Why should England care?
Bubble — By Adam Higgitt on January 25, 2012 9:00 am
England's youth are engergised by the prospect of independence
IT IS EARLY days in the Scottish independence referendum campaign and the whoppers are already flying thick and fast. But if you feel affronted at the suggestion that the SNP has any mandate to put “devo max” on the ballot paper, or if you baulk at the claim that Scotland’s renewable sector would instantly implode at independence you will find the latest one really juicy: Scottish independence will set England free.
The custodian of this confection is Alex Salmond, who took to the stage last night to deliver the prestigious Hugo Young lecture. With a trail longer than Lady Di’s wedding dress, the SNP leader said that separation will be good for both Scotland and England.
Mr Salmond isn’t the first Celt to attempt to stir English national consciousness. The Assembly’s former Presiding Officer (and current independence denier) Dafydd Elis-Thomas suggested in 2009 that the bottleneck of British constitutional reform lies to the east of Offa’s Dyke, in the guise of devolution for England. David Melding, meanwhile, recently reiterated his case for a reformed and federated union with devolved legislatures for each of the UK’s home nations.
While Mr Melding sees such a path as the means to redress an asymmetry that threatens the viability of Britain, his nationalist opponents are merely hoping to short cut the long slog to persuading the people of Wales into voting for separation. Welsh nationalism sees in English nationalism an opportunity to radically transform the landscape, exploding the British state and leaving independence for Wales to go by happy default.
What none of these figures have is a particular interest in what the English want. So it is perhaps fortuitous that the evidence appears to suggest the emergence of an English political identity, as well as greater support for Scottish independence than there is in Scotland. The latest IPPR survey of English attitudes, published on Monday, showed that some 54% of English voters want either specifically English laws, or an English parliament. 80% support “devo max” for Scotland.
Sadly, the catalyst appears to be little more than unreflective, parochial resentment of the devolved nations’ supposed freebies than anything resembling a positive case for English autonomy. But that is hardly surprising, for it is not at all clear what such reform would get the English, and why they should be bothered with anything – up to and including independence – that the Scots and Welsh choose for themselves.
Welsh and Scottish devolution was predicated on new institutions, closer to the people on whose behalf they governed and imbued with a new political culture. An English Parliament, by contrast, would likely look and act very much like Westminster, and would control an agenda and statute book almost indistinguishable from the status quo. To the people, it would offer little in terms of innovation. In this age of austerity, it would probably end up even sitting in Westminster. The only real change would be the inevitable modest political re-alignment that would surely follow the English electorate’s realisation that, without change, an indefinite period of Conservative rule awaited. But even this need not be painful for most.
And what if Scotland selects independence? That should also be a matter of indifference to most of the English. The English economy would not be affected, unless something dramatic happened to the economies of its neighbours. Nor would the cultural ties or familial ties weaken, any more than they have between England and Ireland. Internationally, a state of 50 million would be perceived in much the same way as one with 60 million. While Scotland and Wales would be obliged to work hard to try and influence the English government in all manner of issues (not least the macroeconomic if the SNP’s fantasy to retain the pound somehow survives commonsense and treaty obligations to reality) the English state would merely be a slightly smaller, slightly less rural and ever-so-slightly less poor place than it was as part of the British state.
It is true that the nature of the divorce could poison either well, particularly if one nation appears to come out the winner. Or it could poison both, if the negotiations are rancourous, and the behaviour of national leaders careless or irresponsible. It would help, frankly, if Alex Salmond didn’t ooze insincerity from every pore when eulogising the English and his desire to be a good neighbour.
The fact of the matter is that England will carry on pretty much as normal regardless of what happens to its Celtic fringe. Scottish independence won’t set England free and wouldn’t deliver England any meaningful benefits – or penalties. Mr Salmond is chasing his tail in trying to secure a positive English endorsement of his plans. Most people south of the border will scarcely even notice.
