open Democracy News Analysis - Endism - A flawed vision of the future, Arthur Aughey - Comments

alex_buchan on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

alex_buchan — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:43:44 +0000

The nature of devolution means that it is for the UK Parliament to decide on the constitution. The most a SNP controlled Scottish Government could do would be to wage a political campaign in Scotland against any proposed change. That being said, I don’t see any future British Government proposing a Federal Constitution. There are various reasons for this.

The next election is likely to return a Conservative Government which could be in power for 10 years or more. The Conservatives have shown no interest in introducing regional government in England and are right to state that an English Parliament could not be contained within the UK. Those who propose this do not acknowledge that if the English Government had the same remit as the present Scottish Government it would have a budget equal to that of the Federal UK Government.

The First Minister of England would be senior to the Prime Minister of Britain, perhaps not in theory but definitely in political power. In such a lopsided arrangement it is difficult to see how the English Government would long tolerate macro economic policy being dictated by another body possibly of a different political complexion and would push for greater economic control from the start. In such a major overhaul first past the post would go, minor parties would emerge [possibly English nationalist parties pushing for more powers] and all governments would be coalitions, each of a different composition.

I am in favour of an English Parliament as a democratic principle but believe it is inconsistent to hold that view and to argue for the continuation of the UK state. I also don’t see any appetite in England for the upheaval either an English Parliament or Regional Parliaments would involve. In many ways the break up of the UK would be seen as less of an upheaval and more in line with English tradition, in that many former colonies and even constituent parts of the UK have departed without causing too much change at the centre. However, ironically, although an English Parliament is likely to be resisted by the all the main UK parties, if Scotland did leave, it is difficult to see how such a change could be resisted in a post break-up UK state.

Anagol on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

Anagol — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:34:35 +0000

Interesting but no more than interesting. One is in danger of talking one's little British self into a fine-meshed web of words which may cocoon one from the hard but enlightening reality of salient facts.

The salient facts are interesting too and more than interesting. They are informative and actually formative. In 1707 a form of constitutional union was instituted which, by virtue of being fundamentally flawed, had within it the seeds of its own eventual dissolution, which was attempted only 6 years later and failed in a Westminster parliamentary vote in which the Union was saved by a mere 4 votes. The growth of the empire and external conflicts kept it going until a point was reached at which it was found that, the Union not having really taken in certain fundamental respects, there was nothing much left to hold it together.

So along came legislative devolution, administrative devolution having already been instituted as a result of practical necessity long ago. This reform, unfortunately, missed the point. People in Scotland, who had never assented to the Union in the first place, wanted a federal reform of the constitution, which was denied. Instead of this we got a form of limited "pretendy" self-government which disturbed the equilibrium of the UK constitution in a way which was understood in Scotland at the time, when the term "the West Lothian Question", coined in the 1970s at the first and abortive devolution attempt, was bandied about but not sufficiently for people in England to take note. Now they have noticed and are unhappy, just as Scotland is. Nobody is happy with devolution. Therefore the fate of the Union is once again in the balance.

From a Scottish perspective there is only one thing that can save it, if anything can, and that is a federal constitution, which is what Scotland has been signalling a desire for and is what we would probably have been perfectly content with if the English commissioners had been willing to contemplate it in the early years of the 18th century. This incorporating Union always was unwanted by the Scots and still is unwanted by us, with or without devolution, which power-retaining formula changes nothing fundamentally in respect of the incorporating nature of the Union that we currently have.

So you can be confident that the Union will survive if you can be confident that the incoming Conservative UK government is going to transform it into a federal one. If Scotland and England do not find themselves to be truly self-governing component parts of a Federal Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the next few years, the Union will pull itself apart. Even if the Tories are going to be offering a federal constitution, there is no certainty that the SNP will accept it. They are in a strong bargaining position and seem unlikely to accept a federation at all. Even if they did, they would certainly hold out for one in which the federal government retained as few powers as possible and ceded taxation powers over, inter alia, offshore oil reserves. (Even then the SNP would not give up their ultimate goal of independence.) Hardly likely that these conditions can be met. Therefore, hardly likely that the Union will survive.

Not logged in on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

Not logged in — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:46:47 +0000

“In the 21st century in Great Britain, no one’s put forward a clear, compelling case for why the union matters.”

I feel this is the crux of the 'Endist' phenomena. The union has always meant different things in the different nations of the UK, so each would need a different case to be made and so it has been historically.

