The idea of an English Grand Committee is a good one. It will reduce the currently enormous democratic deficit currently enforced upon England and its people.

But this is only acceptable and appropriate as a short-time solution. This will only reduce the democratic deficit, not remove it. If a grand committee is acceptable for England, why is it not also acceptable for Scotland and Wales? There should be equal - truly equal - democratic representation for all four parts of the United Kingdom.

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should all have Parliaments with the same powers, and an equal level of centrally-raised finance per head. Extra money can then be granted for specific reasons or for specific projects, and any extra wanted can be raised for taxes from their own taxpayers.

The reason that it is the money which gets the English "so cross" is because that is a tangible thing that can be seen and quantified. It can be directly compared. Political power, on the other hand, isn't obvious in the same way - and Scottish MPs have not yet been used to push through a policy that only effects England that is of wide enough interest.

An English grand committee is the minimum that should happen - and it should happen now. And then we can start on the discussion on how devolution should be properly organised in order to remove the democratic deficit that currently exists within the UK.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Times, The Observer

Toque has made a new petition on the PM petitions site:

Either call English issues English issues, or give us our own Parliament. And it applies to David Cameron as much as to Gordon Brown.

Sign the petition here.

Image: Little Man in a Toque

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

We want a referendum, and he's going to try and get us one:

Excellent. I've written on the subject of a referendum on this EU Constitution - Reform Treaty, sorry - plenty of times recently so I won't go on too much. But finally a party leader has made it their official policy to have a referendum on this!

The result of a vote is nowhere near as important as having it. So long as it is the People who make the decision themselves and not the politicians deciding for us, the outcome doesn't matter. Of course I would vote no, but that is less important to me than actually having a referendum itself.

Unfortunately in the interview, he also says that we shouldn't have an English Parliament, but just English votes for English laws. That is just the first step, and not enough in itself to rectify the devolution bias.

He also knocks back the absurd idea of making people pay to park at the supermarket.

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

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.