Gareth Young (Lewes, CEP): What comes first, nationalism or the nation?
For Mark Perryman it seems that an English Parliament is inevitable; England is the human flotsam that will emerge as the good ship Britannia sinks after offloading its Celtic jetsam. And our task - as inheritors of the new state - is to begin preparations for how we want that nation to be: A pluralist England founded on space not race, Englishness, an inclusive nationality for all. In 10-20 years, says Mark, we will arrive at "England after Britain". It's a timescale based on three assumptions:
- Scotland will vote for independence;
- Ireland, due to a Catholic hegemony, will be reunited, and;
- Wales will have a Parliament.
No need, then, for a Campaign for an English Parliament? Except, that of the three assumptions, the only one that I think is inevitable is Wales gaining a parliament. Northern Ireland is becoming greener but a Catholic majority is still a long way off, and since the Belfast Agreement gives the Republic a veto on reunification no outcome should be assumed. And for Scots the romantic dream of "Freedom!" is not yet matched by an overwhelming desire for complete political independence from the rest of the UK.
There's been many a prescient obituary written, but Britain is not dead yet; and the people of this island, and some on the island of Ireland, may still have common purpose and good reason to stick together. Where Mark and I differ is not just in terms of tactics, but in my belief that England should have a parliament whether it is inside, or outside, the Union; and irrespective of the courses that may be, or may not be, charted by other nations. I also believe that an English parliament can be instrumental in bringing about a plural, inclusive and harmonious England (for discussion read English first, British second).
Whilst I don’t deny that a flowering of cultural nationalism in England, and a greater patriotic self-identification with England, could have positive benefits, we should bear in mind that the tribalism of international sport and an English national anthem are not to everyone’s taste – in fact they are only inclusive in so far as taste will allow. It may be true that from these things will flow a greater popular patriotism and cultural nationalism, leading irrevocably to a political nationalism whose endpoint is the holy grail of our own parliament. However, to pursue that course is to argue for an increase in nationalism as a prerequisite to nationhood, and that’s not necessarily desirable, or even essential, unless separation is your desired outcome.
An English parliament at a stroke creates Englishmen and Englishwomen out of people who may not, at present, consider themselves ethnically or culturally English. There is no other measure so inclusive because through the ballot box, in elections to an English parliament, we all become equally English in at least one crucial respect (As a point of interest it should be noted that the BNP’s English Parliament would be what they refer to as a ‘Folk Parliament’ – a parliament composed of people who are ethnically English).
A fairer democracy with an English parliament that is representative of all the people of England, and accountable only to them, is a laudable goal. It will be a forum for the nation so that we can consider our identity and our "Real England", and objectify England politically. When we talk about Eco-towns (all of which they propose to build on English soil) we should do so not in terms of “the British housing crisis” or “the British population boom” but in terms of England and how we want her to be. Forget Britishness, let’s start engaging democratically with our Englishness because we are all – us potential citizens – stakeholders in England.
britologywatch said:
Sat, 2008-05-17 08:02"Forget Britishness, let’s start engaging democratically with our
Englishness because we are all – us potential citizens – stakeholders
in England".
I agree with you in principle, Gareth; but 'forget Britishness' is easier said and done, especially as many English people see their Englishness in terms of Britishness. I don't know about chicken and egg; perhaps more a case of 'being chicken': fear of what kind of 'English demons' may hatch from the shattered shell of English-Britishness. In reality, however, any emerging English polity may just be a 'little chicken': a smaller-scale version of much that has gone on in countless generations before, as the British state and parliament have always been the de facto English ones, in any case.
Until the British establishment - the two main political parties in particular - are freed from the power of the identification between England and Britain, it's hard to see how any reform leading to an English parliament could be handed down to us in a top-down manner by the powers that be, i.e. in the devolution model. This is not just because of the establishment's fear of handing over power to the 'chick' of the English people but because they genuinely still think that the British parliament and government are adequate in 'representing' England: that the language of Britishness and of Britain-wide governance is still a vocabulary through which the needs and priorities of the English people can be articulated and addressed - relying on the pre-devolution reality that Britishness did indeed provide the civic institutions and discourse through which the popular English national consciousness expressed itself in political terms.
The problem is, as you have expressed yourself on many occasions, that the popular sense of Englishness has diverged from Britishness and the British state as England has - partly by force of circumstances (as a reaction to devolution), and partly because the set of mutual interests that bound Britain together in the past have eroded - begun to see itself as a distinct nation. This popular Englishness has got to become a popular political movement or campaign, it seems to me, in order to shake up the British establishment and make them realise they don't have a monopoly on 'progressive' English values. And it needs to tap into the youth somehow. Perhaps a popular campaign could get going, and attract young people, by articulating what is not often made explicit: that the disaffection 'British' people have with politics and parliament - especially, the young - is in large measure really the expression of English disaffection with the British political process: that it is divorced from the priorities, hopes and aspirations of English people for their country, particularly those of many young people who drift into crime, drugs and violence - in large part, because they don't feel they have a stake in 'this country's' future, i.e. in Britain.
Maybe they can be re-engaged in building a better England; and then the English chick will no longer be the monstrous hoodie waiting to assault us around the street corner but a polity that engages all its citizens - young and old - in building a dynamic, shared English future.