The Scottish Speaker of the House of Commons (in past times known as the English Parliament) has ruled to prevent the Justice for England march passing Parliament.

How's that for English democracy? A Scot, unelected in England, taking a unilateral decision to prevent English campaigners for democracy marching on an undemocratic parliament.

You can see why they don't have the gall to plan any celebrations.

Gareth

There's no link to it yet but there is a widely syndicated press doing the rounds reporting an ICM / News of the World poll:

Support for Scottish independence is much higher among the English than the Scots, a poll showed Sunday, as Scots nationalists geared up for elections to the Scottish parliament this week.

An ICM poll published in the News of the World showed that 56 percent of the English surveyed believe it is now time to end the 300-year-old union, compared to 41 percent among Scots.

The ICM poll said a majority of English also oppose higher spending on Scots households and votes for Scots MPs on English-only issues.

Sky News are Exploring the North-South Divide . Send emails to news@sky.com with the subject line "North-South".

Gareth

If anyone can Tone can, reports the Scotsman:

Mr Blair went on to visit a Diageo bottling plant and a call centre in Kilmarnock. He spoke affectionately of visits to his aunt, Iris Cubie, his mother's elder sister who lived in Giffnock and whom he visited regularly as a child and when he first became party leader.

Thank God I don't live in Scotland anymore, having to watch that cretinous slime ball on the news waxing lyrical about his Scottish roots would send my foot right through the TV screen. Imagine what the Scots think of it, and I know that they are not stupid enough to fall for it.

Teflon Tone can't quite do convincing Scottish and he can't quite do convincing English. A man with no identity battling to stop others from embracing theirs.

Gareth

If you ever wondered why Tesco labels Scottish produce as Scottish and English produce as British, then John has the answer.



Don't shop there, please.

Gareth

Gordon Brown speaking to his fellow Scots:

You can't have the Barnett formula, which assumes you're part of the United Kingdom and have all the oil revenues, which assumes you're not part of the United Kingdom. The SNP's financial policies are based on assuming they have both, and that's not a practical solution."

Let me translate from Scottish to English: "You can either vote for independence and have the oil money, or you can have English taxes and let me be prime minister"

Gareth

What nonsense is this?

"I don't want my children to be foreigners"

I have a Canadian wife. If my children are born in Canada then by Alan Cochrane's logic they would be foreigners to me? If they are born in Canada does that make them less English, or British, than if they were born here? Don't get me wrong I do appreciate some of the arguments that Cochrane is making but this NuLabour-style scaremongering about making foreigners of your own family is deeply worrying and very wrong. He goes on to write:

I want to be Scottish and British. If Alex Salmond wins, it will be the beginning of the end of my Britishness and that of my family. The SNP leader is never backwards at going forwards when it comes to reassuring us all that the break-up of the United Kingdom will be the politest, the most civilised of divorces, and stresses that what he calls the "social union" between England and Scotland will be retained.

It must be nice to be able to be both Scottish and British. Us English are only allowed to be British. Our Englishness has no legal constitutional recognition.

Gareth

I scanned this from the paper version of Gordon's Tartan Tumble.



How can there be a prime minister of the United Kingdom after Scotland votes for independence? There will be no United Kingdom.

And even if the 'United Kingdom' somehow managed to hobble on having amputated its rotten Scottish limb why would it be acceptable for a Scot to be prime minister?

What planet are the Sunday Times on? What planet are YouGov on? What planet are the Scottish respondents to this survey on? Sometimes I despair.

Gareth

Bite back at the experts..

And if you still haven't done so please take part in Vote England 2007 (220 responses so far and rising)

Gareth

The Sun notices that Wembley Stadium failed to fly the English Flag on St George's Day, along with a whole host of others:

The Football Association HQ was also lacking the English flag on our patron saint's day, as were the Houses of Parliament, Downing Street and Buckingham Palace.

Incredibly - since it was given little publicity - this petition to fly the English flag over the Houses of Parliament has received 670 signatures.

Gareth

Absolutely nothing to indicate that it's St George's Day on any of the Party websites. Do Blair, Cameron and Campbell even care? Probably not.

Thankfully the Telegraph remembered.

In London, Ken Livingstone will lead the taxpayer-funded celebrations as Morris Dancers and hobby horses process through a capital festooned with flags bearing the cross of St George, while revellers will drink far too liberally of those quintessential flat bitters that knock other, darker, ales into a leprechaun's cocked hat.

