The Green Ribbon

Flagging up the English question

A couple of posts worth highlighting from different points on the political spectrum.

From the left, Socialist Unity on the Raise the Flag campaign:

The importance of fan culture is very big in England, because Sports Patriotism is the only legitimised expression of the English national consciousness. Many socialists forget that national consciousness is – for the vast majority of people - their dominant form of self-identity, and can co-exist with other forms of identity, such as class consciousness. It is important that we contest the political content of the national consciousness, so that people’s sense of self-identity is associated with progressive and not reactionary values.

On the right, Mick Fealty's Brassneck points us to The Croydonian and some interesting remarks by Matthew Parris at a Conservative Way Forward meeting:

A split, perhaps deliberately engineered, between the Scottish Tories and the Tories in the rest of the country would best serve Conservatism in Scotland (What I would call the Germany / Bavaria model.  C), as otherwise English nationalism could be the accomplice of Scottish nationalism. A Scottish and rest of the UK Conservative parties could be good for both, and there are plenty of areas where a Scottish Conservative party could act alone an in the interests of Scotland rather than the UK, so the final question is whether the Conservatives can successfully pursue an approach between what we have now and prospective Scottish independence.

The Party of the Union

Gareth Young points us to the Daily Telegraph, where Jack Straw has some advice for the Conservative Party:   

In the 1955 general election the Conservative party not only won a majority of seats in Scotland but a majority of the votes – the only time that has been achieved by any political party since the war.

Today it is impossible to imagine such an outcome. The Conservative party is in danger of becoming a party of narrow English nationalism.

it prepares for its annual conference in Blackpool next week, it must come to terms with a stark reality: it is no longer the party of the Union. (Telegraph)

There are a couple of elements to this, one is the familiar Brownite theme of Britishness, which is partly sincere, but also partly a calculated attempt to ward off any challenge to Brown's legitimacy based on the West Lothian Question.

The other is the attempt to stake out traditionally Tory territory that dominated the Labour Party conference.

Wendy Alexander on the English

Scotland's Labour leader-elect thinks the English should stop complaining.

Figures from the Scottish Executive show that the Government spends £1,236 more on every person in Scotland than it does in England. But Ms Alexander said: “It does not come down to numbers. Every part of the UK outside London is a net beneficiary from the Exchequer, and Scotland does not get a uniquely good deal.

“That argument, that England would be better off without Scotland, would lead you to declare UDI for London . . . and would lead to California seceding from the rest of the United States.” (Times)

She's right about one thing. The issue isn't the numbers. It's democracy. What makes Scotland different from London or any of the English regions is that it has its own Parliament but its MPs can still vote on English legislation, a power which the Scottish Labour Party has used to impose right-wing policies on England.

Why cutting Scottish MPs won't solve the West Lothian Question

Today's Daily Telegraph brings us the IPPR's solution to the West Lothian Question:

yesterday, the influential Institute of Public Policy Research entered the row by raising the idea of a cut in the number of Scottish MPs. Currently, out of 646 MPs overall, 59 are Scottish - down from the 72 before the Scottish Parliament was created.

But the IPPR report, entitled The End of the Union?, said "they are still over-represented compared to England".

Reducing their number, along with MPs from Wales and Northern Ireland which also have devolved assemblies, "would be justified on the grounds that, since devolution, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have less to do at Westminster".

The move would also reduce the "possibility of Scottish MPs carrying votes against an English majority", said the report written by senior research fellows Guy Lodge and Katie Schmueker. (Telegraph)

I can't find a reference to the report on the IPPR website, but there is a Tribune article by one of the authors from last month which makes a similar argument and criticises  the Tory position of English votes for English laws (EVOEL).

The second generation: British-Irish or English-Irish?

The Commission for Racial Equality is set to disappear in a few months time. In the meantime, however, its magazine Catalyst has some interesting articles.

