Whither England? or Wither, England!

 

What is your nationality? Ask a Scot, and more often than not the answer will be ‘Scottish’ rather than ‘British’. A Welsh person would answer ‘Welsh’ first, most of the time. These assertions are based on the results of an informal survey I’ve been conducting for the past few years. I have observed that the Celtic members of the United Kingdom are very aware of their constitutional position within the Union, and they are not shy about laying claim to the cultural icons that differentiate them from their neighbours in general, and the English in particular. In Scotland and Wales the Saltire and the Red Dragon are ubiquitous. ‘Flower Of Scotland’ and ‘Mae Hen Wlad Fi Nghadau’ (Land Of My Fathers’) are sung proudly at international sporting events and the Saints Andrew and David have their days marked by the wearing of thistles, daffodils or leeks. The people of Northern Ireland are similarly clear on their cultural roots – although there are still some loose ends to be tidied up before they can agree completely on what they are. But there is certainly no disagreement about St Patrick’s day, the shamrock, and the ‘craic’.

 

The English, on the other hand, are not so concerned with marking the differences between being ‘English’ and being ‘British’. They are more likely to answer the question above with ‘British’. For them, there is no distinction to be made - it’s all the same. There is no English national anthem to sing at internationals, St George’s day is not generally observed, and the English flag flies rarely from public buildings, with the notable exception of Anglican churches. The English don’t even have a word for ‘craic’.

 

Why do the English lack a well-defined sense of national identity? It might be that they have no cultural emblems with which they can readily identify. There is no English equivalent to the kilt, the bagpipes or the Eisteddfod; neither is there a minority mother tongue to protect from extinction (the last native Cornish speaker died some decades ago, with no recorded outpouring of national grief). It is not that the English lack traditions, for there is a rich vein of music and dance, and mummers’ plays and wassailing are still features of the rural scene. It’s just that the people who participate in these activities are considered at best eccentric, and at worst, well – weird. Morris Dancing is our dirty little secret, something that, along with incest, is not to be tried even once, according to the English conductor Arnold Bax. Those traditions not generally derided run the risk of being legislated out of existence – cheese-rolling has been swept away by the cold, dead hand of health and safety regulations.

 

Perhaps this indifference to nationhood is due to a fundamental ignorance of England’s place in the UK in those who could claim to be English. This might explain why the devolution of powers in 1997 to a restored Scottish Parliament, Stormont in Northern Ireland, and the new Welsh Assembly could take place as it did without an outcry from the English, who were never consulted on whether they should also be ‘devolved’. If the English had been alive to the issue, there might not be the present constitutional anomaly whereby MPs representing Scots, Welsh and Irish constituencies at Westminster can vote on purely English matters, whereas MPs for English constituencies have no say in matters devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. This is ‘The West Lothian Question’, so called because it was identified first by Tam Dalyell, the Member of Parliament for West Lothian. It could also be argued that, had an honest debate been held, it is likely that the whole ‘devolution’ debate would have been exposed as a diversion. The purpose of the diversion might have been to conceal from the people of England the European Union’s intention to dispose quietly of England as a political entity.

 

This is a serious charge. If proven, it could result in serious consequences, not least for those who have worked hard to make it happen. What facts support it? An examination of recent events provides evidence that the West Lothian Question is very much an issue in Parliamentary business. From this can be developed the argument that the devolution issue was and is based on a deception, and from there it can be concluded that England’s future is very much in question.

 

In 2003, New Labour had problems meeting its legislative programme. The Health Secretary John Reid, a Scot representing a Scottish constituency, struggled to push through the bill that was to introduce foundation hospitals to the English National Health Service. The bill was opposed by many Labour MPs who felt that the proposed measures were incompatible with promises made in the New Labour manifesto. The measure was passed by five votes. A month later, Charles Clark, the Education Secretary, was fighting equally hard for the bill that would allow top-up fees to be charged by English Universities. Many Labour MPs opposed this on the grounds that it would penalise students from poorer backgrounds and this, once again, was inconsistent with the manifesto that won New Labour its mandate. It was passed by 28 votes.

 

In both of these votes, a government with a majority of 161 won by the tiniest of margins because Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies supported the government’s cause in the division. In Scotland, the measures proposed by the bills would have no effect. Indeed, the rejection of tuition fees was one of the first acts of the newly devolved Scottish Parliament.

 

The conduct of these bills through parliament illustrates the very problem described by the Member for West Lothian. It shows that, at a very real level, there is no body effectively representing English concerns in the Westminster Parliament. There is no English Parliament. After the votes, this matter was raised in the commons by Tim Yeo, Conservative MP for Suffolk South. It was dismissed by Peter Hain in his capacity as Leader of the House (rather than as Secretary of State for Wales) as being of interest only to those who ‘wish to see the break-up of the United Kingdom’. It was not explained how giving England the same rights of self-determination as those given to Scotland would cause the break-up of the Union, neither was the matter pursued.

 

On this evidence, it would appear that ‘England’ has little relevance where Parliament is concerned. A cynic might note that since the English themselves were not overly concerned that their laws were being made by Scots and Welsh MPs, then Parliament was in fact being truly representative of that fact by not caring either.

 

But it goes deeper than that. The reason the West Lothian Question is not considered to be a serious problem is precisely because it is not a problem – at least, it isn’t if there is no such thing as England. And from the perspective of the European Union, there isn’t. England no longer exists as a distinct country on the European map. This is why England was not offered ‘devolution’ in 1997 along with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – it couldn’t be. It wouldn’t be logical to devolve power to something that does not exist. It is also why what was offered to the Celtic nations was not really devolution at all, but something else wrapped up in a box with ‘Devolution’ written on the lid. What was concealed in the box was ‘Regionalisation’.

