English Patience
"The English Question, that slumbering giant in British politics, is beginning to stir."
That question, being raised now by the former Labour minister Frank Field, is all about the effects of what some see as the lopsided nature of devolution in Britain. Lots of it in the Celtic fringe, none at all for middle England. So what's his warning? In a nutshell, that a devolution settlement which many English voters believe treats them less fairly than their counterparts in Scotland and Wales had become "one of the festering sores in English politics".
Giants, sores, add to that "fiscal discriminations"and you've got a fairly lurid warning.
According to Mr Field, English voters are becoming increasingly resentful of a system which allows a range of those "fiscal discriminations" including:
Free residential care for the elderly in Scotland;
NHS provision of drugs in Scotland - such as Lucentis to treat sight loss - which are not available in England;
Freedom from university top-up fees in Scotland;
No prescription charges in Wales.
(If only for the sake of Ben Bradshaw, the Health Minister, who appears before the Welsh Select Committee today, he might have added Mr Bradshaw's favourite policy: free car parking in Welsh hospitals.)
But hang on. In order to be devolved - surely you have to be devolved FROM something! If all four administrations pursued identical policies, then isn't that an awful lot of superfluous politicians, buildings and paperwork? On the other hand, the idea that the citizens of England get a better deal in some regards from being different from the other three administrations simply doesn't wash, according to Frank, who sees a much deeper resentment brewing.
"My constituents do not believe it is fair that they should face a constitutional discrimination as well as meeting additional costs which identical people in Scotland, and to a lesser extent in Wales, do not face. This, in a sentence, is the English Question."
It's the same question that caused a parish council in England to start an online poll asking residents in the village of Audlem, nine miles from the border, whether they wanted to become part of Wales with its free this and that. They got a slot on Have I got News for You, five minutes of fame and a straightforward answer: no ta, not if it means pledging our allegiance to the land of far longer waiting lists.
So, this being politics, is it about money, or about power? A bit of both perhaps.
And the "inevitable" result of growing anger over the devolution settlement will be an English Parliament to match the devolved assemblies in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, with a UK Parliament dealing only with matters which have not been delegated to the four nations of the United Kingdom.
But his main warning isn't about the break up of the United Kingdom, real or imagined. It's a darker message. He says many traditional Labour voters have already switched to the BNP because they believe the Government has let them down on the issue of "uncontrolled immigration". And more could do so if the far-right party is allowed to take control of the debate on the English Question.
Now that is a lurid warning.
I'm Betsan Powys, BBC Wales' political editor. I'll be blogging the inside track on 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Why is it that people from Scotland and Wales are asked to vote on devolution, but the English are not? I would have thought that as we are all 'British' we would all get a vote..... oh silly me, the English are not yet a minority - Just the silent majority.
Complain about this comment
Why is it the devolution question is always posed as a negative against the Welsh and the Scottish, but never against Londoners (who, lest we forget, do better out of the union than the Welsh do)
Why do the UK media spend thier time bellyaching about organisations in Wales/Scotland that they hardly ever cover, but not question the fairness of the system viz a viz London? Is it (yet more) double standards? I mean they can't have failed to notice London devolution can they?
And why is the current situation "worse" than the previous one? Particularly as the English dominated paraliament holds the purse strings and can over rule the devolved bodies or even scrap them anyway?
Complain about this comment
The BNP in a more powerful position will be a good thing because it will shake up the major parties. I also note that I do not support or believe in the BNP's aims or the way in which they wish to reach these aims.
The argument for devolutiuon in England is a completely absurd idea and has no weight at all, except with ignorant englishmen. That comment isn't racist because england already has a government. A government which already imposes it's will on other countries. It's like the Chinese wanting devolution from Bejing because Tibet has some form of autonomy.
Why is it that the English always portray themselves as the ones who are faring badly out of the union? And claim to be doing it for the better of Britain, and then refuse to allow us a referendum on devolution and independence?
All that we have received form England has been discrimination, forgein rule, the death of thousands while fighting for ourfreedom, persecution, discrimination, a country of holiday homes and the mass immigration of English people.
