English Question

The SNP's Nicola Sturgeon has called upon the Scottish Parliament to recommit to the principles of the Scottish Claim of Right:

Presiding officer, the motion for this afternoon’s debate is deliberately simple. It states that “This Parliament acknowledges the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and declares and pledges that in all its actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.”

This paraphrases the Scottish Constitutional Convention Claim of Right, 1989, to which all Scottish Labour and Scottish Lib Dem MPs - with the exception of Tam Dalyell - put their names:

We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.

It's very difficult to see how today's Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs could refuse to endorse Sturgeon's 2012 Claim of Right, and having done so, it's very difficult to see how they could then fail to cooperate over the inclusion of a Devo-Max option on the referendum ballot paper (seeing as the majority of Scots seem to believe Devo-Max to be "the form of Government best suited to their needs".

Benedict Brogan on why its all Labour's fault:

The word “Tory” became a contemptuous synonym for “English”; when John Smith, Gordon Brown, Donald Dewar or Robin Cook said “Tory government”, Scotland heard “English occupiers”. That willingness to demonise in the political interest created the unstoppable momentum that brought us first devolution, then Alex Salmond’s electoral triumph last year, which left him commanding the political landscape in Edinburgh, and now the first vote in 300 years on the future of the Union.

Of course, Labour’s strategy had another, more insidious consequence. By neglecting its Unionist traditions in favour of a tartan tinge, the party encouraged the process of delegitimisation that has excluded English politicians from any consideration of Scotland’s future. The SNP’s cod indignation when David Cameron presumed to raise the matter was predictable. But the trend was well under way when Labour, in power, allowed the subject of Scotland to become an issue reserved for Scots by Scots, with Gordon Brown as the ultimate arbiter of whose views could be heard in his fiefdom.

I think Mr Brogan may be onto something there. Take Robin Cook, a man of political integrity in many respects. Cook was converted to the cause of Scottish devolution by Thatcher, as he outlined in a speech to the Scottish Socialist Society in 1983:

"I have not been an extravagant supporter of the Scottish dimension but I have changed my mind. I don't give a bugger if Margaret Thatcher has a mandate or not - I will simply do all I can to stop her."

By the time Thatcher won the 1987 election this had become the common view of the Scottish Labour Party. Devolution was party-political: Socialist Scotland against Tory England. The Scottish Claim of Right did not explicitly mention the poll tax but there was a nod in its general direction:

"the Treaty of Union has been eroded almost to the point of extinction;...in which the wishes of the massive majority of the Scottish electorate are being disregarded...In such a situation one would expect to see breakdown of respect for law. They are beginning to appear."

In 1975 Gordon Brown, who went on to sign the Claim of Right, wrote:

We suggest that the rise of modern Scottish nationalism is less an assertion of Scotland’s permanence as a nation than a response to Scotland’s uneven development … the discontent is a measure of the failure of both Scottish and British socialists to advance far and fast enough in shifting the balance of wealth and power to working people.

Despite Salmond's recent claims that Scotland is a more progressive and socially liberal country than England, Gordon Brown was wrong; Scottish nationalism is about Scotland's permanence as a nation, and those Labour MPs who signed up to the Scottish Claim of Right were signing a statement of nationalist principle, even if their reasons for doing so were party political rather than nationalist. Canon Kenyon Wright believed that they had no idea what they were signing:

"Most of the MPs didn’t know what they were signing! Because they were signing something which was a direct contradiction of the claim of Westminster to absolute sovereignty, within our unwritten constitutional system. Because if the people are sovereign then Parliament still has an important role but it’s not an absolutist role."

