The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
In the Imperial Senate, the Parliament of the Democratic Commonwealth of English-speaking Nations, the territory of today's USA (50 states + DC) would have 538 senators. Canada would have 62, Britain would have 111, Ireland would have 8, Australia would have 42 and NZ would also have 8. All scaled by relative population, natch.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
There are about a dozen counties in Yorkshire. It’s just most of them are now Unitaries.
BTW, there are far more than 27 counties in England.
For instance the southern part of the west riding formed to the metropolitan county of "South Yorkshire" and consists of Rotherham , Doncaster and Sheffield and Barnsley metropolitan councils.
RE: senate talk, I would have expected something more imaginative from Leon.
The solution is simple, just rig the elections of Aus/Can/NZ to elect pro-CANZUK politicians, who would make a CANZUK federation like a functional, more tight-knit EU. Then give all the countries 10 senators + 1 per 1m population, and you end up with:
To be serious for a second, and system that meant that the 9 million of Wal/Sco/NI would be able to block 57m English people from doing things would definitely not help the union, for, much like Brexit, SIndy is fundamentally an emotional movement, not a rational one.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
You probably can't. The best route to go down is to federalise and distribute as much power as possible down to the four states, but that would still leave external relations, defence and security, the currency, the borders, probably state pensions and certainly the system of transfer payments to be run by the centre. The nationalists outside of England would then continue to insist loudly that nobody was paying them enough attention, and why would the English electorate countenance (as per various madcap proposals advanced on this site this evening) some kind of balancing chamber in which half or more of the members were chosen by 14% of the people?
Anyway, it's all academic. The Union is dying because the British constitute a smaller and smaller percentage of its population. At some point, if Scotland doesn't blow the whole thing up first, British identity will cease being merely a minority interest and start being an #FBPE style sect, and the relationship between the Home Nations will become entirely transactional. And that'll be the end of that.
This is a counsel of despair.
Also you make the classic “mistake” in thinking that the “solution” is more devolution.
Actually, it’s more sharing of central functions.
No. The central problem with devolution is that it is imbalanced, in two crucial respects:
1. The existing devolved administrations have a lot of power over legislation and administration but not enough over taxation. 2. England doesn't get its own Parliament.
You solve this in one of two ways - you get rid of devolution or you complete it.
I mean, in the long run it probably won't help because the forces ripping the UK apart are greater than those holding it together anyway, but if you think the thing's worth preserving then you might as well give it a go.
So why have I at 59 not been offered an appointment yet?
Maybe your vaccination letter is lost in the post
I am seriously beginning to wonder but we are severely discouraged to do anything like ask up here. If I lived in England I would have had my vaccine more than 3 weeks ago and would have 80% protection right now. I'm disappointed.
If the Alba ruse actually works (I doubt it) then the obvious Unionist response would be for them to stand down in favour of the strongest party in the constituencies. It would take a lot for that to happen but could be transformative if it did.
That could ultimately be very good news for SLAB as the Tories would en masse transfer to them (not so much the other way round in the Tory-leaning areas) thus putting a lot of Central Belt seats into contention. However that's looking far ahead to Holyrood 2026. A lot could happen in the meantime!
Haven't you been keeping up with Murray Ross's communiques? He's suggested exactly that to a chorus of raspberries from SLab at least.
Something about this just seems wrong, and I doubt the voters will enjoy being told what candidate to vote for.
This is why we need AV to save the Union.
Unionists would rank the Unionists accordingly ergo Unionist majority at Holyrood.
#AVToSaveTheUnion
If only av will save the union then the union is not worth saving....its like saying if we cut the head off this dead body we can save him
Nah, the Union is worth saving.
I've written a thread, well writing a thread, on the subject of England relative to the size of the rest of the UK is just too big for the Parliament of the UK to work properly.
Perhaps we should go American senate style and allow each country to elect 25 senators to send to the replacement for the Lords with proper powers, or maybe a new House of Commons with 150 MPs elected from every member of the Union.
Can you give a good reason for why the union is worth having? Never seen one advanced yet
Fucking brilliant flag. World-best brand.
If Scotland goes, tell them we are still keeping it. Fuck 'em.
It will also simplify things when they beg us to take them back.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
So why have I at 59 not been offered an appointment yet?
Maybe your vaccination letter is lost in the post
I am seriously beginning to wonder but we are severely discouraged to do anything like ask up here. If I lived in England I would have had my vaccine more than 3 weeks ago and would have 80% protection right now. I'm disappointed.
I’m pretty amazed with how calmly Lammy handled that
Interesting. She starts off with a valid if incoherent point. There is a white northwest-European Anglo-Celtic racial identity, and it used to be conflated - by many - with Englishness (whereas British was the easier multiracial term, because it is a multinational state)
But then she goes for "polluted" and ewwwww. That is outright racism and he demonstrates commendable restraint.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
I have not heard the term despite being married to a North East Scot for near 60 years
I will ask her
I have just asked my wife re Cromartyshire and she has not heard the term, nor within her family who live overlooking the Cromarty Firth and were fishermen
I have not heard the term despite being married to a North East Scot for near 60 years
I will ask her
It was a slightly bizarre county, basically being a small peninsula of land held by the Urquharts that was never absorbed into Ross-shire. But then for some strange reason 22 enclaves, all of them much larger than the original tiny county, were transferred to it. So it had land all over the Highlands and yet none of it touched.
So very sensibly it was abolished when county councils were set up in Scotland.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
So why have I at 59 not been offered an appointment yet?
Maybe your vaccination letter is lost in the post
I am seriously beginning to wonder but we are severely discouraged to do anything like ask up here. If I lived in England I would have had my vaccine more than 3 weeks ago and would have 80% protection right now. I'm disappointed.
I get my full one-dose 22 day immunity in FOUR DAYS.
I might drink myself senseless, just for a change, through the Easter weekend
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
I have not heard the term despite being married to a North East Scot for near 60 years
I will ask her
It was a slightly bizarre county, basically being a small peninsula of land held by the Urquharts that was never absorbed into Ross-shire. But then for some strange reason 22 enclaves, all of them much larger than the original tiny county, were transferred to it. So it had land all over the Highlands and yet none of it touched.
So very sensibly it was abolished when county councils were set up in Scotland.
I believe one Urquhart or another essentially cleared it with the King to consolidate all his land into a single county.
Obviously completely impractical, but it’s a shame that Scottish counties with much more cultural resonance and geographic integrity - like Sutherland - have disappeared from the map.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
I have not heard the term despite being married to a North East Scot for near 60 years
I will ask her
It’s a disgrace - a *disgrace* - that few people know the traditional counties of Scotland.
At 7,000 people, Cromartyshire is the least populated county in the U.K.
There are 8 counties under 25,000 - all in Scotland. This includes Orkney and Shetland.
Although I don’t think it had the smallest county town (depending on how you define ‘county town’).
Go on then. What is/was the smallest county town?
Well, it depends on what you mean by county town, as I said.
But if we take ‘main administrative centre for the county’ it would be Sutherland. Because although the main town in Sutherland was Dornoch, as a royal burgh it controlled its own affairs. So the main county administration was, amazingly and bizarrely, at Golspie.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
I have not heard the term despite being married to a North East Scot for near 60 years
I will ask her
It’s a disgrace - a *disgrace* - that few people know the traditional counties of Scotland.
