Prescription charges in England go up to £8.40, still free in Scotland, Wales and NI

Regular as clockwork the British government puts up prescription charges in England every year on 1st April.

The yearly increase in the sickness tax falls on April Fools Day and we must be fools to continue to put up with it. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments have all abolished prescription charges over the past few years but the British government has no desire to do the same in England.

Prescription charges are just one of many examples of the British government ignoring English public opinion and a symptom of the democratic deficit arising from the refusal to devolve power to an English Parliament. It's time the British government did the honourable thing and put it right.

The anti English voice of Jeremy Corbyn

Much has been made during the Labour leadership election of the democratic credentials of frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn MP
However, whilst he has been very vocal on the issue of self-determination for the Palestinians for a number of years, the following article from Eddie Bone of The independent lobbying group, Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) shows that he is not so keen on extending self-determination to the English – Indeed, he supports the EU plan of breaking England down in to regions as can be seen on the following video!



Article by
Mr Eddie Bone, Campaign Director for the Campaign for an English Parliament.
The Campaign for an English Parliament attended the ‘Jeremy Corbyn for Leader’ event that was held in Ealing on the 17^th August 2015.

As the Campaign Director of the Campaign for an English Parliament I asked a question during the Q&A section, after Jeremy Corbyn’s main speech. We asked if he would establish an English Labour Party. His reply was direct and dismissive as he stated ‘he didn’t support an English Labour Party as he didn’t see the need for it’. We thought it showed a lack of insight into the complex concerns being expressed by many Labour supporters, so we attempted to highlight the clear differences in policies between the nations of the UK (eg Tuition fees).

After the event we attempted to speak with Jeremy Corbyn so that he could clarify why he talked about equality and fairness for all yet didn’t appear concerned about England and the English.
Please read the following transcript to see his appalling reply to English concern  (I have highlighted the main point that completely surprised me)

Jeremy Corbyn Ealing Town Hall 17/08/15 (after the main event)

Transcript 
Eddie: This isn’t right, it isn’t right when actually now listen you’re blocking me away completely is that the way you treat, is that the way you treat the English this way, you’re pushing me away
Jeremy: Now hang on, hang on, hang on
Eddie: I just have a question to be answered
Jeremy: There are English regions which have regional labour parties, as does Scotland and Wales and there is the Labour party the membership decide
Eddie: So you’re happy to see them broken up into regions
Jeremy: There has never been a collective voice for England
Eddie: Of course there’s a collective voice for England, we’re a thousand year old nation, we have a right just as Scotland and Wales to our own Parliament, to our own government
Jeremy: Well I am not in favour of an English parliament, I’m in favour of English regions


Tragically for the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn appeared not to grasp what the Conservatives were able to grasp during the general election. Admittedly it took an Australian spin doctor, Lynton Crosby to eventually help the Conservatives see the advantage of playing the English nationalist card. But it did help them ‘above all expectations’ to win a majority. It also helped ‘Northern UKIP’ to block Labour’s ability to challenge the Conservatives as well.

Eddie Bone, Campaign for an English Parliament,  stated “I was appalled to see and hear a potential Labour Leader show such a lack of basic knowledge of English history. Jeremy Corbyn’s blinkered ignorance will play into the Conservatives, UKIP and English nationalists hands over and over again during the next 5 years. His contemptuous and heavy handed approach will not only just succeed in offending the English but will also strengthen the Scottish nationalists as well. By calling Scotland a ‘Region’ he stuck two fingers up to the new Scottish Labour leader. How will she be able to make the Scottish Labour party more distinctive if a new British Labour leader is still in denial about the growth of Scottish nationalism?”

He continued “Labour will potentially face extinction if Jeremy Corbyn becomes the next Labour leader because he has failed to understand that many Labour supporters in England see themselves as English and want their own voice which means establishing an English Labour Party”


Eddie Bone – Pictured above
 
For more information on the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP), please visit http://www.thecep.org.uk/

Lords reject English Votes

The House of Lords have thrown out the Conservative Party's half-baked English Pauses for English Clauses fudge that would have allowed British MPs elected in England to tweak legislation that only affected England before British MPs elected in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were allowed to vote on it.

There was cross-party support for Lord Butler's motion to reject the ineffectual, unconstitutional proposal that the Conservative Party misleadingly call English Votes on English Laws and create a cross-party committee to examine it for a couple of years until everyone forgets that it was supposed to have been reviewed by a commission in the last parliament and the policy of breaking England up into city regions has been fully implemented.

Under the Conservative proposals for English Pauses for English Clauses, only British MPs elected in England would be allowed to vote on individual clauses in legislation that only relate to England whilst British MPs elected in Wales would join then for clauses that relate only to England and Wales. Once they've tinkered with a bill to their heart's content, British MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland would vote alongside British MPs from England and Wales on the clauses that don't apply only to England or to England and Wales and would then vote on whatever fractured, disconnected mishmash of legislation spews out of the end of convoluted and farcical process. Unless the whole bill applies only to England or only England and Wales in which case all British MPs will get to vote on it but as well as requiring a majority of British MPs voting in favour of it, a majority of British MPs elected in England or England and Wales will also have to vote in favour.

All this to avoid making England equal by simply creating an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament and letting members of an English Parliament make English laws for England.

Let's get behind an English Parliament on St George's Day

Back in September last year, after the result of the Scottish independence referendum had been announced, I wrote about an English Parliament. I've written about an English Parliament - or more specifically, about English devolution - a lot over the years.

I'm no academic but it's made me somewhat of an expert on the subject. I was a National Council member of the Campaign for an English Parliament for quite a long time and I advised Paul Nuttall on his Union for the Future policy proposal. When I had more time on my hands I even won awards for English political blogging and have been in most newspapers and on many national and local radio stations talking about English devolution.

