Mike Knowles comments on the IPPR publication:

Is An English Backlash Emerging?
Reactions to devolution ten years on.
by Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University.

Synopis:

a. The British Social Attitudes (BSA) findings, despite their disagreement with other equally reputable polling organizations, provide firm reasons to maintain the demand for England to have its own parliament.

b. Some of Professor Curtice's comments on this demand and its supporters are not academically appropriate as they are not supported by or attributable to the findings of the BSA survey. It would appear that they derive from his personal perspective on both the demand for an English Parliament and its supporters. They should therefore be withdrawn, even if that entails the IPPR having to publish an amended version.

I. Summary of the BSA findings with some critical comments on the observations and interpretation thereon by Professor Curtice.

The Curtice paper is his analysis of the responses to the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey conducted by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) in 2008 and 2009 into 'how public opinion in England has developed following the advent of devolution in Scotland and Wales' (p.3) in 1998. 'During the course of the last decade NatCen has regularly asked people in England about their national identity, how they would like their country to be governed and how they feel about the distribution of public spending' (ibid). In its surveys 2001, 2004 and 2006 'there was little sign' (ibid), they concluded, of any serious discontent among English people with their governmental situation as it stood in 1998. However the survey of 2007 discovered 'a striking new development' (ibid) two in fact: an increase from a quarter to a third of the English people feeling that the Scots were securing more than a fair share of 'the distribution of public expenditure across the UK; and 'tentative signs that support for an English Parliament might be becoming more closely linked to feeling English rather than British 'the first sign perhaps that a form of English nationalism was beginning to merge among the general public' (ibid). Finally, in 2008-9 the BSA visited the topic again, again restricting itself to people living in England.

The outcomes of that survey were as follows:

1 English national identity

since 1992 a 10% increase, from 31% to 41%, of people in England choosing to say they were English rather than British, but no increase since 1999. 'Little sign of any further significant growth (ie since 1999) in English national identity' (p.4).

2. Support for an English Parliament

a. since 1992 a 13% decrease (from 62% to 49%) in support for England being governed as in 1998, ie for all laws governing England to be made by the UK parliament.

b. in 1992 15% support for regional assemblies, which rose to 26% in 2003, the year before the referendum in England's North East 'region' when a regional assembly was rejected by 78% to 22%; now falling back to 15% in 2009;

c. since 1992 an 11% increase (from 18% to 29%) in support of an English Parliament with law-making powers.

d. since 1992 a 20% increase (from 14% to 34%) in support of an English Parliament among English people who choose to say they are English rather than British.

Curtice comments:

a. 'It (the above) shows that now that the idea of elected regional assemblies has fallen off the political agenda, the demand for devolution in England is beginning to coalesce around the potentially more radical and more 'nationalistic' solution of an English Parliament' (p.5).

My response to this is:

It would seem that Curtice without evidence is attributing the increase in support for an EP to the rejection by England's North East of a regional assembly. This could well be the basic error of 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'. I would think that such a deduction can only logically be made if NatCen had conducted surveys that looked to specify such a connection, particularly in the North East. Curtice might be interpreted to be saying that the demand for an EP is the less favoured alternative among the people polled as the form devolution might take. It might be useful to recall that opposition to an EP has so far been almost endemic among UK academics.

My second comment has to be about the word Curtice uses to describe the sort of solution to English devolution and English Parliament, namely -the inverted commas are his- 'nationalist'. It is an emotive word with which to describe the demand for an EP. It can also be derogatory, and is frequently used in that way. No evidence is supplied by the survey which can justify its use. It is not the sort of word expected in an academic paper, which is what Curtice intends his paper to be. I suspect that the fact that Curtice puts it in inverted commas might indicate he himself was aware he was exceeding his professional brief, though possibly he couldn't resist it. So it might be said to tell us something more about Curtice himself and his attitude towards an EP and its supporters. It is typical of how very many opponents express themselves when they speak about an EP. In a word, the use of the word constitutes a serious departure from the requirements of academic rigour. For that reason I would propose to NatCen that they have the word withdrawn, even if it means re-issuing the paper. I would even recommend the same to the publisher, IPPR. I am aware that the IPPR was founded as a New Labour think-tank in 1988 with the purpose of restoring Labour fortunes after losing three consecutive elections and that opposition to an EP is declared Labour policy. However in its blurb about itself in the foreword to this publication the 1PPR claims to have 'a truly world-class reputation for high quality research'. The issue of an English Parliament is first and foremost one of justice and equality within the United Kingdom. To represent its supporters as 'nationalist' is a subjective, not an objective, statement.

b. Curtice: 'On this evidence it would seem the idea of an English Parliament is capable of appealing well beyond the ranks of those who might be regarded as 'English nationalist'' (p.ibid).

My comment on this is that if Curtice were more familiar with the Campaign for an English Parliament and not, as it would appear, indulging somewhat unprofessionally in subjectivity, he would know that support for an EP has never been limited to people he calls 'English nationalists'.

c. Curtice: 'the idea of an English Parliament may be becoming linked a little more to adherence to an English national identity' (ibid).

We welcome this. The two fertilise each other.

3. Finance

The BSA survey found that since 2000 there has been a 20% increase (from 22.5%) to 42.5%) in people in England regarding Scotland's share of UK government spending is 'more than fair'.

Curtice comments:

'Having an English Parliament may be beginning to be regarded as a means of defending England's interests within the Union' (p.7).

I would not disagree with this nor with most of the rest of his deductions from the survey's finding in this area. For example, his statement that 'dissatisfaction with the status quo and support for the idea of an English Parliament have become more closely linked with feelings of discontent with Scotland's share of public spending' (ibid) is the case by and large. There is in the CEP membership a strong sense of the inequality and injustice that has been created by the form the 1998 devolution legislation took between the three nations of this island in relation to the Union Parliament and to each other. The 1997 government, led energetically by Scottish MPs, many of whom belonged to the Scottish Constitutional Committee and who had signed the March 1989 Scottish Claim of Right, committing themselves 'to making the interests of Scotland paramount in everything' they did, Gordon Brown being one of them, obtained a degree of self-rule for Scotland and other immense advantages which was denied in part to Wales and totally to England. It gravely unbalanced the Union. They displayed no misgivings about it at all. The representatives of Scotland in the Union Parliament achieved a most advantageous settlement for their country. However, it is that that has offended the strong sense of injustice and inequality I have mentioned among CEP members. It is a sense of injustice that should be shared by all people of a genuinely democratic perspective. It has also been very considerably increased by the growing understanding of how the Barnett Formula and the Block Grant work. However, so far most regrettably it has not yet been in evidence in the political parties, in academia inclusive of think-tanks and in the UK Establishment generally. Political party members are concerned to protect their individual interests first and foremost, as are political parties. Within academia hostility to England as a nation with its own identity and culture is endemic and is the product of decades of ideology.

II. My more general observations.

The findings of this survey are more than welcome to members of the Campaign for an English Parliament, and that in two ways. Firstly, they see that the attitude of the people of England on devolution as a requirement for England and in support of it taking the form of an English Parliament is now decisively moving in their direction. Secondly, it is now only a matter of time that the English Establishment, in academia and think-tanks, the media, and politics, will reflect critically upon their attitude to date of opposition to an English Parliament, will begin to harbour misgivings about their attitudes, and will at the very least begin to give the idea serious consideration and possibly even lend support. If it is not altogether undiplomatic to say it, people prefer to back winners. If there is one trend noticeable in the BSA survey on this matter, it is the movement of the English people in the direction of an English Parliament. MPs and political parties, very sensitive to voting developments, will quickly take on board the percentage of support for an EP which the BSA has found among people. We could hardly ask for more.

The CEP met with the most irrational, even disreputable, opposition when it first made its appearance in 1998 and certainly up to the North East referendum in 2004. The idea of an English Parliament was just written off. It was variously described as racist, xenophobic, nationalistic, pro-Tory, exclusive, and anti-Union. Undoubtedly the most outrageous, biased and unfair example of this was the Fabian Society publication 'The English Quesition' 2000, edited by Tony Wright MP and Selina Chen. I would refer people particularly to pages 12-13. To stand up in certain circles and propose an EP was at times very difficult indeed. Our arguments were just not listened to or read and frequently we were smeared, even to our faces, as racists. It is an amazing situation. A parliament for Scotland is universally regarded as a very good thing. Scottish and Welsh patriotism is regarded as a very good thing. A parliament for England is greeted however very differently.

Fortunately we stuck to our guns. We made it clear that the GLA was not a form of devolution in England but yet just another re-organisation of English local government. We opposed regional assemblies, particularly out on the streets in the North of England and in Newcastle, Durham and Sunderland, pointing out they amounted to the same thing as the GLA in the form they took for the 2004 referendum; and that in the purpose of their more ideological supporters they were intended to spearhead a process of the balkanisation of England. We opposed the Conservative Party policy of English Votes on English Laws with a booklet distributed to every member of the Commons and the Lords; and we oppose it still even in the watered-down form it might take if the Tories form the next government. We certainly welcome EVEL as what will be the first constitutional recognition since 1707 of England as a distinct political and national entity, which recognition was explicit for Scotland and Wales in the 1998 devolution legislation. However, it is not devolution as provided to Scotland and in part to Wales in the legislation of 1998. Itt does not even approach what Scotland got in 1998, namely the institution of self-rule on the basis of nationality, the establishment of a legislature physically, electorally and operationally distinct from the Union Parliament, and the establishment of an Executive. However, we welcome EVEL as a first step towards the formal constitutional recognition of England as a distinct nation.

There is a 10% increase in people in England identifying themselves as English, up to 41% of England population. There is an 11% increase in support for an EP, as many as 29% of the population. Indeed, as much as 34% of the English who regard being English as their identity. This increase is not confined to those whom Curtice calls, unscientifically, 'English nationalists' but extends to English people who regard themselves first as British. In other words the issue of fairness and justice for England, denied in the 1998 legislation, is now firmly on the Union agenda. There is a growing link between increasing support for an EP and the notion of adherence to an English identity, precisely, I would add, as it manifested itself, mutandis mutatis, in Scotland in the 1997 referendum. We welcome all this intensely. The tide is turning.

Nothing will solidify the basis of support for an EP like both the notion of English identity and the identification of the issue as one of fairness, equality and justice. It is for that reason we unhesitatingly welcome the increasing awareness of the English people of the financial advantages Scotland has obtained first through the Barnett Formula and then through the Scottish Parliament and its block grant, with the astonishing beneficence that has ensued. However, there is no desire on our part for a withdrawal of the subsidies to Scotland. Rather we want the same expenditure for the people of England. In a union of nations, if the union is to make sense and continue to have justification to exist, that is basic. Nothing threatens the continuation of the Union as much as the political, constitutional and economic injustice to England as the devolution legislation of 1998. Brown and co in 1998 thought only of Scotland. However, each component nation of the Union should stand in the same relationship to the centre and to each other.