Tags: Alex Salmond, constitutional reform, England, Scotland
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
46 Comments
“An English Parliament, by contrast, would likely look and act very much like Westminster, and would control an agenda and statute book almost indistinguishable from the status quo.”
It depends really. It could be a slimmed down “hemisphere” parliament – perhaps 300-350 MP’s, with a chunk elected by PR on a regional basis like Wales and Scotland (to provide a counter balance to the SE & London). That could lead to more representation by minor parties like the Greens, UKIP, English Democrats and yes probably the BNP as well.
The sea change would be that any English Parliament would be something for them alone, when at the moment they have to share “their” parliament with the yapping terriers of Scotland, Wales and NI. They can finally pursue all those “freebies” we in the Celtic Fringe “enjoy” if they elect the politicians who support such things. They can shape their public services in a way that they want, meaning they can either call a halt to competition as a means to promote excellence or speed it up. It’ll be English politicians deciding English priorities with a mandate from English voters alone. That’s pretty significant.
I think the underlying issue – that the “England Question” is going to be difficult to answer – hold water. I’ve always had the impression that many English are suspicious of additional layers of government, as I’m sure many W,S & NI are. A “completely new” English Parliament would likely require new constituencies, a new civil service (though presumably just a continuation of some of the pan-UK institutions) and a mandate to exist via a referendum.
The bigger issue resulting from any possible English devolution to me though is what will happen to Westminster? How will that be reformed? What will it be left to do? Any English Parliament would likely have a budget that would dwarf the UK Parliament as well.
“An English Parliament, by contrast, would likely look and act very much like Westminster,…”
Ergo the existing Westminster Parliament pretty much looks and acts very much like an English Parliament. Not exactly an endorsement of Unionism.
.
“…and would control an agenda and statute book almost indistinguishable from the status quo.”
The IPPR survey indicates that the English don’t want regional assemblies or parliaments in England they increasingly want an English Parliament. So they don’t seem to want to alter the status quo just appropriate it for England.
I can understand why the SNP, Plaid Cymru and especially Alex Salmond taking advantage of rising English identity would annoy those that support the Union. However much as this tactic might get under the skin it’s only possible, and an important point legitimate, because of significant actual support and receptiveness in England for the idea of putting England first and the Union second.
I think that generally those that support the Union underestimate the importance of English identity. Ultimately that’s the issue supporter’s of the Union have to grapple with rather than what Alex Salmond’s response to that issue has been.
Sort of not seeing the shoal for the fish.
for Adam Higgitt
“The fact of the matter is that England will carry on pretty much as normal regardless of what happens to its Celtic fringe. Scottish independence won’t set England free and wouldn’t deliver England any meaningful benefits – or penalties. Mr Salmond is chasing his tail in trying to secure a positive English endorsement of his plans. Most people south of the border will scarcely even notice.”
The fact of the matter is that I will carry on pretty much as normal regardless of what happens to you. Your independence won’t set me free and won’t deliver me any meaningful benefits – or penalties. You’re chasing your tail in trying to secure a positive endorsement of your plans. I will scarcely even notice.
Relationships eh.
“The fact of the matter is that England will carry on pretty much as normal regardless of what happens to its Celtic fringe. Scottish independence won’t set England free and wouldn’t deliver England any meaningful benefits – or penalties. Mr Salmond is chasing his tail in trying to secure a positive English endorsement of his plans. Most people south of the border will scarcely even notice.”
So why is the English Media in such a fizz about it?
Owen
I agree that an English parliament elected via a different system would produce a different range of political representatives. As I said in the piece, a modest political re-alignment would be necessary. I’m not at all sure, however, that and English parliament would take much of a different approach on areas like public services since many of these are devolved and those that aren’t England already has nearly 85% of the say. That’s my point – life would go in in the design and implementation of these policies much as it does at present. There is no great issue on which the English might want to do a thing, but are currently prevented by some sort of Celtic veto.