England gets oil from Scotland and water from Wales. The people benefiting mostly from the union are the English, no let's rephrase that: The sole beneficiaries of the Union are the english people. They however will not acknowledge that their own invention, which was formed on their terms and is in their control isn't working.
If england becomes a devolved nation or even has a referendum on the matter then there will be no reason for Wales or Scotland to remain in the union because the English (the nation who forced the union on Wales and then Soctland) will no longer acknowledge that union, so why should we?
I'd also like to give the english some advice on devolution - don't bother. Whenever the Assembly for Wales wants to do anything remotely important or significant the motions have to go through Westminster. Westminster states our budget (stop complaining that we get more tax money because you are in control of how much we get). The parliment in London is where the power lies. The Assembly is claimed to be a talking shop by English people who are against devolution in Wales, and they are right. In it's current form the Assembly is dust thrown into our eyes to let us think that we're governing ourselves and are important in the decision making prochedure of the UK goverment.
"the English are not yet a minority - Just the silent majority." Yeah exactly you are the majority. The union was your idea. The Welsh and Scottish people never wanted to be under english rule.
"My constituents do not believe it is fair that they should face a constitutional discrimination as well as meeting additional costs which identical people in Scotland, and to a lesser extent in Wales, do not face. This, in a sentence, is the English Question." Well you decide our budget because you are the "majority".
In conclusion the union was a stupid invention by the English who now realise their folly but are unwilling to acknowledge it and the easiest solution, and the one which would please me most (and a lot of other people) is to grant Wales and Scotland full independence.
Complain about this comment
Yeah! More borders! More retrograde action! More nationalistic rants! More divisive policies and speeches! Never mind quality of life or, heaven forbid, putting 700 year old rivalries behind us! Listen up, you English foreigners, only the Welsh and the Scots are allowed nationalistic sentiments, you're just BAD..
...there's a whole wide world out there, there may (or may not) be valid economic reasons for more devolution, but please don't use exclusive factors like accidents of birth to promote them.
Complain about this comment
Welshdriag
London devolved, wonderful idea! Of course that would mean most of the rest of the country, and Wales and Scotland, would be in poverty, most tax is paid in London, by the people, by the companies, yet the money is not kept there it is hovered up by an unrepresentative government disproportionately representing the fringe and spent on disadvantaged areas.
I thought that the people lacked ammenities to be disadvantaged, but to NuLab and the AM's it seems to mean vote for us!
Complain about this comment
English taxes for England
English law for England
Home rule for England
Bring it on.
Complain about this comment
I find the whole topic disturbingly parochial, especially when I consider that I have 25% Welsh blood on my maternal side, ostensibly 25% Scots blood on my paternal side, 25% English blood from my maternal side (the paternal side is a bit more complex), when I remember that most of us come from a very few individuals
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1015670.stm
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/01/blue_eyes_mutation/
Then there are the descendents of Romans who settled in these islands, some of them Romanian, and there is a lot of evidence of Viking settlements across these islands, right across to Ireland. They left their genetic trace too.
Aside from our origins we've all interbred so much that trying to make a distinction between us is practically nonsensical. Take Monsieur Salmond for example. Then take the origins of the people on those oil bearing islands north of Scotland, themselves annexed by the Scots, who are descended from Irish invaders that largely displaced the Picts.
When we separate we weaken.
Complain about this comment
"More nationalistic rants! More divisive policies and speeches! Never mind quality of life or, heaven forbid, putting 700 year old rivalries behind us! Listen up, you English foreigners, only the Welsh and the Scots are allowed nationalistic sentiments, you're just BAD."
You might deem my previous post as a nationalistic rant however you haven't produced any arguments to the contrary, possibly suggesting that you don't have those arguments? Or that they don't exist.
The english can be as nationalistic as they want however when they decide that their very own idea is no longer to their liking why do they not allow us to decide if it's to our liking?
It is the english tradition of being greedy and being better than everyone else. 'The Scots have it the Welsh have it - we want it'. Even though they don't agree with us having it?! Another display of the english trait of "hypocrisy". Quote because Jeremy Paxman says the english are hypocritical as well.
"When we separate we weaken."
