1997 Group

Q: What is the UKIP 1997 Group?
A: The UKIP 1997 Group is a group of UKIP members who support devolution for the four home nations of the UK and want UKIP to do the same.

Q: UKIP says it will create an English Parliament if it gets elected, what's the problem?
A: UKIP's policy on devolution won't create an English Parliament, it will create a grand committee of MPs elected to English constituencies. They will still be British MPs elected to the British Parliament to represent British interests.

Q: Why 1997?
A: It was in 1997 that the British government, under its predominantly Scottish leadership, guided through the Scotland Act which reinstated the Scottish Parliament that had been abolished with the 1707 Act of Union. The Government of Wales Act followed shortly thereafter and England became the only part of the UK without self-government.

Q: Why do you want to break up the union?
A: We don't want to break up the union, we just want to see all parts of the UK treated fairly. The Scots would declare independence rather than lose their Parliament so the only way to treat everyone equally is to establish national Parliament's for every nation of the UK.

Q: But why would you want more politicians? We have enough already and UKIP has a policy of doing away with big government.
A: There is no need for more politicians, just different politicians. It is entirely possible that four devolved Parliaments and a slimmed down UK Parliament could result in a decrease in the number of politicians. But even if it means more politicians, what price do you put on democracy?

Q: Is this all about England?
A: Not at all. To give everyone in the UK the same democratic rights, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies should be upgraded to full Parliaments with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament along with the creation of an English Parliament. A Northern Irish Parliament will be a big step toward normalising Northern Irish politics.

Q: But there are hundreds more English MPs than Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish put together, why does England need a different Parliament?
A: So-called "English MPs" have allowed the democratic deficit to widen and for institutional discrimination against England to take hold. Only a handful of MPs have attempted to address the problem and they have always been defeated. English MPs don't represent English interests. It is also worth bearing in mind that most current MPs from Scotland signed the Scottish Claim of Right prior to introducing Scottish devolution, pledging to put the interests of Scotland first and foremost. And when the ConDem government announced spending cuts for its first budget of 2010, England took far more than its fair share of spending cuts whilst the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish government were given the option of deferring cuts for 12 months!

Q: Why bother setting up a group? What do you hope to achieve?
A: Change can only be effected from within - that's why UKIP takes part in EU elections. UKIP won't come up with a sensible policy on devolution by being pressured from the outside, it will come from lobbying from a large group of members.

Q: Isn't that a bit disloyal? We elect our leadership to come up with policy, shouldn't you just accept it?
A: The country elected a Labour government, do they represent the majority views of the electorate? UKIP is our party - all members have a right and an obligation to ensure that our policies reflect not only the views of the membership but those of the electorate. How else will we be successful if we don't have policies that the majority believe in? We want to change UKIP policy to make the party more electable, that's not disloyal.

Q: Do you really think it'll make a difference?
A: Yes. The Hansard Society's Audit of Public Engagement report on constitutional dissatisfaction said that MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voting on English matters was the number one irritation. There are a number of small parties aiming to replicate the SNP's success in England - the English Democrats, the Free England Party and the England First Party for example. While they don't attract very much support in elections, those few votes that they get in elections can be the difference between UKIP winning an election and losing it or the difference between getting one MEP or two in EU elections. There is very little difference between the policies of UKIP and the English Democrats other than on devolution and that policy was popular enough to get an English Democrat elected as mayor of Doncaster in June 2009. Devolution is not going to go away, it is only going to get more important in the minds of the electorate.

Q: What's the link with Bloggers4UKIP?
A: Nothing beyond the fact that the same person has set up both Bloggers4UKIP and the UKIP 1997 Group. Bloggers4UKIP and the UKIP 1997 Group are sharing hosting because it's the easiest and cheapest (ie. free) option.

Q: What does the party think of this group? Do they approve?
A: No idea! This is a brand new group and we haven't yet canvassed the opinion of the National Executive Council of UKIP. We will be submitting an application to the NEC to have the group officially recognised in due course. We do not foresee any reasonable objections to giving the group official recognition as the aim of the group is to influence UKIP policy to increase support for the party.

Q: Who is behind this group?
A: The group was set up by Stuart Parr and John Botting. Stuart is a prominent English nationalist and created the Bloggers4UKIP website. He is a National Council member of the Campaign for an English Parliament and the founder of the anti-regionalistation West Midlands NO! Campaign. John was the Chairman of UKIP's Maidstone branch and was involved in UKIP between 1999 and 2009 and had stood at both local, district and national elections. He is a member of the Campaign for an English Parliament and also signed up to the English Claim of Right. A former policeman and now own's several companies in Kent. John resigned from UKIP in 2009 in protest at the party's devolution policies.

Q: Ok, I'm interested. What do you want me to do?
A: You can register yourself as a supporter of the UKIP 1997 Group by filling out this form. If you want to take a more active role in the group, email wonkotsane@bloggers4ukip.org.uk and someone will be in touch shortly.

Comments (17)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
ukips lack of clarity on the english parliament is the only reason i didn`t vote for them in the last election,add an english parliament to your policy and it gets my vote.
2 replies · active 649 weeks ago
Right, so you voted for who? Who was anywhere near as good as UKIP? On one issue your allegiance is broken, hardly worth having in the first place is it!
We had Paul Nuttall's policy proposal for an English Parliament but there's another one I've seen that's very interesting. I'll chase up a clarification I asked for and post details.
I have not voted for UKIP previously (except in European elections) because they had no policy on England that I knew about and the Conservative Party said that they did. But, the Conservative's policy on England has gone the same way as their policy on Europe. And Nick Clegg is in charge of the commission on England. Regions of Europe here we come then!

