FRANK FIELD ON THE ENGLISH QUESTION
Labour MP, Frank Field, made a very important speech yesterday at the University of Hertfordshire, the first time I recall a Labour MP speaking on the English Question. He argues that the current Act of Devolution cannot be a final settlement. As he says:
The Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander, registered as much when she recently called for an early referendum on independence. Yet her plea was couched as though it was an exclusively Scottish matter. For reasons I am about to detail any referendum needs to be UK wide. The English, Welsh and citizens of Northern Ireland have as much interest and as much a right to be consulted over the break up of the Kingdom, and on what terms, as do the Scots themselves.
Frank Field lists several advantages that the people of Scotland and Wales have gained since devolution:
I have constituents going blind through the macular degeneration of their eyes. The policy in England is that the Lucentis drug has yet to be formally licensed by NICE. Of those of my constituents in this position, one has a relative in Scotland suffering the same degeneration of his eyes as himself. His relative’s sight is being saved. For in Scotland, unlike in England, there are no restrictions on the use of this drug. My constituent, however, continues his downward path into blindness already so developed that, when I met him recently in Liverpool, he did not recognise me until I spoke.
The cost of personalised care in a person’s home or in residential accommodation is another growing bone of contention. Constituents of Scottish MPs do not face these charges although some of my correspondents from north of the border tell me the policy is not applied as universally as the English media reports. What is certain is that my constituents gain help on a means tested basis. They see their home for which they saved all their lives, and capital which they hoped to pass onto their children, being eaten away by the payment of fees their Scottish counterparts do not face. The Government has just published a consultation paper on how the English and Welsh should pay for the long term care. In stark contrast and without any consultation papers, the Scots receive free care.
There is a discussion to be had on whether housing capital is a form of savings which should be drawn down in weekly income to supplement a pension, or to meet nursing home bills. But that is a debate for another day. What is becoming centre stage is the birth of what can simply be called the politics or the question of England. That debate is beginning to focus around the objection English voters have to Scottish MPs voting on matters that do not apply to Scotland. The debate is also beginning to centre on the fiscal discrimination currently being experienced by the English, Northern Irish and Welsh people. 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.
My third example is one which will probably strike a more immediate note with many younger people. Students attending University in this country will have to pay top-up fees of £3000 per year to the University towards the cost of their degree, to say nothing of the additional living costs while you study. In Scotland, higher education is provided completely free of charge and consequently Scottish students do not leave college with a huge debt as they do in England. Instead once Scottish students graduate they pay an endowment equivalent to less than one years worth of fees in England.
It is not, however, solely Scottish citizens that are enjoying such financial advantages. My last example concerns a decision that was made by the Welsh Assembly earlier this year. As of the 1st April all Welsh citizens ceased paying prescription charges for their medication.
The danger is that Frank Field concentrates on the question of the Barnett Formula, which is the fiscal settlement that entrenches the fact that more tax money is given per head to Scotland (and to a lesser degree, Wales) than to England. The Barnett Formula is indeed a problem, and the left in Scotland and Wales needs to recognise the way that the Barnett Formula could become a focus of reactionary political forces.
Unfortunately, Frank Field is led to the potentially inflammatory conclusion: “It is noticeable that there has never been a hint that Scotland should pay for its advantages by asking Scottish voters to pay directly for them”
The big problem is that the Barnett Formula is difficult to understand and may be inherently inequitable. But it is a misconception that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly increase the amount of money they receive just by deciding to spend more.
Firstly the Barnett formula only relates to changes in expenditure, and the disproportionately high public expenditure allocations to Scotland and Wales are historical going back to the 1880s; but secondly the Barnett formula relates to total UK expenditure. Despite minor differences between the policies of the different nations within the UK, the bulk of government expenditure is common across all four (including the six Irish counties) and the relatively small deviations from the UK norms in the policies and expenditures from Edinburgh, Stormont and Cardiff means that changes there have relatively little impact on the overall UK budget, and therefore make little change on the overall British tax burden. Annual increases to Scotland’s public expenditure allocation is currently set to automatically reflect 10.23% of England’s increases. Thirdly, and most importantly, the adjustments in the Barnett formula allocations are driven by changes in spending in England not Scotland.
It is important to understand that the Barnett Formula was devised prior to devolution to crudely address stuctural and valid reasons why different parts of the UK would need different levels of expenditure, as in the 1998 House of Commons research paper, Stephen Twigger observes:
[There are] “valid reasons why it may be appropriate for per capita spending in Scotland and Wales to be higher than in England. For example, the more sparsely distributed populations make the provision of equivalent services more expensive. Larger agricultural sectors imply higher spending on agricultural support. Also, for much of the post-war period, much of Scotland and Wales have experienced declining traditional industries and relatively high levels of unemployment.
“…. per capita spending in Scotland would need to be some 16% higher than in England, spending in Wales 9% higher and spending in Northern Ireland 31% higher in order to provide comparable service levels. The actual per capita expenditure levels on these services in 1976/77 were; in Scotland some 22% higher than England, in Wales around 6% higher and in Northern Ireland some 35% higher.”
