You have all probably spotted this already, but look at the map of "elected" Britain - (it does include the constituency, of course, of the still unelected Prime Minister!)
Most of England is held by the Conservative Party (blue), with a sprinkling of Liberal Democrats (yellowish) particularly in the South West, and some Labour (red). In fact the Conservatives hold a significant absolute majority in England. Scotland is Liberal Democrat, Labour, and Scottish Nationalist, Wales is Plaid Cymru with a sprinkling of Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat, Ireland is also largely local parties (Sinn Fein and Unionist).
As someone said to me today - a non-Brit, but observor of matters international, political and financial - "it seems that like it or not, the wealth creators (in his view the Tories) got most of the vote in England, but the wealth consumers (particularly Labour, and allies - looking at the UK deficit), attracted the votes in the other countries". His words not mine!
Hmm.
It is of course supposed to be the United Kingdom, as a result of people 303 years (and 12 days, as I write) ago suggesting that the individual countries of England, Wales and Scotland might be stronger together than they were separately.(The Irish joined in 1800). A philosophy with which I would generally agree. But since then the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish have all been campaigning for Home Rule - or some sort of amplified autonomy.
Given these election results, and if my friend is right about the wealth creators, then perhaps the Nationalist parties outside England should have their way - or more, give them full autonomy. Let them continue to sing their own anthems before sporting fixtures, (so much already, for "United Kingdom") and let England go back to Land of Hope and Glory.
"Home Rule for England" could become the mantra, instead of England being on the receiving end of demands for autonomy by the other countries.
Why not? If the voters of England have spoken so clearly, why should they be saddled with the whims and fancies of their neighbours, who can then be left alone to try and realise their dreams and deal with their own problems!
Okay, it's not April 1, and am I serious?.....well putting aside the many flaws in the superficial argument, of course I recognise that this is a little tongue in cheek - but maybe only a little.
It's another beautiful day in Sydney, and I hear that the Conservatives seem to have struck a deal with the Liberal Democrats. So that really is all I have to say on this subject.
In Holland the saying goes the money is made in Rotterdam and spent in Amsterdam..the only time when the rivalry between these 2 cities subsides is when the national soccer team plays...then everyone is Orange..but wonder if this as well the case for England?
Posted by: hans.olijve | 12 May 2010 at 15:02
If it had been a serious "argument", I am sure the Blog would probably have either never seen the light of day or would have been properly researched! However, we can't be too serious about life (or I can't anyway!) and I was as interested in the views/perceptions of someone without any interests in Britain as anything else.
So, home rule for London then?
Posted by: David Eldon | 12 May 2010 at 14:55
You will know fully that the "election colour" map of the UK is more than a little misleading, especially in England. It may the the case that the Tories have a majority in England, this time. Five years ago, and for the last 13 years, the opposite was true. Scotland, Wales and London consistently vote for non conservative parties. So, all your argument proves is that under a first past the post system, however England votes determines the colour of the United Kingdom government. Seems like England holds all the cards here
Perhaps there could be a home rule for London campaign.
Posted by: anon | 12 May 2010 at 13:49