open Democracy News Analysis - A mild awakening: England's turn?, David Goodhart - Comments

English Earth on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

English Earth — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:46:59 +0000

How would an English Parliament wind the clock back and rebuild the traditional English County network in the first place?

The English County Network is in place so why are the government/Common Purpose stooges padav and Peter Davidson pretending otherwise, playing psycho ops are we?

Trying to make people hopeless are we? Trying to block out REAL DEBATE with constant nonsense postings about illegal regional assemblies who work for the EU and not us, but steal our money because none of these tricksters have money of their own they have to steal ours.

The only assembly which was put to the vote was the North East region, and the good people made their point by voting in a monkey instead. The Common Purpose Nazis in John Prescott's office knew we would never vote them in and so they were brought in surreptiously and ARE ILLLEGAL !

Why are you trying to pretend that the English counties don't exist when they do and always will. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DESTROY OUR ANCIENT COUNTIES.

Trying to make out that the EU is democractic when it is a Nazi state and that Common Purpose are the NAZI organisation operating in England trying to destroy England and the English with SUBVERSION techniques (see Frankfurth School of Subversion).

Unitary Councils are ILLEGAL and are designed to REMOVE local democracy. All councils throughout England need to get together and fight them with one major court case and ensure that the judge involved is not a corrupt member of Common Purpose.

We need to root out corrupt council officials and policemen and the good people need to get together. We need to stop the building of criminal holding centres in rural areas - who are the criminals they are intended for? Us?

The counties are ancient and we will never never forget, just as the Palestinians will never forget and just like the Irish never forgot we won't either.

Not logged in on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

Not logged in — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:10:29 +0000

The neuronal loop in Peter Davidson's brain that needs to be connected is simply that many in England now want national representation because Scotland and Wales have it. Size and regional maps have nothing to do with it. The idea of nation is fundamentally an emotional one and so his logic which is based purely on what would work best post devolution in decentralising power is, as Paul Kingsnorth has pointed out, largely irrelevant.

If he were to redraw a map in which the NE of England was lumped in with the lowlands of Scotland (with of course the abolition of the Scottish parliament) he would find more sympathy for his logic.

His plan, in emotional substance, to people who care about England as an integral nation, is largely the same as Labour's and the eurofederalists. Scotland and Wales are a done deal so now England must be broken up to complete the regionalisation. The problem is that Scotland and Wales have not been DEnationalised. In fact quite the reverse.

An EP has much wider meaning for the people who would like one than just how best to run the country. The establishment of such an institution would be a powerful defender of English culture at a time when it is no longer safe and a voice for the people of England AS the people of England in Europe. A right that is expected and enjoyed by every other nation of the union.

padav on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

padav — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:58:19 +0000

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

@The Secret Person

Thanks for your considered
response - a couple of points do require some clarification:

Firstly, the influence of
size within this entire debate cannot be underestimated and your comment is
guilty of the same misinformed assumptions.

Scotland, plus Wales,
Northern Ireland and even London for that matter,
work more effectively to a large extent because they are:

a) Small enough to resonate
with their respective populations - a direct reference to Anderson's "Imagined Communities"

yet

b) Large enough to boast
the necessary economies of scale required to develop meaningful levels of
autonomy.

In this context, Paul
Kingsnorth's throwaway jibe of "Freedom for Kent! Yeah, baby" rings rather
hollow when one considers the rather obvious fact that the County alone boasts
a population of approx 1.5 million, not dissimilar to Northern Ireland, whose
health minister we should recall, recently announced the abolition of
prescription charges in the Province, so not really that insignificant? Perhaps
Kent going it alone is not
sustainable but Kent
together with Surrey and Sussex
(East and West) have a combined population of nearly 4.2 million, roughly
equivalent to the German Lander of Rheinland Pfalz or Sachsen so the concept of
a semi autonomous Weald Region within a federal UK structure is entirely credible?

Secondly I have also
repeatedly stated the role of meaningful engagement of the British public, in
the form of a Citizens' Convention. This democratic vehicle does possess the
capacity to offer mutually exclusive options for elimination via the ballot box
so it is misleading to suggest that such democratic choices could not be incorporated
in a process of this kind.

