Peter Davidson (Alderley Edge): Groups implacably opposed to any notion of English Regional devolution repeatedly focus on the overwhelming rejection of an elected assembly for North East England during the November 2004 referendum. This result has assumed iconic significance amongst English Parliament supporters, but it overlooks a body of compelling objective polling data concerning this contentious and emotional topic.
In the first instance devolution for Wales was decisively rejected when first offered in 1974 and only supported by the narrowest of margins during the 1997 referendum. Subsequently, the benefits flowing from the devolution process have become more tangible, and with popularity increasing it now seems likely that a referendum to confer primary legislative powers upon the Welsh Assembly, thus converting it into a full blown Parliament, will succeed.
In England, prior to the bungled Prescott devolution programme of 2003-4, every single opinion poll showed strong support for increased levels of Regional autonomy (for example, here, here and here) with particularly strong support evidenced in this 2002 BBC survey (part 2 of this research is particularly illuminating, given the events of 2004).
So what went so disastrously wrong between 2003 and 2004 to turn public sentiment in England against Regional devolution and towards an all-England constitutional settlement?
<!--more-->There is no definitive response to this question, but closer inspection of the devolution timetable during the 2001-2005 period provides some vital clues.
Following Labour's 2001 election victory English Regional Devolution strategies were very prominent within the newly mandated administration. John Prescott and his Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) were charged with the task of masterminding a strategy to roll-out devolution plans for the English Regions to complement devolved institutions already established in Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland and Greater London.
Intense consultations took place during 2001-2002, culminating in the publication of a White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" on 9th May 2002, setting out Government plans for Regional Assemblies. The government confirmed that referendums would be held where sufficient interest was expressed to warrant plebiscites. Eventually they settled on the three most peripheral English Regions (discounting the claims of SW. England to this title); NE. England, NW. England and Yorks-Humber, as candidates for referendums.
Sometime during 2002, John Prescott's ODPM team visited all Government departments with a shopping list of competencies for the nascent English Regional Assemblies. They were intent on creating robust institutions of devolved governance with responsibility for vital everyday portfolios of governmental activity. It was this tacit assumption of effective power dispersal that sustained strong public support for English Regional Devolution during the previous ten year period. The public believed that devolution meant what it said: the transfer of significant powers replete with revenue raising capacity, particularly in areas of everyday impact such as healthcare, education, law & order, housing, intra-Regional transport and economic development policy, from a highly centralised Whitehall bound government machine to more immediate tiers of accountable governance.
However, public hopes and aspirations were cruelly dashed as the ministerial heads of one government department after another, colluded with by senior civil servants and emboldened by the lukewarm support flowing from Nos. 10/11 Downing Street, flatly rebuffed the advances of Prescott's team. Effectively the Whitehall mandarins gave the English Devolution strategy a two fingered salute!
Stunned by this reversal, Prescott's ODPM machine furiously backpedaled in an attempt to create an entirely new raft of proposals for the forthcoming Regional Assemblies Preparations Bill. Published in November 2002, the paucity of powers slated for the embryonic regional institutions drew an overwhelmingly negative public response in the peripheral English Regions and a barrage of criticism from respective regional media publications. During 2003, previously positive public support for the English Regional Devolution concept understandably plummeted. Planned referendums for NW. England and Yorks-Humber were finally suspended in July 2004, leaving Prescott and his increasingly isolated team the thankless task of promoting sham devolution proposals during the Autumn 2004 official referendum campaign period in NE. England. The rest, as we know, is history.
For me this lamentable sequence of events clearly illustrates how long-term public support can quickly turn to ambivalence and downright hostility in the face of duplicitous central government machinations. The grand designs and aspirations attributable to English Regional Devolution were effectively sabotaged from the outset by a pervasive culture of centralised London (Whitehall) bound power.
Concurrently the established institutions of devolved governance in Scotland, Wales and eventually N. Ireland have inexorably raised their profile, driven by the incontrovertible logic of more effective governance flowing from a more immediate and responsive administration of civic power. Even in London, residents of the City have begun to display a new sense of affinity emerging from the quite limited powers displayed their own devolved tier of governance. This latter development lends credence to the remarks of Professor Kevin Morgan in his paper "The English Question: Regional Perspectives on a Fractured Nation" (opens pdf) when he states:
This suggests that the perennial criticism of English regionalism, that ‘regions' in England are ‘artificial' creations with no historical pedigree, is less damning than it appears, not least because the vast majority of regional governments in the EU today consist of ‘artificial' regions which subsequently developed varying degrees of regional identity, often in response to rapidly changing contextual conditions
In stark contrast, effective power dispersal in England remains moribund, frustrated by Whitehall intransigence and a deeply embedded culture of control freakery characterised in a "we know best" approach to policy formulation. Westminster resolutely clings to control of finances as the ultimate symbol of political power and the capacity to raise revenues is perceived as an inviolable asset.
Comments
Dear Philip,
Let me set the record straight from the outset - do not conflate my account and the opinions flowing from it with Prescott and his (now defunct) ODPM team!
