Clarke waters down the West Lothian Answer

Ann

Clarke lost it big time a long time ago, and this is only the latest example. He is a Euro-lunatic, and now he is a fan of English subjugation to Scots. Luverly. Except if you are English, and not rich enough like Clarke to shrug it off.

Elizabeth

Just give us an English parliament and equal rights to the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish - please.

Kevyn Bodman

The paragraph you quote from the Conservative manifesto outlines the best obtainable solution.
Clarke's idea is not as good.

Travis Bickle

Very disappointing effort by Clarke. Those who suggest bringing him back into cabinet should take note.

Lee Jakeman

"I have always considered the West Lothian Answer to be fairly simple." You're dead right. It's called an English parliament.

tally

I suppose we should be grateful Clarke did not suggest regional assemblies.

E Justice

Thats it an English Parliament.Problem sorted.

Liz Brown

Clarke has got it wrong - only English MPs's should be emitted on matters that pertain to England only. The Scottish MP's should have no input or involvement at all. A typical fudge from aa euro fanatic

John Haynes

Ken Clarke is at that stage of life rather like Michael Heslatine which is when one hears of them saying anything in public, an immediate question arises: "Good Lord, are they still alive ? Would have thought they had passed on ages ago, still there you go." Sometimes wisdom comes with age but not I suspect with the great Hush Puppy.

Elephant In The Room

It suits the EU to fragment nation states. Clarke's proposal helps to do that by further Balkanising the UK. Always remember that he's a Europhile.

Derek Marshall

What is the matter with the Tories? Why are they so scared of upsetting the Scots and yet quite happy to allow English democracy to be so badly damaged by the WLQ?
I suspect that a few years after the next general election Prime Minister Cameron will prove to as equally inept as Brown! This outrageous 'answer' to the WLQ proves my point. If Cameron accepts Clarkes proposals then he is no friend of England. I just hope that next time the Scottish vote SNP en masse and the Tories get slaughtered in Scotland. Then we can confine the Union to the history books where it belongs!

Nicholas

I'd like to see independence from Scotland and an end to the Scots occupation of Westminster. Scotland may claim ownership of North Sea oil but we should claim ownership of the English taxes subsidising them.

Geoff

THE MASSIVE ISSUE which neither this article nor any subsequent comments properly address, is that it would be terrible for good governance of the country if a minority of MPs not in the governing party could foist legislation on the government which had tax and spend implications.

What is to stop a group of english MPs voting themselves lower english taxes or higher health spending? Who would be taxed for such moves?

The proposal from the manifesto would mean England needed a discrete budget of its own, its own finance minister, rules about tax and spend

What people think looks simple is in fact HUGELY complicated and risks huge damage to the union. Thats what clarke is pointing out

Trumpeter Lanfried

This is a thoroughly half-baked, half-cock scheme cobbled together by a man who had other things on his mind. So I have no doubt it will be implemented.

Craig Strachan

The proper answer to the West Lothian question is the abolition of the wasteful and destabilising Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly and a return to the Union as it was.

Derek Marshall

Under Clarke's proposals if a Labour government without a majority in England wanted to introduce a piece of legislation for England on say planning, they could get it through the first and second readings but then if the Tories had an English majority they could wreck it at the committee stage by passing so many amendments that the bill was totally different from the Government's original intentions.

It's meaningless nonsense Ken.

James

I think Fraser Nelson is spot on. We don't want Ken's weak fudge, we shouldn't have an English parliament (way to expensive and another layer of money-grabbing politicans) and Scotish independence would also be expensive and time-consuming for both nations (and who would be lumbered with Wales and Northern Ireland)

Max Kaye

"Ken's Weak Fudge" - great trade-name for useless policies.

Bodie

We already have our laws decided for us by Europe, a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly, numerous unelected Regional Assemblies. We have more representatives than France or Germany. The answer must surely be to scrap the Westminster Parliament and save taxpayers money.

cuffleyburgers

You don't mention that UK control of UK issues has gone out of the window, or down the pan if you prefer, with successive EU treaties of which the Lisbon is only the most recent and most pernicious and scandalous (treacherous in fact) signing away of sovereignty

Elizabeth

I trust those posting the comments about the Scots rights to self determination or otherwise are in fact Scots themselves otherwise it smacks somewhat of arrogance.
The Scots have every right to an elected arliament if they so wish. I just want an English one.
James unless you are Scottish the cost of Scottish independence is not yours to worry about.
If you are - go with the flo!!

