Sue Stirling: Now let us turn to the English question...

Public opinion towards the Union is changing most dramatically in England

Tuesday, 1 May 2007 

Today marks the tercentenary of the Act of Union between England and Scotland, and

rather than celebrate, it looks like a marriage heading for the divorce courts. This has

triggered an intense debate about the Union's survival prospects. Incredibly, though, such

debate has focused almost exclusively on developments north of the border. Little account

has been taken of what people living in England - who make up 85 per cent of the Union -

think.

You might say that there is no English SNP riding high in the polls, and that English

nationalism lacks the political dimension that exists in Scotland. Besides, the English are

relaxed about Scotland's propensity to reflect on whether she should stay or go.

There is truth in these claims, but they overlook a number of important points. Most

significantly, perhaps, is to recognise that public opinion towards the Union is changing

most dramatically in England. While Scottish support for the SNP may be up in the

election, support for independence has barely altered in 20 years. In England, however,

support for an English Parliament has shot up, and some polls even suggest there is now a

majority in favour of the English going it alone. Add to this the growing tendency for the

English to define themselves as "English, not British", up from 30 per cent in 1992 to 40

 per cent in 2005, and you begin to get a sense of a stirring restlessness within England.

These polls may exaggerate the true feeling of opinion, or misrepresent support for 

 particular policies, but they at least give a sense of the direction of travel. And there are a

number of reasons to believe that English indifference to the Scots - and the Union - will

continue to be transformed into frustration or even antipathy.

Firstly, there are the unaddressed devolution anomalies that are fuelling a sense of 

injustice among the English. Scottish MPs continue to vote on laws that apply only to

England. The English taxpayer - via the Barnett Formula - continues to subsidise

Scotland.

1

 

Secondly, the perception of such injustices will grow in prominence if a Scot becomes

 prime minister, and especially so if, as many polls predict, his majority in England falls

further. Under such conditions, Gordon Brown would increasingly rely on Scottish (and

Welsh) MPs to pass bills. Think also of the reaction in England if, under a hung

 parliament, Gordon Brown struck a deal with Ming Campbell. There would be cries of 

rule by the Scottish Raj.

Thirdly, an SNP-led coalition in Scotland is likely to create constitutional commotion,

 pressing for new powers and challenging Westminster's authority. Alex Salmond knows

full well that in picking fights with Westminster, over Trident and nuclear power stations,

for instance, he will fan the flames of English nationalism. Under such circumstances it

might end up being the English who determine the fate of the Union. Devolution will

rightly be regarded as one of the great triumphs of the Blair years, but unless the English

Question is addressed all this good work may come undone.

So what needs to happen? Perhaps the simplest solution is "English votes on English

laws", which would bar Scottish MPs from voting on English matters. Simple but

fundamentally unworkable, as William Gladstone discovered when wrestling with the

same idea over Irish Home Rule. It would create a constitutional crisis greater than the

West Lothian Question itself, since it raises the prospect of a UK government being

unable to govern England, its largest constituent part. For this reason it has been rejected

as a viable policy solution.

The problem with the West Lothian Question is that it is the wrong question. The real

question that needs addressing is how can we improve the way England is governed? An

English Parliament is not the answer but restarting the devolution process is. The real

English curse is not the presence of Scottish MPs in Westminster but the fact that England

is so overcentralised. Addressing this English question would see a much greater 

devolution to local people. If Brown is the pluralist he claims to be then he must prove it

here.

The Barnett formula needs to be replaced with a fairer funding system. This could be

linked to giving Scotland greater fiscal autonomy.

2

 

If there is a lesson from the past 10 years then it is the need to think about the Union as-a-

whole, rather than dealing with the nations in isolation. To deal with this Brown should

establish a UK-wide constitutional convention that looks at the needs of the constituent

 parts of the UK, and addressing the grievances in England, in particular. If not, the future

of the Union looks far from certain.

The writer is director of the Institute of Public Policy Research North  

3