I'm Roger Sanchez
Its very hard to find arguements against regional devolution for the simple reason that its very hard to find reasons for it. It all boils down to one simple idea that devolution is pointless. Therefore its a waste of money and is inefficient. If I thought it was good for the country I wouldn`t give a rats ass about the cost but I don`t. Heres my best shot at finding reasons against it. Alright I pinched most of them of the North East No Campiagns website but I have modified them slightly:

A 'new tier' of paid politicians is not needed, nor has it been demonstrated that 'the will of the people' has any desire for elected regional government in the North East.
There will be no extra money from the Government or the European Union instead there will probably be less money because the North East will be left to "look after its own business".
An elected Assembly will have no power over health, education and law and order and would therefore not be able to create a single extra nurse, doctor, teacher or police officer. It would have no power over transport, and would therefore not have the ability to dual the A1 for which many people in the region have campaigned for years.
An Assembly will be able to precept council tax to pay for itself, resulting in higher council tax bills for local ratepayers.
An Assembly will require a new building, again at great public expense like the building in Scotland which cost £400 million.
More politicians would also slow down decision-making and hinder economic progress.
It is businesses and entrepreneurs that generate the wealth needed to be able to not only maintain international competitiveness, but also be able to drive forward local initiatives.
A regional assembly would be just another talking-shop for 'upgraded' local politicians and 'downgraded' national politicians. People on the streets are already saying it will be the 'usual suspects' and result in 'jobs for the boys.'
Adding local government reorganisation to the referendum question as an 'afterthought' has created further problems, confusion and uncertainty.
This is not real 'devolution' and an Assembly of 25 members will not bring democracy 'closer to the people.

How ever one thing that the No campaign doesn`t mention but that I think is a very important point is that if you have idfferent rules and regulations in different areas it makes it harder for busisnesses to do business in these different areas as they have to adjust their working practises. This is the primary reason for the European free trade area and common working practices over these areas. Which as I`ve probably said before is not a bad idea in principle but is not outweighed by the sheer evilness of the EU.

on Apr 23, 2006
You probably think that the result justified your critique of the English Devolution process

Of course, all of your arguments have some substance but are negated by "Real" Devolution

By that I mean English Regional Parliaments with primary legislative and revenue rasing powers commensurate with their competencies.

Such a quantum leap forward was never going to happen in one move. Devolution, if followed to its logical conclusion would deliver a fundamental and profound impact upon all aspects of society.

We also know that the current Labour Administration boasts exactly the same kind of control freak credentials as the previous Conservative incumbents. The UK is an exemplar of a unitary centralised state. It was after all a combination of luke-warm support from Blair and various other cabinet colleagues, aided and abetted by a "Londoncentric" Civil Service, which torpedoed Prescott's master plan for English Regional Devolution.

The principal underpinning English Devolution was its incremental nature. Establish Regional Assemblies first and then build portfolios of competency on to the structures at a later date.

I always find it ironic that those in the UK who denigrate the process of European integration and equate mere mention of the dreaded "F for Federal" word as a metaphor for "European Super-State" are also very keen to avoid any kind of debate about the nature of the heavily centralised super-state we are already living in - better known as the United Kingdom.

Great Britain was very happy to bequeath a "Federal" legacy to its former colonies, South Africa, Australia, Canada, India spring to mind immediately, but talk of such constitutional reform for the motherland was deemed to be "dangerous and subversive ideology" by a deeply conservative establishment.

The arguments you plagiarised from the NO campaign are fanciful at best and in some cases downright specious.

For example, it is easy to use a descriptive term like "New Tier" thus conveying the implication of an "extra" tier - clever and manipulative but also deceitful and misleading. You know as well as I do that acceptance of a Regional Assembly would also have brought about rationalisation of local govt. so in fact it meant less politicians in total, not more

You also know that there was no "New" building planned. In fact the Yes campaign has publicly and unequivocally committed itself to that statement and an empty building in Durham was planned as the HQ for the nascent Assembly.

But hey - why allow facts to get in the way of your argument?