At 7,000 people, Cromartyshire is the least populated county in the U.K.
There are 8 counties under 25,000 - all in Scotland. This includes Orkney and Shetland.
Although I don’t think it had the smallest county town (depending on how you define ‘county town’).
Go on then. What is/was the smallest county town?
Well, it depends on what you mean by county town, as I said.
But if we take ‘main administrative centre for the county’ it would be Sutherland. Because although the main town in Sutherland was Dornoch, as a royal burgh it controlled its own affairs. So the main county administration was, amazingly and bizarrely, at Golspie.
So why have I at 59 not been offered an appointment yet?
Maybe your vaccination letter is lost in the post
I am seriously beginning to wonder but we are severely discouraged to do anything like ask up here. If I lived in England I would have had my vaccine more than 3 weeks ago and would have 80% protection right now. I'm disappointed.
I get my full one-dose 22 day immunity in FOUR DAYS.
I might drink myself senseless, just for a change, through the Easter weekend
I have survived
Don't count those Easter chicks just yet. A lot of people are getting infected shortly after vaccine, presumably because they have relaxed their guard.
I’m pretty amazed with how calmly Lammy handled that
Interesting. She starts off with a valid if incoherent point. There is a white northwest-European Anglo-Celtic racial identity, and it used to be conflated - by many - with Englishness (whereas British was the easier multiracial term, because it is a multinational state)
But then she goes for "polluted" and ewwwww. That is outright racism and he demonstrates commendable restraint.
Nah, got to disagree with you there. Englishness is a cultural characteristic and has sweet FA to do with skin colour. I can honestly say that one of the most English people I ever met was of Indian descent, born in Zambia, who came here in the early 70s as a baby. It has bugger all to do with multi-culturalism. This bloke was English through and through.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
I hope I am not one of those you are referring to but
Oh hell yes.
I find the word racist no longer means anything.
The woman is astonishingly stupid, however. Maddeningly so.
For me the word still has meaning even if we debate about its scope. Claiming someone is not English because of their skin colour and using the tone and terminology she does strikes me as just about as racist as you can get.
That's just adding insult to injury for poor Sir Keir: Boris is beating him on 'Tells the truth'...
It is apparently Boris’ Achilles heel. I don’t really get it - I think Starmer lacks charisma and doesn’t have what it takes to beat Boris in a GE, but wouldn’t have thought him a liar, and definitely more likely to be honest than Boris
I hope I am not one of those you are referring to but
Oh hell yes.
I find the word racist no longer means anything.
The woman is astonishingly stupid, however. Maddeningly so.
For me the word still has meaning even if we debate about its scope. Claiming someone is not English because of their skin colour and using the tone and terminology she does strikes me as just about as racist as you can get.
No. I’m with @Leon. It’s f***ing stupid, but it’s not racist per se.
It’s the pollution bit which is, basically, hateful.
That's just adding insult to injury for poor Sir Keir: Boris is beating him on 'Tells the truth'...
It is apparently Boris’ Achilles heel. I don’t really get it - I think Starmer lacks charisma and doesn’t have what it takes to beat Boris in a GE, but wouldn’t have thought him a liar, and definitely more likely to be honest than Boris
Public are a bit thick?
It's a bit like Fox Mulder I reckon. "I want to believe." The PM is extraordinarily good at that. As was Blair. It is quite a skill. A thermonuclear political weapon.
That's just adding insult to injury for poor Sir Keir: Boris is beating him on 'Tells the truth'...
It is apparently Boris’ Achilles heel. I don’t really get it - I think Starmer lacks charisma and doesn’t have what it takes to beat Boris in a GE, but wouldn’t have thought him a liar, and definitely more likely to be honest than Boris
Public are a bit thick?
It's a bit like Fox Mulder I reckon. "I want to believe." The PM is extraordinarily good at that. As was Blair. It is quite a skill. A thermonuclear political weapon.
The Keir figure on honesty - counter-intuitively - might be good for him.
It’s so obviously the wrong answer that it indicates that most respondents still don’t actually know who he is.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
I have not heard the term despite being married to a North East Scot for near 60 years
I will ask her
It’s a disgrace - a *disgrace* - that few people know the traditional counties of Scotland.
At 7,000 people, Cromartyshire is the least populated county in the U.K.
There are 8 counties under 25,000 - all in Scotland. This includes Orkney and Shetland.
Although I don’t think it had the smallest county town (depending on how you define ‘county town’).
Go on then. What is/was the smallest county town?
Well, it depends on what you mean by county town, as I said.
But if we take ‘main administrative centre for the county’ it would be Sutherland. Because although the main town in Sutherland was Dornoch, as a royal burgh it controlled its own affairs. So the main county administration was, amazingly and bizarrely, at Golspie.
This sort of shit is why I am on PB.
I appeared in Dornoch Sheriff Court a couple of times. Sadly it is now closed with all business transferred to the Metropolis of Tain.
There it is again - bunching up the flesh to inject. Obviously what I read about needing to stretch out the skin for a vaccination was wrong.
I've been wondering about that. Wasn't it Scandinavian health experts pointing out the technique needed to get the vaccine into muscle rather than veins?
The shift from the original plan of fill and finish in Sweden/Germany has resulted in a delay of 2-4 weeks and will mean lower initial deliveries. It's not really a huge deal as it won't slow our reopening plan and we will still have offered all over 18s a first dose by the end of June as I was saying last night.
This is a huge positive as we've taken the last bit of leverage the EU had against us off the table, holding our Novavax doses hostage. They'd be mad to fuck with Pfizer but Novavax are a much smaller target and now they're playing hardball with the EU contract the temptation would be very high to use the export check mechanism to slow down exports and introduce loads of paperwork and other barriers and expensive measures to "suffocate" them.
I hope I am not one of those you are referring to but
Oh hell yes.
I find the word racist no longer means anything.
The woman is astonishingly stupid, however. Maddeningly so.
For me the word still has meaning even if we debate about its scope. Claiming someone is not English because of their skin colour and using the tone and terminology she does strikes me as just about as racist as you can get.
No. I’m with @Leon. It’s f***ing stupid, but it’s not racist per se.
It’s the pollution bit which is, basically, hateful.
I put British AND English down on my Census form, if it's of interest.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
I have not heard the term despite being married to a North East Scot for near 60 years
I will ask her
It’s a disgrace - a *disgrace* - that few people know the traditional counties of Scotland.
At 7,000 people, Cromartyshire is the least populated county in the U.K.
There are 8 counties under 25,000 - all in Scotland. This includes Orkney and Shetland.
Although I don’t think it had the smallest county town (depending on how you define ‘county town’).
Go on then. What is/was the smallest county town?
Well, it depends on what you mean by county town, as I said.
But if we take ‘main administrative centre for the county’ it would be Sutherland. Because although the main town in Sutherland was Dornoch, as a royal burgh it controlled its own affairs. So the main county administration was, amazingly and bizarrely, at Golspie.
This sort of shit is why I am on PB.
I appeared in Dornoch Sheriff Court a couple of times. Sadly it is now closed with all business transferred to the Metropolis of Tain.
I am imagining that Dornoch’s Court maintained parchment and quill, and still applied capital punishment to sheep rustling.
I hope I am not one of those you are referring to but
Oh hell yes.
I find the word racist no longer means anything.
