Andrew Blick (London, Democratic Audit): A new political term was coined Monday night - 'post-post-nationalism'. Its inventor, David Goodhart. Editor of Prospect, was giving a paper at another lively 'Combining All our Strengths' Rowntree seminar in Westminster on the 'English question'. When asked if he was really simply talking about nationalism, he insisted that he wasn’t – and if it was he would have saved himself the trouble and called it just that.
Goodhart’s basic thesis was that a 'post-post-nationalism' is necessary in the UK to replace the current 'fuzzy' concept of nationalism and create 'markers for a post-ethnic national citizenship that is also open to the world.' This project is particularly important to the liberal left, with the increased demands it wants to make on citizens, 'whether paying higher taxes or being more active citizens.' At this stage in history, the nation is a vital unit for collective action and 'without it we are sunk'. Given his benign attitude towards nationalism, the default establishment of a separate English state and Parliament that could follow Scottish independence is, in David Goodhart's view, nothing to fear, even for the Labour Party, which would simply have to work harder at winning English middle class support.
It is interesting that the idea of an English Parliament or a separate English state (or a UK minus Scotland) is often discussed in terms of a reaction to what Scotland may or may not do, rather than starting with England itself. This focus betrays the lack - as yet - of a groundswell of opinion in England in favour of a national representative institution. So what of the idea that Scotland may force a Parliament upon England through opting for separation? Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit cited opinion poll data suggesting that support for independence in Scotland remains constant at around only a third, splitting across all the main parties. He also described the various constitutional and procedural obstacles that could scupper a bid for separation. Yet, as Anthony Barnett of OK noted, if the political will existed, such difficulties could surely be surmounted.
But would the creation of an English Parliament, part of a UK federation or otherwise, be a worthwhile devolution of power? Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy, though sympathetic to an English Parliament in principle, does not think so. As he puts it, it would involve 'devolving from 60 million people to 50 million'. He believes there is no reason to suppose that a newly-established English Parliament would set about handing down the powers it had just acquired. A more pressing issue to those concerned with the unequal geographical distribution of power in the UK is the ability - or lack thereof - of local authorities to pursue policies independent of centralised interference. This problem would not be solved by establishing an English Parliament that would probably be as jealous of its powers as the Westrminster regime is now.
Comments
As he puts it, it would involve 'devolving from 60 million people to 50
million'. He believes there is no reason to suppose that a
newly-established English Parliament would set about handing down the
powers it had just acquired.
The Scottish and Welsh Parliaments were about nationalism and identity - hence Scottish and Welsh. If Peter is suggesting that the English, uniquely, should forgo a national forum then let's hear that argument, and at the same time he can tell us why the UK Parliament is more likely to deliver constitutional reform and devolution than an English parliament. I don't think it's an argument that he can make convincingly, even if he wanted to do so.
David Goodhart's vision for England as the remanants of Britain when the nationalist bits have left is a bit depressing.
"..if the Scots (and possibly even the
Welsh too) abandon the union, leaving the English holding a hollowed
out shell there is, surely, a greater likelihood of a new English
nationalism being born in a resentful mood.
So, if we are to
follow this thought experiment, England must prepare to be abandoned
and give some thought to its own political future now."
I'm all for England giving thought to its political future and developing a self-confident English idenity, but I don't see what abandonment issues should have to do with it. Why cannot England do this for the sake of England AND Britain? A new English nationalism has already been born in a resentful mood because of precisely this mindset that sees England as indivisble from Britain until Scotland and Wales leave, or threaten to leave. Perhaps I am being harsh on David, perhaps he thinks that England can re-unite its cultural and political
identities even if Scotland doesn't leave. And all that nonsense about Britain being a civic concept and
England an ethnic one can be swept away regardless of what the Scots and Welsh do.
"would the creation of an English Parliament, part of a UK federation or otherwise, be a worthwhile devolution of power? Peter Facey of Unlock Democracy, though sympathetic to an English Parliament in principle, does not think so. As he puts it, it would involve 'devolving from 60 million people to 50 million'".
I think this way of posing and answering the English Question misses the whole point: England as such either has some sort of national-level representative body or not. At the moment, it doesn't: the UK parliament, while doing business as the English parliament, is not elected by the English on policy agendas for England - a clear democratic deficit, both in itself and by comparison with the other nations of the UK. This is unsustainable.
It's not a question of 'devolving power' to an English parliament but of giving the English people the chance to vote for a national parliament that more adequately represents it. So this would be an increase in democratic accountability not a mere transfer to a British parliament minus Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - at least if the new parliament were elected under a proper PR system (e.g. STV) and if it represented a radical break with the present Westminster set up (e.g. it was in a new building in a new city, with ministries also being moved out of London). But the 'devolving from 60 million to 50 million' quote, and the inability to think of an English parliament in terms other than those of the present Westminster parliament, do illustrate one of the structural paradoxes that builds inertia into thinking and action in this area: it's as if the present UK parliament were in fact the English parliament, so that 'devolution' for England is thought of as a mere renaming of the present body with no fundamental change in institutions or attitudes. And this thinking is shaped by the historical identification between England and the British state, which means that devolution for the 'other' nations is effectively conceived of (by the English) as devolution from England.
It's true that the relevance and powers of the UK state would be greatly weakened if you took England-specific governance out of it. But firstly, that of itself is no argument against doing so if it's fairer and more democratic to the English electorate to improve representative government in this way. But secondly, this would almost certainly require re-casting the UK as a whole into a federal set up. But that's not the same as devolution, and the thinking about the UK continuing as a federation really needs to be less fuzzy than this. Under a federal UK, the primary sovereignty would rest with the four nations (five if Cornwall were separate), and the powers of the UK government would effectively be where the nations had pooled / shared their sovereignty for mutual benefit, i.e. defence, international policy, security, immigration, etc. So this is more a case of power being transferred upwards by sovereign nations than devolved downwards from a UK state that retained overall sovereignty. And then, of course, there's the independence option - for all four / five countries.
The English as such need to start thinking a bit more clearly about what sort of national-level representation they want to have, whether the Scots leave or not. It's the lack of this sort of clarity that means that Westminster fills the void. Only then can we really address the question of what sort of powers we want to be exercised at a local level. I.e. the decisions about local governance in England need to be taken by the English not by a Westminster parliament that disowns England itself. Unless you don't actually want an 'England itself', which is, of course, the English Question. But in a situation where Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do have separate identities and political bodies, there is de facto an England itself: and this fact needs to be given democratic expression. First let's have an England; then we can have English local democracy.
"so that 'devolution' for England is thought of as a mere renaming of
the present body with no fundamental change in institutions or
attitudes. And this thinking is shaped by the historical identification
between England and the British state, which means that devolution for
the 'other' nations is effectively conceived of (by the English) as
devolution from England."
You're dead right with this observation. Listening to Goodhart's paper, and the discussion that followed, it was apparent that most people - even constitutional reformers, those who you might reasonably expect to be able to think outside the box - are still mired in this mindset.
In England I think it's only English nationalists who don't think this way, because it's only us who have severed that emotional link between England and Britain.
Well, I consider myself to be British and I think this separatism nonsense should end now. If only the Conservative Party had the balls to firmly grasp this issue and repeal the legislation that led to Labour's botched devolution nonsense. Anyway, there is no point in having devolution seeing as 70% or more of Britain's laws come from Brussels.
Isn't it about time THAT ISSUE was addressed instead of falling into the EU's laps and breaking-apart our country - the United Kingdom.
Post new comment