The CEP welcome the outcomes of this survey. We recognise that there is an immense work to be done on the crucial issue of English identity; likewise we are all too aware that a 29% support for an EP, if it a reliable figure, is in no way good enough. I say 'if it is a reliable figure' because its findings do not accord at all with the findings of other equally reputable polling organizations. They are as follows: July 2006 Ipsos Mori for the Observer, support for an EP at 26%, but when those polled were informed of Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on English-only issues, support rose to 41%; November 2006 ICM for the Sunday Telegraph, 68%; and January 2007 BBC poll at 61%.

However, whatever the situation, and we are very aware the BSA poll did not put the alternative of EVEL to the people it polled, we know that these percentages have been achieved in the face of total government opposition and the policy on both of the Labour Party and the Lib-Dem Party of support for the balkanisation of England into regions with their own assembly, a policy Will Hutton perceptively described as 'a veritable witches' brew of internecine rivalries. We have operated on a shoestring; we have never had anything like the huge financial support enjoyed by such organizations as the Constitution Unit or the Power Inquiry or the Campaign for English Regions which have displayed systemic opposition to an English Parliament as the form English devolution might take.

Yet we have done very well indeed. I think our strength has been the strength and the logic of our arguments, contained in our innumerable articles and letters appearing in newspapers and periodicals, our presence at meetings to put the case for an EP, our meetings in the rooms of the Commons where we held public meetings and where we have given evidence before select committees, the three booklets we have written and published, and distributed widely, particularly to where and to whom it matters like MPs, our leafleting across the country, from Berwick to Cornwall, from Dover the Carlisle, from the Wash to the Wirral. Even as I write this, we have a 'battlebus', on the road with banners and huge posters, touring every major town throughout England.

We are greatly heartened by the BSA findings; and we welcome what on the whole is the very positive response of Professor Curtice. I am sure he can take criticisms kindly. We know all too well how immense are the obstacles to achieving an English Parliament. Getting one for Scotland was chicken feed in comparison to the task we face. However, the tide would appear to be turning.

Michael Knowles, National Council member of the CEP.

The constitutional future of England lies firmly and irrevocably both explicitly and implicitly in the formulations of the 1998 devolution legislation. By that I mean that the clauses of that legislation affirmed that devolution was being given to Scotland and Wales as distinct nations; not as 'regions' nor as 'devolved adminstrations' or 'devolved territories' but expressly as nations, and distinct nations at that. The most fundamental presumption of the 1998 legislation, its very basis, was that it was dealing with nations (and that is why the GLA with its mayor was local government re-organisation, not devolution). The presumption was from start to finish that both Scotland and Wales were each one people, each with it own distinct land, history and culture. That pretty well is what a nation is. What the legislation did was to hand over that to that land, history and culture a degree of self-government which would confer a distinct constitutional and political distinct existence. Nationhood was the explicit basis of the 1998 legislation. It found its very simple and direct formulation in the use of the word 'Scotland' and 'Wales' throughout. There is not a single soul in this island who does not understand what those two words mean.

The legislation formally and decisively made a crucial amendment to the 1707 Act of Union. Once Scotland and Wales were given that formal political and constitutional recognition as distinct nations, each with its own national institution of some degree of self rule, British identity as the sole political and constitutional identity of the people of this island ceased. As did British rule and government as the sole political and constitutional rule. Identity and self-rule are catalysts the outcomes of which are indeterminiable. At present the Blair government finds itself as a talking-point mainly because of the Iraq War. Possibly we cannot exaggerate the long term effects of that venture. However, I would say that in the long term or historically the most important measure of that government will be seen to have been the 1998 devolution legislation. That one Act of Parliament will in due course be seen to have been the most important legacy of the Blair years. What it did was to re-establish England, Scotland and Wales as distinct national entities. A catalyst of incalculable effect and significance; and one that happened when Britain had ceased to matter. The Empire had gone, the EU had arrived.

I say that the 1998 Devolution legislation has re-established England as a distinct national entity as well as Scotland and Wales. Not of course in the same way, not with the same formal recognition. But by implication. It is the implicit effect of the legislation. Politically and constitutionally England is the part of Britain that isn't Scotland and Wales, the part of Britain that received no devolution, received no political recognition and constitutional recognition. So England exists as a distinct entity within the Union by default. It's the bit that was left out of the devolution process. But it exists now separately governmentally by reason of the 1998 devolution legislation.

It is of immense significance that this legislation had a colossal hole in it. One has to wonder about what was going through the mind of our legislators in 1998. Did they think that the people of England would not notice; or if they did notice, they wouldn't mind? Or if there were any problems they could be got over by ignoring them? Did they think it just did not matter? Did they think at all? A Welsh woman one yard inside the Welsh border gets free prescriptions while her neighbour inside the English border shopping in the same shops doesn't. A Scottish student one side of the bridge at Coldstream gets free university education and the English student a stone's throw the other side finds himself landed with anything from £15000 to £30000 debts for the same degree; and that even if both of them were attending the same university, doing the same degree, in the same halls of residence, both at the same time. Scottish MPs can vote on matters for England, and, as we have seen, force legislation upon the English, without reciprocation. And then there is the absurdity of the situation where Scottish MPs, even a Scottish Prime Minister, have no say whatsoever in the most fundamental of governmental matters like education and health in their own constituencies. It is so cackhanded, it is hard to believe it was passed into law. But it was and it's where we are. One wonders, were the Scottish MPs that were running the New Labour Government in 1997 so intent on getting whatever they could for Scotland that they were blind to consequences? Were the English MPs that constituted some 80% of all the MPs in the 1997 parliament so guilt-ridden about ruling Scotland and Wales for centuries that they felt they had to submit regardless to whatever the Browns, Irvines, Cooks, Dewars and co wanted for Scotland? Or were they simply devoid of any powers of analysis? Or both?

As we all know, there is the old law of unforeseen consequences. As the dust of devolution has settled, something has been seen to emerge. England has emerged. It might well be by default and it most definitely wasn't intended, but the fact is, England is back. This has happened in all sorts of ways, and is still happening, and will keep happening, above all in the minds of the people of England itself. For example, there is now an English NHS, one can see in NHS offices in England a map just of England. The Westminster Health Minister and the Education Minister are for England only. There is no UK minister for either. These are not straws in the wind but hard facts on the ground. English people now see -as was never an issue before 1998- that the Scots and the Welsh get £1600 more per person per annum spent on them from taxation, 90% of which comes from England. English people now know -and resent but feel powerless about- the comparative inequity of prescription charges, hospital parking charges, university fees, optician and dental charges, council tax, water rates, care for the elderly, availability of the most uptodate drugs. They now hear about the Barnett Formula as never before. And again as never before they have become acutely aware of the disproportionate numbers of Scots in government and the media. They see that Scotland and Wales now have their own parliaments from which the English voice is excluded. All these things are major drivers of English self-awareness.

It is all down to the devolution legislation of 1998. That more than anything has achieved this for England. It was definitely the last thing on the minds of Brown and co when he drove the legislation pell mell through Parliament, the very last thing he more than anyone else wanted, but it is a fact. What that legislation did was inform the English people that on this island there's the Scots and there's the Welsh and they're getting their own parliament and assembly because they are distinct from the English. The oneness of the British nation, even if only political and constitutional, went clean out of the window. That was and that is the unavoidable consequence of the 1998 legislation. Once England re-emerged, even though only by default, as a distinct nation, which it did thanks to the legislation, the scene was set for the demand for self-rule. No nation worth its salt will take anything less. the Campaign for an English Parliament was set up that very same year. By default England's identity has been restored to it. By default it has been made aware of itself. The way forward is an inevitability. It is not a coincidence, it was not by sheer chance, that after 1998 we have all witnessed the incredible display of English flags whether for football competitions or cricket or rugby or athletics. People from other countries tell me they have never seen anything like it where they come from. England is back.

However, England is only just beginning to be back politically and constitutionally. So far only in slight ways as I have mentioned. The forces lined up against giving it any institution which will be a statement of its distinct nationhood like Scotland and Wales have, are immense. The hostility to it, the determination to stop it by the UK ruling elites, the political parties, all sorts of departments in academia, political think tanks and the media, above all BBC, has been very adequately described already in this series of contributions. I have a very choice record of correspondence on the matter with the Director (in about 2002) of the BBC department of 'Nations and Regions', the nations of course being Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the regions being a balkanised England. I had written to the BBC to ask for a BBC England just as there is a BBC Scotland, a BBC Wales and a BBC NI. "No" was the reply I received. "Why not?" I asked. "Because England is too big". "Well", I said, "if England is too big, how come you have a BBC which covers all four, and a BBC World Service? The 'World' is somewhat bigger than England." I received no reply.

For the past twelve years I have been very actively involved in the Campaign for an English Parliament. In that time we have made great strides forward. A book could be written on our experiences, indeed one should be. From being on the fringe the Campaign and its basic idea is part of the debate. There is even the expectation, not just among our members but much more widespread, again as one contributor to this series of essays has stated and as opinion polls indicate, that if a referendum were held an English Parliament would be supported. Regionalism, favoured by both the Labour party and the Lib Dems, has been decisively rejected. However, given the degree of Establishment opposition to any form of devolution for England, even to the expression of Englishness and to English patriotism, again very well described in this series, it would be a very rash person who would expect anything other than a very long march indeed.

The question posed by this series is: Constitutional Futures. Where Now? What I have done so far is set out the constitutional position England is in. By default its distinct nationhood, at least territorially, is recognised. The opposition of the UK Establishment to giving its nationhood any political and constitutional recognition is widespread and intense; and it is that Establishment that controls almost all the levers of influence and power. However, what the UK Establishment does not control by reason of the 1998 legislation it itself was responsible for is the institutions of self-rule in Scotland and Wales; neither has any control over Scottish and Welsh nationalism; and therein resides what could well be the biggest and most potent driver of all when it comes to trying to predict what the constitutional future of England will be. The UK Establishment is so concerned to keep the lid on Scottish and Welsh nationalism in order to preserve the existing shape of the Union that is is prepared to increase the powers of self-rule devolved to both countries.

The UK Establishment has committed itself to granting more powers to both Scotland and Wales. That again has been described adequately in this series of essays, so no need of repetition. The outcome however of this Establishment policy and attitude will be for England politically and constitutionally what financially the Barnett Formula is for Scotland and Wales. The more powers the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly get, that much less is the power to govern them that the UK Parliament has. That in turn means that with any UK ministry, the less it is concerned with Scotland and Wales, the more it is concerned just with England. The more in this way that Scotland and Wales pull away, the more English concerns become England's own concerns. The more distinct politically, constitutionally and culturally Scotland and Wales become department of state by department of state, the more distinct politically, constitutionally and culturally England becomes. Succintly, the more Scotland and Wales become distinct, the more England becomes distinct, becomes itself. The UK Establishment has already legislated three distinct nations back into existence, two with deliberation, one by default. The more powers it cedes to Scotland and Wales, the more separate, different and distinct they become. And by default that applies to England too. I would like to suggest that this process will be the main driver in what will constitute England's future political existence. More than any form of EVEL, though that too, if it happens, will be highly significant. Also, the more all this happens, the more it will highlight and inflame the West Lothian Question.