The woman is astonishingly stupid, however. Maddeningly so.
For me the word still has meaning even if we debate about its scope. Claiming someone is not English because of their skin colour and using the tone and terminology she does strikes me as just about as racist as you can get.
No. I’m with @Leon. It’s f***ing stupid, but it’s not racist per se.
It’s the pollution bit which is, basically, hateful.
I put British AND English down on my Census form, if it's of interest.
Breaking: Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite accused of aiding in her former partner Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse of minor girls, faces two more charges, a new Manhattan federal court indictment filed on Monday reveals.
This indictment also identified a new accuser in the case, referred to as “minor victim-4” in court papers, and expanded the timeframe of Maxwell’s alleged participation in Epstein’s abuse by seven years – from 1994 to 2004, rather than from 1994 to 1997.
The new charges, sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor, involve “minor victim-4”.
I hope I am not one of those you are referring to but
Oh hell yes.
I find the word racist no longer means anything.
The woman is astonishingly stupid, however. Maddeningly so.
For me the word still has meaning even if we debate about its scope. Claiming someone is not English because of their skin colour and using the tone and terminology she does strikes me as just about as racist as you can get.
No. I’m with @Leon. It’s f***ing stupid, but it’s not racist per se.
It’s the pollution bit which is, basically, hateful.
Pollution basically showed her true colours. But...
But I must say I find it a bit annoying, as someone with no real recent ancestors who could call themselves anything other than English, when people say they are “just as English as me” then refer to their roots in X country because of their grandparents or whatever. Not that I think being 100% English is better than having mixed heritage, I would quite like to be able to refer to my Spanish roots or whatever, but it just doesn’t make sense
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
I have not heard the term despite being married to a North East Scot for near 60 years
I will ask her
It’s a disgrace - a *disgrace* - that few people know the traditional counties of Scotland.
At 7,000 people, Cromartyshire is the least populated county in the U.K.
There are 8 counties under 25,000 - all in Scotland. This includes Orkney and Shetland.
Although I don’t think it had the smallest county town (depending on how you define ‘county town’).
Go on then. What is/was the smallest county town?
Well, it depends on what you mean by county town, as I said.
But if we take ‘main administrative centre for the county’ it would be Sutherland. Because although the main town in Sutherland was Dornoch, as a royal burgh it controlled its own affairs. So the main county administration was, amazingly and bizarrely, at Golspie.
This sort of shit is why I am on PB.
I appeared in Dornoch Sheriff Court a couple of times. Sadly it is now closed with all business transferred to the Metropolis of Tain.
That's just adding insult to injury for poor Sir Keir: Boris is beating him on 'Tells the truth'...
It is apparently Boris’ Achilles heel. I don’t really get it - I think Starmer lacks charisma and doesn’t have what it takes to beat Boris in a GE, but wouldn’t have thought him a liar, and definitely more likely to be honest than Boris
Public are a bit thick?
It could be conflated with authenticity. The public might see BJ expressing whatever he is in its full ghastliness as nevertheless a true reflection of him whereas Starmer’s self consciousness sometimes gives off a whiff of the synthetic. The flags for example..
That's just adding insult to injury for poor Sir Keir: Boris is beating him on 'Tells the truth'...
It is apparently Boris’ Achilles heel. I don’t really get it - I think Starmer lacks charisma and doesn’t have what it takes to beat Boris in a GE, but wouldn’t have thought him a liar, and definitely more likely to be honest than Boris
Public are a bit thick?
It's a bit like Fox Mulder I reckon. "I want to believe." The PM is extraordinarily good at that. As was Blair. It is quite a skill. A thermonuclear political weapon.
The Keir figure on honesty - counter-intuitively - might be good for him.
It’s so obviously the wrong answer that it indicates that most respondents still don’t actually know who he is.
After a year in charge with more tv specials than the last ten Loto’s put together, that’s not a positive
The shift from the original plan of fill and finish in Sweden/Germany has resulted in a delay of 2-4 weeks and will mean lower initial deliveries. It's not really a huge deal as it won't slow our reopening plan and we will still have offered all over 18s a first dose by the end of June as I was saying last night.
This is a huge positive as we've taken the last bit of leverage the EU had against us off the table, holding our Novavax doses hostage. They'd be mad to fuck with Pfizer but Novavax are a much smaller target and now they're playing hardball with the EU contract the temptation would be very high to use the export check mechanism to slow down exports and introduce loads of paperwork and other barriers and expensive measures to "suffocate" them.
Thanks, interesting. And thank you for all your posts on vaccines, you're a hugely patient font of information.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
Where is Cromartyshire
Former county, now abolished. Interestingly it had exclaves all over the place.
I have not heard the term despite being married to a North East Scot for near 60 years
I will ask her
It’s a disgrace - a *disgrace* - that few people know the traditional counties of Scotland.
At 7,000 people, Cromartyshire is the least populated county in the U.K.
There are 8 counties under 25,000 - all in Scotland. This includes Orkney and Shetland.
Although I don’t think it had the smallest county town (depending on how you define ‘county town’).
Go on then. What is/was the smallest county town?
Well, it depends on what you mean by county town, as I said.
But if we take ‘main administrative centre for the county’ it would be Sutherland. Because although the main town in Sutherland was Dornoch, as a royal burgh it controlled its own affairs. So the main county administration was, amazingly and bizarrely, at Golspie.
This sort of shit is why I am on PB.
I appeared in Dornoch Sheriff Court a couple of times. Sadly it is now closed with all business transferred to the Metropolis of Tain.
I am imagining that Dornoch’s Court maintained parchment and quill, and still applied capital punishment to sheep rustling.
Please don’t break my illusion.
It certainly felt like a place where that ought to be true.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
Not wholly convinced that the solution to a wonky arrangement in which some voters have more rights than others is to make it even more wonky, but hey-ho.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
Most federations do not follow this principle.
It is recognised that a simple majority is not enough.
That's just adding insult to injury for poor Sir Keir: Boris is beating him on 'Tells the truth'...
It is apparently Boris’ Achilles heel. I don’t really get it - I think Starmer lacks charisma and doesn’t have what it takes to beat Boris in a GE, but wouldn’t have thought him a liar, and definitely more likely to be honest than Boris
Not sure why people are surprised. Starmer is a dishonest, slimy lawyer. Not just a stereotype, but on big picture issues. He is more dishonest even than Boris and yes that says a lot, Boris lies about the small stuff, Starmer lies on the big stuff.
He spent years working with Corbyn, serving in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, pushing for him to be PM. Then he gets the leadership and suddenly it is "Corbyn who?" and he's kicked out of the Party.
He was an arch Europhile, leading figure calling for a People's Vote, pushing hard for Labour to back a second referendum. Then he gets the leadership and suddenly he has no interest in Britain being in Europe.
He was pushing hard for Britain to be in the European institutions like the EMA, then the vaccine rollout is a success and suddenly he has no interest in Britain being linked to Europe.
And so on and so forth, could name other issues like his abandoning his republicanism and so on, but those big picture flip flops are what most people know about Starmer. He changes his principles without blinking and acts like nothing has even happened and like we're crazy for thinking he was previously passionately arguing the opposite.
There is something fundamentally dishonest and creepy about that.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
I think that was rather the point of the unitary state.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
That's just adding insult to injury for poor Sir Keir: Boris is beating him on 'Tells the truth'...