I wrote as a concerned citizen of NW.England, living on the periphery of the UK's highly centralised unitary state and acutely aware of the inequitable distribution of wealth and resources resulting from this style of governance. I am not a mouthpiece for any government sponsored organisation. Indeed, I share your deep criticism of the sham devolution proposals advanced by the Labour administration during 2001-2004. The resulting debacle was entirely predictable.
I believe that there is a legitimate debate to be had about the shape of the "English Regional Map" and that should form part of a wider reappraisal of the UK's governance. Perhaps you share that sentiment?
What I do firmly reject is the assertion, vociferously pursued by some respondents here, that the only credible solution to centralisation is just another slightly different form of that same malign influence - i.e. just change the name and flag from that of United Kingdom to England and plough on regardless with the same damaging (to the peripheries) Whitehall centred style of government by diktat - simply because of a grossly distorted vision of England as a distinct yet seamless socio-political entity.
I was merely trying to give an account of what actually happened, as a counterweight to the oft-repeated claim of outright public rejection of English Regional Devolution. The facts (not my subjective interpretation) illustrate how public support remained strong over a ten year period but was eventually soured by disingenous policy proposals, emanating from the NuLab party machine.
Four days and still no reply. I guess you cant answer the question then huh? As for there being support for your bogus regions, that's just a lie.
Besides that, nearly 80% (North ast England) voted NO to an assembly! So, you dont care what the English people want. Do you?
All of this regions rubbish is just a cover for wrecking England. It is also being done for another reason. If England is forced into fabricated regions then scotland and wales and northern ireland can continue being subsidised by the Barnett formula because there wont be any effective English representation to stop it. They are truly without integrity!
The NW Yes vote was a very well run, slick, publicly funded and expensive campaign. The No campaign had little funding but they won.
The useless quangos that are the regional assemblies are being abandoned but replaced by the RDAs. This is due to the Tories winning the argument for their abolition so Gordie jumps on the bandwagon. Labour's centralist control freakery is cynically pushed to one side when it doesn't suit them.
The artificial English regions were constructed by the unelected EU quangocrats. How many of you can name your MEPs? How many people identify with a region? Where I live in the affluent south east people from Kent do not identify with their 'brothers' in Oxford or Buckinghamshire. This is a wholly artificially created region. But what has SEERA done for us? According to ONS figures 16-17 year-old unemployment across the afffluent south east is 52%, this drops to 20% at aged 18 because of the New Deal and useless courses aimed at getting these youngsters off the unemployment figures, instead it is a revolving door of benefits.
The money spent on these useless quangos would have been better spent on creating real jobs and real futures for our youngsters.
When the powers from SEERA and the other regional assemblies are transferred to the RDAs, the Tory councillors across the country should refuse to work with them and provide their own blueprints for planning, infrastructure, jobs, etc. That is real devolved power, taking it back from Whitehall and the useless quangos. Now there's a vote winner.
I think that Gareth has summed it up really. Suffice to say that although I would like to see a national government for England (preferably independant of the UK) I wouldn't want a centralised UK state replaced by an equally over centralised English one. How that is done is a matter for the people of England (and Cornwall) to decide by referendum once we have national recognition as given to Scotland, Wales and even Northern Ireland and not for the UK state to impose upon us on their own terms to suit their own ends.
OK lets discuss how these non-geographical and non-historical regions might have worked, I take my findings as one who lives on the outskirts of the Greater London Authority.
Firstly any major town or city needs it's own authority to oversee the day to day running of it's transport, health education etc...this I accept but the GLA being the first of these regions was not something the everyday Londoner was accepting by voting for a mayor of the GLA, the region was only the second part of the question put to us, so in effect to get a London Authority London became the first of the nine regions, hence we have the GLA as the only region that has some sort of automany but this does not stop the govt's treasury from holding at least in part the purse strings, when Ken Livingstone was preparing funding for the underground the Govt decide the PFI was the way to fund it, Ken took the Govt to court and lost, now we see companies charged with running the underground infra-structure in administration and guess who picks up the tab.
Added to our local rates is a GLA surcharge, which you cannot refuse to pay because the surcharge is deemed part of the rates, so in effect any mayor or regional leader could set the surcharge at the rate they think they could get away with.
London is a major conurbation which is densely populated, yet those of us that live in outer reaches of the GLA do not see half as much money spent on our needs as the centre of London does, in some parts our mayor is called "zone 1 Ken", now think of the size and populationof the other regions, mostly they have big cities at their centre with villages, towns and agricultural area surrounding them, there are big populus in the cities but also an outlying population with needs towards the outskirts, if these regions follow London's example, god forbid if you live in a rural area, you'll be lucky to see a penny.
Lastly a point touched on by previous authors, these assemblies will not have the powers as granted (and soon to be granted to the Welsh assembly) to the Scottish Parliament, firstly they would be at the mercy of the Govt, secondly should legislation be passed by the Govt, it can be revised or shelved at the Lords stage.
Now if devolution is to work it should be offered to all the people of the UK in equal measure, we see a Scottish Parliament forging ahead for the people of Scotland, the Welsh assembly will not be far behind, yet all England is being offered is trumped up regions with in reality no powers at all, has as been said before put it to the people of England, regions or an English Parliament, let the people of England decide thier own way forward and not let politians from all over Britain decide what is best for us. The question of devolved Parliament and assembly was put to the Scots and Welsh respectively, let it put to the people of England
secretperson: Regional Assemblies and an English parliament are different things that would address different issues so the one cannot be an "attack" on the other. You have to seel your parliament on its own merits, whatever those may be. And: "free from the EU"? Where did that come from? Isn't that a *third* issue?