From these figues, it has been Wales and not England that has historically suffered from a public expenditure grant disproportionately below what it required.
What is actually happening since devolution is that the administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh are choosing to spend their existing income in a more humane and social democratic way. They are not transferring additional funding requirements onto England. As stated by Robert Twigger “Generally the Scottish and Wales will, as now, be expected to contain expenditure within the assigned budget by re-allocating priorities.”
In any event, concentrating on the Barnett Formula alone ignores the way that the British government implements economic policy that mainly benefits the South East of England, that has since Labour came to power cost 100000 manufacturing jobs in Scotland, and a proportionate loss of jobs in the English regions and Wales. What is more the argument that the English are subsidising the Scots runs the danger of generating a national tension of resentment by the English against our cousins in Scotland and Wales.
What Frank Field should do is celebrate the gains for working people made by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, and argue that these gains need to be extended to England, and to get that we need an English parliament.
The argument over the Barnett formula is further misguided because several English regions are also net beneficiaries of tax, so Scotland and Wales are not unique in that respect. Furthermore, according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses the North West, and North East regions of England, and London all get a higher proportion of UK spending than either Scotland or Wales.
This is why the Barnett Formula is such a Red Herring. No one is complaining that in Newcastle each person has £8,177 spent on them by government, while in Bristol there is just £6,677 spent per head; because as Frank Field explains:
“The different levels of funding do not result in different levels of services between the different regions of England. Yet my constituents suffering from degeneration of the eye are treated differently and less favourably from Ms Alexander’s [Scottish constituency]. Similarly students going to University from my constituency are treated differently and more unfavourably than students going to University from her constituency. Likewise frail elderly constituents going into residential care in my constituency, or having personal care delivered to them in their own homes, are treated differently and more unfavourably than constituents in her constituency.”
The problem is not the money, it is the democratic deficit: England doesn’t have a parliament, and the people of England cannot vote to have the same policies as Scotland and Wales, because Labour MPs, representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies, vote through legislation for us that does not effect their own constituents.
The so-called West Lothian Question is well summed up by Frank Field, describing “the first came from the first speech from the throne which Gordon Brown wrote for the monarch. The content of the home affairs section of this Queen’s Speech applied in its entirety to my constituents [in England]. The same was not true for the constituents of the Rt. Hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath [Gordon Brown]. I concede that that need not be of immediate concern to the life of the Government. Its majority is assured in the Commons. But we need to think beyond the life of this parliament. How will these issues play in a General Election? I would hazard a guess that the debate in the country is likely to begin a new turn and will become less friendly to Labour in England.”
Labour has always been a Unionist party, though Tony Blair’s government did make radical changes to the constitution, bringing in devolution. But as Frank Field points out
The Blair Governments stubbornly refused to face the English Question somehow believing that, if it recited enough times the word ‘British’, the English would become confused enough to let current matters rest. But polls suggest otherwise. During the last Scottish Parliamentary elections, for example, those polls that addressed the devolution question to the English found that there was a higher proportion of voters in England in favour of greater independence for England than there were Scottish voters wanting that independence for their country.
The paradox is that the current strategy of the Labour Party could gift David Cameron’s conservatives the perfect policy to bury Labour for a generation, after all the Tories only hold four parliamentary seats outside England, and may become self-conscious that they could be the English national Party, in all but name.
Yet a Scottish Prime Minister would be the one best placed to avoid that danger, if only Labour would recover the boldness that saw them introduce devolution to Scotland and Wales, and address the English Question with the same open-mindedness.
Cue the usual comments… (Actually, please don’t)
Comment by Charlie Marks — 4 June, 2008 @ 2:40 am
Andy,
It is no surprise that a right-wing shitbag like field concentrates on the Barnet formula- he’s actually arguing for cuts in public sector spending in scotland and wales consistent with the rest of his politics.
Of course in any campaign you find you find maverick right-wingers or even whole parties that support you, the usual way to deal with it is to marginalise them by demostrating that their politics are inconsistent with socialism. Not so easy on this question since english nationalism is fundamentally not socialist and usually only of any interest to the extreme right.
Comment by martin ohr — 4 June, 2008 @ 7:42 am
Isnt it the spending outside of the barnett formula,(benefits pensions etc) that amount to the additional per capita spending (if you take england and scotland as units of measurement)?
The barnett formula itself is beased specifically on population and therefore all additional monies paid as a barnett calculation should have exactly the same per head result.
My understanding of the barnett formula is that all extra funding for things that are devolved (or previously separate through the scottish office or scottish local govt)have to have a population based split of the allocation to Scotland.
It is not what determines the overall budget for the Scottish parliament or Scottish Office, but instead is a mechanism for allocating a proportion of additional spenfind to Scotland. e.g If the UK announces a 100m extra funding for schools, the Scottish parliament gets its per head population share of that money (approx 10m). Cant remember the exact calculation but it is a FACT that it is no more than the per head proportion based on population.
In one way this mean that barnett can be seen as part of the reason that we get more per head as the additional spending we get through non-devolved funding is not corrected in barnett funding.