It is apparently Boris’ Achilles heel. I don’t really get it - I think Starmer lacks charisma and doesn’t have what it takes to beat Boris in a GE, but wouldn’t have thought him a liar, and definitely more likely to be honest than Boris
Public are a bit thick?
More complex than that, I reckon. Put it this way.
Imagine you were a friend of Carrie. Or Jennifer. Or the violinist. Or any of BoJo's other squeezes.
You would, I suspect, want to tell them "Stay away! It's obvious that he's an utter sh1t who will use you and dump you." But people don't listen to that sort of advice, because the intoxicating early stages of lurve don't work like that. So good friends hold their tongue and make sure that the spare bedroom is made up for the night of the inevitable bust up.
My hunch is there's something similar going on in the psyche of a lot of people on the right-of-centre of British politics. All the evidence is that BoJo is thunderingly dishonest and would happily sell us to Kang and Kodos if it would get him another inch up the greasy pole. But because he's saved us from TMay/Europe/Corbyn, that doesn't matter. And because it doesn't matter (yet), there's no point reminding people what a uniquely terrible man he is. All you would get for your pains is chortling about Boris Derangement Syndrome- including from people who were previously very clear about BoJo's utter unfitness for office.
So yes- thinking that BoJo is more honest than SKS is clearly irrational, but people are irrational. Even physicists.
Is it not related to the TERF wars that have been raging in the SNP?
Maybe but you’d expect such office holders to be at the woke end.
I think some of them are old-fashioned feminists who take the controversial view that a man who dresses as a woman, who wants to be a woman, or who sincerely believes that he is a woman, is still a man. Of course this makes them hate-figures in the SNP.
I hope I am not one of those you are referring to but
Oh hell yes.
I find the word racist no longer means anything.
The woman is astonishingly stupid, however. Maddeningly so.
For me the word still has meaning even if we debate about its scope. Claiming someone is not English because of their skin colour and using the tone and terminology she does strikes me as just about as racist as you can get.
No. I’m with @Leon. It’s f***ing stupid, but it’s not racist per se.
It’s the pollution bit which is, basically, hateful.
I put British AND English down on my Census form, if it's of interest.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
Westminster democracy doesn't work by that principle anyway, with FPTP. Our politics is a patchwork of different electoral systems that aims to be seen as legitimate by most of those who use it. So I don't feel that this addition would be spoiling anything.
Is it not related to the TERF wars that have been raging in the SNP?
Maybe but you’d expect such office holders to be at the woke end.
I think some of them are old-fashioned feminists who take the controversial view that a man who dresses as a woman, who wants to be a woman, or who sincerely believes that he is a woman, is still a man. Of course this makes them hate-figures in the SNP.
Is this comment really necessary?
One can argue about the sensitivities and limits of what transgender people should be able to do but your comment is just deliberately inflammatory and reeks of ignorance.
That's just adding insult to injury for poor Sir Keir: Boris is beating him on 'Tells the truth'...
It is apparently Boris’ Achilles heel. I don’t really get it - I think Starmer lacks charisma and doesn’t have what it takes to beat Boris in a GE, but wouldn’t have thought him a liar, and definitely more likely to be honest than Boris
Not sure why people are surprised. Starmer is a dishonest, slimy lawyer. Not just a stereotype, but on big picture issues. He is more dishonest even than Boris and yes that says a lot, Boris lies about the small stuff, Starmer lies on the big stuff.
He spent years working with Corbyn, serving in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, pushing for him to be PM. Then he gets the leadership and suddenly it is "Corbyn who?" and he's kicked out of the Party.
He was an arch Europhile, leading figure calling for a People's Vote, pushing hard for Labour to back a second referendum. Then he gets the leadership and suddenly he has no interest in Britain being in Europe.
He was pushing hard for Britain to be in the European institutions like the EMA, then the vaccine rollout is a success and suddenly he has no interest in Britain being linked to Europe.
And so on and so forth, could name other issues like his abandoning his republicanism and so on, but those big picture flip flops are what most people know about Starmer. He changes his principles without blinking and acts like nothing has even happened and like we're crazy for thinking he was previously passionately arguing the opposite.
There is something fundamentally dishonest and creepy about that.
When you set it all out like that, Keir's serial turncoatery becomes all too clear: he is, if you'll pardon the expression, a huge Janus.
That's just adding insult to injury for poor Sir Keir: Boris is beating him on 'Tells the truth'...
It is apparently Boris’ Achilles heel. I don’t really get it - I think Starmer lacks charisma and doesn’t have what it takes to beat Boris in a GE, but wouldn’t have thought him a liar, and definitely more likely to be honest than Boris
Not sure why people are surprised. Starmer is a dishonest, slimy lawyer. Not just a stereotype, but on big picture issues. He is more dishonest even than Boris and yes that says a lot, Boris lies about the small stuff, Starmer lies on the big stuff.
He spent years working with Corbyn, serving in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, pushing for him to be PM. Then he gets the leadership and suddenly it is "Corbyn who?" and he's kicked out of the Party.
He was an arch Europhile, leading figure calling for a People's Vote, pushing hard for Labour to back a second referendum. Then he gets the leadership and suddenly he has no interest in Britain being in Europe.
He was pushing hard for Britain to be in the European institutions like the EMA, then the vaccine rollout is a success and suddenly he has no interest in Britain being linked to Europe.
And so on and so forth, could name other issues like his abandoning his republicanism and so on, but those big picture flip flops are what most people know about Starmer. He changes his principles without blinking and acts like nothing has even happened and like we're crazy for thinking he was previously passionately arguing the opposite.
There is something fundamentally dishonest and creepy about that.
To be fair, I knew all that and still nodded along that he was more honest than Boris. You make a good point.
His biggest problem, well one of them, is that he has to be seen as charismatic and likeable whilst being a nagging fun sponge to someone the public think of as much more charismatic and likeable
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Except England cannot always outvote Scotland.
In 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
On current polls Starmer could become PM again thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs even if England votes Tory.
Yet if that did occur unlike Scotland and Wales which have their own Parliaments during the current Tory government, England would have no such Parliament if it got a UK Labour government it did not vote for. There is also no guarantee Labour would respect EVEL if that would deny it a majority vote on English legislation.
The real deficit now therefore is not in Scotland, for which devomax would just be the provision of even more powers than Holyrood already has but in England which has no Parliament of its own at all nor even regional assemblies
I hope I am not one of those you are referring to but
Oh hell yes.
I find the word racist no longer means anything.
The woman is astonishingly stupid, however. Maddeningly so.
For me the word still has meaning even if we debate about its scope. Claiming someone is not English because of their skin colour and using the tone and terminology she does strikes me as just about as racist as you can get.
No. I’m with @Leon. It’s f***ing stupid, but it’s not racist per se.
It’s the pollution bit which is, basically, hateful.
I put British AND English down on my Census form, if it's of interest.
I didn’t. I’ll never be English.
What did you put? British?
British-New Zealand.
We’re a small and largely-forgotten caste, like those French colonists in the Director’s cut of Apocalypse Now.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Except England cannot always outvote Scotland.
In 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
On current polls Starmer could become PM again thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs even if England votes Tory.
Yet if that did occur unlike Scotland and Wales which have their own Parliaments during the current Tory government, England would have no such Parliament if it got a UK Labour government it did not vote for. There is also no guarantee Labour would respect EVEL if that would deny it a majority vote on English legislation.
