David Wildgoose gave this address to the annual general meeting of the Campaign for an English Parliament, of which he is vice-chairman. Anthony Barnett described David's speech and the meeting's debates over English identity and English nationalism in a recent post below.
The major parties seem determined to pretend that we in the Campaign for an English Parliament are in some way "not representative" of what ordinary English people are thinking.
On the contrary. We in the CEP and the wider English Movement are the "canaries in the coalmine". Merely the vocal element of a growing body of opinion.
Perhaps more to the point, is in what way can MPs and their parties themselves claim to be representative? After all, the combined Labour and Conservative vote has fallen from 98% in the 1950s to barely 68% at the last election. It used to be that 1 person in 11 was a member of a political party. It is now 1 person in 88. Voter turnout itself is in catastrophic decline. In last Thursday's by-election less than a third of the voters actually bothered to do so.
UK Democracy is in crisis.
Alec Salmond has openly stated that SNP MPs will vote exclusively in Scotland's interests even though their mandate is to act as British MPs in Britain's interests. The same is also true with Plaid Cymru and with the Northern Irish Parties. England is disadvantaged because there are no explicitly English MPs voting exclusively in England's interests. This matters. Issues that affect Scotland are devolved to Scotland and under Scottish control. With the major exception of the Anglo-Welsh legal system the same is also true for Wales. Issues affecting England though are voted on by all MPs at Westminster, including those MPs for whom English issues are not their overriding concern. And not just Nationalist MPs. Many Scottish Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs, including both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, signed the "Scottish Claim of Right", a public oath to treat Scotland's interests as paramount. But as the Bible says, "No Man can serve two masters". Quite clearly, "Dual-Mandate" MPs are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The great claim of Democracy is that if you don't like what your representative is doing, you can hold them accountable for their actions at the ballot box. Unless of course, you are John Reid MP, yet another signatory of the Scottish Claim of Right, representing a Scottish constituency, but placed in charge of the English NHS. Or the Welsh MP Kim Howells, voting to restrict the number of musicians permitted to play together on licensed premises in England and making the comment "the idea of listening to three Somerset folk singers sounds like hell". English culture, English traditions, English issues, but overruled by MPs from outside England and not answerable to voters in England.
No surprise then that Dr Travers of the LSE Research Centre has described England as "little more than a centrally governed colony".
But why should we English tolerate MPs we don't elect forcing health, education and other policies on us that we don't want?
Why should we put up with a government that is so desperate for cash that it is currently indulging in a fire-sale of largely English assets, such as the Dartford Tunnel and the playing fields and cemeteries of English Local Authorities? After all, assets belonging to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are under the control of their respective governments. England though has no such protection.
National Devolution has emphasised the fault lines within the Union. Rather than trying to deny that these exist I believe it is necessary to cement the Union along these lines by creating a federal state - the only practical way of separating what divides us from what unites us.
You may have heard the ridiculous argument that England is too big for a federation to work. This is palpable nonsense. A federation would *address* the problem of an out-sized England because English voting weight would only affect England itself. England is the same size it has always been. If a federation with England wouldn't work then a Union without a federation's protections certainly couldn't - except of course it did, for nearly 300 years before being wrecked.
National Parliaments dealing with the national issues concerning the nations of the United Kingdom would mean that all the citizens of the UK would stand together in the same relationship to the centre, with the same rights, and as *equal* citizens. Just as there is no better way to drive a wedge between us than treating the people of England as lesser-class citizens, there is no better way of reinforcing the UK family by recognising our individual needs but treating us all equally.
However at this point it is also worth asking another question. To what extent is the vote for nationalist politicians also a plea for more control over people's lives and away from a distant impersonal Westminster, or an even more remote European Union?
Because we need to re-invigorate local democracy as well.
Right now, the lowest tier of government in the UK has about 120,000 voters. By constrast, in the United States and Italy it is around 7,000 voters. In Spain and Germany, 5,000 voters. And in France, just 1,500 voters. The proposals to strip yet more powers from local Councils, centralising them in artificial and unwanted "Regions" is precisely the wrong approach. The true purpose of these "Regions" is simply to strengthen centralised control. They are too small to deal with national issues such as the legal system and the laws we all live under, but too large to have local understanding, accountability and crucially, sympathy.