CapM
I’m sorry to say that the evidence shows that the English are beginning to fall for the same old politics of resentment and envy that is Welsh nationalism’s calling card. English political identity is emerging because the pernicious (and objectively absurd) idea that the Scots and Welsh are being given special and preferential treatment is taking hold. There isn’t anything positive or outward-looking about that.
The answer isn’t to break up the UK into national entities – that won’t even address the Celtic fringe’s problems, let alone England’s – it is to decentralise locally.
Mabon
The English media got in quite a fizz about Shambo the Bull, as I recall. What’s your point?
This seems an awfully long winded way for a resident of England to tell us he doesn’t care.
To Adam Higgitt
“I’m sorry to say that the evidence shows that the English are beginning to fall for the same old politics of resentment and envy that is Welsh nationalism’s calling card. English political identity is emerging because the pernicious (and objectively absurd) idea that the Scots and Welsh are being given special and preferential treatment is taking hold. There isn’t anything positive or outward-looking about that. “
.
I’m sure you realise that this view of yours needs to be put to the English electorate rather than a Welsh one. If you do /if you have started to promote your view on a forum that discusses English or UK constitutional issues I’d be interested in having a look how you get on.
.
However it might be best not to state so bluntly that your conclusion is that their resentment and envy are the cause of all this.
Unlike many of us in Wales they’re not used to being addressed in such a manner.
Not really a fair comparison Adam, is it?
I don’t recall editorials across red tops and broadsheets dedicated to Shambo. Nor do I recall Shambo being interviewed by Paxo, and several Newsnight programmes discussing the issue at length. Neither do I recall Jeremy Vine discussing the matter…at all. Nor the matter being debated on Andrew Marr’s AM programme…
Also I can’t recall the English media being so partisan while discussing the poor bull.
Let alone Shambo giving the Hugo Young lecture.
You get my point.
Mabon
There are two things here. The first is that the treatment of this issue by the “English media” is not necessarily a good guide to the extent that it will impact upon the lives of normal people in England. Prime Minister’s Questions, to cite another example, is covered in forensic detail by (in particular) the broadcast media, yet it seldom changes or shapes policy.
Secondly, this issue undoubtedly matters to a lot of people. It matters profoundly to Wales and Scotland, as the outcome of this sequence of events could have enormous implications for the lives of people who live in those places. That alone ought to be enough to justify the coverage. And it matters to those with a British identity and for those who otherwise feel a strong emotional attachment to Britain. That is also a good reason to give it column inches.
But – unless you are prepared to provide some examples to the contrary – my point that it doesn’t matter for the day-to-day lives of most of the English – or indeed to the way that a notional English successor state carries itself in the world – stands.
CapM
My comments are published in this public forum. I stand behind them in their entirety and put my name to them. When you are prepared to do the same you might be better placed to offer such advice.
to Adam Higgitt
In your article you state that
“The latest IPPR survey of English attitudes, published on Monday, showed that some 54% of English voters want either specifically English laws, or an English parliament”
Then it’s the English – they’re not bothered.
Well they’re obviously bothered enough for you to point out that 54% of them want specifically English laws or an English Parliament.
I’ve not seen anyone claim that the issue consumes the waking hours of the English or is near the top of the list of subjects thought about in day to day lives.
But it is an issue that the English have opinions on.
We’ll see over the next few years how those opinions develope.
.
Waleshome allows anonymous posts and I assume that you were a party to that decision or at least accepted the principle to allow them when you were directly involved with the site.
The “advice” I offered had nothing to do with any issue associated directly or indirectly with anonymity or real names so I’m not sure why you’ve singled me out from the dozens of anonymous posters that comment on Waleshome.
I don’t want ill feeling to develope so if it helps I can assure you I know nothing more of you than what you put up on Waleshome.
CapM
I haven’t disputed the emergence of a view or set of views among the English (although, as Jeff Jones points out elsewhere, the stridency of those views may have overblown in the reporting). I have said that those views are driven by negative factors rather than any positive case for English autonomy.