The real deficit now therefore is not in Scotland, for which devomax would just be the provision of even more powers than Holyrood already has but in England which has no Parliament of its own at all nor even regional assemblies
You've completely missed the point as usual.
I didn't say England always outvotes Scotland. I said that England CAN always outvote Scotland.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
That's just adding insult to injury for poor Sir Keir: Boris is beating him on 'Tells the truth'...
It is apparently Boris’ Achilles heel. I don’t really get it - I think Starmer lacks charisma and doesn’t have what it takes to beat Boris in a GE, but wouldn’t have thought him a liar, and definitely more likely to be honest than Boris
Public are a bit thick?
More complex than that, I reckon. Put it this way.
Imagine you were a friend of Carrie. Or Jennifer. Or the violinist. Or any of BoJo's other squeezes.
You would, I suspect, want to tell them "Stay away! It's obvious that he's an utter sh1t who will use you and dump you." But people don't listen to that sort of advice, because the intoxicating early stages of lurve don't work like that. So good friends hold their tongue and make sure that the spare bedroom is made up for the night of the inevitable bust up.
My hunch is there's something similar going on in the psyche of a lot of people on the right-of-centre of British politics. All the evidence is that BoJo is thunderingly dishonest and would happily sell us to Kang and Kodos if it would get him another inch up the greasy pole. But because he's saved us from TMay/Europe/Corbyn, that doesn't matter. And because it doesn't matter (yet), there's no point reminding people what a uniquely terrible man he is. All you would get for your pains is chortling about Boris Derangement Syndrome- including from people who were previously very clear about BoJo's utter unfitness for office.
So yes- thinking that BoJo is more honest than SKS is clearly irrational, but people are irrational. Even physicists.
But because he's saved us from TMay/Europe/Corbyn, that doesn't matter.
Why is it irrational to place more weight on his major accomplishments - the ones that actual affect his voters - than on his irrelevant personal foibles? Boris could bonk his way through every postcode in the kingdom, and it wouldn't change the fact that when the decisive battle between socialism and sanity arrived he squashed Corbyn like a rotten egg.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Except England cannot always outvote Scotland.
In 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
On current polls Starmer could become PM again thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs even if England votes Tory.
Yet if that did occur unlike Scotland and Wales which have their own Parliaments during the current Tory government, England would have no such Parliament if it got a UK Labour government it did not vote for. There is also no guarantee Labour would respect EVEL if that would deny it a majority vote on English legislation.
The real deficit now therefore is not in Scotland, for which devomax would just be the provision of even more powers than Holyrood already has but in England which has no Parliament of its own at all nor even regional assemblies
Quite. The existing system of devolution creates four castes of voters, each with different rights. It's a complete mess.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
This, however, would necessitate the shredding of the devolved Parliaments, so that the same broad structures apply everywhere and the voters therefore all have the same rights again. The Parliaments are going nowhere, so it's not going to happen.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Except England cannot always outvote Scotland.
In 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
On current polls Starmer could become PM again thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs even if England votes Tory.
Yet if that did occur unlike Scotland and Wales which have their own Parliaments during the current Tory government, England would have no such Parliament if it got a UK Labour government it did not vote for. There is also no guarantee Labour would respect EVEL if that would deny it a majority vote on English legislation.
The real deficit now therefore is not in Scotland, for which devomax would just be the provision of even more powers than Holyrood already has but in England which has no Parliament of its own at all nor even regional assemblies
You've completely missed the point as usual.
I didn't say England always outvotes Scotland. I said that England CAN always outvote Scotland.
Therefore the rest of your post is pointless.
No, you have completely missed the point because you are an ideological leftwinger for whom the only issue is the leftwing Celtic fringe not always getting the UK government it votes for, completely ignoring the democratic deficit in England which is the only country in the UK without its own Parliament.
England can outvote Scotland but then Scotland and Wales can also outvote the majority in England as it did in 1950, 1964 and 1974 and may do again in 2024.
If Starmer wins in 2024 without a majority in England but with a UK majority thanks to Scotland and Wales, then the shift will move from complaining Welsh and Scottish Nationalists to furious English Nationalists for whom England will not have got what it voted for either at UK level or even in a devolved English Parliament as the other home nations have
The education system has been changed so that boys are consistently now seen as simpleton troublemakers who are unable to pay attention and girls are perfect at everything except exams and now we've set ourselves on a path to get rid of those as well.
It was people like Paul Johnstone who made those changes at the DoE to dumb down the curriculum and make it more essay and coursework heavy with exam questions taught directly rather than understanding and concept based with tests based on questioning the deeper understanding of said concepts. It's frankly laughable that he would now try and say it's everyone else's fault that boys are underperforming when the system is so heavily stacked against them and how the brains of boys work.
Once again, I'm extremely lucky to have gone to an all boys grammar school and before the majority of these curriculum changes were brought in under Labour. I fear for the next generation of adults who went through this education system, it places little value on boys and they therefore place little value on themselves and have very low expectations of what they can achieve or become. Years of being told by the education system that they're simpleton troublemakers is going to have an extremely negative effect on their futures.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
I was looking into this the other day.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Except England cannot always outvote Scotland.
In 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
On current polls Starmer could become PM again thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs even if England votes Tory.
Yet if that did occur unlike Scotland and Wales which have their own Parliaments during the current Tory government, England would have no such Parliament if it got a UK Labour government it did not vote for. There is also no guarantee Labour would respect EVEL if that would deny it a majority vote on English legislation.
The real deficit now therefore is not in Scotland, for which devomax would just be the provision of even more powers than Holyrood already has but in England which has no Parliament of its own at all nor even regional assemblies
Your facts may be correct, but you can't argue people down from a deeply held view with 'facts'. f your marriage is on the rocks, do you provide a dossier of evidence on every argument you ever had to your wife, in order to convince her that you were in the right? Or do you try to demonstrate that you have changed?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
But this is where any such idea runs out of road, because if you invent a model where Scotland or Wales can prevent something a majority of the U.K. (or England if you prefer) wants, then you turn me into someone who wants English independence. And it won’t just be me.
If that means the end of the Union, then so be it. Though I think England and Wales could live on as the United Kingdom on those terms (Scotland should be made to take NI with it, as penance).
If England and Wales were left alone, we might think about incorporating the overseas territories to make up the numbers. Perhaps we should do that anyway, and let them participate in Westminster remotely since we now know that works.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
The intensity of Scottish and Welsh nationalists tends to obscure the fact that the farther-flung regions of England often feel just as alienated from Westminster.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Except England cannot always outvote Scotland.
In 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
On current polls Starmer could become PM again thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs even if England votes Tory.
Yet if that did occur unlike Scotland and Wales which have their own Parliaments during the current Tory government, England would have no such Parliament if it got a UK Labour government it did not vote for. There is also no guarantee Labour would respect EVEL if that would deny it a majority vote on English legislation.
The real deficit now therefore is not in Scotland, for which devomax would just be the provision of even more powers than Holyrood already has but in England which has no Parliament of its own at all nor even regional assemblies
You've completely missed the point as usual.
I didn't say England always outvotes Scotland. I said that England CAN always outvote Scotland.
Therefore the rest of your post is pointless.
