Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 4th July 2009 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Brown urged to debate an English parliament or lose core voters



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 June 2008
GORDON BROWN should lead a debate on an English Parliament or risk seeing large numbers of Labour's core vote defect to the Tories or British National Party, a former minister warned today.
Frank Field claimed the current devolution settlement had become "one of the festering sores in English politics" because many voters in England believed they were treated less fairly than people in Scotland and Wales.

He said English voters rese
nted policies such as free care for the elderly, freedom from university top-up fees, abolition of prescription charges and NHS provision of drugs – such as Lucentis to treat sight loss – which are not available in England while the UK Government spent £1236 more per head in Scotland than it did in England.

In a speech today at the University of Hertfordshire, Mr Field was to say: "My constituents do not believe it is fair that they should face a constitutional discrimination as well as meeting additional costs which identical people in Scotland, and to a lesser extent in Wales, do not face. This is the English Question."

He said the "inevitable" result of growing anger over the devolution settlement would be an English Parliament to match the devolved parliaments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, with a UK Parliament dealing only with matters which have not been delegated to the four nations of the United Kingdom.

"Failure to act may not simply benefit the Conservative Party. Further inaction could provide the BNP with another political bridgehead into the core Labour vote."





The full article contains 262 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 June 2008 10:36 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Edward,

03/06/2008 12:24:38
I agree the English should and must have there own parliament. While were at it drop the Barnett formula and have Scotland keep ALL the revenue that is put into the Westminster treasury. Then perhaps the English voter will realise that they, like the Scots have been continually lied to by unioist politicians
2

eric,

lothian 03/06/2008 12:55:08
The english were also asked if they wanted devolved powers and they didnt even want a vote on it.
win win for snp.
3

Java_Man,

dunbar 03/06/2008 12:55:28
The population of England is 80% of the population of the UK. Instant abolition of the Barnett Formula, based on the above figures would result on an average UK expenditure of approximately £7362. This would be a large decrease for each person in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but an increase of less than 4% per person for England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Formula June 2008
4

Palermo,

03/06/2008 13:06:25
Fortunately, the chiefs at the treasury don't take too much notice of wikipedia, but they are rather more interested in the revenues they get from what one might call oil-&-whisky-pedia
5

Sanny,

Glasgow 03/06/2008 13:07:38
Correct Edward. The English have willingly swallowed the lie that they subsidise Scotland. I have argued the case on many occasions with English people who are convinced by liars like Blair. These are the same people who complain Blair was a liar over WMD. Yet they will not look at the facts spelt out in the McCrone Report or in Niall Aslen’s Paper “The Great Deception”. There are none so blind as those who will not see!

I strongly support the idea that England should have its own parliament in an INDEPENDENT England. When reality strikes and they lose their arrogance, then perhaps they will accept the need to treat ALL their neighbours as equals. In my opinion this would be a great turning point for England, when they can throw off the shackles of Empire and take their proper place as a Nation in the world without constantly looking backward.
6

annie s,

england 03/06/2008 13:54:39
Eric
please remind me when we 'english' were asked if we wanted devolved powers. I must have missed that referendum. Speaking as someone with Scottish origins, my father who is blind, fought in WW2 for Britain (ie not just England) was unable to be prescribed Lucentis when it might have helped stabilise his vision - so yes I admit I am fairly bitter on his behalf. I still love scotland as do most English people (despite you Scots dominating our government, television etc - wish that feeling was reciprocated!!!!!!
7

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 14:02:13
The Union, now being pulled from all directions, no wonder poor Gordon is looking a bit haggard.

Pity the Blessed Lady Thatcher wasn't still in charge. Her natural 'diplomacy' would have blown this nonsense out of the water months ago.........and the Union with it.

Still, we can wait another year or so.
8

,

03/06/2008 14:11:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

mesmiths,

fife 03/06/2008 14:38:59
In a speech today at the University of Hertfordshire, Mr Field was to say: "My constituents do not believe it is fair that they should face a constitutional discrimination as well as meeting additional costs which identical people in Scotland, and to a lesser extent in Wales, do not face. This is the English Question."

