open Democracy News Analysis - Devolution - Comments

andymycock on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

andymycock — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:46:01 +0000

Many thanks for the comments on the above piece. The point raised by Hendre is not one which most leading lights in the Conservative Party seem to comprehend. Their faith in the ability to history teaching in state education fails to acknowledge that the informal consensus on a British historical narrative reflected a distinct national divergence in content, pedagogy and purpose that devolution has exacerbated. James, the point in the piece is not that the other nations of the UK might reject a Conservative Government more that current policy and political rhetoric is contradictory in its aims.

Cameron has restated his commitment to defending the Union but some (most?) of his Party would appear not to share his view. Be it political opportunism (maybe realism) or a genuine lack of faith in the Union, there is undoubtedly a shift in attitudes within the Party.

aspecask on "An OurKingdom symposium: The rise of the Scottish nationalists, the Scottish dimension and what happens to England and the UK"

aspecask — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:29:57 +0000

Well, in 1984 the break-up of the SU looked totally impossible; in 1989 it looked possible but least probable (Baltics excluded) - and in 1991 it proved to be one and the only reality. Moreover, in 1990s, after SU had been dissolved, it proved that 'Soviet Nation' (a very close parallel to 'British') which has been totally impossible to mobilize in late 1980s did really exist - and sociologically outnumbered 'politically active' Newly established states' nations in terms of identity. Nevertheless, as this 'Soviet Nation' had no positive image of political future, it is now next to totally gone.

I wonder whehter English elite is sane enough to stay 'British' - as Scottish and Irish elites were the foundation of Britishness in Empire time.

Otherwise, if it will be 'English' par excellence, there will be some Soviet (Yugoslavian) type of disintegration.

In the latter case, degradation of all the Disunited Kingdoms/Republics will be at best comparable to that of Slovakia - if not Russia or Ukraine.

Aelwulf on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

Aelwulf — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:48:18 +0000

The constitutional illiteracy of the Tories is playing right into Salmond's hands. Salmond knows very well that the Westminster parliament is a British parliament and yet is happy to pretend it is "London", code for English.

The Tories appear not to be aware that the Westminster parliament is a British parliament and are obviously veering towards regarding it an English parliament of sorts. Salmond won't disabuse them of their error and Cameon's EVOEL policy will just confirm this suspicion in many minds

From the article above it would seem there are many in the Tory party who are now past the point of trying to appease the nationalists and the attitude a fast crystallising "stuff 'em".

The time is fast appraaching when Dave is going to have to decide in his own mind what Westminster is to be

a British parliament , in which case that leaves the case for an EP still open

or an English Parliament in which case the pressure will be on him to finally expell ALL members for non English constituencies and a reversion to pre 1707.

He is trying to ignore this choice. Circumstances will not let him.

britologywatch on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

britologywatch — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:19:22 +0000

If you look at No. 10's response to Toque's petition demanding he say England when he means England, it could be taken as implying two things:

1) in his capacity as prime minister, Gordon Brown does not represent the people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath: "it is in this capacity [as prime minister, not - by implication - as elected MP for the said constituency] that he speaks . . ."

2) the fact of Brown's holding the office of prime minister does not authorise him to speak for 'England' but only on behalf of the UK = 'the country': "It is in this capacity [as head of the UK government] that he speaks when articulating his vision for the future of the country".

Tantamount to saying, adapting Wittgenstein's famous dictum, 'of that which one cannot speak, one cannot know'; i.e. the prime minister can't acknowledge 'England' verbally - he can't confirm that it exists - because his office does not authorise or validate him in doing so. But neither, in talking of England - as the UK and in his capacity as UK prime minister - is Gordon Brown fulfilling his role as a Scottish-elected MP.

Parliamo mandarin?

Hendre on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

Hendre — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:18:12 +0000

A scot may get in first ... but the Conservative so-called National Curriculum never applied in Scotland and had variations in Wales and Northern Ireland. There has never (ever) been a UK-wide education system.

James Matthews on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

James Matthews — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:01:23 +0000

"Further cementing the view of many outside England that it (Westminster) is an institution which deals primarily with English issues."

That is the view of many inside England too. Indeed, after the 1997 devolution settlement it is hard to see how anyone could deny that it is true. The problem is that while Westminster does deal mostly with English issues the representatives of the other countries of the Union are allowed to interfere in its deliberations thereon. The Conservatives are seeking (inadequately) to address this issue. To say that, in so doing, they are putting the Union at risk is a bit like saying that elections put continuity of government policy at risk. They do, but that is not why they are important and it is certainly not a reason for avoiding them.

The thrust of this piece seems to be that the non-English countries of the Union, being less Conservative than the English, will not like Conservative government. Well tough. They will have to decide for themselves whether they want democracy within the UK or outside it. If they choose the latter it will demonstrate that the Union is not a viable political entity, not that there is some defect in Conservative policy.

Toque on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

Toque — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:54:31 +0000

Michael Gove is an old hand at talking about 'Britain' or 'this country' when he means England. Only Gordon Brown surpasses Gove's ability to neglect to mention England.

Check out this Tory PR on child protection.