India and Ireland seem to be doing pretty well after escaping english imperialism. The other countries, such as Zimbabwe aren't doing to well due to the way in which the British empire was broken up i.e. putting different ethnic groups in one country doesn't work. Which by the way is applicable in more than one situation.
"English taxes for England
English law for England
Home rule for England
Bring it on."
Fine but if England has all that does Wales and Scotland receive that as well?
Complain about this comment
"putting 700 year old rivalries behind us"
It is more than rivalry when a country has imposed it's forgein culture and rule on another nation by means of force, mass immigration, discrimination, persecution, etc. The unfair way in which the english have treated us is the main reason for independence. We (like the vast majority of europe) just don't like the english.
Complain about this comment
It is not true that, "Aside from our origins we've all interbred so much that trying to make a distinction between us is practically nonsensical."
Please read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/2076470.stm
A report which contains the sentence, "The English and Frisians studied had almost identical genetic make-up but the English and Welsh were very different."
Complain about this comment
"We (like the vast majority of europe) just don't like the english."
For sure you don't speak for even a small part of Europe, unless you have polled them. It may suit to speak from anecdotal experience, but that is what the Scot, Blair did, before attacking Iraq on all our behalves. Nonetheless, the English (as an identifiable off shoot of a very small part of the gene pool) are probably Frisian (that's the Dutch part of the Saxon group, the main body itself having later fought with the 'English') in origin, if you overlook their interbreeding with other nationalities in these isles (of which I am a good example). Furthermore, the 'English' were as persecuted as any other part of the islands, and not just by the Danes, or the Norman vikings; they were persecuted by their own ruling classes, the 'Enclosures Act' being a marvellous specimen to parallel the highland clearances.
A quick search on the latter point reveals interesting material. YMLT try it:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/landls.htm
Exercising a grievance is fine, but it is always more interesting if you do so from a factual basis, rather than making statistical claims about "the vast majority of Europe", without citing clear and unambiguous statistical data to back your claims. Have you polled a representative sample of Europeans to substantiate your claims? If so, what sampling method did you use, and were your questions open ended, or leading/closed?
Complain about this comment
#8
"Fine but if England has all that does Wales and Scotland receive that as well?"
That's the whole idea yes.
I would hope to see a unified Eire out of it as well.
Complain about this comment
"A report which contains the sentence, "The English and Frisians studied had almost identical genetic make-up but the English and Welsh were very different."
I'll take that on advisement, especially since there have been later studies that conflict, which I'll try to pull out. Moreover, we are talking about sub-groups that emerged from a very small incursion into Europe, and that is the stronger part of the basis for my claim that we are interbred. For example, I cite the data on mitochondrial change in favour of this:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg15520895.500-ancestral-echoes.html
"One of these surprises was that key aspects of the mitochondrial DNA of Basque people look very much like that of other Europeans. "If the rest of Europe is supposed to be descended from Neolithic immigrants, while Basque people are supposed to be a remnant of a pre-Neolithic population, then they should look different,"
Whilst there are criticisms of mitochondrial data the inferences therefrom, they are relatively stable and are inherited only from the maternal side only. Their rate of change is predictable and it is on this that such inferences are based; the Basque data are extremely relevant to the basis for a Welsh-English difference.
There was also an interesting report a couple of years ago, in which the authors claimed on the basis of their data that most of the early Saxons were women, their point seemingly being that the invaders were brides. I have not yet been able to find it, but heard a Radio 4 commentary.
Complain about this comment
Osian :
"It's like the Chinese wanting devolution from Bejing because Tibet has some form of autonomy."
There are many different Chinese ethnicities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China
"You might deem my previous post as a nationalistic rant however you haven't produced any arguments to the contrary, possibly suggesting that you don't have those arguments? Or that they don't exist."
I'm not arguing against devolution. It's not something that particularly interests me, I think the world has more pressing concerns.
Like combating prejudice, wherever it comes from. Particularly at home.
"The other countries, such as Zimbabwe aren't doing to well due to the way in which the British empire was broken up i.e. putting different ethnic groups in one country doesn't work. Which by the way is applicable in more than one situation."
Now you're scaring me.
Complain about this comment
Local representation is great! It means getting closer to democracy. That's great, right?