We only have to look at the appalling state of the public finances to know that harsh cuts are on the way. Last week there were warnings that the UK could lose its AAA credit rating if the next government fails to bring spending under control and to reduce debt. That would result in a sterling crisis, gilt yield falls and sharp rises in interest rates at the worst possible time. The situation we are facing is far worse than that even Margaret Thatcher had to deal with. I was 16 when Geoffrey Howe gave his savage 1981 budget. The son of a Sheffield steelworker. My home areas of Rotherham and Sheffield lost 25% of all their jobs in just a 5 year period - twice as fast as Liverpool suffered. There was no Barnett Formula financial cushion for South Yorkshire.
To implement a severe fiscal tightening without also addressing the current political injustices is a recipe not just for discrediting the Westminster Parliament still further, but also potentially for serious civil unrest, damaging confidence in Sterling along with its attendant economic dangers.
Quite simply, to govern requires the consent of the governed. We need serious reform and this really cannot wait. We need an English Parliament and restored Local Government. And we need this now.
Comments
The reason that devolution didn't tackle the question of Scottish and Welsh MP's voting on English only matters was that one of the overriding principles of devolution is that devolution should change nothing at the political or governing centre of the devolving power.
A change to the voting rights of Scots and Welsh MP's in Westminster would have been a large procedural change in Westminster and therefore it was avoided during the creation of the devolved regional governments in Scotland and Wales. The retention of full voting rights by Scots and Welsh MP's is not a failure of devolution but an attempt to follow the principles of devolution even when this results in anomalies such as the West Lothian Question.
Federalism is a dead duck. Devolution was implemented because it resulted in minimal changes at the centre of the UK state. Federalism would result in a complete restructure of the UK's central government and separate England out from the the fuzzy England/Britain space it occupies now and define it as separate nation within Britain along with the nations of Scotland and Wales. Since the whole thrust of both the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib-Dems is to promote the idea of a unitary Britain with devolved provinces then this is not going to attract their support.
Federalism is too big a step along the road to Scottish independence for the UK establishment to contemplate.
I agree that the intention was to minimise changes whilst enshrining the idea of a unitary Britain containing privileged devolved provinces.
It hasn't worked though.
Their blatantly biased solution has failed to quieten down nationalistic agitation outside England whilst simultaneously igniting nationalistic agitation within England.
They've never had to contend with English nationalism before, and unlike the others they can't "kill Home Rule with kindness" by bribing us with our own money.
Nor can they ignore us for too long. The pebbles are rolling down the hill and it's just not feasible to deal with the avalanche "when it happens" because by then it will be too late.
Whether they like it or not, if they are honest about wanting some kind of Union to survive then they will have to rebuild it.
Sadly, like you, I suspect that they will be just as blinkered and short-sighted as they were over Ireland. It's hard to believe now, but Sinn Fein actually began life as a Unionist Party wanting Home Rule for Ireland but to remain within the British Empire.
Excellent presentation, I wish I could have got there.
The case against England having electoral parity with the Scots does not exist.
England is a country and will have its own parliament.
The most alarming thing about regionalisation is its concomitant politicisation of the police, public services and the civil service, all of which have been atuned to the regionalisation agenda. Of course the BBC is tuned in too.
The UK has become a grubby unkempt state worthy of the Soviet bloc where corruption and deceit (spin) are the warp and weft of a fabric tailored to a shabby garment of oligarchal dictatorship.
Time to pick apart the stitches holding the sad rags together and weave a new tunic of English independence, all shiney and clean.
I left the UK in 1963 to seek a better future in Australia. This country has been the butt of "British" humour for a long time but has some charming and redeeming features, especially the preferential voting system for the Federal Parliament (theLower House) and proportional representation for the Senate, which is basically a house of review but can make life difficult for governments at times. When a government can command a majority in both Houses, then a degree of tyranny seeps in as we saw with the unlamented Howard government, thankfully consigned to the trash can of history.
