To think England should have it's own parliament?

[helpwithhouse]

Ok, I'm probably completely wrong here(I'm not great with politics, but I'm trying! Hopefully someone good with politics could tell me why this wouldn't work, as it seems quite simple to me).

I'm Scottish. I'm unbelievably proud to be Scottish, but I'm also proud to the British and voted no in the indyref.
But I see so many people frustrated that Westminster only focuses on England, and thats heightened now due to Covid19. The prime minister is talking to the UK, but really is only giving the "rules" for England.

So, surely if Westminster is for the UK, and Scotland, Wales and NI have their own parliament for things like health care and education, then England should have the same.

That means that westminster would focus on everyone on other matters, not just England.

I know this isnt the time, and things like this will cost a lot of money.

But, in the long run, is this do-able?

[PicsInRed]

I think youd find that "Westminster" would be for England and some plywood building would be erected around Watford to keep pretence of a "UK". And it wouldnt last.

If you want independence, that is the answer.

[ChangeThePassword]

Research the West Lothian question.

Imo it isn't necessary, as, since 2015, only English MPs can vote on England-specific issues.

[ChangeThePassword]

Technically I should say MPs representing English constituencies.

[LakieLady]

No, it would cost a bloody fortune.

[LastTrainEast]

It make perfect sense for England to have it's own parliament, but it probably won't happen and you'll find a lot of people oddly opposed to it.

As for "The prime minister is talking to the UK, but really is only giving the "rules" for England." he is correct to do so as he is not in charge of lockdown rules for Scotland or Wales.

[helpwithhouse]

Thats the point...I dont want independence. But I understand why people up here are frustrated.

I know its not suitable right now due to money, but surely westminster would stay for the UK as usual, and a separate parliament would be run elsewhere.

Thanks for the replies, But I still cant understand why Scotland, Wales and NI can do it but England cant. Surely that's unfair for England?

[Isleepinahedgefund]

Westminster IS Parliament for England though on all the matters that are devolved. It won't make a difference to put it in a different building, and it would be inefficient anyway.

[YinuCeatleAyru]

England is far too big and varied to have a devolved parliament in the same way that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do. the political makeup would just be an echo of Westminster anyhow.

it would make a lot of sense to have devolved broad regional governance for 4 large areas of England eg Wessex, Home Counties, Midlands and The North but there were votes about that a few years ago which were rejected weren't they? people didn't want the extra bureaucracy.

[CherryPavlova]

Gracious we’ve made ourselves small and irrelevant enough already. Let’s not tighten the grip of nationalism.

[Boulshired]

They have not found a solution as England’s population far out numbers the other nations the English votes doesn’t work as not many voting decisions do not impact the other nations so are deemed English only. The four nations does not work as again the largest population would be outnumbered and Barnett formula would need to go. A federal system like the US would be difficult as London is now generally propping up the Uk.

[ChangeThePassword]

Thanks for the replies, But I still cant understand why Scotland, Wales and NI can do it but England cant. Surely that's unfair for England

What is unfair about it, specifically? Bearing in mind MPs representing Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales can't vote on matters that solely impact England?

[Fifthtimelucky]

Well it's unfair in the sense that if you're Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish you have two opportunities to vote for someone to represent your views on national issues, but if you're English you don't. For example, you might want to support one party on the economy and another on education.

Personally I can't get worked up about this, especially now that only MPs representing English constituencies vote on issues affecting England only. The situation pre 2015 was much more unfair. But I do think that there is valid argument that if England doesn't need its own Parliament because we can just have a committee made up of all the MPs representing English constituencies, then exactly the same is true of Scotland, Wales and NI because they could do the same.

Also unfair, of course, is the fact that England has fewer MPs in the UK parliament than its share of the population. Apparently the average number of electors for each MP is as follows:

England: 72,200
N Ireland: 68,300
Scotland: 67,200
Wales: 56,000