Peter Davidson
“prior to the bungled Prescott devolution programme of 2003-4, EVERY single opinion poll showed strong support for increased levels of Regional autonomy (for example, here, here and here) with particularly strong support evidenced in this 2002 BBC survey”
Peter Davidson,
will you now retract your factually inaccurate statements about opinion polls?
And for your information, the eurolander fabricated regions were first devised in 1942 by the nazis.
Back in 1942, a book called "The European Community" was published. Its principal author, a Doctor of Economics, had argued in 1940 for a "Central European Union" and "European Economic Area" and for fixed exchange rates - EMU in all but name. In this book, he wrote that "No nation in Europe can achieve on its own the highest level of economic freedom which is compatible with all social requirements...The formation of very large economic areas follows a natural law of development....interstate agreements in Europe will control [economic forces generally]...There must be a readiness to subordinate one's own interests in certain cases to those of [the EC]."
The last three words explain things. The principal author was Nazi Economics Minister and war criminal Walther Funk. The other two were respectively Nazi academic Heinrich Hunke and official Gustav Koenig. Nor were they just eccentrics. Goering's orders in 1940 were followed by a project for the "large-scale economic unification of Europe" Goebbels, in the same year, compared Germany's road to unification in the nineteenth century with Europe's in the twentieth, believing that "in fifty years' time [people] no longer think in terms of countries."
http://www.iits.dircon.co.uk/newalliance/nazieu.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ominous_parallels.html
There's nothing new in Peter's account that we haven't seen before. The only thing he hasn't mentioned is the Bow Group paper (2002?) which proposed to make the regions even stronger than Prescott's orginal proposals and which the Tories hastily pushed to one side. As Gareth says, no-one objects to decentralisation, not even to regions of some kind, provided that there is an English national political body as well. When I joined the Campaign for an English Parliament I was not even an English nationalist. As a supporter of devolution in Scotland I assumed wrongly that if the government won its referendum there it would have the courtesy to offer the same democratic choice to the people of England. Discovering Prescott's orginal proposals turned me overnight into an English nationalist - no-one I spoke to at home, in the pub, at work etc knew what was going on or even believed me, no-one knew anything about regional assemblies or even what region they were in. And then there was the pretence, e,g. by Joyce Quinn, that the regions somehow had a historic cultural identity (dismissed in earlier academic studies). This was a campaign by stealth, funded by the oblivious taxpayer and apparently by the Rowntree Trust, for the abolition of England. I am not sorry to learn that we in the Campaign are infuriating, Peter, but surely, if we live in a democracy in which the people have sovereign right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs (Claim of Right for Scotland), isn't it just a little bit infuriating that we have never been asked if we would like to have an English Parliament? Aren't we entitled to feel pretty cross about that? And while we were in a minority back in 2000-2, all the surveys since 2006 including one for Newsnight have shown 60% plus support for an English Parliament. Even Tony Blair admitted we would win a referendum it it were held now. Is that a good reason for not having one? Refusing to meet such a perfectly legitimate democratic demand can only encourage people to ask whether England really needs the Union at all.
To add to the discussion above: I'm from the north-eastm though live and work in London now, but was visiting the north east frequently for work reasons during the devolution campaign and vote. Two observations: a strong (and reasonably held) suspicion of the quality of 'Tammany Hall' type local politicians (they're bad enough in City Hall without entrusting the future of the region to them); and second, a strong scepticism of the limited powers being offered to the regional assembly, which were if I recall regarded as pretend devolution. (And clearly these two themes would play with different groups of voters). Personally, I found the latter point naive; Livingstone - a better politiican, whatever one's view of his politics, than any in the north-east - understood that even if the powers on offer seemed thin gruel at the start, almost any reasonable initial powers are a base for building, as he demonstrated with transport. But that's an important difference between London and a peripheral and marginalised region such as the north-east: there is a fundamentally different relationship to (centralised) power.
Janice Small: “The NW Yes vote was a very well run, slick, publicly funded and expensive campaign. The No campaign had little funding but they won.”
Janice – actually it was the NE Regional Assembly, the NW vote was cancelled. You should also know better than most that public funding of election campaigns is strictly controlled and limited to a defined period by legislation; break these laws and you can land up in jail! You also know that both sides are given funding public funding.
Public funding for the YES campaign was not massive – approx. half a million pounds, which sounds a lot but when you are trying to reach a potential electorate of approx 2 million, is not really a huge sum pro-rata. In stark contrast the official NO campaign budget was augmented by private funding, not from people in the North-East but by an anti-European campaign group based in London. Says a lot about where the anti-regionalization movement is coming from?
Janice Small: “The useless quangos that are the regional assemblies”
Another totally misleading and incorrect statement – Non-Departmental Public Bodies are not directly linked to Regional Assemblies. Many of their budgets sit entirely outside the control of Regional Assemblies. Some may be coordinated by them but stating that “useless (a subjective term of your making) quangos” and Regional Assemblies are one and the same is simply not true.
