|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
WHAT FUTURE FOR ENGLAND? What Conservative supporters during the recent general election (1997)
must have found most pathetic was the way in which Tony Blair and his
colleagues were constantly allowed to avoid important policy dilemmas by means
of vague and ambiguous promises. Perhaps the most obvious and banal example of this was the manner in
which questions on policy were so often brushed aside with the assurance that
Labour would always act “in the national interest”. However, the greatest
degree of vagueness and ambiguity was undoubtedly evident in their approach to
constitutional matters, especially devolution. Having changed his policy three
times before the election, Blair was equally contradictory over whether the
Scottish Parliament would be able to raise taxes ( which they can). Unfortunately this dissembling
and evasive approach to devolution has only increased the haze of the confusion
surrounding the subject. Nevertheless, it is obvious that Labour thinking ,
like that of the he Liberal Democrats, has progressed very little from where it
was during the 1997 referenda. At the time their thinking was based on the report on the Constitution
produced in 1973 by a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Lord
Kilbrandon. This report recommended some degree of autonomy for Scotland and Wales, if a
sufficient number of people in those countries wanted it . The recommendations
also left the position of England completely unacceptable in a island which
would contain a British parliament, a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly,
but no English national legislature. While Scotland and Wales would be able to express their authentic
national identities as partly self-governing nations in their own national
legislatures, it was clearly assumed that the English NATION would be prepared
to be carved up into seven or eight partly autonomous regions, each with its
own assembly or parliament. It was obviously believed that
each of these English regions would somehow form a balance in terms of
population with the nations of Scotland and Wales. However, it was conveniently
forgotten that the ancient kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, Deira, Bernicia and so
on were fully merged into a proud and successful English nation over a thousand
years ago. What is most surprising about these extraordinary constitutional
proposals is not that they were produced by a Royal Commission, but that they
still remain largely the basis for the Labour government’s solution to the
problem of devolution. Certainly their emphasis on “the British nations and
regions” approach to devolution is one of the main reasons why the Labour Party
has been so successful in Scotland, not only limiting the Scottish National
Party’s obvious appeal (written in 1997) but also leaving the Conservatives
without a single MP. It is, of course, quite understandable that such arrangements would
appear to be entirely acceptable to the majority of the Scots and the Welsh,
both of whom have long been determined to preserve and develop their national
and cultural identities. After all, unlike the policies of the Nationalists,
this solution does not require them to accept the uncertain and irrevocable
transformation to complete national independence. It provides them with the
certainty of a half-way house, with a partly autonomous national parliament or
assembly, but still within the security of the British state. Moreover, if at
any time in the future they decide that it would be advantageous to be
independent, nothing could prevent them from becoming entirely self-governing. (Scottish
perspective to follow) * * * *
*
13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OptoutDetails from petition creator With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the people of Britain were given DUAL CITIZENSHIP -both EUROPEAN and BRITISH The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge. The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with BRITISH DOCUMENTATION -only such as British (not EU) passports, driving licences and other national documents. EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 08]
*
[Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
* FOR A REFERENDUM SIGN TODAY ON LINE telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum * July 18-2007
VOTE -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. *
ONLY WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE * WHY NOT
* MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate bulletin Home Rule for Scotland WHY NOTHOME RULE for ENGLAND?**** BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER BACK SCOTS INDEPENDENCE ****A DISUNITED KINGDOM****NEW LABOUR HAS DESTROYED THE UNION- SO USE THE WORDS
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