But the formula itself is based on population so is supposed to give the same per head spending for each of the Uk nations.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 4 June, 2008 @ 8:57 am
No Jim,
And the Scottish left have been very deficeint in not getting to grips with the barnett formula, becasue it is a very dangerous weapon in the hands of English chauvinists. Yet it seems almosts everyone in Scotland defends Barnett.
The calculation is based upon different population levels, but it is also specifically designed NOT to give the same per capita per head allocation for each of the Uk nations. What is more, the Hose of Commons paper Ii quote says that Barnett accounts for 96% of all governmemt expenditure.
It is specifically designed to give more money to Scotland, following the earler Goschen formula.
The governmemt’s own assessment of fiscal need shows that Wales has greater need than Scotland in terms of dispaersed rural populatin, longer roads, poverty, etc. Yet Scotland gets a much higher allocation than Wales.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:25 am
#2
Interetsing take you have on this Martin.
So you think it is correct that Scotland and Wales should have parliaments, but England shouldn’t?
You think it is correct that policy affecting only England should be voted through by Labour MPs with Scottish and Welsh seats, and policy affecting only England and Wales should be voted through by Labour MPs with Scottish seats??
You think that the more left wing policies in Scotland and Wales shouldn’t be extended to England?
All these things are only of concern to “the extreme right” ???
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:37 am
Jim
figures for the financial year 2006/2007 (source: HM Treasury, Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA)), if a UK-wide per-capita average was a notional 100% then identifiable per-capita expenditure on services in England would be 97% and the Scottish amount 117%. Wales would be 111% and Northern Ireland 127%. This comprises all expenditure that can be identified as being to the benefit of a particular country. It does not, however, take account of ‘non-identifiable expenditure’, such as defence and debt interest, which are deemed to be for the benefit of the entire UK, regardless as to where the monies are actually spent.
In actual monetary figures, this will work out as (per person):[1]
England £7,121
Scotland £8,623
Wales £8,139
Northern Ireland £9,385
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:41 am
andy, I didnt defend the formula, just clarified what it is.
it is designed to give exactly a proportionate share. (of additional spending).
When the Scottish Office negotiates their block grant, like every other govt department, barnett is not involved. Only additional spending or spending cuts to existing plans are subject to barnett.
In effect though, this means that it currently guarantess a higher % per head as that is the starting point. But if the block settlement was less than the per head proportion then Barnett would also uphold the deficit.
Barnett spending is entirely population based. It is reviewed to take in new population figures and adjustments are made to include Scotlands falling population.
The current formula is 10.34% (scotlands population share) of 95% of any additional allocation.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Andy #6 The way you phrase them above as simply democratic issues doesn’t paint the full picture of your nationalism though, in any case the resolution is not to make the situation worse by dividing the country into smaller and smaller units, but to argue for working class unity and a lessening of borders, that’s not to say that there should not be local and regional democracy with suitable budget and decision making. Your nationalism is wound up with some crazy idea of an english identity of the sort that is normally the preserve of the far-right
It is also fantasy to assume that an ‘english’ parliament would be better for the working class than the current setup, the large majority of southern tories and lib-dems would ensure -more more so than already- that voters in the north of england will never again get the labour govt that we have voted for at every general election for the last 100 years, to take one simple example.
What is required is a focus on class rather than nation, to take an ally in Frank Field who is one of the worst labour mps in history and whose only interest in scotland is to see that it suffers the same cuts as he would like to see in england, is to substitute any interest in building concretely for socialism for an abstract aspiration for national budgetary justice.
Comment by martin ohr — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:50 am
“In actual monetary figures, this will work out as (per person):[1]
England £7,121
Scotland £8,623
Wales £8,139
Northern Ireland £9,385″
Yes, I dont dispute the figures.
But any allocations through barnett calculations will be based on an equal per head spend.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:50 am
Jim, the point is that Barnett only looks at changes in expenditure.
Changes in English expenditure cause an consequent change (up or down) in Scottish and Welsh allocations
Changes in British expenditure cause an consequent change (up or down) in Northern Ireland allocation
So the overall higher budget in Scotland doesn’t actually derive from barnett anyway, but the inhereted higher spending rates from the Groshen formula, which were even less scientific than Barnett, and were based on a proportionally higher Scottish population. (For some reason the Scotiish population trend is downward, whereas the Welsh and English populations grow)
But surely we shhould all look for an equitable solution to this that doesn’t provide fuel to resentment between the Scots and English?
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 10:04 am
“Jim, the point is that Barnett only looks at changes in expenditure.”
That was my point Andy, not yours. Your point was that barnett was responsible for the higher public spend per head in Scoland.
I merely pointed out that all barnett calculations were actually the opposite as they are based specifically on a per head adjustment.
The things that Field talks about should only cuase resentment if they are looked at from the perspective that Field takes, that we are getting more than you.
The personal care, prescriptions and students are no taking extra monet from the UK that England doesnt get, but merely deciding on different spending priorities within the existing funding allocations.
This means that for every again, we will lose out somewhere else.
Field would be happy to see scottish public spending cut to make sure that we didnt get something his constituents disdnt get.
