John Reid: Dereliction of duty?
25
May
Stuart Parr at Wonko’s World may be onto something here:
The Home Secretary isn’t planning to tell Scottish police forces to merge despite telling us that anything less than 4,000 officers in a police force puts us at risk of terrorism. Obviously this is unacceptable - either there is a risk of terrorism and the Home Secretary is guilty of dereliction of duty or the risk of terrorism is a lie and the merger of police forces is politically motivated.
He’s right. Under the terms of the Scotland Act, policing is a devolved matter. But under that same act, Scottish Parliament can be overridden by Westminster. John Reid claims that the police force mergers that his predecessor was planning are partially to “fight terrorism”. If it’s such a threat to necessitate the merger of the England and Wales police forces, then why isn’t it needed in Scotland? If it is needed in Scotland, why isn’t it going to happen?
1. Anonymous | May 25th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
So, you joined the CEP yet?
Posted by Gavin Ayling
2. Anonymous | May 25th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Ah, no. Agree with the fundamental problem, but disagree on the solution proposed. You, at least, are honest enough to accept a break up of Britain, I like the idea of keeping the link if possible, hence I prefer a different answer.
Besides, devolution, not far enough, England would still be very centralised, I’d like to see things brought to a much closer level. Some sort of English assembly drawn from lower tiers would I think be a valid compromise, but still working on ideas; squaring circles not something I can do in the spring, tourist industry planning jobs kill your social life/ personal time at this time of year.
Posted by MatGB
3. Anonymous | May 26th, 2006 at 8:47 am
It may actually go further than simply not merging their forces:
The Home Secretary’s constituency in Scotland is covered by Strathclyde Police. They cover 2.2m people and are planning to split into 6 smaller forces because they can’t effectively police 2.2m people.
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/002744.html
Posted by chris
4. Anonymous | May 26th, 2006 at 9:00 am
Mat, unionism and the CEP aren’t mutually exclusive. I am a CEP member and a unionist. Without an English parliament the union is going to break up, no doubt about it.
Now, regional government - that, I think, would be acceptable if it answered to an English Parliament. It is for the English to decide how their country is governed, not the Scots, not the Welsh and not the Northern Irish. Establish an English Parliament and if it decides to devolve some power from itself to regional governments then fine - the English parliament would be representing England whereas the British parliament represents Britain.
Everything hinges on an English parliament.
Tell you what, I’m on holiday next week but if you drop me a line we could do a BlogWar - you argue for Regional Assemblies and I’ll argue for an English Parliament.
Posted by wonkotsane
5. Anonymous | May 26th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Quite right Wonko. Many of us are fighting for the Union and see an EP as the only alternative to it being unnacceptable. I meet very few English seperatists but all the ones I do meet have been forced into that position because they think England has been taken for a ride. Equality is the only fair solution and the only proper way to win over the people who have noticed the democratic deficit and decided that it sucks.
Posted by JohnJo
6. Anonymous | May 26th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
What he said.
Posted by wonkotsane
7. Anonymous | May 26th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Oh, in many aspects I agree completely; at work, so not going to did out my England needs a constitutional convention post, but the site search should find it.
Essentially, my answer is to call a convention, then we can all (or at least whoever’s elected to it, the Scottish model isn’t ideal for that aspect) figure out in what way England is dealt with and how.
My big concern is the assymetric size if we go for a federal Britain, Hazel might be an arse but he did have a point, but I don’t really think it’s for any of us to decide just for ourselves. Probably best is if we have a convention, hammer out a few different options, then put it to the people in a preferendum (like NZ did with voting systems). I respect the desire for an English parliament, I just disagree with it as a solution to the problem that I identify.
To me, it’s not about equality for the nation, it’s about what’s best for the people in England (not of England) - I favour power being as close as possible, always have, always will.
If we have Britain/ England/ Region(Province?)/ County/ District that’s far too many layers. But for me to say Regions is the only possible answer (which I dont’ anyway) or for you to say a Parliament is the only possible answer is presumptious; I’m an arrogant bastard, but I’m not that arrogant ;-)
Stuart; I’ll hapilly do the “blog war” thing, but it’ll have to be August/September; I work in the tourist industry, customers from overseas, I do pre-arrival planning, mostly 2-4 weeks in advance. My biggest arrival days are 25th June, 2nd July, 9th July, 30th August. Yup, that means I’m swamped from now until mid-July. We’re talking 80 hour weeks and similar, what is this “bank holiday weekend” thing other people speak of?
Light blogging for me for a bit, won’t have the mental energy for anything substantial.
Chris; thanks for the link, my feed to Englishman seems to be dead, I’ll have to fix that…
Posted by MatGB
8. Anonymous | May 30th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
For a good *academic* counter to Robert Hazell, you should take a look at what Brigid Hadfield has written about the English Question. I study law, and several of her articles are recommended reading in my course but not a single one by Robert Hazell. It’s only newspapers that pay attention to him.
Posted by Hlafweard
9. Anonymous | May 30th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Not someone I’d heard of, a brief Google says you’re possibly right, I thank you. Shame that I’m utterly too swamped at work right now, but it’s something to mull over once the summer is done, many thanks. Any specific texts I should look out for?
As for Hazell, I hadn’t heard of him until Gareth/JohnJo linked to him, but he’s a full professor at UCL. But he’s not a law professor, you probably don’t get recommended Geras or Hampsher-Monk but on their fiels with the study of politics they’re certainly well read. But I’ve been out of academe for more than a few years now, so I’m not exactly in touch currently. His research appears valid, his conclusions debatable, his bias doesn’t necessarily invalidate his work.
Posted by MatGB