Labour have attempted to out Scottish the SNP by wrapping themselves in the Saltire, but because the Labour Party is not a federal party and there is no similar exercise being conducted by an English Labour Party, it just looks like a cynical branding exercise by a British nationalist party to win Scottish hearts. Which is exactly what it is. Brogan is correct when he says that Labour allowed 'Scotland to become an issue reserved for Scots by Scots, with Gordon Brown as the ultimate arbiter of whose views could be heard in his fiefdom'

Brown and Tony Blair are faced with the very real danger of the 291-year-old Union between England and Scotland being dismembered. The Scottish Question remains unanswered and the forces of the Union are having to rethink, regroup and prepare to strike back. It has been a faltering response so far. Brown, deputed by Blair to sort it out, has been in the vanguard, struggling to come up with a coherent strategy…[…]… In the Treasury, and in Labour's Scottish headquarters in Glasgow, Delta House, the party's brightest have been struggling with ways of making the image of Britain more attractive for Scots. 'Cool Britannia had no resonance for most people,' said one of those formulating the new image of Britain. 'They all felt it was something happening somewhere else which they had no part in.' Many Scots never regarded themselves as British anyway. That view of identity has increased with each generation: Scots now present themselves as both Scottish and European, but not British. Why should they remain part of the United Kingdom any longer? Brown and his colleagues have been working on an answer. --- The Guardian; April 7, 1999

Unfortunately for Labour, and Unionists, all the Scottish Labour big hitters are now either dead or a laughing stock. There are signs that the new generation of English Labour politicians are willing to venture forth in the debate on Scotland (Miliband prepared to share a platform with Cameron). But the Nationalists now control the language and direction of debate, Scotland’s politicians are all Nationalists in the sense that they speak almost exclusively about whether Scottish self-interest is best served by inside or outside the Union. What effect this parochialism will have on the rest of the United Kingdom, in particular the English whose politicians never articulate a vision of England - but who now find their politicians venturing opinions on what is best for Scotland, remains to be seen. To this Englishman it seems increasingly clear that the Union, if not the World, revolves around Scotland.

Just a short explanatory note about the UKIP Black Ops image that has recently appeared on this blog. Steve Uncles has outed a number of fake English nationalists who together are a part of a covert UKIP cell, codenamed 'UKIP Black Ops', whose sole purpose is to undermine the English Democrats. And according to Steve Uncles I am one of them.

There are, of course, some problems with Uncles' story.

1. The English Democrats do not require undermining from outside agencies, Steve Uncles does that very well from the inside.
2. I am not a member of UKIP.
3. If I was a member of UKIP Black Ops I would not be writing about them now because, as everybody knows, the first rule of UKIP Black Ops is: you do not talk about UKIP Black Ops.

On this occasion I'm happy to humour Uncles, hence the UKIP Black Ops badge.

Nick Clegg was on the Marr show to discuss fairness. Towards the end of the interview Andrew Marr asked him about Simon Hughes' call for an English Parliament.

Andrew Marr: "Your deputy in the party, Simon Highes, has called this morning for an English parliament. Do you agree with him?"

Nick Clegg: "No I don't agree with Simon on that. Simon has had views on this for many years."

Andrew Marr: "You don't think that the English are under-represented in the system."

Nick Clegg: "Do you know, I really think that at a time when the central argument is about the wisdon of wrenching Scotland out of the United Kingdom, let's focus on that debate and let's get the SNP to provide basis answers to some pretty basic... I mean, you would have thought that for a party whose sole purpose in life is to advocate independence, they would have been able to provide answers about what it means for defence, for taxation, for investment, for the currency, and that's what I think we should focus on."

So where's the fairness in that? Why should the English wait? Haven't we waited long enough as the rest of the United Kingdom has been asked, and asked again, about how they wish to be governed?

Nick Clegg is an odious little worm of a man. Before the election the Lib Dems (and the Tories) promised to address the Barnett Formula, but that has been kicked into the long-grass because they don't want the introduction of a fair system of funding for fear that it will lose them votes in Scotland. And let us not forget that Nick Clegg is the man with responsibility for constitutional reform, so it is Clegg who must be blamed for the West Lothian Commission and the failure of the Government to address the English Question.

UPDATE

In the comments Mr Rob helpfully reminds me of this quote from Nick Clegg:

“In a modern democracy it is important that those who make the laws of the land should be elected by those to whom those laws apply."

When I first published this quote I expanded upon Nick Cleggs point of principle to ask:

whether it is important that those who make the laws of the land should be elected by those to whom those laws apply. In other words, is it acceptable for MPs elected outside England to have a say in government bill relating to England; should government ministers who are elected outside England have any say in drafting English legislation; should they be sitting around the Cabinet table influencing it, potentially as ministers for departments with an English portfolio; and should they even form a part of the electoral college that determines the government that England gets?

