In response to this: Fabian Society Conference on Britishness, I have written this:
The contributors to the Fabian British Conference make some interesting observations about England.
Indeed, England is large and would make the United Kingdom seem top-heavy, but that is a necessary consequence of the government’s devolution settlement. Until 1998 England was largely satisfied with the status quo; Scottish, and to some extent, Welsh nationalism created the need in the mind of the Labour party to placate the Celts with devolution.
Unfortunately, as with a lot of legislation that governments put down, it was not thought through. The English have an identity which slumbered under British rule. With devolution, the only just result for England was a similar level of self-governance to Scotland. Wales, too, was not given equity.
If devolution cannot be reversed, and I suspect there is no chance of that, there are only two alternative fair solutions: devolution for England or independence for Scotland and Wales. Again, it would seem obvious that the latter is not yet wanted by the majority so in the meantime, for the sake of democracy, England must be granted a Parliament. Conferences on Britishness can only have one purpose: to subdue the natural English tendency to seek justice and fairness — devolution does not grant that in its current form and England is responding.
I welcome your comments.
February 19th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Essential analysis is correct. Status quo is not an option. However, while Independence would solve things, it’s not something I want. Yet a fully federal system with England as 85% within one doesn’t actually improve governance (it’s still remote, unlike Cardiff/Edinburgh) and threatens stability of UK govt.
Middle ground; much further decentralism, with and English element as well. Details to be thrashed out within a new constitutional settlement for the nation as a whole, being worked on here and here as a start.
You in?
*goes to use site search facility for one of your older posts*
February 20th, 2006 at 8:04 am
MatGB,
I had a look, and forgive me for being cynical, but do you think those propositions would ever be picked up in this country the way the current party system is set up?
The proposal to limit government is anathema to the mainstream of power in almost all political parties in this country (true, the Tories have a libertarian tendency, but look, there was a 2/3s mandate for someone who wants to ban chocolate orange sweets at the till in WH Smith.)
If there is one thing that the majority of the political classes in this country believe, it is that more government is a good thing.
A constitutional movement (as well as a devolved England) will only come about through the grass roots and not through party politics. And it appears, right now, that party politics is the only game in town and aims to keep it that way.
Gav,
I think you are spot on. If there is anything in politics that peeves me more than head-chopper appeasement or Socialism, it is the Scottish Raj.