Home page The English Crisis The subject of an English representative assembly or parliament has featured more in the media during the first Quarter of 2006. It is a topic whose core is equality of representation and individual freedom. But these are obscured by trivia. The discussions, mostly involving members of political parties as opposed to less shackled individual English men and women, seriously avoid full engagement on the fundamentals. A measure of the level of irresponsibility, of the failure to comprehend the seriousness of the situation is the typical indirect way in which the issue is referred to such as “the West Lothain question” or now, “the English question”. The original raising of this issue occurred in the 1970s when Tam Dalyell asked what became known as the West Lothian question (although there were more than one). He was addressing nothing more than a concept, the possibility that a Scottish assembly could disenfranchise the English. Since this was theoretical, at the time, its characterization as a “question” was appropriate. However, after almost 30 years the body politic completely failed to respond to the question. More fundamentally the Labour government went ahead with the formation of a Scottish assembly without first taking any action to solve it. Everyone knows that the Labour Party had a greater interest in forming the assembly, where its members controlled decision-making, than in addressing the issue of the rights of the English population. England, after all, is a country where Labour political power has always been marginal. The attempt to smother a frank failure in political responsibility and a weakened democratic status of almost 85% of the people in the United Kingdom, with the label “West Lothian question” is an affront to the people of England. We need to recognize the serious damage to the nation wrought by the Labour party’s prejudicial prevarication and its placing its own visceral interests above those of the people of England. They have succeeded in turning what was a mere question into what has become a fully fledged crisis; the English Crisis. This issue deserves more publicity than it receives at the moment. It is therefore a further affront to the English when the Lord Chancellor (so-called) who is a member of the Labour party intimated in a radio interview that it "was possible" for the Scottish MP vote to swing things against the interests of the English. Yet, the evidence shows that the most controversial legislation during the most recent sessions was able to be forced on the English through the Scottish vote while the same Scottish MPs refrained from forcing the same or similar legislation on Scotland. The Lord Chancellor refers to the English Crisis as an “anomoly” as if it were something which has only become apparent since the formation of the assembly. By implication, Tam Dalyell never asked any questions. He even had the gall to say that the Scots feel the need for “protection”. There is no credible evidence that the Scots "feel" this way. This is his own sweeping assumption, an assumption which implies that the English, left to their own devices, would discriminate against the Scots. So much for the views of this man. And yet he represents a government which has been responsible for the wholesale discrimination against the English by removing their sole protection of equal rights by giving advantage to others. He then goes further and makes the more ridiculous claim that to reestablish equal treatment for the English, through the formation of an English assembly or parliament, would lead to a break up of the Union. Recently calls for more financial autonomy for assemblies have been made by, for example, the Steel report. The possibility of alliances between the Liberal Democratcs with nationalist parties, has become a real issue. It is therefore evident that the Labour party's bad decisions on devolution, have already set in motion a largely out-of-control process which is more likely to lead to a break up of the Union. And yet the Lord Chancellor has stated, "...that separatists have been stymied by devolution and ... support for separation has flatlined." The Lord Chancellor has also expressed his disagreement with the proposal that only English MPs be allowed to deliberate and vote on English affairs which come before the Westminster parliament. This would only give equivalent powers to English MPs as are now held by the Scottish and Welsh MPs in the devolved assemblies covering their national issues. He finds this unacceptable because it would create two tiers of MPs at Westminster. He implies, incorrectly that this would relegate Welsh and Scottish MPs to a second class category. It is evident to most of the population that it is the English MPs who are currently in this category. It is more than likely that the break up of the Union, launched under Labour, will accelerate with this government's insistence that 85% of the population, and their representatives in the Westminster parliament, should remain second-class citizens. The English, it seems, are expected to remain at the bid and call of political parties who are bent on providing more "protection" to others, paid for using, largely, English funds. Such acts of gross discrimination are, it would seem, to be endured by the English because the Lord Chancellor, along with this government, consider this state of affairs to be acceptable. What is more insulting is that the English are expected to listen to this sort of irrational nonsense being presented by a man who was never elected to his office and who is a Scot and who draws a handsome income from the public, largely English, purse and whose blustering reflects that he is simply not up to the job. This seems to be yet another example of the pervasive insensitivity and arrogance which has increasingly characterized the Blair government since the lead up to the Iraqi invasion.