It seems there are a few options (obviously these are not all the options) I've broken them down into 4 sections. 1. Independence, 2. Keeping a Unitary style government, 3. A Federal style solution, 4. A mix of the Unitary and Federal systems...
INDEPENDENCE
1. This one seems pretty obvious... Each nation could either be completely independent, or maintain some kind of personal union with the Crown.
THE UNITARY SYSTEMS
1. Continue the status quo. (seems no one likes this)
2. Add an English assembly that would be an equivalent to the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Ireland assembly/parliament. (this seems highly controversial for the reasons stated in the above comments, coming from differing view points.)
3. Keeping the Westminster U.K. parliament with current or changed representation for all 4 parts of the union, who would then meet at separate points during the year in their "home rule" areas as their national parliaments. They would be responsible for hashing out issues that have been devolved for them without the interference of the other members of the U.K.
Option 3 is the closest to the Federal style, basically the concept of “devolved” is still there, giving the idea that the individual nations of the U.K. "can" make decisions for themselves, but that this may not always be the case.
A situation where they would have the "right" to make decisions for themselves would be as follows...
THE FEDERAL SOLUTION
1. Each nation in the U.K. would send equal representatives to a Westminster U.K. parliament and would have their own separate and permanent assemblies which would decide on their own issues. At some point there would have to be a debate on what are individual nations rights vs U.K. rights. Ie, does each nation have authority over issues of taxation, currency, postage, its own energy, etc. These would have to be decided and then they would stick: They would not be “devolved” with the possibility that they could be retracted on a whim. Any issues that arose over decision making jurisdiction would have to be fought out in the court system, or by referendum, or both. Typically in a strong Federal system there is no provision for succession from the country, ie. independence is not a “right” for a state to decide. So, although one are of the country feels things aren't going well they may not leave the union. They can however, try to come up with local solutions to the problem, bring it to court, or petition the Federal government.
EXPLANATION
Most often in a federal system there is a "trade off" between what matters are for a "state" to decide and what matters are for the over all nation.
For instance in Federal countries it is rare to see any one "state" having powers to create its own currency. And the idea of taxation is quite different.
There is typically only one country wide currency and states don't really even think of making their own.
As far as taxes, there is typically a tiered system, where there is a federal tax and a state tax. The Federal tax is the same no matter what state you live in. Then there is a state tax, decided by the state (no federal interference) and also local taxes, depending on where one lives.
Also, a trade off exists because things that are states rights do not get decided on by other states, and conversely one state doesn't have a say in what another state does. If their is an issue it has to be fought out in the court system.
Ie. One state takes another state to court because it has decided to use an excessive part of a water flow for its own use, whereas previously the water ran into another state and was used there.
It seems that there could be a “best of both worlds” scenario, if there was a mix of Unitary and Federal systems.
MIXED UNITARY AND FEDERAL SOLUTION
A mixed Unitary and Federal solution could look something like this...
Maintain a bicameral parliament in Westminster with either the same or adjusted representation functioning in much the same way as it does now. In addition each nation would have its own separate and permanent Parliament to decide on issues specifically pertaining to its nation (no person sitting on the Westminster parliament could simultaneously sit on a national parliament/assembly. And Westminster could not dissolve any national parliament/assembly). The check to this would be that in order to ratify the decision made in that nations parliament it would send it to the House of Commons, wherein each national constituency would have one vote, either a yes or a no collectively. It would take an equal number, or majority of votes to ratify a bill. The bill however, can not be altered at this point. It was created by the nations parliament/assembly and can not be amended. It is either approved or not.
For clarification here is an example:
The Scottish parliament decides the Scottish government should bring a nuclear reactor on-line. This decision is made in the Scottish parliament. For ratification it then sends the bill to the Westminster House of Commons. The house meets, and each member votes. All the votes from each of the nations are tallied. Of Scotland's 59 seats in Westminster 50 vote yes. That equals one YES vote, since it is a majority of the seats. Of Wales 40 seats in Westminster 20 vote yes. This is one yes vote because it is an equal yes and no. Of Northern Ireland's 18 seats 8 vote yes. This would equal one NO vote. And of England's 529 seats 500 vote yes. So there are 3 Yes votes, one each from Scotland, Wales and England, and one NO vote. The bill passes, is ratified and made into law.