In fact a major argument advanced in favour of elected Regional Assemblies was that they would bring the vast budgets wielded by these unaccountable bodies within the remit of elected institutions – i.e. they would become accountable and democratized. The last figure I had for these bodies (nationally) was £167 billion pounds per annum so a huge percentage of total public spending. Who is now accountable (via the ballot box) for these budgets now? Answer: no one
Let’s also not forget who created Regional Development Agencies in the first place thereby officially recognizing a Regional tier of governance in England – I seem to recall that it was John Major’s Conservative administration. Let us also remember that Mrs. Thatcher before him expanded the role of the quango and stuffed their boards with her placemen (and women) – a trick copied by Mr. Blair of course.
Let’s not get confused here – I am not flying the flag for the Labour Party policy. Nothing could be further from the truth but you really are having a laugh when you make statements like “Labour’s centralist control freakery is cynically pushed to one side when it doesn’t suit them”
Where did Labour acquire their control freak culture from? Couldn’t have been Mrs. Thatcher by any chance? You remember the same Prime Minister who, when faced with bastions of power she could not access – the elected and accountable City Regional bodies: Greater London, Greater Manchester et al, simply abolished them like the true democrat she was?
Janice Small: “The artificial English regions were constructed by the unelected EU quangocrats.”
Regional governance was well established across many EU member states, long before the EEC/EU even came into being! Regions in England were invented by Mr. Major’s administration, not the EU. The shape of those Regions has changed according to UK government dictated policy. Do you want me to send you some maps to prove this?
Janice Small: “How many of you can name your MEPs? How many people identify with a region?”
Janice – I have stated elsewhere my feelings about the shape of English Regional Map. There is legitimate scope for a debate about Regional boundaries. I would be the first to encourage such a process.
Janice Small: “When the powers from SEERA and the other regional assemblies are transferred to the RDAs, the Tory councillors across the country should refuse to work with them and provide their own blueprints for planning, infrastructure, jobs, etc.”
Yes, let’s see what Local Councils in the South East of all political colours do but will they?
Will you now retract your factually inaccurate statements about English Regions?
We could barter 'facts' and statistics all day, and no doubt some will.
What I would like to focus on is why don't regionalists support putting it to a referendum. If support for regionalisation is so strong then propose a national referendum and go head to head with proponents of an English parliament.
Offering referendums to regions that seem the most likely to take it up in the hope of a domino effect smacks of desperation - and looks to all the world like the actions of a group of people that have little confidence in the saleability of their wares.
The piecemeal reform offered by regionalists - offering different things to different regions, and nothing for some - is insulting.
Just for the record the Campaign for an English Parliament are not "implacably opposed to any notion of English Regional devolution".
We just think it's a decision for England to take, not a decision to be imposed on England to help national devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland work.
Many people in the CEP would support some form of devolution within England - just not when it is presented (as it always is) as an alternative to devolution to the nation of England.
Shame really because an English parliament does offer opportunity to create regional committees or regional lists that could provide better accountability to English regions. I could support such a solution but I'd obviously I'd want to change the regions to something that actually means something to the people that live in them.
Benefits in Wales, the worse NHS out of the country, ambulance service which will refuse to come out at night, no dentist and the ones we have are so poor it's a joke.
The place is falling to bits without employment my local paper front page news new jobs are coming 22 part time for delivery fast food.
we have massive youth unemployment how do I know just look around, we have massive adult unemployment how do we know I am one of them and cannot find a Job, well train, this week I was told all funding for training has be cut or stopped.
If we had to vote now for the Welsh Assembly it would without doubt be NO except for Plaid of course.
sadly the Welsh assembly has been a disgrace of wasted money.
Peter seems very happy demonstrating the popularity of regionalism prior to 2004, with recourse to no less than 4 opinion polls. But for some reason the only poll that actually counts is held to be a mere anomaly. We stubbornly hold the only democratic test of regionalism up as an icon, but continued refusal to listen to the increasing demands for an English Parliament is portrayed as the only logical stance for the true democrat.
Peter is entitled to his opinion, but if he wants to convince people that regionalism is more desirable than an English Parliament, he needs to address the question of an English Parliament, not explain that the regionalism overwhelmingly voted against in 2004 wasn't "true" regionalism, and that next time the Government will implement "true" regionalism, honest.
Peter Davidson,
I agree in large part with what you write however when you write ""a deeply embedded culture of control freakery characterised in a “we know best” approach to policy formulation"", is that not also true for you and for supporters of devolution from labour and the progressive left?
The insistence of the supporters of English regionalism to stick to the artificial government zones and ignore anything that does not follow this plan is almost as infuriating as the English Parliament brigade.
"You can have devolution but only in the form we are offering" that is what you and the government are saying. And then to top this piece of control freakery off you, Peter, are suggesting that peoples identities can be engineered and moulded to fit the artificial government zones. Yes of course if you think the national/regional identities of people can be broken and remodelled to suite the geographical fantasies of pen pushers and accountants then I suppose you are right.