We English are not resentful of the Scottish,since devolution there is an imbalance that we want corrected that`s democrasy and why England being thrown into years of tory rule is used as a weapon i don`t know—at least if they do get elected year on year it will be because the English have elected them.
If the SNP didn’t have Alex Salmond they would not have won an outright victory. The referendum would not be taking place and we would all be as we were. Thank God for Alex Salmond in that case. At last the issue of devolution has reached the English media. The job now is to find an Alex Salmond in England to rally the disaffected voters turned off by Westminster politics irrespective of left right political views. The focus should be on extricating English politics from the black hole that is Westminster. The cost of belonging to that old established order is too great on the rest of the ‘country’.
As an Englishman, and one of the dogs that is starting to bark, I simply cannot see how it is representative that when I work in Cardiff my colleagues have representatives that can affect my home in Bristol for schools but as an English resident I have no effect on education in Wales.
It’s more than gripes about free prescriptions or really tuition fees.
It is about the English being afforded the right to determine any constitutional settlement. There have of course been votes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland!!! None around here!!!
Why is the English media in such a Fizz about Scottish independence?
Because mighty Britannia will be broken up! Britain the country that have believed in for centuries will no longer exist. As far as most English are concerned Britain=England England=Britain. And countries don’t like giving away territory.
To Adam Higgitt
“I have said that those views are driven by negative factors rather than any positive case for English autonomy”
Since Devolution many in England think there is an “imbalance” that needs correcting by increasing English autonomy. They really weren’t bothered for the many years the “imbalance” was in their favour and so their view then was that the Union was fine and dandy.
Well to pardon the phase, that’s the nature of the beast.
And it’s a beast with a 1000 year plus history and to attribute the rise in English identity and desire for a political system that explicitly puts England first to recent devolution in Scotland and Wales, is I think mistaken.
It could well be the catalyst but to explain it just by motives of envy and resentment of Scotland (and Wales)ignores that the feelings being stirred have much much deeper roots.
.
An interesting result from the IPPR report
Table 3.7
A euroscepticism barometer:
Comparative attitudes towards the influence of the EU.
Percentage who think the EU has most influence -
Wales 7%
Scotland 8%
England 27%
Maybe you’d put those figures down to envy and resentment but even if you did levels of envy and resentment in England on this matter appear to be three to four times as high as they are in Scotland and Wales.
The nature of the beast.
Bartidu ‘As far as most English are concerned Britain=England England=Britain’.
That may have been true in the past but not any more. Devolution changed all that. Westminster politicians may like to try and pretend it isn’t true. They say things like ‘the NHS in this country’ when they mean the English NHS. I heard Cameron say this country in PMQ’s only yesterday. He could have said England but he didn’t. they know what they are doing. Trying to prevent an English political identity from emerging, but they are failing.
English people see the wrongs of the present system. Party manifestos that have pages about NHS reform and only have a tiny *footnote ‘applies to England only’. Why not have a seperate English general election manifesto?
How can I seperate my vote between English and British matters? A Welsh voter can vote for how he wants the Welsh NHS run at the Cardiff elections and then vote for UK policies at the Westminster election. We English only get one vote and its not good enough! An English Parliment or English independence is the answer.
Lots of comments – none of which attempt to answer what would be different in terms of laws, policies and outcomes if the people of England were governed via an English parliament rather than via Westminster, and hence why the English should care.
P.s merely saying “we would be able to make our own decisions” doesn’t count unless you can describe or give some examples of which such decisions you are currently stopped from being able to make.
Adam Higgit. One decision would be who to vote for. See my previous post last para.
“How can I seperate my vote between English and British matters?”
Give me an example.
“We English only get one vote and its not good enough! ”
Well, it is enough if the vote is going determine the things you’re voting about. Or is there something that affects you that you’re not allowed to vote on? The reason people in Wales get ’2 votes’ is that they’re voting about 2 different things and over two different subjects. I’m with Adam on this, however much I agree with the idea of an English parliament, I can’t see what it would do that it doesn’t already do as UK parliament. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be one, just asking what it will do.