And so too did David Cox with this excellent article in Comment is Free.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm off down the pub. Yes, that's right, I took the day off work because it should be a national holiday anyway.

Cheers.

Gareth

ICM POLL: 67% WANT AN ENGLISH PARLIAMENT


An ICM Poll has found that support continues to grow for an English Parliament.



The poll, commissioned by the Campaign for an English Parliament, comes as many people will be celebrating St. George's Day weekend. CEP Vice Chairman, Tom Waterhouse, said, "this poll clearly shows that the people of England want an English Parliament. At a time when many people feel their English identity is being attacked, people are looking for something that will defend them. That is why they support an English Parliament- it will be our St. George".



The result, with 67% of people saying they think England should have its own Parliament, follows previous polls showing high levels of support for the proposal. In January, a BBC poll to mark the 300th anniversary of the Union found support at 61%. In November 2006, 68% of people said wanted an English Parliament in an ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph.



CEP Chairman, Scilla Cullen, said, "The CEP has been campaigning for nearly a decade for justice for England. Scotland and Wales have devolved institutions- so should England. This result is a great way to start St. George's Day weekend".



The CEP is a single-issue pressure group campaigning for a devolved English Parliament. Full details of the results of the opinion poll here (pdf).


Campaign for an English Parliament

National Council

Please help us achieve democracy for England by joining the CEP today.

Gareth

Those of you that thought the UK only dated from 1707, or 1801, or 1922 in its present incarnation, will be shocked to learn:

A plan for Guernsey to become independent by severing its 800-year link with the United Kingdom is to be discussed in secret tomorrow by the island's parliament.

The clamour to save the more ancient than previously imagined union has been joined in style by Anne Johnstone. Taking a leaf out of Cameron's book Anne suggests that the union is being endangered by English ignorance of Scotland. She then goes on to argue that England needs Scotland because it would otherwise suffer from an in-built Conservative majority and a lack of intellegent dissenting Scots.

I don't think England would suffer from an in-built Conservative majority, and even if it did then so what? England should have the goverment that it votes for regardless of whether that is acceptable to Anne Johnstone. Democracies have the habit of finding equilibrium, and just as the much vaunted in-built Labour majority appears to be disappearing fast up in Scotland, so too would the supposedly in-built Conservative majority in England. Gerrymanderers be warned.

I think that Scottish ignorance of England has a lot to do with the current problems of the union. The Scottish architects of devolution were so arrogant, and so ignorant of the English, that they thought they could get away with aborting English democracy to feather the Scottish nest. Trouble is some people noticed, they didn't expect that.

Gareth

An astonishing outburst from Comedy Dave:

"I want to be prime minister of the United Kingdom. I don't want to be prime minister of England. It would be easier in some ways [to give up on Scotland]. But I think it's rather a small, narrow politics to try to draw a line around where you have your strongest supporters."

I think what he means to say is that he doesn't think there should be a prime minister of England, he wants the prime minister of the United Kingdom and the first minister of England to be the same thing.

Of course, being a strong supporter of Scottish devolution he understands the need for a Scottish first minister. But that's different because Scotland is a country in its own right.

This is one 'sour Little Englander' who will now never vote for David Cameron.

Gareth

From the Downing Street Petitions site:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make England a colonial outpost of the Welsh Empire denying it legistlative powers and create a Welsh Prince of England.

Submitted by S.T.O

And the response?

This petition has been rejected because:

It was intended to be humorous, or have no point about government policy

I call it satirical, and I think it makes a good point about government policy.

There are some Scottish and English comedians too.

Gareth

Sometimes in politics things occur that seem relatively minor at the time but which later prove to be defining moments. Two such events have just taken place (at least that's what I think, I'll let you be the judge):

• David Milliband has, once and for all, decided not to stand against Brown

This means that England is almost certain to get a Scottish prime minister by coronation, a negative event that will have an incalculably positive effect on our campaign, driving thousands - potentially millions - more towards English nationalism. Looking at it from a democratic perspective, rather than a campaign perspective, I have to say that I think a coronation is a bad thing. I don't favour a presidential system but I do think that there ought to be a competition whenever there is a change of leader. As things stand not only will the English population have a democratically unaccountable Scotsman foist upon them without say, but even the English members of the New Labour caucus will be denied a debate on the merits and demerits of a Scottish elective dictatorship. The West Lothian Question will be conveniently swept under the carpet. Frank Field where are you? Why not stand against Brown and let Labour and the nation have this debate?