You write:
“The government confirmed that referendums would be held where sufficient interest was expressed to warrant plebiscites. Eventually they settled on the three most peripheral English Regions (discounting the claims of SW. England to this title)”
and then call your article “The real story of Prescott’s regions”. Now Peter I think you know that this is not the full story don’t you? The government where hugly embarrased by the Cornish campaign for devolution which culminated in the petition of 50,000 signatures for a Cornish Assembly. We showed sufficient interest but it seems not of the right sort.
You blame white hall mandarins for blocking devolution to the government zones, OK, but where was your support when a region, albeit one of a different size and cursed with a feudal duchy, asked for devolution. You had a chance to see real devolution in Cornwall if only you had been a little bit more flexible, Prescott himself recognised this!
It is pretty obvious that those who support England's carve-up dismiss calls for an English Parliament.
Those who call for an English Parliament are willing to put it to the electorate.
By extending the argument put forward in this article, if the referendum for an English Parliament comes up with a 'no' then campaigners should ignore it , just as regionalists and government have ignored the result obtained in the spurious north east.
Of course such a 'no' result will not assume iconic significance amongst England's bust-up supporters. supporters. They are far too grown up for that.
Arguing that the benefits to Wales since devolution will extend to the regions of England is risible. Where's the money going to come from? If it's there now, why isn't it spent to provide the same benefits to the English as it does to the Welsh?
If the money is there, then the only reason England isn't getting it is blackmail. You don't get the money until you accept the regions and lose your country.
Losing your country is a price worth paying for the sake of the Union.
All the 'answers' for rejecting an English Parliament also apply to Scotland. A nation with a third of the total land mass could easily have been bust up into at least three regions and money poured into it to alleviate the over population now prevalent in England.
Let Scotland show the way, for the 'sake of the Union'.
Put the question to the electorate with fair funding and representation for both sides and let's get the argument over with.
You are right, Terry. Just think what the reaction would have been if Mr Blair had offered Scotland two regional parliaments. He would never have got back over Hadrian's Wall with all four limbs intact. With a marked language divide, Scotland is an even better case for regional assemblies than England. The Govt chose national devolution for Scotland and Wales and there is no fair or democratic reason why England should be offered anything less. Regrettably, 'letting the people of England decide' what they want is not something that Govt will allow. Both the Govt and the CFER prefer administrative convenience to democracy.
AJC - you are of course right, there is no necessary reason why an English parliament should answer the question of decentralisation better. But it would be easier to get support from people for regions, or your decentralisation scheme of choice, if England was secure.
The reason this debate comes back to the English Parliament, again and again, is that there is a strong feeling that regionalisation is an attack on England, an alternative to England. Solve the English question, give us our own democratic parliament free from the EU, and these objections would go away. Then any effective decentralisation, within the context of English sovereignty, would be much easier to sell to the ordinary English people.
England has the vast majority of representatiives in the UK parliament. If they refuse to address the problems of regional disparity seriously, there is absolutely *no* reason to assume that an English Parliament would be any different on this, or any other issue.
Peter, you’re engaging in intellectual subterfuge based upon your assertion that, “England simply does not exist in the form of a distinct yet seamless socio-political entity.” I believe this to be your basic error that undermines the rational basis of your conclusions.
However, let us assume that you are correct. Scotland and Wales are even less of a ‘seamless socio-political entity’ but they have devolution based upon national lines, how so?
I have not read “Size of Nations” but I did have a look at a précis and it seems to argue that the size of a nation is based upon economics and the efficiency of administrating the nation’s size. Is that the gist of it?
If so and England itself to be too big, then it will have to address that issue.
I studied politics a long time ago and we looked at what factors defined a nation. Is it language? No look at Switzerland: Race? No, look at the Unites States: Culture? No because there are many sub cultures within a group of people: Geography, such as an island, peninsula or range of mountains? No, look at the UK: A piece of land? No, look at the Jews
The only definition that ever made sense is, a nation exists if people believe it to be so. Scotland believes themselves to be so; as does Wales; as does England. The Government has decided to grant Parliaments to the nations, so if England is to be treated equally it should have one too.
Thanks to those who sent comments
First of all I must counteract any notion of my involvement in some kind of UK government inspired Regionalist conspiracy; in fact I don’t even believe that such a thing exists at this juncture. English Regional Development Agencies were created by Major’s Conservative Administration, seized upon by NuLab when they entered office and utilized as a vehicle to drive a process of devolution across England. The overwhelming defeat of sham Regional proposals in NE. England has effectively mothballed any UK government inspired English Devolution policy for at least ten and more like twenty years.
I strongly support the principle of real effective English Regional Devolution to complement the process already underway elsewhere in the UK (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have not yet achieved real devolution of power but they are on the road to that goal) and so I will always add my voice to ideas advocating the transfer of power away from a highly centralized (and increasingly unaccountable) Whitehall bound administration.
This does not indicate 100% support the current UK government dictated English Regional Map on my part. I have already explained to Philip Hoskins that I believe there is scope for a legitimate debate about the shape of the English Regional map. However, any solution to that conundrum must be inclusive – i.e. all parts of England must be involved (thus ruling out the concept of City Regions) and must wherever possible accurately reflect historical, cultural and geographical factors.
In general terms I believe that the official UK government English Regions are too large but I would not set myself up as some kind of all-seeing arbiter in these matters. One thing is for sure; wherever the lines are drawn there will some groups or individuals who believe they should be on the other side of them!