I do not know what we in the CEP will achieve by our campaigning just as we did not know when we started in June 1998 when the devolution legislation was enacted. We have moved mountains so far. We will not reduce our efforts in the slightest. Our efforts and our influence will increase. However, to the Question 'Where Now?' one answer can be given. Just as England came back as a distinct nation with the 1998 legislation, it will gain more and more political, constitutional and and cultural expression and strength of its self-identity with every gain Scotland and Wales achieve from the UK Establishment; and both those countries are about to get more powers. What has to be considered too will be the long term significance and effects of the concession of more powers to Scotland and Wales. The more they get and the more the exercise them, the less they will be reliant upon the Union. The Union will recede in its significance as it concedes power by power. And the further and further Scotland and Wales will slip away from significance in the lives and the government of England. The opposition to an English Parliament is deep and intense within the UK Establishment. However, so is the preservation of the Union. To the mind of the Establshment the two are inseparable. To achieve the latter it will concede more and more to Scotland and Wales. We might well find that this strategy of preservation is the best ally an English Parliament can have.

Mike Knowles is a member of the Campaign for an English Parliament.

This post is part of the Constitutional Futures series.

Re-thinking the English Parliament: (D)evolution not revolution

Short-term questions, long-term goals

What are the prospects for an English parliament as we head towards a UK general election and a probable change of regime? In the short term, there are many more questions than answers, as the extensive list of factors that could affect the chances for a change in English governance, outlined in Gareth Young’s framing of the topic ‘Where now for the campaign for an English parliament?’, makes clear.

But if the precise chain of circumstances that could lead to an English parliament or to some version of English votes on English laws (EVoEL) must seem the province of political soothsayers, the long-term direction of travel appears more certain. In all of the (increasingly dis)United Kingdom’s constituent parts, there is a growing confidence and pride in asserting the nationhood of the part in question as a more primary identity than Britishness. In all of the constituent countries other than England, this process has crystallised around the new devolved parliament / assemblies and governments, which are at once symbols and instruments of renewed civic nationalism, and have in a sense given ‘permission’ to celebrate and express a distinct Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish national consciousness in many more ways than the merely political.

In England, we have witnessed a contrary trend: the central UK government and establishment has done everything in their considerable power to stuff the emerging English genie back into the Union bottle from whence it has started to emerge after being woken by the rub of devolution! In fact, the response of the British establishment to the emerging English Question has been not only to try to suppress all discussion of ‘English matters’ as such (stuff the genie back into the bottle) but to pretend the genie itself never existed! The establishment – by which I mean all the mainstream, unionist parties; the British government; and the pro-Union mainstream media – has embarked on what seems at times to be no less than a systematic, though unofficial, reimagining and reinvention of ‘Britain’ as the identity, name and ‘subjectivity’ of ‘the nation’, in place of England. This New Labour-New Britain is a ‘nation’ divided into ‘regions’, three of which in turn (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) have the character and partially self-governing status of ‘nations’: Gordon Brown’s (in)famous ‘Britain of nations and regions’. The futility of this attempt to re-engineer an England-centric Great Britain as a de-anglicised Britain is suggested by my analogy: England, like the genie, does exist; and as devolution evolves elsewhere in the UK, the demand for a distinct English focus of government and civic society will only grow louder.

However, the establishment’s denial of the very existence of England as a nation does mean that advocates of an English parliament have to deal not only with an almost total unwillingness on the part of the establishment to engage with the English Question but with an inability to even conceptualise an English parliament: to understand what it might mean or how it could be relevant. If you genuinely believe that Britain is the nation – and that England is merely a convenient name for the larger, non-devolved part of that nation – it is impossible to see an English parliament as anything other than an unnecessary duplication of or rival to the Union parliament. And it is indeed in these terms that many opponents of an English parliament dismiss it out of hand: as an extra layer of British governance that adds nothing, either in terms of effectiveness or representation, as the Union parliament – comprising 82% English MPs – supposedly represents England’s interests adequately. The fallacies of this point of view are well known, the main one being simply that the UK parliament and MPs do not represent the interests of ‘England’ as such in any shape or form.

However, as proponents of an English parliament, we, too, need to be clearer about the context of British governance and identity into which we see an EP as fitting. And I think it is here that a fundamental modification of the conceptual underpinning of the Campaign for an English Parliament needs to take place. Hitherto, the model for an English parliament advocated by the CEP has been essentially that of a separate, devolved body with powers at least equivalent to those of the Scottish parliament. However, with moves afoot to extend the powers of the Scottish parliament to one extent or another, it now seems clear that the existing devolution settlement is no longer even adequate for Scotland, let alone for England.

Indeed, it is debatable whether the Scottish parliament as currently constituted was ever an adequate model for the English parliament. For example, although I do not agree with arguments to the effect that an English parliament would necessarily unbalance the Union or set the interests of England against those of the smaller nations, it is nonetheless clear that the relationship between the UK parliament and a devolved English parliament could not exactly parallel that between the UK and Scottish parliaments. For a start, it is hard to imagine an English parliament with extensive devolved powers being content to be fiscally dependent on a British parliament that was perhaps smaller than the English parliament, with its entire budget being based on a block grant delivered from on high, especially if that grant were thought to be inequitable by comparison with the Scottish and Welsh budgets. An English parliament would therefore be likely to demand or require more fiscal autonomy, somewhat along the lines of the ‘devolution max’ model recently put forward by the SNP as one of four potential options for Scottish governance to be debated in the run up to a potential independence referendum.

Equally, while the present direct link between public expenditure in England and that in the devolved countries based on the Barnett Formula needs to be broken, the smaller nations would still retain a much greater vested interest in spending decisions in England than vice-versa. This is simply because English policies and spending would continue to have a considerable economic and social impact on the smaller countries, while the level of taxation in those countries might also need to rise following the withdrawal of the Barnett subsidy. Therefore, it is arguable that any viable model for an English parliament, other than in the context of full English independence, will need to put in place some safeguards to protect the smaller countries from an English parliament that might otherwise aggressively pursue English interests to the detriment of those of its neighbours. Indeed, a concern to protect the interests of the smaller British nations has been one of the pretexts most commonly advanced to reject the idea of an English parliament.

Towards an evolutionary model of English governance

It is clear, however, that any dismissal of an English parliament merely on the grounds that it might destabilise the Union or disadvantage the UK’s smaller nations is a pretext: in one form or another – whether the quasi-psychotic denial of England’s very existence by the establishment, or the fear of English ‘dominance’ felt by many in the smaller nations – it involves a refusal to recognise England’s natural right as a nation to determine its own forms of governance. Once this right is recognised, and arguably only when it is acknowledged, the debate can then be moved forward and consideration can be given to the constitutional reforms that can best deliver genuine English-national democracy and protect the interests of the smaller British nations, and so ensure a viable Union going forward. And it is here that I would like to suggest the lines of an evolutionary model for an English parliament.

There have been two broad types of constitutional reform in English and British history: the revolutionary (such as in the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution) and the evolutionary. The fact that we have an ‘unwritten’ constitution (i.e. no single foundational document setting out the UK’s constitution) is a reflection of the fact that the constitution we do have has developed mainly in the evolutionary way: through a succession of partial reforms, individual acts of parliament and gradual change. In no other area is this truer than the relationships between each of the constituent countries and the central power; and, arguably, the need to preserve the historical legacy and discrepancies of these differential inter-national arrangements is one of the reasons why the UK has never had a single written constitution.

It should of course be borne in mind that differences in the degree and scope of autonomy from the centre enjoyed by each of the UK’s constituent parts are nothing new, and they certainly don’t all stem from asymmetric devolution. Scotland has maintained separate legal and education systems, and its own national church, from before the Acts of Union; and there has of course been a long and chequered history of alternating direct and home rule in the case of Northern Ireland. Only Wales was governed as a single polity, indistinct from England, throughout the history of the Union up to New Labour’s Devolution Acts, with Wales being subsumed by England – politically and legally – in much the same way as England is presently absorbed into ‘Britain’.

The devolution settlement of 1998 should, then, be regarded as just another example of the UK’s evolutionary constitution-making process. The fact is there is nothing definitively settled about the devolution settlement. Devolution, as has been remarked, is a process not an end point – the point, however, being that England has thus far been left out of the process. And devolution continues to evolve in the other nations: Scotland will almost certainly acquire more fiscal autonomy; Wales is likely to obtain more primary-legislative powers; and the arguments about devolving policing and justice to the Northern Ireland assembly are of course ongoing as I write. While all of these developments will place considerable pressure on an incoming Conservative government to reform the Barnett Formula and remediate the West Lothian Question, can the CEP come up with an evolutionary model for England’s journey to ever greater self-government that may have a chance to win acceptance by the fearful establishment? Such a solution will have to avoid directly challenging the establishment’s authority or appearing to be a threat to the Union’s survival altogether.

One of the problems with the CEP’s present blueprint for an EP is that it is, arguably, more revolutionary in its impact than evolutionary. The CEP might not accept that analysis; but the idea of a single, new, autonomous English parliament – albeit conceived along the lines of Scottish devolution – is revolutionary in its implications for the British state. For a start, as I have argued above, it is doubtful whether an English parliament could really work along the same lines as the Scottish parliament. And this is not just because it would demand greater fiscal autonomy than the present Scottish parliament but also because it would inevitably challenge the sovereignty of the British state over English affairs and would threaten to undermine the very identity of ‘Britain’ as a / the ‘nation’: a myth that is dependent for its survival on the English being compliant with the establishment’s re-modelling of their identity as ‘British’. In short, for reasons of both practical politics and diverging national identity, a fully fledged English parliament introduced in a single step would almost inevitably require a new UK-wide constitutional settlement of the ‘revolutionary’ kind: a new beginning on completely new foundations – most likely, a federal or confederal settlement with ‘Britain’ no longer being an overarching sovereign power, such as the model I set out in a previous article.

While I personally would like to see a revolutionary transformation of English and British governance along these lines, I feel that an evolutionary model offers much greater prospects of success. And by ‘evolution’, I am also suggesting that the new – and, by definition, provisional and evolving – English parliament should be conceived of, and presented as, evolving out of the present UK parliament, albeit explicitly re-branded as an English body. After all, the UK parliament is already a de facto English parliament in most of what it does, the trouble being that it both refuses to acknowledge its England-only character and enlists the anti-democratic participation of non-English-elected MPs in legislating for England.

In this article, I would like to put forward a draft proposal for an English parliament that would indeed be a reformed but continuing Westminster parliament: distinctly English in focus and composition, but integrated within a UK parliamentary and governmental framework. This could be a first step in the long-term evolution to a fully distinct EP but – who knows? – it could potentially also represent yet another modification to the unwritten British constitution that could serve for decades or even centuries to come.

