It's really just not fair:

How come we in England don't get to have one of these as well? This shows that devolved government is more responsive to it's people. The people want a referendum. Why won't Brown just give us one? It is what we want.

The result is not what is important - what is important is that it is the British people who decide whether or not we will accept the new EU Constitution Reform Treaty. We live in a democracy, and this is one area where the people should have direct control over government action.

Source: The Telegraph

Today is "Devolution Day" in Wales, a decade since the referendum narrowly in favour of devolution, which is now claimed by First Minister Rhodri Morgan to be the glue which unites Wales and allows it to "grow up". Bloggers such as Ordovicius want the Welsh Assembly to gain more powers and become a parliament like that in Scotland. I can but agree with him that it should be - and there should be an English Parliament as well.

But will - or could - this lead to the situation that Belgium is in now?

Is this going to happen to Britain in the future? Will fish'n'chips end up being all that holds a devolved, federal, Britain together in the future? Probably not. If the UK breaks up into separate parts it will be long before such a tenuous link develops as the only reason for the Union.

But the UK is in far more serious danger for as long as there is unequal devolution. There should be English, Scottish, and Welsh Parliaments all with equal powers, and equal sized constituencies for the federal government. That is the only way that the UK can prevent getting into a similar and as degrading state as Belgium currently is. Devolution must be equal or non-existent.

Sources: The Telegraph, icWales

The second leader of a Labour party to be crowned in the last few months is telling the English to stop complaining about the extra money that goes to Scotland:

Except for the very simple fact that Scotland benefits through extreme institutional redistribution. The Barnett forumla means that Scotland benefits hugely from English taxpayers - to the tune of £1,236 per person! Other areas of the UK certainly don't benefit by so much and in the same way as Scotland does.

Wendy Alexander is trying to switch the debate round and say that if you support the reorganisation of the extremely disproportionate level of public funding in Scotland then you can't be a Unionist, but instead must, by her definition, be anti-Union. I'm sorry, but that is one of the worst arguments I have ever heard.

Other regions of the UK benefit from London in far smaller numbers and not because a formula says that they deserve more money. The Barnett formula isn't even based on need, but population numbers, whilst the "redistribution" everywhere else is.

To claim that the people of England should "stop whingeing" over the excessive extra expenditure that is spent in Scotland is ignoring the very simple fact that it creates huge inequalities within this state. Whilst to claim that the same amount of public expenditure should be allocated to every individual would obviously not be appropriate or effective, it should be based far more on what is actually needed in an area.

The Scottish wanted devolution and they got it. If they want independence then they'll have to survive without English subsidisation. So why not start now?

Source: The Times

It seems that even some on the Left are coming around to the inherent problems with the current constitutional situation:

To say that it is "unfair" is a gross understatement. When Scottish MPs have a potentially decisive vote over policies that do not affect their constituents at all, and especially when they use and abuse the ability, it is more than "unfair" - it is absolutely wrong, on pretty much every level. If you believe in democracy, then you can't accept the current status quo.

The "English votes for English laws" idea can only possibly work as an immediate, short-term solution. Fundamentally, the entire political system in the UK needs some sort of overhaul to reconcile devolution to all constituent parts of the United Kingdom and fit it with out constitution. The IPPR idea of a "British Constitutional Convention" is a good one. Instead of piecemeal approaches to change, the entire system needs to be considered as a whole.

An "English votes for English laws" programme should be instituted immediately whilst considerations on the final format of the solution is decided. This is the minimum requirement. As far as I am concerned, an English Parliament is essential. It does require any [or certainly many] extra politicians, as MPs could carry out their role in both devolved and national parliaments. Neither would an English parliament need a new building - Westminster Palace can serve fine for both. English nationalism is growing, and must be heeded - sooner or later.

Source: The Telegraph

If there is a referendum on Scottish independence, should the rest of the UK get a vote? The SNP says not:

My original thought was "well of course only the Scots should" but, if you think about it, both sides of the argument have some claim.

