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’*
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 sooner be caught fiddling their expense accounts than put England’s cross of St George on their election literature, yet ironically that doesn’t stop them engaging in the annual round of hand-wringing about the far-right’s ownership of English national symbols that occurs every St George’s Day. It’s not just English 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.’** – JB 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.’***
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.’****
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, appealing to the Little England whose patriotism begins at home.
* David McCrone, Understanding Scotland: The Sociology of a Nation; 2001.
** JB Priestley
*** Ed Miliband, Sunday Times, 30th January 2011
**** Bernard Crick, The Four Nations: Interrelations, The Political Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 1, January-March 2008
Some interesting points about identity.However , I have some reservations about the political implications of the central argument.The danger, I fear, is that the “nationalism” discussed could easily lead to a policy of creeping separation that if it gains a certain momentum will become unstoppable Remember, devolution was meant primarily as a means of curbing the popularity of the SNP. Did this succeed? The SNP have, and will continue, to exploit “nationalism” which is often no more than anti – English or London based party propaganda.They will also make use of symbols of “nationalism” like the Saltire even to the extent of claiming it as their own; as did the Tories with the Union Flag. I see the important social value of regional identity;but how is this to be defined? I have more identity with the North of England,particularly the area of Northumbria and Newcastle , than with most parts of the Highlands of Scotland. My main concern is the use of “nationalism for other political purposes. Let us have regional interests and identities but recognise the importance of being British.Perhaps as a famous Scot said:we are best when we are Labour!
It mystifies me why there is not an English Labour Party dealing with the problems its core vote is suffering in England since devolution. Obviously it was always a matter of (a very short) time before most people in England would become someone, or know someone close, being denied benefits other parts of the UK were enjoying. The excuses made by Labour politicians must have been galling to Labour voting English parents of students paying full tuition fees, for example.
That’s fine. You can whip up English nationalists sentiment and Labour can pursue a progressive civic English nationalism but what of conflicting national identities that exist within what you consider to be an eternal and homogeneous England. From my Cornish perspective I can assure you the last thing I want to see is British state-nationalist Labour switching to English nationalist Labour and then forcing it imagined Englishness on Cornwall and the Cornish. When Labour was in power we handed you a petition of 50,000 signatures calling for Cornish devolution and you chucked it in the bin. Now we hear you chuntering on in the language of English nationalism. Good grief!
For hundreds of years the English have built an empire based on the ‘British’ project. They have sought to assimilate Britain within the English state and have been successful to the point that most English people naturally see no difference between England and Britain. Now that the power and success of the Empire is fading to a dim memory, the English seek to re-assert themselves, to salvage what they can. Before England can look forward to the future it should apologise for its past and allow ALL nations the freedom that it claims for itself. It’s time that the truth was told. In particular the nation of Cornwall should be allowed to thrive and administer its own affairs. It’s too late to give back the billions taken in mineral resources to support English empire building, but it would be a start to return Duchy property to the people of Cornwall and to recognise the true constitutional status of the Duchy of Cornwall.
It is now very clear from Cameron’s speeches and comments that he is simply not interested in addressing the ‘Engish Question. As Gareth suggests, the Labour party can now outflank the Tores by producing a manifesto for England at the next election. I had an opportunity to put that suggestion recently to Hazel Blears who seemed to respond quite enthusiastically. The Conservatives have lost Scotland. They can lose England too. A manifesto pledge by the Labour party to offer the people of England a referendum on their own domestic governance could be a vote-winner.
Stephen Richardson, when you say “the English have built an empire based on the ‘British’ project”, who do you mean by “the English”? Have the ordinary people of England, such as myself, been anymore active in building the British project than the ordinary people of Scotland, Wales or, indeed, Cornwall? Whilst you might have a legitimate historical grudge against the people who ruled England, I think you need to to stop carping about “the English”, especially as Richardson is an anglo-saxon surname http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_(surname)
To Stephen Richardson: let the dead apologise to the dead, as most of the stuff you’re referring to happened generations, if not centuries, ago. I only apologise for stuff that I am personally responsible for. I imagine you’re the same. By the way, the ‘English’ people who built the empire were mostly the aristocratic descendants of the Norman invaders, who conquered England before they conquered our neighbours.
Gareth, never mind admitting to fiddling their expenses. I get the feeling that most ‘English’ politicians would rather admit to having sex with a minor or having kiddie porn on their PCs than admit to being English. I’m not trying to be flippant about such serious and repulsive crimes. I’m just trying to convey how much I think the political mainstream (with one or two honourable exceptions such as Frank Field) despises us English. The feeling is mutual, which shows how much work Labour has to do to regain England’s trust. Are Miliband and his team up to the task?
speaking of neighbours, the Normans now invading North Kensington , recently inveigled into a Tory fiefdom, being sucked dry by their favorite stealth weapon ‘development’ which really means straight from deprivation to exploitation.
Someone called Gareth calling for a Little Englander mentatility! ’nuff said.
I am certainly not british- anyway who are they?. I am certainly not Scottish, Welsh, or Irish. I am a proud, patriotic Englishman, Like it or not, you will have to live with it. The difference is obvious The English are generally a reserved Nation, not brash and appear to be far to tollerant (perhaps a fault). However time and tollerance has begun to wear very thin, those MP`s on English territory should worry about enormous upsurge in he (not so little) English patriotism.
tolerant. AngloSaxon:invading Germanic tribe. Reserved not brash?…..” right he can’t invade Poland,were gonna take it back”……Falklands “gerrrr ,gerroff” etc . Not reserved but busy down the garden,in the potting shed inventing machines that run the world.
Shame that they didn’t listen to you, Ian.