An English parliament with dual English and British responsibilities: outline for English-parliamentary evolution

Here’s my idea, in brief:

• The present Westminster parliament could in effect evolve into an English parliament (or, putting it another way, it would revert to being the English parliament it originally was). It would be elected on a fixed-term basis every four years, with the elections timed to coincide with those for the other devolved parliament / assemblies. There are already moves or proposals afoot to reduce the number of UK MPs, and particularly those from Scotland and Wales, and to introduce fixed-term parliaments. This proposal just goes that crucial extra English mile further: eliminating non-English MPs altogether, reducing the number of constituency MPs (see further below) and introducing fixed terms.
• Elections would be held using the Additional Member System (AMS): the system presently used for the Scottish parliament, and Welsh and London assemblies. Alternatively, if present moves to introduce the Alternative Vote (AV) system for UK elections come to fruition, the system adopted for elections to the Westminster English parliament could be a form of AV+: combining an element of a proportional party-list system (such as that used for AMS) with AV rather than with First Past the Post, as is done with AMS. AV+ was in any case the system recommended by the Jenkins Commission on electoral reform during the first term of the New Labour government, which subsequently kicked it into the long grass on grounds of political expediency.
  

  So here again, using AMS or AV+ would represent only a minor evolutionary step further from existing systems or proposals. It’s not my preferred voting system, nor is it the most proportional; but it could serve as an intermediate step towards multi-member Single Transferable Vote (STV), which is the most proportional system that also preserves a direct link between MPs and their constituencies – an issue I will discuss further below.

• I would, however, suggest using the proportional, party-list element of the AMS or AV+ system in a crucially different way from the present elections to the devolved bodies in Scotland and Wales. Instead of regional or county lists, such as those also used for elections to the European parliament, I would recommend national lists, with the parties’ share of seats being allocated purely on the basis of their share of the votes across England. So, for example, if there were 100 party-list seats of this sort, and if the Greens or BNP obtained 2% of the English vote each, they would each be allocated two party-list seats. This increases the proportionality of the party-list element, whereas in a county- or regional-list system, 2% of the vote would result in a party failing to win any seats. In addition, it makes the party-list MPs a genuine reflection of English political opinion across all regional variations, which adds to the national unity and representativeness of the parliament.
• Now, here’s where my proposals are most radical – but not, I would contend, revolutionary: the MPs elected via the party-list element of the ballot would be UK MPs as well as English MPs. That is to say, a new UK parliament would have to be established; and my proposal is that it would be elected purely on a party-list basis, with separate lists for each of the UK’s nations (potentially including Cornwall, further down the evolutionary line, if the people in the Duchy voted for separate nation status). (Let me note in passing that this is where my proposals are most divergent from the CEP’s existing conception of an EP: whereas the CEP advocates the establishment of a new, devolved English parliament, I’m saying that it’s a new British parliament that needs to be created, and the English parliament could more or less evolve out of the existing Westminster body.)
• It would be nicely neat and symmetrical if the Scottish and Welsh members of the new British parliament could be drawn from the MSPs and AMs that are presently elected via the party-list component of the elections for the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly, thereby transforming elections to each of the devolved parliaments / assembly into simultaneous UK elections. For this to work, adjustments might need to be made in the numbers of such combined MSP / MPs and AM / MPs to reflect the populations of England, Scotland and Wales (but see further below); and the functions of such dual-purpose representatives within the national, as opposed to British, bodies would need to be redefined. So symmetry of this sort would perhaps be too much to expect as an initial step.
• A more attractive and, indeed, evolutionary alternative to this synchronisation and integration of UK and national elections might be to hold the UK elections every four years, with elections taking place at two years’ interval from the national elections (those for the devolved bodies). I would suggest that at least the English party-list MPs should be up for election every two years, as part of both the UK elections and English elections. This would help ensure that they had genuine dual accountability and a dual English-British mandate, as they would be alternately elected on their parties’ English and British platforms and agendas. Just to be absolutely clear: only English voters would vote for the party-list MPs for England; while Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people would vote for their own party lists (with scope for variation in the voting system used in Northern Ireland), whether once every four years (as part of the UK elections) or once every two years (as part of their national elections as well as the UK poll).
• The different local and national (that is, both English- and British-national) electoral bases of the constituency and party-list MPs would reflect the different responsibilities of the English and British parliaments respectively. Indeed, this split in the roles and mandates of English MPs suggests a rationale for devolution that rests on a logical and functionally efficient division of responsibilities in addition to the national rationale alone. That is, English constituency MPs, and by extension the English parliament in general, would be responsible for matters directly and concretely affecting their constituents: health care, education, English-national and -regional transport policy, planning, housing, local government and communities, policing and justice, English culture and sports, the environment, farming and agriculture, and – very importantly – all taxation required to generate the revenues needed to fulfil these responsibilities. All of the other areas of government – somewhat fewer than the present-day ‘reserved’ policy areas – would remain the province of the UK parliament and government.
  

  By contrast, the English party-list MPs that would also serve as British MPs would be responsible for defending the interests of England within the UK parliament, and for representing the interests of the UK and the other UK nations within the English parliament. This dual national mandate would neatly correspond to the fact that they had been elected by the English people from national-English party lists at alternately English and British elections. In other words, this provides a functional rationale for the party-list system in addition to its purpose as a means to ensure more proportional election results. Party-list MPs would have a specific responsibility to consider the strategic, economic and social interests of England as a whole, both within the English parliament and the British parliament. Equally, as British MPs responsible for hugely important UK-wide issues such as macro-economics, national security and foreign affairs, they would need to balance their role as advocates for the English nation with a more all-embracing, strategic responsibility for the interests of the UK as a whole and the needs of all its nations.

  This sort of structure provides continuity for the present system’s guarantees that the interests of the smaller UK nations are protected even when England-only matters are being legislated in Parliament – with the difference that the MPs with a constitutional responsibility to consider the interests of the whole of the UK within the English parliament would be elected by English voters. In fact, these MPs should be answerable not only to English voters but to English constituency MPs. Party-list MPs cannot be thrown out by any constituents, whereas constituency MPs could be sacked if present suggestions are taken up that ineffectual constituency MPs should be dismissed within the term of a parliament if enough of their constituents supported this. The potential immunity from dismissal of party-list MPs could lead to abuses, with national (British) parties promoting their placemen to positions high up in their national-English lists in perpetuity, making those MPs accountable to the British party leaderships, not voters. To prevent this, it should be possible for the English-parliamentary parties to force out any party-list MPs that are thought not to be fulfilling their responsibilities to represent England within the Union, or the Union within the English parliament.

• With respect to the composition of the English and British governments, the English government and executive should be drawn from English constituency MPs only, reflecting their England-specific responsibilities. The British government would be drawn from the dual-purpose English-British, party-list-elected MPs along with the party-list-elected MPs from Scotland and Wales (whether these were also MSPs and AMs or not), and the MPs from Northern Ireland, however elected. It could be made a constitutional requirement to ensure that at least one ministerial portfolio in the British government was filled by an MP from each of the UK’s nations. But it also follows from what I said in the previous paragraph that English constituency MPs would have the power to sack English-elected British ministers, although there might need to be some sort of constitutional court to arbitrate in the case of allegations that such ministers had neglected their responsibilities to English voters. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parliament / assemblies could have similar powers of veto over their own British ministers if the party-list-elected representatives in those countries also served as British MPs.
• In terms of the number of English and British MPs, I think that something like 75% of English MPs should be constituency-based and 25% would be elected by party lists. If, for argument’s sake, there were 500 English MPs in total (compared with 533 UK MPs from English seats after the next general election), this would mean there would be a total of 375 constituency MPs and 125 English-British MPs. The number of British MPs from the other UK countries would then be in proportion to their population, e.g. approximately 12 from Scotland, seven from Wales and four from Northern Ireland, making 148 in total.
  

  Clearly, if the number of MPs from Scotland and Wales were as low as this, they would not be able to be drawn from all of the party-list-elected MSPs and AMs, which are more numerous. But these numbers are purely illustrative; and it might be the case that there would have to be some exclusively British MPs elected via the English-national party lists in addition to the combined English-British MPs. But to ensure that these English-elected, British-only MPs remained accountable to English voters, they could still be subject to scrutiny by the English parliament and be liable to be removed from their positions if they were adjudged to be neglecting their responsibilities to the English people.

• With respect to mutual scrutiny by the English and British parliaments, the new British parliament could, and in my view should, have the responsibility to scrutinise legislation arising from all of the national parliaments, including the English one, in a similar way to the present House of Lords’ revising function in relation to House of Commons bills. This would extend second-house scrutiny to the parliament / assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which is presently lacking. However, whether or not this revising function were applied to Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish legislation, the British parliament should still fulfil this role in relation to the English parliament: adding another layer of security that English legislation that potentially damaged the interests of the UK’s other countries could not be enacted without being referred back to the English parliament for serious reconsideration, although the British parliament should not have the absolute power of veto over English bills.
  

  Conversely, the English parliament should also have a scrutinising and revising role in relation to British bills, and could refer back to the UK parliament any legislation that was thought to be damaging to the English people. The overwhelming majority of English MPs making up the British parliament, and accountable to the English parliament, would make such referrals in practice a rare occurrence. Similarly, the devolved bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could exercise a revising function in relation to British bills affecting their countries so long as they accepted that the British parliament could scrutinise their own bills in terms of their impact on the UK as a whole.

Envisioning the English Parliament: Need for creativity and flexibility

The above evolutionary model for an English parliament is by no means definitive – by definition, in fact. I do, however, think it could work quite well as a transition from the present anomalous situation whereby England is governed as the UK, by the UK parliament, and for the UK. The English parliament whose structure, composition and election I’ve mapped out could be arrived at by extending some already proposed reforms and the devolution process itself just that little bit further, so that the residual UK parliament almost seamlessly evolves into an English parliament. If need be, this parliament could carry on sitting in the Palace of Westminster. Even some of the hallowed procedures and traditions of the Westminster parliament could be preserved intact if that would assuage the establishment’s pain; although some of those practices are themselves already targets for reform, such as the role of the whips, and the present inability of backbench MPs to influence the House’s timetable and the composition of select committees. And even the current Britain-wide mandate of English-elected MPs could be preserved in my system, albeit in greatly mitigated form, by creating an organic overlap between the English parliament and a new British parliament through the establishment of a class of English MPs that also sit as British MPs.

This model for an English parliament is therefore intended as an illustration of what can be achieved by thinking more creatively around the options for enhanced English self-rule and, in particular, by trying to map out what ICT specialists might call a ‘migration path’ to an English parliament: a realistic, achievable roadmap for how we can journey towards the goal of full English self-government starting from where we are now, which is a position total denial of England’s very existence as a nation on the part of the establishment.

We won’t get to where we want to go by pretending we can get there in one Great Leap Forward: the revolutionary establishment of a wholly new, devolved English parliament out of nothing, as it were, would indeed represent an immense Cultural Revolution in the governance and identity of Britain as a whole. In reality, the journey to an English parliament is likely to be more of a Long March; but we’ll never even get going unless we start to map out the staging posts ahead.

So what I’m trying to say is that the CEP needs to re-evaluate its model for an English parliament. The conception of an EP modelled along the lines of the Scottish parliament established in 1998 has already been superseded by the continuing evolution of devolution; and in any case, it raises more questions about the relationship between the governance of England and that of the UK as a whole than it answers.

