This from today’s Telegraph:
South of the Tweed, the backlash is starting
By Alan Cochrane
A weekend in England is all it takes; all it takes to confirm that “they” are not going to put up with “it” forever. “They” are the English and “it” is devolution.
Now, you may think you’ve heard this before; after all, people like me have been hunting for the English backlash ever since the Scottish Parliament opened for business.
And, frankly, it has been a long time coming. But coming it most definitely is. I was talking to a senior MSP yesterday and his assessment was an accurate one. “They (the English) seem to have gotten really annoyed about this student fees business.”
Last week’s announcement by Fiona Hyslop, the new SNP Education Minister, that, henceforth, Scottish students – and only Scottish students – would be excused their back-end payments for attending Scottish universities, appears to have been the last straw south of the border.
Perhaps it’s because of the manifest unfairness of it, certainly in a British sense, or maybe it’s because it primarily affects their off-spring – anything that hits your kids always brings a more emotional response – but the English taxpayers appear to have taken more exception to this bit of business than much else that’s happened in the last eight years.
And it has allowed them to add it to their long list of other “grievances” where the largesse of the devolved Scottish administration has given the residents on this side of the Tweed a better deal than those south if it. Things like free personal care for the elderly, free eyesight checks,
free bus passes and free access to better drugs.
All of this on top of what is seen as a small army of Scots in the Cabinet and, from June 27, a Scot as their new prime minister, without, it seems, so much as a by their leave.
Some English commentators claim that the incoming Nat administration in Edinburgh is bringing forward new acts of discrimination as deliberate provocation. They’re not. It’s not provocation, merely recklessness.
The Nats are determined to shore up their vote wherever they can – at the taxpayers’ expense, of course – and the students’ fees decision will do them no harm at all with the youth vote. Ditto with the so-called “grey” vote, following the announcement that free personal care allowances are to
be uprated. However, if in buying those votes, the Nats infuriate the English, then they’re not going to lose sleep over it, now are they?
All of which made my trip to Birmingham recently all the more interesting. There, in the tranquil surroundings of the house where Elizabeth Fry founded what we now know as the Quakers, I came face to face with the other side of the devolution coin – the English nationalists.
Mind you, the leaders of Campaign for an English Parliament are an incredibly mild-mannered bunch of revolutionaries. They are, also, extraordinarily polite.
In spite of all the slings and arrows that devolution has thrown their way, they bear no ill-will towards the Scots; they just want their own piece of the action. They acknowledge, as do most opinion polls, that the majority of Scots reckon that bones of contention such as the West Lothian Question should be addressed.
They have a long and hard fight on their hands, much of it down to indifference from the English media.
The reason I was in Birmingham was to make a programme about the demands for an English parliament for BBC Scotland, which is to be broadcast today.
Incredible as it may seem, there has not been even the slightest flicker of interest in this perfectly legitimate cause from the various arms of the BBC in England. Needless to say, however, one of the staunchest supporters of the Campaign for an English Parliament has been Alex Salmond.
I cannot imagine that this apathy from mainline broadcasters and newspapers will last, especially as every day of the Nationalist administration in Edinburgh appears to bring with it a new sense of outrage
from the ordinary voters of England.
- Home Rule for England is on BBC Radio Scotland at 11.30am today and is repeated at half-past midnight.
See, told you we’re not bad guys.
I would take issue with the author’s implied blame of Scottish Nationalists. The problem is most definitely Scottish and English British Unionists, not Nationalists of either country. The Scottish Nationalist Party should not be blamed for using the power it has been granted in favour of Scottish people — it is the lack of similar power for England that gets my back up.
And now be aware of another blogbreak of perhaps up to a week!
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Bill (Scotland) on June 20th, 2007 - 9:19 am
You may be interested to know that roughly half of last evening’s Newsnight Scotland the BBC2 spin-off which we get from 11pm each weekday evening for about 20 minutes, discussing just this issue.
The sole MP for a Scottish constituency representing the Tories accepted that there was a problem but stated that they (the Tories) were opposed to a separate English Parliament; what they seem to prefer is an ‘English Grand Committee’ where only MPs representing English constitiencies would vote on House of Commons legislation which affects England alone – he stated that this is roughly 80% of HoC business.
The other side of the debate was led by a Labour MP from Scotland who, predictably enough, did not seem to accept there was any problem at all and opposed, in particular, the creation of two ‘classes’ of MP as proposed by the Scottish Tory MP – obviously Labour would be the most affected by such a change because their majority amongst Scottish MPs at Westminster is often critical in HoC votes, specially since the 2005 election.
The lady from the Campaign for an English Parliament who was interviewed as part of the segment was so reasonable and level-headed although she made her points firmly and clearly – I think it would be difficult to take serious issue with what she said.
As a strong Unionist, who nevertheless sees that there is an urgent necessity to resolve the imbalances created by ‘devolution’ for Scotland and Northern Ireland and to a lesser degree in Wales (because the Welsh Assembly has so few real powers), I think the ‘Westminster classes’ are going to have to waken up fast to the dangers devolution has posed to the continuing existence of the UK – Labour in particular. It is no surprise that Alex Salmond, a master strategist, is supportive of fostering English discontent as he sees it as a way of hastening the day when his Party might win a referendum in Scotland – which they certainly wouldn’t now; his recent visit to Northern Ireland is all part of the same strategy.
#2 by Gav on June 20th, 2007 - 10:02 am
I do think the Labour Party has a point about the two-classes of MP. The English Grand Committee just cannot work because of the neutering it would perform to Mr Brown, Mr Reid, Mr Alexander etc.
But that’s a whole long debate that neither party seems willing to have seriously.
#3 by MJW on June 20th, 2007 - 1:25 pm
I think the crunch is that Labour really needs Scottish votes to pass English legislation, if this weren’t the case then they wouldn’t be so complicit in maintaining the imbalance in public spending.
The disaster that was elected regional assemblies in England was a failed attempt to conveniently get around the issue of representation without a corresponding loss of control for the centre.
#4 by Dave on June 21st, 2007 - 2:18 am
But Gav we already have two classes of MP so the Conservative idea would not be creating that it would be attempting to address it.
Scots MP’s vote on matters than mostly affect England and are unaccountable, England is ruled by Scots.
End the occupation! get the Scots out!
How can you call yourself a Unionist Bill when you voted for the corrupt Union breaking devolution settlement?
#5 by Toque on June 22nd, 2007 - 8:55 am
“I do think the Labour Party has a point about the two-classes of MP. The English Grand Committee just cannot work because of the neutering it would perform to Mr Brown, Mr Reid, Mr Alexander etc.”
The reason the Conservatives are leaning towards an English Grand Committee rather than English Votes on English Matters is precisely because it gets around the argument that they would be creating two classes of MPs. That is its only selling point.
It works on an already established principle.
All the other problems with EVoEM still apply.
The neutering of Labour’s Scottish contingent is not a constitutional problem, it’s just a numbers problem for the Labour Party.