JUST ABOUT EVERYDAY WE ARE TOLD, AS FACT, THAT WE ARE SUBSIDISED BY ENGLISH TAXPAYERS WHILST THE REVERSE IS TRUE. FOR ME THE REAL 'ENGLISH QUESTION' IS JUST HOW LONG ARE THEY GOING TO TRY AND KEEP THIS BS UP?
10

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 03/06/2008 14:43:26
#18 - The rumour starting about 1707 and has continued on.

Total income generated against total expenditure. Who became rich and who became poorer after 300 years of union. It is quiet easy to see.
11

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 03/06/2008 14:43:41
#9 Davesubsea - If brown is doing anything to further Scottish Independence it would be because he had no choice due to all around him doing the same. He is no supporter of our National Interest.

I note your comment "who then put their signatures to the solemn promise 'to make the interests of Scotland paramount in everything they did'."

I wonder if this is the first time in your life you have found the loyalties of a PM to the country and his constituency to be in conflict. Is it possibly because he is Scottish? Are you also implying that serving the interests of Scotland would not benefit England as I would enquire where you stood on the opposite questions for the last 300 years or has the Union of Parliaments just suddenly become an issue when England no longer controls a monopoly on all issues and decisions.

I agree with you on that All soveign people deserve a government who are elected by them to serve the needs of their country and interests. I guess you are feeling concerned you may be loosing this.

We are concerned we may never know this luxury of self government!

Scary Example: All the people of Scotland Vote for Lib Dems(could happen if CJD becomes epidemic) but the English do not. Will we have elected Lib Dem government NO. That is not democracy.

Independence for Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland. We can still be the British Isles.





12

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

03/06/2008 14:46:12
15

DaveSubsea - Unfortunately it has been seen that Democracy does not work or exist in this country, so that Petition you point to is a waste of space.

We are constantly told that if we do not like something about Government et al then we should excercise our vote to change it.

What a waste of a vote.

I want to be Governed by the system of Sortition. No amount of voting on my part is EVER going to make those at the top disband their Political Party / Apparatus and give up their cushy little jobs in favour of my preferred system.

This is NOT a Democracy we live in!
13

,

03/06/2008 14:50:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

,

03/06/2008 14:55:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

annie s,

03/06/2008 15:01:11
12/14/15
#12 - Live in Northern England and do not recall any referendum for english parliament (nor a public vote for a regional assembly although I do remember discussion but thought it was dismissed by John Prescott) and as I vote at every election surely I would
#14 only 4?(still 18% ie nearly 1/5) strange that it feels like more. could it be because Brown and Darling occupy the two most senior positions ie PM and chancellor My dad like most others fought because he was called up. Point I was making was obviously missed.
#15 - thanks will sign petition
16

Stephen_Gash,

Carlisle England 03/06/2008 15:14:34
Wardog,Buckie 03/06/2008 14:06:38

So you think one referendum in the spurious "region" called the North East on whether they wanted an elected regional assembly is sufficient?

Polls persistently show that the English do not want to see their country disappear to be replaced by regions, yet Gordon "MacGabe" Brown undemocratically appointed regional ministers.

The same polls show the English want an English Parliament but we are denied even a referendum because as Judas Jack Straw puts it 'the Scots wouldn't like it' or words to that effect.

Independence for England and passports at the borders thankyou.
17

Stephen_Gash,

Carlisle England 03/06/2008 15:16:45
Please vote for a referendum on England's independence on the 10 Downing St e-petition website

petitions.pm.gov.uk/England-freedom/

Tell all of Scotland too

Cheers
18

Alan B,

03/06/2008 15:24:54
#annie s

There was a referendum for a north east assembly afew yrs ago. Do not know how u missed it.

