a lot! Maybe you can post all of it for us. Thanks Ray!

Ray Bell:

Cornwall is an ancient nation, not merely another English county.

Your arrogance AND ignorance is showing. Essex is older than cornwall! If you're going to slag off England at least do your research. Otherwise you end up looking like a right tool mate!

The Cornovii were sufficiently established for their territory to be recorded as Cornubia by AD 700, and remained as such into the Middle Ages.

The name Essex derives from the East Seaxe or East Saxons. The Kingdom of Essex was traditionally founded by Aescwine in 527 AD, occupying territory to the north of the River Thames, incorporating much of what would later become Middlesex and Hertfordshire, though its territory was later restricted to lands east of the River Lee.

It is through this origin as one of the 'Saxon' kingdoms that Essex is specifically not part of the region known as East Anglia (the latter comprising Norfolk, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire), settled by tribes calling themselves 'Anglian'.

Colchester in the north east of the county is Britain's oldest recorded town, dating back to before the Roman conquest, when it was known as Camulodunon, and was sufficiently well-developed to have its own mint.

@ Peter Davidson,

Your idea of a federal state is to divide England into 9 regions, my idea is to keep England intact within a federal union framework.

Your arguments seem to be based on population and land mass, well it was always the same, England cant help her boundaries and population, but it would appear that England has to be governed as if it were the last colony of the British Govt, to which to some extent that is how England is being treated, devolution was given to the Wales and Scotland on the basis of Nationhood, England should be treated exactly the same way . England is either given the same politicial, democratic and economic rights as Scotland to exist within the Union or the people of England sooner or later will begin to ask the question, "what good is the Union for us?" The problem for the Union Govt is that the longer the English question remains unanswered the more likely that England will push for independance thus the end of the Union,

Man in a Shed, on March 20th, 2008 at 6:01 pm Said:

The key issue is really the left think they would be out of power forever if England was given its voice, and is running scared.

Right on the button mate. Running scared mate? I can't see them for dust. Oh well, they only have themselves to blame. It's no good moaning to me I remember the national strikes mate. I remember sitting in pitch black on the stairs with a candle mate. I also remember devolution mate. I thought I was seething about the national strikes; I wasn't! Anti-English devolution has made me a thousand times angrier. The following lies dont help either.

"the English do seem to be frustrated by both the West Lothian Question and the way public spending is distributed across the nations of the UK, which is creating a source of tension. This suggests a stirring sense of dissatisfaction within England - but one that has yet to translate into concrete support for a particular policy. The English may be waking up to the anomalies of devolution and might want something done about them but they remain unclear as to what should happen, and as the BSA data shows, they have certainly not decided that they want an English Parliament. There is a mood for change but no clearly defined movement."

Lies! Lies! Lies!

Peter Davidson, on March 18th, 2008 at 9:23 am Said:

Yes Gareth, and the fact that you even consider making such substitutions illustrates the truly absurd nature of your campaign goals.

Davidson,

you're just absurd full stop.You waffle the same old rubbish time after time, even when it's been shown up for what it is, i.e. rubbish. Oh, you might think you're never going to give up the fight; neither will we mate!

ENGLISH PARLIAMENT AND EXECUTIVE NOW!

I'm concerned about how a future English Parliament would look too.

An English Parliament based on Westminster and filled with the same sorts (with few exceptions) would be a disaster.

We should take this opportunity to build a new democracy.

Banning political parties and quartering the number of MPs look like a good place to start. Enshrining referenda on big issues would be a bonus.

What are you worried about Peter?

I want a see a constitutional settlement based on a partnership of equals

Then you won't object to England having the same degree of self-government as the other nations of Britain? We are, after-all, a Union of Nations.

man in a shed is right, the fabianistas can always morris dance to win England in their own right.

I would recommend any English parliament have PR. It's worked well in Cardiff, Edinburgh and the councils.

Far to often there frist draw lines on maps around and through peoples nations with little interest for the human identities and civic cultures they contain. It has been argued that a region, to be successful, must have its own ‘civic culture’. Ignoring the Cornish national question, our distinct history, culture and sense of identity are integral elements of Cornwall’s civic culture and, therefore, should be made to earn their living rather than buried under unsustainable housing developments, population growth and tourist kitch.

As for the second it seems that many can’t stand the idea of people not wanting to be English or part of England.

Like some can't stand the idea of people wanting to be English or part of England. Plenty of Cornish consider themselves English but these people are treated like they don't exist by Cornish nationalists (rather like the english speaking Welsh seem not to exist sometimes). Naturally this hypocrisy doesn't infringe into through their pasty tinted vision of themselves. Funnily enough the faux concern for civic and human identity doesn't seem to apply when that identity is English. The problem Cornish nationalists have with artificial regional identities is that they don't recognise Cornwall. They're more than happy to try and push them on the 'English' a people in a country that they are allegedly completely separate to. Maybe we'll hear how the French should run their affairs next.

Perhaps Ray Bell could show that vast concern for the unique identity of Shetland sometime and when I say vast concern I don't mean saying yeah I'd be happy to have a referendum on it's position as an add-on comment to try and justify sticking his nose into English affairs or trying to hack off parts of England.

"The scottish got a parliament even though a lot of scots didnt want it,"

The vast majority of Scots did. As for the ones that didn't vote, they can't be added to either the "yes" or "no" camp, and that's their fault.

"the English have to jump through hoops to get the same thing"

Maybe that's because they've always had an inbuilt majority in the parliament which originally belonged to them, and can vote down any of the rest, if they so want - like they did with the Welsh over Tryweryn.