I find the level of unintentional ignorance about devolution and an English Parliament incredibly frustrating. Hearing the same baseless arguments and incorrect claims about breaking up the union, increasing costs and more politicians does nothing for my blood pressure. So instead of addressing the nonsense I'm reading on social media in support of the unworkable, unacceptable constitutional fudge that is English Votes on English Laws in a piecemeal fashion, I've reposted below what I wrote last year ...

[ Click here to expand ]

Scotland's "no" vote will break the union without fundamental constitutional change

So Scotland has voted no to independence. The no campaigners are celebrating their "victory" but it's a hollow one - 45% of Scots don't want to be part of the UK any more, even with all the promises of more power and money for voting to stay. It was absolutely right that the Scots had their say on how their country is run but it has left a nation divided.

The Scots have had their say and it's now time for the English to have theirs. A large number of promises have been made to the Scots by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband - promises that they can't keep without securing a vote in the Commons. They have promised more power, more money, the continuation of the Barnett Formula in perpetuity and the right to interfere in how England is governed forever. Needless to say, with a general election next year some MPs representing English constituencies have taken issue with all these promises and one promised a "bloodbath" when they get to the voting stage.

All this has prompted David Cameron to announce that only MPs representing English constituencies should be allowed to vote on laws that only affect England, so-called English votes on English laws. This isn't the answer though because it's a fundamentally flawed plan. When the Conservatives first announced English votes on English laws as their policy years ago it took less than a day for an MP elected in Scotland to point out that he would be able to claim an interest in any English law that cost money because it would affect the amount of money Scotland gets. MPs representing Scottish constituencies would be banned from voting on almost nothing at all.

In Scotland they vote for Scottish politicians to sit in a Scottish parliament who are elected to represent Scottish interests. The supposed answer to this for England is to vote for British politicians to sit in the British parliament who are elected to represent British interests who will form a Grand Committee to vote on British laws that only affect England as long as they don't cost money. If English votes on English matters is the answer then they're asking the wrong question.

The only way to make the union fair and equal and stop it being torn apart by jealousy and resentment is to create a devolved English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. Trying to pass off a half-baked fudge that is inherently flawed as being equivalent to the Scottish Parliament is insulting. Which is why it's disappointing to see UKIP promoting the same flawed policy despite having a policy paper written three years ago explaining how an English Parliament would work whilst cutting the number of politicians, saving money and strengthening the union in the process.

Scotland's future has been decided by the Scottish people, now it's time for the people of England to decide their future and I hope that UKIP sees sense and plays a part in making that happen.

Whatever Scotland decides, it's time for an English Parliament

The Scots will vote in their first ever independence referendum tomorrow and it's statistically neck and neck. Most polls have a 3% margin of error and there's less than a 3% gap in two of the five polls conducted in the last 30 days and a whopping 7% in favour of independence in one.

	Yes	No	Don't Know
Survation	42%	48%	10%
TNS-BRMB	38%	39%	23%
YouGov	45%	50%	6%
ICM	49%	42%	9%
Panelbase	46%	47%	7%

The referendum really could go either way but whatever the result the next piece of business that needs taking care of is how England is governed. This is something that should have been taken care of in 1997 when the Scots and Welsh voted for their devolved governments but that didn't suit the regionalisation agenda so the union has been left seriously unbalanced for more than a decade.

Gordon Brown on Monday demanded guarantees that Scotland would have a say in how England (or "the regions" as he calls England) is run if they vote no tomorrow, that England's wealth would continue to be redistributed to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and that the Barnett Formula which subsidises Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will remain in place forever. David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg all agreed to those demands yesterday.

David Cameron is facing a revolt by his own MPs after agreeing to Gordon Brown's demands and promising more powers for Scotland with nothing for England. Some Tory MPs have promised a "bloodbath" if he tries to get the extra powers through the British parliament and several Tory MPs have said they want to ban MPs elected in Scotland from voting on things only affecting England. This means an English Parliament would have to be created because anything that costs money affects the amount of money available for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get, thus giving their MPs a vote on it.

Social media and the comments sections on newspaper websites and blogs are awash with outrage at the promises being made to Scotland and demands for an English Parliament. UKIP has long had a policy of redressing the balance with an English Parliament of sorts, first with the daft English votes on English laws idea that could never work and lately for a devolved English Parliament. Nigel Farage has said many times that UKIP would create a devolved English Parliament and Paul Nuttall wrote a policy paper on how it would work. It has always been sidelined at the last minute by whichever Big Britisher has been in charge of policy but now is the time to dust off Paul Nuttall's policy on an English Parliament and show the people of England that we really are the peoples' party, listening to what they want and promising to act on it.

IPPR: UKIP is the party of the English

Left wing think tank, IPPR, has produced a follow-up to the one released in January 2012 which documented the rise in English identity and warned that ignoring the disadvantages that England faces as a result of asymmetric devolution would threaten the union.

This time, though, they have included questions on the EU and the correlation between euroscepticism and the English identity and made a surprising (for them) discovery: the party that most people believe will stand up for England's interests is UKIP.

The latest report finds that the rise in English identity at the expense of British has held up against the onslaught of state-sponsored British nationalism during the Olympics and the royal wedding.  English remains the dominant national identity in England.

The correlation between euroscepticism and national identity is very interesting - over half of people who identify as English more than British are in favour of leaving the EU but only a third of those who identify as more British than English are similarly minded.

There is also a direct link between euroscepticism and dissatisfaction with England's treatment in the British union post-devolution.  A massive 91% of people who think we should leave the EU think that MPs elected in Scotland shouldn't be allowed to vote on English matters and 71% think that the British government can't be trusted to look after England's interests.  21% of English people think that UKIP is the party that can be most trusted to stand up for England's interests - the first time none of the above hasn't topped the poll.