I have already made up my mind to vote for UKIP at the next possible opportunity thinking that I might as well vote to save England from Europe if I can't save it from the injustice brought about by devolution in its current form. A policy to right some of the inustce suffered by England would confirm me in that decision.
Keith Anderson's avatar

Keith Anderson · 730 weeks ago

Why does this policy seem to be such a problem for UKIP when almost all of our support is in England? Cost a fortune to change the name and all the stationery to EngIP though.
If UKIP want to kill off the Tories then advocate the creation of an English Parliament. Being unionist like the Tories will not kill them. I hate anglophobic Labour with passion along with the useless England hating Lib Dums. The Tories are dead men walking.
UKIP would win lots of English EMPs if they created an English Parlaiment. Roll on English Parliament. Down with Anglophobic Labour/Liberal/Tory scum.
This page is full of inconsistencies.

'UKIP's policy on devolution won't create an English Parliament, it will create a grand committee of MPs elected to English constituencies.'

'....the only way to treat everyone equally is to establish national Parliament's for every nation of the UK.'

'....the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies should be upgraded to full Parliaments with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament along with the creation of an English Parliament.

Would UKIP give England its own (much-needed) national parliament or not?
1 reply · active 702 weeks ago
What are the inconsistencies?
There are 3 right of centre nationalist parties:- English Democrats, BNP and UKIP. Just imagine what would happen if the votes of 3 parties were combined into one? A strong 4th party
2 replies · active 649 weeks ago
It's not going to happen. Ever. The English Democrats will fold soon, they're haemorrhaging members and the BNP are a proscribed racist party. It's either going to be through UKIP or nobody.
Exactly, besides, the BNP are Nationalists, which makes them left by comparison. I see the future political landscape as BNP vs UKIP (left vs right). Most BNP supporters are ex-Labour and we've heard over the years the requests to renationalise the railways from Labour voters, there's only one party that will do that.
UKIP is barking up the wrong tree. Its entire basis for its policies is the the EU can somehow be changed from the inside. The EU parliament has no powers, its just a rubber stamping chop. The power lies in the Commissioners and President, the whole thing is based on the three layer soviet model, which works well for the unelected dictatoirship the EU is.

Ther eis only one way to change things, pull out the EU totally, and if they wont do that, then armed revolt is plan B.
2 replies · active 629 weeks ago
Are you off your trolley? UKIP has always said that the EU can't be changed from the inside or changed in any way for the better which is why we want to leave the EU.
Dead right that the EU cannot be changed from inside (except in the direction of further integration).

It would be illegal under EU law to give back powers as it would be an explicit breach of the commitment to the EU goal of ever closer union. The EU bodies responsible for Treaty renegotiation (Council, Commission, Parliament) are bound to uphold these goals, so even if David Cameron had any takers for his fantasy renegotiation, it would not get discussed.

The recent Observer-Opinium poll noted that if no meaningful repatriation of power was possible, a referendum vote would be 53% for withdrawal, 19% for staying in. That is nearly 3 to 1 when you sift out Don't Knows and Won't Votes.
Tom Tidswell's avatar

Tom Tidswell · 622 weeks ago

Essentially, because all currencies, the Euro and Its satellite, Sterling, are "fiat" Currencies i.e. not tied to anything of convertible value like Gold, the financial catastrophe was an ECB device used for a mixture of purposes. It is a "tool" in the way salesman threaten unwilling buyers of limited supplies of their goods. Or by hoovering up International "hot money" into the Anglo-German-French "National" Banks it controls the economics of PIIGS etc by making their economies only viable through the ECB. But, of course, the irony is that the money is always there because the ECB AngloGermanFrench Axis don't want the Euro to fail. With Britain as a "Sovereign" currency, we simply go on printing money and lending it to Europe at bargain-basement rates. And I would like to know who bought all the PFI contracts that RBS entered into and sold off? Just wondered. Why don't we declare them unlawful and cancel them to be re-written? Now that's a cracking idea! Let's see who screams loudest?
Having asked a question in a private mail and received no reply, I now ask publicly;

I agree with all the stated aims of the 1997 group regarding devolved governments. What then are the views of the Group regarding the Governance of the UK, once the home Nations had their devolved governments. How could the interests of all nations be safeguarded, given the likely preponderance of English MP's, the numbers of which would currently outnumber the elected MP's of the other 3 Nations combined?

It is far too early to expect definitive answers, but I am interested in any avenues currently being explored.

Yes, an English Parliament is needed, but that is only half the equation. The other half is going to be very tricky to answer, to get right. On the one hand, we should strive to ensure that the UK Govt is set up in such a way that representatives from the 3 other nations and their constituents feel that their input is meaningful, representative, has real impact and balance. On the other hand, it is imperative that the 60 million+ English voters are never again over ruled by narrow self interest (as in the University tuition fees saga). To find an equable balance between these two opposing views is going to be the real trick, so of course I'm very interested in any suggested way forward.

To bang on about the need for an English Parliament without any credible answers to the above question is going to bleed away support. So! Answers please!

Post a new comment

Comments by