And I'm not just picking on Gove because he is Scottish, many of his English colleagues are just as bad. Check out Mike Penning discussing England's NHS Dentistry and care home places for dementia sufferers in England, or Andrew Lansley highlighting the King's Fund Report into the English NHS.

Gordon Brown actually responded to a petition of mine on this issue, but unfortunately he was completely dismissive. Since that time he's been yapping on about the NHS constitution (England-only) and saying what a great thing it is for Britain, and the 'Working Together' initiative as if it has something to do with this mystical place called 'Britain' and nothing whatsoever to do with England and England alone.

Toque on "Hastening the end of the Union?"

Toque — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:28:43 +0000

The CEP noted the absence of an English speaker in a recent PR.

I failed to spot any mention of English votes on English laws in any of the coverage of the Tory conference, but I'm reliably informed - by Sir George Young - that William Hague mentioned it in his speech at the end of the session that Sir George opened.

I'm sure the Tories were extremely conscious of the fact that the SNP conference followed theirs and left out any discussion of English votes to prevent speculative commentary in the Herald and Scotsman building up to Inverness.

Zen9 on "An OurKingdom symposium: The rise of the Scottish nationalists, the Scottish dimension and what happens to England and the UK"

Zen9 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:31:18 +0000

douglas clark wrote:

Eh!

Could you explain that to me a bit better? I'd have thought that Scottish independence could be arrived at in a peaceable fashion, much like the seperation of Chzekoslovakia.

We all, I hope, want a peaceful outcome. Such a peaceful outcome cannot be produced by pretending war is impossible or even just unlikely. Czechoslovakia was a peaceful example, Yugoslavia was not. Nor was the USSR, especialy for some of its neighbours.

Warfighting is avoided by mastry of war, not by ignorance of it, and mastry is the product of understanding, by both sides of themselves and each other.

Letting Scotland go her own way is not the problem for England, rather it is 'Britain' that is the problem. Some will seek to push England into a box during and following the process of ending the Union. Others will seek to proclaim a 'Britain' that carries on after the end of the Union in direct conflict with England.

Clearly some are passionately British, and will seek to contest whether England exists, but a lot of those who are of British identity, strike me as weakly so. A poor base to seek to deny a nation its nationhood, but perhaps enough to dellude the elite and the hardliners that they can try. Precisely the sort of circumstances from which very bloody conflicts can arise.

Besides which, if the SNP have their way, no Scot outside of Scotland will have a vote on Scotish Independance and the ending of the Union. What happens to them?

If we assume that English interests are the dominant ones in the Union, then England will naturaly want to take up the position the UK current has, with but a few changes. Much as Russia has taken over the positions of the USSR.

That however is not recognised in what I've heard of debates in Scotland and among a vociferous minority in England. Who see the end the UK as the end of those positions and interests. To them England will be like Scotland, a small nation in Europe. No longer a nuclear power, a member of the UNSC, and no longer retaining global interests. Divested of its connections with the Domion states and Commonwealth. No longer an very close ally of the USA. With all that implies for the capacity to project force in its (Englands) interests.

If they succeed, then such a state of affairs is potentialy explosive as the pressures build up. Precisely because the people will see their interests betrayed and their nation forced to acceed things they do not want to. Getting back to the position we where in before the Union ended, would be exceedingly hard under such circumstances.

There are external powers who will see this process of ending the Union, and sorting out whether Britain or England comes out of it, as a massive sign of weakness and indecisiveness. The sort of weakness that invites pressure, and leads to warfighting.

I hope that explains things a little better, self worth is not the issue here.

The bulk of Ireland was let go, I might add because it threatened northing, at that time the UK had the power to retake it, should it have been necessary.

douglas clark on "An OurKingdom symposium: The rise of the Scottish nationalists, the Scottish dimension and what happens to England and the UK"

douglas clark — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:29:33 +0000

Zen9,

<blockquote> England will not site idely by, a disarmed little state on the edge of
Europe, as their interests are betrayed. If the Scots believe this they
are enging in a massive act of self dellusion and ignorance of Englands
national interests. Trying to shackle England in the process of ending
the Union, will only produce a unsustainable state of affairs that will
collapse, potentialy in a very violent manner, depending on the
circumstances.</blockquote>

Eh!

Could you explain that to me a bit better? I'd have thought that Scottish independence could be arrived at in a peaceable fashion, much like the seperation of Chzekoslovakia. Are you wanting to declare war on the Scots for being, some of them at least, independently minded? Surely not. It would be to deny a process that gave independence to most of the historical Empire, would it not?

I fail to see why England would be disarmed.

And why, exactly, should you concern yourself about whether Scotland wanted independence or not. As you rightly say, England is the dominant power in the UK. Losing us should be, largely, irrelevant to your sense of worth. You have already lost Eire.

It might make us feel a bit better about ourselves, but why should that concern you?

Zen9 on "An OurKingdom symposium: The rise of the Scottish nationalists, the Scottish dimension and what happens to England and the UK"

Zen9 — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:04:51 +0000

England exists. It is the central conceit of the ruling elite to push the idea it does not and that there is an entity 'Britain' which exists instead.