As for the red herring that Welsh MPs vote on English matters, that’s an issue to take up with the Unionist parties and not with the nationalist ones, who don’t vote on English-only matters. Regional parliaments were comprehensively rejected by the English electorate, again – rightly or wrongly – and perhaps some of the perceived injustice about representation would have been allayed by voting for those when the chance was there.
Every time I see the old chestnut about ‘England’ ‘subsidising’ ‘Wales’ (all 3 of those words in inverted commas for reasons about to become clear), I want to remind people that with nearly 1/3 of Wales’s population being English at any given time, it would be good if campaigners for an English parliament did a little less of the ‘cut you loose see how you like it’ stuff and showed a little more awareness that if you’re going to play the ‘who costs who more’ game, you’ll have to think harder about who the ‘whos’ are.
I should have added to counterbalance my point about population, the 100s of thousands of Welsh living in England. Where the debate about costs and co-called contributions etc gets nasty is where we make the issue about ‘The Welsh’ or ‘The English’, i.e. about people, and not about countries or regions or states of administrative entities.
There’s a strain in English nationalism at the moment which seems obsessed by doing this at the moment.
“We English only get one vote and its not good enough! ”
Re: above
The Welsh get THREE votes;
One for the WAG
One for the UK
And about every ten years they get a vote about their constitutional settlement.
The people of England have NEVER been asked what constitutional settlement they would like.
As G.K. Chesterton wrote:
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God’s scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.
Some interesting poll findings on this topic in this month’s Prospect magazine. Peter Kellner of YouGov, on a poll commissioned by the magazine says:
“These figures show the English to be relaxed about loosening Westminster’s grip on Edinburgh. Why? Mainly because they think Scotland gets the better deal at the moment, and that separation would free England of the financial burden of keeping the Union together.”
And on the question, disputed here, about whether the English are “bovvered”:
“As for the worry that the United Kingdom would have less clout in the rest of the world if Scotland went its own way, just 17 per cent of the English fear this. And since half of the English don’t ultimately care what happens to Scotland, it seems unlikely that this argument will have much traction south of the border.”
Looks like Prospect is another bringer of bad tidings to supporters of the Union.
To Adam Higgitt
“And on the question, disputed here, about whether the English are “bovvered”:”
.
I think perhaps people are referring to different types of “bovver”
.
From my point of view I think that the English are getting increasingly more “bovvered” about Scotland and Wales being subsidised (they think) by England and having MPs that can vote on English only matters but not vice versa.
Which if you are a Union supporter is bad “bovver”.
(even more so if you put the cause of this “bovver” down to envy and resentment)
.
Then you get the English getting increasingly less “bovvered” about Scotland becoming independent ie the UK ceasing to exist.
Which if you are a Union supporter is not enough good “bovver”.
CapM
Anyone who wants a mature politics should deprecate the fact that English political identity – though still relatively weak – is clearly driven by envy and resentment, even more so given that there is no basis for those sentiments. If the Union stays together, it will be weaker for the existence of those sentiments. If the Union dissolves, relationships between successor states will be poorer as a result of those sentiments.
Sadly, envy and resentment are an absolutely integral component of most forms of nationalism and tend to feature very strongly within Welsh nationalism.
If you don’t like the Union you’re envious and resentful.
If that’s an argument supporters of the Union are going to make that’s fine by me.
Look at the figures and tell me this emerging English political identity is being forged by a positive sense of what England could be as a separate state, rather than a sense that the other nations are getting special treatment.
“Sadly, envy and resentment are an absolutely integral component of most forms of nationalism and tend to feature very strongly within Welsh nationalism.”