Peter Davidson, Alderley
Edge, NW.England

The Cornish Democrat on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

The Cornish Democrat — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:46:08 +0000

Quote:

Independence seems the only sensible option to me, that would allow our nations (which could include Cornwall) to co-exist without constant squabbling over who subsidises who, who is making accommodations for the sake of "preserving the Union", etc.

Let's have independence on the cards for this multiple choice referendum, which would presumably be a non-binding guide as no outright winner would emerge, and mutually exclusive outcomes may occur in different areas.

Then decentralisation should take the form not of regions but of much smaller units, true localism where the users of a service steer its path. Things like school vouchers and freedom of schools from LEAs are a first step on this path. And finally a considerably smaller state and power in the hands of the ultimate unit of decentralisation - the individual.

Hear hear, I totally agree. Whats more It'd be good to see so called 'democratic reformers' including ALL the options for the public to consider as opposed to nostalgically clinging on to 'Britishness' and the UK.

The problem is that no group or party that has any real support in England (or Cornwall for that matter) has the balls to call for such radical options.

The Cornish Democrat

The Secret Person on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

The Secret Person — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:47:22 +0000

Well I can't see Paul and Peter ever agreeing on an answer, because they are debating different questions. Paul is interested in national representation, Peter in decentralisation and the size of states.

I tend towards Paul's point of view (although the book plugs are becoming a bit unsubtle!) and would raise a few points.

Peter is right that when English Nationalists make future assumptions about a national parliament leading to decentralisation, they are wrong. The issue of decentralisation is a different one. However he makes as many assumptions when he says "Create an environment in which decentralisation is the norm and other perceived problems will evaporate. "

I don't believe national feeling will evaporate with "decentralisation". The misleadingly named devolution was on national grounds, the Scots consider their parliament as representing the Scottish nation, not as a region of the UK. No change in the internal governance of England will later this, Westminster will still be seen as an English imposition.

Many English people will not like, I believe (though obviously democracy rules), their country being carved up to be "equals" in size with Scotland and Wales, i.e. English decisions being made in the interest of others. And as I said before the nations of Scotland and Wales may well see themselves as "equals" of the nation of England, not its regions (small r, Peter!).

The Cornish Democrat on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

The Cornish Democrat — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:29:58 +0000

Quote:

Philip - I think this must come down in some respects to definitions of what - or who - is a 'nation.' You obviously argue that Cornwall is a nation, not a county. Others would disagree. Personally I am agnostic on this one, but if a clear majority of Cornish people claim to be a nation and are prepared to do something about it, then that's fine. That's a long way away though

I think more importantly it comes down to understanding the words you use Paul. A nation is the people so the Cornish are a nation and Cornwall (The Duchy of) is our country. Currently we are deprived of an appropriate state. Now you say you are 'agnostic' on this question. Does that mean you are neutral or undecided? Let me just use a favorite quote:

Quote:

Nationality exists in the minds of men, its only conceivable habitat. Outside men’s minds there can be no nationality, because nationality is a manner of looking at oneself not an entity an sich. Common sense is able to detect it, and the only human discipline that can describe and analyse it is psychology. This awareness, this sense of nationality, this national sentiment, is more than a characteristic of a nation. It is nationhood itself.

The PLASC ethnic data from the 2007 Cornish schools survey showed that 27% of children consider themselves to be Cornish rather than British or English. The results from the 2001 UK population census show over 37,000 people hold a Cornish identity instead of English or British. On this census, to claim to be Cornish, you had to deny being British, by crossing out the British option and then write ‘Cornish’ in the “other” box. This does not represent a mere clerical error or poorly thought through wording. Still agnostic Paul? If so why? Whatever you point of view we certainly qualify for inclusion in the Council of Europe's framework convention for the protection of national minorities.

Quote:

this ultimately comes down to whether you believe in, and support, the existence of England as a political entity. I do. Peter and Philip don't.

I could recycle your words for my nation Paul, so why should I support a process/campaign with one end goal as its destination, an EP, that would leave Cornwall in exactly the same condition as it found it? Why should I care about the English national question more than the problem of centralisation?

Quote:

Or we could be sensible, and try and work on the English question and the regional question side by side, instead of trying to set one up against the other.

