Nationalism

Writing on Open Unionism, Arthur Aughey reveals that he feared for the future of the UK in the aftermath of the general election.

The only moment that I felt the Union was in danger recently was when credence was given to the absurd proposal for a ‘progressive coalition’ which would have put the fate of the United Kingdom government into the hands of the nationalist parties and made the Union a bazaar – or bizarre – of Celtic bargains which would have outraged England and provoked disaster.

Arthur was right to be concerned, a progressive alliance which called upon non-English MPs to govern England would have provoked disaster, outraging England and driving English Conservatives into the arms of English nationalism. It didn't happen, but for a while watching millions believed that the anti-English alliance was on the cards.

The Conservative answer to the English Question is "English Votes on English Laws". But in actual fact that is an answer to the West Lothian Question rather than the English Question; English Votes on English Laws does not offer England the form of government of its choosing and neither does it assure England of the government it voted for. It merely prevents non-English MPs voting on England-only legislation once the multi-national UK Parliament, elected by the United Kingdom public, has decided who the government of England should be.

If a convention of English Votes on English Laws had been in place before the 2010 general election, the progressive alliance would still have been a possibility, it would just have been a lame duck government insofar as England was concerned, unable to command an English majority on English legislation. The temptation would have been to overturn the "English Votes on English Laws" convention or run the election again.

Psephologists inform us that majority governments will become less common in the future - hung parliaments more frequent - so the situation that we found ourselves in after 6th May, if combined with an ongoing absence of English government, is a phenomenon whose potential to destablise the Union is only just being realised.

Commenting upon Arthur's article O'Neill claims that the "2010 General Election was not a good one for the nationalist forces in the three devolved parts of the UK". It's way too early to draw that conclusion in my opinion, even if the separatist parties were disappointed by their share of the vote.

The four nations of the UK should not be viewed in isolation because our Union is a union in flux, it is a dynamic political construct undergoing revision, and whose future is dependent on public opinion in the four component parts and the interplay between those parts. However, let's briefly consider where we are in light of the general election result in each of those parts.

In England the majority party has backed down from its 10-year promise to introduce English Votes on English Laws in favour of a commission to consider the West Lothian Question. We do not yet know the details of this commission but if it is done properly and opened up to the public, instead of being a Westminster stitch-up, it could be the beginnings of a national conversation on England that paves the way to an English claim to popular sovereignty. Millions of English people were made aware of the anti-democratic influence of non-English MPs when the spectre of a 'progressive alliance' was raised, and millions too will watch with envious eyes as the Scots debate 'devolution-max' and the Welsh debate a referendum on a Welsh parliament. The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are aware that they have no mandate for England, and the Conservatives are aware that their mandate for England is compromised by England's place in the Union. At the moment the three parties prefer to ignore England, rarely mentioning it by name, but this will change as pressure is brought to bear to force them to start speaking for and of England. A distinctive English polity and political language will certainly become a reality if Wales opts for its own parliament.

In Scotland the Scots now find themselves governed by a party that won a majority of seats in England but which remains deeply unpopular in Scotland. The 80s revival continues with cries of "No mandate". Scotland may be allowed to defer on its share of the £6bn public spending cuts until after next year's elections to the Scottish Parliament, allowing the Westminster coalition government time to progress with implementation of the Calman Commission recommendations with a view to limiting a Scottish backlash against the Scottish Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in 2011. But the SNP will want to tie the Calman recommendations into a multi-option referendum that includes their preferred option of independence, which presents the Unionist parties with something of a public relations nightmare. The strategic question of 'what next for the Tories in Scotland?' may need to take a back seat to the more pressing tactical demand of pushing through the Calman proposals and absolving Westminster of as much responsibility for Scotland as possible.

In Wales the Tories do not know what they stand for: do they support further devolved powers or not? Conservative and Liberal Democrat Assembly Members generally side with the Welsh public in supporting a Welsh Parliament with primary legislative powers, but the Conservative Party at large will only commit to supporting a referendum on the issue, and even then they are non-commital. There is opportunity here to divide Conservative from Liberal Democrat and Welsh Conservative from Westminster Conservative. It is in Wales that the Barnett Formula comes under most pressure for reform, with all sides agreeing that it is unfair on Wales, and with most in agreement that a needs-based formula would be desirable. However, a needs-based formula would cost Scotland £4.5bn a year, and a formula that did not use English spending as a baseline for determining the block grants to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would remove the only logical rationale that underpins the right of non-English MPs to vote on England-only legislation (non-English MPs have a right to vote on 'English legislation' because it determines the spend in England and, therefore, the consequential grants to the devolved nations). Reform of Barnett is not straightforward, it is an unfairness that has been a vital component of the Unionists' armoury for years.