Only 1 in 5 English people support the current form of government and 78% of English people (eurosceptic or not) think that Scotland should pay for services out of their own taxes.

More UKIP supporters identify themselves as English more than British than any other party - 55% of those polled.  They are also the most dissatisfied with the status quo with 49% supporting English independence.  Surprisingly, only 90% of UKIP supporters want to leave the EU.

Given the choice of local government, Westminster and the EU, 31% of English people think the EU has the most influence over the way England is run.  This is by far the highest percentage anywhere in the EU - Brittany, Upper Austria and Galicia are joint second with only 9%.  England , as opposed to the UK, is without doubt the most eurosceptic country in the EU.

It's time for UKIP to accept that the majority - in fact, almost all - of the party's support is in England.  Almost every elected representative the party has was elected in England.  The Scots aren't eurosceptic -only a third of all Scots are in favour of leaving the EU and some of those are pro-independence so would never vote UKIP.  We are the party most trusted by the English to represent English interests.

You don't have to be a genius to realise that UKIP's future is in England and leading the call for fairness and equality for the English.  The first step should be to finally draw a line under the ridiculous anti-devolution policy that has been losing us votes for years and start promoting an English Parliament.

New UKIP policy on devolution: an unintended confederation

During the UKIP conference in Birmingham I was slipped a piece of paper with details of UKIP's new devolution policy and some notes confirming that the NEC had approved it and it had the blessing of UKIP Wales who have been a pain in the ass over devolution for some time, considering it the work of Satan (or worse, the French).

When I first joined UKIP there was no policy on devolution other than a "Britishness" policy that said that much like the Tories in the late 90s, UKIP opposes devolution and wants a return to a unitary state but would tolerate Grand Committees of British MPs.  Over the years I, along with others, have managed to talk some sense into the leadership (and membership) which culminated in a policy proposal written by Deputy Leader, Paul Nuttall, for an English Parliament and converting the House of Lords into a federal British Parliament.

Paul's policy was well received in England but less so in Wales where a tiny group of Big Britishers vocally argue against devolution based on an irrational and inaccurate belief that devolution is a plot by the EU to destroy the UK.  It was Paul's policy that resulted in so many members of the English Democrats (the good ones, not the nutters and racists) abandoning that sinking ship and joining UKIP.

A new policy proposal was written and was given the seal of approval by UKIP Wales who think it's a rehash of the half-backed Grand Committee idea where British MPs elected in England, Scotland, Wales and NI would come together for a few days a month and make British laws for their own countries under a gentleman's agreement that they won't interfere in each others' affairs.  The policy is somewhat further reaching than that and I suspect that nobody who's seen it so far truly understands the (positive) unintended consequences.

The new policy turns the Grand Committee idea on its head and instead of creating English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Grand Committees to make British laws for their respective countries, the national governments of the member states of the UK would be directly elected and the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would appoint representatives to the British government.  The British government would be "indirectly elected" (ie. appointed) like the hated regional assemblies were.  Clearly this creates something of a democratic deficit which is where the unintended consequences come into play.

It's difficult to see how you could give an indirectly elected British government parliamentary sovereignty rather than a directly elected national government.  The only option is to make the national governments sovereign which would create a confederation.  A confederation is a union of sovereign states and by virtue of that sovereignty, they would have the legal and constitutional power to secede from the union in their own right rather than relying on the Montevideo Convention (effectively restated by the EEC's Badinter Arbitration Committee so it doesn't matter that the UK didn't sign up to it) which is the usual way a state gets its independence.

The alternative is that you have an appointed and therefore less accountable body with the ability to over-rule or even abolish the national governments that appointed them.  If you wouldn't give, for example, the Parliamentary Standards Committee the lawful right to unilaterally sack MPs, appoint its own government and prevent elections then you shouldn't entertain the idea of giving an appointed federal government parliamentary sovereignty.

Now, I'm more than happy with the idea of a confederation and it's something I've advocated for some time as the form of government that will prolong the union the longest as it is a consensual union rather than a prescriptive one which should be palatable to both unionists and separatists alike.  On paper it makes the union weaker although in practical terms it makes it stronger because it puts it on a footing that should be acceptable to separatists.

I was asked for an opinion on how to deal with the gap in accountability that would arise from abolishing the House of Lords when Paul Nuttall was writing his policy proposal.  The answer I came up with was a constitutional court along the lines of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht which would have the authority to choose what legislation it wants to rule on and its ruling would be binding.  The same gap in accountability would also be present under a confederation and I maintain that a constitutional court is still the answer.

This policy is a bold move - literally reinventing the union in a way that no political party has ever proposed.  Even the English Democrats who claim to be the English version of the SNP (they're not but everyone needs an aspiration, no matter how fanciful) haven't gone as far as this.  A confederation is the best of both worlds for both unionists and separatists.  The member states of a British Confederation would be sovereign nations able to leave the confederation at any time but they would still be in a British union, albeit voluntarily rather than because the law says they have to be.  I, for one, am looking forward to UKIP announcing this policy formally and campaigning for this radical new form of government that finally brings equality and fairness to all the member states of the UK.

IPPR confirms support for English Parliament

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) have released a report on the English Question with some very interesting results which show UKIP, once again, ahead of the curve on public opinion.

The report concludes that there is unhappiness with the status quo viz the way the UK is governed and the way government has changed in light of devolution has resulted in an increasingly political representation of Englishness.

Now, before I delve into the contents of this report I will recap on where UKIP stands on the subject of Englishness, Britishness, the union, devolution, the West Lothian Question and the English Question.

UKIP has traditionally been a British nationalist party.  There's a clue in the name: "United Kingdom Independence Party".  However, there is a UKIP Scotland, UKIP Wales and UKIP NI so like the other parties, there is an acknowledgement that the UK isn't a nation in the traditional sense and that a federal structure of sorts is required to properly represent the electorate or at least to fit into the way that politics works practically.

