open Democracy News Analysis - blog entry - Comments

Alex Buchan on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

Alex Buchan — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:31:41 +0100

Thanks for the links. It is amazing, though, that we can count on one hand the number of times the BBC actually reflects the truth rather than playing a part in perpetuating the Anglo-British/Britologist line. It might be relied on in Iran, but the BBC is not a disinterested player back home.

I say Anglo-British/Britologist because I do not see them as greatly different. The Tories say ‘England’ in an almost unconscious at-homeness with the narrative of the golden thread of English history. Labour’s use of Britain when they mean England is, on the other hand, the verbal expression of their core belief in the union and their refusal to accept that the legislation they enacted has undermined that union [Labour in the past has also been just as Anglo-British as the Tories]. But both use obfuscation when it comes to talking about the true nature of the British State. Cameron is as guilty of this as Brown, although he is more skilful.

I don’t think the emergence of a popular English nationalism is welcomed by any of them. It is only pressure from below that has forced them to appear to be responsive. Your own efforts in this regard have been significant. I would be very wary of the Tories. Their natural inclination is to string things along in the hope that a return to Great British uniqueness/greatness wins out against a more normal European national identity politics in England. They are likely to try to co-opt English sporting allegiance and the St George’s Cross flag as new ornaments to add another element to this British uniqueness/greatness.

On the West Lothian question I think they will play it by ear, only acting if they sense there is a head of steam, and then only minimally. I think you’re wrong about the Olympics. The Anglo-Brits are just as keen for it to be a festival of Britishness as the Britologists. The Tories are even more committed to the continuation of greatness than Labour, for them Britain the monarchy and the army are all wrapped up together, at least that’s how it comes across.

I liked the quote from J.B.Priestley. People like him speak of a deeper truth that transcends place even though it is deeply rooted in place.

Alex Buchan

Toque on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

Toque — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:55:34 +0100

Perception is everything, and its true that the Anglo-British will, for the most part, be acting in the interests of England. But they do now have to act differently in Scotland and Wales, change their language and points of reference; as you say "devolution queered the pitch".

Traditionally England has had far less cause for complaint against the Union due to England's dominance of that Union. But there are signs that the English are restless. Whether the Anglo-British will have to start 'putting out more flags' to be seen to be more English (as opposed to British), and start speaking of England (as opposed to Britain), are the interesting questions, and how they reconcile English nationalism with Unionism.

We've already see tantalising signs, with the English flag having been spotted fluttering above Downing Street, and on David Cameron's bike, on Jacqui Smith's car, and during Boris Johnson's campaign. The BBC too has started to get wise to the Britologists (see here and here). Control language and you control thought.

The FIFA World Cup will be an interesting test of how far the Anglo-Brits will go in mirroring the populism of Englishness, and if in doing so they help to undermine the popular legitimacy of the British state (which relies far more heavily on English acceptance than it does on Scottish or Welsh).

The Britologists (but not the Anglo-British) will pull out all the stops to ensure that the 2012 Olympics are as passionately British as the World Cup support is passionately English. This really is a very important battle for them, and at the moment it is one that they are losing.

If English MPs start producing websites as nationalistic as David Mundell's then I think it won't be long before we call time on the Union.

The Cornish Democrat on "Localism: the new politics of old"

The Cornish Democrat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:13:52 +0100

Very interesting.

In the county/duchy/celtic nation (you choose) of Cornwall where 50,000 people signed a petition calling for a devolved assembly and where the nationalists, Mebyon Kernow, recently beat Labour in both the EP and Unitary council elections perhaps the 'localism' advocated by the LGA would go some way to giving Cornish communities what they want.

Perhaps this document from a Cornish MP Andrew George and the Cornish Constitutional Convention would interest (opens pdf):

http://www.cornishassembly.org/CornwallANewBeginning5iii09.pdf

The Cornish Democrat

The Cornish Democrat on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

The Cornish Democrat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:10:29 +0100

You realise that it was this greater-england nationalism of the Anglo-Brits and Tory establishment that led to the reclassification of Cornwall from Duchy and British territory to simple English county. In doing so they've had to brush our constitution under the carpet and resist all expressions of Cornish national identity.

