John Redwood has a post on his blog about Scottish Labour’s leader, Wendy Alexander, apparently inviting the SNP to put a referendum to the Scots on independence. The CEP isn’t concerned with independence of Scotland, England or any country - we want the English to be asked if they want an English government, just like the Scots and Welsh were asked if they wanted theirs. However, Redwood and a couple of readers believe that England should have a say on a referendum on Scottish independence as well. Why? Regardless of the fact that I personally think the English would support Scottish independence with pleasure, I don’t see why we should have a say on Scottish independence any more than we should have done for Kosovo, Ukraine, Lithuania or any other country. It is up to the Scots whether they want independence. Redwood supports English Votes on English Matters, of course, because he’s a Good Conservative. I have asked in the comments whether he really believes that he could separate his two jobs - a British MP and an English MP. He claims there would be no contradiction but I disagree and I’m waiting to see if he can answer this:
To use a different, feasible example: nuclear power stations. I don’t know what your take on them is - I am all for them personally - but the Scots don’t want them. Britain as a whole needs power and a bill is put before you to build 5 new nuclear power stations in England to supply power to the whole UK. The Scots don’t want them so the Scottish government blocks it. Say the English don’t want them either, what do you do? Are the energy needs of Britain more important to you or the wishes of the English not to have the nuclear power stations? Do you choose Britain or England?
What do you think? Do you think it’s possible for a British MP to put England first for a couple of days a week and then put Britain first for the rest of the week? Is it right that Scotland should have parliamentarians that are concerned only with Scottish interests all the time but England should only have part time representation from British MPs whose loyalty lies with the British establishment?
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
In a word, no. You’re completely on the money.
I guess I would further repeat that Gordon Brown has no more interest for Scotland [other than what is required when you're pushing through absolute insistence on a British state] than Lloyd Grossman does in a marmite toastie. As I hope his feverish and panicked soul is ably demonstrating just now as his precious union is seemingly being put to the sword by his own.
Scottish Labour - more U-turns than La Mons. They are - singly - a party with only their OWN interest and twisted doctrine at heart. I’m glad they are getting pummeled both sides of the border.
It was only a matter of time before half-wits like Redwood start belly aching about any vote on Scottish Independence being open to everyone, including the Scots. And I respect your remarks to that end Wonko. It is ludicrous.
Just as ludicrous as the situation England finds itself in. I suppose part of this frustration is that a nationalist party is in power in Scotland, whereas England’s nationalist efforts are barley scrapping the knuckles of the 300 or so ‘British’ representatives England has voted in.
So can I ask you a question Wonko? And this is for my own knowledge. How many English MPs have expressed - formally - a desire for an English parliament? I know public support is rightly there [in England and Scotland!] but what are the numbers?
I guess I would add that I’m in favour of English Independence - not a federal union, or any other bizarre and unworkable scenario.
I do wonder what Scottish Labour’s strategy would be when Mr.Cameron becomes the next UK prime minister? Doubtless, it will involve the Labour ‘bogey man’ stories again. Something along the lines of ‘..you better vote Labour to stop the evil Tory Genie hurting Scotland again…oooooo…oooooooo’.
Except this time, a Labour vote in Scotland in a UK general election might be about as useful as a chocolate fireguard, given that England will quickly dispatch them anyway.
Interesting times.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:57 amAs you say Alba, interesting times, my own personal take on bendy Wendy’s push for a vote on independence, is to call Salmonds bluff, I think that at this point in time he would lose the vote, which is what Wendy wants as it would kill Scottish independence off for years to come, all to Labour advantage, lets hope he isnt suckered into it, though I can’t see him falling for that… a canny Scot if ever there was one!.
Unfortunately there arn’t any UK MP’s representing English constituencies, that will stick their head above the parapet in Englands defence, the Labour ones know they would never be elected again, and the Tory’s are all “dyed in the wool” Unionists who are afraid of being booted out of the Conservative party by “Scottish blood in my veins” Cameron if they don’t toe the party line, including Redwood.