For a long time, UKIP policy has been to oppose devolution and promote the idea of Grand Committees of British MPs legislating for the nations they were elected in.  In itself this demonstrates the somewhat incoherent and inconsistent British nationalism that has driven policy thus far - the belief that devolved national governments undermine the concept of Britishness and so should be replaced with British Grand Committees representing exactly the same geographic area.

There is the EU element of course (well, it wouldn't be UKIP if there wasn't an EU conspiracy theory!) - there is still a prevalent belief that devolution is the work of the EU who want to break up the UK to more easily assimilate us.  There is no doubt that the EU wants the UK to be broken up and they have worked hard to ensure regional administration puts down deep roots.  However, the fact that Scotland, Wales and NI are both nations and euroregions has muddied the water understandably giving credibility to the theory that the EU was behind their devolution settlements.  If the EU were involved in the devolution settlement for Scotland, Wales and NI it was to give consent, not as architects.

So UKIP has, for many years oppose devolution based on the belief that it will undermine Britishness to the extent that the union will fall apart.  Until, that is, Paul Nuttall's recent policy paper that outlined a new policy of supporting devolved government for all four member states of the UK.  Which brings us more or less up to where we are now.

The IPPR report is the first major investigation into English (as English, not a subset of British) politics, national identity and English opinions on devolution and governance.  So what did they find?

Firstly, the English have changed their minds on the impact of Scottish and Welsh devolution on how the UK is governed from ambivalence to believing it has made it worse.  IPPR attribute this change of attitude to the perception of disadvantage for England in a post-devolution UK.  The opinion of around half of all English people polled was that Scotland benefits most from the union financially with the other half being unsure, thinking that both England and Scotland benefit equally and a very small minority thinking that England benefit most.

Secondly, the proportion of people in England who think that Scotland should be independent from the UK has risen to 22%, equal to those who think it should be governed by a devolved parliament with more tax-raising powers and who think it should be governed directly by the British government.  19% think that it should stay as it is and 15% don't know.  The number of people in England who think Scotland should have its own government with tax-raising powers - what is planned for Scotland - has nosedived from a high in 2001 of 53% with independence and don't know accounting for most of the difference.

The number of people in England supporting a ban on Scottish MPs voting on English laws now that Scotland has its own government has increased remarkably since 2007.  The number disagreeing remains very low.  The report is reporting these figures as support for English Votes on English Laws which it isn't - the question specifically asks "Now that Scotland has its own parliament, Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote in the House of Commons on laws that only affect England".  Supporters of an English Parliament and elected regional assemblies would also express the opinion that MPs elected in Scotland should be banned from voting on English laws.

English people are quite unequivocal in their opinion of whether the British government looks after the interests of all parts of England equally - between roughly two thirds and three quarters of English people think that they don't.  Even in London, which most English people think gets too much attention from the British government, 58% of people thought that the British government didn't treat all parts of England equally.

An interesting statistic is the number of people who trust the British government to work in the long term interests of England.  42% have "not very much" trust in the British government to work in England's interests, 17% "not at all".

On the preferred form of government for England, just over a third think that "English MPs" in the British government should govern England.  24% support the status quo, 20% support an English Parliament, 9% support regional government and 14% don't know.  While this does appear to show support for an English Parliament quite low, the option for "English MPs" is misleading for most people.  They aren't "English MPs", they're British MPs elected in England - an important distinction because "English MPs" implies an English mandate.  More on this in a moment.

When excluding an English Parliament, an overwhelming number of English people believe the British government has and should have the most influence over the way England is run.  27% of English people believe the EU has the most influence over how England is run yet only 1% think that is right.

The report compares the number of people in England who think the EU has the most influence against other "regions" of the EU as a measure of euroscepticism which shows that England is by far the most eurosceptic - far more eurosceptic than Scotland where only 8% think the EU has most influence over their country.  However, this isn't really a measure of euroscepticism, it's a measure of how many people think the EU has most influence over their "region".  It is natural that such a large number of people in England would think that the EU has most influence for two reasons: English people are generally more eurosceptic than most and because every other "region" in the list has its own devolved government which makes most of the decisions that affect their day to day lives (notwithstanding the fact that most of those decisions are covered by EU regulations, a fact that is sadly lost on most people).

Going back to the preferred method of government, there is an inconsistency in public opinion depending on the question asked.  Asking for an outright choice of a form of government produces a markedly different outcome to asking who should have most influence over the way England is run when the answer is an English Parliament.  This shows how important the question asked is - people are turned off by politics and not many people really understand the often subtle differences between different forms of government.

When forced to choose a national identity between England and British, English is now the majority choice and the trend over the last couple of years is for a very rapid increase in the English identity.  Last year's royal wedding saw the country draped in British flags and the British Olympics are almost permanently in the news.  The British government and the BBC in particular have used both these events to try and promote their Britishness agenda yet English national identity has gone through the roof.

More people in England identify with England rather than Britain than the other way round, 17% of people consider themselves English but not British but only 7% consider themselves British and not English.  The number of people who consider themselves English to some extent is overwhelming.

English national identity is the third strongest "regional" identity in the EU.  Scotland tops the table, unsurprisingly, followed by Catalonia (no surprise there) and fourth place goes to Wales.

Despite the persistent campaign of denigrating the English identity by the British government, the BBC, the left wing press and others, there is an overwhelming sense of pride in being English.  A similar proportion of English people feel proud of being British as being English but that pride is less equivocal with more people being "very proud" to be English compared to "fairly proud" to be British.  48% are very proud to be English and 31% are fairly proud.  38% are very proud to be British whilst 39% are fairly proud.  More people are proud to be English than British.