As Nairn says in 'After Britain' the first MPs from Scotland to go down to Westminster discovered that the English members regarded their claims that the terms of the recently agreed Treaty of Union were being disregarded as at best amusing.

There never was a union of equals. There never could be. But that was what Scots thought was their right and the misunderstanding has continued through the centuries.

The power of Nairn's argument lies in its ability to show that the difficulty of the British state to form a narrative that all of its citizens could coalesce around lies in its pre-modern formation.

Nairn wrote his book in 1999, but, using this analysis of the nature of the British State, he was able to accurately predict how devolution would turn out before it had even started.

This belief on the part of the Scots that the Union was a union of equals meant that when the political convergence between Scotland and England broke down, as during the time of Thatcher, they could not concede the legitimacy of the Thatcher government to rule in Scotland.

Thatcher dealt with this by toning down her free market revolution in Scotland and by keeping the Barnett Formula thus tacitly acknowledging the Scots right to be treated as a separate political state within a state. This internal colonial solution, continued by Major, was not particularly palatable.

Having had a taste for flexing their muscle in pushing the case for separate and equal treatment, forces inside Scottish civil society pushed for formal recognition of this through the creation of a separate parliament. It was very important at the time that it was a parliament and not an assembly for precisely this reason.

As I said before, fearful that it would loose control of this process, the Labour Party, unionist to its core, felt it had to be at the forefront.

Scots, I feel, fearful of the upheaval of independence, would settle for equality within the union, but such a solution is patently not available, and never would be. The difficulty the BBC has in just uttering the words ‘this does not apply in Scotland’ on its main news items, is evidence, if evidence were needed, that such a solution is purely utopian.

Added to this is the patently ridiculous situation of Luxembourg and Estonia and other small nations having direct participation in the councils of the EU while UK ministers go out of their way to publicly tell Scottish ministers to but-out when it comes to Europe.

So unfortunately there is no way for the decrepit UK state to save itself, other than undergoing a convolution that would leave its 17th century form far behind, but which would, in all likelihood, lead to the perfectly rational conclusion that the UK state has had its day.

Toque on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

Toque — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:53:34 +0000

That IHT article has Guy Lodge making a comparison with Czechoslovakia:

“When the Czechs and the Slovaks split, it wasn’t because of a massive
fight — it was because no one would put forward a good case for keeping
them together,” Mr. Lodge said. “In the 21st century in Great Britain, no one’s put forward a clear, compelling case for why the union matters.”

He also said this:

"What you’ve had since devolution is that England and Scotland are
starting to drift apart culturally and politically, so they seem like
entirely different countries."

They are entirely different countries, you dolt.

Hendre on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

Hendre — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:23:55 +0000

I agree with Alex Buchan - the processes leading to the re-adoption of the devolution policy post-1979 are often misinterpreted.

I notice the IHT article today repeats the ‘devolution will kill nationalism stone dead’ line by George Robertson. I suspect that it was in part a piece of ‘nat-baiting’ rhetoric. Any one familiar with the old turf wars between Labour and the nationalists would recognise it as such. The idea that Labour introduced devolution as a sop to Welsh and Scottish nationalism is one of the ‘urban myths’ of devolution.

The Cornish Democrat on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

The Cornish Democrat — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:25:43 +0000

Could not the 'permanentism' of most UK state British nationalists be raised as a counter point to the 'endism' you describe?

The idea that the UK is or should be an end in itself and an unchanging fact is just as fallacious.

States come and states go so how do we ensure that it is a fully informed and empowered public that has control of the process, that to me is of much greater importance.

The Cornish Democrat

Dougthedug on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

Dougthedug — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:45:13 +0000

I thought being on the losing side in the First World War and the desire of the Allies, especially President Woodrow Wilson, to give the Slavs and others their own states had more to do with the break up of the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire than any fatalism in its population.

Arthur Aughey wrote:

For example, the new nationalism is a romance that wants to emancipate people not only from the old political and cultural system (Britain) but also from their old cultural selves.

I would agree that many Scots want to emancipate themselves from the, "old political and cultural system", but it is an assertion of their true identity not a rejection of an old one. As for romantic visions, that is best left to tourist boards and those who avoid any difficult questions on language, land use, culture, national identity and Scotland as a state not a region.

Arthur Aughey wrote:

Well, how secure in the European Union does the Republic feel now, bullied by Brussels and threatened with exclusion?