You repeat this again and again but what do you mean? Put some flesh on the bones of your idea for cooperation. What do you want us to do because all I getting at the moment is "shut up and support the campaign for an EP then maybe latter devolution will get discussed, maybe".The Cornish Democrat

Paul Kingsnorth on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

Paul Kingsnorth — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:43:41 +0000

Well, at least we got to the heart of the matter. Peter is now openly in favour of breaking England up into statelets. Good luck with your secessionary goals on that one. Can't see the English buying it, frankly. Freedom for Kent! Yeah, baby.

Toque is quite right, above, as is Hamish. As I have said before, this ultimately comes down to whether you believe in, and support, the existence of England as a political entity. I do. Peter and Philip don't. So, while I also support radical devolution of power to local level, I would not do so at the expense of a national English voice.

As Toque also points out, many English people seem to agree:

http://www.toque.co.uk/witan/modules/news/article.php?storyid=27

Simon Jenkins summed up what this is about very well a couple of days ago, in the Times. He wrote of Scotland:

Quote:

Nobody visiting Scotland since devolution eight years ago can be in any doubt of this. Politicians, the media, artists, professions, universities, festivals have been reinvigorated – and have become ever more Scottish.

Edinburgh has the unmistakable air of a national capital. Glasgow is a city transformed. Scotland manifests a mood common across Europe, the increasing assertiveness of sub-national territories.

He's right. It's exciting - and this is what England needs. He continues, writing of England after Scottish secession:

Quote:

For England a “confederated” United Kingdom would be nothing but gain. The obsession among Westminster politicians with keeping the union is archaic ... An autonomous Scotland, a country as big as Denmark, should liberate the English parliament to enjoy a politics freed of the alien encumbrance of Scottish seats ... It should also liberate England to consider its localism, its neglected Anglo-Saxon history and culture, without having to “take into account” the Scottish (or Irish or Welsh) ingredients of that curious vacuity, Britishness.

In other words, this is about liberating England, politically and culturally. A concept that no doubt fills Peter with revulsion, but which fills me with excitement.

padav on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

padav — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:46:49 +0000

Paul

Surely you aren't deterred from submitting your ultimate goal to the rigours of public scrutiny and democratic judgement?

After all, the (English) public are crying out for a constitutional settlement to rectify the injustices heaped upon them by the establishment of devolved institutions for Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland?

They will see through such petty subterfuge, such is the depth of feeling in favour of an English Parliament?

It's called informed choice Paul

If the people of the peripheral English Regions desire to throw their lot in with an English Parliament as a long-term solution to the constitutional and cultural imbalance you perceive who am I to deny them their democratic right to choose that course of action?

However if certain parts of the UK believe they will cut a better deal alone they should be granted the opportunity to do so. After all Scotland has chosen this pathway and as I have pointed out in previous postings to this thread, Lancashire and Cheshire combined boasts a not disimilar population and GDP to our Celtic cousins.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

Hamish Scott on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

Hamish Scott — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:42:04 +0000

Excuse me if I skip most of the posts (pressing business and post-reading-itis) but an English Parliament and English regional devolution are not incompatible, but the Parliament would logically have to come first as it would be this institution that would have the democratic legitemacy todeal with the regional question.
Also, from a Scottish point of view, I disagree profoundly that the UK has been a success. At the time of Union in 1707 the population ration of Scotland to England was 1:4, today it is 1:10. If Scotland's retained population had kept pace with England the population of Scotland would now be 12,5 million, not 5 million. Where are those missing 7.5 million? Some/much (?) has been lost in mass emigration (including the recent past) and massive war casualties - Scotland had the highest combat mortality rate for any country in WW11, roughly double the English rate. WW2 wasn't much better. Independence offers escape from war and emigration and some of the worst socio-economic demographics in Europe. No Trident, no Iraq, no economic policy that is best for the City of London but not so good for Scotland. Money spent on infrastructure (another woeful comparison withan the rest of Western Europe) and social democracy not Anglo-American capitalism. I could go on but I've run out of time.

Paul Kingsnorth on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

Paul Kingsnorth — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:37:14 +0000

Quote:

It does pose an interesting question however. If most of England massively favoured an EP but Cornwall (plus perhaps some English peripheral regions) massively rejected it what would you suggest. How could the Cornish obtain any kind of justice from such a situation? Following a referendum as proposed by yourself with the above results what could we salvage? Why risk being put in that position in the first place?