"I’d be all for devolution to Cornwall. Just as I’d be all for devolution to all the counties of England."

Except that Cornwall is an ancient nation, not merely another English county.

p.s. "CU Jimmy" - that takes me back. When was Russ Abbott last on the TV? Must be twenty years ago.

The key issue is really the left think they would be out of power forever if England was given its voice, and is running scared.

Going shopping for surveys or methods and ploys to prevent the re-establishment of the English Parliament is going to convince no one, as its lacks natural justice and recognition of the English nation.

Money and representation complaints are symptoms of the underdevelopment of English politics. Of the three main parties only the Lib Dems have an English branch and they try to keep the fact quiet.

With an English Parliament would come English politics, and devolution in Scotland and Wales has shown that a new equilibrium is quickly achieved between the competing philosophies of politics. The middle ground may move, but one party rule has failed to emerge in either location. The English left would probably rediscover their roots and identity.

Trying to 'ignore the question' is to deny democratic government and the needs and wishes of the people. All those who engage in such tactics diminish themselves and all they stand for.

"Anti-English devolution has made me a thousand times angrier."

Well, there has been plenty of anti-Scottish and anti-Welsh legislation in the past few centuries. The UK is not fair.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to give Scotland and Wales independence, scrap the Lords and Monarchy, and then Westminster will be an English parliament. Oh, and give the Cornish their Assembly!

By the way, neither the SNP nor Plaid have any interest in Scottish/Welsh votes on purely English matters. It's only the Scottish/Welsh members of English based parties that do...

I don't doubt your words Peter but we don't seem to be hearing an attractive alternative from anybody else either, bar England Devolve who, sadly, seem very quiet at the moment: http://www.devolve.org/

@Gareth Young: "I’d be all for devolution to Cornwall. Just as I’d be all for devolution to all the counties of England"

The problem is Philip is that it wouldn't resemble devolution as you might recognise it - in fact it would probably be something along the lines of the sham devolution offered (and unsurprisingly rejected) by the voters of North East England in 2004.

There is a constant refrain heard from the CEP about devolving power in England, usually to the counties (I am assuming they mean the traditional counties - if so that process in itself would be a logistical and constitutional nightmare). This strategy to be undertaken only AFTER the establishment of an EP (wherever it is located - London anyone?).

The reality is that devolution won't happen in any effective form because the English Parliament would instinctively resist any such strategy. It would be dressed up of course but the practical outcome of this enitre process would be a mere name changing exercise over the doorway at Westminster.

How would this leave the peripheral areas of "blighty"?

Well, they would well and truly &%*@ed!!!

[...] is my reply to Peter Davidson’s comment on Our Kingdom’s Time for a review of English governance [...]

@Wyrdtimes: "An English Parliament based on Westminster and filled with the same sorts (with few exceptions) would be a disaster."

I agree and that's a primary factor in my opposition to an English Parliament

In any federal arrangement, England as a single element would simply dominate all of the other partners, fatally unbalancing its operation and ulitmately leading to its disintergration.

I am also utterly convinced that if an EP was ever established (I'd be out of here very quickly by the way!) it would (as a body exercising power) also instinctively resist any form of meaningful form of devolution because this would dilute its capacity to influence. Historical precedent indicates that this fear on my part is well founded.

Like many others within Unlock Democracy and similar like minded democratic renewal campaign groups I believe that any English Parliament (if it were ever to come about) would eventually signal the break-up of the UK. England as a stand alone independent entity would mean that the EP institution was certain to be located in London and that it would merely entrench the same form of centralisation we endure now in the current UK form. The peripheries of England would be marginalised and suffer from the same gross social and economic disparities we bear witness to now.

In short changing the name over the doorway of the Westminster Parliament from United Kingdom to England would solve nothing and very probably make matters worse for those residing in the peripheral English Regions!

@Wyrdtimes: "We should take this opportunity to build a new democracy. Banning political parties and quartering the number of MPs look like a good place to start. Enshrining referenda on big issues would be a bonus."

I think we need to be both realistic and pragmatic.

Political parties are a fact of life. Banning them is a utopian dream that is simply not going to happen. Even if you were able to ban the existing versions of them (and that would be illegal under numerous elements of Human Rights Legislation and probably English Common Law as well), they would eventually emerge over time with different names but representing the same kind of ideologies

In my opinion, the root cause of the peculiarly undemocratic form of party politics we experience in the UK is primarily driven by the arcane (and now completely irrelevant and outmoded) first past the post voting system.

No voting system is perfect but some are more perfect than others. Multi-Member STV offers so many clear advantages over the incumbent majoritarian system that it is an absolute no-brainer in terms of choosing it as the system for any new form of devolved accountable governance (whatever territorial entity (or entities) they may be based upon).

I am not claiming that this single reform would solve all of our democratic ills and miraculously transform political elites into virtuous bodies, acting solely from philanthropic motives. That would be fantasy land and it is not going to happen because all people (politicians included) suffer from human frailties.

However, our accountable institutions would at least be representative of the collective political will of the electorate as expressed through the ballot box. Such a system would also drive a different form of political culture in which dialogue and consensus was the norm. I believe that much of the angst about the manner in which our political institutions functions flows from the virtually absolute form of power exercised by means of an overall majority for a single party.

Consensus politics is different and some people (rightly) criticise certain elements of its operation. However I firmly believe this style of political discourse delivers improved overall governance in the long term.