This disconnect between reality and their perception(denial) of reality, is drawing us all down a dangerous path.

At some point the differential between reality and fantasy will fail in a catastrophic manner, and in the sorting out of who stands where, for what, violence, warfighting, will be inevitable. Preciusely because each side does not understand the other, even if they do understand themselves, which I'm begining to dobut.

To avoid this outcome, we must seek understanding, and cooperation and for all sides, not just one. It is not enough to understand Scots desire for control, or the lefts desire for a peaceful world with humans remade in the image of their ideology. We must encompass the right, the Center, the Irish, the Welsh, Cornish, and above all the English, who are without doubt the dominant nation in these isles.

England will not site idely by, a disarmed little state on the edge of Europe, as their interests are betrayed. If the Scots believe this they are enging in a massive act of self dellusion and ignorance of Englands national interests. Trying to shackle England in the process of ending the Union, will only produce a unsustainable state of affairs that will collapse, potentialy in a very violent manner, depending on the circumstances.

It can even be described as immoral to attempt to force a people into a mold they do not fit or want to fit into.

Britain does not exist, yet too many are draw into subscription to this false state and identity. Tempted or given no other choice by our ruling elite. Trying to force Britishness on the English is again looking for a fight. How many of these 'Britons' will stand and fight to oppress the English and deny them their nationhood?

How many will die in the dellusion, how many will suffer for the sake of this idea that you can surpress a nation that outnumbers the rest of the nations of British Isles put together?

And what creatures will arise in the confusion and chaos, wrapping themselves in nationalism, and racism to gain power?

We must avoid this, we must understand each other, war by the masters of war is called Peace, between such protagonists it is called Friendship.

roderick Russell on "An OurKingdom symposium: The rise of the Scottish nationalists, the Scottish dimension and what happens to England and the UK"

roderick Russell — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:58:16 +0000

What this topic suggests to me is that people have sensed that something is fundamentally wrong with the body politic in Britain - That our parliamentary form of democracy is broken, and that change is in the wind. This change could take the form of increased nationalism and a break-up across the UK; but it could also take the form of more open government and constitutional change in the UK as a whole.

People sense that no matter whether a right wing or left wing party wins an election, their policies in government will be much the same. They sense that the establishment rules the roost no matter who is elected, and pulls government’s chain whenever it is in their interest to do so – it seems that our elected MP’s don’t count for much. With the banking crisis, people have seen (the banking segment of) the establishment’s mismanagement in its own interests (risky loans = huge short-term profits = huge bonuses), but at the people's expense.

Over the last century we have moved from a very decentralized government system that was once the envy of the world, to the most centrally controlled system of government in the “democratic” world today. And as for traditional British values of rule of law, democracy, and fair play - does anyone really believe that they exist today?

My own situation is just another (rather horrible) example of this. It could not occur in a real democracy, since an honest government would either investigate my complaint or prosecute me for the allegations I have made. In fact the authorities have done nothing except orchestrate a gigantic cover-up conspiracy. Its URL is:

http://zerzetzen.wikispaces.com

This is very nasty stuff from the establishment. It could not happen in a country that practiced rule of law, democracy and fair play.

On the surface it is about defamation and slander, threats and intimidation from MI5 / MI6, and a government cover-up conspiracy to ensure that there is no honest investigation. What the story is really about is the ability of the establishment and their tame secret police (MI5/6) to neuter our human rights industry, our government, our parliament, and our press – since it proves that high establishment figures can operate above the law with impunity.

The British people have sensed that something is systemically wrong with the body politic. They know it is not working for them, and that there is a pressing need for constitutional change. Change is coming, and it can only take one of two forms. Which one will it be? - A commitment to open democracy and the constitutional changes needed, or - a break up of the United Kingdom, in the hope that a break-up will leave our very corrupt establishment behind. Roderick Russell.

Not logged in on "An OurKingdom symposium: The rise of the Scottish nationalists, the Scottish dimension and what happens to England and the UK"

Not logged in — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:31:34 +0000

England cannot have anything like the Scots until the Communists have been overthrown and strung up. We are crippled by *false* self hate and guilt for the past.

Political Correctness is the heart of this malaise. Until the barbaric and savage is recognized, we will get nowhere.

Not logged in on "An OurKingdom symposium: The rise of the Scottish nationalists, the Scottish dimension and what happens to England and the UK"

Not logged in — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 19:45:20 +0000

The political landscape is - England becomes independent and England improves.

Not logged in on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Not logged in — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:37:37 +0000

Signs of the times.

We can still keep the letters UK. They would be the anagram of United = "Untied".

A Greek of my acquaintance once said "We know all about Empire. We had one once and have yet to recover from losing it."

The Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" model still holds good. The English established the British Empire, by annexing Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The rest is history. At present the English are at the "bread and circuses" stage of disintegration of Empire. As long as they have football on Saturday night, takeaway pizza and a six-pack, the English will remain quiet. Once the bread and circuses era passes we can expect the next stage will be the appearance of the barbarians in Parliament.

Could we also expect to eventually end up with an Italian style democracy, which is one of the outcomes of the Fall of Imperial Rome.