If you want an independent England and an independent Scotland, with no Union, then of course my proposal is not for you.
I think it is worth a try to give England a fair devolution settlement, and then see if the public would rather live in a Union with such a settlement or wants to vote to break up the Union.
Of course if the British people voted to break up the Union then England would be governed by the English Parliament at Westminster, which would have fewer MPs than the Union Parliament, and fewer officials.
January 7, 2007
There are a number of tangible and intangible advantages in keeping the Union. It is therefore well worth trying the system you suggest. It is, however, necessary to change the number of Scottish MPs to a number that correspond better to their size.
January 7, 2007
John,
It's not just devolution that is a dogs breakfast, Lords reform is similarly ill thought out. Why not look at a comprehensive reform of Parliament.
Seems to me that the Commons could be exclusively English and reduced to around 250 MPs. The Lords could then be the House of the Union, being largely or wholly elected covering issues that would benefit from cross country co-ordintation (such as defence, environment, illegal invasions etc) and legislative revision.
January 8, 2007
I've never understood the Conservative Party's emphasis on the Union. I recall that John Major, on the final day of his last general election campaign, flew all round the UK to make some point about the dangers of devolution. If so many conservatives are against a federal europe then why are they so insistent on a unitary UK? It seems inconsistent.
Yes, let the people decide in a gradual manner. Similarly, it's high time that any proposed enlargement of the EU should be the subject of a referendum.