This is another way of asking Simon Lee's Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath Question, the question that Nick Clegg will studiously ignore.

UPDATE II

This is Simon Hughes' call for an 'English Parliament' (which is actually an English grand committee, not an English parliament):

It is now clear that there will be a vote during this parliament on Scottish independence. Given the policy and election commitments of the SNP government in Scotland this is right and proper.
People of the other three main parts of the United Kingdom may oppose or support independence for Scotland - I am one of those who strongly believe that Scotland should remain part of the UK.
But people in England should see this debate and referendum as an opportunity not a threat.
We now also have an opportunity to make an important constitutional decision about the way we make laws for England in the future too.
This past week the government honoured its commitment to set up a commission to consider the West Lothian question - which is exactly this question. This commission will start work next month and report before the summer of 2013. So in this parliament we have a chance to sort out this issue that has been ducked by too many governments for too long.
Now that there has been welcome devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there needs to be devolution to England too.
In my view the easiest way to do this is for MPs elected for English seats in future to have sole responsibility for deciding on laws only affecting England.
The present system has become unjust to England and should not continue. At last we have an opportunity to correct this in this parliament - and in a way that I believe will be widely welcome across England.
We now have a chance to make a decision which will be good for lawmaking, good for parliament, good for the public and good for all four corners of the United Kingdom."

John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative):

May we have an early debate on who speaks for England and who should make decisions for England in an increasingly devolved United Kingdom?

George Young (Leader of the House of Commons, House of Commons; North West Hampshire, Conservative):

I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern. We announced on Tuesday the establishment of the West Lothian commission, which will look at a range of options. For example, with issues that affect only England and Wales, one option would be that only English and Welsh MPs voted on such matters. In my view, that would be an appropriate rebalancing of the constitution to take account of the fact that in Scotland they have their own Parliament in which issues are resolved on which English MPs cannot vote. It seems somewhat perverse that Scottish MPs can vote on those very same issues when they apply only to England.

Do you see what George Young has done there? John Redwood has asked him a specific question, but instead of providing a straight Yes or No answer he obfuscates, avoids the question and moves on.

The West Lothian Commission is not about answering the question of who speaks for England. The West Lothian Commission is a collection of technocrats tasked with investigating changes to Parliamentary procedure in regard to MPs' voting privileges. It is not within its remit to recommend a Secretary of State for England, an English parliament elected on a mandate from the people of England, an English government, a First Minister for England or anything or anyone who might conceivably be understood to speak for England. It is not about finding a voice for England (though it would at least be a form of recognition of England).

The previous Government seemed to be of the belief that the UK Government spoke for England. George Howarth, a Government minister back in 1998 stated that "The Government as a whole speak for England".

That statement was met with an incredulous one word reply from Eric Forth: "Really?". Not an unreasonable response given that the Government of the time was top heavy with Scottish MPs.

Clearly the Government as a whole does not speak for England, and nor can it speak for England, but it is interesting to note that The Memorandum of Understanding does categorically state that individual UK Ministers do represent the interests of England:

This Memorandum sets out the understanding of, on the one hand, the United Kingdom Government, and on the other, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee (“the devolved administrations”) of the principles that will underlie relations between them. The UK Government represents the UK interest in matters which are not devolved in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Policy responsibility for these non-devolved areas is within the exclusive responsibility of the relevant UK Ministers and Departments. It is recognised by these Ministers and Departments that, within the UK Government, the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for ensuring that the interests of those parts of the UK in non-devolved matters are properly represented and considered. Other UK Ministers and their departments represent the interests of England in all matters.

In other words, in the absence of devolution to England, and in the absence of a Secretary of State for England, it is up to individual Government ministers and their departments to 'speak for England'. In reality some of them can't even bring themselves to say the word England, let alone speak for it; and none of them even know what the interests of England are because the Government as a whole dare not ask us.

Redwood's question to Young follows from his blog article on Scottish and English Nationalism in which he says that David Cameron 'can take comfort from the fact that he can deny the English a vote on the Scottish question'. In my opinion the English should have no say at all in the Scottish question because that it is a matter for the Scottish people. However, if the Scottish people choose Independence or Devolution-Max, David Cameron will find himself unable to 'deny the English' any longer.