“So the overall higher budget in Scotland doesn’t actually derive from barnett anyway,”
Yes, I know, thats what I was saying.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 4 June, 2008 @ 10:20 am
As a socialist in Wales I believe that the Barnett Forumula needs to be scrapped and replaced with a new deal that recognises Wales social deprivation. For example, wages on average are lower in Wales than in England.
Comment by Adamski — 4 June, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Ok Jim,
Two great nations divided by a common language.
In English politics, the Barnett formula is taken broadly to mean not only the formula that allocates changes to allocation, but also the base line that starts off by giving Scotland a disproportionately high fiscal allocation.
In Scottish politics the Barnett formula is taken narrowly to mean only the formula that allocates changes to allocation, but not including the base line that starts off by giving Scotland a disproportionately high fiscal allocation.
Indeed you could argue using the narrow definition that the Barnett formula is gradually over time leading to fiscal convergance, and is therfore part of the solution not part of the problem.
But in real world politics in Englandd Barnett is taken to mean the overall financial settlememt.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 10:40 am
Lefties may hate Frank Field, but you’ve got to admit he knows exactly where to aim to get Gordon Brown directly in the bollocks. To pick this issue as his next campaign after the 10p tax rebellion shows a seriously skilled politician, even if he is barking mad.
Remember, one supposedly central feature of Brown’s new broom (or the age of change or whatever) was that he was going to be a constitutional reformer. And, although it has a lower media profile, we shouldn’t forget that on this issue he flopped as completely & utterly as on any of the others.
Everything in his constitutional package was empty spin & smokescreen to distract from the West Lothian question. Labour’s 10 year-old strategy to remain in power in England, despite the strong likelihood of losing in England at some future election, by topping up with MPs from Scotland & Wales, is now in tatters - partly because they seriously risk losing so heavily in England that even with Scottish & Welsh MPs it won’t be enough, and partly because quite a few of the fortresses in Scotland are going to fall to the SNP.
Scotland’s exit from the union seems to me quite a likely scenario if Cameron wins in England, Salmond wins in Scotland, but the Tories simply form a Tory UK administration. Then Labour is very much in the shit in England, because they will be out of power and have lost the chance to put through electoral reform, which would at least give the 60% of English who don’t vote Tory a fighting chance of some kind of non-Tory government.
But Labour are crap on electoral reform as well - Jack Straw’s cunning plan was to reform to a voting system delivering even more disproportionate parliamentary representation than First past the Post (with AV). But Brown didn’t bring this one in and so it’s off the agenda now until after the election (correct me if I’m wrong).
So I don’t weep for the Labour Party. Until the party conference at least debates a motion calling for Blair to be arrested & tried in The Hague (never mind passes it), I say they can all go to hell.
Comment by Strategist — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:11 am
Teryy: “Jim you are getting more (23%) than England and Barnett is partially responsible for that because it relies upon inaccurate population figures.”
No it is based on accurate population figures and is adjusted reularly to accomodate changes in population, as well as including a calculation for falling population share in the meantime by Scotland getting it’s per head share on 95% of h total adjustments to spending (that is cuts and additional speding alike).
BTW Terry, London gets far more subsidy than Wales or Scotland.
Terry: “This is why Scotland can afford the cancer drugs; free university education; better pay for nurses, teachers and police;free elderly health care and others.”
No, the drugs are a budget consideration and we see less spending in other areas of health as a result. We DONT have better pay for nurses teachers or police, you may be mistaking the pay CUT (2.5% rise) being introduced without delay in Scoland for better pay, but overall those professions would have a worse pay on average than the English average. We DONT have free eldely health care, certainly not in the way Frank Field describes it. The personal care is free to all (up to a limit of #150) that is not the full cost of caring for people and not, as field suggests, an exemption from house values beeing taken into account for mean resting for overal care of the elderly.
“Scotland getting more than its fair share is one thing, Scotland being able to decide where this money is spent is another inequity that needs addressing. The fact you have a Parliament means the people deciding where these priorities lie are responsible to the people who voted for them. This is not the case in England and this is what Field is on about.”
It depends what you mean by ‘fair’. If Scotlands high level of spending on benefits, disability etc should be cut because english people are healthier on average, then is that fair? It is the case that English MPS decide English spending. There are no MPs in England bringing forward bills to abolish student fees, charges for personal care or prescription charges, Field certainly hasnt.
I agree with the point of a democractic deficit though, it does make sense for each partner in the UK to have the same democratic set up and repsonsibilities. But it isnt urgent or quite the deficit that people make out as most polcy is decide by a majority of MPs representing English constituencies.
Andy: “But in real world politics in Englandd Barnett is taken to mean the overall financial settlememt.”
I agree, Andy. I dont think Batnett is a good way of alocating resources and I dont think those who argue against it know what it is even.
Where I would disagree with you is that you think this is a new issue for the Scottish left and one that we should be careful of. I believe it is an argument and debate we have been having constantly since the inception of Barnett and it is only recently that the English left have started to address it.
Most on the UK left would argue against Barnett and for funds to be allocated according to need, but most would also argue for democratic accountability for the funding and spending.
Andy: “Wales has greater need than Scotland in terms of dispaersed rural populatin, longer roads, poverty, etc. Yet Scotland gets a much higher allocation than Wales.”