Who knows, if this Anglo-British steam roller had had more power, and,
had the conditions been right, perhaps Wales and even Scotland might
have suffered the same fate. The British/Great Britain/UK tags (smoke
screens) would simply have been dropped and today we'd all by citizens
of a state called England that stretched from Lands End to John o'
Groats.

The Cornish Democrat

Alex Buchan on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

Alex Buchan — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:31:55 +0100

I accept your point, I am thinking more of how they are perceived, especially in Scotland and perhaps in England. Thatcher would have been seen by many as someone who stood up for England, given that England and Britain during her time was seen as interchangeable. As I say, devolution has made this blurring of distinctions more difficult. The same could equally be said of Mundel. He may genuinely think he is a Scottish patriot furthering Scotland’s interests by having her on the world stage as a junior partner. This is, after all, the argument used by Labour, Tory and Lib Dem politicians in Scotland, that independence would consign Scotland to a backwater of insignificance. Drawing on your reference to projecting England into the wider world, one could say of these Tory state nationalists that see themselves as the decedents of Drake and Raleigh. They see no rupture between the pre and post union state, how could they when this is enshrined in the long tradition of Anglo-British exceptionalism. It is the ‘Bank of England’, it is ‘Queen Elisabeth II’, the debate around the speaker showed that parliament sees itself as the English Parliament continuing i.e. we all live in England continuing. It’s not due to a fault of their own that English people see England and Britain as the same, this is what they are supposed to think. My point is that this is central to what provides popular legitimacy for the British political system, it is not optional. David Cameron, as Prime Minister, can’t just bring in a Federal Constitution, even if he wanted to, without undermining this. He would have to take the risk that, lacking genuine popular affections, a non-exceptional Britain i.e. a Britain shorn of its mystique of greatness may hold no attraction for the different nationalities of these islands.

Alex Buchan

Toque on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

Toque — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:13:25 +0100

I'm not sure that they can be termed 'English nationalists', Alex.

They are state nationalists, albeit a state in which England is - for them - very much the emotional, historical, constitutional, monarchical, religious and political heart (a mindset which is part of the problem for the Scots and Welsh).

For me they're the ideological descendents of the Imperialists of Empire Days. Those who saw Britain, and latterly Empire, as a way of projecting England (and Their cultural and political ideals) into the wider world. But its the little Englanders who objected to the mindset of men like Cecil Rhodes who were the true English nationalists.

Cecil Rhodes, David Cameron, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown...They're British/State nationalists, imperialists or "Big Englanders" as far as I am concerned. It's not nation that concerns them, it's statecraft and their own political power.

"I thought about patriotism. I wished I had been born early enough to have been called a Little Englander. It was a term of sneering abuse, but I should be delighted to accept it as a description of myself. That little sounds the right note of affection. It is little England I love. And I considered how much I disliked Big Englanders, whom I saw as red-faced, staring, loud-voiced fellows, wanting to go and boss everybody about all over the world, and being surprised and pained and saying ‘Bad show!’ if some blighters refused to fag for them. They are patriots to a man. I wish their patriotism began at home…" - L.B.Priestley

Alex Buchan on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

Alex Buchan — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:34:09 +0100

This is precisely my point. This kind of thing isn’t an aberration it flows directly from the exceptionalism that is the hallmark of the pre-modern British constitution. Nor does it pose problems for Scottish Unionists, instead it perpetuates the myth of greatness which lies at the heart of this ideology: that Britain is an overarching ‘Great Nation’. For English Tories there is no need to flaunt Englishness because Englishness is seen as indistinguishable from Britishness. This is also why they wouldn’t want to make this distinction, because having Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland only adds to England’s sense of greatness if no distinction is made between England and Britain. They are, in a disguised way, English Nationalist, and were widely seen to be until devolution queered the pitch.