So the CEP should think differently – more creatively and flexibly – about the English parliament, and work within the harsh realities of the British establishment’s present iron grip over English government to prepare pathways along which the undeniable dynamic that exists towards broader constitutional reform can open up to the English dimension.
For the time being, we may have to settle for what we can realistically get in terms of English self-government, even if our English parliament may initially remain too embedded in the system of British-national governance for many people’s liking. But we must bear in mind that what we settle for now is not definitively settled. Once England, too, is allowed to embark on the journey of devolution, no one can tell where that evolutionary process will ultimately land us.

David Rickard is the author of Britology Watch and A National Conversation for England.

This post is part of the Constitutional Futures series.

David Wildgoose's speech to the Campaign for an English Parliament's Future of England debate.

The major parties seem determined to pretend that we in the Campaign for an English Parliament are in some way "not representative" of what ordinary English people are thinking.

On the contrary. We in the CEP and the wider English Movement are the "canaries in the coalmine". Merely the vocal element of a growing body of opinion.

Perhaps more to the point, is in what way can MPs and their parties themselves claim to be representative? After all, the combined Labour and Conservative vote has fallen from 98% in the 1950s to barely 68% at the last election. It used to be that 1 person in 11 was a member of a political party. It is now 1 person in 88. Voter turnout itself is in catastrophic decline. In last Thursday's by-election less than a third of the voters actually bothered to do so.

UK Democracy is in crisis.

Alec Salmond has openly stated that SNP MPs will vote exclusively in Scotland's interests even though their mandate is to act as British MPs in Britain's interests. The same is also true with Plaid Cymru and with the Northern Irish Parties. England is disadvantaged because there are no explicitly English MPs voting exclusively in England's interests. This matters. Issues that affect Scotland are devolved to Scotland and under Scottish control. With the major exception of the Anglo-Welsh legal system the same is also true for Wales. Issues affecting England though are voted on by all MPs at Westminster, including those MPs for whom English issues are not their overriding concern. And not just Nationalist MPs. Many Scottish Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs, including both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, signed the "Scottish Claim of Right", a public oath to treat Scotland's interests as paramount. But as the Bible says, "No Man can serve two masters". Quite clearly, "Dual-Mandate" MPs are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The great claim of Democracy is that if you don't like what your representative is doing, you can hold them accountable for their actions at the ballot box. Unless of course, you are John Reid MP, yet another signatory of the Scottish Claim of Right, representing a Scottish constituency, but placed in charge of the English NHS. Or the Welsh MP Kim Howells, voting to restrict the number of musicians permitted to play together on licensed premises in England and making the comment "the idea of listening to three Somerset folk singers sounds like hell". English culture, English traditions, English issues, but overruled by MPs from outside England and not answerable to voters in England.

No surprise then that Dr Travers of the LSE Research Centre has described England as "little more than a centrally governed colony".

But why should we English tolerate MPs we don't elect forcing health, education and other policies on us that we don't want?

Why should we put up with a government that is so desperate for cash that it is currently indulging in a fire-sale of largely English assets, such as the Dartford Tunnel and the playing fields and cemeteries of English Local Authorities? After all, assets belonging to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are under the control of their respective governments. England though has no such protection.

National Devolution has emphasised the fault lines within the Union. Rather than trying to deny that these exist I believe it is necessary to cement the Union along these lines by creating a federal state - the only practical way of separating what divides us from what unites us.

You may have heard the ridiculous argument that England is too big for a federation to work. This is palpable nonsense. A federation would *address* the problem of an out-sized England because English voting weight would only affect England itself. England is the same size it has always been. If a federation with England wouldn't work then a Union without a federation's protections certainly couldn't - except of course it did, for nearly 300 years before being wrecked.

National Parliaments dealing with the national issues concerning the nations of the United Kingdom would mean that all the citizens of the UK would stand together in the same relationship to the centre, with the same rights, and as *equal* citizens. Just as there is no better way to drive a wedge between us than treating the people of England as lesser-class citizens, there is no better way of reinforcing the UK family by recognising our individual needs but treating us all equally.

However at this point it is also worth asking another question. To what extent is the vote for nationalist politicians also a plea for more control over people's lives and away from a distant impersonal Westminster, or an even more remote European Union?

Because we need to re-invigorate local democracy as well.

Right now, the lowest tier of government in the UK has about 120,000 voters. By constrast, in the United States and Italy it is around 7,000 voters. In Spain and Germany, 5,000 voters. And in France, just 1,500 voters. The proposals to strip yet more powers from local Councils, centralising them in artificial and unwanted "Regions" is precisely the wrong approach. The true purpose of these "Regions" is simply to strengthen centralised control. They are too small to deal with national issues such as the legal system and the laws we all live under, but too large to have local understanding, accountability and crucially, sympathy.

We only have to look at the appalling state of the public finances to know that harsh cuts are on the way. Last week there were warnings that the UK could lose its AAA credit rating if the next government fails to bring spending under control and to reduce debt. That would result in a sterling crisis, gilt yield falls and sharp rises in interest rates at the worst possible time. The situation we are facing is far worse than that even Margaret Thatcher had to deal with. I was 16 when Geoffrey Howe gave his savage 1981 budget. The son of a Sheffield steelworker. My home areas of Rotherham and Sheffield lost 25% of all their jobs in just a 5 year period - twice as fast as Liverpool suffered. There was no Barnett Formula financial cushion for South Yorkshire.

To implement a severe fiscal tightening without also addressing the current political injustices is a recipe not just for discrediting the Westminster Parliament still further, but also potentially for serious civil unrest, damaging confidence in Sterling along with its attendant economic dangers.

Quite simply, to govern requires the consent of the governed. We need serious reform and this really cannot wait. We need an English Parliament and restored Local Government. And we need this NOW.

David Wildgoose is the vice-chairman The Campaign for an English Parliament.

There is a fundamental flaw in the campaign for an English Parliament and its feeble echoes in current Conservative talk of English votes for English bills. They are entirely reactive: negative, sour, mean-minded, ‘me-too’ responses to the wonderful growth of national feeling in Scotland and Wales. So far as I know, no one has yet put forward a positive case for devolution to England, based on a moral vision of what England and the English stand for or might come to stand for.

- David Marquand, Give us a moral vision for England, Our Kingdom; 4th January, 2008

Traditionally, the Campaign for an English Parliament has called for powers equal to those held by Scotland to be devolved to England. The CEP also states that to provide a complete answer to the constitutional problems of the United Kingdom it will be "necessary to upgrade the Welsh Assembly to become a Welsh Parliament with similar devolved powers" [The Aims] because "Each of the three historic nations of this island must stand in the same relationship to the Union and to each other if the Union is to survive" [Submission to the Justice Committee].

This autumn the Government is to set out its proposals to strengthen Scottish devolution based on the report of the Calman Commission. If implemented the Calman Commission's proposals, initially backed by Gordon Brown, could see Scotland gain additional devolved powers and substantial borrowing powers whilst losing some regulatory powers.

The Calman Proposals

• Calman recommends a 10p cut in all income tax rates in Scotland with a corresponding reduction in the annual block grant from the Treasury.
1. Holyrood powers to levy part or all of the 10p rate.
2. Holyrood would make a “tax decision” in terms of the size of its budget.
3. Levying less than 10p would cut its own budget.
4. Levying more could lead to increased spend on public services.

• Control over stamp duty, air passenger duty and land tax could be devolved.
• Holyrood to be given additional borrowing powers for capital expenditure.
• Holyrood to control airgun laws and power to set drink driving limits, landfill levy, speed limits and ability to run Scottish elections.
• Co-operation between Westminster and Holyrood to be strengthened. Ministers from each legislature should appear before relevant committees.
• Calman recommends that powers of insolvency, charity law and registration of health professionals be returned to Westminster.

Essentially (though not explicitly) Unionist in outlook, the CEP lays itself open to accusations of being reactionary and displaying me-too-ism by demanding powers for England that Scotland has for itself.

If Scotland adopts the Calman Commission proposals, what should the CEP's response be?

The CEP should continue to demand for England the same powers as held by Scotland on the basis of equality and constitutional symmetry, irrespective of the suitability of those powers

The CEP should specify the powers of its proposed English parliament and executive, and should take a position on the overall context of UK-constitutional reform that may be required, including possible federal or confederal options

The CEP should forget about constitutional symmetry and should limit itself to campaigning on the principle of an English parliament without taking any position on overall UK constitutional reform

You are not eligible to vote in this poll.

I was the Liberal Democrat candidate at the 1994 Rotherham by-election where I was privileged to finally meet Richard Wainwright, who had been Liberal MP for Colne Valley. Back in 1977 during the first devolution debates Richard said "For a government to propose that some British people shall have two Parliaments to shout for them, while others are left with only one, is the last word in political debauchery".

During the same debates, the Tory George Gardiner made the following point: "What kind of argument would we confront from the Scots and the Welsh if it were proposed, instead of a Scottish or Welsh Assembly, to set up only an English Assembly, but still to bring the full number of English members to this House or even to increase their number proportionately, to continue to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters, which, in the case of England, had already been devolved to an English Assembly? We know very well that there would be uproar in Scotland and Wales."

Of course, things have moved on from then. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all now have Devolution. As Richard Wainwright put it, they all have 2 Parliaments to shout for them and their interests. The exception, of course, is England. **ENGLAND. Not the "remainder!"** [Andrew George MP had just described Devolution as having occurred to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland leaving only the "disgruntled remainder" and that we needed some means of dealing with the "remainder".]

We have gone past the point of John Major's campaign in 1997 that we had just "48 hours to save the Union". That anti-Devolution battle was lost. The Union survives. It is however still under threat, not least by the growing resentment within England at the second-class citizenship that has been foisted upon us without our leave. Because the people of England have been prejudicially disadvantaged post-devolution, in a way that the Scots and Welsh never were pre-devolution.

"At the very least, the English deserve the opportunity to decide. They should be offered a referendum, just as the Scots and Welsh were, on their constitutional future. Failure to provide that option would be a shocking display of disdain for nearly 50 million United Kingdom citizens". Not my words, those of the Conservative David Davis.

The current situation is not stable and won't last. Reversing Devolution is no longer an option, if it ever was. If the Union is to survive then a positive case for this must be made that addresses the conflicting desires of the people that make up the United Kingdom.

The Campaign for an English Parliament believes that this can be addressed by the creation of an English Parliament to stand alongside those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

A federal Union will enable us to separate what divides us from what unites us. To get the best of both worlds. Independence on health, education, social policies, to plough our own furrow in a manner we find appropriate. But united as one voice when speaking on the world stage politically, economically and militarily, alongside the social solidarity to help each other out when dealing with such pressing matters as unemployment or the environment.

There is of course one other option for the nations of the United Kingdom, the one that will otherwise inevitably be chosen by default.

Breakup.