A pretty crass statement – I’d have thought ‘nationalism’ , defined as wanting self-rule, is more interesting and various than you allow. As for envy and resentment, I don’t think there’s any evidence to support the implication that Welsh nationalism is worse than any other – I don’t see streams of anti-English rhetoric coming from Wales’s media and daily papers (by contrast with anti-Welsh stuff coming from mainstream English papers), nor do I see anti-English comments by elected Welsh politicians (by contrast with anti-Welsh comments regularly spouted by English ones), and if one’s doing a troll-count on comment and media sites, it’s pretty clear that it’s the Cymrophobes who win hands down.
My correspondence with the editor/moderator of Betsan’s blog revealed to me that the routine racism (accusations of ‘primitivism’, ‘ethnic cleansing’, Welsh people being backward, teaching welsh was child abuse etc etc) was one of the reasons they changed their comments policy.
Now, plenty of these kinds of comments come from the usual phalanx of neutered cranks (many of them Welsh themselves, of course) but if it’s an ‘envy and resentment’ competition between different so-called nationalisms, your analysis doesn’t match my own experience.
As for the UK nationalism you see regularly displayed in media and politics in terms of europhobia and xenophobic resentment about immigration, foreigners, etc. is far worse than anything I’ve encountered in specifically Welsh public discourse.
I’m not sure Welsh nationalists are any worse; the only thing they should do better is learn how to rebut imputations of envy and resentment from people who are themselves motivated by envy and resentment.
To Adam Higgitt
It’s all in the questions.
Different questions and then other reasons including a range of positive ones would emerge.
.
And I think you’re missing the point by insisting that the English need to forge some sort of new identity that will mould a new nation state of England.
For many, could be most it would just be a case of ditching the name “Britain” and running with the name “England”.
CapM
“For many, could be most it would just be a case of ditching the name “Britain” and running with the name “England”.”
Err, that has been my thesis all along.
Patrick
It’s certainly a broad statement, perhaps even a sweeping one. And such statements inevitably miss out on the detail and contour of big, diverse ideological movements. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be insightful.
Self-rule? We all want that. I want to rule myself, but I recognise, as people have done since Hobbes and Locke, that it is necessary to cede some of that power in order to co-exist, and indeed to flourish. To want self-rule isn’t the same as holding that one imagined community is superior to all others, to the point where the rival such community – in this case Britain – is held by all to be illegitimate. Britishness, for all its many defects, at least seeks to accommodates Welshness. Welsh nationalism makes no such concessions to Britishness, and is implacably hostile.
That doesn’t, incidentally, mean I think Welsh nationalism to be worse than British nationalism. It’s a plague on all houses as far as I’m concerned.
To Adam Higgitt
me -“For many, could be most it would just be a case of ditching the name “Britain” and running with the name “England”.”
you – “Err, that has been my thesis all along.”
.
I think you’ll find that it’s not so much a thesis as it is stating the bleedingly obvious.
“I think you’ll find that it’s not so much a thesis as it is stating the bleedingly obvious”
A complete mystery, on the other hand, is how you managed to read a 700-word article entitled “Why Should England Care?”, post numerous comments taking issue with various statements made in that article and in subsequent comments, (including your opening remark warning unionists darkly not to “underestimate the importance of English identity”) only to then to carry out a screeching u-turn and claim that “For many, could be most it would just be a case of ditching the name “Britain” and running with the name “England”” – a statement that could very easily and accurately be paraphrased as: “Why Should England Care?”
No hold on, it’s actually no mystery at all. It’s because you are a rather sad little troll. Whom I am now done feeding.
I imagine that Scots and Welsh MPs voting on English issues is a very good reason for English voters to get upset. The English have the right to complain about it, it’s thoroughly undemocratic.
I’m not sure how insightful it is to say that most forms of nationalism are based on envy and resentment. It’s more of a reduction than an insight.