In this system I do not propose a mechanism for independence, but, a mechanism for dividing: Meaning that if Cornwall, for example, wanted to become its own nation with in the U.K., it could. It would set up its own parliament/assembly and also send separate representatives to the U.K. parliament. This would allow for more local representation and let the individual nations of the U.K. function as “think tanks” with real power to solve their own national issues.
I propose using the U.K. parliament and the court system to resolve issues of jurisdiction similar to the way it is used in the Federal system.
Complain about this comment
Osian,
I feel I owe you an apology for the way I phrased my original post, it was rather provocative and I was conscious of that when I wrote it - not my usual style. However, I stand by the gist of it .
moreperfectunion,
I'm glad you posted that, it's helped me to clarify my thoughts :-)
One problem with all of your models above, as I see it, is that they're all "top down" models, devolving and not evolving. I prefer to think "bottom up", micro-style, starting with individual interactions (social, environmental, economical) within the community. Most of us want the same thing ultimately, namely healthier communities, more opportunities, and a better quality of life for all. Granted, "bottom up" could potentially evolve from devolution, given safeguards against discriminatory and restrictive practises, just as it could from the current state of affairs, but then there's...
...Problem number 2 - you're still talking in terms of "nations", which encourages nationalist sentiments, which, whilst not being necessarily negative, do tend to be exclusive rather than inclusive in the political sphere. "States" is better.
To the Nationalists with a capital "N" I say this : Like it or not, Wales is a multicultural community, the only way you'll change that is with aggressive and discriminatory laws and policies. Yes, the English did that to us, but we survived, and so will they, and, just as you prove, the bitterness won't go away in a hurry...
Complain about this comment
"but it is always more interesting if you do so from a factual basis, rather than making statistical claims about "the vast majority of Europe", without citing clear and unambiguous statistical data to back your claims. Have you polled a representative sample of Europeans to substantiate your claims? If so, what sampling method did you use, and were your questions open ended, or leading/closed?"
Well I was merely quoting to what the english say. Have you heard of Eurovision and the ranting that many english people did after they came joint last? And how Eurovision is political and that they always produce the best acts but never win because everyone in Europe votes against them?
Also it's from personal experience. In France, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. If the people there know that you're Welsh and not British or English then you get treated much nicer. I've been to France around ten times and the most important sentence you can learn before going is "Ne pas Anglais, je suis Gallois".
I'd also like to apologise to Ceris for frightening her and assure her that I was in no way encouraging violence etc. Because the situation in Zimbabwe is unbelieveable and horrifying. We created that mess and should be doing more about it.
Complain about this comment
""It's like the Chinese wanting devolution from Bejing because Tibet has some form of autonomy."
There are many different Chinese ethnicities."
Sorry but how is that an argument against my point?
Complain about this comment
"the union was a stupid invention by the English who now realise their folly but are unwilling to acknowledge it and the easiest solution, and the one which would please me most (and a lot of other people) is to grant Wales and Scotland full independence."
Is that why approximately 18% of the electorate voted 'yes' in the 1997 referendum; approx 16% said 'no' and the rest simply did not care. Even in contemporary assembly elections turnout is around 30% - hardly a ringing endorsement from the Welsh population.
It is a myth that the desire for independence is strong in Wales: most people don't care. Historically this has always been the case.
Culturally the Welsh have always seen themselves as distinct from the English but this too often gets mistranslated as a call (or desire) for political independence.
By the way, I am a proud Welshman but accept that our ties to England are much too long and deep to be uprooted now.
This question of independence is unnecessary because it will never happen and you should not confuse autonomy with independence.
Complain about this comment
Osian ,
The Chinese are Chinese in the same way the British are British. I presume you meant that "It's like the Han wanting devolution from Beijing" ? If so then your implied analogy makes more sense. Sorry to be so pedantic:-)
I'm glad you clarified your views on Zimbabwe. But the bit that really scared me was :
"i.e. putting different ethnic groups in one country doesn't work. Which by the way is applicable in more than one situation."
I'm still scared.