Are you sure about that Andy? I find it hard to imagine that Wales popuklation could be more dispersed than Scotland’s. Scotland makes up a third of the UK landmass, 50% of it;s coastline and 90% of our Islands. We dont have many motorways and I would be surprised if Wales per head allocation re transport is less than Scotland’s. We have to send kids to schools on boats and planes in some cases.
This is where the danger lies, the ‘we get less/more than them’ argument.
Those of us who argue for the end of the UK have no problem with Scotland spending its own taxes and subsidising its own poverty, rural transport etc.
But, as it stands right now we should allocate on the basis of need, not population, across the UK.
The complication comes in the alreday independent sectors, such as education. If funding is allocated on a UK basis then we could see another democratic deficit, one where the parliament responsible for making decisions could have their decisions overruled by Westminster if they dont want to fund it. Also, as we will now less likely to have the same party in power in both parliaments then it could be chaotic.
Comment by Jim Monaghan — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:29 am
The Barnet formula is just ONE small part of the bigger problem,which is that England and the people in England are being treated as second class British citizens.
How the Scots spend their money in Scotland is up to them.
But they have a system where Scottish MPs make policy that ensures the Scottish people have a better lifestyle.
Government of the Scots by the Scots for the Scots.
In England we are governed by politicians with a British mentality not an English one…so we are not benefitting from devolution.
There are NO English MPs as they ALL are members of unionist parties with unionist agendas….this is proven in their refusal to benefit the English in any shape or form.
No parliament for the English…no anthem for the English…etc
In both the Scottish and Welsh parliaments the nationalists are gaining power because they dont have a unionist viewpoint
So who represents the English nationalist interests….no one!
Comment by Andy Cooper — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:36 am
“The big problem is that the Barnett Formula is difficult to understand ——-”
Utter rubbish. Its very simple to understand just as Joel Barnett has always said and admitted. He has openly said he made it up in 1976 ” more or less on the back of an envelope” and it has never changed. Scotland for no other reason than vociferous Scottish political pressure gets approx 128% of what England gets per head per annum . Wales a bit less though still more than England . Thats it. Nowt complicated about it . No effort to justify this with a research base and no effort at all to identify England’s needs.
Just totally discriminatory and unjust and a discrimination, by the way, which is naked national discrimination of exactly the sort the left professes to condemn.
Comment by John — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:56 am
…since english nationalism is fundamentally not socialist and usually only of any interest to the extreme right.
- England having its own democracy isn’t about the extreme right-wing, whom I always thought called themselves ‘British’ anyway.
Nationalism can be good or bad, it depends how it is used. It is a false dichotomy to range socialism against nationalism.
Other countries can be independent and have socialist governments - what’s so special about England and its People that it can’t do the same?
Countries like Venzuela, Cuba, Bolivia can have their nationalism and their socialism - but, apparantly, one of the most industrially advanced nations on earth can’t have independence and democracy because its people are considered a bunch of backward savages, who can’t be trusted with their own government!
I don’t know wether this is old style British-imperialist paternalism or just so-called experts telling the masses what’s good for them.
all the best SU!
ps
Long live England and the English People!
(altho they’ve got a lot to answer for - as the rest of us are going to have to suffer English commentators in next week’s Euro Finals going on about 1966 and the English Premier league, chunter, chunter !)
Comment by joe90 — 4 June, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Jim #19
Well it is based upon the treasury’s figues not mine, I think it is based upon the fact that median income is significantly lower in Wales than in Scotland or England, and the proportion of the population living in rural or deprived areas is greater.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
“Venzuela, Cuba, Bolivia can have their nationalism and their socialism” which of these is socialist?
Again my points are the same as made previously which the english nationalists refuse to address
1) Frank Field does not give a crap about greater democracy, he motive is to push cuts on scotland, in no sense is he an ally of socialism
2) We should be aiming for the maximum working class unity across britain, not attempting to split the class on irrelevant national boundaries, the issues facing workers in glasgow and cardiff are the same as those in leeds and london. Fighting for a re-orientation to class politics is much more important than addressing the ‘democratic deficit’ in the house of commons
3) Accepting that there should be greater local and regional democracy suggests a different model for government anyway, the regional issues for lothian are much different to those in the highlands (and west yorkshire vs cornwall etc etc), a split of budgets based on need and decision making close enough to the population to make politicians accountable is what is required.
Comment by martin ohr — 4 June, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
Martin.
What Frank Field actually says is:
” I am anxious to seek ways in which all public expenditure announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be defended on need, and not simply by historic accident. People on lower income levels in Scotland and Wales should continue to be supported but not to a greater extent than people living on the same level of income in my constituency”
i) Field is too much of an experienced politician to be trying to push cuts onto the Scottish people when they have an SNP government that is making electoral progress on the basis of its higher social spending.
ii) I fail to see how someone getting free NHS Prescriptions in Caldicot, but someone three miles away in Severn Beach having to pay for them is an irrelevant national boundary.
iii) This point is so far removed from today’s political climate as to be utterely abstract.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
So Martin,
English People can’t have their own democracry because of the perceived crimes a few extermists.
