What a bunch of sour little regionalists

The Constitution Unit (CU) has just published its latest newsletter, Monitor, which comments on, among other things, devolution. Many thanks to Gareth Young via the CEP network for the heads-up on this one.


The CU, being an “independent” group of well-educated academics, has always supported regional assemblies and strongly opposed an English Parliament (?). Their arguments have been shot down one by one over the last few years, but nothing shot them down harder than the people of the north-east of England. In a referendum on a regional assembly in 2004, a whopping 78% of people voted “No” to a regional assembly. Might I just add here that the referendum was a simple “Yes or No” question.

Despite this, the CU continued ploughing what we had always told them was a fallow field. Their retort was always that the grass was hardly greener on our side of the fence, seeing as (according to their favourite surveys), support for an English Parliament was below 20%. In the words of CU stalwart, Prof. John Curtice, in July last year, “yeah, well let us know when you’ve got some public support.”

Then some different people started doing some opinion polling. November 2006- a Sunday Telegraph Ipsos Mori Poll found that 68% of people support an English Parliament. January 2007, a BBC Poll (yes, the BBC!) shows that 61% support an English Parliament. More recently, in April this year, an ICM Poll commissioned by the CEP found that support for an English Parliament was at 67%.

So, what do the esteemed CU say now that their last argument against an English Parliament has been shot down? Yep, you guessed it- “Ok, we can see the blindingly obvious. The CEP were right”.


Erm, no. Try again. How about this sour little whimper: “But all three polls asked a somewhat loaded question with a simple yes/no choice rather than offering policy alternatives.”

That’s right. They didn’t like the way the questions were framed. In particular, they said the questions were “loaded” (I bet Ipsos Mori and ICM have something to say about that!), and that the questions didn’t offer any policy alternatives. Well, neither did the north-east referendum.

A referendum on an English Parliament would ask the public something similar to a “Yes or No” question. It’s simple. There’s no confusion. And if we had one tomorrow, we’d have an English Parliament overnight.

The Constitution Unit remains completely blinkered to the reality. It is such a shame that such narrow-minded and subjective opinions can be portrayed as "independent". You've got a chance to have your say.

All aboard the 20:07!

Things couldn’t have worked out better. Or worse. Around the same as Scottish National Party leader, Alex Salmond, is sworn in as Scotland’s First Minister, fellow Scotsman Gordon Brown has become Prime Minister-elect of the UK Parliament. A Scotsman running Scotland, and a Scotsman running England.

Not that these two Scottish brethren will treat each other as buddies. This presents its own problems, though. Alex Salmond and the SNP, after their election success, feel closer than ever to their goal taking Scotland out of the Union. Gordon Brown, however, is tantalisingly close to his goal of becoming UK Prime Minister. He will formally cross the finishing line when Tony Blair steps down on 27th June, but until then Gordon Brown will continue on his victory-lap. It’s a strange way of doings things, granted, but what the heck. What would be his worst nightmare, however, is for his Premiership to be cut tragically short by Scotland leaving the Union, and therefore taking him and his political career with him. There is a lot at stake.

The SNP have said they will not call a referendum on independence until the end of the current Parliament, probably in 2010. They want to prove they can govern Scotland effectively. What this means in practice is four years of Alex Salmond bullying Westminster into giving Scotland more and more of England’s wealth. If Gordon Brown dares to stand in the way of the 20:07 Express Gravy Train to Edinburgh, they’ll be sticky bits of Gordon all over the place. Political suicide. The SNP will shout from the platform, “You see! Even when we have a Scotsman as PM, we still can’t have what we want! Independence is the only option!” And yet while that Gravy Train continues to roll in, the SNP can claim to be securing the best for Scotland in a way that no Labour administration at Holyrood could possibly have done so.

So, my concern now is that the next 3 or 4 years will be spent with Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, and UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, effectively bartering with England’s wealth and resources in order to convince Scotland to leave/stay in the UK. This is effectively a new chapter in the history of Britain. How badly do we need an English Parliament and English First Minister to speak up for England?



This concern about Salmond and Brown is not new. I remember worrying about it before.

67% support English Parliament

The most recent opinion poll, conducted by ICM towards the end of April, found that support for an English Parliament is at 67%. Another fantastic result.

People were asked the following question:

You may have seen or heard that a separate Scottish parliament, a Welsh assembly and a Northern Ireland Assembly have been established.

Do you think that England should or should not have its own parliament or assembly?

The results were excellent: 67% of people believe England should have its own Parliament. Just 25% said England should not have its own Parliament. The result is consistent with other recent opinion polls, and so proves that the public supports an English Parliament. We can now add the result to the previous excellent results:

Nov 2006. Sunday Telegraph Ipsos Mori Poll: 68% support for an English Parliament.
Jan 2007. BBC Poll: 61% support an English Parliament.
April 2007. CEP ICM Poll: 67% support for an English Parliament.