• David Trimble has joined the Conservative Party

On the face of it this doesn't seem that interesting. So what? You might say. In welcoming David Trimble to the Conservative Party David Cameron told the assembled audience that David Trimble would bring a great amount to our Party, on the subject of the constitution. This is the same David Trimble that is quite adamant about his opposition to the Conservative policy of English Votes on English Matters:

...let us have an end to Conservative spokesmen suggesting that our representatives are deprived of their vote. It is wrong in principle. It is not even good politics. Conservatives do not need to reinforce the impression that they are only an English party, and a party of only part of England at that. They need to show that they are a British party, a party for everyone in this United Kingdom. The new leadership has the opportunity to remodel the party in this direction also!

So what will be his input into the debate, and will he be able to influence the future direction of the Conservative Party in England? Given Trimble's previous political experience I suspect that's a question that we will never know the answer to, but probably, in some back room at Westminster, he's already begun.

Gareth

Monday's edition of the Daily Politics had Andrew Neill interviewing several members of the Westminster self-preservation society. On the West Lothian Question Douglas Alexander had this to say:

The truth of the matter is if I as a Scottish MP, together with every colleague from Northern Ireland, and every colleague from Wales, sought to impose something on England in the House of Commons it would require the votes of 200 English MPs - 200! - to be able to secure a majority. And in that sense I'm not convinced of the argument that suggests that this is a fundamental fracture in the union, I think the United Kingdom needs a united parliament.

Gav responds here, and I respond here.

Gareth

Can you imagine the LIb Dems producing a video that began 'We all love England'?



Funny that, neither can I.

Gareth

According to the Scotsman the MoD are looking to move Trident out of Scotland:

MILITARY chiefs are drawing up plans to move the UK's nuclear missiles south of the Border as concern mounts that Scotland is heading towards independence.

So it looks as though, at least as far as the MoD and the UK Government are concerned, that if Scotland votes to abolish the UK by voting for independence then England will just assume responsibility for the UK.

There's a fundamental problem here. England and Scotland created Great Britain and if it is to be abolished then the terms under which that is done should be negotiated by England and Scotland. There seems to be a general assumption that Scotland can just walk away while the UK Government negotiates on behalf of England. Over my dead body.

Gareth

See also: Nats to keep share of conventional forces

Some scaremongering over at the Telegraph:

For three centuries the Union between England and Scotland has served both countries well. Now, with an election looming and nationalist triumphalism rife north of the border, it has never been closer to break-up. Think it couldn't happen? Think again

It's an interesting little series of articles that they have had over the last few days. At last, a newspaper that isn't the Scotsman or the Glasgow Herald giving devolution and nationalism the coverage that it warrants. Read all about it here.

Regional government is making a stealthy comeback according to The Economist.

No one is sure of Mr Brown's thinking, but few people in local government believe he will cede power gracefully. If the regions are on his radar at all, he may see them as a way to stave off English resentment of Scotland and Wales. Too late? A poll in November by ICM for the Sunday Telegraph showed that 68% of English people want a separate parliament instead.

Too late indeed. Too late for a Scottish PM too.

Gareth

Where Wonko leads the Birmingham Post follows:

BARMY" EU bureaucrats are trying to abolish the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football teams and replace them with a united UK squad, a Birmingham MEP claimed today.

I have to say that I have my doubts about this story, but if it's true then it's a liberty too far and the backlash would be tremendous.

Gareth

Iain Dale has responded to Comedy Dave's article in yesterday's Telegraph.

You can read Iain's response in the Telegraph. It contains some good news:

only now are some Tories waking up to the fact that it's a short-term fix. English nationalism is stirring...In several recent polls, more than 60 per cent of the English believe that there should be some form of English Parliament. Several members of the shadow cabinet agree.

My thoughts here. John's here.

Gareth

David Cameron writing in the Telegraph:

We cannot ignore the asymmetrical nature of the situation in which Scottish MPs may vote on legislation that affects England, but neither they nor English MPs can vote on subjects that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The answer is not a separate English parliament, with more politicians spending more taxpayers' money. Instead, we need a balanced approach that ensures that MPs for English constituencies have the final say on issues that only affect England. That is why I have asked Kenneth Clarke's democracy task force to look at the right specific solutions.

I ask again, when can we expect to hear the recommendations of this bleedin' task force?

