« They should tell the truth about drugs | Home | Byte by byte, our identity is being stolen »
England is waking up to the patriot game
Last week was another Big Concept week for new Labour. First we had the prime minister touting respect, yet again, in his exciting recycled Respect Action Plan, and then we had Gordon Brown, not to be outdone, touting Britishness in an exciting new policy agenda, yet again. None of us particularly objects to respect or to Britishness, but it is slightly irritating to have Blair and Brown trying so hard to flog them to us, rather as if they were trying to sell us our own grandmothers. And one does wonder why.
After Blair’s efforts earlier in the week to persuade us that the all-purpose panacea for social breakdown is respect, and that delinquents and problem families should start showing a bit of respect, or else, Brown made a grandiloquent speech to the Fabian Society, arguing that the only way forward in this competitive global world is Britishness, or — in a word — patriotism. We need, he said, “a clear view of what being British means and how you define national identity for the modern world”.
So he called, in his dour way, for a “British Day” on which the country can unite to celebrate its uniquely British values, which are apparently liberty, tolerance, inclusion and fair play. He demanded that the Union Jack should be reclaimed from the far right and, ideally, flown in every garden just as Americans fly the Stars and Stripes, to show how united and British we all are.
How I laughed when I read his speech and heard the solemn discussion of all this tendentious tosh on the radio, as if there were actually some content in it. The idea that Britishness lies in values that everyone on the planet believes in, apart from a few cannibals, is just verbiage. There is something truly comic about two grown-up, well-educated men like Tony and Gordon imagining that the public will be bamboozled by this meaningless posturing. And there is something distinctly comic about the crude statist assumption behind both men’s manipulations, as if the state could, or should, interfere in such subtle matters of feeling and attitude.
Like the feeling of respect, the feeling of Britishness is not something that can be whipped up in the great British public by meddling politicians, least of all when what they are trying to whip up is not for the good of the country, but for themselves.
In Blair’s case he feels a worrying lack of respect for himself, well corroborated in opinion polls, and so he is trying to associate himself publicly with the idea of respect, in an unsophisticated kind of adman dog-whistling. In Brown’s case, he feels a worrying excess of Scottishness, well corroborated in opinion polls, which might well stand between him and No 10, so he is trying equally crudely to make us associate him with Britishness. He is fooling around with our national sense of identity to support his own personal crisis.
Scottishness is a nail-biting problem for Brown. Generally speaking most people in England quite like the Scots, even though they seem to hate us. Surveys show we find their accents suggest intelligence and reliability. Politically speaking, however, this easy affection is disappearing fast, as Brown is well aware. Devolution in Scotland and Wales — fought for and introduced by new Labour — has much undermined our common sense of Britishness and fostered instead a new and rather irritable sense of Englishness in the South. Meanwhile Scots feel more Scottish and less British than at any time since 1707, according to some surveys, led astray, possibly, by films such as Braveheart.
More importantly the English public is at last beginning to sit up and take notice of the famous West Lothian question — the problem first identified by the then MP for West Lothian, that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote and carry the Commons on domestic policies such as education and health that don’t affect them or their constituencies. The government has increasingly relied on the Scottish vote to push through purely English legislation, against English votes, and yet the reverse is not true; English MPs have no say over comparable Scottish affairs.
This is obviously unfair, as is the fact that more taxpayers’ money goes to Scotland, per head, for public services than in England, following the old Barnett formula. Devolution has only made this long-standing injustice feel worse.
In response, a feeling of English separatism is growing; the English hardly need Scotland and Wales and would be much freer and richer without them. It is not only those on the far right, now, who complain of the number of Scots at Westminster and their undue influence. Devolution as of now is plainly unjust. Scottish MPs are overmighty and a Scottish prime minister at Westminster, post-devolution, would find himself in a false position.
Remarkably slowly England’s voters are beginning to wake up to all this. The higher their perception of it becomes, the lower will be Brown’s chances of arriving at long last at the summit of his smouldering ambition. So he has to persuade us somehow that he is not all that Scottish at all. No, he’s British. We’re all British (though this leaves out the awkward position of the Northern Irish, who aren’t exactly British.) He might even fly the Union Jack. But these questions are not going to go away.
There are ways of resolving them, of course. Why not try genuine devolution? Why not make the Commons English and only English? Why not create a new upper chamber to deal with matters British? But there is no personal incentive for Brown to promote any of that.
Trying to promote a vacuous Britishness as a way out of this problem is unlikely to succeed. That is partly, by a rich irony, because our national sense of identity, our Britishness, has been undermined by Labour party policies, both before and after Blair — by (among other things) the traditional left-wing contempt for patriotism; by the resulting suppression of national history; by the suppression of national traditions for fear of giving offence to newcomers; by aggressive multiculturalism and by fast mass immigration.