No, you have completely missed the point because you are an ideological leftwinger for whom the only issue is the leftwing Celtic fringe not always getting the UK government it votes for, completely ignoring the democratic deficit in England which is the only country in the UK without its own Parliament.
England can outvote Scotland but then Scotland and Wales can also outvote the majority in England as it did in 1950, 1964 and 1974 and may do again in 2024.
If Starmer wins in 2024 without a majority in England but with a UK majority thanks to Scotland and Wales, then the shift will move from complaining Welsh and Scottish Nationalists to furious English Nationalists for whom England will not have got what it voted for either at UK level or even in a devolved English Parliament as the other home nations have
What a weird post.
But yet again you've completely missed the point.
For your information I am happy for there to be an English Parliament as part of a stable Union settlement.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
But this is where any such idea runs out of road, because if you invent a model where Scotland or Wales can prevent something a majority of the U.K. (or England if you prefer) wants, then you turn me into someone who wants English independence. And it won’t just be me.
If that means the end of the Union, then so be it. Though I think England and Wales could live on as the United Kingdom on those terms (Scotland should be made to take NI with it, as penance).
If England and Wales were left alone, we might think about incorporating the overseas territories to make up the numbers. Perhaps we should do that anyway, and let them participate in Westminster remotely since we now know that works.
You've just demonstrated why the current settlement is so unstable.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Except England cannot always outvote Scotland.
In 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
On current polls Starmer could become PM again thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs even if England votes Tory.
Yet if that did occur unlike Scotland and Wales which have their own Parliaments during the current Tory government, England would have no such Parliament if it got a UK Labour government it did not vote for. There is also no guarantee Labour would respect EVEL if that would deny it a majority vote on English legislation.
The real deficit now therefore is not in Scotland, for which devomax would just be the provision of even more powers than Holyrood already has but in England which has no Parliament of its own at all nor even regional assemblies
Your facts may be correct, but you can't argue people down from a deeply held view with 'facts'. f your marriage is on the rocks, do you provide a dossier of evidence on every argument you ever had to your wife, in order to convince her that you were in the right? Or do you try to demonstrate that you have changed?
Scotland already has its own Parliament, as does Wales, the Union has changed, even devomax would just be a reinforcement of that change.
However the only country which has not changed is England, which despite the fact we now live in a Federal UK in all but name no longer has a Parliament to call its own
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Except England cannot always outvote Scotland.
In 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
On current polls Starmer could become PM again thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs even if England votes Tory.
Yet if that did occur unlike Scotland and Wales which have their own Parliaments during the current Tory government, England would have no such Parliament if it got a UK Labour government it did not vote for. There is also no guarantee Labour would respect EVEL if that would deny it a majority vote on English legislation.
The real deficit now therefore is not in Scotland, for which devomax would just be the provision of even more powers than Holyrood already has but in England which has no Parliament of its own at all nor even regional assemblies
Your facts may be correct, but you can't argue people down from a deeply held view with 'facts'. f your marriage is on the rocks, do you provide a dossier of evidence on every argument you ever had to your wife, in order to convince her that you were in the right? Or do you try to demonstrate that you have changed?
Scotland already has its own Parliament, as does Wales, the Union has changed, even devomax would just be a reinforcement of that change.
However the only country which has not changed is England, which despite the fact we now live in a Federal UK in all but name no longer has a Parliament to call its own
It's not a federal UK if Westminster (and by extension, England) can unilaterally change the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments as you love to advocate.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Except England cannot always outvote Scotland.
In 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
On current polls Starmer could become PM again thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs even if England votes Tory.
Yet if that did occur unlike Scotland and Wales which have their own Parliaments during the current Tory government, England would have no such Parliament if it got a UK Labour government it did not vote for. There is also no guarantee Labour would respect EVEL if that would deny it a majority vote on English legislation.
The real deficit now therefore is not in Scotland, for which devomax would just be the provision of even more powers than Holyrood already has but in England which has no Parliament of its own at all nor even regional assemblies
You've completely missed the point as usual.
I didn't say England always outvotes Scotland. I said that England CAN always outvote Scotland.
Therefore the rest of your post is pointless.
No, you have completely missed the point because you are an ideological leftwinger for whom the only issue is the leftwing Celtic fringe not always getting the UK government it votes for, completely ignoring the democratic deficit in England which is the only country in the UK without its own Parliament.
England can outvote Scotland but then Scotland and Wales can also outvote the majority in England as it did in 1950, 1964 and 1974 and may do again in 2024.
If Starmer wins in 2024 without a majority in England but with a UK majority thanks to Scotland and Wales, then the shift will move from complaining Welsh and Scottish Nationalists to furious English Nationalists for whom England will not have got what it voted for either at UK level or even in a devolved English Parliament as the other home nations have
What a weird post.
But yet again you've completely missed the point.
For your information I am happy for there to be an English Parliament as part of a stable Union settlement.
So why have I at 59 not been offered an appointment yet?
Maybe your vaccination letter is lost in the post
I am seriously beginning to wonder but we are severely discouraged to do anything like ask up here. If I lived in England I would have had my vaccine more than 3 weeks ago and would have 80% protection right now. I'm disappointed.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why?
It would be a proper federal solution. The devolved Parliaments would all deal with their devolved issues independently of each other. The English health secretary would be an English health secretary, not a British or UK one. The English education secretary would be an English one, not a UK or British one.
Instead currently we have a UK Health Secretary, a UK Education Secretary and Scottish ones who are supposed to both be in charge and a part of the UK. It makes no sense and it sets them off each other.
If the English devolved issues were settled in an English Parliament and not Westminster then they'd be completely separate. Westminster would be just for federal matters and not dealing with devolved subjects at all.
Idiot. The issue is not whether they want them, but if their customers want them. I don't have suicidal tendencies so unless a pub or restaurant has a system in place, I'm not going in.
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why?
It would be a proper federal solution. The devolved Parliaments would all deal with their devolved issues independently of each other. The English health secretary would be an English health secretary, not a British or UK one. The English education secretary would be an English one, not a UK or British one.
Instead currently we have a UK Health Secretary, a UK Education Secretary and Scottish ones who are supposed to both be in charge and a part of the UK. It makes no sense and it sets them off each other.
If the English devolved issues were settled in an English Parliament and not Westminster then they'd be completely separate. Westminster would be just for federal matters and not dealing with devolved subjects at all.
I agree. We would have to make that fundamental change.
The issue will be over who the English electorate decide is the most powerful. Which would be the most important job in the country, the UK PM or the English FM?
The reason to stay in the union is that we have a shared history, common ties, and we are stronger (in the world) and wealthier (as a single market) together.
England and Scotland are brothers.
The problem for Unionists to solve is how to reinforce and institutionalise a fraternal, rather than paternalistic, relationship.
TSE's proposals are sensible (with my amendment). A powerful, Federal Upper House, like the US Senate. Two Lords sent from each UK county.
It means W, S and NI will be seriously over-represented, compared to E, but that is necessary to secure them in a union where England, by dint of size, will always appear overbearing (and can never be out-voted in the Commons)
With devolved assemblies, as well, that is as far as England can go to make the UK work, without disenfranchising the English themselves
If it's not enough, then let Scotland Wales and NI vote on indy and let them Stay or Go, and if they Stay, then let there be no more constitutional wankery or plebiscites for 30 years, minimum
Something like this, yes.