At a CU Public seminar on 28 September, Clarke said that the deadline for the task force report had slipped from the summer to the autumn and finally to "before Christmas", but admitted that "the pressure is now on us to get on with it as Gordon Brown is getting into the same area -although I can't think of anyone with a less suitable temperament for putting it into practice"

English Votes on English Matters was Conservative policy under Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Howard. It was in their manifestos. Yet here we are in the reign of Cameron and we still have no idea how this policy would work in practice. What a shower of useless idiots.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft, writing in the Guardian, informs us that the establishment of England-Scotland, with separate parliaments, is an increasingly attractive option for both countries.

You don't say Geoff!

I wonder how long the Conservatives can stall before separate English and Scottish parliaments become the only solution?

Gareth

Alex Salmond:

"I think a lot of people in England can see the advantages of being able to decide on things like foundation hospitals or top-up fees without being bossed around by Scottish Labour MPs, who seem intent on forcing unwanted policies down the throats of the people of England."

I think it would be safe to say that this is a nightmare scenario for Gordon Brown. True that most English people will see that Salmond has an ulterior motive, and that he doesn't necessarily have the best interests of England at heart. But nevertheless, when the main opposition leader in Scotland, who is also probably the next First Minister for Scotland, is openly espousing the benefits of English independence to a population already pissed off with the Scottish Raj and its asymmetrical democracy, it just adds to Brown's already insurmountable problems.

There's been some discussion amongst CEP members as to how the stand-off between Gordon Brown and his opponents will develop. In Scotland the SNP will use his Scottishness against him, and in England the 'English nationalist' Conservative Party will also use his Scottishness against him.

There's the opinion that English Votes on English Matters is just a tactical ruse by a Conservative Party that has no intention whatsoever of implementing such a scheme. I don't agree with this, there's a clear mood for change and even the biggest cynic in the Conservative Party would be foolish to ignore it.

There's also the opinion that the Conservatives want English Votes on English laws to prevent Labour constructing an English parliament elected under proportional representation as per the Scottish model (obviously the Tories would favour the first past the post system). I don't subscribe to this either, it would take the most monumental political u-turn in history for Labour to now admit that there is a need for English government.

My personal view is that the Democracy Task Force is stalling - delaying the publication of its EVoEM or English Grand Committee recommendations - to prevent Gordon Brown being able to make an informed decision in reaction to Conservative policy prior to releasing his leadership manifesto. If the Tories did release plans for some form of English Votes parliament then Brown will counter with his own plans for the UK parliament to be elected under proportional representation.

This would buy the nascent Brown regime some time.

Conservative complaints that they won more votes in England would be dismissed pending the new voting system. The cooperation of the Lib Dems could be bought with the promise of PR. And the West Lothian Question - though still a theoretical issue - is neutered and ceases to be the party-political football that it is right now.

This is all just speculation, but I imagine that it is speculation that is going on in the high-commands of the Scottish Nationalist, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem parties.

Gareth

A wonderful article by Mark Simpson over at Comment is Free:

New Labour's appeasement of Scottish nationalism with parliaments, unequal voting rights, free prescriptions, shiny new bridges, and ever-increasing wads of English cash has failed. Worse, it's only served to ignite the political frustration of those "British" people paying for all this - people who, despite the best efforts of the political and media classes, increasingly see themselves as English. Amidst all the chatter in London about whether the Scots will embrace independence or not next May and whether it will be a good or bad thing for Scotland, hardly anyone is asking what the English want, or even acknowledging their existence.

Also in the Guardian is a leader article of the Union:

[Blair and Brown] also recognise that the union must be seen as more than simply an advantageous commercial transaction if it is to survive: indeed the sense that this is all it now amounts to has helped power the Conservative party's slide into the embrace of English nationalism - and its resentment at the price England pays for the union.

There was a time when the Guardian described the CEP as 'obscure campaigners'. How delightful that their columists now seem to agree with what we have been saying since that time.

Commissioned by the Times this YouGov survey (pdf) shows that 74% of English people want some form of English parliament.



Cynics amongst you will accuse me of spinning like a top, after all only 20% have chosen my preferred option of a separate English parliament.

Well perhaps. But there is clearly demand for a change and the onus is on the Conservative Party to show the skeptics (which is everyone but them) how English Votes on English Matters would work in practice.

Gareth

More analysis here.

The Telegraph:

Ministers close to Mr Blair also believe the next Labour leader should be English.

If this is true then it's a tacit admission that devolution is a complete failure. Any system by which it becomes problematic for a prime minister to be Scottish cannot be judged a success.