Nor am I sure that welsh nationalism is based on Welsh nationalists thinking they’re better than their neighbours or that Welsh (or for that matter Scottish) nationalism is implacably hostile to Britishness. It’s more to do with wanting to run one’s own affairs. Britishness may accommodate Welshness, but that’s because it sets itself up as the supra-identity, the whole that trumps each of its parts. In order to do that, Britishness in turn does all sorts of excluding of its own. There’s a lot to recommend Britishness, but it’s no more inclusive and open than any other form of national identity on offer.
Accusing someone of being an envious resentment-fuelled nationalist because they don’t want to be part of an identity you’ve chosen for them or that doesn’t mean anything to them means nothing.
Last year I listened to a radio programme on the BBC about Nasser and the British. The presenter (this, in 2011) kept calling Nasser and his forces ‘nationalists’. The term then seemed to me loaded, especially as they didn’t call the British ‘imperialists’. The whole rhetoric of the discussion made me realise how loaded the term ‘nationalist’ is – how it manages to mean both too much and too little. Perhaps we need the term ‘nationist’ instead?
My point is that one doesn’t have a sensible debate about something like this by reducing the motives of one side to envy and elevating the motives of the other to some kind of beatific openness.
Patrick
Welsh nationalism is based on the claim that Wales has a right to exist as a nation, and that this claim right effectively trumps any other conflicting claims, specifically that of a British nation (and, for most, a British state). British nationalism, just so there is no misreading of what I’m saying, makes exactly the same claim of moral superiority for its chosen imagined community (hence UKIP’s traditional hostility to Welsh and Scottish devolution). Britishness, by contrast (and as you rightly note) is supra-national in nature and therefore strives to accommodate Welshness as well as Britishness. Two of these ideologies are exclusive, while one (in this regard, at least) is inclusive. That’s not a moral judgement so much as a bald statement of fact.
“Accusing someone of being an envious resentment-fuelled nationalist because they don’t want to be part of an identity you’ve chosen for them or that doesn’t mean anything to them means nothing.”
Don’t debase yourself. You know this isn’t what I said. I haven’t chosen any identities for anyone, nor do I ever presume to tell anyone what identity they ought to choose for themselves, much less that they must abandon others to be considered a bona fide member of that group. I merely noted that the opinion poll findings showed that the emerging English political identity is rather absurdly being driven by envy and resentment of the supposed perks now enjoyed by the devolved nations, I note that nobody has credibly challenged this observation.
Sadly, those sentiments have long since driven a very great deal of the Welsh nationalism to which I’ve been exposed (which is a lot) and which routinely peddles the sense that the English (often cast into dog whistle code) rule the UK in their own exclusive interests and with either the intent to do down Wales, or without the due care required.
I interpreted your phrase “Sadly, envy and resentment are an absolutely integral component of most forms of nationalism ” as a reductive one, which it was, and I read into it – rightly or, apparently now, wrongly – the claim that not wanting to be British made one somehow closed and intolerant and being British made one open and inclusive.
You’re opposing Welsh nationalism to Britishness, which is a rigged debate because one is a ‘ism’ and the other a ‘ness’. A ‘ness’ never really needs to define itself, and Britishness is a prime example of a ‘ness’ that takes itself for granted , Welshness is another one, etc. Nationalisms have to go to all the bother of actually debating what they’re about, often with different nationalists from the same nation and the same party slugging it out to define themselves. So to say that Britishness is inclusive and Welsh nationalism is not is pointless: the former is a mystical concept that’s assumed to be good and never tested, the latter a set of principles that have to be tested against realities and are sometimes good and sometimes bad. It isn’t debasing myself, I hope, to suggest that your approach to their face-off is reductive. Your entire slant is based around not questioning the ‘ness’ and caricaturing the ‘ism’. But that’s too easy.
I agree however that the English political identity that is emerging is negatively-driven rather than positively fuelled. That’s why I said I agreed, and didn’t challenge the observation. But I believe that this negative drift is in part due to the failure of Britishness to convey itself to the people who are supposed to be in it (i.e. Britishness ) together , and allowing instead a mindset to develop in mainstream English media and politics that England has been some kind of martyr to ungrateful and parasitical Celts.