The big ideas of Britishness and national identity are now much too fragile to serve the purposes of an ambitious socialist like Brown. There is some justice in that.
The Sunday Times | Sunday, January 15, 2006
Comments:
Interesting article, and I agree with a lot of what you say about Blair and Brown.
But I DO have to take you to taks on the line "though this leaves out the awkward position of the Northern Irish, who aren’t exactly British."
I was born and bred in Northern Ireland, and I've just checked my passport. Guess what? I AM exactly British.
Posted by: Colin F | 16 Jan 2006 15:13:22
There was so much to disagree with in your article in the Times yesterday, but why not just stick to the economics: "In response, a feeling of English separatism is growing; the English hardly need Scotland and Wales and would be much freer and richer without them"
Really? No North Sea Oil revenue? Thatcher didn't want it? Blair doesn't need it? The myth of the begging bowl Scots is one perpetuated by those too ignorant to travel beyond Watford or those too lazy not to repeat cliches.
Posted by: Gus Abraham | 16 Jan 2006 16:36:37
"Meanwhile Scots feel more Scottish and less British than at any time since 1707, according to some surveys, led astray, possibly, by films such as Braveheart."
Is this what passes for cultural analysis at the Times these days?
Hilarious.
Posted by: Jamie | 17 Jan 2006 10:11:26
Silence.
I've just been looking at some official government figures relating to government expenditure in Scotland and the associated government tax receipts.
It makes interesting reading.
For the year 2003-2004 the figures are as follows:
Revenues from Scotland (excluding revenues relating to North Sea oil) were £34 billion.
Revenues relating to North Sea Oil were £7 billion.
This makes a total of £41 billion.
TOTAL government expenditure in Scotland which includes BOTH identifiable, AND unidentifable expenditure (e.g. defence spending), was £45.3 billion.
This leaves a deficit of £4.3 billion.
The UK defence budget in 2003-2004 was £35.3 billion. Scotland has approximately 8.33% of the UK population and so Scotland's share of the defence bill would have been just under £3 billion.
If an independent Scotland spent £1.5 billion on defence instead of £3 billion, as it currently does, and all other expenditure remained the same, total expenditure would be £45.3 minus £1.5 billion - which equals £43.8 billion.
The budget deficit would therefore be £2.8 billion.
Scottish GDP, including North Sea output, is £113 billion. £2.8 billion is around 2.5% of £113 billion. In other words, in that year an independent Scotland would have a budget deficit of 2.5% of GDP.
The UK budget deficit in that year was 3.7%.
Posted by: Gus Abraham | 19 Jan 2006 16:47:53
One can discuss the causes of patriotism and the financial health of Scotland as much as one desires but that is not the crux of the article or the issue, which is the unequal devolution settlement and the attitude of the English to that. I am yet to hear a valid argument against equal settlement for the nation of England. Some say England is "too big" yet fail to grasp the meaning of the word democracy. Some say regionalisation is England's devolution, yet fail to answer questions about England on the national level. Some say it would be too complicated or expensive, yet fail justify their claims or grasp that proper democracy and equality is worth the money and the effort.
The biggest threat that the Union currently faces is the lack of symmetry in the devolution settlement and more people are thinking "Britain yes, but not at any price".
Posted by: JohnJo | 20 Jan 2006 10:30:46
Frankly, I have not considered myself to British for well over a decade. I am English and this feeling has grown since devolution. I find it a bit rich that Gordon Brown attempts to force me back into being British, especially as his version of Britian comprises Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and a collection of regions formerly known as England.
I prefer independence and I don't really care whether Scotland then becomes the richest country in the world or the poorest. To care would give Scotland some meaning of importance which it certainly does not in my thinking.
Posted by: Stephen Gash | 20 Jan 2006 10:40:36
Minette Marrin is right to focus mainly on the political considerations as it is clear that there is an English 'backlash' coming.
At the end of the day, the economic arguments are not crucial. When Norway broke away from Sweden in 1905, the Norwegians had no idea of the wealth to be tapped under the North Sea. Nations wish to govern themselves. Uniquely,so far as I know,Great Britain is a state comprising four nations - or three and a bit since 1922. Although the EU regards Scotland and Wales as UK 'regions' they were offered devolution by the Labour government as nations. Regional devolution of the kind offered in England would have been as roundly rejected in Scotland and Wales as it was in the North East of England. The UK cannot survive in its present devolved form, with no national self government in England. The solution may be 'English votes for English laws' at Westminster or it may be an elected English Parliament. If politically neither of these is achievable, then the Scandinavian model is the inevitable future for the British Isles - there is no Scandindavian goverment to boss about the four indepedent nations who appear to live side by side on perfectly good terms in Scandinavia despite their warlike past. So who needs a British government?? Let those Scots who wish to run England stand for English constituencies.