This sounds more like right-wing collective punishment to me, than democracy or socialism.
And wouldn’t you say your objections to English People running their own country is arrogant and snobbish - indeed, it sounds like right-wing British paternalism if I’m not mistaken?
Or some self-proclaimed expert who thinks he knows better than ordinary people what’s best for them.
Well, the countries I’ve mentioned personify Global South-Third World independent nationalism with socialist policies that try to look after the needs of their own people, as voted by them, rather than the needs of global capitalism which is fate of most peoples and nations in the Global South.
If they aren’t socialist, or trying to be despite the best efforts of US imperialsim to crush them, then what are they?
Comment by joe90 — 4 June, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Joe90 - in another thread, I might have given the impression that I was opposed to the Scots having independence if they wanted it - I’m not. I just questioned as others did whether the working class would be better off.
You are right about nationalism being ‘good or bad’ - however, it does have to be put in context. The sovereignty question for Cuba is progressive because it’s in the context of US invasion; developments in Latin America in relation to Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela suggest this is now a vital question.
In relation to England, it’s a different matter. England is the dominat nation within the British state and any nationalism - be it British or English will be reactionary - who after all is Britain defending itself from?
The problem with Martin Ohr’s approach - maximum unity of the working class across Britain is that it suggest how the working class can be strengthened, not taking into account the weakening of the bourgeoisie. Is the working class in Scotland stronger as a result of devolution? I think they are, remembering that devolution didn’t force working class organisations to cease organising in Scotland (perhaps soem might argue they should?)
It is also a mistake to think that working class politics (that is working class interests)can be advanced without taking a view on the national question. In Scotland, for example, if no consideration was given to the national question, the SNP were bound to grow, especially while Labour was unpopular. In the present context of SNP government, the working class can judge what the nationalists offer, apart from independence. It’s not simply local democracy.
Comment by Howard T — 4 June, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
I am interested in the observation from Martin Ohr when he says “English nationalism is usually the preserve of the Extreme right”
But the largest extreme right party in Britain, the BNP, is thoroughly Unionist, and it is the Union Flag that is popularly associated with racism, not the Cross of St George.
And surely if English people adopted Jerusalem as our national anthem, with its message of strugging against inequality (and presciently against environmental destruction) that would be much better than God save the Queen???
So in opposing these changes Martin is indeed adopting the caracacture of the Brit-left. Because change is coming from a direction that doesn’t fit into a mind set that stopped thinkin in 1917, it must be opposed, and martin would rather side with the Alf garnett’s of British Unionism, than the progressive agenda of breaking up the UK.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
Andy I don’t agree with Martin Ohr’s approach, but English nationalsim isn’t what the break up of UK is about. English nationalism is about keeping the most privileged part of UK - relative to Scotland, Wales and Six Counties on top by suggesting that they are hard done by.
The referendums in Scotland and Wales (just) were won because people were aggrived by rule from London. The referendums for regional parliaments (North East for example) were lost in England because people didn’t see it would help, certainly not in terms of local democracy or material well being.
True, the BNP are British facists and unionists through and through, but have no problems with the English flag.
Getting into anthems is pointless. In the Commonwealth Games when England competes separately, they don’t play Jerusalem, but Land of Hope and Glory. The break up is progressive, but not English nationalism.
Comment by Howard T — 4 June, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
Land of hope and Glory is a specifically britsh song, and if there was a vote on it I am sure would not be chosen by the Englisg people, as opposed to the idiots of the Commonwealth games committeee.
For example:
Thine Empire shall be strong.
Land of Hope and Glory,
Mother of the Free,
How shall we extol thee,
Who are born of thee?
Wider still and wider
Shall thy bounds be set;
But your pitching the terms of the debate on whether English nationalism is progressive or not is the wrong question.
As Tommy Sheridan once put it, he is not a Scottish nationalist, he is a scottish socialist who wants to have an independent republic.
there simply is an English national identity parallel to but distinct from a british national identity, and as the UK breaks up the debate will be about what sort of England we want.
The regional assembly referendum was different in character from the Welsh and Scottish devolution referenda becasue there was no national popular mood. It is woorth reading tom airn in after Britain on the psychological importance of the Scottish convention (was that what it was called?) in restoring the idea of soveriegnty lying with the Scottish people, prior to the referrendum.
The debate was not about bring government more local to the people like in the NE of England, it was about having a Scottish parliement for the Scottish people.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
#32 I would be interested in any figures that show that the English as a whole are worse off than the Scots with welfare (prior to devolution). Even an English region.
Even without that the Scots are a definable nation, as are the Welsh. They have the right, in my book to vote for independence, even though I don’t think that’s the best option. How can the English do the same.
Andy - people don’t vote on national anthems! They’re chosen by the great and the good. But while on the subject, does anyone know of a country other than Czarist Russia where the anthem is aoration for the monarch (God Save the Queen)rather than love of the country (everywhere else?)?
Comment by Howard T — 4 June, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
Thanks for that Howard T - much appreciated mate!
..be it British or English will be reactionary - who after all is Britain defending itself from?
- Given the way that world is governed every country needs to have their own government. It’s just the way it is. Sorry if this sounds too facile.