"only 4?(still 18% ie nearly 1/5) strange that it feels like more. could it be because Brown and Darling occupy the two most senior positions"

I think that says it all about ur views. U have just bought into the media without actually knowing what the facts are. Yes Brown and Darling (Darling was born in london) occupy 2 senior post but over the last century most of the time the senior roles are held by english persons.

If u take the view that only english people should hold senior office in the uk u should support leaving the uk and an independent england.

As for the drugs being available in scotlnad and not in england u have to look at the full picture. That is scotland via its parliament chooses different priorities to england. England for instance jails people for longer that cost money. I am not saying it is not a correct policy to do so but u have to look at things fully. english nhs has targeted waiting list scotland have had other priorities. u could say u wait longer in scotland to see a doctor in hospital but when u get their u get better drugs, if u have not died waiting while u would have been seen in england.

19

Alan B,

03/06/2008 15:36:12
#Stephen_Gash

Do not see how it is undemocratic for a pm to appoint regional ministers.

i think u have to look how we have come to the situation we have. England for yr dominated westminster, the tory party was generally returned while being rejected in scotland and wales. The winning party forced it agenda on the rest of the countries of the uk without understanding the nature of these countries and denying them the policies they voted for.

In 79 a referendum for a scottish assembly took place to try to thward scotland walking off with the oil under the cloud of government lies (mcrone report being hidden). This referendum return a yes vote for a scottish assembly but undemocractic 40% rule (meaning on a 50% turnout u would need 80%) meant this assembly was denied to scotland.

the tory government at the time continually rejected appeals for a scottish parliament despite it increasing being the overwhelming opinion of the scottish electrate. In scotland this was seen as england/tories denying scotland democracy.

When labour got in a refendum meant the scottish parliament came into being. The English public in the meantime had not either appreciated the strength of feeling that made a sp inevitable. together with the fact that the defacto english national party the tories at the time who were in denial about a sp england has not really responded to what it wants.

These feeling are only now awakening. The lib dems wanted to regionalise england and so to an extent did labour. As such no major party has created the situation for an english solution. The english public have been quite about the subject in the main but react with some anti scottish type of view when the media stir.

My own view yes england should sort out what it wants and do that. An english parliament would seem a good idea. However as a scot i am more interested in developing and evolving scotland position.

20

Merouane,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 15:39:22
#28. Labour proposed devolution to the English regions, but never to England as a whole.

As for Scots in the UK government, although many (including most of the English media) make this an anti-Scots thing, the underlying point (the West Lothian question) does need addressed.

Your point regarding the differing priorities of the devolved and UK governments is spot on though. This is another thing that is turned into an anti-Scots issue by people with either an agenda or who are just plain ignorant.
21

ThomasP,

Scotland, Aberdeen 03/06/2008 15:42:33
Stephen_Gash,Carlisle England

There would be no borders between England and Scotland after Independence dude.
22

Alan B,

03/06/2008 15:58:00
#Merouane
"the underlying point (the West Lothian question) does need addressed."

Agree said that at the end of #29.

It is really up to england to decide what they want. They do not appear to want to be regionalised although i think that would be good for england as it is far to centralised and south east dominated.

If they want an english parliament fine. However i could see a situation more evolving where u have a defacto english parliament within westminster with english mps wearing 2 hats.

The barnett issue needs to be addressed. In some ways this is more important. It is the view that scotland get an unfair share of the money that underpins some of the grievances.
23

Chris42,

03/06/2008 16:10:26
32
Alan, do you think barnett issue can be resolved in a way which keeps Scotland and England happy?
24

Joanna,

Cambs, England 03/06/2008 16:15:13
The problem I have with another layer of Parliament is that all these things come at a cost. It is us who will have to pay for it.

Come to think of it I'm surprised that Gordon and his Darling aren't up for it - they love thinking up new ways to squeeze money out of us.

But then they wouldn't be eligible to play in this new playground would they?