Alex Buchan

Toque on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

Toque — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:53:38 +0100

As David McCrone remarked, “In an important sense, Scotland’s politicians are all Nationalists”.

They have to be.

Just take a look at David Mundell's website. If an English politician plastered their website with the Cross of St George like that people would either think they were completely insane or that they were a member of the National Front and completely insane.

Not logged in on "Michael Martin, former MP, disgraced ex-Speaker...Peer?!"

Not logged in — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:58:40 +0100

I think the words "disgraced" and "disastrous" are rather hyperbolic don't you? He resigned because he didn't have MPs' confidence and the expenses affair was a convenient opportunity to get rid of him.

Alex Buchan on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

Alex Buchan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:35:07 +0100

Before their eclipse, which corresponds with before the emergence the anti-Thatcher consensus which defines modern Scottish politics, Scottish Tory MPs were very self-consciously Scottish in a very tartany or kitch way. You could say they were Anglo-British in a self-consciously Highland Country Dancing way. I think this suggests that the whole vocabulary of Anglo-Britishness performs a function of stressing exceptionalism. This exceptionalism can be seen as part of the ideological underpinnings of historic compromise between landed interests and the City that laid the foundation for the British State of today.

For that reason to move away from this ideology is a delicate mater because all the inconsistencies in the present system can be seen as resting on this exceptionalism. It comes in many guises: a thousand years of history, unwritten constitution, postage stamps with no country designated, the mother of parliaments, four national footfall teams in one nation, etc, etc. To move away from Anglo-Britishness is to move into unknown, and very unbritish, territory. This is the Tories dilemma, because it moves the debate onto the enemies ground as they would see it.

alex_buchan on "The devolution dilemma ten years on"

alex_buchan — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:21:18 +0100

Brian Taylor programme was a waste of the licence fee, it lacked any historical analysis. If this programme had related to the governance of England during the last 10 years it would have been rightly ridiculed in the London press. It is a measure of just how lacking in seriousness both BBC Scotland and the Scottish press are that this can be passed off as even tolerable, it is also testimony to the moving south of talent as it affects Scottish journalism.

Devolution did not come about because of the existence of Scottish culture as the programme purports. Rather it was one of the inevitable results of having territorial departments of state. These acted in areas of domestic policy as quasi governments headed by someone drawn from the majority party at Westminster, regardless of that party’s standing in Scotland or Wales. In Scotland’s case, this system dated back to the late 19th Cent. This arrangement was itself due to the archaic nature of the British State. Such an arrangement, which was always double-edged, being seen at the same time as special treatment and as an insult, only could withstand challenges so long as the post war consensus persisted.

The end of empire and the rise of the cultural and economic power of London and South East led to the emergence, in Thatcherism, of a kind of radical English Free-Market Nationalism posing as British. The extent to which this was an English phenomena can be seen reflected in the fact that it wasn’t just Thatcher’s economic and social policies that were anathema in Scotland and Wales, the Falkland War also had little resonance in these countries. In the end Thatcher represented a parting of the way between Scotland and England. With this the consensus that underpinned the acceptance of the territorial departments as an acceptable compromise broke down, which is why going back to that is now totally unthinkable.

In summary, the Secretaries of State of Scotland and Wales were more like Governors. This system became untenable when the ruling party at Westminster lost all legitimacy in Scotland and Wales. In bringing in devolution, Labour was reacting as much to the latent danger they perceived in this crisis of legitimacy of Tory Secretaries of State, as something that could be transformed by the SNP into a crisis of legitimacy of the Westminster system in general.