If I’m feeling hopeful, I’ll think that Britishness is about intertwined cultures, shared history and multiculuralism. If I’m feeling cynical I’d say that what defines Britishness for me is the quite staggering levels of ignorance the different parts of Britain display about each other’s lives, conditions, cultures, languages and general economic and social realities. These days it’s usually the second of these that wins out.
Patrick
Actually, I contrasted Welsh nationalism with British nationalism and with Britishness. One has to do that, because there is a form of British nationalism, a strictly minority pursuit championed by mainly fringe and/or extremist parties, and which adopts a similar exclusive stance as does Welsh nationalism. Then there is Britishness, which in this context is synonymous with unionism (and if it makes you happier, and expunges all allegations of a rigged debate, let’s call it that from now on). Unionism is not exclusive, at least not where national identity is concerned. As I say, these aren’t value judgements, they’re facts.
The question of why resentful and envious English political identity is bubbling up is much more interesting. Is it a failure of unionism? Perhaps, but only insofar as it has chosen to implement decentralisation in a very uneven fashion (i.e to 15% of the population only) rather than that it has been insufficiently attentive of national identity. The truth is that the UK as a whole could and should be decentralised along much more local lines, not national ones. The punchline, of course, is that an English Parliament, or the dissolution of the UK, won’t improve matters for anyone: for England (for reasons already described) the outcome will be indifferent. For Wales and Scotland, the current perceived imbalance in power and influence will become real as some sort of English polity no longer has to pay any heed to either neighbour, yet both smaller polities have to try to keep their larger neighbour working in their favour. As long as devolution proceeds along national lines there will always be a horrible imbalance in reach and size. It’s an irony when Welsh and Scottish nationalists call for English independence: if they could only think beyond their medievalist dreams they’d realise it could work out very badly for the people who live in their countries.
“if they could only think beyond their medievalist dreams”
An interesting way of interpreting Welsh and Scottish nationalism. To recognise yourself as being part of an identity without the responsibility of running it’s own affairs, and to strive for that responsibility is somehow medieval?
If only you could see Welsh and Scottish nationalism for what it really is instead of letting your misconceptions cloud your judgment; your arguments would be much more creditable.
Yes, that’s interesting – I too am a Unionist then, but a disappointed ex-Unionist who thinks the Union hasn’t worked very well. One comes to nationalism – in my case Welsh nationalism – for many different reasons, mine being more out of sorrow than anger at the Union’s failure and – in my view – inequitable treatment of Wales (not to mention large swathes of England).
I don’t think Britishness and Unionism are synonymous, for the reasons I outlined earlier about an ‘ism versus a ‘ness.
As for your perception of the irony in Welsh and Scottish nationalists calling for an independent England, you’re right: an independent England is more likely to deliver what they want than their own electorate are. I agree they should be careful what they wish for, but that’s a different question.
That said Adam, isn’t it a bit – how should I say? – ‘walesonline comment board’ to call people who want independence ‘medievalist’? It’s not like you to stoop to that.
“If only you could see Welsh and Scottish nationalism for what it really is instead of letting your misconceptions cloud your judgment; your arguments would be much more creditable”
What you really mean is: if only you could agree with me, I’d find your views more agreeable.
Yes sorry that’s what I meant…. oh no sorry I actually meant what I said myself. I agree with many of your views, you say ‘The truth is that the UK as a whole could and should be decentralised along much more local lines, not national ones.’ but what’s stopping decentralisation along more local lines as well as national ones.
You have a very conservative view of nationalism, mine is much more liberal.
Patrick
Plaid want a 19th century solution based on a 8th century division of territory.
You’re right. “Medievalist” doesn’t cut it at all.
Plaid recognises that the Wlesh should hold responsibility over its own affairs.
You’re right. “Medievalist” doesn’t cut it at all.