25

,

03/06/2008 16:25:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Luke Johnson,

03/06/2008 16:42:18
8 annie s, england 03/06/2008 13:54:39

"The North of England, the bit that doesn't get as much as London was asked in a 2004 referendum whether it wanted a regional assembly and it voted NO.... convincingly.

The referendum held on 4 November 2004 rejected the plans 77.9 per cent to 22.1 per cent on a 47.7 per cent turnout

This decisive majority in favour of the status quo effectively killed off devolution to the other English regions......."

Because those in the North East were only offered assemblies that had no power, useless talking shops where nothing would get done. No wonder they voted no you moron.
27

Alan B,

03/06/2008 16:50:18
#36 Luke Johnson

Wales voted for an assembly and now are talking about taking more powers.

I would think it unlikely people voted no becuase they wanted a stronger regional assembly.

28

Alan B,

03/06/2008 16:53:16
#Joanna

U could have an defacto english parliament where english mps wear two hats. One as english mps and the other as UK mps, both based at westminster.

Alternatively if u did have a separate english parliament, u would then have a small uk parliament. Ot even forget the parliament and just have a president for joint matters.



29

Alan B,

03/06/2008 16:59:34
#Chris42

U will never keep everyone happy but in general i think we could move forward on this. It is already going to happen anyway to some extent.

The options for scotland are
1)fiscal autonomy: Scotland would raise all its own taxes and pay for joint services. The current scottish government would be happy with this and i cannot see any tory objection. David David already supports this. (Labour will have some problem as broon fights to save his position.)

2)fiscal federalism: the sp would raise all money for expenditure and have separate taxes for uk wide spending (shared services).

3)some fiscal responsibility: this is what wendy and lib dems want.

Number 1 fiscal autonomy would be my choice. It would allow scotland to use fiscal policy to try to sort out its cronic slow economic growth. And would be the easiest to accomodate the tory plans for english votes for english matters. It would seemlessly move towards an english parliament if that is what england wants.
30

Alan B,

03/06/2008 17:07:41
#Chris42

Just to qualify. I do not think england would be unhappy with any of them per se and certainly not the first 2 options.

English unhappiness with barnett is due the higher spending per head for scotland. This is wrongly seen as scotland being a subsidy junky. However what is not appreciated is the higher level of tax revenues sent from scotland largely becuase of oil. Grant Thorton accountancy recently talked about scotland having a surplus of between 4.4 and 6 billion. Depending on whether u scotlands share of oil is 82.5% or 95% of oil. There is also alot of expenditure classed as uk which is london spending and hence english which is not recorded as such.

31

wolfette,

Edinburgh 03/06/2008 17:24:21
McMadman - Alistair Darling may have been born in London, where his father was a civil engineer, but grew up and was educated in Fife and East Lothian. The family appear to be Scottish, since his Great Uncle William was also a MP for Edinburgh South - for the Conservatives. (Darling is a fairly common Scottish surname, I note). I'm afraid Scotland does have to take responsibility for him - unfortunately.


32

,

03/06/2008 17:30:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

Andrew Allan,

03/06/2008 17:37:07
There's nothing wrong with the english having their own parliament, though westminster is all but anyway. An english parliament would become so powerful with what it can do that it would have power over how westminster would be run from then onwards, which is to say if labour ran westminster but the tories ran the english parliament, then the westminster parliament would find it hard to go against what english voters who voted in the tories were wanting.
34

Joanna,

Cambs, England 03/06/2008 17:42:19
I think the point with Darling is that he is classed as a Scottish minister because he represents a Scottish seat.

We have a Scottish, by nationality. MP across the county border in Norfolk but he is classed as an English MP because of his constituency.

So I think Darling should be classed as a Scottish MP when it comes to discussions about an English Parliament. He should after all have his loyalties with his Scottish constituents as I would hope our MP has his loyalties with us.