Redwood goes on to speculate upon what it is that English nationalists want:

The dream ticket for a modern English nationalist is a decision by Scotland to leave the UK, followed by the ending of membership of the EU because the member, the UK, no longer exists.

That may be true of English nationalists within the Conservative Party, but they are not what I would call modern English nationalists. I am an English nationalist because I believe that the nation (in this case the people of England) is entitled to its own state, and is entitled - is sovereign - to determine the basis of its government. Implicit in this is the understanding that ultimately it is the nation - the people - that are sovereign, not the state. And whilst I may find Scottish independence and an exit from the EU a democratic improvement on where we are now, that scenario is by no means a dream ticket. Do we want an English parliament on the basis that the other nations of the UK have all buggered off leaving the British parliament as an English parliament, full of the same cretins who previously took comfort in denying the English, but who now call themselves English? No, I want an English parliament to come about as a result of a popular vote in England, an affirmation of nationhood, democracy and popular sovereignty.

My dream ticket is for the people of England to demand their say and for the Government to listen to them. I don't think it's an unreasonable request. If that ever happens then I will feel that I have won, even if the people don't vote for an English parliament of some sort. If the British State were to submit itself to the judgement of the people of England we will have entered a new era, a post imperial era in which all the people of Britain, not just the Scots, are entitled, but not obliged, to be independent or in a Union of their choosing.

Who speaks for England? The people of England speak for England, but we have not spoken, yet.

“I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh. People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country.” - John Prescott

The Hannah Mitchell Foundation, the latest attempt to balkanise England, has announced that proud Welshman John Prescott is to be their patron.

More details at The Guardian and Halifax Courier.

One campaign supporter, a Mr Graham Jones MP of Accrington, went to great pains to stress that The Hannah Mitchell Foundation was an inclusive, non-partisan campaign:

No to an English Parliament and No to continous Tory rule.

A Tory run England has no democratic mandate in the North. In fact no English Parliament can ever have a democratic mandate because it will never represent other parts of England.

Most northerners value being northern before English. The North-South divide is now as huge as ever following Osbornes unfair austerity. The idea of an English Parliament is dead.

It's for northern people to decide their destiny, not as suggested above for southerners to impose a Tory English Parliament. (which is what this is)

What an auspicious beginning.

Alan Trench:

Sorting out the West Lothian question is easier said than done, though. There are three basic solutions to the problem. One is an English Parliament, within a federal structure for the United Kingdom. However, that is problematic if the goal is to maintain the Union, as so unbalanced a union (England is 85 per cent of the UK’s population) would not be stable and would probably not be sustainable. No similarly unbalanced federal system has lasted more than a few years.

Personally I don't think such an unbalanced federation has been attempted in a mature democracy like the United Kingdom, so I find this 'England is too big' defence of the Status Quo rather tiresome. Not least because even if an English parliament does destabilise the United Kingdom, that's no reason to deny the people of England their own parliament. Many people argued that a Scottish Parliament would destabilise the United Kingdom, but that didn't stop Scotland getting its parliament.

Trench recently defended his view in response to a comment I left on his blog. He bases his 'England is too big to be self-governing within the Union' theory on an analysis of Czechoslovakia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Prussia.

The English were told by those in favour of a Scottish parliament that devolution would strengthen the Union (see Labour Manifesto 1997 or Devolution has strengthened the Union) but that turned out to be a pack of lies. Quasi-federalism has in fact damaged the Union. Objecting to an English parliament on the grounds that it will destabilise a Union whose current instability must be in part attributed to its lack of an English dimension seems to me to be beyond insanity. The English deserve a pop at turning an unstable quasi-federal United Kingdom into a stable federal United Kingdom.

The long awaited Commission into the West Lothian Question has finally been unveiled.

Unfortunately the terms of reference do not allow the Commission to consider the only solution to the West Lothian Question - an English parliament - as the Government had previously suggested it would, on two separate occassions.

Lord McNally (Minister of State, Justice; Liberal Democrat):

An English Parliament has been proposed in the past as a solution to the West Lothian question. It would be open to the commission, once established, to consider this as part of its review.

