Letters: Case for a devolved England is strong

WHAT would an English parliament be responsible for, and where would it be located? Liberal Democrat deputy leader Simon Hughes has raised an interesting spectre (your report, 23 January).

A new devolved assembly for slightly more than 500 elected members would have to be put somewhere, and at what cost to the public purse?

Its powers would have to be at least compatible with that of the Scottish Parliament, meaning Westminster would retain control of social security, pensions, defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy.

It would be interesting to see then how the block grants for the various devolved assemblies would be allocated.

The Barnett formula might well continue but I think it’s a fair bet that a new needs-based formula would emerge, almost certainly skewing the bulk of public expenditure towards England.

It might not necessarily benefit those areas south of the Border that need it most.

Lesley Riddoch (Perspective, 23 January) reviewed well the tangled structure whereby Westminster collects the taxes but other bodies – the local authorities and the devolved bodies – are responsible for spending it.

An English parliament is not likely to resolve this. But the case for strong regional administrations – responsible for everything apart from defence and economic policy – just might.

The Prescott scheme for a regional administration in the north-east, south of the Border in 2004, failed miserably because it was not brave enough.

Voters in the south might eventually warm to a federal structure if it is seen to meet their needs and is presented with sufficient vigour.

A referendum on devolution to Scotland failed 33 years ago. But the case for a new devolved settlement or outright independence seems to be stronger today than ever.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court

Glenrothes

THIS pretended mystique about English nationalism as depicted in your report (23 January) requires comment.

English nationalism in this and suchlike reports is portrayed as an annoying knee-jerk reaction to Scottish nationalism. This is very much a contrived scenario.

While Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales are meant to be equal partners in the Union, many question the actuality of this.

The massive respective population imbalance is sufficient for many to equate this with the democratic maxim of the majority ruling and having the moral entitlement to rule.

England and Britain are frequently muddled, seen as one and the same by many people.

The nationalism of England has arguably had much greater fulfilment through the Great Britain identity than its Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales partners.

This is possibly acceptably compatible with the population disparities, but not necessarily seen as intrinsic in principle to the political partnership.

Nor do I, or many Scots of my acquaintance, and those I have other knowledge of, begrudge England whatever nationalism it aspires to or already enjoys.

And for them to have their own parliament under their own country’s name is something we would wish them well with.

We would also hope that the having of it for them will not be attended by some of the rancour and manufactured impediments that have been a feature of the effort in Scotland to return Scotland to its previous self-governing nationhood.

Ian Johnstone

Forman Drive

Peterhead

It’s a Sassenach plot! They want a nice new building on Canary Wharf and the rest of us to pay for the repairs to Big Ben, to stop it falling into the Speaker’s office.

Let the English keep Westminster and have a UK Parliament in Salford next to the BBC.

But that is nonsense. The inter-parliament business can easily be conducted over broadband and the essential personal contacts and general discussions held on neutral ground such as the Riviera or Costa del Sol.

Still a lot cheaper than the Strasbourg gravy train, especially if low-cost airlines mandated.

George Shering

West Acres Drive

Newport-on-Tay, Fife