Alan B,

I know it sounds fine in theory, but it will still cost us money. Doesn't everything?
35

,

03/06/2008 17:44:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
36

,

03/06/2008 17:46:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

Commited to Independence,

Scotland 03/06/2008 19:24:43
And now we see why devolution is an idiotic concept within a union of nations.
38

Commited to Independence,

Scotland 03/06/2008 19:25:54
What powers would this English parliament have?
39

henrymanchester,

UK 03/06/2008 19:28:12
This decade will see the final collapse of the British empire.

Good riddance to it and its evil.

Independence for England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
40

,

03/06/2008 20:02:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
41

,

03/06/2008 20:04:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 03/06/2008 20:13:37
So the lickspittle Frank Field rears his pathetic head again. Rebel? Don't think so!
43

Joanna,

03/06/2008 20:17:40
McMadman @ 45

I think you misunderstand me, I actually meant in an English only Parliament, Darling would not be eligible because he would be counted as a Scottish MP. However, as it stands in the UK Parliament he is as entitled to be in the Cabinet as any other UK MP who is appointed to it.

I personally have no beef about Scottish MPs at Westminster as long as the UK exists, they have as much right as anyone to be there. My real concern is that we have too many layers of Government and we will have to pay if we create more.

If, however, Scotland eventually becomes an independent country again, then I suppose that Westminster will become the English Parliament. I, personally do not see the point of introducing it before we have to.
44

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 03/06/2008 20:17:46
#8 annie

Your are letting your bitterness blind you to the facts.

In Scotland, we have the right to spend our "pocket money" in any way you choose.
45

,

03/06/2008 20:20:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

john z,

edinburgh 03/06/2008 20:20:56
Sometimes it's inevitable that politicians must give the people what they want, or have it forced upon them.

The current mood in England and Scotland is now pushing not just for Scottish independence, but also English independence. I see no reason why that should not be so.

But, for Mr Brown, there is a way out of all of this, that could kill the arguments stone dead. Make Westminster the 'devolved' parliament of England with full fiscal autonomy, and likewise give the Scottish Parliament full fiscal autonomy (including the oil!). Then simple create a new type of united kingdom parliament, where England, Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales all have EQUAL representation. This new 'uk' parliament could meet or consider issues such as foreign policy, defence etc.. where it is agreed by all parties it would be worthwhile to do so. Elections would be to each individual countries' parliaments, who would then choose the small number to also represent each country at the much smaller 'uk' parliament.

This would give the SNP almost everything they want, the English could no longer obsess over the (non-existsent) 'english' question. Amd, more importantly, it would mean Brown was once more seen as a real leader (albeit short lived), the English would be happy, most scots would be happy, and it'd kill the tories stone dead at the next election, seeing Labour (minus the Scottish/welsh MP's) returned to power in the English only parliament.

In addition, the constituent parts of the united kingdom would finally have an equal say in matters, and the union would be saved...and so on. Stability would be restored, the queen could carry on as before etc..and everyone would live happily ever after.
47

john z,

edinburgh 03/06/2008 20:27:54
Number 8 annie s

It is utter nonsense to suggest Scots dominate the wesminster parliament. There are around 647 seats in the house of commons, and 59 seats from all of scotland. It is in fact (and always has been) the exact opposite.

As they say in America - you do the math!
48

,

03/06/2008 20:38:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

karinxxx,

03/06/2008 20:46:18
57 john z,edinburgh


But, for Mr Brown, there is a way out of all of this, that could kill the arguments stone dead. Make Westminster the 'devolved' parliament of England with full fiscal autonomy, and likewise give the Scottish Parliament full fiscal autonomy (including the oil!). Then simple create a new type of united kingdom parliament, where England, Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales all have EQUAL representation

Just one teensy weensy problem with that john

WESTMINSTER AND THE LORDS DONT WANT TO DO THAT..............

THEY DONT EVEN WANT TO GIVE THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT ANY MORE POWERS SO WHY DO YOU THINK THAT THEY ARE GONNA HAND OVER POWERS TO WALES NORTHERN IRELAND AND SCOTLAND.