Another radical idea. With Westminster out of action for refurbishment, why not sent the Parliament to Edinburgh?
It is essentially, the second capital, after all.
Yes, we now see that MPs and Lords can speak and vote remotely. So, make the parliament mobile. Esp the new House of Lords (and of course we ditch the dukes and bishops).
Some "Lords" may prefer to travel and attend personally. Some may do it via Zoom. But let the Lords move from London, to Edinburgh, to Belfast to Cardiff. Each season. Or each year. Or every election. Why not?
Creative thinking is required. We have just endured a plague, and Brexit. This is the moment to reset things.
By the way, under your suggestion a population of just 7,000 people (and even fewer electors) in Cromartyshire would be entitled to two members of the HoL.
The same as Yorkshire, with over 5m people.
But I like the general sentiment.
As an Englishman I am Ok with that, because I accept the Scottish have a valid grievance: that the huge relative size of England, compared to the other home nations, means England can never be over-ruled in the Commons, and England generally gets the government it wants, electorally
This would address that.
It's just following the logic of the Founding Fathers who realised that to create a stable American union, they needed to give each state equal dignity and sway, whatever the populations (which might change)
It worked in America, which, despite huge problems, has endured for nearly 250 years, becoming the most powerful nation in human history, even as it is now surpassed by China
Let's reimport the native British wisdom of those Founding Fathers, and apply it to the UK
If there had only been four colonies and one of them was six times the size of all the others combined, then the constitutional convention might not necessarily have arrived at exactly the same solution.
Perhaps you might like to offer your creative solutions, then?
If it consists of throwing your hands in the air, rending your garments, gnashing your teeth, and saying "the union is doomed, DOOMED!" then, with all due respect, you've said that about 97 times so you REALLY don't need to say it again
I have. You create a federal system, which necessitates an English Parliament.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
There is not really a need to create a new senate. Big foreign policy and defence decisions could be voted upon by a 'Council of the Isles' upon which sit the leaders from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, and (I think) London. In the absence of an England First Minister, I suppose you'd get English MP's to elect somebody. England would in effect have two representatives, but they would not always agree - London often takes a different view. Again, per person England would be greatly underrepresented, but like Leon I think it would be worth it.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
With respect, you’re all trying to solve the wrong problem. The Union only works if everyone accepts each person gets one vote. Scotland doesn’t get “outvoted”; the vote of each Scot counts the same as each Englishman. As soon as you think in terms of constituent nations and think of them having a view, the whole point of the Union is gone.
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
That's how the UK used to work but the cat is out of the bag with devolution now and it's not going back in.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
We've never had a proper balanced constitution in the history of the UK. But the post-1997 arrangements are definitely more unbalanced than what was there before.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
What other alternative is there apart from federalism if we want to keep the union?
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
The logical solution, that should have been done in 1997, is an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.
Logical if you wish to break up the Union.
Why? If it is good enough for Scotland why is it not good enough for England?
An English Parliament under our current setup would be pointless. We would need to change the entire system because otherwise there would be little difference in mandate between the English First Minister and the UK Prime Minister.
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
No it wouldn't. The English First Minister would answer for all devolved subjects: Health, education etc
The UK one would be responsible for UK issues, with no West Lothian Question to answer.
Comments
Freedom, Fraternity, Federation!
Class act.
The solution is simple, just rig the elections of Aus/Can/NZ to elect pro-CANZUK politicians, who would make a CANZUK federation like a functional, more tight-knit EU. Then give all the countries 10 senators + 1 per 1m population, and you end up with:
England: 66
Can: 48
Aus: 35
Scotland: 16
NZ: 16
Wales: 13
NI: 12
Problem solved, England can be outvoted.
To be serious for a second, and system that meant that the 9 million of Wal/Sco/NI would be able to block 57m English people from doing things would definitely not help the union, for, much like Brexit, SIndy is fundamentally an emotional movement, not a rational one.
I will ask her
1. The existing devolved administrations have a lot of power over legislation and administration but not enough over taxation.
2. England doesn't get its own Parliament.
You solve this in one of two ways - you get rid of devolution or you complete it.
I mean, in the long run it probably won't help because the forces ripping the UK apart are greater than those holding it together anyway, but if you think the thing's worth preserving then you might as well give it a go.
At 7,000 people, Cromartyshire is the least populated county in the U.K.
There are 8 counties under 25,000 - all in Scotland. This includes Orkney and Shetland.
But then she goes for "polluted" and ewwwww. That is outright racism and he demonstrates commendable restraint.
So very sensibly it was abolished when county councils were set up in Scotland.
https://www.nhsinform.scot/covid-19-vaccine/invitations-and-appointments/missing-appointment-details
Given my combined experience with databases and the post, I would expect a lot of people to need to chase an appointment. You've waited long enough.
I might drink myself senseless, just for a change, through the Easter weekend
I have survived
Obviously completely impractical, but it’s a shame that Scottish counties with much more cultural resonance and geographic integrity - like Sutherland - have disappeared from the map.
But if we take ‘main administrative centre for the county’ it would be Sutherland. Because although the main town in Sutherland was Dornoch, as a royal burgh it controlled its own affairs. So the main county administration was, amazingly and bizarrely, at Golspie.
Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that it will work. I don't think that it would, but then again my central argument is that it would probably be for the best that it didn't work, because the Union now exists primarily because of the flow of transfer payments. Nevertheless, it would be a vast improvement on the current mess that Labour created with lop-sided devolution, and which the Conservatives have completely failed to put right.
Oh hell yes.
The woman is astonishingly stupid, however.
Maddeningly so.
I've seen suggestions of late April on here from Max, but this press release from Novavax seems to suggest some time in May as the earliest possible "GSK will provide 'fill and finish' manufacturing capacity at its Barnard Castle facility in the North East of England beginning as early as May 2021." https://ir.novavax.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gsk-support-manufacture-novavax-covid-19-vaccine
I’m with @Leon.
It’s f***ing stupid, but it’s not racist per se.
It’s the pollution bit which is, basically, hateful.
"I want to believe."
The PM is extraordinarily good at that. As was Blair.
It is quite a skill. A thermonuclear political weapon.
It’s so obviously the wrong answer that it indicates that most respondents still don’t actually know who he is.
For me, this change wouldn't be a 'sacrifice we have to make to hang on' to the Union - I think it would actually be a big improvement in the way we make these decisions. Royal prerogative gives the PM a huge responsibility, and in a world with many outside pressures and influences, focused on a single person, I actually think it helps strengthen the UK and its Governance to have a broader-based decision making process. I think the nations would help us make better decisions.
This is a huge positive as we've taken the last bit of leverage the EU had against us off the table, holding our Novavax doses hostage. They'd be mad to fuck with Pfizer but Novavax are a much smaller target and now they're playing hardball with the EU contract the temptation would be very high to use the export check mechanism to slow down exports and introduce loads of paperwork and other barriers and expensive measures to "suffocate" them.
Please don’t break my illusion.
I’ll never be English.
This indictment also identified a new accuser in the case, referred to as “minor victim-4” in court papers, and expanded the timeframe of Maxwell’s alleged participation in Epstein’s abuse by seven years – from 1994 to 2004, rather than from 1994 to 1997.
The new charges, sex trafficking conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor, involve “minor victim-4”.