 

The European Union (EU) is comprised of twenty-five Nation States, each of which is divided into Regions. The United Kingdom is a Nation State divided into twelve Regions. EU countries are committed, by the terms of their EU membership, to create Regional Authorities to whom certain powers, formerly exercised by the national government, can be devolved. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are designated Regions within the UK. Their Regional boundaries coincide with the borders that define them as separate national entities within the UK, so effectively, there’s no difference – they can still be called Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That much is true and verifiable – what follows is open to debate. Or at least it would be, if there was one...

 

The UK is arguably one of the most openly Euro-sceptic, if not Euro-phobic nations in the EU. It might be the most, although the Danes might want to claim that particular honour. (Actually, they wouldn’t argue. They’d let us have it. They’re really nice people.) There’s a chance we might be one of the most Euro-phile of countries, but because we’ve never been allowed to have the debate, we don’t know. All we know is what the press and the Government tell us to think. And they’re hardly impartial.

 

Given the degree of scepticism (or lack of trust) in this country, an overt move to reorganise the UK’s administrative structure to suit Brussels would be political suicide for any government foolish enough to try it. Regionalisation simply would not be acceptable to the British public in the prevailing political climate. But Devolution is an issue that has been ‘live’ in Scotland and Wales for as long as the Scottish Nationalist Party and Plaid Cymru have been on the scene, and that has been for a while. Why not use the well-established nationalist agenda of these parties as a Trojan horse for Regionalisation? You want to take responsibility for your own destiny? Devolve! It’s what you’ve spent years fighting for! Let’s talk about it! Well, yes, that makes sense… OK, you’ve convinced the Government. Now all you have to do is convince your own people… Yes, of course we’ll help…

 

… But it couldn’t be offered to England, because England cannot be considered a distinct region in the same way as the other three parts of the UK. In fact, it’s nine different Regions. If you offer the people of England the chance to vote for Regionalisation at the same time as you’re offering ‘devolution’ to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they’ll reject it out of hand. Then the cat will be out of the bag. The Celts will see that they’re not being devolved at all, they’re being regionalised and then they’ll go all funny about it. So, the argument might have gone, it’ll be best to leave the English out of it for now. They won’t mind. In fact, they probably won’t even notice!

 

Some years later, when the dust had settled, London suddenly awoke (or was woken) to the fact that, unlike other major cities in the world, it had no Mayor’s office to run city business. The advantages of having such a body were advertised widely. When Londoners began to demand the Mayor that their city surely deserved and needed, an election was held. Of course, the wrong guy got voted in, but that was a small price to pay – London became the fourth region to be democratically established in the UK, without anyone ever actually using the ‘R-word’ in anger. Four down, eight to go.

 

Regional Authorities have now been set up for the eight regions remaining in what used to be England. It has happened quietly, without fuss, but also without the inconveniences that would result from the use of any form of democratic process. The people of the North-west, North-east and the Yorkshire & the Humber regions are, however, being subjected to referendums to see if they want Regional Authorities, but the result of those is still in the future. Allowing people the choice is the riskiest strategy yet. There doesn’t seem to be any information about a ‘plan B’ should a referendum come out against the idea, although the usual tactic in such a situation is to keep having referendums until the ‘right’ answer is reached. The problem for the Government is that there really isn’t a good, convincing proxy issue which can be used to smuggle regionalisation past the English public. The slightest hint of foisting ‘Europeanisation’ by stealth will wake the Europhobic tabloids and then there’ll be hell to pay. Paradoxically, if it is presented as a fait accompli, the English will probably accept it without much more than a slightly irritated ‘tch’. There’s a good chance that, at the end of the day, that’s the way Regionalisation will happen.

 

Then there won’t be ‘the English’ any more, because England will be gone. There will be ‘North West’-erners eyeing ‘Yorkshire & the Humber’-ites across t’Pennines, ‘Eastern’-ers will look across the Thames at the ‘South-east’-erners. Is that really how the English want to see their identities developing in a Europe of Regions? Given the choice, there’s a strong possibility they’d say ‘no’. But given no choice at all, they’ll probably just lie back and think of… what? The East Midlands?

 

I have not written this because I am against European integration; on the contrary, I am all for it. I am happy with the idea of being European – I am European. I would not describe myself as a ‘Little Englander’ – at least, not in the purse-lipped, venal, censorious, ‘Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells’ sense of the term. But I am English. I am English. I was born in England to English parents and I would like to think that I, or anyone else who chooses to, could be proud of being English in the same way that the Swedes can be proud of being Swedish or the Danes Danish. I am angry at the fact that my country is being dismantled with the active participation of my Government without anyone ever asking me if I like the idea.

 

I can’t believe I am the only person in the country to be concerned about this, but I don’t see or hear anybody else worrying about it and that makes me think that either (a.) I’m completely wrong in my thoughts or (b.) I’m right and there’s a huge conspiracy to hush it all up. And I hate conspiracy theories – everyone knows that they’re all started by the Government to make us all so insecure we’ll believe anything. (That was a joke. I hope.)

 

I want a debate. I want to know what’s happening and why. Maybe the upcoming debate on the European Constitution is the time to ask ‘Whither England’? Or will we just say ‘Wither, England!’

 

 

Robert Woodley

May 2004