Liam Fox

The Scotsman:

The government plans to at least double or even treble the number of soldiers based in Scotland by 2015 with troops returning from Germany.

It is expected that Scotland will be home to one of the new multi-purpose brigades of 6,000 troops including infantry battalions and heavy armour, probably the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. Currently there are 3,220 soldiers based north of the Border.

Why? According to Ian Davidson MP, Scotland already has 50 per cent more than its geographical share of defence jobs. So is this about providing jobs and investment in Scotland at the expense of other parts of Britain, or does Liam Fox envisage the need for troops on the ground north of the border?

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. And I considered how much I disliked Big Englanders, whom I saw as red-faced, staring, loud-voiced fellows, wanting to go and boss everybody about all over the world, and being surprised and pained and saying 'Bad show!' if some blighters refused to fag for them. They are patriots to a man. I wish their patriotism began at home... - J.B. Priestley

Wales Online carries some interesting comment from Alan Trench in an article titled Why Eurosceptics are not (always) Little Englanders. Trench argues that the Conservative's fresh commitment to the Union, in spite of their continued failure in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, stems from two Tory anxieties:

1. Dissolution of the Union would result in further integration of the Union's constituent parts into the EU
2. Dissolution of the UK would diminish England/Britain's international prestige and influence (no seat of the UN Security Council for England alone).

Mr Trench said the strategy of fighting seats in all parts of the UK had "bombed".

But he is adamant that Euroscepticism within Tory ranks is a key reason why the party remains determined to keep the UK together, despite the failure to advance in Scotland or win any seats in alliance with the Ulster Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.

He said: "It's one of the things people don't give enough attention to when they are trying to understand the Conservative party... All the evidence is Euroscepticism is one of the defining threads of the modern Conservative party."

During his lecture in Cardiff hosted by the Institute of Welsh Affairs, he said: "I think part of what's going on in this is if you are a serious Eurosceptic you are talking about Britain - the UK - being able to stand for itself on the world stage."

The United Kingdom has a population of more than 62 million, of which England accounts for just over 51 million - significantly less than Germany (81.8 million), France (65.4 million) and Italy (60.2 million), and only just ahead of Spain (46 million).

In other words, without the UK, England would be a midde-sized European nation which happened to have a few nuclear submarines. Would Japan (127.4 million people) see the UK as a peer or a pretender to be a great power?

It is essentially the contrary argument to that laid out by Robin Harris in The Rise of English Nationalism and the Balkanisation of Britain.

I tend to agree with Trench that Eurosceptic thinking is important in the debate over the British Question. The Tories are not 'Little Englanders' in the true sense of the phrase, they are anything but. I would say that the Tories want to keep Britain together because they are 'Big Englanders' or 'Greater Englanders' for whom Britain - or more correctly Westminster - is a device for projecting power and retaining sovereignty. They are what Chris Bryant refers to as the Anglo-British in his 2003 paper "These Englands, or where does devolution leave the English?":

I prefer to associate the Anglo-British not with an Anglocentrism whose epicentre is London, but rather with those in all regions and all classes in England for whom the difference between being English and being British, is, for the most part, unclear, unimportant and/or irrelevant. Many of them would see nothing amiss in the title of Clive Aslet’s Anyone for England? A Search for British Identity (1997). They inhabit an Anglo-British England.

The Anglo-British do not notice when an institution or person associated with England performs a British function. For example, it goes unremarked that the Bank of England is the central bank for all Britain, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the primate of the Church of England, crowns the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Nor do countless references to ‘England’ which should have been to ‘Britain’ grate on the English ear. Walter Bagehot’s famous The English Constitution (1964 [1867]), for example, does not strike the Anglo-British as mistitled. Similarly, it is the 900-year continuity of the parliament at Westminster – originally English, later British – that enables Rebecca Langlands (1999) to speak of the English core of the British state.

