Both of you can it, now.
Pjen, it’s well established that ‘English Nationalist’ as you use it is an insult. Please rein that in.
Steophan, don’t accuse other posters of lying.
I expect civility from everyone going forward.
An order in council is part of the Royal Prerogative,
They can be overturned by subsequent legislation but this is embarrassing for the government doing it on constitutional issues.
The current Order in Council accepts that Scottish Independence is a matter for Scotland alone.
A future government could legislate to change this, but there would be severe consequences North of the Border were it to be passed.
How can English Nationalist be an insult. You ruled that Little Englander was, but not that English Nationalist was.
How come Scottish nationalist, Irish nationalist, Welsh nationalist, French nationalist, Russian nationalist, German nationalist, American nationalist and so on are acceptable, but only English Nationalist is forbidden?
What should I call an individual who is set on ensuring that English priorities are championed against Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh nationalists.
Why does “English Nationalism” alone represent an insult?
English nationalism is the nationalism that asserts that the English are a nation and promotes the cultural unity of the English. In a general sense, it comprises political and social movements and sentiment inspired by a love for English culture, language and history, and a sense of pride in England and the English people. English nationalists often see themselves as predominantly English rather than British.
On the political level, some English nationalists have advocated self-government for England. This could take the form either of a devolved English Parliament within the United Kingdom or the re-establishment of an independent sovereign state of England outside the UK.
What I am trying to point out here is a strand of Unionism that rests on the Tyranny of the Majority.
The fact that one of the constituents of the UK outvotes the smaller ones by ten, twenty and forty times means that the smaller entities are over-ruled on many issues important to them.
Unionists wish to retain a Union, but only where England continues to have the whip hand.
Now that it looks like almost all Conservative, Labour and LibDem MPs will be English, an English hegemony occurs.
Thus “British” interests are dominated by English interests allowing people who value English rather than Welsh, Irish or Scottish values to pretend (with a small number of Welsh and maybe a couple of Scottish) that they alone decide what should be legislated for. And as English parties they would be acting on English interests as that is their political base.
Thus a claimed “Unionism” can hide an English only agenda behind a wrapping of the Union Flag, yet representing only England.
If the election in May follows the opinion polls, Conservatives and Labour will have about 270 seats each plus or minus 30.
Of these 540 seats, over 500 will be from English constituencies.
In non English Constituencies they will have about thirty MPs.
The non Labour and Conservative MPs will be split between about 25 in England and some 80 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
A “grand coalition” of Labour and Conservatives would have
510 English seats and
30 non-English seats
The “opposition” would have
25 English seats and
80 non-English seats.
Westminster would rightfully be seen as an English Parliament!
And now, as with the Better Together scare stories, tame industrialists start predicting the breakdown of society if the SNP are party to government.
There is a pattern here.
An Independent editorial suggests that a grand coalition could be justified if it caused a real consideration of the constitutional position on federalism, devolution and Home Rule.
Article 19 of the Treaty of Union provides that the Scottish legal system remains separate from the English legal system.
The treaty is silent on the relationships between of the Scottish regiments and Parliament. They remained loyal to the Crown.
The treaty is silent on the relationship between the Crown and the Churches in Scotland. There is no established religion in Scotland.
So on several important matters Westminster is not supreme.
Always research and fact check.
Upon review, I’m going to slightly walk back by statement up there about ‘English Nationalist’. Used as a descriptor, I find it not such a bad thing. Whether it applies to the person being so described may be another matter and may be subject to review.
The same applies to Scottish Nationalist, of course. Either phrase is fine provided it’s not used in an insulting or derogatory sense.
Pjen is intentionally using it as an insult, and… intentionally misrepresenting (is that an acceptable euphemism?) my pro-Union position as anti-Union and pro-England. It’s unfortunate that you’ve chosen to let that slide.
False. Utterly false. Parliament could rewrite any of that, at any time it chose, and it would be binding - as there is, quite literally, no authority that could prevent it.
Utter nonsense. Obviously, in practice just due to the size difference, what’s best for England will often be what’s best for the Union, but no-one is trying to get gains for England at the expense of Scotland. As you well know, there is a large net flow of wealth from England to Scotland, as well as Scotland having vastly disproportionate political power. That even suggesting that there be some movement towards equalizing them provokes shrill, ridiculous cries of “English nationalism!”, “neo-colonialism” .
