New poll: What constitutional settlement do you favour for England?

Check out the new poll on the above subject I’ve just added to the Polls section of this site. My preference, by the way: No. 4 – (con)federation with sovereignty – England fully sovereign but delegating responsibility on things like defence and foreign affairs to a new federal British government.

Not that I’m trying to influence the vote (as if I would)!


12 Responses

  1. Independence all the way!

  2. I favour independence. The recent actions of Scots, Welsh and “UK” MPs representing constituencies in England have convinced me that we cannot trust the UK set-up.

  3. A Federal resolution is ok but the longer this goes on and the more the politicians lie and duck and weave, the more I want independence.

  4. Confederation.

  5. Independence in 2010!

  6. I prefere democratic state rather than kingly system in UK. Independence is better .

  7. Confederation including a Cornish parliament of course to recognise the current de jure constitutional independence of the Duchy:

    But how would such a confederation relate to the EU?

    However wish lists are all well and good but what we all really need to be doing is working together (even with our huge differences) to ensure that a fully informed electorate has the final say via some form of constitutional convention.

    • I agree that we all need to work together, Philip. I’m working on a post in which I’m going to make some concrete proposals about how all who want it (nationalists and non-nationalists) can try to work together to bring about constitutional reform. Watch this space!

  8. Independence! Thanks to the actions and attitude of the people who have been indirectly helping to eradicate elderly English folk and English cancer patients. Damn them all!

  9. The simple extraction of power for Wales, Scot. & N.I has not altered the power-balance of UK Parl. in any real way. The W. Lothian Q is a yesterday quirk. Fundamentally, I would like to see devolution FROM the UK Parl. That doesn’t necessarily mean an independent England, leaving the other 3 to scrap amongst themselves. It does mean changing the UK Parl. to something much more reduced in scope – a good example might be Canada, which combined the a Province-specific governance within a Parl. system. You could, of course, look at the US. But – and leaving the monarchy issue aside – would we go for a head of state & gov. rolled into one, like US; or would we favour that separation of power between the non-political & political aspects of heading a country? I actually think that Obama would only remain popular if he was separate from Gov, rather than as PM, as he appears more aloof when questioned; but Clinton prob. would do well in Commons, for example. I do favour increasing the role of UK MPS and reducing power of PM within a 4-country devolved state (and, thus, a generally reduced-power Parl. overall); but I’m not sure if we should combine head of state & gov, like US, as I feel the UK Gov would, in a devolved state, be quite mocked, anyway – in that respect, I can understand some of the Scot. attitude. Having a Head separate from that political mess might yield more respect for them. (Ireland seems to have this, with Pres. doing Queen’s job, and then PM for Parl.)

    With the Monarchy, I favour modernising it as much as poss., without nec. being revolutionary. I do think Charles could be given a Lords role, or some environmental role, and Wills to succeed the Queen, being given the title of William Windsor, Head of State. This could be on a 10-15yr term, so as to consider what to do about the whole property+ rest of the family situation. After that, open it up to elections. I actually think Will could get re-elected, and it would signal in a different relationship with the Windsors than has been known. The Queen will be the last Monarch who means anything, historically: she was there when Monarchy meant something, and has lived through the war years, and has reigned for a long time. If Charles was to take up that role, it would already be in a different world. Labour aren’t worthy of their name – they were for Irish reunification, and anti-monarchy – but they’ve failed on moderate progress, really. Early devolution is old news now; no reason for their passivity. Most people will take more steady change that Labour has sought to implement. I have nothing against the Monarchy, more against the sleep-walking Gov.

    With the Lords, modernise, yes; but also change it to, say Peter Mandelson, Lords; or Peter Mandelson, HL. Something like that, rather than Lord Mandelson. (Sorry to use him).

    Also think more should be done to present England’s diverse culture/history from olden times. Multi-culturalism is a term associated with not having a white face. This narrow understanding of the origin of whites on this island tends to legitimise a fascist voice. The origin of the earlier English and British is more interesting than the Gov. have bothered to discuss; and the earlier obsession of the upper-class with racial purity (which was class, in that context) has further problematised public knowledge of their history. Scotland have taken a similar stance as N.I did, in that they act like ‘the English’ are a foreign species, rather than, possibly, their ancestors, who came as migrants for work. Look at the statistics for Rep. of Ireland for emigration, and over how many hundreds of years! You figure the maths out.

    Pheeew, sorry. Been waiting to offload on someone. The longer the Gov delay, the more likely people are going to go nuts and go solo. Is that better? I don’t know. But I think the minor nations of financially better off in the UK, which makes the union even more troublesome when you are abused, yet expected to pay pocket money. Bla Bla Bla.

  10. I would like to see a parliament for England and also keep the Uk Parliament as we have now, that way we will all be represented fairly not as we are now. It can not ever be right that a politican can influenece and vote on something that will only affect one part of the country but not his own constituients as that is voted on in a different parliament or assembly.
    Currently the English Democrats are the only party that address this question head on..go to their sit e and see for yourself

  11. We English have been deeply hurt and betrayed by the politicians of the three other units of the UK. It is too late to reverse the endemic, inbred anti English antagonism that has for generations saturated the psych of the other units. This anti Anglo sentiment has been used as a mechanism to seed and maintain the separate national identities of the other UK units.
    I do not trust them. I have witnessed and suffered from the nationalistic predations of the representatives of those countries. I feel that the time has come for a complete break.
    It must be the prerogative of those people of the other countries, at some future date, to decide if they would like to talk about union/federation or to continue the current thinly disguised rivalry.. In this way they would have to be supportive of a union rather than suffering one for financial gain.
    We English must have time to heal our scars, re-establish our identity, culture and independence before we will be in a position to conduct meaningful negotiation. One thing must now be paramount, our country must never again be defaulted into the hands of those who have no loyalty or liking for our country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: