Now that the Welsh assembly has had its powers enhanced we have three of the four nations of the United Kingdom with powers over most domestic matters controlled by devolved parliaments. In each case those domestic laws need only pass through one chamber to become law. The House of Lords has no say and in each country there is no demand for what, in Scotland, might be a ‘House of Lairds’.
Meanwhile domestic laws which apply only to England are voted on by Scottish, Welsh and Ulster MPs and have also to pass through the Lords, where we ethnic peers also vote on them. Understandably this has upset a few English MPs. Although many of them are Tories, some Labour members have also expressed concern. This is not surprising. Indeed it is astonishing the protests have not been louder and more widespread, The anomaly was foreseen by the former West Lothian MP Tam Dalyell who used it to argue against devolution, and has since been dubbed the ‘West Lothian Question’.
It is better described as a major democratic deficit in our constitution. English politicians and public have taken it so far with such equanimity for a few reasons. Many have previously seen England and the UK as interchangeable terms, real-term effects have been relatively minimal, and, above all, there has been no focus for opposition. That now looks like changing. With Scotland, for example having free prescriptions, free personal care for the elderly and free higher education provided, in the view of some English people, by English taxpayers, dissent is growing.
Apart from the peripheral Campaign for an English Parliament, with apologies to Gareth Young, and a few fringe groups, there has been little political support. Labour has been opposed to an English parliament because they believe it would have a permanent Tory majority.
This need not be so. We are already seeing the same electorate in Northern Ireland and Wales vote differently for devolved parliaments to how they do in UK elections, and this is now beginning to be apparent in Scotland. And, of course the outcome crucially depends on the electoral system which is adopted. This is an issue which will not go away. It will, instead, become a growing grievance.
There are three constitutional structures for the UK which are inherently stable. The centralised system which existed previously was stable but has now been overtaken by events. Of course, it would be possible for Scotland and Wales to become independent and Ireland to be unified, but this break-up of the UK is not favoured by the vast majority and would be economically disastrous.
The remaining stable option is federalism. It was once the favoured option of the Liberals and is the one I strongly support. At present we have an imperfect form of federalism. To make it stable we need to complete our process of phased federalism with the creation of an English parliament responsible in England for all those matters devolved to Holyrood in Scotland. The UK parliament which might then be able to become unicameral would remain responsible for foreign affairs, defence, the economy, employment and welfare, which remain common in all parts of the UK
The English and their politicians would then be able to better define and express Englishness, to celebrate St George’s Day, have dinners with readings from Wordsworth and to support both English and UK teams with enthusiasm and without apology.
The arguments against an English Parliament have always been absurd.
Many thanks, George, for your very timely and well argued piece here. It is particularly encouraging to see a Scottish Labour peer openly acknowledging the anti-democratic nature of the constitutional settlement which we now have, also the fact that the myth of an inherent Tory majority in England is founded on the assumption that First Past the Post would not be changed for an English Parliament. One point to query: you say that the break up of the UK would be ‘economically disastrous’. Disastrous for whom? Not for England, for whose taxpayers it would be a liberation. Exact parallels are lacking, but for instance the breakup of Czechoslovakia (into Czech and Slovak republics) turned out to be beneficial all round. And a word of warning; the longer perfectly reasonable demands for English autonomy are denied, the more disillusioned voters in England will become, and the more likely it is that they will reject the UK entirely. This is the conclusion that many English taxpayers have already reached – that the UK is the enemy of democracy as well as an economic burden, and that it should be done away.
There are more thn four nations in the UK! Until England recognises the nationhood of Cornwall it can hardly complain about the ‘injustice’ it suffers.
