Lessons in Democracy and Self-Determination

Mike Small (Fife, Guardian): After the recent Council of the Isles meeting at Stormont, where all countries of the UK including the Isle of Man were present except for England, calls for an English ‘assembly' or parliament returned. From ‘Unlock Democracy' to ‘Our Kingdom' to ‘A Fresh Start' and more, England's civic society online is starting to grow some bristles of constitutional debate. Within it, a feeling of resentment fuels much of the comment. This has to be addressed. If not, what lies behind it will soon be filled by St George, Richard Littlejohn and the rancid utterances of a many a Kilroy-Silk.Being half-way down the road of self-determination, and having gone through Constitutional Convention, referendum and now with a popular nationalist government in office, here's some ideas on how to popularise an English Home Rule Movement (from a Scot).<!--more-->

Icons count. What should the ‘national' anthem be? Already there is argument over moving from God Save the Queen to Jerusalem. While the deferential dirge of GStQ would seem ripe for the gong, I'm sure that Jerusalem suffers from some of the same pretensions and frailties as a homage to an ancient monarchy. When the Welsh Assembly was convened it used ‘Song' as a cultural unifier. When democracy was rejoined at Stormont, Martin McGuinness, of all people, quoted Seamus Heaney: "that for too long and too often we speak of the others or the other side and that what we need to do is to get to a place of 'through otherness'". When Alex Salmond took the oath of office SNP members wore the White Rose of Hugh MacDiarmid.

MacDiarmid and Heaney - poets alive or still recent in the mind of the living. If progressive forces in England (and this is a big if) want to engage in a similar process they need to reclaim the initiative with some eye-catching and unifying contemporary or near contemporary. But who? Billy Bragg, Mike Skinner, Lily Allen.. who is the voice of the re-born nation?

Keep focused and be positive. What are you for? So far the argument has been too negative, as if Scots having some self-determination poses on its own a justifying grievance for the English. With the vast wealth and power of the South-East it is not convincing to say England is a nation on its knees. Equally, it's going to be difficult to construct an argument based on a dislike of Gordon Brown or Alistair Darling.

Identify core values. The Scottish Constitutional Convention drew up a ‘Claim of Right' which stated simply that ‘the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.' This immediately cut to the chase and was an honest declaration. The make-up of the convention was as important with most sections of civic society. As Andrew Marr put it, the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly was "built up by amateurs from scratch, until it changed the whole game of British politics".

The core focus of the Scottish movement was the strength of its civic society, and for Wales language has dominated its cultural movement, what would the English equivalent be? Cosmopolitanism? Openness?

Look forward. Despite the often prevalent myth about Scotland, virtually none of the current crop of politicians refers back to past injustices, such as Highland Clearances, suppression of Gaelic culture or the actions of a certain Russian linesman. In terms of a set of national stories you tell about yourselves (‘mythic structures') "harking back" may mark difference but it fuels resentment. It's not a positive enough platform to take things forward: "things can only get bitter."

The onward march of the Celtic fringe is driven by globalisation not parochialism, It won't go away. Neither will resurgent English nationalism. Therefore there has to be a progressive English movement for self-determination, to reclaim it from the boot boys of UKIP and the BNP.

This article is published by , and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.

Comments

Wallace-Macpherson (not verified)
1 August 2007 - 9:45am

Michael Wallace-Macpherson writes as a private citizen:

Mike Small (Fife, Guardian) calls for "a progressive English movement for self-determination".

National identity, flag waving and sadly even sabre rattling are back in fashion, not only in Europe but across the world. Fortifying national identity, for politicians, their scribes, poets and television/internet personalities is an easy (and very old) game to play.

Who needs national identity? Cui bono?

It may be fruitful to glance back to "Cold War" times. *

"We are entering the most dangerous decade in human history. A third world war is not merely possible but increasingly likely . . . In Europe, the main geographical stage for the East-West confrontation, new generations of ever more deadly nuclear weapons are appearing."

The authors argued not just for disarmament (a nuclear-free Europe "from Poland to Portugal”) but also for the destruction of the bloc system that had divided Europe since 1945 – a goal it envisaged being achieved by a novel strategy of “détente from below”:

"The remedy lies in our own hands . . . We must commence to act as if a united, neutral and pacific Europe already exists. We must learn to be loyal, not to ‘East’ or ‘West’, but to each other, and we must disregard the prohibitions and limitations imposed by any national state . . . We must resist any attempt by the statesmen of East and west to manipulate this movement to their own advantage."

Although the division of Europe was reduced in 1989/90, tension between the heavily armed East (Russia and remnants of the USSR) and West remains, recently growing. The idea that the "free market" will lead to stable peace seems insufficient for the task. We face not only proliferation of nuclear weapons but also climate disruption and globally operating terror. Relationships between peoples call for strategies other than, better than those which have been tried.