I don't understand this. The only way to avoid that 'risk', it would seem, would be not give anyone a vote on an EP at all. I can't see any way around this if you're going to go for Peter's either/ or scenario of regional parliaments versus an English parliament.

Ultimately, if there's a nationwide vote, the majority wins. That's representative democracy for you. Which would mean the Cornish would have to put up with an EP if the rest of England overwhelmingly wanted one - or you would have to secede.

Or we could be sensible, and try and work on the English question and the regional question side by side, instead of trying to set one up against the other.

Toque on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

Toque — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:37:02 +0000

a) English Parliament with regional grand committees.

b) Regional Parliaments

Paul Kingsnorth on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

Paul Kingsnorth — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:28:45 +0000

Quote:

If the vote in a particular Region (such as Greater London) goes against an EP that Region simply doesn't join with those deciding to go down the EP route (assuming any individual Region actually opts for an EP)

Loaded dice, then, Peter!

If this proposal were to be followed, an EP would be torpedoed from the start. Which is presumably why you propose it. All it would take would be for one part of England not to vote for an EP, and it would be dead in the water - and your regionalisation agenda would thus be the only remaining alternative.

Clever, in a way. But not very fair, eh?

padav on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

padav — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:29:48 +0000

Quote:

Say there was a referendum nationally, giving people the choice of a number of options for constitutional change. And say that a majority of English people voted to create an EP, but that a majority of Cornish voted for a Cornish Assembly instead. What would your position be? Would you reject an EP? If so, how? Would you see Cornwall seceding?

You see the problem. If you set up a false 'local devolution versus national parliament' dichotomy much hot water could ensue.

Paul

I've already elaborated on how this process might unfold. Assuming the Citizens' Convention route is chosen and that no topics are deemed taboo from the outset, the dialogue would involve (amongst other vital issues) the potential to re-shape the official English Regional Map. Yes of course English Nationalists would be able to contribute to the debate and put their case for reverting to traditional counties.

However assuming that a consensus was reached in which the current official Regions were abandoned and replaced by more relevant entities - my own preference in my locality being for the traditional county of Lancashire (inclusive of Greater Manchester and Merseyside) to merge with Cheshire (which effectively serves as a commuter belt for the above conurbations). Down in the South-West there would be a separate debate but presumably the unloved South-West Region would be given the elbow and replaced by something more historically relevant, appropriate and likely to garner more support/affinity.

Eventually an all-England referendum on this reshaped English Regional Map could take place with all English Regions voting simultaneously on two mutually exclusive options

a) English Parliament

b) Regional Parliament

with both proposed institutions boasting equivalent powers within a UK federal framework.

I'm not pretending the process would not arouse strong passions and controversy - it is bound to but ultimately this would be a fair, informed and democratic pathway to sustainable constitutional settlement.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

The Cornish Democrat on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

The Cornish Democrat — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:59:32 +0000

Quote:

Philip - the simple point I was making was that Cornwall is currently a part of England. Whether you would like it to be - or whether it used to be - is another matter. At present, it is, and until, if ever, it stops being so it will be affected by the 'government of England' question.

It has a de facto status as an English county however its de jure status is another story, like I said study the link provided above. Its not about what I'd like its about the very real legal status of the Duchy and its relationship to the territory of Cornwall. Other than that yes any settlement for England will also affect Cornwall.

Quote:

As I said previously, there's no reason we can't deal with the national 'English question' at the same time as dealing with regional issues. You seem to imply we are giving people a choice between local devolution and a national government and parliament. As I have explained to Peter ad nauseum, these are separate issues. It's not either/or. Both are needed, in my view

So how do we ensure both happen at the same time and that reform doesn't just stop with the creation of an EP?

Quote:

I would think, though, that the problem for you is the question of how a region or county could override the nation. You say, for example, that the Cornish should be 'given the option of a devolved Cornish government instead of EP if that's what they want'.

If the Cornish showed much more interest in a Cornish government than an EP how could you stop them? All nations have rights Paul not just the one you belong to. The same could be said for the English regions, but isn't this the very essence of national self determination ie a nation decides how its wants to be governed whether by one parliament or many.