Similar to the national identity question above, the degree of attachment to England is higher than to the UK.  English people are less equivocal about attachment to England than they were in the national identity question with a very similar proportion of people "very attached" and "fairly attached" but combined they show that 85% of English people feel an attachment to England against 76% for the UK.

An overwhelming number of people think St George's Day should be a public holiday.  74% of people agree strongly or tend to disagree, only 12% disagree - 1% less than "don't know".  A 2009 Freedom of Information request found that the British government has spent just £230 in five years on promoting St George's Day, including the £114 cost of a flag to fly once a year over the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's offices - a British government department with an English-only remit.  More money is spent by the British government promoting St Patrick's Day than St George's Day.

The report helpfully lists the responses of non-white English people to their national identity.  The number of non-white people describing themselves as "English not British" has gone from 1% in 2007 to 9%.  The number describing themselves as more English than British has gone from 3% in 2007 to 13%.  The number describing themselves as equally English and British has gone up from 18% in 2007 to 23%.  The number identifying themselves as more British than English or only British has declined, as has the number identifying themselves as something other than English or British.  More on this shortly.

When asked which party best stands up for English interests, the majority said none.  Bizarrely, the Labour Party which introduced devolution for Scotland, Wales and NI but refused to do so for England and installed a Scottish MP as Prime Minister who presided over a number of controversial English-only laws that no English person could judge him on at the ballot box, came top with 21%.  The Conservatives, whose leader proudly boasts of the Scottish blood coursing through his veins, who has gone to Scotland a number of times to slag off the English and who has said more than once that he doesn't want to be Prime Minister of England, came second with 20%.  UKIP came third with 9% of people thinking that we would best represent England interests.  More people thought that British National Party would represent England's interests better than the English Democrats - a damning indictment of that party's failed leadership that they come bottom of a poll of political parties that would best serve English interests when that was the sole reason for the party being set up in the first place.

It is interesting to note the year the decline started.  2007 is the year the Scottish MP, Gordon Brown, was installed as the heir of Blair and the agressive promotion of Britishness started in earnest.  The increase in sense of Englishness might be a reaction to the enforced Britishness agenda, it might be a reaction to a Prime Minister elected in Scotland who is unaccountable to the voters whose lives he most influenced, it might be a reaction to the increasing rights and privileges of the Scots and Welsh or it might just be a natural phenomenen.  My money is on all of them combined and any number of other factors but it's not important, the shift in the national psyche has already happened and what needs to happen now is for the political establishment to catch up with the views of those they are supposed to represent.

It is interesting that there is a large increase in the proprtion of non-white people identifying themselves as English.  Minorities in England are encouraged to be British, their interaction with the state from day one is with all things British.  In Scotland a newly-arrived immigrant's interaction will be mostly in a Scottish context.  The British government encourages immigrants to be British (in a half-hearted manner) whereas in Scotland they are encouraged to be Scottish not just by the Scottish government but by their Scottish peers.  By encouraging immigrants to identify with the British identity, the British government are creating a barrier to integration and simply replacing one minority identity with another one.

The message coming out of the IPPR report is that the English identity has finally replaced British as the dominant identity in England, that Englishness is rapidly gaining and as yet unrealised political aspect and that the English are dissatisfied with the way their country is governed.  The IPPR report would seem to suggest, based on one set of figures, that most English people want the constitutional fudge most commonly known as English Votes on English Laws to replace the current situation where British MPs from all four member states of the UK vote on laws only affecting England.  This is more or less what UKIP's current/outgoing policy is.

However, as I pointed out above, the question - Now that Scotland has its own parliament, Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote in the House of Commons on laws that only affect England - doesn't actually ask for opinions on English Votes for English Laws, it asks whether Scottish MPs should be banned from voting on English laws which also encompasses an English Parliament, independence and regionalisation.  The number of people who came out in favour of banning Scottish MPs from voting on English laws is almost exactly the same as the combined support for an English Parliament, English Votes on English Laws and regionalisation.  You have to look further down the report to find a more relevant measure of support for a particular form of government in the question of who should have most influence over decision making in England where the majority were in favour of a devolved English Parliament.

The British government will surely have to take notice of this report, the likes of which they have been diligently avoiding commissioning themselves.  The results are unequivocal and the conclusions are pretty damning.  It shows that UKIP has been on the wrong track opposing devolution but also shows that we are once again ahead of the curve as the first mainstream party to come out in favour of an English Parliament to balance the assymetrical devolution already in place.

UKIP now supports devolution

The big thing to come out of UKIP's conference in Eastbourne this weekend for me was the release of a policy paper entitled "A Union for the Future".

The policy paper, written by Paul Nuttall MEP, is a complete rewrite of UKIP's badly written, unworkable devolution policy which basically involved abolishing the devolved governments in Scotland and Wales (but not NI) and replacing them with Grand Committees of British MPs.

This new policy paper has no such retrograde suggestions in it.  The current British House of Commons would be replaced with an English Parliament with English MPs, an English Executive and an English First Minister.  The House of Lords would be replaced by the British Parliament with British MPs, the British Executive and the British Prime Minister and will scrutinise legislation for all four home nations.

There are a couple of gaps in the policy paper but then it is only a two-page précis.  One question I would like answered is what changes would be made to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly?  Will the powers they have be equalised with that of the Scottish and English Parliaments?  The policy is very anglo-centric so some questions need answering about how it will affect Scotland, Wales and NI when the policy paper is expanded upon.

