Dr Andy Mycock, Britishness raconteur, has an interesting post on New Labour and the English Questions over at Our Kingdom. He highlights UKIP's policy on an 'English parliament'.
The only party with a truly UK-wide profile that explicitly argues for an English parliament is UKIP. They propose that an ‘English Westminster MPs would meet monthly to discuss English only issues in an English Parliament’, a partial solution that is unlikely to appease campaigners for an English Parliament and others seeking English independence. UKIP are also hindered by their limited appeal in domestic elections, a problem shared with other fringe parties who support the creation of an English parliament such as the BNP and English Democrats. This suggests it is unlikely that a sustained political party-based campaign for an English parliament will emerge in the immediate future.
Given Nigel Farrage's revelation that he supports an English parliament [actually a Grand Committee of UK MPs with English constituencies] within a 'federal' [federal in a very, very - extraordinarily - loose sense of the word] United Kingdom, it's worth posting a reminder of UKIP policy.
In his address to UKIP’s 2006 Party Conference, Vernon Coleman told the audience that "The English desperately needs a party to represent them" and that UKIP should "fight hard" for an English Parliament.
Look at the results of any election. UKIP gets very few votes in Scotland or Wales. Most don't fly union flags in Scotland. Many Scottish and Welsh nationalists genuinely believe that they are one step from independence. In reality, they are further from independence than they've ever been and if they had any sense they would be fighting against the EU with all their might.
We need to fight hard for an English Parliament, where Englishmen and women can decide the fate of Englishmen and women. It is outrageous that Scottish MPs can introduce legislation on health and education which don't affect their constituents. And it's equally absurd that anyone should consider foisting a Scottish Prime Minister on us.
The present UKIP position, evolved from David Campbell-Bannerman’s 2006 press release, advocates dual-mandate governance and a consistent UK-wide approach, in contrast to the present constitutional asymmetry.
The UKIP Solution
- The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly will be retained but MSPs and Assembly Members for Wales and Northern Ireland will be scrapped.
- An ‘English Parliament’ [a Grand Committee of UK MPs with English constituencies] will sit in the present House of Commons on ‘English Days’ to debate English affairs and English legislation.
- Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Westminster MPs would sit as members of their respective national parliaments/assmblies (129 MSPs would therefore be reduced to 55 dual mandate Scottish MPs, the 60 Welsh Assembly members would be replaced by the 32 Welsh Westminster MPs and the 108 Members of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly will be replaced by 18 Westminster representatives).
- For some time in every month, assuming 1 week, the national bodies of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would meet in plenary within their home nations, and conduct additional committee work during Westminster weeks or recesses, as necessary.
- The unicameral nature of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish national chambers would be addressed by the House of Commons when it meets as the UK Parliament (the dual mandate chambers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be scrutinised by Westminster MPs).
- England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will each have their own First Minister selected from among their Westminster MPs.
- Devolved powers would be amended to prevent any UK citizen being disadvantaged in another nation within the UK (for example it would not be possible for Scottish universities to charge English students for services that they provide for free to Scottish students and students from other EU nations).
- Dependent on function Whitehall will be reorganised into either UK-wide or English departments. For example, a UK Department of Health will specify common standards, frameworks and approaches for the NHS across the UK, but national bodies will hold the Northern Irish NHS, Scottish NHS, Welsh NHS and English NHS to account at the national level.
- UKIP would seek a fair and balanced new alternative to the Barnett Formula based on rural, suburban and urban criteria, and on need, not arbitrary measures.
[Source (pdf)]
UKIP’s proposals raise a number of interesting questions.
- Would the UK parties still have (for example) both a Scottish manifesto and a UK manifesto, and; which of these manifestos is a Scottish politician being elected and held to account on?
- Do dual mandate MPs suffer from a conflict of interest; does a chamber comprised of dual-mandate MPs have any power of independent thought and action; can they 'speak for England'?
- Are UKIP's proposals actually achievable; do the Scots, Welsh and Irish actually want their national bodies, comprised of representatives with an explicity national mandate, replaced by dual-mandate British MPs, and; if they don’t, could a Westminster government realistically impose this compromise upon them?
- Would the English vote for a dual-mandate ‘English Parliament’ or would the English prefer the real thing, and; should England be offered that choice?
- What powers would a First Minister have, and; would he/she have a cabinet and could those cabinet ministers also be ministers in the UK cabinet? In addition, would there be enough MPs in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to form a cabinet and government from politicians of one party, or even all parties?
- Would UKIP's proposals improve governance and scrutiny of legislation and post-legislative executive action.
UKIP 'solution' (and the Tory's 'English Votes on English Laws') should more correctly be termed answers to the British Question, rather than an answer to the English Question. Only the English people can answer the English Question. UKIP seeks a British solution to the asymmetry and unfairness of the multinational UK constitution, and the Tory solution simply aims to mitigate the unfairness in the House of Commons.
But whether you call UKIP's solution an answer to the English Question or an answer to the British Question, the fact is that it is a non-starter. In 2005 Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, James Gray MP, suggested the same policy of dual-mandate governance as UKIP. So conscious were the Conservatives of Scottish public opinion on the matter that he was forced to resign shortly afterwards. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario by which the Scots or Welsh will give up home rule, and equally impossible to imagine a scenario in which Westminster can impose dual-mandate MPs upon them.
Given that fact I'm afraid that UKIP have devised a policy that is superficially equitable but unachievable (because at least one of the English, Scottish, Welsh or Northen Irish public will not consent to it) and which, even if it could be implemented, is unworkable in practice. Not that this matters to UKIP because they haven't got a snowflake's hope in hell of forming a government.
If you want a real belly laugh, take a read of UKIP's 'Restoring Britishness' policy statement attached.