But I must say I find it a bit annoying, as someone with no real recent ancestors who could call themselves anything other than English, when people say they are “just as English as me” then refer to their roots in X country because of their grandparents or whatever. Not that I think being 100% English is better than having mixed heritage, I would quite like to be able to refer to my Spanish roots or whatever, but it just doesn’t make sense
https://twitter.com/EssexPR/status/1376633799866523654
This is, of course, why I understand where Scots Nats come from and why I might be one if I was Scottish. I did vote for Brexit after all.
It is recognised that a simple majority is not enough.
- He spent years working with Corbyn, serving in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, pushing for him to be PM. Then he gets the leadership and suddenly it is "Corbyn who?" and he's kicked out of the Party.
- He was an arch Europhile, leading figure calling for a People's Vote, pushing hard for Labour to back a second referendum. Then he gets the leadership and suddenly he has no interest in Britain being in Europe.
- He was pushing hard for Britain to be in the European institutions like the EMA, then the vaccine rollout is a success and suddenly he has no interest in Britain being linked to Europe.
And so on and so forth, could name other issues like his abandoning his republicanism and so on, but those big picture flip flops are what most people know about Starmer. He changes his principles without blinking and acts like nothing has even happened and like we're crazy for thinking he was previously passionately arguing the opposite.There is something fundamentally dishonest and creepy about that.
Gone now. Not coming back.
If England can always outvote Scotland due to population then devolution itself is worthless.
Ergo the answer is proper federalism where England cannot outvote Scotland, or the end of the union, in my opinion.
Imagine you were a friend of Carrie. Or Jennifer. Or the violinist. Or any of BoJo's other squeezes.
You would, I suspect, want to tell them "Stay away! It's obvious that he's an utter sh1t who will use you and dump you." But people don't listen to that sort of advice, because the intoxicating early stages of lurve don't work like that. So good friends hold their tongue and make sure that the spare bedroom is made up for the night of the inevitable bust up.
My hunch is there's something similar going on in the psyche of a lot of people on the right-of-centre of British politics. All the evidence is that BoJo is thunderingly dishonest and would happily sell us to Kang and Kodos if it would get him another inch up the greasy pole. But because he's saved us from TMay/Europe/Corbyn, that doesn't matter. And because it doesn't matter (yet), there's no point reminding people what a uniquely terrible man he is. All you would get for your pains is chortling about Boris Derangement Syndrome- including from people who were previously very clear about BoJo's utter unfitness for office.
So yes- thinking that BoJo is more honest than SKS is clearly irrational, but people are irrational. Even physicists.
One can argue about the sensitivities and limits of what transgender people should be able to do but your comment is just deliberately inflammatory and reeks of ignorance.
Good grief.
His biggest problem, well one of them, is that he has to be seen as charismatic and likeable whilst being a nagging fun sponge to someone the public think of as much more charismatic and likeable
https://twitter.com/pjtheeconomist/status/1376463105476136961?s=21
In 1950, 1964 and February 1974 England voted Tory but got a UK Labour government thanks to Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs.
On current polls Starmer could become PM again thanks to Scottish and Welsh MPs even if England votes Tory.
Yet if that did occur unlike Scotland and Wales which have their own Parliaments during the current Tory government, England would have no such Parliament if it got a UK Labour government it did not vote for. There is also no guarantee Labour would respect EVEL if that would deny it a majority vote on English legislation.
The real deficit now therefore is not in Scotland, for which devomax would just be the provision of even more powers than Holyrood already has but in England which has no Parliament of its own at all nor even regional assemblies
We’re a small and largely-forgotten caste, like those French colonists in the Director’s cut of Apocalypse Now.
I didn't say England always outvotes Scotland. I said that England CAN always outvote Scotland.
Therefore the rest of your post is pointless.
But 'proper federalism' would be more unbalanced still.
The concept of splitting England into bits to balance out the population imbalance was not - constitutionally - stupid, but was wildly unpopular. But maybe that was because the bits were too large. Maybe if devolution was not to national bodies but to counties - of all nations - it might work.
That does, of course, mean you have to repoen the can of worms of what everyone's favourite idea of a county boundary is. But I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, as long as we agreed that was the last time for a few hundred years.
Why is it irrational to place more weight on his major accomplishments - the ones that actual affect his voters - than on his irrelevant personal foibles? Boris could bonk his way through every postcode in the kingdom, and it wouldn't change the fact that when the decisive battle between socialism and sanity arrived he squashed Corbyn like a rotten egg.
Deaths +203
Cases +12,913
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The current settlement is unlikely to be stable and I believe Scotland will keep agitating for independence until a stable settlement is found.
The unitary UK state is all but gone. We have to accept this fact and find a stable settlement.
England can outvote Scotland but then Scotland and Wales can also outvote the majority in England as it did in 1950, 1964 and 1974 and may do again in 2024.
If Starmer wins in 2024 without a majority in England but with a UK majority thanks to Scotland and Wales, then the shift will move from complaining Welsh and Scottish Nationalists to furious English Nationalists for whom England will not have got what it voted for either at UK level or even in a devolved English Parliament as the other home nations have
It was people like Paul Johnstone who made those changes at the DoE to dumb down the curriculum and make it more essay and coursework heavy with exam questions taught directly rather than understanding and concept based with tests based on questioning the deeper understanding of said concepts. It's frankly laughable that he would now try and say it's everyone else's fault that boys are underperforming when the system is so heavily stacked against them and how the brains of boys work.
Once again, I'm extremely lucky to have gone to an all boys grammar school and before the majority of these curriculum changes were brought in under Labour. I fear for the next generation of adults who went through this education system, it places little value on boys and they therefore place little value on themselves and have very low expectations of what they can achieve or become. Years of being told by the education system that they're simpleton troublemakers is going to have an extremely negative effect on their futures.
I presume you are happy to maintain the metros like London and Manchester rather than see the return of, say, Middlesex.
By my reckoning there’s not really any obstacle to devolving (in England) to 38* historic counties and 17 metros.
55 sub-units in total.
*ie the historic 39 minus Middlesex.
With no postal voting option!
If that means the end of the Union, then so be it. Though I think England and Wales could live on as the United Kingdom on those terms (Scotland should be made to take NI with it, as penance).
If England and Wales were left alone, we might think about incorporating the overseas territories to make up the numbers. Perhaps we should do that anyway, and let them participate in Westminster remotely since we now know that works.
But yet again you've completely missed the point.
For your information I am happy for there to be an English Parliament as part of a stable Union settlement.
However the only country which has not changed is England, which despite the fact we now live in a Federal UK in all but name no longer has a Parliament to call its own
It would be a mess of New Labour proportions.
It would be a proper federal solution. The devolved Parliaments would all deal with their devolved issues independently of each other. The English health secretary would be an English health secretary, not a British or UK one. The English education secretary would be an English one, not a UK or British one.
Instead currently we have a UK Health Secretary, a UK Education Secretary and Scottish ones who are supposed to both be in charge and a part of the UK. It makes no sense and it sets them off each other.
If the English devolved issues were settled in an English Parliament and not Westminster then they'd be completely separate. Westminster would be just for federal matters and not dealing with devolved subjects at all.
The issue will be over who the English electorate decide is the most powerful. Which would be the most important job in the country, the UK PM or the English FM?
Probably the English First Minister...
The UK one would be responsible for UK issues, with no West Lothian Question to answer.