England, my England

Even before the outcome of the referendum had been announced, David Cameron was outside Downing Street casting doubts on pledges made on more powers for Scotland, confirming England was his priority, despite never mentioning this in the campaign, and stating his intention to introduce ‘English votes for English laws’, one of the most partisan and divisive measures which Labour could never support.

No one doubts the mess the Westminster Conservatives are in. But illustrating what a cheap patriot the Tory leader is, he then said that devolution for England would have to be introduced at the same time as proposals for Scotland. The previous day, Scots had shown themselves to be deep patriots as they raised democratic engagement to new levels, put the future of their nation first and confirmed the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

The contrast between this and Cameron’s low skulduggery has once again confirmed that for the Westminster Tories, winning the next election is far more important than the trifling matter of Scotland nearly leaving the Union and the wider UK constitutional crisis. Westminster Tories can’t be trusted. Labour has a great opportunity to deliver for Scotland and embark on the big political and constitutional reforms needed to create a new and modern UK.

Unquestionably, England’s place within the UK is the unresolved matter in the current debate, notwithstanding  that its people are expressing their views in various ways – the rise of populism, the success of UKIP, the decline of Britishness, the rise of Englishness, a growing sense of grievance about the Scottish devolution settlement, Westminster not adequately representing their interests and a deepening anti-European sentiment – there is no serious understanding of the issues at Westminster and no urgency about the likely impact this could have on the Union.

We have viewed the constitutional question through the narrow prism of Scotland’s devolution journey instead of accepting that the future governance of England and its role in the Union requires equal consideration. We may regret this miscalculation. 

National identity is a political danger to Scotland. England is without any consensus or minimal agreement and has no answers to the big questions and is fast becoming angry but with no idea about the future. Throughout Europe, we are seeing the rise of the far right, the conservative right and populism. Where there is a political vacuum, populism will rise to fill that space. With regard to the traditional UK parties, the public are disillusioned and disconnected and the English feel let down by conventional politics. UKIP and the conservative right are outlets for English frustration and self doubt.

So we have a politically troubled England with a growing distrust in political institutions and traditional parties. This disconnect is reinforced by the remarkable inertia, interest or understanding being shown by the Conservative and Labour parties. It is impossible to avoid concluding that we are witnessing the decline of the old parties and of the Union in an era where conventional politics and antiquated mindsets are not fit for new purposes.

England will remain a major threat to the Union, Scotland’s continuing role in it, and the UK’s membership of the EU. This is a nation ill at ease with its place in the world and anxious about its relationship with the EU, the UK and the current operation of devolution especially in Scotland. In the eyes of the English, Westminster is failing England and if nothing is done to arrest this profound sense of disappointment and disillusionment then the largest nation in the UK could create further tremors at Westminster.

Unquestionably, we have a very different England at the centre of the political and constitutional future of the Union. Clearly, its politics is changing and will change further if the rise of UKIP and far-right Conservative Party views gain hold in certain places. This reflects how political and constitutional changes at Westminster have never been included in a strategy for better governance for all of the Union. England has been neglected. So in the absence of any concern about England’s role in devolution, the English may be looking to party political change instead of a practical constitutional way forward.

This reasoning is behind Labour’s ideas about localism, metropolitan finances and city regions which might then encourage the English regions to seek more powers and responsibilities. Nobody is contemplating a Parliament for England but some form of federalism has to be on the agenda; perhaps it’s the only way to keep the Union together. The frustrations and grievances of the English have no positive outlet and, as such, could pose a threat to further devolution: unsurprisingly, this was already happening some hours after the count. Westminster has failed England in the mistaken notion that England and Westminster were interchangeable in the context of describing the UK.

Scots should be aware that England has moved from ambivalence on devolution to irritation, anger and now hostility. Up to now, it has not figured in the thinking of the major parties in constitutional terms but only in regard to pursuing a watered down version of the McKay Commission on the ‘English votes for English laws’ issue. English votes for most things may become common practice. The English story is only beginning. Labour doesn’t need the Conservatives but it does need to embrace a new radical constitutional and political future for the UK and Scotland. The politics of Scotland and England are diverging. New thinking is urgently required.