Since this policy was announced there have been a few threads on the UKIP members' forum on it with the usual suspects scaremongering about devolution, claiming that it's the same thing as devolution, expensive, creates more politicians, etc.  So here is a list of devolution myths peddled by Big Britishers (the opposite to Little Englanders) debunked:

• Devolution means breaking up the union
  Breaking up the union would be independence. Devolution is inherently unionist because you can't devolve power from the union government if the union doesn't exist to have a government. Devolution can only exist for as long as the union exists.
• Devolution means more tiers of government
  The policy paper written by Paul Nuttall sees the regional tier of government in England being abolished when the English Parliament is created.  The two tiers of the British government would also be replaced by one.  That's a net reduction of one tier of government.
• Devolution means more expense
  Paul Nuttall has clearly used the paper Chris Gill submitted to a House of Lords committee when he was Conservative MP for Ludlow as a base for his policy paper.  In that paper Chris detailed the basic cost savings that could be realised by making these changes.  Adjusted for current salaries and numbers of peers, the cost savings amount to almost half a billion a year.
• This is playing into the EU's hands
  The EU has divided the UK into 12 euroregions.  Three of them coincide with national borders - Scotland, Wales and NI - but the other 9 are a dismemberment of England.  Establishing a national Parliament for the whole of England and doing away with the EU's regional government goes against what the EU wants.
• There is no support for devolutionIndependent opinion polls consistently put support for either banning MPs not elected in England from voting on English laws or for creating an English Parliament at 7 out of 10.  As the former is an unworkable mess that doesn't actually address the core problem of having no politicians elected to represent English interests, the latter is the only option.
  
• We already have an English Parliament: Westminster
  Westminster is home to the British government which is made up of British MPs elected in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  Being elected to an English constituency doesn't make a British MP an English MP.  There hasn't been an English Parliament since 1707.
• There's no votes in it
  Being the only party opposing membership of the EU hasn't got us an MP elected but it doesn't mean there are no votes in it, it means that voters think their vote will be wasted if they vote for UKIP or we don't offer enough policies they can support.  The reason the English Democrats haven't seen any real electoral success is because they are a tiny party crippled with debt and an ineffectual and toxic leadership and are being over-run with BNP members, not because their core message doesn't resonate with voters.
• It will alienate Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish voters
  How could anyone object to making England equal to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?  If it does then that says a lot about the people we're supposedly united with and UKIP has never retained a deposit in any Westminster or devolved election, should we discriminate against the 50m people who vote for us in large enough numbers to retain deposits so as not to upset the 10m who don't?
• Our current policy is good enough
  No, really it's not.  There are so many reasons why it's wrong.  Here are a few ...
• The Scots would declare independence if you tried to take their government away from them.
• A Grand Committee of British MPs elected in British constituencies in Scotland and Wales to the British government is several retrograde steps back from Scottish and Welsh politicians elected in Scotland and Welsh constituencies in Scotland and Wales to a Scottish or Welsh government.
• What happens if a British MP elected in England votes on something good for Britain and bad for England when they're sitting as the British Grand Committee and then it comes up when they're sitting as the English Grand Committee?  Do they denounce themselves and censure their own vote?
• What happens when a bill is presented to the British Grand Committee that requires a change to the law in England, Scotland, Wales and NI?  As the British MP introducing it will also be a member of one of the national Grand Committees it's highly likely it will occur.  Will part of it be voted on by the British Grand Committee and then part of it be voted on by each of the four national Grand Committees who may suggest amendments that contradict each other?  That type of bill would take years to steer through all five Grand Committees, if ever so all that will happen is that the British Grand Committee would exercise its prerogative to vote on "devolved" issues and ride roughshod over themselves with their English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish hats on.  And presumably complain to themselves about it to themselves over their boiled eggs.
• Will the Chair of the British Grand Committee be banned from being Chair of one of the national Grand Committees?
• Will the whip apply to both the British and national Grand Committees?  Will the whips be the same people or will the parties have whips that are whips one week of the month and not the next three?
• The value of devolution is that it allows priorities and needs to be met when they are different to those of the other home nations.  Parties will impose the same policies across the UK on "devolved" matters because that's what they believe in nationally.
• Grand Committees will only exist for as long as the British Parliament decides to tolerate their existence. They will have no constitutional basis, no executive powers, no dedicated politicians, no real legal basis.
• Without a clearly defined (in law) list of what is and isn't devolved to another executive, MPs elected in one country will be able to claim an interest in a bill appearing to affect only one of the other county's if it involves spending money on the basis that money spent in one home nation means less to be spent in another.  An MP elected in Scotland made this claim the same day the Tories originally announced their (now abandoned) English Votes on English Laws policy.

If this policy paper makes it into the manifesto (and I would hope and expect it to do so) then it's not going to be a magic pill that suddenly gets UKIP into government but it's another string to our bow and another reason for people to vote for us.  Almost every supporter of devolution that I know is a eurosceptic but until this policy paper was announced, most of them wouldn't vote for UKIP because of our anti-devolution policy.

We won't get elected based on one core populist policy of leaving the EU - we have to offer more in exchange for peoples' votes.  The Hansard Society Audit of Public Engagement a couple of years ago showed that "Scottish MPs" voting on English matters was the biggest complaint voters had.  The EU came surprisingly low down the list of complaints (most likely because they don't understand how many of the things that annoy them are because of EU directives).  We have a flat tax policy with increased personal allowances - a great policy but how many people understand it or are turned on by it?  Not many.  We have a policy of Swiss-style Referenda which is another great policy but only two petitions on the British government's ePetitions site have achieved 100,000 signatures which suggests people either aren't motivated enough or don't think it will make a difference.

Devolution is different though - the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish already know how it works and the English are increasingly aware of it as well.  It's expressed as dissatisfaction with the way "Scottish MPs" vote on English laws and the amount of money "they" get compared to us but it's an awareness nonetheless.  An English Parliament is something that people rarely ask for until you ask them if they want it and then they get passionate about it and passion = votes.