This is why it is so difficult for the Tories because any going back would have to be a return to the period before the establishment of territorial departments, or a move on to a modern state. In the bloggesphere the suggestions for the replacement of the present asymmetrical constitution can be seen as falling into two types, either something resembling the French model of universal citizenship with no variations in entitlements across the UK, or something like the German federal model with looser ties. The reference to France and Germany shows why both of these models are far too risky for the Tories because they represent an abandoning of past tradition and would entail a stripping out the existing objects of legitimacy and replacing them with new ones. But it is just these existing archaic objects of legitimacy, such as the Monarchy and the protection of Scotland’s ancient privileges that the Tories cite as arguments for the continuance of the union.

The Tories are left having to react to events rather than fashioning them. The real crisis is not a crisis of Tory or Labour policy but a crisis of the state which, due to its previously advantageous circumstances, put off the radical changes that would have made it possible to claim legitimacy in a modern era. Those advantageous circumstances no longer pertain. My own view is that the Tories will revert to constitutional immobilism and will back away from major changes either to Scotland’s or England’s constitutional arrangements in the false hope that something will turn up, for instance that the decline of North Sea Oil will see a waning of the SNP’s fortunes.

Toque on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

Toque — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:23:14 +0100

I get the point you are trying to make.

In one sense the Anglo-British and the Britologists are the same. They are both State Nationalists.

The Anglo-British see English and British as much the same thing if they even think about it at all, whilst the Britology tautologists (people like Gordon Brown, Michael Wills and Jack Straw) are extremely conscious of the difference between England and Britain and so deliberately ignore England completely.

The Anglo-British might mistakenly say England when they mean Britain, whilst the Britologists will deliberately say Britain when the mean England (or use vague non-specific terms such as 'this country' or 'our country').

Cameron seems to have adopted most, if not all, of Blair's annoying phrases (things like "I honestly believe" and "y'know" and "I will say this") so it's entirely conceivable that he has taken onboard the Britishness doublethink of New Labour.

Wyrdtimes on "Why do we have them?"

Wyrdtimes — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:30:18 +0100

This all comes down to the big Britisher delusions of gradeur.

We should be able to defend ourselves of course but British foriegn poicy actually puts us in danger.

Roll on the complete end of empire and home rule for the home nations.

England can then almost completely disarm and spend the peace dividend on rebuilding the country. I think the idea will spread and the world will move closer to peace.

britologywatch on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

britologywatch — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:40:31 +0100

Except, of course, the syndrome has been stood on its head under New Labour: now the establishment says 'Britain' when it means England. The Britologists have taken over from the Anglo-Brits. Whether the return of the Tories will see a return of Anglo-Britishness is perhaps a more interesting question than the nature and degree of their support for devolved government.

The Tories may not be as ideologically committed to the suppression of a distinct English identity as New Labour; however, in practice, they're going to be faced with the same problem of how to refer to English matters as English without letting the incongruity of the present dual-purpose nature of Parliament and government (UK-wide and England-only) become too glaringly obvious, which will further fuel the demands for an England-only parliament of some sort. However, they're in a double bind: if they replicate New Labour's Brit-speak and don't properly address the West Lothian and English Questions, or reform the Barnett Formula, the anger and mistrust of the English towards the present system will only increase.

Better to honestly confront the issue now, and come up with a political and constitutional solution that recognises that England and Britain are two distinct communities.

Toque on "What happens to Labour if the Tories back strong devolution?"

Toque — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:02:26 +0100

"could be described as greater-england nationalists."

Prof Chris Bryant describes these people as the Anglo-British, people who "do not notice when an institution or person associated with England performs a British function. For example, it goes unremarked that the Bank of England is the central bank for all Britain, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primate of the Church of England, crowns the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Nor do countless references to ‘England’ which should have been to ‘Britain’ grate on the English ear. Walter Bagehot’s famous The English Constitution (1964 [1867]), for example, does not strike the Anglo-British as mistitled."

This is most Tories, even though Scottish and Welsh nationalists have forced them to change their language and terms of reference in Scotland and Wales they fall naturally back to Anglo-Britishness in England, even the Scottish ones like Michael Gove and Malclom Rifkind.

I'm what Bryant describes as a 'little Englander'.