You can say 'only the Scots should vote because it's their country'. This is indeed true - it is Scotland, and they are deciding on their future. However, you can also say 'not only the Scots are affected by this decision, but the entire UK.' Which is also true - if the Scottish vote for independence [seemingly unlikely since "fewer than 30%" support it] it will effect both England and Wales as well. Since a vote for Scottish independence would thus greatly effect England and Wales as well, should not the people in those countries have a say too?

Both sides have good arguments. The situation really is a conundrum. Democracy says that "the people" should decide - but in this case, who the hell are the people? Are "the people" those of the UK, or of Scotland? If only Scots are "the people" in this case, who are "the Scots"? Those of Scottish ancestry, those born in Scotland, those who live in Scotland? Theoretically, if you decide that it is only "the Scots" who should get to vote, you could say that anyone who could have a claim to citizenship of an independent Scotland should get to vote as well.

One of the problems with democracy is defining "the people". I have done some rather crude characterisations above, and in the end it just means that the issue is actually even more clouded than before! Whilst thinking about this topic before writing, I have moved positions between just those in Scotland, to the electorate of the entire UK, and back again, and along some various complicated ideas in-between.

What is the answer? The best conclusion that I can reach is that I just don't know. The simplest, obvious, answer is to say just those in Scotland, but that raises issues about sovereignty and the constitution of "the people" in a democracy. But to say that the referendum should be UK-wide opens just asa many, if not more and possibly more serious ones.

Source: The Telegraph

The SNP have launched a "national conversation" in Scotland on the issue of Scottish independence. Very simply, we should just let them vote. It took me a while tor each this decision because my gut, knee-jerk reaction was to say "no" simply because it could be divisive. But I have moved away from that opinion.

I am a Unionist, but the debate over Scottish independence seems that it needs to be had - and sooner is better than later. Opinion polls are showing that the majority of Scottish voters do not favour independence from the United Kingdom. They should have this referendum, held with a caveat that this decision would be final if the vote came out against independence. Another caveat that should be added in is that for independence to be voted for, it would require a minimum of 40% or so of the entire electorate, whether or not they voted - either that or compulsory voting [something which I am usually against] be required.

I don't think that the SNP would win a referendum on independence. I think that the majority of the Scottish population wants the Union to continue, and so if they have their referendum and lose, then they will at least content themselves with the current level of devolution.

Another reason that I support the idea of a referendum on Scottish independence is that it is likely to stir English nationalism up as well,. and could very easily lead to the establishment of an English Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish one.

Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph

Gordon Brown announced back in July that the Union flag could now be flown from public buildings on any day, rather than the previous restrictions of 18 days a year. However, this now seems to not apply to Scotland:

"Proposals to fly the Union flag every day on public buildings are set not to apply to Scottish Executive sites.
The government published the plans earlier this week, and they follow Gordon Brown raising the issue of celebrating Britishness in January.
The SNP said Justice Secretary Jack Straw assured the policy would not cover executive buildings.
SNP leader Alex Salmond, now first minister, previously said Britishness "went bust long ago" in Scotland." (BBC)

Whilst it is understandable that on a few places, such as Holyrood, the Saltire [the Scottish flag] be flown alongside the Union flag, it should not replace it. We are all still in the United Kingdom, whichever part you may be in.

What this shows mostly, however, is that despite Gordon Brown's oft-made commitment to Britishness, he is still at heart a Scot - and will give things to Scotland that he won't to England. I have no problem at all with Scottish public buildings being allowed to fly to Saltire - but it should not be allowed as a replacement for the Union flag. And if Scottish public buildings can fly the Saltire, then English public buildings should be allowed to fly the St. George's Cross, and Welsh public buildings the Red Dragon.

We are all supposed to be equal partners in the Union - yet inequality is rampant. If England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are equal constituents of the United Kingdom, then they should all have the same rights and abilities. And it is the English who lose out again and again. It is not acceptable.