The genie is out of the bottle where devolution is concerned and it's not going back in.  Devolution is here to stay so it has to be made to work.  Since devolution was introduced in Scotland and Wales support for independence in those countries has decreased but over the same 13 year period it has increased from basically zero to 36% in England.  What does that tell you?  It shows that devolution delivered (as unexpected as it may have been) on its promise to kill separatism in Scotland and Wales.  It has also, as predicted, resulted in a backlash against the union and in particular the Scots, in England.

The union will break up within my lifetime, it's a matter of timing now.  I'm not anti-union, I'm agnostic towards it - I won't shed a tear when the union breaks up but then I probably won't throw a party either.  It would be fair to say most people in UKIP are unionist and I think that on balance most of the population of the UK is too and that's why UKIP should support devolution.  If we carry on as we are the union will have broken up in less than a decade.  If power is devolved equally and meaningfully to national parliaments then it will last a lot longer.  Big Britishers and Little Englanders alike should support UKIP and this policy.

Finally, I would like to say well done to UKIP's Paul Nuttall, Annabelle Fuller and Gawain Towler for dragging UKIP's stance on devolution kicking and screaming into this millennium and to Eddie Bone and Scilla Cullen from the Campaign for an English Parliament for making sure the new policy doesn't end up a constitutional abomination.

7 out of 10 want an English Parliament - who will they vote for?

Via the Campaign for an English Parliament, the Power 2010 campaign has commissioned an opinion poll on devolution which reinforces previous opinion poll results over the last few years that have shown that 7 out of 10 people want an English Parliament.  The results of the poll and Power 2010's press release can be found on the English Parliament Online website.

Cameron's general election campaign is tanking and the Tories have failed to attack Labour and the Lib Dems on their favoured policy of balkanising England into euroregions.  The 'nuclear option' of supporting an English parliament may be the Tories only chance to avoid a fourth term in the wilderness.  UKIP should stop flogging the dead horse that is abolishing devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and come out in support of an English parliament.

Paul Nuttall says that UKIP is calling for a public holiday for St Georges Day in England, why not go a step further and do what the majority of the electorate wants and commit to a referendum on an English Parliament?  It's not too much to ask is it?

Any fellow UKIPpers who want an English Parliament or who just want the party to stop ignoring public opinion and losing votes because of its daft anti-devolution policy can put their name to the UKIP 1997 Group.

English Democrats PPC Defects to UKIP

The English Democrats PPC for Broxbourne (Hertfordshire) has recently switched to UKIP. Below he explains why

Why I Am Moving over To UKIP because I Feel The English Democrats Are Doomed To Fail…

Back in the early part of this year i really felt i needed to stand up and be counted rather than sit back and be an armchair politician..But not really wanting to join any of the main stream i felt confussed.Then i came across a party called the English Democrats that shared all my concerns but with out the hate or prejudice of parties like the BNP.

Tough on Immigration.
reinstate the identity of the English.
Create a Parliament for the English.
It all sounded good to me.

After getting a bit more familiar with the party i started to notice the cracks i started to come across some of the comments left by one of the Lead members called Steve Uncles where he sounded more like a child in a playground than a potential politician.

Then there was the Doncaster mayor Peter Davis who was elected well i broadly agreed with his ideas of eradicating Political Correctness ect..
But then there was the policies of stop funding for the Gay Pride march…I thought why should we fund it but he was prepared to upset so many people all to save £3000 yes £3000 the amount of business that would be generated by the march would have easy covered the £3000.

Well later down the line they took on board an Ex member of the BNP the very party i wanted to oppose now i am going to stand side by side with him morally i just can’t do it….

I became an MP candidate for Broxbourne and i never ever met a soul from the party that is their vetting process so every Tom Dick or Harry can stand for them..Don’t get me wrong i do feel the party has some very good and genuine members that should take control and not let the party be run by the loonies that are more vocal.

I voiced my concerns a few times to Robin Tilbrook but only to fall on Deaf Ears i don’t think its that he don’t want to do any thing its that he can’t. The English Democrats are not a real political option they are a mixed bag of people who have no political Knowledge and just run their campaign on being patriotic

English Parliament Online: UKIP & Devolution

Prompted by the creation of the UKIP 1997 Group, the English Parliament Online has an article and poll on UKIP's devolution policy.

Please do pop over, read the article and cast your vote (you will need to register).

A bit of background ...

The author of the article and poll, Gareth Young, is one of England's foremost English nationalists and an extremely well-respected and well-connected political thinker. The English Parliament Online is not a campaign website, nor was it set up to promote English nationalism. The site was set up as an online forum for the discussion of English issues in the absence of a national parliament for our nation. Although the site is hosted by the Campaign for an English Parliament, there is no executive input from the campaign and the site is completely independent of the campaign (trust me, I did the deal!).

Why UKIP's devolution policy is wrong

In 1997, Tony B.liar presented Donald Dewer, the first Scottish First Minister, with a ceremonial copy of the Scotland Act on the front of which he had scrawled:

To Donald,

It was a struggle, it may always be hard : but it was worth it. Scotland and England together on equal terms!

Tony Blair

The Scotland Act marked a fundamental change in the way the UK was governed and widened the democratic deficit that had always existed between England and Scotland, with the latter already having a disproportionately high number of MPs and its own dedicated Minister and Office within the British government.

The Scotland Act gave Scotland a devolved Scottish Parliament and Executive with control of domestic affairs in Scotland, a Scottish First Minister and a raft of MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament) to represent the Scottish people in their new parliament.

Shortly afterwards, a referendum was held in Wales (50% turnout, 51% in favour) and a Welsh Assembly was created with much more limited powers than the Scottish Parliament but an impressive amount of control of domestic affairs nonetheless. A year or two later, the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont was reconstituted, giving the Northern Irish people self-government again.