A variation of the oft repeated Unionist line in Scotland. "You're too small, stupid and poor to survive without being part of Mother England." Perhaps the political class in Ireland was handicapped by having to have a referendum as it was written into the Irish constitution, not into an easily ignored promise in a Labour Party manifesto.

Arthur Aughey wrote:

In short, my point is this. If you do not subscribe to that end, why submit to the logic of endism? Why lose your belief when there is no need to do so?

Very true. It hasn't happened yet so why act as if it has? However belief in the Union is failing especially in Scotland. Simple facts on the ground are an SNP majority over Labour in the Scottish Parliament and the Labour Party in fear of losing one of their safest seats to the SNP. The SNP has never made any bones about its intention to give Scotland its independence back and the voters know exactly what it stands for.

"Endism", appears to be a simple acknowledgement of the facts rather than a radical pose.

Alex Buchan on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

Alex Buchan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:15:28 +0000

The fundamental misconception is that devolution was a ruse by the Labour Party that backfired. As always this is based on a lack of awareness of the situation in Scotland. The movement towards the setting up of the Scottish Parliament was not initiated by Labour, but Labour decided it had to seize the leadership of the movement that developed in order to retain its hegemony of Scottish civil society.

This is not a minor point. There are real historical reasons why elements of civil society in Scottish should have been restive. The advent of the Thatcher government, and, with it, the knowledge that the old post war concensus could be torn up without popular support in Scotland, was only the most obvious cause for concern. Scotland's lametable economic performance within the union and lack of direct access to participation in deal making in Europe were becoming more difficult to ignore.

What this article seeks to do is replace real historical movement, whether in Austro-Hungary or in the United Kingdom, with explainations based on winning arguments. But if anyone would care to visit Scotland they would discover that it is not the SNP who were responsible for the total disapearance of all signs of the British state, be it flags, national anthems or any other means by which the expression of loyalty to a state is expressed. It was non-nationalist Scottish puplic opinion which turned away from all of these in search of something that more acurately expressed its sense of identity.

James matthews on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

James matthews — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:26:45 +0000

For some of us life is a whole lot simpler Arthur. As a long term member of the Campaign for an English Parliament I do not will the end of the United Kingdom, I merely want the manifest injustice to the English brought about by post -1997 devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland properly remedied. If an "English Nationalist" at all, I am a reluctant one.

However, I am told that devolution to the "celtic" nations is irreversible. Peter Davidson's attempts to divert the energies directed towards rectifying the problem which engages me (the lack of political representation and institutions for the English at a national level) towards the issue which interests him (devolution within England) are a transparent and unacceptable device to further divide and rule. If there is to be intra- English devolution, whether at regional, county, or any other level, it must now be decided by the English alone, in the light of solely English interests. The other nations have made their choices. Now it is our turn.

What remains, for those without a diversionary agenda, is an English Parliament, either within or without the Union. Personally, I would rather it were within it, but I am advised, ad nauseam, by distinguished academics and experienced politicians who claim wisdom in these matters, that this is not possible. If that is true, I will happily embrace endism, rather than live with (even partly) asymmetric devolution.

Anthony Barnett on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

Anthony Barnett — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:19:13 +0000

In sunny Greece so I'll be brief. I like this post very much as it captures and names a definite mood. One that is post-Gordon Brown and his attempt to define a renewed British union in terms of flags and parades. But given the growing success of Holyrood and Cardiff Bay the old Britain, Arthur, surely has come to an end. Its parliamentary sovereignty rested on a unified state. The UK elite should have woken up a long time ago but if it rises from its narcoleptic passivity the only way it can "engage" as you put it is via a federal solution as you hint at. This option must include an English parliament advocated on its own merits and not as a consequence of others, as Gareth (Toque) says. In other words, it is either a new Britain or no Britain and either way there has been an end to ye olde Britain

padav on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

padav — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:07:31 +0000

Arthur,

I agree with much of your narrative. Dialogue emanating from authors displaying an English Nationalist disposition routinely assumes the break up of Britain and the establishment of an independent English political entity as a done deal.

Indeed, many have already factored this assumption into their deliberations and theorise upon how a future England might operate accordingly.

To some extent, this defeatist (from my perspective) disposition might simply be a weary response to the hectoring tone issuing from current UK political elites, who continue to operate in denial mode, witness the recent policy output from the Conservatives, which seems to be very much along the lines of business as usual with only the faintest of nods acknowledging English Nationalist sensitivities.