In the Independent Malcolm Rifkind informs us that these islands are on the brink of a true political tragedy, and implores the unionist parties to stop attacking each other.

And in the Guardian Andrew Rawnsley wonders how Labour are going to walk the devolution tightrope:

Scots receive an average of £1,500 per head more in public spending than the English. The most bullying suggestion is that a separatist Scotland would no longer benefit from this arrangement. That's a dangerous argument for Labour to make. It risks annoying Scots by cruelly reminding them that they are subsidised by the English. At the same time, it will aggravate the English who are already asking why their taxes are helping to pay for the devolution perks of being Scottish such as a university education free of tuition fees.

I think it's becoming reasonably clear that devolution was an 'error of judgement', to use the vernacular of the times.

Gareth

Remember the old Conservative election slogans "Putting Britain First", "Putting Scotland First" and "Putting Wales First", with no mention of England?

Well perhaps things are about to change, then again perhaps not.

The Scotsman reports that the Tories are planning cross-Border split for party:

Conservatives in London believe that hiving off the Scottish party would allow them to exploit Gordon Brown's Scottishness in the run up to the next UK election.

Officials working for Francis Maude, the Tory party chairman south of the Border, are already looking at the idea of making the Conservatives a party operating only in England and Wales, according to reports in today's edition of the Spectator.

This would allow the Tories in Scotland to adopt a new name, possibly "The Unionists", while giving David Cameron the opportunity fully to play the anti-Scottish card against Gordon Brown if, as expected, the Chancellor becomes Prime Minister.

It doesn't sound like the sort of underhand anti-Scottish tactics that a party called 'The Unionists' would advocate. But seeing as it was Labour that started picking at the thread I suppose that makes it acceptable for the Conservatives to unravel the whole jumper.

What a shame that instead of pursuing an anti-Scottish agenda they don't advocate a positive nationalism for England. This sort of tactic will surely make Englishness a negative nationalism that defines itself in opposition to Scotland rather than a positive expression of English democracy and national self-awareness. I only mention it because I seem to remember a few Tories levelling the same accusation at me, so I thought I'd toss the ball back into their court.

Gareth

Expect to see more articles like this as the unionists redouble their efforts:

The SNP is a very left-wing party and independence is its purpose in life, not an esoteric instinct. Mr Salmond would preside over an administration which was profoundly statist, and it would be optimistic to think that the Liberal Democrats could impose free-market values on him. His every deed and word as First Minister would be designed to move Scotland farther apart from the rest of the United Kingdom — economically, politically and culturally — in what would amount to separation by stealth. Mr Salmond's aim would be to achieve such a degree of detachment that the referendum vote would seem like the final step in a process rather than the radical break with Britain that it seems today. The Scottish electorate should be aware that a vote for Mr Salmond would be a very substantial step towards leaving the United Kingdom.

A sustained and concerted attack on the SNP is calculated to damage their election chances, but it may just have the opposite effect. Voting SNP is not just about voting for independence, it is also about voting to punish Labour. For many Scots - as it will be for the English come the general election - it is all about punishing Labour.

In an interview about Englishness on Open Source Radio economist Will Hutton argues that the Scots will stop short of voting for independence because of their love for the Royal family. You can listen to the show here if you don't believe me.

I must say that I found Will Hutton to be a little out of touch, and annoying. The Scots, when they get to vote for independence, will be casting judgment on the Act of Union not the Union of the Crowns. The SNP will be very careful about that because they won't want to dilute the nationalist vote by alienating the monarchists in Scotland (few in number though they are).

Arthur Aughey described English nationalism as a mood rather than a movement, and one that (as with all nationalisms) is sustained by self-righteousness and self-pity. He had a point because Christine Constable then went on to display both these elements in spades.

Gareth

From the Scotsman:

Mr Campbell Bannerman, who is also lead candidate for the Highlands and Islands, suggested the country should be taken out of Europe and the constitution restructured.

All 129 MSPs would be sacked and the Scottish Parliament would be represented by the present Scottish MPs, who would meet once a month for a week. There would also be an English Parliament, Welsh national council and Northern Irish Parliament meeting for a week each month to discuss issues of importance to their countries. The rest of the month, regions would work together for the UK.

My feeling is that UKIP are very out of touch with Scottish opinion. Devolution has happened and there's no going back.

Meanwhile the Lib Dems propose another Scottish Constitutional Convention. Ahem, 'scuse me, how about an English Constitutional Convention first?

Gareth