Posted by: Ian Campbell | 20 Jan 2006 10:47:25
This northern lass knows she is very much English, and New Labour make that distinction perfectly clear - especially when it comes to certain cancer drugs, top-up fees, foundation hospitals, 24 hour drinking, gipsy camps in my back yard, and now brothels.
We once had the magna carta; now we have a banana republic ruling over us. This is the worst government in the western world, for strangling democracy. The history books will not be kind to Welsh and Scottish MPs. And deservedly so. I am straying from merely wanting an English Parliament, and independence is looking like a pretty good option right now.
Posted by: Della Petch | 20 Jan 2006 10:57:11
This has been going on for 10yrs. Where were our English MPs that were elected to represent their English constituencies. Why has a matter so fundamental as this one had to be led bottom up, by the public?
I now expect to see a flurry of arms and legs as English MPs now elbow each other out of the way to get onto the bandwagon.
England has needed Her own parliament for decades and if the Scots are self-sufficient they should have no objection.
Posted by: Fred Forsythe | 20 Jan 2006 11:01:59
Superb article.
Ken Baker gets the second reading of his bill in February 2006, Minette must not let this issue drop until the English have achieved a fair solution for the English and England.
The British press cannot continue to sweep the English Issue under the carpet !
Thanks has to go to the Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) and the English Democrats for highlighting this issue.
Posted by: Steven Uncles | 20 Jan 2006 12:54:02
The answer to Mr Brown's problem is quite simple. England must have an English Parliament and English Executive with powers equal to those of the Scottish Parliament and Executive. We must also have an English First Minister with powers equal to those of the Scottish First Minister.
Only then can Brown be British PM, not before!
Posted by: Derek Marshall | 20 Jan 2006 13:41:15
Of course England needs a fair devolution settlement. I favour total independence as the Scots do keep on about the "oor oil" thing, although a little of it is in English waters, and I think it is best to let them have what is in "their" waters and go their own way.
I have a Scots uncle-in-law who, despite marrying an English woman, has often railed against the English and said things I have found offensive. But I have let it pass. Bigoted anti-English sentiment is a common failing in his family.
Over the last few years, I have began to feel irritated with the Scottish Raj and the whole "Braveheart" (Hollywood version) thing. I daresay I am not unique, so the best thing is for the Scots to go their own way.
Studying old newspapers, a regular part of my work as a local historian, it is interesting to note how Scotland has benefited financially from the Union ever since we initially bailed the country out. Even before Barnett, rural areas of Scotland were better financed than those in England.
Nobody needs this Union and Scotland will fair well as a tiny lone region of the EU, just as England will as a slightly larger one.
Posted by: Maria Scott | 20 Jan 2006 13:43:43
Just to confirm
Population of Scotland = £5 Million
Population of England = £50 Million
I would agree that Scotland would be a tiny region of European Union, it the Scots chose this route.
However England with a population of £50 Million on it's own, is a significant Country with or without Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and can exist in or out of the European Union.
For the record
Popluation of Wales = £3 Million
Popluation of N Ireladn = £2 Million
====================================
England does not need the Celtic Nations, especially as they do not appear to want to be associated with England in the Union any more.
Send all the "Scottish Raj" - Politicians, Newspaper Editors and BBC Television presenters back to Edinburgh so that they can all 'enjoy' their beloved Scotland !
Posted by: Steven Uncles | 20 Jan 2006 14:02:30
Excellent article. Agreed with every word.
As to whether Scotland is subsidised by England or not is not the main point. With a bit of luck each Country will become independent and I hope that each Country blossoms. It is better to have succesful neighbours than poor ones.
Once we're all independent, we will surely get on far better as we do with the Irish. There is no resentment as to who subsidises who, that issue disappears.
And yes, please "encourage" all the "I'm so proud of being Scottish, I live in England, presenters on the BBC to "get back to where they once belong". Is that OK Nicky C, Iain R, Alan H, Aasmah M, Pauline M, James N, Andrew M and Andrew N, Allan R, Eddie M, Gavin E, Kirsty W etc etc
Posted by: Neil | 20 Jan 2006 15:19:34
I have read all of the above plus the article - I am suprised that people harp on about North Sea Oil - I was not under the understanding that it belonged to Scotland I thought it belonged to Britain - Once Britain reverts back to four seperate nations then surely England would get their rightful percentage just like in any devorce - Or is it Scotland can have all the North Sea oil - we will have all the ships in the Navy and all the Planes in the Air Force - This is not about dividing the country up - it's about reestablishing equality - Scotland has a parliament and is recognised as a nation, Wales has an assembly which will soon become a parliament and is recognised as a nation - Can anyone else see the racisum here - England does not have it's own parliament and is not recognised as a nation.
