To want English independence

[hanwiluk]

I am English and all I want say on is England. This will be the third Scottish referendum, the Welsh have had three with another in the pipeline. NI have had two referenda. The English have never had a referendum on England - not one in our 1500 year history. I would vote yes for English independence tomorrow.

A small point, but Scotland isn't part of the United Kingdom because it was invaded and conquered by the English. The Union of the Two Crowns occurred because the Scottish king became king of England too and he packed his bags and moved to London. The Act of Union involved the Scottish Parliament voting itself out of existence thanks to the promise of free trade and various other economic and personal benefits to Scottish aristocrats: "We are bought and sold for English gold."

I feel that England should have devolution. Its illogical that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own parliments but Englands does not. However I think a simpler and cheaper way would be only to allow English MPs to vote on English matters.

I have no problems with the scots/Welsh making different decisions about funding prescriptions. In England cancer victims get better cancer drugs as that is what British parliment sees as important.

Wales doesn;t have a parliament - it has an assembly with more limited powers.

Issues only applicable to England should indeed only be voted on by English MP's though that seems perfectly reasonable. That isn;t by any strecth of the imagination devolution though

Yes, when did the Welsh Assembly start being known as the Welsh government? During the devolution campaign, it was clear it was only going to have the limited powers of an Assembly. I've been in exile living in England ever since - did it get more powers?

Re this being proud to be from somewhere or not somewhere, I was proud to be British during the Olympics for example, as it was such a good show and showed us at our best, not winning medals, but being welcoming, helpful, enthusiastic and friendly. It's such a pity this feeling evaporated so quickly and the crappy side of the British reasserted itself - negative, whiny, grumpy and unwelcoming. However that's irrelevant,

I simply think loving your country and having that tug at your heart when you're away is patriotism, not being proud, or thinking you're better than other countries. If I could choose a nationality it would be one of the Scandinavian ones I think. That doesn't stop me loving my country though. It's not the same as nationalism at all.

Soontobesix I wonder by if Scotland is such a heavy financial burden as you state why Westminster is so keen for us to remain in the UK eh?!!!

Well there is the oil.

Soontobesix I wonder by if Scotland is such a heavy financial burden as you state why Westminster is so keen for us to remain in the UK eh?!!!

It's not all about money. The Union is a fundamental part of the identity of many, many people in these islands. It's centuries of history, intertwined relationships and institutions and businesses and families and all sorts.

I've been really saddened by the way the No campaign has felt as though the only arguments for No were financial ones, when there is so much more that's about identity. For some reason though for the metropolitan elite taking pride in Great Britain has become synonymous with being a skinhead thicko and as such is completely unacceptable. So we're left with a load of niggardly, actuarial arguments that naturally cut no ice against the rousing cries of 'Freedom!'.

FWIW while I will be sad if it's a Yes vote for all the reasons above I think it could be a positive thing for England. Not least because it will be a chance to throw off the tatters of the Empire once and for all, ditch the post-colonial guilt and associated anti-nationalist we-are-so-very-umble posturing and think about what we want to take pride in now about England.

Of course England subsidises Scotland and Wales, it is ignoranct to suggest otherwise.
Each person living in Scotland or Wales has more money spent on them than people in England.

What is ignorant is to state your own opinion is if it were fact without providing any evidence for what you are saying. Scotland has 8.9% of the population, has 9.4% of taxes raised in the UK spent in it and provides 9.9% of all UK taxes. So yes, we do get more spend on us per head (largely because we are much more spread out) but we are still subsidising the rest of the UK. No idea if that's also the case in Wales, though.

I don't see how a devolved English parliament would work. England makes up around 80%-90% of the population of the UK. There's just not enough difference between England and the UK as a whole to make it feasible.

I saw this on another forum this morning:

"The Scots' view seems to be 'Federalism is dead, long live Federalism!' They say they want independence and don't want to be part of the Union. But they want to be part of the EU. So, they want to get rid of one lot of people that control much of what they do for another lot of people that control much of what they want to do.... So what's the difference?"

Maybe the answer is that we should dissolve our Union totally, each of the countries has its own Parliament to determine that country's spend and government (subject to EU treaties) but retain a currency union?

iismum - the difference to me is the transparency when MPs are voting on topics which are devolved in other parts of the UK, so only affect England.

There's a lot of posts on the independence threads which show that many English people believe that the UK government is 'giving' things to Scotland while denying them to England - mainly university fees and prescription charges. It would be a lot clearer if the decisions which affect England were being voted on by something other than the whole UK Westminster government, to make the distinctions. Some things are decided for England alone, and those ought to be more visible, so that voters can object!

But I suspect just sessions at Westminster for English-consitituency MPs would be better than a whole second set of MPs to pay for!

AMumInScotland - yes, I agree. A separate UK and English parliaments don't make sense, but neither does legislation being decided by MPs whose constituents it doesn't affect. This is one of the problems of devolution!

The problem is that it doesn't make sense logistically to have a completely different set of people making decisions for England than for the UK, due to the 80-90% overlap. But if you have one group of people making decisions for both, increased devolution to Scotland means that you really can't justify having, say, a Scottish PM, home secretary or chancellor, because most of the decisions they would be making would be for England only. But since they are also making major decisions that affect all of the UK, it's a serious democratic discrepancy that a Scottish-elected politician couldn't have a chance of holding these positions. Devolution doesn't work! That's one of the reasons I'm voting yes.

Some sort of federal UK could work, but only if England was split up into different federated states. Personally, I think this would work well - I'm from the North-West, and would like to see them have more autonomy. But this is a serious long-term prospect - it would be a complete overhaul of the way England works, and there doesn't seem to be much appetite for this in England - so as a solution to Scotland's demands for increased autonomy, it's not feasible. Plus, in a federated state, the key things that are kept centralised are immigration and foreign policy, and these are two issues on which the difference between Scotland and rUK are most pronounced.

A separate UK and English parliaments don't make sense

And I would still ask why can't England have a separate parliament, like everyone else seems to be getting? The on costs are no different just because we are English.

That dismissiveness is what causes a lot of the negativity this end. The serious discrepency here is that there is no English voice for English policies - all MPs vote on them all!

It doesn't matter how you look at it really, an independent Scotland will screw up a lot of the current economic stability, such as it is (it is already doing so) and no one will really know what the hell will happen until it is too late.

There has to be a better answer than independence or the status quo. I'd vote for that

Oh.. I REALLY hate that fucking 'r' thing, too!