Re "Ne pas Anglais, je suis Gallois" and general anti-English sentiment - it's a prejudice I've not long grown out of myself. Whether or not "they" brought it on themselves is beside the point - it's a prejudice, and that's not noble.
Complain about this comment
Pantryboy,
Re the first part of your post : That's the myth of democracy as we know it, rule by partisan minorities. It's a pyramidal structure with most of us at the bottom. Personally I don't believe that making small pyramids out of big pyramids is particularly helpful and is in fact downright dangerous (talking peace and stability) in the wrong hands. The paradox is that it's also a strong structure. Fortunately I like paradoxes and am happy to propose another - lets leave the pyramid more or less as it easy for now and turn our attention to our personal and communal interactions, both at home and across borders. We might, if we've the will, find ourselves in a more amenable and peaceable world.
I can't vouch for the figures you gave because I've not checked them, but I think we're standing on the same ground:-)
"Culturally the Welsh have always seen themselves as distinct from the English but this too often gets mistranslated as a call (or desire) for political independence." Indeed. There's always a lot of knee-jerking when people start talking about national identities. I even get carried away myself occasionally (see my first post and my consequent apology!).
Complain about this comment
Ceris I don't claim to be an expert on Chinese ethnicity and race so I'll agree with you!
"I'm glad you clarified your views on Zimbabwe. But the bit that really scared me was :
"i.e. putting different ethnic groups in one country doesn't work. Which by the way is applicable in more than one situation." "
That was the bit I was talking about e.g. Israel, I mean how stupid was it for us to put a Jewish nation, pardon me - state, in Palestine? And Zimbabwe is another example that without a clear majority of one ethnic group there will always be ethnic tension. I hope that satisfies you.
On the comments by pantryboy. My greatest worry is that the Welsh themselves don't want freedom. The English response to us trying to promote the Welsh language is, why don't you speak more Welsh? And except for the fact that we can't due to a lack of opportunity, it is demoralising and feels almost like a betrayal that a lot of Welsh people are only Welsh when it suits them e.g. when the rugby team does well.
I don't see the point of arguing any further because I have laid down my core arguments and have received no arguments to the contrary, only comments on my more, um passionate language. I know what I feel in my heart and it would be a betrayal of all that our previous and current generations are working for if we cannot make the effort ourselves. You could provide arguments twice as strong as mine (though I am yet to see one half as good) and I would still not change my opinion because I am Welsh through and through, 100% and nothing can change that.
Complain about this comment
I have no problem with the English having their own Parliament, though I think that England is would be better off with regional assemblies to deal with those regional issues that don't get addressed in the current set up. The problem is that the UK Parliament allocates the spending on services in England, and based on this money is given to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As long as expenditure in England determines the budgets of the devolved administrations then Celtic MPs have a legitimate concern in voting on English expenditure. Abolish the funding formula and replace it with a needs based assessment and you would remove the need for Celtic MPs to vote on purely English concerns.
Complain about this comment
The English had they chance for Devolution and said no any one remember John Prescott regional assembly’s im sure if a majority want them again though the chance will come around but like all things to do with politics people need to speak loud and clear and not moan and groan when they vote for no and get a no.
Complain about this comment
As a border county girl, I find some of the comments expressed here, dangerous, divisive and totally unnecessary. This site is becoming a vehicle for nasty, nationalist rants. What kind of country are we becoming?
I used to be proud to say I was Welsh, but have been completely turned off by the current vociferous minority who appear to hold the political reigns at the moment.
Complain about this comment
"This site is becoming a vehicle for nasty, nationalist rants"
Yet another person waving the argument away as a nationalistic rant, yet no arguments to the contrary!
Complain about this comment
Osian- it's impossible to argue against fanatical irrationality. I suggest you go down the pub for a nice relaxing drink and try talking to other people. You might find that human beings can be rather pleasant company whatever their ethnic group.
Complain about this comment
Still no argument! And I am perfectly aware of the pleasentness of human company, regardless of ethnicity. Many of my friends are English, I might not agree with them on everything but you don't need to.
I'm also imppressed with your vocabulary and that you chose to cal my 'rant' a 'fanatical irrationality' instead!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS