scary_bear55@hotmail.com
Thanks, Scary Bear, I've inserted my replies to each of the points you raise in your text.
Chris,
Regarding your response to my last e-mail, noting that Tony Blair is Scottish, in my opinion Tony Blair portrays himself as English and he represents an English constituency. He was born in Scotland , his father is English and his mother is Irish. So really it’s anyones guess what nationality Tony sees himself as, but in my opinion he, or his PR people, portray him as English.
Tony Blair is Scottish. Being Scots is not a matter of race. He was born and educated in Scotland and speaks of his grandfather who used such phrases as "Ah'll gie ya a richt skelpin'!" Mr Blair's mother was apparently Irish, his father Scots. How his PR people portray him, or indeed Mr Blair portrays himself, is not part of the debate. In my opinion the man is more twisted than Rubik's Cube in its heyday. Tony Blair is Scottish.
Regarding decisions being taken by politicians who are not accountable to the English people, what did you make of the so called Son of Trident vote that took place this week? English MPs helped win a vote, which means there will continue to be nuclear weapons in Scotland .
I haven't read the story you quote, but it's right that these decisions should be UK-wide. If you look here http://englandparliament.blogspot.com/2006/07/blair-government-forces-nuclear-power.html you will see that England is going to be taking a lot of the nuclear energy burden (courtesy of the Scottish Raj).
Scotland only have 59 MPs in Parliament. How many do England have? There are currently 646 MPs in Parliament. So essentially you already have an ‘English Parliament’ who can vote, and win, issues which may disadvantage Scotland , Wales or Northern Ireland.
Surely it is right that England has more MPs than Scotland? It is a much larger country. Proportionally, Scotland has had more than its quota and I believe still does.
About 75% of Scottish legislation is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This means that Scottish MPs at Westminster are now voting on things that make not the slightest difference to their constituents. They are completely unaccountable. In the case of Top-Up Fees and Foundation Hospitals, Scots MPs overturned the vote of English MPs, although Scotland will be having neither of these.
This happened all the time during the last Conservative government’s days in office.
In those days, it is worth noting that Scotland had a Secretary of State to speak up for it. What did England have?
I remember the Spitting Image comedy show, doing sketches showing Scotland as a testing ground. The Conservative party are probably the main reason for the groundswell of public opinion which led to the Scottish Parliament.
I'm sorry, Scary Bear, but I find the Scottish tendency to trot out the 1980s a let-down. I was a firm socialist, so wouldn't give Thatcher house room, but Britain waas not having an easy time in the 1970s, far from it, and we tend to try and scapegoat the 1980s for everything. It's boring - they were an ever-increasingly long time ago. Throughout the 1980s, Scotland had the Barnett Formula, which ensured higher public spending.
For the record, Scots MP Malcolm Rifkind, no great fan of the English, states that the Poll Tax was not forced on Scotland (in fact, back in 1989, the Scottish Secretary did not see why Scotland should wait for England!). Mr Rifkind also states that Scotland was not used as an experiment here - http://englandparliament.blogspot.com/2006/09/david-cameron-scottish-poll-tax-lies.html
There is proof printed in late 1988 and circulated in early 1989 that the Poll Tax was definitely to be implemented in England in 1990 here - http://80sactual.blogspot.com/2005/05/say-no-to-poll-tax.html - so England was definitely NOT waiting to see if it worked in Scotland.
My local action group was VERY ACTIVE from January 1989 onwards!
Thanks for your fascinating letter. I'm away for the weekend, but if you require further replies, I will be back online next week.
Cheers,
Chris
This blog is supportive of the aims of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but is in no way connected.