In the present context of SNP government, the working class can judge what the nationalists offer, apart from independence.
- You can be socialist and nationalist at the same time. The one doesn’t preclude the other. And the one can be used to advance the other
ie socialism used against imperialism - nationalism used against imperialism to promote socialism etc
The referendums in Scotland and Wales (just) were won because people were aggrived by rule from London.
- I can’t really agree with this Howard mate.
This makes it sound as if people were voting negatively and against something, rather than positively and for something.
I can assure you there has always been a strong sense of Scottish identity as something good in itself and something which adds to the sum of the rest of humanity.
As Hugh MacDiarmid once put it (and I paraphrase in standard English) -
“If there is anything in Scotland worth having, there is no distance to which it is unattached”.
As for national anthems, the current unofficial Scottish one (’O Flower of Scotland’) is a dirge. It’s like an episode of Eastenders rendered into music -
- but imagine having William Blake as the author of the lyrics of your national anthem! Unbelievable -
And did those feet in ancient time.
all the best Howard!
ps
Andy
Scottish Constitutional Convention
wikipedia
Comment by joe90 — 4 June, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
[There are] “valid reasons why it may be appropriate for per capita spending in Scotland and Wales to be higher than in England.
There may well be. But that doesn’t excuse the Barnett Formula that does not address those reasons. It’s simply a bribe.
Comment by Toque — 4 June, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
“You can be socialist and nationalist at the same time”
Indeed you can. But history doesn’t generally bear out this as a good idea.
Last I looked, socialists were internationalists. No?
Comment by Rusu — 4 June, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
JOe90 #34: “As for national anthems, the current unofficial Scottish one (’O Flower of Scotland’) is a dirge. It’s like an episode of Eastenders rendered into music”p>
But the Welshnational anthem is brilliant: Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpYogExUngU
Always makes me think of Ivor the Engine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Y8Ecm20Gw&feature=related
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Look it really isn’t that difficult.
You live in France and you’re a socialist, you’re part of the French left.
You live in Germany and you’re a socialist, you’re part of the German left.
You live in Italy and you’re a socialist, you’re part of the Italian left.
You live in Scotland and you’re a socialist, you’re part of the Scottish left.
So what on earth is the problem… You live in England, you’re part of the English left.
None of the preceding four examples have much of a problem mixing their socialist politics with internationalist principles. The difficulty we have is that a significant chunk of the English left, unlike most of the Scots, Welsh and Irish left, are wedded to the Union as their model for an alleged working class unity on this islamd and a bit.
As for the ahistorical argument that England is a conservative nation, check your hitory. Labour’s 1945, 1964 and 1997 landslides were all founded on English votes. Until 1955 the Tories had a majority of Scottish seats.
And English national identity is a fiction? What planet exactlly have you been doing your politics on for the past decade? Like it or not there is a break-up of Britain fast approaching, if the Left in England chooses not to be part of that process one thing is certain, it will be deservedly entirely marginal to the outcome.
All of this is covered rather well in the book I have edited ‘ Imagined Nation : England after Britain ‘ available from www.philosophyfootball.com
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 4 June, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
The Barnett formula is indeed complicated:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/2/2/pbr_csr07_funding591.pdf
But it’s also acting to diminish the alleged “spending gap”, and this is something that hasn’t been recognised here.
At the end of the day the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, and Northern Ireland Assembly get a block grant to carry out their devolved functions (these are of course different in each case - non-devolved operations are centrally funded). Those bodies then allocate the funds depending on the policies of the party or parties that won through on election day.
So, if you complain that people in Scotland or Wales get “more support” than English people on a similar income, then what’s the solution? You either accept it, or you want to see the block allocation cut. Which?
And an “English Parliament” may or may not be a worthwhile pursuit, but the fact is that over the last thirty years it’s English votes that have given us Thatcherism, and it was the need to court English votes that drove Labour into Blairism. The notion that any (current) “English Parliament” would legislate for, I don’t know, an end to foundation hospitals say, seems to be based on a fantasy that the Tories would turn their opportunistic opposition to Labour policies into something concrete - and that isn’t going to happen.
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Two delightfully simple solutions.
Scotland has a referendum, votes for independence. End of Barnett or any other formula. Wales would surely follow suit with at least a Parliament with some tax-raising powers.
England becomes ‘independent’, is Britain no longer exists. Either you agree with the break up of the Union or not as a democratic principle. Suggestions of Tory domination of England are entirely irrelevant. The Union is either a constitutional mess of contradictions that ill-serves all partners or it ain’t, its the principle that matters here for anyone with a smidgin of respect for democracy. The fact the Tories might dominate an English Parliament is mostly down to them taking the subject at least half-seriouslky while Labour benefits from the constitutional contradictions and the Far Left ignores them. Historically Engtland has had at least three Labour majorities, in ‘45, ‘64 and ‘97. It is the height of leftist miserabilism to think we cannot construct one again in the future. But we certainly won’t while Labour and the Far Left remain united in denying the importance of the impending break-up.
Read ‘Imagined Nation : England after Britain’, (available from www.philosophyfootball.com) for an excellent account of the politics of this process.