A federal system of government would require a fundamental and major reform of the British Costitution.Is this a likely , or even desirable Possibility ?What we are likely to have is a process of piecemeal changes like the current suggestions for changes in taxation arrangements for Scotland.It is likely to lead to constant disputes, reactions and the push and pull of separatist pressures from nationalist parties in Scotland, Ireland and Wales; and there would be a reaction to this in England . This is the danger of nationalism. This process has roots in Ireland and in Scotland.In Scotland, devolution was helped by reaction to the protests over the poll tax and as a means of curbing the rise of the SNP. In this respect has devolution in Scotland failed? I fear the reaction in England of a victory for the nationalists in the Scottish elections. My concern is that the process set in motion by devolution in Britain will not lead to a federal system, even if this was considered a desirable goal. At best it will end up with a messy ,unstable system or the break up of the United King dom, which a majority may not desire. I suggest nationalism, Scottish or any other variety, is dangerous and very different from positive regional identities and pressure groups.
George Foulkes is absolutely right that the ‘English Question’ needs to be addressed by those who wish to preserve the Union by allowing it to evolve into a federal or quasi-federal state. Noticeably George does not appear to see any problem in the ‘size’ of England, seen by others as creating an ‘unbalanced’ federation with one member 85% of the whole. The ‘size matter’ argument was effectivel demolished by Tom Waterhouse in his prize-winning these when an undergraduate at Leicester University. Tom pointed out that there was of course ‘nothing new’ in England’s comparative size. England dominated the Union. Its domination has now been reduced. An English Parliament would not be a rival to the British government as its powers would relate only to specifc areas of domestic policiy in England. Morover, in general the Irish, Weslh and Scots are relaxed about an English Parliament. The opposition to this necessary completion of the devolution process comes from Tory Unionists opposed to change, Labour Unionists who wish use MPs from Scotland and Wales to help them govern England and Liberal-Democrat Unionists (and some from Labour) who wish to abolish England by replacing it with ersatz regions. The simplest way of effecting the change was put forward by the Tory aristocrat, Salisbury, some ten years ago – the House of Commons should become the English Parlaiment and the House of Lords, reformed and elected, should become the British Parliament. This requires no new buildings and very little cost, removes one tier of government from English domestic legislation and reduced the overal number of politicians since the British Parliament would not need 760 members – 250 would be more likely.
Mr Foulkes is right and there are so many good postings on here. I am a federalist and have argued this for years in the Labour Party and to the English regionalist pressure groups. However when you mention this as a long term solution to the – lets be honest – constitutional mess left by New Labour, most Labour people look at you as if you’ve just arrived from another planet. The problem is, on both the left and right wings of the Party, there is a very statist and conservative view of the constitution and many people think English nationalism has exclusive & right wing over tones – which it doesn’t and there is a strong progressive tradition in England (see various Billy Bragg articles). Labour better do something quick, as the Tories are talking about English Votes for English Laws, which will significantly handicap Labour in the UK Parliament. Can someone not start off a campaign group within the Labour Movement on this?
As an Anglo-Scot I am deeply concerned about the break-up of the United Kingdom. There is an alternative to independence that will be good for the UK as a whole. The questions the UK needs answer to are: (1) The West Lothian Question (2) Expenses Scandals and (3) The collapse of industry in parts of Northern Britain.
There is an answer. The most successful countries tend to be Federal – Germany, Australia and the USA. Federalism gives power to the regions. For example a candidate in an American election nearly always needs to promise “things” to the individual states in order to win the separate state primary elections.
If a new Federal UK parliament was opened outside of London, ideally somewhere mid way between Glasgow and London (such as Liverpool) there would be many benefits for the party that promoted the move – a northern parliament will be popular in the North and not un-popular in the South. Expenses for MPs will be cheaper and MPs minds will be more focused on Northern problems.
If the parliament was moved to the North and the UK split into Federal “regions” the party that promoted it could stand to gain a great deal of extra popularity in the North without losing anything from the South. It could lead to a revival of Northern Britain
My article, to which George Foulkes links, appears to have been deleted, so I repost it below:
Play to Little England, Gareth Young
England is an ‘imagined community’ left unimagined by Labour. Labour must articlulate a vision of England’s future or stop complaining when others put forward a vision with which they disagree. It’s time to play to Little England.