Unlike English Parliament supporters I do not countenance the notion of a totally independent England; Independent from what would be my first question?
There will always be a strong relationship between the constituent elements making up the British Isles. For example, if someone is trying to argue that the day after Scotland secedes from the United Kingdom, border posts will be going up at Gretna Green, then all I can say is they are living in fantasy land. What Scotland’s secession might induce is a fundamental reappraisal of the UK’s (Wales and N. Ireland will still constitute official elements of the United Kingdom at that juncture) relationship with other parts of Europe but that’s another story for another day.
Gareth Young: “What I would like to focus on is why don’t regionalists support putting it to a referendum. If support for regionalisation is so strong then propose a national referendum and go head to head with proponents of an English parliament.
The truth is Gareth – I DO support that kind of referendum taking place but I don’t think it ever will because our political masters would deem us incapable of making an informed decision. Cynical I know but probably true.
However, let us be clear about what precisely might be on offer to England’s electorate in any such referendum.
Firstly there must be an informed debate about the shape of a potential English Regional Map to decide where Regional demarcation lines might be drawn. Eventually a broad consensus would be achieved about the English Regional Map
The choice for each Regional electorate would then be between either:
1. A semi-autonomous Regional Parliament with primary legislative powers and full competency, plus commensurate revenue raising powers, in significant areas of policy such as (list not exhaustive but certainly the following): Healthcare, Education, Law & Order, Intra-Regional Transport, Housing, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism
Or
2. An English Parliament with powers similar to those exercised by the current UK Westminster model – Of course it might be within the remit of any English Parliament to devolve powers to sub-national bodies at a later stage but the unpredictable nature of that choice should be made very clear to the electorate during the campaign so they were making an informed choice.
I have no doubt in my mind which option individual Regional electorates would go for given such a choice. They would choose to bring power as close as possible to them.
Ian Campbell: “As Gareth says, no-one objects to decentralisation, not even to regions of some kind, provided that there is an English national political body as well.”
Ian - why do we need England as well? As I have stated above, even if constituent parts of the UK secede a strong formalized (constitutional?) arrangement between those elements will endure – pretending otherwise is pure fantasy. The UK might exist in some looser form but it will still have some role to perform in certain policy areas – Defence is an obvious candidate.
This obvious flaw in the reasoning of English Nationalists formed the basis of a question I posed earlier:
“How is it that an elected Regional Assembly in any of the English Regions (outside London) represents an unwanted extra tier of governance but an English Parliament (which could then apparently decide to create lower tiers of governance at the Regional level) does not? Is someone moving the goalposts to suit their argument?”
No one answered that question satisfactorily (because they can't)
The fundamental problem I have with English Nationalist arguments is their blind dogma driven advocacy of English homogeneity. England simply does not exist in the form of a distinct yet seamless socio-political entity. Predicating one’s entire ideology on this basic error undermines the rational basis of any conclusions reached and opinions formed.
Those who dismiss the assertion of England as too big to administer effectively as a single unit have completely avoided the point under discussion. I have tried to direct respondents to an objective academic explanation of this contentious topic but no one seems willing to engage in discussing the vital issues raised by Alesina & Spolaore in their book – Size of Nations.
Maybe that would provide a good starting point for a better informed debate?
Terry Heath
Thank you for your constructive response; you do seem to be engaging in proper debate, rather than just shouting slogans from the sidelines.
Your very short summary of the “Size of Nations” is more or less correct.
The book approaches an extremely contentious subject from an objective, academic (some might say cold and dispassionate) perspective. However I would argue that this is exactly what is required because it is dogmatic obsession with certain goals that tends to distort opinions. Common sense and logic are then discarded on a whim leading to very bad decision making.
There is a trade-off between economies of scale (big nation states) and heterogeneity (small nation states). It is the logic espoused in this book underpinning my advocacy of smaller more immediate geo-political entities. England is simply too big, primarily in terms of its population size, to function as an effective unit of political organization, delivering homogeneous solutions for its citizenry. My arguments have nothing to do with a crusade against the English per se. I am English, I was born in Manchester; I have lived and worked within the wider environs of Manchester all my life. However, I feel no great affinity toward an “imagined” English community.
In Benedict Anderson’s seminal work “Imagined Communities - Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism” he argues that a nation is a community socially constructed and ultimately imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group.
The basic premise of Anderson's theory is that the decline of religion made possible new conceptions of time, which in turn made it possible to imagine the nation.
If we accept Anderson’s explanation that Nations are entirely artificial constructs (that can change over time) and that the functionality of a State is determined by its size (see Alesina & Spolaore); where does that leave us?
For me I this logical appraisal means that the way power is exercised – i.e. who, where and how decisions are taken and who, where and how are the people affected by those decisions – should be more closely linked and determined, not by any imagined National community called England, or Scotland or Wales or whatever, but by demonstrable, credible links between the institutions of governance and the public they serve. This is why I argue that effective geo-political units of organization means entities averaging (emphasis on the term “average”) 4 million in population. Clearly England at 50 million people is just too big.
I also reject the notion of a totally independent England (as explained elsewhere). Therefore any lasting constitutional settlement should be based on a partnership of equals. NW. England has a larger GDP and total population than Scotland.