The Anglo-Brits are also people who say 'British schools' or 'this country' - instead of 'English schools' or 'England' - when they are talking about Education policy in England; they are people who tolerate the fact that non-English MPs vote on English matters, even though they can see it is undemocratic. The Anglo-British are everywhere but I do think there is a class and age bias. The Anglo-Brits are particularly prevalent amongst the upper classes and the privately educated, and they're also more likely to be older (at least in my experience). However, they're not just confined to England or the upper echelons of society. Scots like Gordon Brown are Anglo-British in their understanding of Britain, which is why he uses an English narrative and English values to try and forment a sense of Britishness. But it's amongst Tories that you find the classic unreconstructed Anglo-Brit, Englishmen for whom the sun never sets, and for whom 1707 and 1801 marked the creation of a new Greater England, a colonial expansion. Yes it was a shame about the Empire, but chin up lads, stiff upper lip and all that...We still have Scotland and part of Ireland, ungrateful bastards though they are. Tally ho! What, what.

It's the Anglo-British 'Big Englanders' - rather than Little Englanders - who oppose an English parliament and a federal Britain. Robert Key is one such Tory:

One thing that is absolutely clear is that we should make every possible attempt to ensure that this House remains the Parliament of England. I do not wish to see any other Parliament established anywhere calling itself an English Parliament. That would be appalling and would go against 1,000 years of our history.

Mark Pritchard is another:

I am afraid I do not support your campaign as I feel it will play into the hands of European federalists by breaking up the United Kingdom, even more than Labour have done already. I think that there would be many in the European Commission and elsewhere on the Continent who would be delighted at seeing the United Kingdom become nothing more than a country of regions - a type of “divide and rule” concept.

I know that the CEP has the best interests of England at heart, but I don’t think that an English Parliament is the way to deliver these interests.

Liam Fox another:

I think our national identity is being stripped away in order to prepare us for being engulfed by those who wish to see Britain merely as a region in a European superstate. I believe our integration has already gone far enough and I will resist any moves to diminish British sovereignty in any way, shape or form.

The Tories prefer to avoid the issue of the EU, and so for this reason it is UKIP politicians who we turn to for an honest description of Eurosceptic Conservative thought on the subject of devolution. The following is taken from a letter from Jeffrey Titford, UKIP MEP and former Tory, again in opposition to an English parliament:

From our point of view, there is little point in establishing an English Parliament, while we remain members of the European Union. In fact, to do so would be to play into the hands of the EU, which is quite happy to see the United Kingdom broken up. We can only enter into sensible debate on this issue, after Britain has left the European Union.

This UKIP view of devolution is embellished by Derek Clark MEP, again in a letter opposing an English parliament:

We see the UK as a sovereign nation independent of the political construction known as the EU but otherwise co-operating with the countries of Europe. I believe that this view is shared by the majority of people in the UK. What is happening is a deliberate destabilizing process by the EU with the active support of both this government and previous ones. As a result all sorts of movements have sprung up in support of one view or another. Frankly the campaign for an English parliament can only help to assist the break up of the UK and further the cause of the EU agenda.

It's not only in the field of politics that the Anglo-British rear their ugly heads. Dave Richards of the English Football Association provides a classic example of Anglo-Brit thinking:

"It's time for a British boss, somebody who understands our passion, belief and commitment. There's no distinction between English and British."

Incredibly Richards made this statement in the context of advocating Martin O'Neill as the next England manager whilst opposing a foreign manager of the England team. For Anglo-Brits the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is simply - England writ large (at least to all English intents and purposes, they are rather more tactful when addressing a Scottish audience). It is the thinking of these people that is the greatest obstacle to English home rule - to them British sovereignty is English sovereignty.

David Cameron is another Anglo-Brit, as Trench notes:

Mr Trench was struck by Mr Cameron's commitment to the union in a December 2007 speech in Edinburgh in which he said in a "choice between constitutional perfection and the preservation of our nation, I choose our United Kingdom".

The academic said: "That was the first time I noticed a Conservative leader come up with a reason to support the union... What he said was the importance of the union was it was part of the UK's wider standing in the world."

The Anglo-Brits have a very whiggish interpretation of Britishness. Devolution is an asymmetry that can be tolerated and explained because sovereignty remains with the Imperial Parliament. In that way the unbroken continuity of English/Anglo-British sovereignty is preserved. Tradition, continuity and incremental progress are more important than democracy. For these Anglo-Brits it would almost be preferrable for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be allowed to whither on the English vine and drop off rather than contemplate a federalism by which Westminster's sovereignty is diminished but an entity named Britain remains. They would internalise the managed decline of Empire by treating Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as colonies - as peripheries to the English centre - rather than undergo a radical re-imagining of the centre that disturbs their narrative.

