Brown Rants About Nationalists Again
Posted by thenewconstitution on 1 January, 2007
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.
IanP said
No, you are not the only one, but I see a more devious reason behind his call.
I think he is really asking how much opposition would there be if he abolished the Act of Union.
http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog
thenewconstitution said
I think you might be on to something…
beau bo d'or said
From the SNP website :
“SNP MPs keep to strict code of not voting on English legislation unless Scottish or constitutional interests are affected.”
There naturally always will be vigorous debate over what does and does not affect Scottish or constitutional interests.
I’m not a SNP supporter but I think this point needs to be clarified.
Nich Starling said
Personally I think he is talking up the SNP. Of course, there would be no better reason to have a Scottish Prime Minister than to use it as a way to blunt the SNP, would it ?
thenewconstitution said
If the Prime Minister is Scottish, the English will begin to have a problem with being legislated by people they cannot vote for.
The problem will not go away: and Brown becomes Prime Minister, the issue will be far from closed.