Thursday, June 16, 2005

Harriet Harman's flunky clarifies some point ...

Readers of The Insane Ramblings of Wonko the Sane may recall a letter I sent to Harriet Harman, the Constitutional Cock-up Minister, following her hilarious appearance on Newsnight. One of her nodding dogs replied to it and I emailed a list of questions and requests for clarifications.

Said nodding dog has now replied to answer my questions and clarify the points raised. Somehow, he has managed to write a two page response without actually answering or clarifying anything.




Thank you for your e-mail dated 9 June 2005, which raised a number of questions relating to my letter dated 7 June 2005. I will attempt to address each of your points in turn.

Firstly, you requested further explanation as to my point that the starting point for England was not the same for Scotland and Wales. The four components of the United Kingdom have their own histories and distinct national identities, as well as different administrative structures, size and population. Consequently, the Government believes that different approaches and solutions are appropriate to address the differences that exist between the countries that comprise the United Kingdom.

As previously stated in my letter dated 7 June, as England accounts for 84% of the UK population, this would mean that an English Parliament would only be slightly smaller than the current UK Parliament. This would not contribute towards bringing people closer to the decision making process, which is one of the cornerstones of devolution.

The UK Parliament comprises of MPs who represent constituencies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, as well as England. Consequently, all UK MPs have the same rights to vote on matters within the UK Parliament and the Government does not support the suggestion that there should be different classes of MPs with different voting rights.

In relation to my reference to the House of Commons rejecting a motion in January 2004, you state that Scottish MPs would not vote to “give away their voting rights on non-Scottish matters.” I would like to highlight that even if all 72 Scottish MPs had voted to reject the motion, switched their vote to support it, the motion would still have been defeated by a large majority.
With regard to your point relating to the Barnett Formula, I can only reiterate that the Government believes that this is the best available means of distributing public spending across the nations of the UK in a fair and stable way, and has provided stable settlements for over 20 years.

Concerning your points regarding the electoral system used for Westminster elections, and the current official level review of the different electoral systems in operation within the United Kingdom, I direct you to my letter dated 7 June 2005.

I hope this provides the additional clarification you sought.

Yours sincerely,



James Copeland
Crown and Devolution