In Northern Ireland David Cameron's attempt to make the Ulster Unionist Party a political force to bolster Tory England have backfired spectacularly, undermining their credentials as a party of the Union (credentials that Scotland already placed in some doubt). It will pain Arthur and O'Neill to read this, but so long as Northern Ireland remains relatively peaceful it is something of an irrelevance. The province is regarded as a special case and should not unduly influence the dynamic between England, Scotland and Wales in the minds of the British public. Among our Union of peoples it is the Northern Irish who are regarded as 'most foreign' by the others, something that Unionists in Ulster might bear in mind when demanding special treatment in regard to the funding cuts that are to come. David Trimble, who was instrumental behind the scenes in formulating David Cameron's rhetoric about Britishness and the Union, will hopefully be sidelined in light of Conservative failure in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The general election has not solved any of the problems highlighted above, it has merely raised them anew and provoked a reinvigorated clamour for their resolution. One thing is for sure, the Status Quo is not an option, neither in regard to the territorial dimension of our governance or to our common governance by the thoroughly discredited Westminster parliament. O'Neill may be correct to say that the 2010 General Election was not a good one for the nationalist forces in the three devolved parts of the UK, but he might have made a more persuasive case in arguing that the 2010 general election was not a good one for British nationalists: Unionists.

There is much to play for and too many players to take anything for granted.

The vast majority of the key battles for the next general election are to be fought in England, so why don't the Labour Party appeal directly to England as the patriotic alternative?

“In an important sense", wrote David McCrone, "Scotland’s politicians are all Nationalists...The emergence of national(ist) frame of reference raises the question of how politics and culture engage.” (Understanding Scotland: The Sociology of a Nation; 2001).

It is the nationalists in Scotland, and to a lesser extent Wales, who now control the the political debate and the language of that debate in their territories. The ground has shifted to such a degree that the only difference between Scottish factions now is in the degree of separation that they advocate: Independence or Devolution-Max.

As if to demonstrate McCrone's point, the Scottish Secretary, Jim Murphy, recently gave a speech urging all across civic Scotland to embrace the flag in the name of patriotism and national pride, but not separatism.

LABOUR has moved to reclaim the Saltire from the Nationalists by emphasising it is the flag for every Scot, not just those who believe in independence.

The Saltire was plastered all over the literature at yesterday's Labour conference in Dundee, has been displayed on Scottish Labour's website and has been used prominently in the party's most recent party political broadcast. (Scotsman, 08 March 2009)

Even the formerly anti-devolution Tories now plaster their websites with the Scottish flag, so conscious are they of the national(ist) frame of reference. The SNP's National Conversation and the multi-party Calman Commission have focused Labour and Tory minds on Scotland but it is in England that Labour holds power and has most to lose, and it is in England that the Tories have everything to gain. Yet it is in England alone that the Labour Party fails to engage with national identity and encourage a progressive patriotism. Instead we are treated to hackneyed discussions on the meaning of Britishness and British values, and our embattled Prime Minister even found the time to treat us to a book on the subject: Being British: The Search for the Values That Bind the Nation.

What about England; what about what it means to be English; what about English values, and; what about the 'Governance of England', in addition to the 'Governance of Britain'?

The Strange but Unecessary Death of Labour England will be an ignominious end for the party of the Red Rose and Jerusalem. To avoid almost certain humiliating defeat next year the Labour Party must address the question of England, it is no longer enough, nor factually correct, to simply accuse the Tories of fanning the flames of English nationalism. It's time to get out the Cross of St George bunting.

Cross-posted on LabourHome.

Patrick Harvie, Green MSP:

A common misconception about the independence debate is that the SNP are the only nationalist party. In fact, Labour, the Liberals, and the Tories are all nationalists, just UK nationalists rather than the Scottish sort. All four parties have an arbitrary view about where the dividing line should be drawn, all four know what the outcome is and look only for evidence which supports their views. My country, right or wrong, whichever country they have in mind.

Actually, that's not completely true, but the first two sentences were very good. National boundaries are hardly arbitrary, there's a logic behind them insofar as there's a logic behind nations; and nationalism doesn't mean "my country right or wrong" anymore than environmentalism means "tree hugging".

The reason that most people are nationalists is to improve their country, so there's an explicit recognition that things could, and should, be better. British nationalists, who demurely refer to themselves as unionists, have had a tendency to campaign negatively at the moment because they are for the Status Quo, trying to hold on to what they have. They have tended to concentrate on what is bad about other nationalisms without any positive vision of their own.

Back in 1999, in a lecture to the Scottish Council Foundation, Charles Kennedy MP, red-faced with schadenfreude or some other hard liquor, chortled in delight at the uncertainty facing England.

There is, according to the old joke, no equivalent in Gaelic to the word mañana - nothing, as the crofter is supposed to have said to the tourist, "expressing quite that degree of urgency". By the same token, there is as far as I am aware no equivalent in Gaelic, or for that matter in English, to the word schadenfreude, a useful German expression meaning to take pleasure in the misfortunes of others. But it is not an emotion exclusive to the Germans.

Do I detect a certain schadenfreude among Scots at the apparent current turmoil among the English over their sense of national identity? If so, it is given extra savour because that crisis of identity is provoked at least in part by the creation of the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales. Suddenly it is Scotland which is forging ahead in a grand constitutional experiment, and England which is poring over its national navel and asking: who are we ... and why?

I don't think this is true anymore. I think that it is Britain that is poring over its national navel and asking: who are we ... and why? David Cameron and Gordon Brown have both made pro-Britain, pro-Union speeches over the last few years but I get the sense that the Great British Public is not as British as it once felt, and has been left feeling distinctly underwhelmed.