Wesminster did the bare minimum necessary to comply with a council of europe declaration. Thats why scotland has limited devolution at the moment. Ask yourself this john why didnt they do what you suggested in the first place.

Answer: BECAUSE THEY DIDNT WANT TO DO ANYTHING THEY DIDNT WANT SCOTLAND OR WALES OR NORTHERN IRELAND TO HAVE PARLIAMENTS.
50

Joanna,

Cambs, England 03/06/2008 21:18:03
McMadman @ 59

I believe its a mistake to think that what is printed in the media is the view of everyone. The media is political and it seems that most of them have decided that the short-lived honeymoon of Mr Brown is over and they want to get him and his party out at the next election. That is why they are trying to stir up xenophobia and a 'we've been hard done by' attitude among the English. Of course it will work with some people but not all.

I've noticed that the same thing happens in Scotland. Sometimes the headlines which appear in the Scottish newspapers have a totally different slant on them to the English ones and seem intended to stir up animosity.

Media manipulation of the masses is a very powerful political tool.
51

ThomasP,

Scotland, Aberdeen 03/06/2008 21:22:25
54 Joanna.

Once Scotland leaves the United Kingdom Westminister will remain the British Parliament.

You can not forget that Wales and Northern Ireland are also represented at Westminister and therefore would not become an English Parliament.
52

Joanna,

Cambs, England 03/06/2008 21:35:14
Thomas P

I really don't mind what they call it or which of the countries of the British Isles is a member of it. What I do not want as I stated at the outset is a devolved 'English' Parliament which is going to cost the taxpayer (of which I am one)lots more money.

If and when Scotland declare independence or maybe Wales, or NI do, the remaining partners or sole country left will, I'm sure, decide what it is appropriate to call itself/themselves.
53

Tedz,

South of the Border 04/06/2008 01:01:37
There's still excessive arrogance by the "it's our oil" brigade. It isn't "your" oil. Period.

Most of it in fact belongs to the Orkneys and the SNP position is that the Orkneys will be free to choose its own future - either as part as an Independent Scotland or as part of a continuing UK. If they choose to continue to be part of the UK then, for want of a better description, the argument that Scotland would be better off is "buggered".

A touch of realism please - or does an Independent Scotland intend its first Foreign policy action to be invasion of the Orkneys?
54

Royster,

04/06/2008 06:01:14
#2. The English only got a chance to vote on a few regional parliaments. It didn't go through because 1) It was seen as an attempt to split England and 2) they didn't trust their own locals 3) Where do you put a regional capital? Is Manchester going to take orders from Liverpool? Surely you jest. 4) Why pay more taxes for more cr#p politicians? An English parliament would be more powerful than UK parliament as it would control the pursestrings. It would secede immediately from the UK.
55

,

04/06/2008 08:03:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
56

Saruman,

04/06/2008 09:53:07
#65 McMadman: you completely miss Ted’s point. What he actually said was not that the Orkneys may choose to be independent themselves but that they may choose to remain part of the UK rather than join with a separatist Scotland.

Can anyone confirm that it’s SNP policy to allow the Orkneys this choice? Where I do agree with you, McMcMadman, is that the possibility of independence for the Orkneys from both the UK and a separatist Scotland is probably a red herring.
57

,

04/06/2008 12:31:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
58

Ken S.,

Reading 04/06/2008 12:54:12

#38 Alan B,
".. where english mps wear two hats. One as english mps and the other as UK mps, both based at westminster."

.. Whereas Scotland is so complex that it needs single-hatted Westminster MPs (representing smaller constituency population sizes than in England) and Holyrood MSPs - oh, and a Scottish Office. ;-)

Pending your independence, how about two-hatted Scottish MPs as well, spending part of their time in Scottish Parliament (when English MPs are doing likewise in English Parliament) and part time with all the others in UK Parliament?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.