Therefore, whilst concurring with your general analysis, I would argue that the Union will only continue to thrive if UK political elites diverge significantly from their current nonchalant pathway of smug indifference.

The power to initiate radically different solutions lies within their remit. Simply engaging directly with the British people in a meaningful conversation, i.e. utilising the platform of a Citizens' Convention with no pre-conceived outcomes (other than a written Constitutional document setting down the terms of the consensus reached) and no taboo topics, would be a good start.

An integral element of the ‘endism’ philosophy you portray are some quite startling preconceptions about English cultural, social and political homogeneity.

Texts are peppered with the collective pronoun; We (the English presumably) all display very similar hopes and aspirations for the future, everyone residing in England shares more or less the same set of cultural values and widely differing localities all require similar solutions.

Of course the answer to this particular difficulty for English Nationalists is radical devolution of effective political power (traditional English counties are usually mentioned at this juncture) but when challenged to describe how this might operate in practice, the financial hegemony exerted by any nascent English Parliament (in a familiar reprise of the form displayed by the current UK model) becomes frighteningly apparent. In other words, just more of the same with a different name over the door.

Like you I reject the philosophy of ‘endism’ and recommend a healthy dose of realism for UK political elites. It is time for them to awake from their self denial induced slumber and engage with the British people.

A federal solution involving a looser partnership between relative equals is a credible alternative to the inevitable break-up of Britain. The British public just needs to be shown what this option might entail.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

Toque on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

Toque — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:02:59 +0000

I raised the same objection to the fatalism of Goodhart and Perryman's visions of the future. Their "English nationalism" (for want of a better phrase) rests on the assumption that the UK will break up so we must begin preparing now for a new English identity.

I would say that this fatalistic approach is not particularly "progressive". Even if the future of the UK is assured England should still debate Englishness and engage in a national debate; why is our national identity dependent on predetermination by Scottish separatists?

Wouldn't the Union be better off with a strong, self-confident English national identity; one that was not conflated with British identity to the annoyance of Scots, Welsh and Irish (and Englishmen like me)?

It's fine for an Arthur to knock nationalists' endism when those nationalists are separatists (it's illogical but reasonable), but when that nationalist happens to be an English nationalist who wants to see the end of ten years of asymmetric democracy and government ambivalence about English identity, by what right does he complain?

To put it another way: Why should English nationalists defend the Union when - politically - the Union is broke and those that defend it are implacably opposed to an English parliament?

I think dissolution of the Union would have considerable benefits for England. It's entirely possible for us to have those benefits inside the Union, but we're still waiting.

David, aka Britology Watch on "Endism - A flawed vision of the future"

David, aka Britology Watch — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:20:48 +0000

Arthur,

You're right that many 'radicals' (your term) and 'nationalists' (relationship between the two?) think that the end of the union was somehow pre-programmed into the devolution settlement. And that they do so is in part a product of wish fulfilment: they desire that outcome; so that by making it out to be inevitable, it becomes a (would-be) self-fulfilling prophecy.

However, I don't see too many Labour politicians, or even Labour Party activists, admitting that the end of the Union is inevitable, nor that it would be a desirable consequence of what they themselves carried out in 1998. If, on the other hand, this is the 'end' (or should that be the new beginning?) that does arise, it will be in large measure a consequence of the botched way devolution was handled. There's no great Hegelian mystique about this: it was an unfair, asymmetrical and gerrymandering settlement that denied to the English the democratic and economic benefits that were awarded to the Scots and the Welsh in order for the Labour Party to both have its cake and eat it at the expense of representative democracy for England.

To rectify this, and avert a break up of the inequitous status quo (which, for me, still seems incredibly remote however desirable it might be in some ways), probably the only solution would be a new federal constitutional settlement, with all of the UK nations having their own parliaments. Indeed, many English nationalists actually want this option, myself included. But the main political parties need to realise that they have to be proactive in seeking such a revision to the present botched devolution settlement. The way to oppose endism isn't to do nothing and pretend that the problem will go away by merely celebrating Britishness. Britishness in this sense (e.g. fairness to all the people of the UK) was subverted in tangible, practical terms by devolution; and in order for any sort of UK to be salvaged, so must the much vaunted British values of democracy and fairness.

