Comments for Nick's Blog

Comment on Settling citizenship: the legacy of Bernard Crick by apuleius

apuleius — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:17:21 +0000

As someone who has actually taken the Life in the UK test, I can assure you that it has utterly failed in its “attempt to give new meaning and content to the acquisition of British citizenship.”

The accompanying book (in both first and second editions) is poorly written and inaccurate. It requires candidates to rote memorise details that would be unknown to the vast majority of native-born citizens. How exactly is it relevant to life in the UK to know, down to a few percentage points, what proportion of the population is of Pakistani heritage? It did nothing to make me feel more integrated (quite the opposite, as far as attitudes to the Home Office were concerned).

Comment on Positive stance on union demands positive vision for Scotland by Barry Hamblin

Barry Hamblin — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:41:02 +0000

So back again to the regionalisation of England, when will the likes of Nick Pearce realise that by balkanising England, England will be no more (or is that what he really wants). England already has its’ regions they are called Cities and Counties, which can have decentralised powers under an English Parliament. I am quite fed up whenever the talk comes to devolving power to England up comes the regional argument, lets not concern ourselves that England is the oldest unified Nation in Europe, lets not concern ourselves that England was before this fatal union the ‘mother of Parliaments’, lets not concern ourselves that electorate of England suffers a democratic deficit, no lets follow Nicks advice and regionalise England out of existance

Comment on Positive stance on union demands positive vision for Scotland by Alasdair Rankin

Alasdair Rankin — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 14:27:28 +0000

Dear Nick,

Thanks for this post. I agree entirely with the “forward offer” point. I think one reason that we haven’t seen one, except in the most vague and non-committal way, is unionist fear that more devolution, particularly involving significant fiscal and economic powers, is simply a further concession to the SNP who will not be placated by that anyway.
However, if they had faith in the Scottish electorate/people and the ties of the union, they would still go in this direction as that’s what around 66-70% regularly say they want in polls and the unionists keep saying that there just isn’t a majority for independence in Scotland.
I believe the unionists are still rocking from the Scottish Parliament election result last year and are wondering how they got into this mess, having to respond to arguments they previously happily dismissed as hypothetical. Cameron is still doing catch-up as he seems to think that the Scotland bill in Westminster will give Scotland tax powers “for the first time”. A student-level blunder. I think that is symptomatic of general metropolitan ignorance and indifference – what does Scotlan matter as it’s only 8.5% of th4e UK population? History shows that the answer is that it seems to matter about as much as the NE of England. Scotland happens to be a nation which signed a Treaty of Union with England and that is now threatened so it’s wake up and get serious time. I think there is a kind of Tory ennui with the whole question. “Why can’t we all just setttle down and get on with things as we always have?”
The truth is that the British political parties have failed Scotland just as they have failed so many in large and persistent unemployment and poverty areas around the UK.
One of the SNP’s most powerful arguments is that it can rescue Scotland from this terrible and persistent waste and economic underperformance, build a better economic and social future whilst also setting up a modern, properly democratic state. The UK is failing and has long failed on many of these fronts. In significant respects it is a social and political anachronism in thrall to an economic ideology that has also clearly failed. The problem doesn’t really lie with any of the people of the UK or any of the relationships between them, it lies at the political, economic and constitutional levels. Scottish nationalism as a symptom of British decline: Discuss.

Comment on Positive stance on union demands positive vision for Scotland by Julie Innis

Julie Innis — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:01:19 +0000

2005 may have given Labour a majority of seats in England thanks to the skewed boundaries biased in Labour’s favour but in fact more votes were cast for the Conservatives.

Comment on Positive stance on union demands positive vision for Scotland by David Kelly

David Kelly — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:13:16 +0000

Meanwhile, what’s in this ‘Union’ for England? Apart from a deficit of democracy, paying for stuff that our neighbours in the devolved countries get for free, and a ruling class that hates our guts?

Comment on Learning English: what Gladstone and Disraeli have to teach us about the English question by Derek Armstrong

Derek Armstrong — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:49:17 +0000

To reply to ap Neb: I proposed a “fully elected” House of Lords, and I added that it should “function as the upper house for the entire United Kingdom”. It is surely obvious that the members of my proposed House of Lords would have to be elected from ALL four nations in the UK, so there can be no assumption that the British Prime Minister would be English. I certainly do not have a problem with a Celtic Prime Minister: we have had many excellent examples in the 20th century, Lloyd George and Harold MacMillan for example.
As a further refinement to assuage Celtic sensitivities, the House of Lords could be made peripatetic: i.e. it could sit for three months in the capital city of each UK nation. There is some precedence for this: in olden days Parliament would follow the monarch round England and Wales.

Comment on Learning English: what Gladstone and Disraeli have to teach us about the English question by ap Neb

ap Neb — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:41:02 +0000

Derek Armstrong says “The House of Lords would hold the British Prime Minister and the British cabinet to account…”.
So under your plan, the ‘British’ Prime Minister is still an English MP serving in the English Parliament?
Surely not.

Comment on Learning English: what Gladstone and Disraeli have to teach us about the English question by Stuart

Stuart — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:48:42 +0000

Good on the IPPR for publicising this issue over the years. My personal preference is for an English Parliament, mind; it seems the most logical option, and it would warm my heart to see careerist politicians trying to figure out whether they should run for Westminster or their own country’s parliament. I also harbour hopes it would lead to a renewed English radicalism and – if it was situated outside of London – a more balanced country, less in hock to the south east. Agreed, though, it would leave Westminster looking pretty strange, but suerly that could be worked out by some bright young things?

Comment on Learning English: what Gladstone and Disraeli have to teach us about the English question by Derek Armstrong

Derek Armstrong — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:05:16 +0000

A more radical solution is needed: not only should there be an English parliament, but a federal structure for the government of the UK is needed. Thus there is no need for the House of Commons to have MPs from all four UK nations: it should contain only English MPs, with the Celtic nations all having their own parliament with their own MPs. The House of Lords can then become fully elected, and function as the upper house for the entire United Kingdom. Finally it would at last become a truly proper functioning second chamber for the UK, rather like the US Senate acts for the USA.
The House of Lords would hold the British Prime Minister and the British cabinet to account, whose responsibilities would be solely for defence, foreign affairs and perhaps matters of macro economic importance affecting the UK. All other affairs could, and should, be the responsibility of each nation’s own parliament.

Comment on Learning English: what Gladstone and Disraeli have to teach us about the English question by Rob Whitehead

Rob Whitehead — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:56:37 +0000

Why not kill two birds with one stone – the West Lothian question AND House of Lords reform. The Commons could retain all reserved ‘federal’ affairs as the sovereign UK Parliament, and the Lords could transmute into an English Parliament. Yes, this would sacrifice bicamerality at the higher level, but this could could be a price worth paying for the resulting constitutional coherence.