However, getting back to England, I will always have an English heart - not British. The England I knew until the age of 21 has long gone and every return visit fills me with despair. Multiculturalism is all very well in theory but counter-cultures exist which are totally opposed to the English way of life. Sharia Law has no place in England, nor does Lashkar-e-Toiba, one of the most pervasive and deadly of terrorist organisations.
If immigrants seek to change the nature of a host society, especially by subversive or violent means, their citizenship should be revoked and they should be sent to a country where their beliefs predominate. I am not advocating mass xenophobia but it should be a case of "England. love it or leave it (alone)." The time for the English to reclaim their nation and their heritage is long overdue.
Australia, like the UK and US is being suffocated by political correctness and dubious notions of egalitarianism. I never thought that the PC crowd would get away with calling terrorism "Man-caused disaster" but they have and are continuing so to do. The most distressing aspect is that globalisation and "one world" politics are changing the face of our countries forever. My country, I weep for thee because there are too few voicing and acting upon beliefs about England and what made her great.
With regret, I fear the grim prophecies of Enoch Powell will come to fruition, sooner rather than later. It is a deplorable situation but I know of no politician anywhere willing to take responsibility for the monster they have created.
"If immigrants seek to change the nature of a host society, especially by subversive or violent means, their citizenship should be revoked and they should be sent to a country where their beliefs predominate."
I'm sure Australian aborigines would agree...
The future of England is one of the key issues facing British democracy. David Wildgoose’s presentation contains many interesting points, but some inaccurate and ungenerous history which undermine his central case.
The rhetoric of talking about ‘England as a colony’ is problematic. Tony Benn years ago at the height of Bennism invoked ‘Britain as a colony’ which needed a national liberation movement – which was equally dodgy!
Britain has never been colonised. England has not been colonised. And Scotland has never been colonised. England colonised Wales. Britain colonised Ireland and large swathes of the world. The problem we are left with is the relic of an Empire State. Sloppy language using colonialism is an insult to those we colonised and just bad history and politics.
Secondly, David uses A Claim of Right to show the inconsistencies of Westminster MPs. The problem here is that invoking Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and John Reid signing the Claim – is what did they mean when they signed it and what consequences follow from that. They signed a document – going along with the prevailing consensus – which itself was filled with ambiguity – as a gesture towards that consensus and against Westminster unreformed rule.
The Claim is a mythical document, part folklore and part irrelevant; it only had any importance because of the way Scots voted and felt. The same is true of the toothless talking shop the Constitutional Convention which is why all the English regional Conventions fell into irrelevance.
What the Claim did do is understand the limits of parliamentary sovereignty in Scotland and in so doing invoked the historical myth of popular sovereignty. Funnily enough it happened to do so at a point when the ancient Westminster way of doing things was in crisis … in retreat due to Europe, Scotland, challenge from multi-layered governance.
It would seem that the English reform route is not about who signed A Claim of Right and having a simplistic notion of what that means. Instead, it is surely about imagining an English voice and space or set of spaces. It isn’t about English regionalism or an English Parliament I would guess at the moment; instead it is about imagining and dreaming and creating a real, vibrant, diverse England. About creating an England from the bottom up and naming it!
Part of that hopefully is about the English finding their sense of popular sovereignty and slowly wriggling free from the death knell of the old Westminster state and its delusions of parliamentary sovereignty: the last myth of the dying man.
It strikes me the UK has become for England something out of myth and legend or a nightmare.
A magical suite of armour which when first worn, greatly enhances and protects the wearer. So protected the wear now is able to perform great deeds, for good or ill.
Yet as time passes this suite of armour slowly gains a semblence of life itself, and of mind. It begins to want to move and not move against the wearers wishes. Until at last the wearer finds that he cannot take it off, and has become effectively a prisoner, moving at the will of the suite not himself. Then he find that the suite is trying to eat him!
The final act is surely the suite consumes the wearer, and either takes his place, shedding the suite to reveal an entirely different person, or falls apart leaving only the dead bones of its victim.
"The rhetoric of talking about ‘England as a colony’ is problematic."