There will be no resolution utill we see blood on the carpet, metaphorically speaking.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:23 amAlec Salmon has a timetable worked out for the vote for independence and Wendy Alexander cannot bring legislation forward to stop it as the SNP government already has its own plans for a referendum.
Personally I would love to see a referendum on independence for England. The benefits for England especially if at the same time we leave the European Union are enormous. First off is the money I reckon about £60-80 billion better off, then there are the jobs, the Royal Naval maintenance of ships would move to Devonport, Rosyth would close as it would be uneconomic for Scotland. The submarine base would move to Cumbria and RAF stations whose job is now done in Scotland would move to the North-East. Many other jobs would move back into England The Royal Mint and Vehicle Licensing centre for two. Farmers would be unhindered by EU rules.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:25 amYup Omni - and I think Scotland would equally have her own benefits. This is the thing, I genuinely think Independence for England and Scotland would invigorate them - and assure, of course, proper representation. I liked the ‘Canada’ article from the other thread, at that.
Can this wholly idiotic and divisive notion of Britishness be killed off though? The concept doesn’t stand up to any kind of scrutiny, at all.
LBB, of course you are right with Wendy Salamander’s tactics here. Leaving asides the fact that the woman is a complete imbecile and, week-in week-out demonstrates this with some alarming consistency [she was, and has always been, viciously keen to demonstrate how anti-referendum she is] I see her take as hugely flawed anyway.
1/ She can’t do it. Who the hell does she think she is? Thus far, the only party willing to ‘put it to the people’ and include ALL options are the SNP. Now, she [they didn't win by the way] has the audacity to suggest that Labour have always been in the same camp, when she’s only - as ever - pursuing Labour want. That asides…
2/ …if the referendum were to go, and the union prevailed [albeit with stronger powers for the parliament in Edinburgh] this notion of ’shooting the nationalist fox’ or ‘killing nationalism stone dead for a generation’ [have I heard that before? Mr.Robertson?] is simply wrong. Things, I suspect, would be rather closer than that, even with a union win. 35% to 40% would still mean Scottish Independence was on the cards. Further…
3/ …referendum asides, people might just decide that the SNP make a better bloody government than Labour anyway. Which they do, as it happens.
I remain disgusted by Labour/Liberal/Tory unionist politicians, in every way, in Scotland. Though at least Ms.Goldie - though wrong - is at least likable. Just the same way you guys must feel in regard to ‘British’ MPs doing their utmost for England. Not.
May 8th, 2008 at 11:29 amI read it that Redwood was suggesting not that the rest of the Union vote on Scottish independence at the same time as Scotland, but that England (and presumably, Wales and N. Ireland) should have the chance to vote for independence for their countries at the same time as Scotland’s referendum. I agree with this on the basis of fairness and consistency: everyone in the UK should have the same options put to them at the same time, and we can’t let just the Scots decide on the future of the UK, if it has one.
I agree with your taking Redwood to task over his ‘dual-mandate’ MPs, wonkotsane. The very notion is illogical: how can one MP have a mandate from two electorates - his local (English) constituents and all the people of the UK? If you’re going to separate out English / Scottish / Welsh / N. Irish legislative and policy programmes out from those that are still viewed as UK-wide, then you need separate elections to separate parliamentary bodies for each. Otherwise, it’s inevitable that the MPs in each country (Redwood’s idea is that Scottish MPs would also be dual-mandate: Westminster for three days and Holyrood for two) would just toe the UK-wide party line; and the differences in priorities, opinions and values on the part of their constituents and countries would not be adequately represented. Why bother with such an unworkable compromise solution? You might as well just bring the whole shooting match back to Westminster! Except of course, the Scottish genie has escaped from the bottle, and the English want a slice of self-government, too!
May 12th, 2008 at 9:39 amBritologywatch is quite correct, and I must offer an apology to that end - and to Mr.Redwood.
Having England [and other nations] granted an opportunity to vote on their own constitutional future, next to any Scottish referendum, is entirely fair. Indeed, it confronts Labour with something amounting to a double-edged sword.
Clearly, Labour would not pursue such a vote in England, as they would state that it was simply not required nor asked for by the people. What do you think?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:31 am