For me this means that solutions to the West Lothian issue lie in a federal arrangement between roughly equal partners; Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland, Greater London + a number of other English Regions, all peacefully co-existing and cooperating. There is clearly no requirement for England within this constitutional arrangement. England would be entirely unproductive, surplus to requirements; the unwanted, extra tier of governance bemoaned by many.
Peter, thanks for this article, you express yourself much better than John Prescott ever could!
On polls, you may be right that there was more support for some kind of devolution than reflected in the referendum, but as to what kind it is hard to tell. It is a lot easier to fix the questions in a poll to get an answer you desire than in a referendum where the result has legal consequences and the question must be worded more carefully.
The problems regionalists like yourslef face are many. For one, Prescott's efforts have tainted the idea of regionalisation, the reason the other referenda were abandoned. You face an uphill struggle to convince people.
You will face opposition from CEP types like Gareth and me, who may accept regions within England, but not regions as an alternative to England. The link with the EU regions, and the suspicion that devolving power down to regions as well as up to Europe will leave nothing of England is also a problem. Decentralised government, and loss of our country are two very different propositions.
Polls at the time may have supported regions, but they don't now. Support for an English parliament runs at 61-68%, support for regions at about 25%. Regions will never get the powers of Scotland, so many of the West Lothian problems would remain. I don't think there'd be much call for as many powers, people remain English. Your best bet for decentralisation is an English parliament first, and regions or whatever solution is chosen second.
AJC - I raise the issues of an English parliament and the EU, because I was talking about perceptions of regionalisation. Read Peter Davidson's post above, and Gareth's quotes from Peter on his 'Regionalisation Emasculates England' thread. People rightly see that a push for regionalisation is made by many as an alternative plan to England. The EU use of regions as the base unit, means it looks like this is a step towards regional EU federalism.
My point is that these issues you see as seperate are not seen as independent by many people. My own personal preference also influenced my post of course. If regionalisation is simply a model for decentralisation, it would be easier to sell within England because it would not be seen as an attack.
I quote Peter above so you can see why I fear this: "There is clearly no requirement for England within this constitutional arrangement.".
To Peter - national identity may be 'imagined' according to your book, but it has developed over many generations and many hundreds of years. Wales still has a national identity despite being under the thumb of England for around 700 years. Imagined Identities cannot be easily reimagined to fit convenient economic sizes.
I believe ultimate sovereignty is best determined by identity (i.e. the nation state) and this leaves people connected by identity, not numbers, to their government. Regional government is a practical matter, sovereign national government is one of identity. But I think we may have to agree to disagree.
You accuse others of blind dogma but you and many other regionalists are just as guilty of that.
You like many other regionalists seem to have a real problem with England. Independent from whom? Why do we need England? The old 'homogeneous' issue that miraculously doesn't apply to Scotland or Wales. Absolute dogmatic belief that England must be denied recognition even if wanted by most English people is paramount. As many have said it generates a mistrust that actually makes the idea of regions harder to sell.
Ignoring 'data' is hardly limited to English Parliament supporters. Regionalists make it a rule to ignore polls favouring an English parliament and referenda against regional devolution.
Strong support for regional devolution? Neil Herron who campaigned against regional devolution stated he spoke to one polling company about their highly positive poll in favour and got told most people when asked initially didn't know anything much about it. It would be explained by the questioner, 'greater say in local affairs etc' only then would you get the positive response. Fact is you may have strongly supported it, I may not but most people barely gave it a second thought. It barely got reported that I remember despite being in one of the 'chosen' regions and it was being something I looked out for.
Fact is your no less faith driven or more than happy to move the goal posts then anyone else much as you may like to write otherwise.
Will you now retract your factually inaccurate statements about English Regions?
Factually inaccurate? Your comment below is factually inaccurate. Retract it!
“prior to the bungled Prescott devolution programme of 2003-4, EVERY single opinion poll showed strong support for increased levels of Regional autonomy (for example, here, here and here) with particularly strong support evidenced in this 2002 BBC survey”
EVERY single opinion poll didnt show strong support for the bogus English regions.
"Support" went down - from 43% (1992) to 36% (1997) - in the third poll you mentioned. Down, it went down!
Peter Davidson, I think you need to change your approach. You must stop making "totally misleading and incorrect statements".
Such as this:
"Regions in England were invented by Mr. Major’s administration, not the EU. The shape of those Regions has changed according to UK government dictated policy. Do you want me to send you some maps to prove this?
Ha! ha! Regions in England were invented by John Major. They were not. They were invented in 1942 by national socialists!
I dont know why you have need to be correct all the time
[...] an interesting discussion over at Our Kingdom (see here and here) stimulated in the main by Peter Davidson who supports the regionalisation of [...]
Peter Davidson
"prior to the bungled Prescott devolution programme of 2003-4,
EVERY single opinion poll showed strong support for increased
levels of Regional autonomy (for example, here, here and here)
with particularly strong support evidenced in this 2002 BBC survey"
No they didnt! support for the bogus English regions rubbish went
down from 43% (1992) to 36% (1997) in the third poll you mentioned. Down, it went down!