The irony is that if England plus Cornwall where already independent from the rest of the UK we three would probably be somewhere on the same side arguing for decentralisation.

The Cornish Democrat

padav on "A mild awakening, England's Turn?"

padav — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:23:25 +0000

Paul,

Thanks for the thinly veiled attempt to misrepresent me but as you say - whatever.

I don't know quite where you stand on this aspect of the debate but I believe that the United Kingdom still has a role to play in this process. Yes, I agree that its role should be much looser and a federal UK framework accomodates that principle.

In order that this UK federal structure functions effectively and sustainably it should comprise of relatively equal partners, so Greater London would stand on the same footing as Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland, with its own first minister etc.

You talk about local sources of power but perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the recent OK articles contributed by Stuart Weir - yes, in theory England has local government but in reality it is neither local, government nor representative.

In the federal framework I envisage a large majority of government activity (including that currently executed by opaque NDPB's [or QUANGO's]) falls within the remit of the sub-UK tier of accountable Parliamentary institutions; Welfare, Education, Healthcare, Law & Order, Housing, Intra-Regional Transport, Culture & Tourism, plus many more.

In this scenario, the notion that (to use an example close to me) East Cheshire Unitary Authority could not only assume responsibility to manage the policy portfolios outlined above but also fund them directly via its own revenue raising capacity, is really quite ludicrous. Back to those economies of scale factors again - see Alesina & Spolaore.

This federal arrangement is what I mean when I use the term "radical dispersal of power"

Within this form of UK federal structure it is actually England that represents the extra, complicating, tier of governance - not the Regional Parliaments I propose.

Philip has summed up this issue quite nicely. Provided all options are fully explained to the electorate in advance of any referendum resulting from a Citizens' Convention type dialogue and these mutually exclusive options are on the ballot paper for relevant electorates to choose between, I have no problem with committing to the outcome of any plebiscite conducted under these circumstances.

In short I argue for a process of "informed" consent.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

A mild awakening: England's turn?, David Goodhart

David Goodhart — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:44:00 +0000

The British left has never been comfortable with nationalism, yet in an age of globalisation it is more important than ever to achieve the social solidarity and redistribution the left wants. New post-ethnic forms of national identity are needed to resist global pressures towards a minimalist market state. Speaking to a Rowntree seminar, David Goodhart editor of Prospect, argued that the possibility of the break up of Britain in the near future should prompt the English to think seriously about who they are - and who they would like to become.

POST POST-NATIONALISM

For reasons of history and national temperament the British (especially the English) have worn their national citizenship lightly. Such insouciance is now positively embraced by leftists, post-nationalists and even some free-marketeers, but it did not derive from a generous or progressive sentiment. If anything, on the contrary, it was the result of a missionary-imperial idea of Britain in which it was not necessary to draw clear lines around the political community. As Krishan Kumar has explained in his The Making of English National Identity such fuzziness also helped to veil the overwhelming dominance of the English within the British state.

This fuzziness is now an obstacle to the good society. At a time of mass immigration, European integration, the rise of identity politics and so on, we need clearer markers for a post-ethnic national citizenship that is also open to the world. We need, in other words, a post post-nationalism. The shape of the nation state is constantly evolving but it is still central to most of the things that liberals want, from democratic accountability to redistribution of wealth and generous welfare. But it needs help, especially from the left, which after all wants the state to make more, not fewer, demands of citizens—whether paying higher taxes or being more active citizens. I do not, of course, advocate a return to Edwardian jingoism, but with the erosion of so many other collective identities a minimum national sense of “being in this together” is still necessary to avoid long-term ethnic balkanisation and a small, low-tax state.

I do not think self-interest, even of the enlightened kind, is sufficient to generate the solidarity required for a thriving public realm. The political battle is now on between the citizenship state and a market state in which citizens have a purely instrumental relationship to both the state and each other.

Unfortunately, from the 1960s onwards, Britain did not develop a modern, postimperial language of national citizenship and identity that was comfortable with the idea of equal citizenship—regardless of race or background. The right did not fully embrace equality (and after Enoch Powell, the liberal right just wanted to avoid the subject). The left did embrace equality, but thought it meant burying the nation state; it did not accept that even if all people on the planet are in some sense morally equal, we still have a far greater political and social commitment to our fellow citizens, of all classes and ethnicities.