Many of you, like me, will have been watching the BBC's recent series of programmes on Scotland. "Dinner with Portillo - Why Should We Care About Scottish Independence?" was broadcast on BBC4 on the 15th September and had a number of well known people openly discussing the breakup of the Union. The majority were actually in favour of such a prospect. Portillo and Clougherty's opinion could best be described as 'Close the door quietly when you leave', an attitude which, if anything, infuriated the Scottish Nationalists even more than that of wanting them to stay and which Hardeep Singh Kholi described as "typical English arrogance".

Hardeep had something else to say as well.

"Why should the English stomach Scots MPs having a say on their political future when the Scots wouldn't for a moment accept the reciprocal arrangement, it would be unconscionable in Scotland?"

Indeed.

Henry McLeish, the former Labour First Minister of Scotland, and the man who saw the Scotland Act through Westminster, was also at that dinner. He has said that the English need a voice and that the current assymmetric devolution cannot be sustained.

The Welsh Conservative Assembly Member David Melding has just published a book Will Britain Survive Beyond 2020?. He says "The best way to preserve Britain as a multi-national state is to accept that the UK...requires a new settlement. This settlement will need to be federal in character so that the sovereignties of the Home Nations and the UK State can be recognised in their respective jurisdictions".

George Monbiot, speaking at the recent Plaid Cymru conference has also called for an English Parliament.

And so on.

Yes, there is plenty of thinking going on in all the major parties.

Apart from one that is.

A party that claims to be set up on a federal basis and which publishes manifestos for Scotland and Wales but not England. A party that has a Scottish Conference, a Welsh Conference, but not an English Conference. The party which has benefited greatly from the Proportional Representation elections to the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and has the most to gain from an English Parliament that is likewise elected by PR - but which inexplicitly does not support such an outcome. The Party that in the past liked to claim that it was the "big thinker" on constitutional issues but which now sits on the sidelines and pretends that nothing has changed and thus nothing needs to be done.

YOUR Party.

Tom Nairn in his book After Britain said "Blair's Project makes it likely that England will return on the street corner, rather than via a maternity room with appropriate care and facilities. Croaking tabloids, saloon-bar resentment and back-bench populism are likely to attend the birth and have their say." Looking at the news reports of the English Defence League I would say that those are prescient words.

Here are some more, from Neal Ascherson:
"Yes, there is an emerging Englishness which is still thought to be slightly incorrect. Something is bursting to come out. But sadly, the English intelligentsia, or the liberal English middle class, which ought to be leading political developments, ought to be taking over this emerging feeling; saying yes, let's make a democratic, tolerant, forward-looking nation; is just sitting back and saying 'English nationalism, awful, horrible, leave it to the yobs'."

England is being reborn. Some of us are campaigning for that democratic, tolerant, forward-looking nation. For example, I have here some leaflets from the Workers of England Union, a Union recently set up to campaign on behalf of the ordinary working people of England. The back cover says "Join a union that cares for England and its workers". The front cover says "Putting the workers of England first". Yes, England is being reborn, with or without you.

And so my ongoing question to you is, Are you going to join us in that project, or remain with the reactionaries?

David Wildgoose, September 2009

“Our resentment is not against Scottish people, it’s against the inequalities of the system”

By Iain Harrison, Sunday Post, 20 April 2008

VERONICA NEWMAN is a mother of two and a former nurse who has lived in the same town in the heart of England her entire life.

She enjoys bell ringing at her local church and says if she were ever stranded on a desert island she’d want a St George’s Cross flag to keep her company.

The 57-year-old is, some might suggest, as English as cucumber sandwiches.

But her passion when it comes to the issue of financing Scotland’s public services can probably be matched only by that of First Minister Alex Salmond.

Veronica, from Trowbridge in Wiltshire, is secretary of the Campaign for an English Parliament.

And she’s spent more than a decade protesting against what she claims is a disparity between the level of Government expenditure in Scotland compared with England.

She contends that she and her fellow English taxpayers subsidise their northern neighbours to the tune of £281 per person per year.

“Unfairness”

The consequence of this “unfairness and discrimination” is, she insists, an ever-increasing resentment towards Scotland.

Ten years ago Veronica’s views may have been described as marginal. But recent polls suggest 60 per cent of her compatriots share similar concerns.

The issue has become so sensitive that a number of senior Cabinet ministers are understood to have warned Gordon Brown to address it.

On Saturday leading scholars and politicians will gather in London for a one-day conference to discuss the matter in greater detail.

Among them will be veteran Labour MP Frank Field, retired Scots clergyman Canon Kenyon Wright and professor of journalism Hugo de Burgh.

Their aim, they say, is to thrash out the constitutional future of England.

But the outcome of the talks, if Veronica and her fellow organisers have their way, may also have far-reaching implications for Scotland.

Subsidies

According to UK Government statistics Scotland receives between £10 billion and £13 billion in subsidies from Westminster coffers every year.

The figure is a consequence of the 1978 Barnett formula which, on the basis of population distribution, calculated that public expenditure north of the Border needed to be significantly higher per person than in England.

Scottish Nationalists argue the amount is routinely exaggerated to dampen calls for independence and that any deficit would be wiped out if the Scottish Government was given tax-raising powers and access to oil revenues.

Veronica and her campaigners, however, want the subsidy removed and a dedicated English parliament, based on the Scottish model, set up.

Yet paradoxically, they also insist they’re against the break-up of the UK.

Under their system the UK parliament would retain its sovereignty, but powers over English legislation would be devolved to an English assembly.

It would take on responsibility for issues in England including its NHS, education, local government taxation, criminal and civil law and prisons.

With devolved parliaments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales already dealing with those issues, only matters relating to the UK constitution, foreign policy, defence, employment legislation and social security would be reserved to Westminster.

West Lothian Question

The CEP believe this would finally resolve Tam Dalyell’s West Lothian Question and satisfy any growing sense of unfairness in England.

Because no longer would Scottish MPs be able to vote on English legislation while English MPs were banned from voting on laws affecting Scotland.

But if the idea was to be given the green light it could have a major impact on public service funding levels in Scotland.

“It may seem as if we’re anti-Scottish but our resentment is not against the Scottish people, it’s against the inequalities of the system,” said Veronica.

“The Scottish Government can afford to introduce free care for the elderly and scrap university endowment fees while Westminster can’t.

“But at the same time, English taxpayers pay £281 more per year to subsidise Scotland which does not collect in enough taxes to pay its way.

“It’s a union in which the people of England are discriminated against at every turn.”

Michael Knowles, head of the CEP’s media unit, said as a result of this “iniquity” support for an English parliament is rapidly gaining momentum.

“An ICM poll in 2006 showed support among English voters for an English parliament had reached 68 per cent,” he explained.

“The following year the BBC carried out a survey and it found 61 per cent in England and 51 per cent in Scotland agreed with the idea.

“Gordon Brown’s policy for England is to abolish it as a nation and convert it to a collection of regions, but it’s a disgrace.

“We want the Barnett formula abolished and devolution to be given to England in the same measure as it has been given to Scotland.”

Independence

Despite their preoccupation with the level of funding given to the Scottish Government, neither Veronica nor Michael wants to see Scotland gain independence.

“At the end of the day it’s up to the people of Scotland to decide the country’s future but I think the Union is a good thing,” insisted Michael.

“It would be very difficult to suddenly scrap over 300 years of history.

“But unless something is done to address the current constitutional imbalance the level of bitterness felt towards Scotland could explode.

“What form it would take, however, I do not know.”

The SNP’s Christine Grahame rubbished the CEP’s claims and described their campaign as “nothing other than the politics of envy”.

She fumed, “The attack on the supposed unfair treatment of Scotland is a little hollow and uninformed.

“They were noticeable by their silence when, for decades, Scotland had no say whatsoever over public spending here, despite sending billions of pounds of revenue to the Treasury each year funding wars we don’t want and tax cuts for the London rich. It continues to this day.

“I think what is fundamentally irking them is that the days of England being subsidised by Scotland’s oil and gas are coming to an end. They have the power via the ballot box to secure English independence and I think that would be a very positive move indeed.

Insults

“The answer to their problems is not to throw insults at the Scots but to elect people who they believe will secure English independence.”

The SNP’s Westminster Treasury spokesman, Stewart Hosie, echoed those views.

He insisted Scotland sends more resources to Westminster than it receives in return and pointed towards a report, commissioned by the Corporation of London, which showed public spending per head is higher in London than in Scotland.

“Scotland more than pays its way,” he said. “Indeed, the UK’s financial black hole is being filled by Scotland’s oil and Scotch whisky.

“The Chancellor’s dependence on soaring North Sea revenues — and his damaging Budget tax hike on whisky — shows how Scotland is propping up the London Treasury.

“And when North Sea revenues are included in Scotland’s accounts, Scottish Government figures show we would be the third richest nation in Europe in terms of wealth per head, compared to the UK’s current seventh place.

“The flow of resources is clearly north to south, not the other way round.

“The answer to these issues is very simple. Let Scotland, and England, be in charge of their own resources, with both nations standing on their own financial feet.”

The Lib Dems believe the solution is to grant the Scottish Parliament tax-raising powers.

Need

Chief Whip Robert Brown MSP said, “A lot of expenditure in Scotland is either demand-led or based on clear need. For example, Scotland has proportionately twice as many farmers as England, mostly in less favoured areas.

“There are also higher staying-on rates at school after 16 and greater participation in further and higher education.

“There are more pensioners and more people on benefits. As a more sparsely populated country Scotland has higher unit costs for road and rail miles and ferries. These will attract more funding under any system.

“The Barnett formula has worked well for a long time. But its big problem is that it’s not clear how the figures are worked out so everyone feels they are being cheated.

“So it is high time we followed home rule and the setting up of the Scottish Parliament with financial devolution right across the UK.”

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice, which deals with UK constitutional affairs, said a separate English Parliament was unnecessary.

“This Government believes in the Union, that we are stronger together and weaker apart, and will do nothing to harm it. English interests are properly and fully protected in the House of Commons. English MPs hold more than 80 per cent of the seats at Westminster.

“This government, like the overwhelming majority of governments since 1945, has commanded an overall majority in the English constituencies as well as more broadly across the UK.

“Out of 646 MPs, 528 Members represent English constituencies, 59 represent Scottish, 41 represent Welsh and 18 represent Northern Irish.

“Nothing can be imposed on England due to this majority.”

Address to Conference on “The Future of England (Campaign for an English Parliament)

by Canon Kenyon Wright CBE, 26 April 2008

What is this? A Scot daring to speak about the future of England?. Are there not already too many Scots deciding England’s future? So why am I here?

I am not here to tell you what to do. We Scots are good at that, but it is not my purpose today. Our two nations have been linked for centuries – as enemies, as friends and as partners in the Union. I admit that we Scots have too often defined our identity in resentment of our larger neighbour. As far back as the 16th century, the Spanish ambassador to the court of King James IV reported back to his homeland that “nothing pleases the Scots so much as abuse of the English!” I hope in the 21st century we have grown up at last, and can meet each other openly and honestly as friends who tell each other the truth, but as CS Lewis once wrote “we cannot meet face to face till we have faces!” The Scottish sense of identity is strong but hard to analyse or define.. One leading Academic in Edinburgh said that anyone who comes for any time to Scotland becomes aware of “a world of dense Scottishness” I am convinced that England has also a strong sense of identity, but that you are in the process of rediscovering it. For both of us, it means redefining the nature of our relationship with Britishness, and the Union. It seems to me that at heart, that is what your campaign and this conference are all about.