Ann

Once again, we hear people - James, Strachan - advocating the sacred cow of the union as being above the concept of basic democracy for the English. Heck, they think that money is more important than democracy for the English.
Many of us don't WANT the union. We are happy for the Scots to have their own country and to have nothing more to do with England.

Craig Strachan

Elizabeth,

Yes, as a practical matter the Scottish people would have to be consulted again prior to the abolition of the Scottish Parliament.

The SNP have already promised a referndum on independence. Maybe it could be a multiple choice type offering?

a) Full independence
b) The status quo (as amended by however the English decide to address the West Lothian Question under Cameron)
c) The Union as was, with all the numpty MSPs dumped off the gravy train and the Scottish Parliament building sold to Candy & Candy for conversion into (very) high end condos.

David Lindsay

There is no West Lothian Question.

If the Parliament of the United Kingdom were to enact legislation applicable in Scotland, then that legislation would prevail over any enactment of the Scottish Parliament.

There is simply no doubt at all about this, and anyone who doesn't like it should have voted No to devolution. I bet they didn't.

At present, it merely chooses not to do so. But it should do so, not least to make the point.

After all, hasn't Gordon Brown any views about such matters in his own constituency? Now he has the chance to give effect to those views. He should take that chance.

Jan

Totally agree with you Fraser, Tories should stick to plan A.

J Blitz

"When the(British)Parliament is discussing something that affects the whole of the United Kingdom, all MPs should vote. But only English and Welsh MPs will be entitled to vote on Government Bills relating to England and Wales. And English MPs alone will vote on the remaining laws which apply exclusively to England."

Thats no solution. Its a ruddy insult!
It still leaves England with no parliament, no budget , no ministers, no ministries, no first minister and no equal recognition by the British with the other component countries of the (still, just about and hanging on but looking precarious)
United Kingdom.

Ann

Lindsay, as usual, simply doesn't get it at all, pretending there is 'no question' because he asks a different one.

What do you think the Scottish parliament does, Lindsay? Play tiddly winks all day? OK, OK, no need to bother to answer that. But it does have powers over certain Scottish matters which English MPs DO NOT, while Scottish MPs have powers over ALL English matters.

Next!

Faceless Bureaucrat

Poor old 'Cuddly' Ken still hasn't come to terms with the fact that like that old codger Hesletine and the rest of Margaret Thatcher's old Cabinet, he is yesterday's man. This piece of utter tosh reads like a Draft EU Directive (unsurprisingly!).

Some of the threads above allude to the suggestion that we need the Union in place, otherwise those pesky Brussels types will be able to pick-us-off more easily as individual Nation States. That might have some element of reasoning if England, as a stand-alone Nation, were as vulnerable and compliant as some other European (former) Nations. But England has a history that points to a culture of governance, leadership and strength (albeit not always used in the wisest way). As such, there is no evidence that we would be more easily swallowed-up into a European Superate if the Union no longer existed (on the contrary, all the damage so far visited upon this country through selling our soul to the EU has happened whist the Union has been in existence).

Other former European Nations bought into the Euro-Dream out of weakness, not strength - Italy still struggles to form a Government that lasts more than 5 minutes, so abbrogating responsibility to someone (anyone!) else seemed reasonable to them. Spain, until relatively recently (in historical terms) was run by the facists and Germany lost its way politically due to its politicians' continuing and underlying guilt about its past (rather like Britain and its former Empire).

So giving Scotland its own Government with Tax raising powers would solve the WLQ at a stroke.

Let them balance their own Budget and see how long it is before they have to introduce Tuition Fees, charge the Elderly for Care and freeze Benefits north of the border.

And before Scotland shouts "But we've got the Oil!..", the North Sea Oilfields are on their last legs and it would be a Scottish Government that had to pick-up the eventual tab for the environmental clean-up operation (funded by Scottish taxpayers).

What Question?....

Thanks Ken, but no thanks...