Posted by: David Knight | 20 Jan 2006 17:17:51
Not-so-Dear Gordon Brown,
Do you seriously think we English are stupid?
Do you think we can't see through your desperate and utterly despicable plot to hijack Remembrance Sunday to make it "British Day"?
Britain is now a lost concept, thanks to your Scottish top-heavy "Government's" enthusiasm for devolution.
The movement for an English Parliament is on the rise. Being a Scot, you would have no say in this parliament and therefore no furtherment of your personal ambitions on a grand scale.
So, as a last resort in an attempt to cling on to power, you are now trying to subsume English ambitions under a spurious and belated attempt to promote Britishness.
Do you not realise how desperate all this makes you look? Do you not realise you are a man who reeks of the past and not the present? Does your overweening pomposity not allow you to see that we are not the English idiots you obviously believe us to be?
Then it is you who are the fool Mr Brown.
The English will govern the English.
The Scots will govern the Scots.
The Welsh will govern the Welsh.
We wish you well in your new job. Perhaps Raith Rovers need a fundraiser.
Wherever you end up, may it be far away from Westminster.
Yours very sincerely,
Posted by: Birdman | 20 Jan 2006 17:28:20
Nothing short of English-only votes on English-only matters is acceptable. If the English are "allowed" a lower level of democratic representation than the Scots, then this is surely a contravention of the Race Relations Act.
The introduction of English-only votes for English-only matters will be tantamount to a de facto English Parliament.
There is no going back. I am not anti-Scottish but I want English independence.
Posted by: Mark Foster | 21 Jan 2006 13:01:44
The Scots often miss the point on the finances. The Scots haven't factored in their proportion of the national debt or the ghastly dependency culture creeping into the country (higher levels of government benefits and government employment than some parts of communist Russia). England's Inland Revenue is in Cumbernauld and Defence and other English government departments are put in Scotland to "create" employment.
The subsidy issue is camoflaged by Gordon Brown, and although the Barnett Formula is estimated at around £12 Billion, there is evidence to suggest funding is even higher than that (who paid for the bloated Scottish Parliament Building...???)
But finances aside, the Scotland are welcome to govern themselves and we would be delighted if Gordon would return to Glasgow and by a parochial MP there. Truth of the matter though is that Scottish elected MP's have NO responsibilities back in Scotland, as the MSP's look after domestic matters, so Scotland has a hell of alot of duplication already.
It is nonesense to suggest that because Scotland has made such a pigs ear of devolution, that England would do the same.
The fact is England is 50 million people and 50 million people can make an awful lot more noise than the voiciferous 5 million Scottish minority.
British politicians need to be extremely careful that they are not seen as Anglophobic - afterall England is the only constituency the three main parties can look to for power - the first party to "discover" England will make a fantastic electoral advantage for themselves. Let the nation states rule themselves for better or worse - if that is what they want!
Posted by: Christine Constable | 21 Jan 2006 16:18:43
The Scots, Welsh and even the Northern Irish have had referendums to decide whether they want their own devolved parliament/assembly.
Yet the English have not been consulted at all. This is wrong.
We are entitled to our own say.
The introduction of an English parliament should be determined by the English people, and not Scottish politicians.
Posted by: Michael Cassidy | 21 Jan 2006 16:47:33
Under the present constitutional settlement the Union has become a complete farce. Why should Scotland control its own affairs yet still have a say in English affairs. The only sensible and logical solution would be to create a federal UK with each parliament having identical powers. Either that or independence.
Posted by: Richard | 23 Jan 2006 12:23:09
If it wasn't for the English, and in particular the Englishman William Knox D'Arcy, the Scottish wouldn't even know that there was any oil in the North Sea! We English discovered it and brought it to the surface!
Posted by: Jeff | 7 Feb 2006 11:16:10
Ha ha - great to see some posts on this site.
As for the comments made aganst the Scots, keep it coming. I see David Beckhams Hairdryer (aka Wembley) is going to be late and over-budget, not bad a at a cool £1 billion. Can't wait for the Olmpics as well and how that plays into all this bile and nonsense about Scots getting more out of the Union. Having run the British state and conflated Britain and England for 300 years the English now have the cheek to talk about being under-represented (!)
Hilarious.
Yet they dont have any interest in devolution (the idea has been quitely ditched by Prescott because of lack of interest. So federalism is dead. So - go be independent.
What's all the fuss about?
Posted by: Gus Abraham | 14 Feb 2006 13:33:25