George Monbiot also likened England to a colony, he said: "This time you crazy people have been doing it to yourselves. The great colonising nation has acquiesced in this project to turn it into yet another colony. As David says it has become an internal colony, which is a profound irony here because the idea was that Britain was the great colonising nation. It has internalised that oppressive power."
I don't think anyone is likening England to Tibet. The point is that England is being administered as if it were a colony.
As an Englishman of 12 generations - I can but see only "foreigners" making very fast running to ruin my country- be they Scots or Welsh or even Irish or Further afield - I fail to see how any Foreigner would be able to explain their actions if questioned under the UN treaty on Indigenious peoples treaty. For none asked me If I wanted multiculterism or if I wanted my own Parliment like Scotland (yes I do!) and no pathetic excuses of Idology.
It is quite simple to cure the problem - the 'British' Parliment when electing ministers for 'English' Departments should be restricted to English peoples elected representatives, not some johnny foreigner from Scotland or Wales..... and no Johnny Foreigner should be able to vote on English Matters....
....colonised Wales and West Wales turning the latter into a protectorate before some constitutional slight-of-hand re branded Cornwall as a county.
That's wonderfully vague! Put some meat on the bones please Gerry. I might not agree with the creation of an English parliament without the guarantee of a Cornish Assembly first but at least its a concrete proposition that can be debated. Less intellectual spraff and more solid propositions please.
On another note. Considering both Anthony Barnett and Guy Aitchison support the creation of an English parliament does that mean that OurKingdom is now de facto in support of an EP to the exclusion of all other devolution movements? Both remain silent when Cornish devolution is mentioned. Is this because they oppose it? If so why?
"England colonised Wales."
I don't think England ever really colonized Wales, it was the Normans who had first conquered and colonized England from 1066, before conquering Wales (though it took 200 years to do so) and Ireland (which it never managed to fully do). English was even allowed in Parliament and wasn't spoken by the ruling classes. This is more an issue of England, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and Northern Ireland versus the British Establishment, and is as much an issue of democracy as self-determination
English Patriots should sign The English Claim of Right
http://www.englishclaimofright.com/
Perhaps but the representatives of English nationalism don't seem to want to work with us. Even the most moderate ones who run OurKingdom can only seem to ignore the Cornish issue. Nothing to say or holding their tongues?
Since England is the largest state in the UK, it surely behoves those intent on arguing the case not to be drawn into a debate on the matter of Cornwall. IF only because England is so very much more populous than Cornwall, 50 million or so peoples should not be denied their identity for the sake the population of Cornwall which is to say the least, rather small in comparison.
Now that is not to say that Cornwall for historic and identity reasons has good claim to want specific arrangements for itself, that might well differ from any English Shire in both the scale of its powers and the nature of its institutions.
I do not see that Cornwall must be an impediment to Englands equality with Scotland in the Union or its freedom from attempts to either remove it from existance or divide into a condition where it can be pitted against itself.
Nor is it right to say that a debate on Cornish institutions and arrangements should be impeded by what is arrived at for England. Where there is debate is the nature of the arrangements between Cornwall and England, and that these are, to my knowledge, not covered by the Act of Union.
It is certainly not the case that the English people are anti-Cornish, or necessarily hostile to them.
Zen9
Of course England is much larger but all peoples (nations) have rights, and I believe it is possible to have a progressive (rather than aggressive) approach to the Cornish question whilst supporting an EP. Not only would it show fair play but a certian political maturity as well.
I've never said that England should be denied its identity. Why would listening to Cornwall deny Englands identity? However it does seems very easy for the 'democrats' from OurKingdom (POWER2010?) to ignore Cornish aspirations in favour of English nationalism.
Indeed and if only English nationalists, certainly the progressive OurKingdom ones, could get that into their heads
The vast majority of English people? No. the vast majority of English nationalists? Yes.
That is correct. The Duchy of Cornwall, which is one and the same as the territory of Cornwall, is not party to any of the acts of union, and for this reason should really be treated as a Crown Protectorate i.e not part of the UK. More here www.duchyofcornwall.eu
Post new comment