"We must learn to be loyal, not to ‘East’ or ‘West’, but to each other, and we must disregard the prohibitions and limitations imposed by any national state ..."

How can this ideal be put into practice?

-----------------------

*European Nuclear Disarmament Appeal issued in April 1980

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Nuclear_Disarmament

29 July 2007 - 9:56am

[...] July 29, 2007 at 11:55 am | In English Parliament | Tom Waterhouse (Abingdon, CEP): Mike Small (Lessons in Democracy and Self-Determination) makes some valid points about pushing forward the case for an English [...]

Derick (not verified)
30 July 2007 - 10:16am

Progressive Englishness?

That is for the English to define

Charlie Marks (not verified)
29 July 2007 - 9:13pm

Sarah, what are you on about?

Derick (not verified)
30 July 2007 - 9:23am

! posted the following in March on the Scotsman site.

"I keep saying this because it's true

The major positive consequence of Scottish Independence will be an Independent England free of the ghastly, gharish and taste free legacy of 'Britain'.

Because: England is a large, beautiful and wealthy nation, with enormous potential - not yet realised.

B*llocks to Rule Britanianna

Blake and Shakespear rule.

put away the Union Jack

and

Bring me my bow of burning gold!

Bring me my arrows of desire!

Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!

Bring me my charriot of fire!

I will not cease from mental fight,

Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand

Till we have built Jerusalem

In England's green and pleasant land

http://poetry.eserver.org/new-jerusalem.html"

and this:

"Yes to Willam Morris

Yes to Private Eye

Yes to 1,000,000+ decent people in the streets of London on 15 February 2003.

NO to Thatcher/Bliar/Whatever pollock is next seen on a tank

Yes to Fish and Chips

Yes to Brummie Accents

Yes to Dunkertons Cider, straight off the farm

No to the BNP

No to the Dead Hand of the Treasury"

and I add this today:

No to anti-Scots English racists

No to anti-English Scots racists

Aa the best

Derick, Shetlander, Scot, reluctant 'Briton' and SNP member

Mike Small (not verified)
30 July 2007 - 8:03am

Thanks for your kind comments Sarah.

I'd say 'progressive' could be defined as looking forwards - seeking positive solutions to social problems and seeing this as not only possible but vital and necessary. I'd say another characteristic of a 'progresisve agenda' might be being open-minded to change and to new options, doing things differently.

You're quite right that I would think in these terms from a left tradition, though (arguably) defined in these terms - you could have a 'progressive' agenda from the right.

Tom Griffin (not verified)
27 July 2007 - 11:36am

All sound advice, but is Jerusalem a 'homage to an ancient monarchy'?

I would have thought that Blake was exactly the kind of radical that a progressive English nationalism would look to.

27 July 2007 - 11:47am

Thanks for the suggestions Mike.

I don't agree with all that you have to say but it's nice to have some constructive honest input instead of the usual obfuscation, excuses and 'anomalies' that are so often the currency whenever the subject of English self-determination is broached.

On the subject of tips Canon Kenyon Wright is worth a read.

Mike Small (not verified)
27 July 2007 - 12:12pm

Hi Tom - "I’m sure that Jerusalem suffers from some of the same pretensions and frailties as a homage to an ancient monarchy"... I'm referring to God Save the Queen.

Sorry it's maybe not very clear.

Thanks for the Canon link.

Sarah (not verified)
29 July 2007 - 10:50am

What's a progressive movement? One that thinks living on benefits when you're perfectly capable of working is an acceptable lifestyle choice? That thinks muggers and bunglers should be treated as 'victims'? That sobs over foreign criminals that the British government, in a rare feat of competence, has deported? Getting on the hair-shirts, sack-cloth & ashes if you're English in permanent apology for your past misdeeds?

You haven't defined 'progressive' and you seem to be taking as read that whatever you think do define it as, will automatically be the way forward, rather than say a view of a narrow section of the population.

Tom Griffin (not verified)
27 July 2007 - 6:19pm

Thanks for the clarification, Mike.

Do you see any nucleus for a 'progressive English Movement' out there?

The Campaign for an English Parliament seems to me to be, quite appropriately, a single-issue cross-party group.

On the right, the English question is increasingly a mainstream issue, but that isn't true on the left or centre-left. No doubt this reflects party political calculations, but i'm not sure those calculations are necessarily valid.

Mike Small (not verified)
27 July 2007 - 8:54pm

I dont see any - but I dont know - I'm wary of viewing England through the Scottish press - as I know the English media distort Scottish poliics so I suspect the same happens the other way.

I'm hopeful that the break up of the British State could be positive for England - and all other nations involved. For me the republican thread is missing - and essential.

Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options