Far from putting England on an equal footing with Scotland, or the rest of the UK, this put England at a distinct disadvantage. Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have continued to attend the British parliament in Westminster and vote on any bill put before the House, whether it something that is devolved in their own constituencies or not. University top-up fees and foundation hospitals are just two examples of controversial legislation that only apply to England that would not have passed without the votes of Scottish MPs. The Scottish health and education services are under the control of the Scottish Parliament north of the border yet Scottish MPs lined up to vote for the introduction of foundation hospitals and top-up fees in England, overturning the vote of the majority of English MPs who had voted against them.

So what is UKIP's policy on devolution? In a nutshell, it is to abolish the devolved Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments and replace them with grand committees of MPs based on the country they were elected in. Scottish MPs would sit in Holyrood for a couple of days a week, Welsh MPs in Cardiff Bay, Northern Irish MPs in Stormont and English MPs in Westminster. For the other couple of days, they would all descend on Westminster to deal with British issues.

When the Hansard Society published their Audit of Public Engagement report, the issue that respondents were most dissatisfied with was Scottish MPs voting on English issues. Not the European Empire (4th), not House of Lords reform (3rd) and not funding of political parties (2nd). Would UKIP's policy address that dissatisfaction? Yes, to a certain extent but would it work?

The UKIP policy is a variation on the English Votes on English Legislation (EVoEL) policy the Tories announced a few years ago. On the day the Tories announced their new EVoEL policy, an MP from a Scottish constituency said that under EVoEL he would still be able to claim an interest in any English matter because any money spent in England would affect the amount of money in Scotland's block grant.

This wouldn't happen if an English executive was created with clearly defined areas of responsibility. I don't know if this was the intention of the committee that came up with the policy but it is the only way that it can work without MPs representing the celtic nations undermining the whole setup as mentioned in the paragraph above. But if you create an English executive then why not create an English Parliament?

Under the current system, Scottish people elect MPs to represent them in the British parliament and MSPs to represent them in the Scottish Parliament. In Wales they elect MPs to represent them in the British parliament and AMs to represent them in the Welsh Assembly. In Northern Ireland they elect MPs to represent them in the British parliament and MLAs to represent them in the Northern Irish Assembly. In England we elect British MPs to represent us in the British parliament but nobody to represent us in an English assembly.

Under UKIPs proposed system, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English people would elect MPs to represent them in the British parliament and their national assemblies at the same time. It's a bizarre concept because it requires MPs to put Britain first for a couple of days a week and then put their own nations first for another couple of days a week. There is a clear conflict of interests and divided loyalties in asking MPs to put Britain before their own nation for half of the week and then put their own nation before Britain for the other half.

It's worth repeating a quote from the bible that I used a couple of weeks ago:

No one can serve two masters, because either he will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other.

Matthew 6:24

You cannot reasonably expect an MP to effectively and fairly separate their loyalties based on what day of the week it is. You also can't expect MPs elected in England to suddenly rediscover their loyalty to England when they've spent over a decade defending a system of apartheid against their own constituents.

But the biggest problem with UKIP's devolution policy is not that it won't work, it is that it is out of step with public opinion. Had the members ot the committee that came up with UKIP's devolution policy done their research and looked at what the many independent opinion polls say, they wouldn't have come up with this policy. There is a large majority in favour of the creation of an English parliament, just as there is a large majority in favour of the Scottish Parliament.

So what are the arguments against an English Parliament (or any of the other devolved assemblies) within UKIP? Well, so far I've heard the following:

1. It will lead to the break-up of the union
2. Too many politicians
3. It's playing into the hands of the European Empire
   

Let's take the first argument - it will lead to the break-up of the union. Firstly, the union will be dissolved in my lifetime. I'm not advocating the break-up of the union, I'm just telling it how it is. All over the world - but particularly in Europe - the nold unions are breaking up and historic nations are re-emerging. The union between England and Scotland was never a strong one - Scotland retained all its own customs, traditions, legal system, etc. and has never really been integrated into the union in the same way England and Wales have. Now they have their own parliament, the union is virtually unravelled from Scottish life. The Scots would declare independence before they lost their parliament and while the Welsh are a bit less enthusiastic about their assembly than the Scots are about their parliament, that would change dramatically if it was under threat. The only chance the union has of surviving is to put all four home nations on an equal footing and as devolution cannot realistically be rolled back, that means by converting the Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies into parliament and creating an English Parliament.

The second argument - too many politicians - is a common one and the easiest to dismiss. We currently have over 650 British MPs. If you took away 80% of their job by devolving it to an English Parliament, why would you still need over 650 British MPs? It needn't mean more politicians, just different politicians. With a devolved parliament in all four home nations and a small federal British government, there would be no need for any more than one British MP per county with the balance (or less) being English parliamentary constituencies, allowing for 2 or 3 Members of an English Parliament to represent each county.

The third argument - that it is playing into the hands of the European Empire - is such bunkum that it's barely worth talking about but if I don't dispell the myth it will perpetuate. Our imperial overlords on the continent split the UK up decades ago. They didn't split it into four, but into twelve euroregions - Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and nine euroregions of England. Uniting all nine euroregions under one devolved English Parliament would not be playing into the hands of the European Empire, it would be a two-fingered salute to the anglophobes and federalists that see a future where England only exists in history books.

UKIP's devolution policy loses us support from a large number of voters who want an English Parliament, 99% of which are arch-eurosceptics. Those people generally vote for the Tories because of their vague promises (aren't they always vague?) to sort out the West Lothian Question or, if they feel that strongly about it, they vote for the English Democrats. If UKIP came out in favour of an English Parliament, we would not only reinforce our credentials as a democratic, libertarian party but we would attract the vast majority of English Democrat voters and an even bigger chunk of Tory voters. If we can't convince enough people to vote UKIP in the general election on our policy of leaving the European Empire, let's convince them to vote for us by supporting an English Parliament.

For Info: I am a national council member of the Campaign for an English Parliament