Scottish historian David McCrone made an important observation about Scottish politics, it is an observation that should inform Labour’s approach to winning back England:
“In an important sense, Scotland’s politicians are all nationalists” – David McCrone, Understanding Scotland: The Sociology of a Nation; 2001.
This is not to say that all Scotland’s politicians are separatists, they clearly are not. But all Scottish politicians, from Michael Forsyth to Alex Salmond, make appeals to the nation of Scotland, the Scottish people, and, whenever possible, they parade their Scottish credentials with natural pride. They are nationalists. The Scottish Labour Party itself is proudly Scottish and never shies away from displaying the Saltaire and liberally peppering its literature with the words ‘Scottish’ and ‘Scotland’. All Scottish politicians and parties compete to out Scottish the rest.
Ten years after McCrone made his observation on Scottish politics he would be hard pushed to observe that “England’s politicians are all nationalists”. Quite the reverse in fact, English politicians would rather be caught fiddling their expense accounts than putting England’s Cross of St George on their election literature, yet ironically that doesn’t stop them engaging in the annual round of hand-wrining about the far-right’s ownership of English national symbols that occurs every St George’s Day. It’s not just England’s national symbols that our politicians leave to the far-right, it’s appeals to English nationhood and the very language of politics itself, rarely are the words ‘England’ or ‘English’ used when another word will do.
David Cameron recently delivered a speech on public service reform and the Big Society. It was a speech that contained 18 instances of the phrase “our public services”, four instances of “our country” and two mentions of “our schools” (not to mention “our schools and hospitals”, “our universities”, “our teaching hospitals and universities”, “our children”, “our health outcomes”, “our society”, “public services in our country” and “our Foundation hospitals”). Britain was mentioned four times and Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Poland, Germany, France, New York and Shanghai were all mentioned once. Yet there was no mention of England, the country directly affected by Cameron’s Big Society and his reforms to public services.
Labour’s faltering response to Cameron’s Big Society is Maurice Glasman’s ‘Blue Labour’. Glasman is on the right track but ‘Blue Labour’ is an unfortunate phrase. A far better phrase would be ‘Little England’, the Little England of lollypop-men, community bobbies, playing fields, libraries, local hospitals, primary schools, publicly-owned forests and arts and cultural bodies – the very things threatened by the Coalition’s cuts.
“I thought about patriotism. I wished I had been born early enough to have been called a Little Englander. It was a term of sneering abuse, but I should be delighted to accept it as a description of myself. That little sounds the right note of affection. It is little England I love”. – J.B. Priestley
People will fight to preserve what is local to them, but to successfully oppose the Coalition Government it is to the national community that Labour needs to appeal – and mobilise. And post-devolution that nation is England, not Britain. For a brief moment Labour suddenly seemed to understand the new territorial dimension when they joined the fight to save England’s forests; for a brief moment Labour appealled to English nationalism and harnessed English patriotic feeling. England will warm to Labour when Labour politicians speak of England’s schools and teachers, England’s hospitals and nurses, with the same English passion and English emphasis with which Ed Miliband wrote about England’s forests in the Sunday Times:
“This is not the big society, it is just a big sale. It is the sale of the physical heart of England, of irreplaceable national assets, enjoyed by communities for generations….The sign of a good society – big or small – is what it is prepared to protect, be that universal benefits, health or ancient woodland; public goods for the benefit of the whole nation and future generations. Unrestrained free market ideology has no place running rampant through ancient English woodlands. Jerusalem is a song we all sing. The next time that David Cameron stands up to sing it, I hope he spares a thought for what his government is doing to England’s green and pleasant land.” – Ed Miliband, Sunday Times, 30th January 2011
It is time for Labour to start speaking of, to and for England with the same sense of patriotism that would be natural for Scottish Labour and Welsh Labour to use in Scotland and Wales. Some people on the left will be uncomfortable with that, but there is no need to be, because, as the late Bernard Crick advised Gordon Brown, invoking a strong national consciousness is not the same as being a separatist or Nationalistic (with a capital N):
