Unionism

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.

Alex Massie is one of those mealy-mouthed unionists of the same ilk as Gordon Brown, Malcolm Rifkind and Alan Cochrane; the type who have devolution for their own country but dismiss English claims as the bleatings of English nationalists.

One thing these Scottish unionists have in common is extremely strange hair.

But I digress.

In his latest post Massie highlights the following Cameron quote, which for Massie is acknowledgment that Cameron will lack a Scottish mandate and the moral basis on which to govern.

"If we win the election and if, by some miracle, we don't have 25 seats in Scotland and have slightly fewer, then I would be a Prime Minister who would want to govern in the interests of everyone in Scotland.

"I would recognise the shortage of mandate, if you like, in Scotland by getting straight up there and meeting the First Minister and saying, look, anyone who wants to try to work with me, I will work with them. I will make sure my ministers go to Holyrood and listen to committees there. Likewise, Scottish ministers should come to Westminster and engage with the committees here.

"I would do whatever it takes to govern in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom and to try to make sure, that over time, that we can strengthen that United Kingdom. I would be prepared to consider anything to enable us to do that."

I don't like to bleat, but why should SNP ministers come to Westminster to participate in committees? The devolved government of Scotland belongs in Scotland, not England. England should not tolerate interference from politicians who only speak for Scotland when there is not one politician who can legitimately claim to speak for England; why should England submit to the backroom politics of a Scottish 'nationalist reading' of an English Tory victory?

Such is the blinkered view of commentators like Massie that they don't see this as an issue, all that matters to them is to "ensure that the SNP will not be able to split up the UK". It's the Union at all costs: "Better an imperfect Union than a broken one".

Unionists will continue to fawn over Cameron's imperfect Unionism (see 3000 Versts) for want of anything better, but the imperfection is such that it's only sustainable with a workable Tory majority, and even then only with the caveat of the Tories having a least one Scottish MP of the calibre required to be an effective Sectretary of State for Scotland against Alex Salmond (and looking at Mundell that's going to be a big ask). In Massie's world, and Cameron's too, the governance of England could legitimately rest on cutting deals with the SNP and Ulster unionists.

In England we've noticed that a few recent HoC's votes have been won for the Government when the majority of English MPs voted against (Heathrow Third Runway, Theresa May's amendment on English regional committees and 42-days detention) but these transgressions have been largely overlooked, even when they are the work of an unlikable Scotsman leading a detested government. The question is: Will the Scottish public be so forgiving of an English Etonian toff leading an English Tory Party with an almost entirely English cabinet?

Cameron is correct, he won't have a mandate for Scotland. It's best for him to acknowledge this openly, to crave the indulgence of the Scottish people to buy himself some time. This is no risky strategy, just common sense.