Brown Rants About Nationalists Again

Am I the only one who thinks Gordon Brown’s comments that the Union between England and Scotland is at risk are slightly ironic? Am I not correct in thinking that it is his government which has, through devolution, began to split the nation up? Is he not going to become the first Prime Minister who is elected only by Scots, but who will legislate almost exclusively for England? The audacity of the man amazes me.

Gordon Brown, in his latest rant against nationalism, has called for the supporters of the union to speak up. His problem is that he has caused the nationalist feelings.

Ten years ago, Scottish, Welsh and English MPs voted on legislation that would be implemented in the UK. They each represented their own constituency, and it goes without saying that they were also concerned for their respective nation. There were too many Scottish constituencies, but that was an issue for the Boundary Commission for Scotland to deal with.

After Labour’s devolution disaster, the Scottish electorate are able to implement policies that help them and are beneficial to them. For example, they have voted against top-up fees for university education. This allows the Scots a greater level of democracy.

Sadly, their MPs still vote on matters applicable only to England. If effect, the English have legislation passed with the help of those they have no say in electing. It is completely anti-democratic for Scottish MPs to vote on English-only matters. Yet one of the perpetrators is surprised at nationalist feeling?

The English have laws imposed on them by, for example, a Home Secretary who controls English police forces but not those in Scotland, where he is elected. They also subsidise Scotland financially. Is it any wonder that many in England want to annexe Scotland?

There are only two ways to solve this problem. Either, Scotland is cut off, and left to itself. The status of the UK would diminish, Scotland would become unstable, and the English Army would be relatively small per head of population compared with Scotland’s. And, most interestingly, Scotland would own most of the nukes. Alternatively, an English Parliament could be set up, and given the same powers as that in Scotland. The English would have an equal say on domestic policy, and the United Kingdom’s role in the global community would be unchanged. The current policy of giving Scotland special treatment, and then complaining when the are treated differently, is absurd.

I would hate to see the Union abolished, and Scotland given independence. But I equally resent the Scottish MPs forcing unpopular legislation upon England. If the Union is to be protected, the two halves of it must be treated equally. Devolution was a stupid idea to begin with, but now that we are here we must look to protect the Union in the best way possible. This must surely mean the setting up an English Parliament, to put the issue to bed.

Our democracy depends upon it.

School leaving age to change to 18

The government plans to raise the English school leaving age to 18. (Google News covers many articles here.)

This policy is, frankly, absurd. In England at the moment, “young people” can leave school at 16 after their GCSEs, and pursue employment, or continue with their education to take A-levels. For those who leave at 16, many go straight into low-wage jobs. Many take part in vocational training schemes to develop their education in a practical way. Others have no interest in education or employment, and either sponge off their parents or the state.

This law would, essentially, encourage teenagers to take A-levels, and provide vocational courses for those who that would not be appropriate for. It would try, in vain, to force the delinquents and dropouts to further their education. It seems to ignore that a shockingly poor proportion of those taking GCSEs manage to get five “good” grades – A* – C. Those who are not skilled in the classroom should not be forced to continue education; it simply isn’t worth it for them!

I am all for encouragement and opportunity in schools, and I would welcome any attempt to give lower-achievers a genuine sense of aspiration. I resent any education system that consigns some of its pupils to sink schools because they will never amount to anything, so their education is not worth pursuing. But by the time a child is 16, they have no chance of turning a handful of “bad” GCSE grades into A-levels that any employer will consider worthwhile. To force them to attempt this is actually detrimental.

They should be encouraged to follow their skills: to take part in apprenticeships for trades that can easily be practiced without any formal A-level qualifications. This country has a shortage of (unfairly termed) low-skilled jobs. If we are forcing our children into education when that isn’t appropriate, we begin to ostracise them from society in general. If we encourage their participation in specific trades, they can provide a much-needed support to the nation. We all need bricklayers.

But this law will go much further. Yes, it will allow for the much-needed provision of vocational training. But it will unfairly force less-able students into an educational level they cannot cope with. And those who have no interest with education will treat vocational courses just as they have treated their education up to the age of 16: disrupting the few classes they turned up to. The stress, organisation, and enforcement of these vocational courses will not be worth the effort. In short: if someone does not comply withy school education before they are 16, they will not comply with a vocational one until they are 18.

Teenagers should be free to leave school post-16, but encouraged into further education. They should be provided with courses to take, and those who want to will prosper as a result. Those who fail to do so will not be persuaded by the law anyway, so it is pointless pursuing their education. We should not give up on them, but work lower down the education system to prevent the problem arising.

Prevention is better than cure.