Moreover, a “rights” culture does not make the nation superfluous. The rights that we claim are also demands that we make on each other—especially if those rights have a price tag attached—and that presupposes a political community, and invariably therefore a nation of some kind.

Modern democratic politics is based on the idea of fellow citizen favouritism—that is why we spend 25 times more on the NHS each year than on development aid. This does not mean we have no moral obligations to citizens of other countries, (in Britain’s case especially our fellow EU members and the countries that were once part of the empire). But such obligations have to co-exist with the primary reality of national citizenship. Without fellow-citizen favouritism there would be no point to the nation state, and without it we would lose most of the great achievements of modern liberalism. There is a “middle way” between universalism and ethnic nationalism, and other traditions such as the French and the Canadian often express it more comfortably than we do.

National citizenship needs modernisation and clarification in at least three ways. First, spelling out what Lord Goldsmith in his much derided report on citizenship calls “the package of rights and responsibilities which demonstrate the tie between a person and a country.” Most of these already exist, but they are not written down in one place anywhere—and we can no longer assume that everyone intuitively understands them.

Second, we need to clarify the dividing line between citizens and non-citizens. At its most basic, this means controlling our borders and who crosses them (and counting them properly). It also means making new citizens more aware of what it is they are joining—“we” are not just a random collection of individuals. This is where the current Labour government has made most progress with its citizenship ceremonies and tests, and its idea of staged, “earned” citizenship.

Third, in an era of greater mobility we need a more overt assumption that the interests of British citizens, of all colours and creeds, must come first. Of course citizens often have different or conflicting interests — sorting out those conflicts peacefully is one of the things that politics is about. And these days we grant, as we should, many rights to non-citizens, including, of course, other EU citizens. But why on earth in the NHS doctors recruitment fiasco did we give no preference to British citizens, or even to people coming out of British medical schools?

One cannot, of course, legislate for a sense of belonging. And it takes time for new citizens to absorb a country’s norms and unspoken codes. State-sponsored patriotic rituals are not always the answer, for either new or old citizens, especially in a country as individualist and sceptical as Britain. But the ceremonies for new citizens, derided when introduced in 2002, have proved popular. If they go with the grain, top-down ideas can have popular appeal.

People ask, reasonably enough, what difference is a national day going to make to those disaffected young Muslims whose primary commitment is to the umma, or to east Europeans who have a purely financial motive for being here? A national day will make little difference on its own. But if in the 1960s and 1970s Britain had projected a clearer and more confident idea of itself, and if it had made a clearer “offer” to new citizens about what rights they could expect from their new country and what it expected from them, perhaps minority identity politics would have had less of a pull.

As it was a kind of laissez-faire multi-culturalism became the norm.

People can feel or express national commitments in many different ways. And if people on the left find the idea of the nation distasteful, then the simple answer is for them to give it another name: society, or just plain citizenship. To dismiss Lord Goldsmith’s belated attempt to modernise national citizenship as “ a parochial side-show,” as David Beetham did in his paper last month, is complacent.

BUT WHICH NATION?

Britain has been an extremely successful multinational state. Personally, I would be sad to see it go. Moreover, if it ain’t broke…Surely the English are big enough to live with some small representational and public spending biases in favour of the small nations of the United Kindgdom. What exactly are English interests? And how are they being suppressed? (And one could ask the same of Scotland.)

The paradox of Britain is that although it was substantially made by the English they did not – unlike the other British nations – define their own role in it. England dissolved itself into Britain, and so to this day has only minimal political/institutional identity. There is indeed no formal English political community, one of the reasons why sport has become such a rallying point for expressions of English identity.

If one accepts the case for a continuing need for overarching national identities and some minimum sense of “being in this together” as a defence against the market state then one must take the symbols and institutions of nationhood seriously. The danger for the English is that they will be left holding on to the symbols and institutions of Britain long after it has been cleared out of any emotional or political meaning. And if the Scots (and possibly the Welsh too) abandon the union, leaving the English holding a hollowed out shell, it is more likely that a new English nationalism will be born in a resentful mood.