David, aka Britology Watch

Endism - A flawed vision of the future, Arthur Aughey

Arthur Aughey — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:34:19 +0000

Arthur Aughey: (University of Ulster): When I finished the manuscript of my book Nationalism, Devolution and the United Kingdom State (Pluto 2001) I did so with what I thought was not only a literary flourish but also a political warning.

The literary flourish was intended to engage with Tom Nairn’s polemic against ‘UKania’ in After Britain (Granta 2000) where he had employed the Kakanian metaphor of Robert Musil’s novel The Man without Qualities. Nairn argued that just as the fond hope of Austro-Marxists that they could save the integrity of the Habsburg Empire from nationalist challenge came to nothing so too Labour's constitutional activism merely replayed the old Austrian saying - 'es muss etwas geschehen' (something must be done). However, the fatalistic end was implied in that action - 'es ist passiert' (it just happened). And what will just happen, is already happening, is the dissolution of the United Kingdom. It was like the old Austrian lament of 1916 we find in Strong (History of European Ideas 1984, p. 305):

Unser Kaiser is tot, is alles weg,

is alles aus? Ja...es is alles

aus! Nicht gleich...aber bald!

(Our Emperor is dead, is everything gone,

is everything finished? Yes, it's all finished

Not quite yet...but soon!)

The literary reference was to Josef Roth’s short story The Bust of the Emperor where he argued that the old Austro-Hungarian Empire did not collapse because of its inevitable contradictions (as Nairn implied) but because those who should have known better stopped believing in it. The Unionist warning was self-evident.

Following Nairn, as I noted in my review of Mark Perryman (ed) Imagined Nation: England after Britain it is expected now of radicals to write and speak (as the subtitle proclaims) of the United Kingdom already broken up, its fate already decided at the bar of history. Nairn has done a good job. How casually this is assumed is illustrated in a recent interview in The Independent (22 June) with the novelist Ian McEwan. He ‘serenely predicted the balkanisation of the United Kingdom’ (note the word ‘serenely’) stating that ‘Great Britain (note: he doesn’t understand the difference between GB and UK) is an artificial construction of three or four nations. I’m waiting for the Northern Irish to unite with the Irish Republic sooner or later (note: wait on, Ian), and also Scotland could go its own way and become independent’. When asked if this prospect disturbed him, McEwan replied not and that the future lay with ‘Englishness’.

This state of mind I call ‘endism’ and its attraction to a certain type of radical pose is obvious. Not only does it appear visionary it also appears in tune with ‘history’. For novelists who can’t be bothered with the messiness of practicalities, it is also smooth and clean. To what Andre Gorz considered the most disturbing questions of all: given this condition, is another choice possible? given this choice, another condition?, the endist vision answers ‘no’ secure in its certainty and dismissal of contingency.

It is actually a radical version of Hegel's Philosophy of History the appeal of which is its suggestion that 'the good is already fulfilled just in virtue of the fact that it is in the process of being fulfilled' (see J McCarney Hegel on History Routledge 2000). In this radically transformative understanding, expectation becomes fact. Devolution is on the way to becoming what it ought to be – the break-up of the United Kingdom. Not only should Scotland, for example, be other than what it is but crucially it already is other than what it once was – it is no longer British. Equally, for the English the 'is' of the devolutionary settlement encourages the belief that devolution should become other than what it is, an anticipatory move towards independence. That end is prescribed in the present.

David Goodhart’s recent article (Prospect July 2008) provides another example of endism. Much of what he says is sensible and intelligent but his reflections on the Union are evidence of this disturbing endist trend. He begins by expressing his sympathy for British multi-nationalism and the virtue of an overarching solidarity. He also argues (correctly) that its break up ‘is still not inevitable’ and has no desire to see the Union dissolved. Nevertheless, he makes a very good case for dissolving it because he assumes there is benefit for England in that process and that the outcome will be reasonably benign.

But why not make the case for the Union? Why not challenge the nationalist narrative rather than going with its flow? For example, the new nationalism is a romance that wants to emancipate people not only from the old political and cultural system (Britain) but also from their old cultural selves. That emancipation
can only found in a separation which is really a re-connection with the world for we are already ‘after Britain’. It announces a national identity unblemished by the inwardness of parochialism, championing the particular and the universal at the same time. That new home is in Europe and the Republic of Ireland is the model. Well, how secure in the European Union does the Republic feel now, bullied by Brussels and threatened with exclusion?

In short, my point is this. If you do not subscribe to that end, why submit to the logic of endism? Why lose your belief when there is no need to do so?