With a general election inevitable in the next few months, this is the first of what may become a series of blogs on matters I would like to see addressed by the next government.
The Labour Government has, since its election in 1997, devolved a certain range of powers and responsibilities to Scotland and Wales by creating a directly-elected Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. In doing so, England is left in an anomalous position, since there is no equivalent English Assembly to exercise the same powers and responsibilities in England.
It's not like they weren't warned of the problem. As early as 1977, when devolution was discussed in the House of Commons, the MP for West Lothian asked "For how long will English constituencies and English Honourable members tolerate... at least 119 Honourable Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?" This issue has since this time become known as "The West Lothian Question"
This situation has already caused controversy, with the government relying on Scottish MP's to win a vote to ensure English students pay top-up fees at university, while the Scottish Parliament ensured that Scottish students did not have to pay them.
The absurdity of this situation was illustrated for me at work today. I work for a charity which lobbies governments - the UK Parliament, The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. In drawing up a manifesto to give to MP's for the Westminster election, the following became clear:
a) The points in the manifesto for the Westminster elections could only relate to England, since the matters considered were devolved in Wales and Scotland to their respective devolved assemblies, which had separate elections.
b) The manifesto would go to English candidates - the issues would affect their constituents and they might win or lose votes on these issues
c) Scottish and Welsh MPs also received a copy of the manifesto, with a cover note explaining that these issues would not affect their constituents at all, but they might like bear them in mind because they would be able to vote on them in England!
This blatantly unjust anomaly must be resolved, either by limiting votes on English matters to English MPs or by creating a separately elected English Parliament. Failure to do so brings British democracy into disrepute, and over time, the resentment caused will fuel English Nationalism and poison the relationship between the nations of the UK.
Friday 26 February 2010
Thursday 4 February 2010
You can be good without god...
...... and the prisons are full of theists.
Cherie Booth (aka Cherie Blair) has decided that claiming to be a "devout" Muslim is a reason for leniency in sentencing. The "devout" Muslim receiving a suspended sentence in this case was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, having thumped a man so hard he broke his jaw. Her precise words (as reported in today's "Independent") were “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before.....You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”
What exactly is her point here? Is she saying that those professing a religion (whilst clearly not sticking to the letter of it) are intrinsically better than those of no religion, deserving a lesser sentence simply because of their religious beliefs? Do atheists not know what is acceptable behaviour, and what is not? Does ignorance require a harsher sentence than hypocrisy?
How far does her prejudice extend? Would she say the same about a devout Wiccan? Or a self-proclaimed Jedi Knight? Where does she draw the line? What gives her the right to draw a line anywhere, when religion, by definition, relies on faith, and one man's faith is another man's heresy?
It is the height of arrogance, and a common fault, for those of a religious persuasion to claim moral superiority over those who do not have a faith. These prejudices have no foundation in fact. Three quarters of the prison population claim to be religious, and religion has often been a major factor in inspiring such criminal activities as terrorism, gay-bashing and so-called honour killings.
I hope the official objection made to the Judicial Complaints Office by the National Secular Society succeeds in raising awareness of this issue and prevents such rubbish being spouted in court in future.
Cherie Booth (aka Cherie Blair) has decided that claiming to be a "devout" Muslim is a reason for leniency in sentencing. The "devout" Muslim receiving a suspended sentence in this case was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, having thumped a man so hard he broke his jaw. Her precise words (as reported in today's "Independent") were “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before.....You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”
What exactly is her point here? Is she saying that those professing a religion (whilst clearly not sticking to the letter of it) are intrinsically better than those of no religion, deserving a lesser sentence simply because of their religious beliefs? Do atheists not know what is acceptable behaviour, and what is not? Does ignorance require a harsher sentence than hypocrisy?
How far does her prejudice extend? Would she say the same about a devout Wiccan? Or a self-proclaimed Jedi Knight? Where does she draw the line? What gives her the right to draw a line anywhere, when religion, by definition, relies on faith, and one man's faith is another man's heresy?
It is the height of arrogance, and a common fault, for those of a religious persuasion to claim moral superiority over those who do not have a faith. These prejudices have no foundation in fact. Three quarters of the prison population claim to be religious, and religion has often been a major factor in inspiring such criminal activities as terrorism, gay-bashing and so-called honour killings.
I hope the official objection made to the Judicial Complaints Office by the National Secular Society succeeds in raising awareness of this issue and prevents such rubbish being spouted in court in future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