Of interest was the differing levels of support across the UK:

All England 67%
South-East 65%
Midlands 68%
North England 70%
Wales & SW England 62%
Scotland 72%

Perhaps most surprising is the fact that, across the whole of the UK, the area where support for an English Parliament is at its strongest is Scotland. For me, this reinforces what I (and a number of other CEP members) have been saying for some time: that we must be even more careful about being perceived as “anti-Scottish”. The CEP was formed out the unfairness of the devolution settlement, and many of our grievances have come from what Scotland has been given at England’s expense. This has led to some accusations of anti-Scottishness, which is of course unfair, but we must nonetheless be aware that people may perceive our views in this way.

Dale vs. Cameron

*Links updated 25th May 2007*

Following on from David Cameron's recent article Scots and English Flourish in the Union in the Daily Telegraph, Iain Dale responds with this brilliant article, Cameron can't ignore Devolution for England. Superb stuff, Iain.


What a God-send is Iain Dale. Reading Mr. Cameron's article was so frustrating. He did at least mention the idea of English Parliament, but to dismiss it because of the "it means more politicians" arguement shows that we still have a long way to go.


With reference to that particular criticism of the idea of an English Parliament, let me echo what I wrote in Answering the English Question (which has just been published by the CEP- e-mail admin@thecep.org.uk is you would like one):

"...if 529 English MPs at Westminster can currently handle the workload for all areas of public policy in England, whether that is for Foreign Policy or Education, then could not 528 members (176 English Westminster MPs plus 352 English Parliament members) be able to cope?"


Or, as former CEP Chairman Michael Knowles put it, "Devolution does not increase the size of the population. There therefore should be no need to increase the amount of parliamentary representation".

Celt Gelt

This little beauty comes from Hereward the Wake.

"CeltGelt", written across the face of famous Scottish economist Adam Smith (the first Scotsman to appear on an English banknote- no Englishman has yet appeared on any of the numerous Scottish bank notes), refers to all the money that is taken from England and given to Scotland every year. Last year, roughly £9 billion was given to Scotland. This is because of the Barnett Formula, which works out how much of the UK tax pot is dished out to the countries of the UK. For the last couple of decades, it has been outrageously unfair to England.

There is now a campaign urging everyone to write "CeltGelt" on their £20 notes. Not just in protest at the Barnett Formula, but at the fact that Edward Elgar- composer of the music to "Land of Hope and Glory", was taken off our £20 notes and Scotsman Smith put in instead.

My £20 is in the post to you, Hereward.

Start a Debate

I'm absolutely delighted that make it an issue has posted my debate, "Tom Waterhouse: Time for an English Parliament?".

You can get involved here.

Why MPs don't want an English Parliament

There are many reasons given by opponents of an English Parliament about why such a thing would be a bad idea. “Unworkable… it would rival Westminster… another layer of government… etc. etc”. But there is actually something in these excuses. MPs fear what they call “another layer of government”. But not because it would be an unnecessary cost for the electorate. Heck, if cost were the measure of everything, we wouldn’t have elections. They are scared…

I recently met with an MP to discuss the case for an English Parliament. I drove to his office in the south-west of England after a promising letter to one of his constituents who is also a CEP member.

I arrived in good time and had no trouble whatsoever in finding the office without detailed instructions- I found it by chance by driving down one of the streets in the town centre. Above the office was a huge sign alerting everyone to the fact that this was indeed the office of their MP. Emblazoned with the Party colours, this was more than just an office- it was Campaign central.

Inside were 4 people at work on computers- answering e-mails, writing letters and sending faxes to constituents, journalists and colleagues and so on. I wondered what life was like in the offices of the MP’s local political rivals. Nothing like this hub of activity, you could bet. This place really was buzzing, and all the time humming the tune of “This is your MP”. Everything it did was geared for one thing: getting this MP re-elected at the next general election. Not only did the MP’s livelihood depend on its success; so did the careers of those working in the office, this no doubt being the stepping-stone to pastures greener. Make a good job of working for this MP and, who knows? They might be the Party candidate running for election in 10 year’s time. The fuel for this Party machine is the parliamentary constituents of the area. Every constituent is a potential voter. Every problem solved is a potential vote winner. The more time and energy you put into your constituents, the more likely they are to re-elect you.

Now imagine we had our way and an English Parliament was created. This MP would have to share his honey-pot of constituents with another political animal. No longer having a monopoly on being the constituency’s problem-solver-in-chief could seriously hamper one’s efforts to get re-elected. Heaven forbid, they might even have to share the constituency with someone from a rival Party.

Closely related is the fact that MPs will feel their role will be reduced in prestige should an English Parliament be created. At the moment, an MP is the top dog. Lending their name to something immediately catches the eye, or adds weight to something. But what if there were to be someone with almost the same ability to make a difference?

There is also the fear of the unknown. The way an English Parliament is elected- i.e. the electoral system used, would have a dramatic effect on MPs. Indeed, Scottish voters elect two MSPs to represent them- double trouble for a UK MP that’s not keen having others on his patch.

Many MPs see an English Parliament as a direct threat to their majorities, their seats, their prestige, their way of life. When they say “people don’t want another layer of government”, they mean they don’t want the competition. An English Parliament wouldn’t be another layer of government- and that’s the problem. It would take over responsibility for things currently done by Westminster, and see English Parliament Members take over responsibility for things currently done by UK MPs. When they say, “it would rival Westminster”, what they are really scared of is a new rival.


We must not let their disgraceful self-interest stand in the way of Justice for England.