POLL 1
THE GUARDIAN POLL - OCTOBER 1991 ha! ha!
1991 and a guardianista poll.
Oh sure it was bound to be very unbiased NOT! I am
sure theyre are a lot of English gaurdian readers
who care about an English parliament. I doubt it
very much. Plus it was in 1991! When was the North East
England regional assembly vote? 2004 This poll was done
years before that vote. I dont think
it's at all relevant!
POLL 2
Q4. People have been talking about devolution of power
from Westminster to regional
assemblies or Parliaments in Scotland,
Wales and the regions of England to look after
services that only affect them. Which of these comes
closest to what you yourself want?
No elected assemblies or parliaments outside Westminster 28%
Elected assemblies in those regions that want them and boards of
existing councillors to look after regional services in other regions 16%
Elected assemblies or parliaments in all the regions and nations of
Britain 15%
Don't know 22%
What sticks out here? The 28% and the 22%
Nearly a third said NO!
"Strong support for increased
levels of Regional autonomy"? Where?
When 24% of English people said they wanted
an English parliemtn you said that isnt much!
22% said they didnt know to!
POLL 3
Some political parties are proposing to set up regional
governments for the English Regions which
would take over responsibility for some services now run by
central government.
Do you support or oppose these forms of
Government for …
OPPOSE SUPPORT D/K
English
regions 1997 - 29% 36% 35%
1992- 30% 43% 28%
Oh come off it. These polls were taken years before
we knew what was going on. This would not happen now.
Secondly, the supposed support for the bogus English regions rubbish went
down from 43% (1992) to 36% (1997)
I note that you failed to mention this fact!
and what exactly does the following mean?
"Unlike English Parliament supporters I do not
countenance the notion of a totally independent England;
Independent from what would be my first question?"
Independent from what? That's just a red herring. You
said that because you cant think of anything else to
counter the independence question with. That
is why you're waffling on instead of talking about real issues!
Answer this
why is it okay that scottish folk get more money (per head)
from the supposed UK exchequer than English folk?
The UK exchequer is supposed to treat all UK citizens equally!
You obviously agree with the Barnett formula. So, you
are obviously anti English.
Davidson:
"This obvious flaw in the reasoning of English Nationalists
formed the basis of a question I posed earlier:
“How is it that an elected Regional Assembly in any
of the English Regions (outside London) represents
an unwanted extra tier of governance but an English
Parliament (which could then apparently decide to
create lower tiers of governance at the Regional level)
does not? Is someone moving the goalposts to suit their argument?
No one answered that question satisfactorily (because they can’t)"
People have most definitely answered that smug statement.
Firstly, you need to PROVE what you are stating is verifiable!
Go ahead verify away! Prove that the English parliament
"represents an unwanted extra tier of governance". To whom does it
represent "an unwanted extra tier of governance"?
It is not unwanted at all.
The English people want their English parliament back.
So what are you talking about? You are just latching
onto some statement you made up. Either that or you're
senile.
"This obvious flaw in the reasoning of English Nationalists
formed the basis of a question I posed earlier:
I would say the obvious flaw is that you
cannot counter what we have to say so instead, you make up
big-wordy statements! Does it make you feel good?
For the record I have never said that I dont
want corrupt "regions" because it'll mean extra government!
I dont know any English nationalist who has.
Naughty, naughty! Is someone moving the goalposts to suit their argument?
ha! ha! Such as in poll three that you mentioned here, here, and here!
Davidson:
The fundamental problem I have with English Nationalist
arguments is their blind dogma driven advocacy of English
homogeneity. England simply does not exist in the form of a
distinct yet seamless socio-political entity. Predicating one’s
entire ideology on this basic error undermines the rational basis
of any conclusions reached and opinions formed."
England simply does not exist in the form of a
distinct yet seamless socio-political entity.
More bogus talk posing as reality. Scotland and wales and Ireland
n & s aren't "seamless socio-political entities" either. Yet,
you have no problem with them not being regionalised!
And anyway, what does this have to do with the English
nation getting their self determination? Nothing at all!
Absolutely nothing at all.
davidson:
Those who dismiss the assertion of England as too big to administer
effectively as a single unit have completely avoided the point under
discussion.
If England is too big then so is the UK...and the EUROPEAN UNION!
DAVIDSON
Predicating one’s
entire ideology on this basic error undermines the rational basis
of any conclusions reached and opinions formed."
Hmmmm, like you doing the here, here, and here polls bit you mean?
Especially when the support you went on about had actually GONE DOWN!!!!
Like Ian, I was not a nationalist before this settlement (I’m not sure if I am now) but the architects of devolution are very much nationalists.
Power could have been devolved equally to the easily identifiable regions of Britain, such as touristy North Wales, modern industrial South Wales, the Highland and Islands, and the Scottish lowlands. Each powerbase could have reflected the population size within it.
It would have made so much sense, but that would have swam against the nationalist agenda of this Government, so instead we saw nations (one twice the size of the other and both far less homogenous than England) being given their own Parliament/Assembly.
The precedence is set and to complete the process we must give the one excluded nation its own Parliament.
If power needs to be devolved further it will be decided by the people of England and not by people (who already have a Parliament of their own) wishing to deny England what is the only fair and equitable solution.
Post new comment