I cannot tell you how to influence the future of England – but I can share with you a glimpse of the Principles by which we worked for long years in the Campaign for a Scottish Parliament, and later in the Constitutional Convention; of the Process by which we achieved our goal, and of our continuing task of defining the Future of Scotland as a participative democracy. It is your task to judge whether, and if so how, these facts are relevant to your very different situation.

The Founding Principles

In the 1950’s Scotland’s greatest legal mind of the 20th century. Lord President Cooper was called upon to decide on a legal challenge to our monarch being designated Elizabeth the Second – on the very reasonable grounds that she was indeed the first, not only to reign as Queen of Scots, but in fact first in the United Kingdom. Cooper dismissed the case on the legal grounds that the Royal Prerogative reserved this decision to the monarch – but he did go on say, in a landmark judgement

“The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law”

This reflects the two foundation principles on which we worked. – Sovereignty and Subsidiarity. Our first act in the Convention was the solemn signing by all present (including of course Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling et al) of the “Claim of Right for Scotland” which proclaimed “the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine how they will be governed”. To this day I wonder how many of those MPs who lined up to sign it, fully realised they were by implication denying the right of Parliament to be the final arbiters in constitutional matters.

The second founding principle of subsidiarity, maintains that power should be limited, dispersed, and exercised at the lowest effective level. This means for us, clearer protected and positive powers, constantly under review, for local government, for Scotland, for the UK (though here there is a dispute as we know) and for the European Union too. Scotland is much more positive towards the EU than I sense you are, and generally does not see it as a threat to our sovereignty or nationhood..

I suggest hesitatingly, that there might be two ways in which our story has relevance to yours.

Political Grievances are not enough

First, we did not base our case on political grievances, but on constitutional principles. Like you, we certainly had plenty of complaints, and they provided fertile ground for our task

You have legitimate anger over the West Lothian Question – the undemocratic right of Scottish MPs to influence education and health say, in Doncaster and Edmonton, but not in Dundee or Edinburgh– or indeed in any of their own constituencies. Also many resent Scotland’s apparent advantages through the Barnet Formula, which will obviously be revised if and when the Scottish Parliament gains Fiscal powers, as seems likely in any revision of the Scotland Act

We in our turn, pointed out that, while the votes of Scottish MPs would have made a difference only for two or three years since the war, the votes of English MPs imposed policies on Scotland for some 50 years. This came to a head when the Thatcher Government not only made us guinea pigs for the Poll Tax, but imposed on us measure after measure which the Scottish people and their Representatives had manifestly and massively rejected. A Church of Scotland Report in 1989, the year the Convention was formed and the Claim of Right signed, said “that which was always unacceptable in principle, has now become intolerable in practice”.

My point is simply this. Contemporary political grievances can strengthen your case, as they did ours, but they should not be the basis on which you work. The principles, based on national identity and aspirations, should be clear.

Second, the Process was important

We strove for the widest possible consensus on exactly what we were asking for. Through enormous difficulties, we defined in detail what a Scottish Parliament would look like, and how it would relate to the UK and the EU. That task may indeed be even more difficult for you, but I hope it can be done.

The Future of England is inseparable from the Future of the Union

There is a profound reason why Scotland must be interested in, and aware of, what you are doing here. – simply that the success or failure of your campaign has enormous implications for us.

The devolved Scottish Parliament and Government have many weaknesses, but in one major aspect their very existence breaks the log jam of British politics. For the first time in the history of the Union, we have succeeded in establishing a secure base of alternative constitutional power which is in practice irreversible.

However, we are a small nation of 5 million people, one tenth of England. Our success challenges, but has not radically changed, the United Kingdom or the central institutions of the British State. But make no mistake about it – if your campaign succeeds, it means the end of the Union in the form we now know it. At the least it means the radical transformation of the Union into a very different political reality, one of genuine and secure power sharing. That is as important to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as it is to England. It is time for us to be discussing seriously together what kind of Union, if any, we think best for the 21st century

The new Scottish Constitutional Commission which a group of prominent Scots have recently formed (see www.constitutionalcommission.org) - to be clearly distinguished from the Commission set up by the unionist parties in Scotland, which has a much narrower mandate - should be in regular touch with you and the other nations, to ensure that our thinking on the future of our common relationships and governance, are in harmony, and must be taken seriously.

Scotland is in danger of polarising the debate into two extremes. On the one hand, devolution as at present with a few extra powers – on the other hand, independence; in other words, either the Union with a bit of tinkering at the edges, or the end of the Union. Of course, Scottish Independence would deliver your English Parliament on a plate – but my hope is that you will help us all by bringing fresh ideas to the future of a Union, which your success would inevitably change. Are we talking of some form of Federal or Confederal solution, with powerful Parliaments and Governments in the 4 nations, and with a central Government for those matters we agree to hold in common?

I do not know, but I think it urgent that we begin to ask these questions now

I am aware that the CEP accepts the final authority of the UK Parliament, but I find this hard to endorse.. The very existence of an English Parliament would question the size, the shape and the powers, of the continuing UK body. Certainly for Scotland, it would raise with a new urgency the hope expressed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1989. that the coming Scottish Parliament would “represent a fundamental shift away from the notion of the unlimited or absolute sovereignty of the British Parliament, towards the Scottish and Reformed Principle of limited or relative sovereignty!"

I believe some major changes are unavoidable if a reformed Union acceptable to all its component nations, is to be preserved in the 21st Century.

At the least we need

• The development of a genuinely constitutional monarchy through the abolition of the Royal Prerogatives and the enormous power and patronage they give to the UK Prime Minister.
• A clear and accepted definition of the relationships of the Union government and the “devolved” governments, which defines and effectively limits the powers of each (though the word “devolved” would no longer be strictly accurate in a situation where power is securely shared. Enoch Powell once said “Power devolved is power retained”)
• A written constitution defining these powers and relationships.

The Future of England is inseparable from the Future of Britain.

Towards a Participative Democracy

In one important respect, our Parliament has only partly succeeded. The vision was of something “radically different from the rituals of Westminster, more participative, more open, more creative, less needlessly confrontational”. At a time when there is widespread contempt for politics, and the erosion of trust in politicians, it is vital that the Parliaments for which we strive are closer to the people, elected by a fairer system, open and honest in all they do, and encouraging the people to be part of the decision making process.

If there is one central thing I have learned from the experience of the last twenty years, it is this. Politics is too important to be left to the politicians.

Recently the POWER Inquiry, after extensive hearings all over Britain, laid bare the growing contempt, not for politics as such, but for the system. On that basis, its Convenor, Lady Helena Kennedy said

“Changes of this magnitude cannot be left simply to elected representatives. An alliance for change needs to be built amongst the most clear-sighted MPs, local councillors, MEPs and members of the devolved institutions, but only a sustained campaign for change from outside the democratic assemblies and parliaments of the UK will ensure that meaningful reform occurs. We, the people, have to stake our claim on power”

That seems to me to define your continuing task – and ours

Ed Abrams' speech to the CEP's 'Future of England' conference, 26 April 2008

I’d like to thanks the members of the CEP for inviting me here and allowing me to speak. I have a huge amount of respect for the CEP and their work, the tireless commitment to England is there for all to see and I believe in my blood and my bones that we will one day , united we will reach our promised land – A PARLIAMENT FOR OUR NATION.

I stand before you not just as an member of the English Democrats, not just as someone who campaigns for English Democracy but I stand here before you all simply as an Englishman who wants what my birth right is – that birth right is that I was born into a country my forefathers gave their lives for so that I and others could live in a land that was free, a land where truth prevails, where democracy is there for all and justice smoothers discrimination.

Friends - My speech today is called the Politics of Nationhood, I’ll go on to outline why I believe that this new breed, this fresh ideal, this vision, this belief will blow away the cobwebs of political complacency and kick start the nations consciousness to building a newer, fresher and more accommodating England but an England that stands alone, proud, resolute and free.

Now I am no scholar as I unfortunately wasted my education but from the pages of history I’ve read, we have had for over 150 years, the politics of class rammed down our throats, we've had our democracy and our vote used and abused, we've had separation not liberation, with had dictatorship not comradeship and the butchers apron has hidden the cracks of resentment and disdain, it's hidden the politics of discrimination, it's hidden the West Lothian Question and the Barnett formula. The politics of class has divided our nation and turned are people to a state of utter despair.

The politics of class is the political ideology of old, of yesteryear, one that’s had its day.

See what our glorious leaders conveniently forget is that politics is a living beast, it changes, it moves, it lives – what was right yesterday does not mean it’s right for today or in the future. A political ideology that doesn’t move of change with the times dies from the neck upwards, it breeds resentment and disdain and it proves that it no longer has the ear of the people.

My vision is the politics of NATIONHOOD not of class. This is the new way, it’s not the 1st, 2nd or 3rd, in fact it’s the only way, this way is one whereby the whole country binds together and acts as one for the dual benefit of the nation and it's people.

It doesn’t ask how much money you earn or how many cars you've got, it doesn’t ask if your left or right or middle of the road, it doesn’t ask if you’re black or white, Christian or Jew, young or old- all it asks of you is that you unite, join arms, stand shoulder to shoulder with your neighbour and work to build a newer, fresher more accommodating England. An England that respects and learns from the past, works with the present and truly embraces the future with hope, vigour, commitment, openness, honesty and with a smile.

The politics of NATIONHOOD allows England to regain her rightful at the top table of the worlds nations. It allows us to promote with pride our cultural identity, it allows us to take our nation forward, give our people a voice and more importantly – it gives England a future. It allows us to celebrate of history, cradle our young and care for our elders.

This new ideal also solves the problems we have with cultural identity; it allows our young to have a future and a collective future. One of the challenges that we have today is that our kids, our nation’s future are not allowed an identity; they are forced to grow up with no knowledge of our history. Presently it is left down to us, the parents of England’s future to explain our nation and all its glory. See my vision allows us to rebuild our children’s futures, it allows us to put back the moral fibre of our society, it allows all to come together and work as one. It puts back respect and values, it restores honour and creed. It moves away from the nation of one to one nation for all.

As we all know misguided patriotism is the order of the day, we’ve been force-fed the BRITISH IDEAL for decades, I, like many of you have never brought this ideal, I’ve never considered myself British, I come from an immigrant family of Polish Jews who where allowed safe haven and harbour from the evils of the Russian programs.

We came to England not Britain because of English ideals such as liberty, democracy, honesty and justice, these went hand in hand with the name of England not Britain, however as we know at England’s expense, the ideals of liberty, democracy, honesty and justice in today's politics are just empty words, they are so often used and certainly abused by so called Political Professionals, those who put careers before consciousness, those who have never seen a hard days work in their lives, those who have thrown away their convictions the moment they entered the hallow halls of Westminster.