So, if we are to follow this thought experiment, England should prepare itself for the abandonment of Britain and give some thought to its own political future. Of course the break-up of Britain is still not inevitable. We are all familiar with the argument that many of the things which inspired the creation of Britain and then held it together – empire, Protestantism, the labour movement, a single economic space – are either no longer relevant or would continue happily even without the existence of Britain. That is not a decisive argument for ending the union, but if the main non-English party to the union no longer sees the point of it – or rather if it thinks it can continue to enjoy the perceived benefits without the perceived disbenefits - then the union has no future.

And it is now all too easy to imagine how the end could come. A referendum in 2010 or 2011 after a successful period of SNP government, and soon after the Tories have returned with a big majority to Westminster (having increased their representation in Scotland by only a couple of seats) – could create the political atmosphere in which a vote for independence becomes not just possible but likely. Scots will be told that nothing much will change—same queen, same currency, no physical border—and their self-governing powers will merely seamlessly extend to foreign policy, tax and macro-economics. (Although as Robert Hazell points out in the latest Prospect (subscription only), it is probable that the Scots would have to vote twice – once on the principle of independence and then again on the deal that is secured.)

There is a problem here for people like me who do not want the union dissolved but on the other hand have no fear of an “England alone” and think it would be sensible to prepare for that eventuality. The problem is this: any preparation that seeks more political representation for England within Britain as it is today is bound to hasten the Scots to the exit. I am no expert on the various constitutional arguments but English votes for English laws (which is still Tory policy) would require an English parliament or its equivalent – which in turn would make the UK parliament increasingly residual and thus erode the political bond between England and Scotland.

The cleanest way of dealing with the representational imbalance at Westminster is the method applied in Northern Ireland—simply cutting the number of Scottish MPs. But what could be more inflammatory to the Scots – they would in effect be told because you now run your own health service you will have less say over declaring war. There might be some way through this constitutional thicket – perhaps it’s a suitable subject for a Royal Commission – but it doesn’t look promising.

So let us assume that Scotland is off –look on the bright side. England can at last re-unite its cultural and political identities. All that nonsense about Britain being a civic concept and England an ethnic one is swept away – as soon as England becomes a political community it is by definition civic as well as ethnic. And England is, of course, far more multi-ethnic than Scotland or Wales, and would remain one of the most diverse countries in Europe even if it lost those two countries. There is no obvious economic disadvantage to England from a break-up of the union— indeed even taking account of losing what is left of the oil there would be probably be a small independence dividend. In the past 50 years England has steamed ahead of Scotland in terms of population growth and economic weight, and there is no reason to think that independence for Scotland would stop that.

Independence would be a severe shock to one organization—the Labour Party, which has come to rely on “Celtic Britain” as a social democratic bulwark against Anglo-Thatcherism. And there is no doubt that the English middle class – broadly defined – is culturally quite distinct from its Scottish equivalent – it is more individualistic, more private sector, perhaps more enterprising – indeed it is this cultural divide which seems to be one of the factors driving the independence movement. But Labour in England would just have to try harder to persuade this economically dynamic group to see its interests tied to a thriving public realm – it has more or less succeeded in doing that for the past three elections.

There might be broader, albeit rather intangible, benefits for the left too. Perhaps the final dismantling of the British imperial state would release the hubris that causes British politicians to try to punch so far above their weight on the international stage. Of course there can be good left-wing reasons for punching above one’s weight in the field of development and so on. But with the Iraq war still so fresh in people’s minds we know that punching above one’s weight has its destructive side too.

And with Scotland gone – and perhaps Wales not far behind – the north-south divide within England might finally get the attention it deserves. The north east and the north west ought to benefit substantially. (As a new state would be emerging it might also be an excuse to establish the new capital outside the old imperial capital of London.)

Because of the huge scale differences between England and Scotland—separation is likely to cause more trauma and disruption north of the border than south (there are only one or two institutions that would be significantly affected south of the border– the BBC and the British army to name two). Indeed some people argue that most English people expressed their English national identity through British symbols, basically seeing these as continuous with the English past. Hence the seamless sliding between the two, at least until recently—much to the chagrin of the Scots and Welsh. So Englishness might just reorient itself without much dislocation – and the small historical jolt that it would receive from the departing Scots could even turn out to be a benign one.

This article appears on the Prospect website.

Average rating

(5 votes)