Source: BBC

Yet more examples of inequalities within the Union, and when the Scottish Parliament is spending English money to give Scotland superior services. This time is it pledging English money to create an educational apartheid within Britain:

"Scottish Executive plans to cut class sizes north of the Border to 18, while children in England remain in groups of 30, sparked accusations of “educational apartheid” last night.
Fiona Hyslop, Scotland’s Education Minister, promised to recruit 300 extra teachers for nurseries and primary schools in the coming year. A total of £25 million would be spent, she said, cutting the number of pupils in classes in the first three years of primary school from 25 to 18.
The move provoked cries of a postcode lottery among critics in England, who claimed that taxpayers across Britain would pay for an improvement available only in Scotland." (The Times)

So whilst more than 23,000 children in English schools suffer in classes of more than 30 children, the Scottish Executive plan to use English money to give children in Scottish schools a far superior primary education, with class sizes of just 18. Even my university seminars had 15 students in them!

Like I said before, I have no problem with the Scottish Executive doing this - and I applaud the aims - but not when it is English taxpayers' money that is funding a far superior educational situation for Scottish kids. That is where the problem lies, and that is what the problem with the current devolutional situation is. Conditions should be equal across the entire UK, and definitely not so specifically distorted.

Source: The Times, The Telegraph

Is it possible to the United Kingdom to survive the inequalities that exist within it - all of which are to the detriment of the largest constituent part of it, and which provides the funding for the inequalities as well?

Government has been devolved to both Scotland and Wales, with the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly - and yet England lacks any form of self-government as an individual country. This is not acceptable, not in the short-term and certainly not in the long term. The very least that should - nay, must - happen is that any Bill in the UK Parliament that only affects England should only be voted on by MPs with constituencies in England [and any that affect only England and Wales should only be voted on by MPs elected by constituencies in those countries]. This is, of course, a minimum - and only a viable alternative until a long-term solution of an English Parliament is reached.

What is most disturbing is the extent to which inequality is rampant within the United Kingdom. Two days ago I blogged on the fact that Scottish university students are gong to get free education - and grants - at the expense of taxpayers in England, just as student debt breaks through the £3 billion mark. Like I said there, and I will repeat again:

It really is hypocritical that the Scottish Nationalist Party will fund their policy on free university education through funding that they would not have were they an independent state. If they want to prove that they can act and live as an economically viable independent state, then they should only use Scottish-raised taxes to fund the elements of Scottish policy on which the Scottish Parliament currently controls.
If the SNP were to provide free university education from their own taxes, I could have no opposition to it - and I would in fact applaud their prioritising. But when they plan to provide free university education off English taxes when English student debt has breached £3 billion, I can have nothing but contempt for their hypocrisy and for this government for allowing it to happen.

It is just plain wrong when taxpayers in England are funding a policy of free university education in Scotland when England's own student debt problem is soaring. Especially ironic since it is the SNP who are doing it. How can Scotland survive independently if they can't even fund their policies in the areas they already control?!

And then there is this story on health:

"A drug that improves the eyesight of almost a third of people suffering from the biggest cause of blindness in Britain will be available on the NHS in Scotland from today, but not in England. While Scottish patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) will receive free Lucentis injections, thousands living south of the border could go blind if they cannot find up to £28,000 to obtain the treatment privately." (The Telegraph)

So people in Scotland with this problem get drugs, but not those in England. Nice and equal that, eh?

If these inequalities do not get sorted soon, then I am not sure whether the Union can survive. I am even beginning to question whether it should if this is the state in which it will continue to exist - with a minority having such electoral power over the majority. And I haven't even started on the West Lothian Question, with the still huge over-representation of Scotland and Wales in the Commons, despite having devolved government. There's enough material there for an entire rant on that alone, even disregarding everything else.

Click here to sign the petition for an English Parliament.

Student debt, for the first time, has topped £3 billion. Yes, three billion pounds of debt owed by students, a rise of more than £620 million owed by undergraduate in England. This student debt of £3 billion is three times that owed by students in 1997.