Many of our modern day politicians have enter politics with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths, have these so called elite ever been unemployed, worried about where the next pay check is coming from, panicking about having to buy the latest and greatest pair of footwear for their kids. Because career politicians are now the order of the day can someone explain to me how people like Darling, Cameroon, Brown, Milliband be the voice of the people when they don't KNOW the people.

These so-called democratic savours, our champions of liberty openly demand that we follow their path, that we throw garlands of flowers at their feet, pay homage to there very presence and afford them our respect, well my respect is earned and not just given and what the big three have done to my nation is beyond the pale.

These people live by the motto of “ DO AS I SAY AND NOT AS I DO” , I always thought that our leaders lead by example, they lead from the front and not from the back, that when duty calls, our leaders are there at the front, heads held high, leading charge. I’m afraid this isn’t the case with nearly all of the MP’s in parliament.

As I’ve said, I’m not an educated man but can some one please explain to me how these leaders represent England. The big 3 with their outdated and old styled politics of class have orchestrated England's final solution, they are the ones who are destroying the very idea of England, and they’ve eroded the fabric of our identity, the common purpose of our people.

They are the ones who are sending people to their deaths because of the ill-fated and not thought out policy of partial devolution, they are the ones who are herding our nations elders into care homes like horses to the knackers yard because they no longer add value to the treasuries coffers,

they are the ones who are pushing our people to despair as tax upon tax upon tax is being raised in our nation whilst other parts of this so called UNION of equals don't have these rises and they are the ones who have created policies that enforce discrimination upon the people of England – such as

Top up Fees ( only in England )
Prescription Charge Increases ( only in England )
Elderly folk having to pay for care ( only in England )
Class sizes over 30 kids ( only in England )
A paltry 50p per school meal ( only in England
Life saving drugs being refused our people ( only in England )
Brutishness’ Lessons taught ( only in England )
New Nuclear Power plants ( only in England )
Eco Towns ( only in England )

And many many more

This is what the politics of Class and of the old guard / the big 3 have given us. If like some, you decide to stay with one of the big 3, stay with the politics of class, the politics of spite, envy and hate and try and change from within then you'll just be a loan voice, you'll be a small little rowing boat trying to change the course of a super tanker, you know in your ENGLISH hearts that you'll never win, you'll only get lip service, you'll get a pat on the back and be told the same old line of " we all agree and WE must do something about it, in fact we have set up a working committee to investigate and review" sounds more like brushing it under the carpet to me.

I have had it said to me that there's no logic in trying to change the political landscape, it’s almost like pushing water uphill with your bare hands, a common comment has been that regardless of our efforts, nothing will change, I believe that the biggest single reason why people are so turned off from politics is because of the politics of class, people feel isolated, disassociated and forgotten. The gap between rich and poor has got wider and there’s no glue between them, well my vision – the politics of nationhood, cements all people together, it allows people from all sides to work together and engage one another, it allows us all to invest in England’s future therefore making all our people feel valued, respected and wanted.

I set about creating this new vision, this new political creed because the big 3 don't own politics, it's not there's to play with or pick up or put down as and when they desire, they’re wheels only ever turn when it's close to an election and they throw themselves at the voters mercy and beg for your vote. Politics isn’t a closed shop; whereby only the chosen view get it, it shouldn’t be a job for life either. I’d put politicians on performance related pay and see them run for cover.

My vision also erodes the secret society, the cosy little love affair that the big 3 have with the media, it is wrong that companies like the BBC become Browns mouthpiece or paper like the TORY mail over ever report Cameron's spin. The politics of nationhood removes these relationships and allows for free, fair and uncensored reporting that gives and unbiased and impartial view

I believe that these parties have changed in all recognition to the virtues and values of when they were created. Remember when the hard-pressed working class created the origins of the Labour movement they stood against discrimination, they stood against oppression, they stood up for and defend their own – are these still really the cornerstone values of Brown’s government or Blair’s legacy

Patriotism is not owned by anyone of anything, it's not enough to wave a flag when it suits and pretend your defenders of a nation. I believe that the wind is changing and the people of England don't want plastic patriotism anymore; they no longer have any faith in the old, outdated and stale current political parties. They cry out for a beg for a new style of political creed, one that involves and engages, one that interacts and learns and one that represent them and only them – THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND.

As I’ve said, my vision allows people from all walks of life, regardless of all age, regardless of our different experiences, it brings old and young together, it allows left and right to bind, it even allows those strange types ( you know the ones, the guardian readers with open toed sandals, i think people call them liberal democrats to stop sitting on the fence and get involved as again it moves our folk away from the politics of class, it defends ALL of our people and truely delivers the virtues of truth, justice, liberty and freedom.

A senior Conservative once asked me to a meeting, during that meeting he told me that he agreed with everything I said, he thought and felt the same but in the same breath as those words, he offered me the parliamentary seat of Chester if I joined their party. He wanted me to sell out my principles, my beliefs, my ENGLISH CORE. He thought that my pride and passion for England was something that you could pick up and put down on a wimm. I sat there and shook my head in disbelief as he thought I could be brought, that I would turn my back on my nation at the offer of a seat – how wrong he was.

See this is the difference between my vision of nationhood against there’s of class is that the establishment, New Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems made it personal because they are calling into question the very idea of England itself.

Ladies and Gentleman, Time is coming to take sides, to show your colours, to make a stand for i believe that perhaps not at the next election but certainly the one after that, the politics will be either Nationalist or Unionist, they’ll be no other option – you have to ask yourself which one protects England and her people, which one involves all and alienates none, which one delivers the politics of hope and which offers resentment and hate, it will be the new guard against the old, it will be about a new fresh approach to really engaging with and valuing the populas and not dictating to or ignoring their core values.

Folks, that time is coming, make sure you are on the right side – the ENGLISH SIDE

Thanks for your time and god bless England,

Speech by David Wildgoose to the CEP's "Future of England" Conference, 26 April 2008

It's too easy to look at the world not as it is, but rather as we would wish it to be.

We are all guilty of this, but as rational beings we have to recognise this fact and address the realities as they actually are.

The Union is broken.

More accurately, the Unions are broken, because the United Kingdom was created via a series of Acts of Union between 1536 and 1801.

In 1707 England and Wales were joined by Scotland with an Act, part III of which stipulated "That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same Parliament".

Part IV of that Act stated "That all the subjects of the United Kingdom shall from and after the Union...have the same Rights, Privileges and Advantages".

But since Devolution in 1998 the people of the United Kingdom are NOT represented by one and the same Parliament. And we do NOT have the same Rights, Privileges and Advantages. There are now distinct differences in for example Health, Education and Old Age provisions between the different nations of the UK, divisions deliberately separated upon national grounds, and deliberately emphasised by nationalist politicians with the successful aim of inflaming national passions.

These divisions are getting worse.

The ongoing saga of the Welsh government's refusal to pay the bills of Welsh patients attending English hospitals has now resulted this week in Bristol's NHS Trust issuing instructions that Welsh patients should not be booked in for surgery or for further outpatient appointments until their bills start to be paid.

The British government also has bills to be paid. So it in turn, has decided to start and pawn English NHS properties, starting in London. Our hospitals - English Hospitals - are being sold off by our Scottish Chancellor and leased back in order to raise money. Not Scottish Hospitals though. No, just like when the Tories privatised England's Water Companies and not Scotland's, England is always the loser.

The powers that be have seen fit to encourage and pander to nationalist sentiment in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by transferring more and more powers to their respective national governments. We are told "Devolution is a process, and not an event". Which no doubt explains why the so-called "Wendy Commission" was set up by the Scottish Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative parties to debate what additional powers could be transferred to the Scottish Government.

Similarly, in Wales, Labour and Plaid Cymru have agreed that the Welsh should shortly be given another referendum. This time the question will be about increasing the powers of the Welsh Assembly to match those of Scotland with full primary law-making rights and further separation from England. It is worth noting that Labour MP Kim Howells commented that this would help "nationalists to the gates of independence."

Talking of independence, the SNP-led Scottish government have announced their plans for a Referendum in 2010 on Scotland leaving the Union.

And in Northern Ireland of course, the prolonged violence of The Troubles abated with The Belfast Agreement - an Agreement which provides for repeated referenda, 7 years apart, on whether Northern Ireland should leave the Union and join with the Republic.

It appears the answer to nationalist separatism in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is to pander to it with the declared aim of preserving the Union. If we are honest, looking at the situation as it is, does this seem to be working?

But what of England?

Simple requests for an end to our second-class status and a return to equality for all British citizens by the creation of a matching devolved Parliament for England are demonised as a "threat to the Union". Schools have been instructed - in England only - to teach "Britishness". Jack Straw, when he was Home Secretary, even went on Radio 4 to describe the English as "potentially very aggressive, very violent" and who had used this "propensity to violence to subjugate Ireland, Wales and Scotland".

I suppose it at least admits to a consistent approach, with the same historical distortions being peddled in all 4 of the nations of the United Kingdom. But as for their aim of suppressing the idea of England, you only have to look at this week's St George's Day celebrations to see the rise in English national consciousness in an equal and opposite reaction.

The other approach has been to try and abolish what they perceive as the problem of England by abolishing England. This is best exemplified by Charles Kennedy's speech at the 1997 Scottish Lib-Dem Conference, and his comment "with the advent of English regional assemblies we can start to call into question the existence of England itself".

The proposal to take away local powers and centralise local government into Regional Assemblies was only put to the vote in the North East of England. It was rightly rejected in the referendum with 78% voting against. The Regional Assembly was created anyway. So much for Democracy in England.

But should we be surprised?

The academic and former Labour and SDP MP David Marquand has written about the "wonderful growth of national feeling in Scotland and Wales." However at the same time he also said "Unless and until the English decide who they are, and rediscover the buried republican tradition of Milton and Blake, they will not be fit for self government." Apparently we aren't to be allowed to vote on our future until we can be trusted to vote as our masters want us to.

This is a colonialist attitude.

Representative Democracy is that you elect people from amongst yourselves to represent you and your interests.

Colonialism is when people outside your country send Representatives to govern and make decisions overriding your wishes - such as happened with the imposition of tuition fees on English students by Scottish MPs whose own people were not affected.

England is being abused as a colony, and it is this, and not a return to equality via an English Parliament, that will finally destroy the Union.

It is our duty to see the world as it is, and not how it was, or how we would wish it to be. The Devolution genie cannot now be put back in its bottle. We have to accept this fact and deal with it honestly.

This means one thing.

We have to separate what divides us from what unites us.

If this is done in good faith then I see no reason why a renewed Union cannot be forged. At least, if it is done early enough, and before attitudes have hardened too far on all sides.

But this will require the voice of England to be heard.

Who speaks for England?

Not our *British* MPs that is for sure - with, it appears, the honourable exception of Frank Field.

No, YOU speak for England. Talk to your families, your friends, your work colleagues. Write to local papers, radio and TV stations. Do not allow yourself to be discouraged, to be silenced. The future of England is in all our hands. Rise up, and Speak for England!