“Over many years I have fought a losing battle to impress on subeditors the use of an upper case for separatist `Nationalism’ and lower case for cultural `nationalism’, for strong national consciousness that is not necessarily separatist. Gordon Brown in the 2001 general election attacked fiercely, as he said, `nationalists’ in the name of the advantages of the Union. I was pompously moved to write to him to suggest that he either gave the SNP its real name or firmly polemicised against `separatist nationalists’. For I humbly pointed out that, to my old English and new Scottish immigrant eyes, nearly all Scots were nationalists, in the sense of having a strong feeling of national identity: the majority were not separatists”. – Bernard Crick, The Four Nations: Interrelations, The Political Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 1, January-March 2008
Yes, of course England should have its own parliament and government; yes, there should be an English Labour Party with a manifesto for England; yes, English sports fans should sing Jerusalem instead of God Save the Queen, and; yes, St George’s Day should be a national day of celebration for all England’s people. But baby steps first. We need to start speaking of England first, imagining a vision of England’s future, appealing to that Little England whose patriotism begins at home.
An English parliament is a bad idea – it will end up destroying the UK. Its reactionary. What is required is a Federal UK based on large regions with clout, as per Germany, Australia, USA and Canada. We need the “Great Northern Assembly” to control every thing in the north from Fracking (and making sure all money from it stays in the North) to trans penine links, you name it they should run it. This nation needs a voice that is not London. An English parliament does not solve the East Shoreditch question – it makes it worse.
How is England supposed to ‘recognise the nationhood of Cornwall’ when England itself has no political recognition? How, exactly, would England recognise Cornwall? By a vote in the English parliament, followed by a speech by the First Minister for England on the English Broadcasting Cooperation?
Surely you mean the UK?
You can’t “abolish England” by merely dividing it into regions any more than you can “abolish Britain” by giving Scotland and Wales more devolved powers. There are many ways to keep England as a single political unit while giving more power to regional areas. London already has its own assembly, yet it is still a part of England. The identity of the English relies, not on whether they have a single parliament or many assemblies, but on a shared history and culture. England hasn’t just suddenly disappeared simply because it is divided into local authorities, so why would it disappear under a system of regional assemblies?
There is no need for any “new buildings” in such a federal system, as most of the buildings for John Prescott’s Regional Assemblies which were abolished in 2010 still exist and are used by the currently unelected regional and local authority leaders’ boards. The only problems with the regional assemblies were (1) that many people opposed an extra layer of regional politicians who had no real power (Bernard Jenkin described regional assemblies as a “toothless talking shop”) and (2) that they opposed the extra council tax that another layer of regional politicians would bring. Back in 2004, the North-East voted ‘no’ in a referendum to introduce an assembly. Ostensibly, this was because of a petty rivalry between Newcastle and Sunderland over where the regional “capital” would be, but perhaps if more powers were devolved to the regional assemblies from Whitehall, they would have garnered more support from locals. In 2009, merged unitary authorities (which functioned as regional assemblies) were brought in anyway without any referendum… then they were promptly disbanded by the Tories in 2010 to the chagrin of the Lib-Dems (who are in favour of what you oppose: full devolution for the English regions effectively turning them into states of a federal United Kingdom with their own parliaments).
Still, even though we’ve had so much drama about regional assemblies in the north of England, it cannot be doubted that England’s regions need more representation. The status quo of running everything from London is untenable and the reason locals oppose regional assemblies is not because they love being dictated to from London, but for more practical reasons such as tax. Regional assemblies, in theory, give a voice to regions and return power to local people and Londoners are very happy with the London Assembly at the moment.