A leftist view of the British national question

The creation of parliaments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland in recent years has introduced a fundamental anomaly into British politics. The Scottish parliament, for example, makes laws regarding Scottish schools, but Scottish MPs in the British parliament also vote on laws for English schools, while that same British parliament has nothing to say about Scottish schools. Since the Scots exclusively govern themselves regarding local Scottish matters, why should they also be able to govern the English on English matters? As some see it, the injustice can only be solved by turning the British parliament into an English parliament, at least on English issues, by excluding Scottish MPs on votes dealing with such issues. Apparently Conservative party leader David Cameron has proposed something along these lines. But Cameron’s plan, warns Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian, would rapidly lead to the devolution of Great Britain and the breakup of the UK into four sovereign states.

Freedland dislikes the prospect for two reasons. First, England, with 85 percent of the British population, would be Tory for decades to come, since Labor’s strength in the British Parliament has been largely dependent on Welsh and Scottish voters (as an index of the imbalance, there are no Tory MPs from Scotland).

Second, Freedland sees the very notion of Englishness as a problem. Namely he sees it as a threat to ethnic minorities. His discussion of Englishness versus Britishness will be clarifying to non-British readers:

More important, those who once shuddered at the union flag have come to see its value, not least in contrast to the English alternative. Many of the country’s ethnic minorities have grown comfortable with a dual identity that Britishness makes possible. Just as you can be Scottish-British or Welsh-British, so you can be black British or Jewish-British or Asian-British. Britishness, already a composite of different nations, lends itself to that kind of hyphenated identity.

It’s not certain that a separate England would work the same way. I see the cross of St George, and those England fans in their fake chainmail and plastic swords, and it all looks a bit too Christian, too mediaeval and crusaderish to my eyes. Like many others from an ethnic minority, I would hesitate to describe myself as English, even though I was born in England. That word seems to belong instead to a specific ethnic group, the “indigenous” population with roots that go several generations deep. But Britishness has no such associations: I can and do identify as British readily and easily.

This goes wider than those traditionally described as ethnic minorities. It also applies, I’m sure, to those of Scottish and Welsh background who live in England (and there are millions of them). They too would rather live in Britain, a union of several countries, than in a separate state called England. Besides, in this globalised world, we are stronger as one decent-sized country, standing together, than we would be as four smaller countries, pulled apart.

Thus the word “Britain” does not convey a national idea, but a multi-national idea, which lends itself nicely to multiculturalism, while the word “England” conveys a national—and thus exclusive—idea. Freedland’s fears of English particularity lead him to urge his fellow Laborites to be Unionists and support Great Britain, an unaccustomed position for them.

* * *

Jeff writes from England:

Subject: We carried you in our arms on Dependence Day

As you know, if England had been on its own, the Conservatives would have won the last election in terms of popular vote (not in number of seats I believe). I am for complete separation. It would be heaven as the Scots and Welsh and Catholic Northern Irish hate Britain. And I mean hate. I had some scary times in Wales when they thought I was English. I want the Scottish Independence Party to succeed but it just can’t win enough votes. The Scots and Welsh want to hate us (and our football team) while taking our money and culture. Sound familiar?

Karen writes from England:

Freeland’s concern about a threat to minorities resulting from a return of English particularism seems like alarmist propaganda rather than a realistic assessment of the situation. First of all, all three major political parties are losing touch with their traditional supporters who are deserting them in droves. The Conservative party is no longer a traditional right wing party which supports the traditional values, culture and ethnicity of the country. It is a left liberal party which is marginally to the right of the Labour party and supports globalism, mass immigration, unfettered free trade, big business and the EU. This process has been going on over the last 50 years (it was the Conservatives who took us into the EU) and was exacerbated by Thatcher who undermined and fundamentally changed the British establishment and culture thus destroying the traditional support of the party and the Conservative party itself. The party has never recovered from Thatcherism. I go to many party meetings and the membership is small and disillusioned. The members believe that the current Conservative party does not represent their interests.

The “transformation” of the party which Cameron is trying to make is not to attract traditional supporters. It is to attract the support of the owners of the mass media and the global elite. He wants Rupert Murdoch to back him to get into power. He is imposing novice candidates on conservative seats in order to meet “diversity targets.” Most of the women and ethnic minority candidates he is propelling into these seats have been in the party less than a few years and have no experience. The local selection committees are up in arms. He is marginalising traditionalist Conservatives such as Norman Tebbit. I went to a recent meeting where Francis Maude propounded a neocon globalist agenda. He was asked if he would stop immigration and he said “no.” He was told that his views were not those of his traditional supporters and his response was that “people would have to change.” There is no real difference between Conservatives and Labour and both are out of touch and in denial.

Recent elections have delivered protest votes against both parties. Both parties have taken for granted the support of their traditional backers and that support is now ebbing away. The people have realised that neither party is acting in their interests.

The recent motion, regarding an English parliament, of Cameron (a Highland Clan name and descended from a Scottish military family on his father’s side), is to try to win back traditional voters. Freedland’s claim that England would be a Tory bastion is alarmist and is an attempt to frighten ethnic minorities into voting tactically to keep the Conservatives out. Large numbers of English people are actually leaving the country and some English cities are white minority (Birmingham, Leicester etc). A large number of Conservative MPs and candidates are Scots (Michael Gove, Liam Fox, Melanie MacLean etc).

The image of mediaeval Christianity is also absurd. The Church of England is almost in a state of collapse (financial and structural) and church membership is low. There is no religion to speak of in England and the weakly Protestant Anglican Church is incapable of mounting a Christian crusade. If anything the RC church is stronger and of course Islam is the fastest growing religion, perhaps competing with Hinduism and Buddhism.

The threat to ethnic minorities is not great as there is no real feeling of Englishness which is by blood. English people tend to accept those who are born in the country and have a superficial affiliation with the culture. In other words “if they walk the walk and talk the talk,” anyone can be accepted. This is unlike Scots, who, like Germans, believe that the basis of ethnicity and nationality is blood. Hence for Scots there must be a blood association with the clan system regardless of where one is born. An American with Scottish ancestry can return to his ancestral country and be accepted whereas someone who does not have Scots ancestry but was born in and lives in Scotland can never be Scottish. That is the situation of the Irish immigrants who form the majority of the working class in Scotland. They have never been accepted and the Church of Scotland led a 20 year campaign in the 1930s to have them deported to Ireland.

The left and the right are worried about the break-up of Britain but I think that it will happen inevitably within the next few years. And there is no real thing as English particularity because England as a country accepts anyone and everyone who has no blood connection with the country. And there is no religion or strong identity or philosophy to support particularity. The left are afraid of the loss of Britain because it will remove the oil money which finances “Islamic Centres,” “Indian Support Groups,” “Turkish Community Centres” and a host of “diversity Consultants.” And Britain will not split into four parts. It will split into two parts—Scotland which has different legal and educational systems anyway and England plus Wales which may effectively be counted as one country. Ulster could go with either Scotland or England.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 06, 2006 02:17 PM | Send