The CRE seems to be embroiled in a bit of controversy about Englishness at the moment so its perhaps worth noting that there are two good pieces on English identity by Gavan Curley and Roger Scruton.

There's also a piece on the second-generation Irish by Professor Mary Hickman, the leading academic authority on the Irish in Britain. It considers the question of how people born in Britain of Irish descent should define themselves.

The concept of ‘Britishness’ was always meant to be an umbrella identity, which effectively masked its close relationship to Englishness. Part of the problem lies in the hierarchical basis of Britishness, which the terms ‘the Celtic fringe’ and ‘ethnic minority’ amply demonstrate. There has never been a way to be Irish-British or British-Irish in England, Wales or Scotland, which is remotely comparable with the way in which it is perfectly acceptable to be Irish-American. One might expect to find ready recognition of the potential for British and Irish identities to be entwined – in the children and grandchildren of Irish migrants to Britain. But this is not the case. (Hybrid and hyphenated)

In spite of these criticisms, Professor Hickman sees a British-Irish identity as more viable than an English-Irish one:

The North/South divide

The Institute for Public Policy Research has released details of a forthcoming study which shows that the North-South divide has grown during 10 years of Labour government:

ippr north’s report cites Government figures that measure the gap between regions. These figures show that since 1997, the North East, the North West, Yorkshire and Humberside and the Midlands have all moved further away from the national average, on the Government’s favoured measure of output per head (known to economists as ‘Gross Value Added’). Over the same period, London has out paced the rest of Britain. (ippr)

The figures in the release also appear to show that the positions of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have deteriorated slightly as well.

Gross Value Added (GVA) per head by region

	1997	2005
United Kingdom	100	100

England	102	102
Wales	81	78
Scotland	99	96
Northern Ireland	81	80

The Union flag and the enlightened policy

Proposals to fly the Union flag every day on public buildings are set not to apply to Scottish Executive sites.

The government published the plans earlier this week, and they follow Gordon Brown raising the issue of celebrating Britishness in January. The SNP said Justice Secretary Jack Straw assured the policy would not cover executive buildings.  (BBC News)

It seems that the agenda Charlie Whelan described back in 2005 is still in force:

for the sublest rulers of the Raj, epitomised by Brown and by the former defence secretary George Robertson, the thing is to keep banging the drum for the UK. Let the devolution settlement keep the Nats at bay in the north; keep the Britishness to the fore in the south, to preserve the union. This might be labelled the enlightened policy. (Sunday Times)

Blogging the British-Irish Council

This week's round of British-Irish and North-South diplomacy has prompted some interesting commentary around the blogosphere.

Over at Slugger, Mick Fealty has a useful taster of Frank Millar's thoughts on Monday's British-Irish Council meeting:

Yet while the SNP leader offers Mr Brown a non-confrontational approach in the interest of delivering prosperity for the Scottish people, Mr Salmond also provides the DUP with an opportunity to shape an “islands-wide” approach to co-operation on a wide range of issues. Some observers tend to see this as a “Celtic” ganging-up against Westminster. Its real potential, however, might be in enabling unionists to counter an exclusively North-South focus which republicans hoped would presage further constitutional change. (Slugger O'Toole)

Worldbystorm offers an insightful piece on Tuesday's North-South Ministerial Council in Armagh:

The British-Irish Council meets

Here's that picture of the occasion. Apparently, there was a fair bit of controversy over who got to stand where.

It is indeed quite telling. I can only spot one English politician there. Naturally, he's the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

But for Shaun Woodward, it could almost be a photo of Ruairí Ó Brádaigh's vision of a Celtic League.

Devolved finance ministers meet Treasury

Interesting news from the Western Mail:

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Andy Burnham held a meeting earlier this week with Assembly Budget Minister Jane Hutt and their counterparts from Edinburgh and Belfast.

The Cardiff meeting, which was not publicised, discussed general funding issues for the devolved administrations. (ICWales)