I don't hold out much hope for a federal Britain. I see the future of Britain as one of 'managed decline' in which Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland claim ever greater powers from Westminster. The only way this will be averted is by the decline of the Big Englander and the rise of the Little Englander. In this respect I think demographics are on England and Britain's side, the youth of Britain being far more comfortable with the multi-national nature of Britain than is the post-war baby-boomer generation.

We Little Englanders do not necessarily view Westminster as a benign force for civillisation and progress; we talk of the Norman Yoke in the same breath as mention of Westminster; we sing Jerusalem instead of God Save the Queen or Land of Hope and Glory; and we view our politicians as corrupt and elitist, and invariably British.

Conservative Home appear to be of the opinion that the proposal from the Taxpayers' Alliance to scrap the unfair Barnett Formula should be ignored because it might upset the "Celts" and make them restless.

I don't suppose it will change their minds to share with them the thoughts of Liam Fox, himself a Scot, and now Conservative Shadow Defence Secretary, but it's worth a try:

By making a virtue out of higher public expenditure figures in Scotland, the desirability of increased public spending as an end in itself has been reinforced in the mind of the electorate. This has made current policy for Britain as a whole seem more alien, as well as entrenching Socialist and Nationalist principles in the minds of the voters. It has also reinforced the idea — that Scotland should receive funding based on being Scottish rather than on specifically identifiable needs.

Since 1978, indeed, public spending in Scotland has been allocated on that basis. In this absolutely crucial area Scotland is treated as if it did have a devolved assembly. The formula used to determine public spending was adopted by the Labour Government on the assumption that an assembly would be set up. What is more the formula was based on actual spending in the late 1970s when Scotland was treated with particular generosity. So the formula locks in high provision concealed under Labour. It has helped bring to Scotland levels of public spending which are consistently higher than those in England — 28 per cent higher in the last financial year per capita.

This state of affairs assists Scottish nationalism (which the Labour Party is now attempting to exploit) — not Unionism — and has propagated the deeply damaging idea that even Conservative Secretaries of State have to battle against the ‘English Treasury’ to keep funding for Scotland at high levels. This injects an almost colonial note into Scottish politics, which is wholly inappropriate for a full and equal partner in the Constitutional Union. And it stirs up resentment against Scotland in other regions — particularly the North East — which suffer from similar problems, but which are less handsomely treated by the public purse. Unionism must mean proper equality — both as regards obligations and benefits.

We believe that the concept of funding for nationhood and not needs should disappear, and that public spending should be directed to where it can be most efficiently used, no matter where the border happens to come on the map. (Liam Fox: Making Unionism Positive, 1988)

It seems very straight-forward and honourable to say that "the concept of funding for nationhood and not needs should disappear". So what's the problem Tories; worried that England might benefit and make you look like the English party that you are?

The Tories are as fond as Labour are of Killing Home Rule by Kindness.

Channel Four have been investigating the Barnett Formula:

English politicians claim that the Scots get more than their fair share of public money in the United Kingdom. But is it really true?

In a word, yes. The Barnett Formula is a mechanism for determining the budgets of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and although Channel Four attempt to muddy the waters by highlighting disparities between English regions, regional spending in England is not what the Barnett Formula is about.

In a recent speech David Cameron noted that there had been squabbling over the Barnett Formula and vowed not to allow the Barnett grievance held by those in England who seek to dismember Britain break up the British family. Twelve months later, after prolonged squabbling and the election of a Scottish Prime Minister, he signaled that the Barnett Formula was not sacrosanct (which is what David Davis called it during the Conservative leadership hustings in Scotland):

We are not currently looking at it, but it is a question we ask ourselves and we are right to do so - is the Barnett Formula right for the year 2007 and beyond?

According to Professor Ian McLean the origins of Scotland's high levels of public spending can be traced back to attempts to kill off Irish home rule in the 1880s:

The Conservatives opposed Home Rule for Ireland partly because they feared it might also spread to Scotland. Goschen, as Chancellor, came up with a rule designed to push money towards Ireland and Scotland in a bid to buy off independence.