Elizabeth

Actually Craig another thought. Why should the Scots alone have the choice to break the Union.
Lets give the English a vote too.
The last poll that I saw showed the English would vote for Scottish independence by a substantial majority.
Interesting.
I find it incredible how constitutional dinosaurs are refusing to see that the Union is not essential to the wellbeing of either Scotland or England and that both peoples would be happier, more prosperous and probably far more friendly separated off as has been the case during most of their history.
If Scotland wants to enter the EU - fine but I object to the thought they could be the deciding factor that drags in England on a minority English Vote. A very real scenario if ever a vote on withdrawal is held.
English MP's and Scottish Nats voted by majority for a referendum on Lisbon.
It was the rest that caused a problem yet the English are now denied a right to vote, as are Scottish Nationalists.
Another important point to ponder is that if the elected MP's at Westminster get to run England from Westminster we are getting short changed.
The other assemblies are elected under PR and in an English context that would definitely open up the chances of smaller parties. This would be good as it would break the stranglehold of the BIG3 which are basically the same party with different coloured rosettes. Democracy is really a fraud as it stands in the UK. PR as in Scotland and Wales opens up voters options and that is positive but not what the Westminster Tories want at any price.

TGF UKIP

The press reporting appears to indicate that Clarke's proposal does indeed have Dave's blessing which is hardly surprising given that they are political soulmates.

DD's take on this is going to be most interesting when he returns to Parliament.

TGF UKIP

Elizabeth, I applaud your point that the "BIG3 are basically the same party with different rosettes" but I cannot for a moment agree with your PR solution.

For me the PR argument was destroyed for ever in the previous Scottish Assembly when the LibDems who had finished fourth effectively controlled the Scottish Executive.

Moreover, I don't think we should solve temporary problems via permanent sledghammer solutions. Should Labour lose in 2010 I am confident they will find their confidence, their soul and their electability again by becoming again what they should be - an identifiably left of centre party with socialist instincts.

Equally, I have every confidence that the Tories after what will be their unhappy flirtation with Cameron social democracy will revert again during the teens to being an authentic right of centre conservative party. It will, no doubt, seem a long time but our age is just a blip in history.

Tiberius

TGF: are you one day going to say to me, "I am your father!"

Water

Nicley put Ann and Nicholas though Bureaucrat gets the biscuit. Ahh plan A.

Water

Kirkup ahead of the game as ever and Sir Rifkind haha, wonderful, love it.

TGF UKIP

Nice one, Tiberius, I haven't stopped grinning and laughing since. It really is my handicap that I can't be quite so politically modish as you.

Just like a father, though, I do understand and will, indeed, forgive you the error of your ways when the penny finally drops which should be c2013.

Nick I, Huntingdon

It is hard to say which is more outrageous - the flagrantly undemocratic abuses introduced by Gordon Brown / Tony Blair and their cronies, or the utter spinelessness of the Conservatives in refusing to rectify them. As soon as a pro-English alternative presents itself, I shall vote for it even if I disagree with some of their platform. If the Tories think there is no such thing as an English backlack, they should think again. All the Unionist parties together form an anti-English rump, hence Cromwell's judgement on the Rump Parliament comes to mind: "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Beware the anger of a patient man!

jim aldridge

"I find it incredible how constitutional dinosaurs are refusing to see that the Union is not essential to the wellbeing of either Scotland or England and that both peoples would be happier, more prosperous and probably far more friendly separated off as has been the case during most of their history" you're not alone there.

Ann

The PR argument was not 'destroyed forever'. The fact that a small party 'holds the balance of power' (a silly term, a tendentious non-argument and special pleading) is simply a reflection of the fact that the voters cannot decide between two large parties. The one that is closer to the small party's policies will form a coalition with it and modify its policies to a smaller or greater degree, as a function of the smaller party's power. This is very much a reflection of the overall preferences of the electorate, thus vastly more democratic than FPTP.

I would not allow the current speaker to decide on anything: he is not competent or honest enough to run my corner shop.

Elizabeth

Hello Ann
I agree.
I replied myself re the PR system because it is not all bad and can be positive but sadly my contribution has either not been posted up or has 'been lost in translation'.

Water

"Many of us don't WANT the union. We are happy for the Scots to have their own country and to have nothing more to do with England" seems about right, though whether it is a reflection of the overall preferences of the electorate I couldn't say, I'd like to see few opinion polls first, I would certainly hope so.