You know how I know that it is bollock? Because if there was any desire for it to happen, it would have happened. Instead, [str]England[/str] the UK has given you a Parliament, a vote on independence, and more money per capita than the rest of the Union. And yet you accuse someone who suggest maintaining that position of being an “English nationalist”? Utter, indefensible, unsupported manure of the highest order.
So you believe that treaties between two nations can be torn up in favour of the majority nation after time has passed. Interesting. That sounds very Anglocentric.
The fact that Scotland has maintained its own law and courts for so long makes your suggestion merely a figment of your imagination.
Unless you can provide a cite for Westminster claiming any right to interfere in the Scottish Justice system.
Certainly a shared administrative law has grown up, but there are two separate systems of Civil and Criminal Law of ancient standing that remain intact and unfettered by the Treaty of Union.
You need to be more consistent.
You previously said that you were not particularly offended by being called a Little Englander- an epithet I have since avoided.
If a supposed Unionist acts in such a way to favour England over the Union as a whole would he still be a Unionist?
You have persistently tarred me with the Scottish Nationalist brush, despite the fact that I support rational and negotiated progress towards a fair and modern federalism, and see Separatism as something that the UK is walking blindly into. Because of English Nationalism hiding behind Unionism.
And that is the exact English Nationalist rhetoric that is driving the move to separation current in Scotland.
What is needed is statesmanship, compromise and a modern federal structure.
“The Act of Union 1707 merged the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England to form the new Kingdom of Great Britain. Article 19 of the Act confirmed the continuing authority of the College of Justice, Court of Session and Court of Justiciary in Scotland.[30] Article 3, however, merged the Estates of Scotland with the Parliament of England to form the Parliament of Great Britain, with its seat in the Palace of Westminster, London. Under the terms of the Act of Union, Scotland retained its own systems of law, education and Church (Church of Scotland, Presbyterian polity), separately from the rest of the country.”
So, still waiting for your cite for the Treaty or legislative authority that allows Parliament to legislate solely Scottish legal, education or church matters- matters that Westminster has failed to legislate on for over 300 years.
Over to you…
I see the current impasse as an opportunity, not a threat.
We need an answer both to the West Lothian Question and the problem of English effect hegemony in the politics of the UK.
The Tories have opened the door by offering some form of EVEL by devolving to putative city states. But this ignores suburban and rural England. Labour are considering a new constitutional settlement. The LibDems have always supported regional devolution.
We now have a situation where all interests can come together in a constitutional convention, federalising England And the UK, ordering the rights and responsibilities between devolved parliaments with a federal administration at Westminster, and organising a voting system that is fair and respects minority rights.
A federal set up with the following bodies:
Scottish Parliament
Welsh Parliament
Northern Ireland Parliament
London Assembly
Southern Counties Assembly
Wessex Assembly
West Central Assembly
East Central Assembly
South Central Assembly
Northern Assembly
Yorkshire Assembly
All with equal devolved powers with important central powers reserved to Westminster.
Sorry, omitted the link
I have read that Wikipedia article in more detail.
Unsurprisingly it supports my case.
The Act of Union 1707 merged the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England to form the new Kingdom of Great Britain. Article 19 of the Act confirmed the continuing authority of the College of Justice, Court of Session and Court of Justiciary in Scotland.[30] Article 3, however, merged the Estates of Scotland with the Parliament of England to form the Parliament of Great Britain, with its seat in the Palace of Westminster, London. Under the terms of the Act of Union, Scotland retained its own systems of law, education and Church (Church of Scotland, Presbyterian polity), separately from the rest of the country.
The Parliament of Great Britain otherwise was not restricted in altering laws concerning public right, policy and civil government, but concerning private right, only alterations for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland were permitted. The Scottish Enlightenment then reinvigorated Scots law as a university-taught discipline. The transfer of legislative power to London and the introduction of appeal to the House of Lords (now, by appeal to the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) brought further English influence. Acts of the Parliament began to create unified legal statutes applying in both England and Scotland, particularly when conformity was seen as necessary for pragmatic reasons (such as the Sale of Goods Act 1893). Appeal decisions by English judges raised concerns about this appeal to a foreign system, and in the late 19th century Acts allowed for the appointment of Scottish Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. At the same time, a series of cases made it clear that no appeal lay from the High Court of Justiciary to the House of Lords. Today the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom usually has a minimum of two Scottish justices to ensure that some Scottish experience is brought to bear on Scottish appeals.[31]
Scots law has continued to change and develop in the 20th century, with the most significant change coming under devolution and the formation of the Scottish Parliament.