Arthur Aughey on the Democracy Task Force

In his piece on Ken Clarke's answer to the West Lothian Question Prof Aughey has described me as "the most incisive of the English nationalist bloggers". Praise indeed, and how can I resist reporting such flattery?

He also has some other interesting stuff to say.

The task force’s measure of the current state of English public opinion seems reasonably sound, for the moment at least. As the opinion research by Professor John Curtice consistently shows, the English have remained remarkably complacent about constitutional change and equally complaisant about the operation of devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I'm not so sure. I think the task force underestimates the strength of feeling. The task force has unsatisfactorily addressed a particular grievance - The West Lothian Question - but is has not addressed the question of England itself. A couple of years back Arthur might have been right, but the English have become more assertive, more nationalistic, and things have moved beyond a debate on purely technical matters like House of Commons voting anomalies. It's now about national representation for England, it's about sovereignty of the people of England; or negatively, in an anti-Scottish way, it's about why Gordon Brown should have any say whatsoever in English domestic affairs. Professor Curtice maintains that "every time the question has been asked, more than half [the English] have opted to leave things as they are now", but this claim simply does not stand up to further scrutiny because his poll asks the English to choose between Westminster - the traditional home of English government since the 12thC - or a "new" parliament. In actual fact, every time the English have been asked they have expressed a desire for English Votes on English Laws - a parliament within a parliament at Westminster - thereby preventing Brown and his Scottish cohorts from voting on English legislation (something that Clarke's solution does not do) and effectively rendering the Union Parliament English, and much of Cabinet and Whitehall with it.

English nationalism is still a mood, not a movement, if only because the Conservative Party refuses to mobilise it as such. The taskforce’s objective is to prevent that mood becoming a movement, confirming the Unionism of the Conservative Party, something David Cameron has taken every opportunity to confirm since becoming leader.

True, English nationalism is still a mood and not a movement. In the past people have asked me what would be the tipping point; when would demand for an English parliament become a popular movement? I always thought that a Scottish PM legislating for England combined with a recession, that helped exacerbate the Barnett Formula, would do it. We're now on the cusp of a recession, and we have a Scottish PM beginning to bring through unpopular planning legislation for England (eco-towns & nuclear power) and the marketisation of the English NHS; and in addition, to our surprise, we have SNP and Plaid administrations agitating to the North and West. The English lion isn't yet roaring but it's pacing its cage.

In his book Patriots, Richard Weight thinks the demise of the Union will take much longer than many think.

Why? Because so much stands in the way of radical reformation of the Isles. The Scots will not readily pay for the cost of independence, however much they dislike the English and want to be rid of them. The Scottish ruling classes entered the Union on pragmatic grounds primarily for financial gain, and the same criteria apply in today's democracy. The cost of leaving, rather than fondness for the English and Welsh, keeps them on board. There is a residual British sentiment in Scotland. But it is weak and getting weaker; and in the end, whether the Scots choose to remain in the UK or not will depend of whether they can find the courage to endure the start-up costs of independence. At the moment, they do not possess the courage...What of the English? There is no sign that they want independence. Dazed and confused by the changes which have taken place, they are not sure what they want. Many are indifferent to constitutional issues. However, they have woken en masse to the fact that their blithe unionism is no longer reciprocated and that their seamless Anglo-British identity is effectively redundant. Devolution has forced the English to do what their partners did in the second half of the twentieth century - to reconsider who they are as a people....The English need a sense that their own unique national identity is respected; and that, for all their past sins and present faults, they still have something valuable to offer the UK.

Much of the above Arthur would agree with, apart from the bit about Anglo-British identity being redundant (obviously). But in what way can unionists respect the unique national identity of England without national English government, and without further undermining England's Anglo-British identity....Anyone? Arthur doesn't know. Ken Clarke doesn't know, or perhaps even care. Do the English even know, or are they content to be governed "not by logic but by parliament"? Aughey's instincts are entirely conservative, and entirely Unionist, so he will be hoping that the English are content to be governed by a sovereign UK parliament, even if the politicians within strive for Britain whilst their devolved counterparts strive for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Such blithe unionism is the unionists' logic.

Under a Tory administration it is likely that the West Lothian Question will be appeased, but it is short-termism to think that this is a solution to anything much, and as likely as not a Tory England will only serve to enrage the Scots. The title of Clarke's paper is "Answering the Question: Devolution, the West Lothian Question and the Future of the Union". Unfortunately it doesn't restore anyone's faith in the Union because it doesn't have any answer to asymmetric devolution, or to the English Question, or even any proper answer to the West Lothian Question.

Arthur's mischievous side suggests proportional representation as a unionist answer, a long-term way of mitigating the West Lothian Question as a Tory victory does in the short-term. But let's be honest here, proportional representation merely removes the party political aspect to the West Lothian Question, it does not answer it, or provide an English voice in the union. Ultimately the English are no more likely to accept Scottish MPs elected by PR voting on English issues than they are Scottish MPs elected by first past the post.

The only unionist solution must now be to recognise that we are a union of four nations each capable of governing ourselves to the same extent. The true test of our Britishness, the affirmation of our Britishness if you like, then becomes the extent to which we relinquish self-governance to work together as a united kingdom. Anything else is just pure nonsense.