Heres a link, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/255337.stm
I don’t get why we English can’t have a national assemblie or a a regional parliment of it’s own, after reading this article it makes me reconsider what Englands place is in the world and europe as whole.
Your link isn’t working. 
Moderator’s Note: Fixed link in OP.
You could, but what would be the point? England controls most of the seats on Parliament. It’s the price one pays for being the conqueror and then having antsy conquerees, gotta throw them a bone every once in a while.
Never mind - come the glorious day* you can have as many regional assemblies as you like.
BTW - am not sure the fella in tht articlel can haev founded the English National Party - there was certainly one around in the 1970s, run by a chap whose name escapes me.
Not that obscure there, wolfie. 
The point is not that England has lost its identity, but rather than England has so dominated the Union that the British identity is in fact largely English, and the distinction between England and Britain has been substantially eroded.
The Scots and the Welsh have fostered national cultural institutions and sought measures of political independence from the UK because they feel that their identity and interests are not adequately reflected by UK institutions. The English have never had such a feeling; that is why there is no National Gallery of England and no English Parliament, and no demand for such institutions. Englishness is dominant in the UK cultural and political institutions. That is why, to refer back to the article linked in the OP, an Englishman can refer to his “English passport”. That is why the English National Party is a tiny political fringe group of whose existence most English people are wholly unaware, while the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are major political forces in their own countries.
In short, the Scottish and Welsh identities assert themselves because they need to, if they are to avoid being eclipsed. The English identity has no such need. England could have a national parliament if it wanted one, but there is no demand.
On a serious level England most certainly should have its own assembly, if only to get over the west Lothian Question (Scottish’ welsh etc MPs debate english policy, but there is no reciprocal arrangement).
The Barnet Formula means that England (esp SE England) is paying a Kings ransom to the regions (not to mention through the EU back door). I for one would like some of our money spent in our region.
So an English Parliament? Yes please (and it would keep labour out for ever, a gift that goes on giving)
I must take issue with this. The 2001 general election results for english constituencies break down as follows:
Labour 323
Conservative 165
Lib Dem 40
Results compiled from the regional breakdowns on this site.
You’ll have to be a bit more creative if you want to engineer a return to the halcyon days of Maggie;).
By ‘region’ do you mean England, or south-east England in particular?
To take just two examples, in recent years London has been chosen as the site for both the Millenium Dome and the English national stadium (the Wembley redevelopment). Both high-profile, national structures with a combined price-tag of well over £1bn (a significant proportion of which comes from government coffers). In each case, sites in the midlands or the North were turned down, and thus lost not only prestige but extra revenue that would have accompanied these projects (B’ham had a very good case for being chosen as home of the national stadium).
The Scots take our subsidies, we take their oil: we (ie. the English) get a better deal all round.
I’d like a cite on that conquering bit please.
The SE of England is subsidised a 100 and 1 ways by the rest of the country because it contains the capital. Nationally funded projects are disproportionally sited in the SE to a ridiculous degree, providing services and jobs to residents of the SE.
You can say that’s what happens in capital cities, that’s what they’re for. But it’s still a bit much when they also get to whinge about the fallacy of the rest of the country taking “their money”.
From 1707 until 1999, no legislative body concerned itself with the law of Scotland. Instead, the UK Parliament and various common lawyers sitting as Law Lords made occasional decisions regarding the civil law of Scotland using common law principles. It wasn’t until 1996 that it was even possible for a majority of Scots Law Lords to have heard an appeal from a Scottish case. This is one of the reasons Scotland needed its own Parliament.
I imagine that until the UK Parliament similarly ignores English issues, that England won’t need its own Parliament.
As to why the English don’t know what it means to be English, I can’t speak to that point. In my experience, England’s place is that it allows the Scots, Welsh, Irish, and French an opportunity to contrast themselves with the English.
I have a friend who says “Being English is to be defined by what you are not, rather than what you are.”
Small Note: Although they could legally do so, S.N.P. Members of the Westminster parliament voluntarily do not vote on purely English matters. I’m not certain right now about Plaid Cyru’s policy there but I should imagine it to be the same. Cannot trust my computer or internet connection enough to fetch a cite right now - sorry!
As for Scottish Labour M.P.s, well… I’m not going to defend that lot! 
Bah - I let go most of my typos, so as not to waste bandwidth, but I regret spelling “Cymru” wrongly. Mae’n ddrwg gen i. Sorry, Cymru.
England should have its own parliment, in fact there should not have been a referendum in Scotland or Wales on devolution, it should have been in England on whether England should keep any ties with the others. Take a look at the make up of politics in the UK, especially the Labour party, the Scots are massively over represented in parliment.
I’d agree - wasn’t England itself conquered by Scotland when they ran out of kings and had to drop around to ask to be taken over?
I researched this post expecting to tell you that you’re wrong about Scotland being disproportionately well represented in parliament but, actually, you’re right. Scotland has 72 seats or 10.92% of the total seats in Westminster. The scottish population is 5,114,600, or 8.59% of the UK total. So they actually have a bonus of about 15 seats.
[slight hijack] In Ireland, legislation provides that constituencies (which are multi-seat) must have a seat for a given, fairly tight, population range. A constituency commission sits after every census to make appropriate boundary changes. It’s strange that similar arrangements don’t appear to exist in the UK.[/hijack]
Of course, your point may have been more about scottish politicians being disproportionately represented in Cabinet or other positions of power. Certainly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the leader of the Liberal Democrats are Scots, so you may be right. I’ll leave it to others to argue that point.
Blair was born in Edinburgh btw