"THE noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees is the high road that leads him to England" - that's what Samuel Johnson thought.
The observation was rattling in my ears as I got off the train at Manchester Piccadilly for a new life in the `capital' of the north west. It has taken some time to appreciate the many minute differences between Edinburgh and my final destination.
First of all, there's the smoke. Thanks to the Scottish parliament, no longer are pubs and cafes there clogged with the thick haze of tobacco.
The 159 politicians who make up the Scottish parliament also introduced a fox-hunting ban two years before the rest of the UK and introduced free care for the elderly, meaning Scottish pensioners are eligible for personal care in residential and nursing homes without charge.
The Edinburgh-based parliament also has limited tax-raising powers allowing it to create extra revenue to pay for the measures it puts in. But it has no say on a whole range of `reserved' issues, including broad economic policy (the Bank of England still sets interest rates), defence, foreign policy, and national security.
Polls
Recent opinion polls suggest the majority of English people would favour a separate English parliament, but it is debatable whether this would remain the case if the sweeping constitutional changes required were made clear. Previous polls on the creation of region-wide assemblies received under-whelming public support.
There is discontent with Scottish MPs being allowed to vote on issues that do not affect their constituents but this may not translate into a groundswell of support for an entirely new parliament.
There's also the issue of where an English parliament would sit. Scots were forced to fork out 10 times more than had originally been estimated for their parliament building - which eventually came in at a painful é400m. A prestigious project of similar disastrous proportions could be enough to drive anyone north, via the high road.
DO you believe an English parliament would work? Have your say.
Comments
Login or Register to comment
The question is not whether an English Parliament would work. The question is why have the people of England never been offered the choice. Why were the referendums in Scotland and Wales not followed by one in England? Instead we were offered what we did NOT want. Instead of a national assembly, we were offered national partition. The people of the North East emphatically said no - gosh, the wrong answer, so regionalistion continues apace and Prescott says we will see sense eventually. Now we need an English Parliament,not just to pass English laws, but also to protect England from the UK Government which intends to wipe England out as soon as it can.
Mr Yakub Qureshi says more for the need of an English Parliament than I think he realises, whilst he lists such items as 'free care for the elderly', he does not mention that Scots OAPs also get free travel across Scotland, Scots students studying in Scotland do not pay the punative student fees as an English student in Scotland would, all this bought about because Scotland is subsidised through the outdated Barnett formula
Mr Qureshi further states 'it would be dabatable' when refering to the constitutional change an English Parliament would bring, well Mr Qureshi bring on the debate, constitutionally I would feel better off both democratically and financially, so lets have a debate, if your really interested Mr Qureshi I suggest you persuade the MEN to hire a hall in Manchester and we can debate the subject, bring it to wider audience.
Mr Qureshi states 'Previous polls on the creation of region-wide assemblies received under-whelming support' yes all true but that did not stop the Labour machine from deluging the NE in support of NEA, hence a bloody nose was received, thier is no comparison between an artificial region and a real Nation, yes Mr Qureshi England is real Nation and this Nation England needs a democratic voice for her people, that voice is through an English Parliament.
Where would an English Parliament sit? well for a start it could sit where it once was in Westminster, or it could as it did in Anglo-Saxon times choose various locations within England, the answer to this question will ultimately lay with the people of England and no one else, as for the Scots being forced to fork out 10 times more for thier building, who forced them? no one! they were quite happy to spend more knowing the UK Govt would subsidise it using English taxpayers money.
English people are dying because they cannot get the health treatment in England that is freely available in Scotland, that is one reason we need an English Parliament, rather puts the Scottish Parliament's banning of fox-hunting and smoking into reality does'nt it
This article mentions nothing about the Barnett Formula, nor the fact that the UK Government tweaked the maritime boundary to give Scotland much of England's share of North Sea oil. Scotland is not self-financing, and that is one of the major reasons an English Parliament is necessary.
So it has been nearly a week since I sent in a request to Mr Qureshi to discuss the debate of an English Parliament, no reply as yet, could this possibly be that the argument for an English Parliament is overwhelming he dare not raise the issue again for fear he will lose?
So once again Mr Qureshi let us have the debate! Over to you