Lord McNally (Minister of State, Justice; Liberal Democrat)

As the noble Lord is aware the coalition programme for government committed the Government to establishing a commission to consider the West Lothian question. An English Parliament has been proposed in the past as a solution to the West Lothian question. It would be open to the commission, once established, to consider this as part of its review.

Anyone in England who expected fair dealing from the British Government ought now to support Scottish independence.

I don't think I've ever been accused of being infelicitous before.

In this frenzied atmosphere in which the opening skirmishes are being conducted, in what the Wiener Zeitung and other mainland European newspapers are referring to as the battle for Scotland, what remains of the 'emotional glue' that is generally considered vital for keeping the anglo-union together is evidently being further weakened: "That glue has long since lost much of its strength in Scotland. If it has now been eroded in England too, the long-term prospects for the Union would seem rather bleak indeed." That is a quotation from no less an authority than Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University, commenting on A YouGov survey* published in the November issue of Prospect magazine, which indicated that the concept of 'Britishness' appears to be losing such appeal as it had in England, the population of which has long exhibited an infelicitous tendency to blur the distinction between the concepts of state and nation, a confusion which the onset of asymmetric legislative devolution has served to dispel in some measure...

It's a good point, delivered with sesquipedalian panache. English identity is becoming politicised, and whilst the Union may be able sustain indifference towards Britishness from its smaller nations it will surely break if English grievance against the British state is allowed to fester.

IPPR Press Release

Future of England in a devolved union can’t be decided by expert commission

79% of English voters want Scottish MPs barred from votes on English only laws

Ahead of the launch of the UK Government’s West Lothian Question Commission this week, new polling from the think tank IPPR and Cardiff and Edinburgh Universities, shows overwhelming public support within England for addressing this constitutional anomaly.

In a major new report on English Identity and the politics of the English Question, to be published by IPPR later this month, a survey asks more than 1,500 voters in England whether they agree or disagree that:

“Now that Scotland has its own parliament, Scottish MPs should not be allowed to vote in the House of Commons on laws that affect only England.”

More than half (53 per cent) of voters in England said they ‘strongly agree’, while a further 26 per cent said they ‘agree’. Just 12 per cent ‘disagree’. The report shows that the proportion who ‘strongly disagree’ has more than doubled since 2007.

The creation of a commission to investigate the West Lothian question recognizes the strength of public feeling in England on this issue however the report argues that relying on a commission of experts alone will prove insufficient for considering the future of English governance in a devolved union. The prospect of either Scottish independence or ‘devolution-max’ – either of which would have profound effects on the governance of England and the other nations of the United Kingdom, suggest the time has come for a much wider public debate about the future of the Union and the position of England within it.

Richard Wyn Jones, Professor of Politics at Cardiff University and co-author of the report said:

“While the Coalition is to be applauded for at least broaching this hugely important issue, neither the likely composition nor terms of reference of the new Commission suggest that this represents a serious attempt to finally answer the West Lothian Question.

"But if the intention is to kick the issue into the long grass, this is to reckon without an English electorate that appears increasingly restive and increasingly convinced that the anomalies created by the current devolution arrangements need to be addressed. As this evidence suggests, the English are now overwhelmingly persuaded that a system in which MPs from the devolved territories can vote on legislation that applies only to England is unfair.

"We underestimate the current mood of the English electorate at our peril. In the 1980s the perceived unfairness of a system which allowed left-leaning Scotland and Wales to be governed by a party without a mandate in those countries led to the generation of an unstoppable head of steam leading directly to the devolution reforms of the late 1990s. It is not hard to imagine how a different set of territorial anomalies could create a similar response in England. Indeed, it might already be happening.”

Guy Lodge, IPPR Associate Director, and co-author of the report, said:

“The English electorate strongly believes that the anomaly of the West Lothian question should be addressed. Reform in this area is notoriously difficult and so we welcome the establishment of the Commission to explore possible ways forward. However, as our forthcoming report will show, a narrow focus on the West Lothian question will not be sufficient to satisfy English public opinion. A strengthening of English identity, combined with growing interest in how England is governed, pose an important challenge for the centre-left in particular, which has so far failed to engage with these important developments in England. The time has come for a much wider public debate about what form a new constitutional settlement for England should take. Progressive politics needs to lead and not follow this debate.”

ENDS