Economist Bill Jamieson believes that:

the need to foster an unshakeable belief in Scotland's economic dependency on the British Treasury became the dominant strand in both Labour and Conservative approaches to unionism for most of this century (Bill Jamieson: The Bogus State of Brigadoon, 2004)

It's a view articulated well by Tony Blair who claims that the Barnett Formula is a small price to pay to prevent the break-up of the Union. We all know that it's this reasoning that has allowed Scotland to go for so long taking more than its fair share of the UK pot: Alex Salmond knows it, Gordon Brown knows it, and David Cameron knows it.

Bill Jamieson also offers an insight into how rising Scottish nationalism has helped the Scots maintain their advantage:

As this disaffection spread, fears of a nationalist upsurge were used to prise more money out of the Westminster government, so that by the late 1960s government spending in Scotland was 20% above the British average. The rise of the SNP worked to intensify the crisis of Labour economics. Scottish voters quickly came to learn that if they pressed the bar marked 'protest vote' yet more money and subsidies would come flying down the Labour tube. The Conservatives under Heath were little better, abandoning a 1968 commitment to a Scottish assembly in favour of yet more state expenditure.

The Tories are far from blameless, they've recognised the unfairness of the formula for years. This is what Liam Fox had to say in 1988:

By making a virtue out of higher public expenditure figures in Scotland, the desirability of increased public spending as an end in itself has been reinforced in the mind of the electorate. This has made current policy for Britain as a whole seem more alien, as well as entrenching Socialist and Nationalist principles in the minds of the voters. It has also reinforced the idea -- that Scotland should receive funding based on being Scottish rather than on specifically identifiable needs.

Since 1978, indeed, public spending in Scotland has been allocated on that basis. In this absolutely crucial area Scotland is treated as if it did have a devolved assembly. The formula used to determine public spending was adopted by the Labour Government on the assumption that an assembly would be set up. What is more the formula was based on actual spending in the late 1970s when Scotland was treated with particular generosity. So the formula locks in high provision concealed under Labour. It has helped bring to Scotland levels of public spending which are consistently higher than those in England -- 28 per cent higher in the last financial year per capita.

This state of affairs assists Scottish nationalism (which the Labour Party is now attempting to exploit) -- not Unionism -- and has propagated the deeply damaging idea that even Conservative Secretaries of State have to battle against the 'English Treasury' to keep funding for Scotland at high levels. This injects an almost colonial note into Scottish politics, which is wholly inappropriate for a full and equal partner in the Constitutional Union. And it stirs up resentment against Scotland in other regions -- particularly the North East -- which suffer from similar problems, but which are less handsomely treated by the public purse. Unionism must mean proper equality -- both as regards obligations and benefits.

We believe that the concept of funding for nationhood and not needs should disappear, and that public spending should be directed to where it can be most efficiently used, no matter where the border happens to come on the map. (Liam Fox: Making Unionism Positive, 1988)

Not only is it morally wrong to apportion social funding on the basis of nationhood in the hope that it will stave off separatism, it is - in the devolved age - a policy that is doomed to failure. Not only are the renascent English correct to challenge the unfairness, Alex Salmond is correct to highlight it because he realises that the featherbedding of Scotland by the UK Government is a vital component of the Unionists' armoury.

As Liam Fox points out there is a colonial aspect to the formula, it's past its sell-by-date; the formula has become demeaning to the Scots, their English pay-masters and most of all to the Unionist politicians who support it in the face of massive public and press disgust.

I notice with interest that Conservative leadership hopeful Liam Fox quotes James C Bennett's Anglosphere Challenge in his Telegraph article.

James C Bennett was of course talking about themes common to the Anglosphere rather than just the home nations of the UK. That Liam Fox should use this quote betrays the fact that in his view other countries, outwith the Anglosphere, do not share these qualities - EU countries for example.

Well said Liam. It's telling that Liam Fox has chosen to align himself so publicly with Anglospherists, all of whom believe that the UK should leave the EU, and the majority of whom support Newt Gingrich's proposition that the UK should join NAFTA.

The Anglosphere concept - drawing on shared traditions, civil society and free-market economics - is one that should sit easy with Conservative principles. The spread of the Anglosphere meme has been meteoric because the idea has merit. That this meme is now bouncing round the temples of senior members of the Consertative Party is cause for celebration amongst EU-sceptics.

Links: The Anglosphere Primer | The Anglosphere Institute