Whilst Student Loans may be the cheapest loan anyone is likely ever to get [as interest is only at the rate of inflation] it is not nice to know that there is such a huge amount of debt hanging around your debt. I have more than £9,000 of student loans debt and several thousand pounds of other debt accrued through my time as a student [finally ending in September]. And first-years now will end their time at university with at least £18,000 of student loans debt - so from that perspective, I'm lucky - although my younger brother isn't. I can, however, understand that to some extent students loans are necessary to fund the massive increase in the number of students - despite the fact that I think it is not a good thing.

What really annoys me is that Scottish students are set to have no fees at all - and most annoyingly, funded by English taxes:

"BRITISH taxpayers are to meet the £2 billion cost of reintroducing free university education in Scotland – but students from England and Wales will still have to pay the full fees.
Under plans to be announced by the Scottish executive on Wednesday, Scottish students who now pay £2,000 on graduation will be charged nothing from 2009. From 2011 at the latest they will also see loans wiped out and maintenance grants reintroduced." (The Times)

It is outrageous that Scottish students get free education whilst English and Welsh students are paying through the nose, especially when the money to make it possible for this to happen is coming from England and Wales. It really is hypocritical that the Scottish Nationalist Party will fund their policy on free university education through funding that they would not have were they an independent state. If they want to prove that they can act and live as an economically viable independent state, then they should only use Scottish-raised taxes to fund the elements of Scottish policy on which the Scottish Parliament currently controls.

If the SNP were to provide free university education from their own taxes, I could have no opposition to it - and I would in fact applaud their prioritising. But when they plan to provide free university education off English taxes when English student debt has breached £3 billion, I can have nothing but contempt for their hypocrisy and for this government for allowing it to happen.

That a British Prime Minister can have his constituency where his own educational policies are not applied, and where indeed the opposite is happening, I don't understand either.

Sources: The Telegraph, The Times

The expected rainbow coalition in Wales has fallen apart as the Liberal Democrats pull out of the plans. Since the reason that a rainbow coalition was proposed was due to the Liberal Democrats pulling out of talks with Labour, that they then decide not to enter a coalition with Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives doesn't show them in a good light and opens the door for a minority Labour administration. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Plaid Cymru leader and the man who would have been First Minister said:

"The Liberal Democrats have turned their backs on their duty to the people of Wales and have shown absolute contempt for the electorate... It was as a result of their decision to suspend talks with Labour that Plaid Cymru was required to offer an alternative government. The Liberal Democrats have now shown that they are unable to take serious decisions and are undeserving of government."

And he's quite right. The Liberal Democrats have shown themselves unwilling to take serious decisions and their inability to commit to a coalition has thus meant that in both Wales and Scotland there will be a minority government - which can never be truly effective at governing.

It is for this reason that it is damn good that our electoral system has not fallen into the trap of Proportional Representation, which is claimed to be "more democratic". But is it? Not in the slightest. If anything, PR means less democracy. The PR electoral system means that it is very very rare for any single party to have a majority of seats in the legislature, and in a parliamentary system such as ours, that really is a very bad thing for several reasons:

1. There is a complete lack of accountability to the electorate. It is not possible to vote a party out of government under PR. Instead all it is possible to do is decide their relative strengths.
2. Coalition governments are not effective. Since there will be many different views on various policies amongst the parties, all issues will cause arguments.
3. Coalition governments are rarely stable. They fall apart as infighting and political differences arise.
4. Under Proportional Representation you do not, ever, get to vote on who runs the government. That is decided by the political elites within the parties as they argue over who gets what and what concessions they get, etc etc.
5. PR encourages social cleavages and disunity within the state, as every conceivable minority will end up with a different party to "represent their views".

Of course, the points above don't mean that PR never works, and never can, but they are huge arguments against it. PR could only be necessary in a very heterogeneous state where social cleavages are gaping chasms. In Britain - and in most countries - that certainly doesn't exist.

As far as I can see, proportional representation has far more definite negative effects than potential benefits. Especially since it produces minority governments such as now in Wales and Scotland which are thus crippled by the lack of a majority and minimal chance of orchestrating any real change.

There is no gold at the end of any rainbow coalition. (Well, some fool's gold, maybe.)

Sources: The Times - article 1, article 2; BBC, ePolitix