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
Mark P,
But france and germany are just as much artificial constructs as britain. Personally I’m not wedded to the union, just take it as principle that socialists work for the removal of national divisions rather than creating them, thats not to say that genuine national liberation stuggles should not be supported as part of a step towards greater class unity where necessary. The idea that england -or scotland/wales are in need of national liberation is clearly way off. If scottish people decide that independence is the way to go, of course I’d support their right to it, but I’d be working pretty hard to argue my case that they are wrong.
You seem to be hedging your bets as to whether you actively work for the break-up of britain or just see it as coming anyway. If I was being unkind i’d say that this was the result of your 20 years in hiding away from class politics and spending too much time standing shoulder to shoulder with real english nationalists at wembley. I’m not that mean, but I can’t help feeling that international football has something to answer for in all this, although it’s probably best not to say who I’ll be supporting on sunday.
Comment by martin ohr — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Suggestions of Tory domination of England are entirely irrelevant.
It’s not “entirely irrelevant” when the suggestion is being made that everyone in the UK should suffer because, for the last thirty years, England has voted for right wing solutions. Unless you’re suggesting that the 97 Labour government was a socialist one?
And yes, we could just break up the union, but it’s the EU that dominates the economic climate, and no-one who is likely to have power in the near future is advocating leaving the EU.
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Oy Martin, Not everyone who watches football turns into a little England idiot.
Some of us prefer the EU freedom of movement to apply than FIFA/MarkPs pettiness.
Comment by Sepp Bladder — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
I meant to add…
And in terms of the “principle” involved in the break up of the Union, I for one couldn’t care less. What motivates me are the material effects of such a change. And as far as I can see, the Scottish and Welsh Labour movements will be weakened internationally by being disassociated from their English counterparts, and the English Labour movement (which is already relatively weaker) will be even less influential. And the interests of capital will sail serenely on…
It may be that the union will break up, but there won’t be any “principle” involved: from a Scottish perspective, there’s a feeling that anything would be better than another Tory government. Whether that turns out to be the case, who knows?
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Graham
There is no question of the “labour movement being broken up”, because the trade unions will continue to operate across Britain. In the political sense the labour movement already is broken up, as the Welsh and scottish labour parties already operate in a very different context from the labour party in England, just through devolution.
It is hard to see how the left in Scotland or wales will be weaker, as independence for Scotland, and greater powers for the Welsh assembly (and independence if they want to go that way) would provide much more left wing political environements than the current British one.
As for England, I am confident that losing the legacy of Empire and a fresh start away from Britishness could give us a really healhy debate about what sort of England we want to live in, especially as I am confident that our friends and comrades in Wales and Scotland would continue to provide a good example.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 June, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
Rusu said -
“You can be socialist and nationalist at the same time”
Indeed you can. But history doesn’t generally bear out this as a good idea.
Last I looked, socialists were internationalists. No?
- But nationalist first, unless they have some magic trick they haven’t told us about that’s going to cut across the grain of the way the world is organised and run at the present time.
Cuba, the Nicaraguan Sandanistas, Venezuala, Bolivia, Vietnam, China, Russian Empire (?).
Indeed, it seems that you can’t have international socialism without nationalism first seems to be the evidence.
Indeed, I would say that most of the people who envisage some kind of instantly-happening version of international socialism, here on the Socialist Unity blog, portray it is as being afflicted, in some way, with rabies.
It is struck with hydrophobia the instant it meets with the water that surrounds Britian. A revolution that is scared to get its feet wet sounds pretty wierd to me.
And anyway, these old-style ideas about international revolution date from the early part of the twentieth century with Rosa Luxembourg and Lev Davidovitch Trotsky.
I know Lev Davidovitch ideas about this were firmly rooted in the exigencies of his time. The Russian Revolution, if it was to be sustained and prosper, had to expand west otherwise the old-state Tsarist beaurocracy and police state would surely make a come-back and strangle the Revoultion.
Wether the Revolution expanding west would’ve helped the Revolution, we don’t know. What we do know is theat the great Lev Davidovicth was entirely correct about the recrudescence of the Tsarist state - it’s called Stalinism, as you no doubt know.
I hasten to add I’m not expert on the subject.
The idea that england -or scotland/wales are in need of national liberation is clearly way off.
- Who gets to decide if people are oppressed enough that they merit their own government and democracy in order to run their own affairs in the way want?
If people aren’t oppressed then why do they need socialism or even democracy?
Comment by joe90 — 4 June, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
Andy
There is no question of the “labour movement being broken up”, because the trade unions will continue to operate across Britain.
Well, if you see the role of Trades Unions as fundamentally “industrial” (by which I mean, they’re there to negotiate their members pay and conditions), then that will probably be true. But they’ll lose a great deal politically IMHO - admittedly, the Unions are hardly acting “politically” at the moment, but the potential is always there, and that potential will be diminished if there’s a break-up.
Joe90, there is so much wrong with your statements re. “Lev Davidovitch” that I really don’t have the time… Try reading something that wasn’t written by him or his acolytes sometime. He was a very able man, but if his ideas had been followed then the Russian Revolution would never have happened in the first place…
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
Missed this bit, Joe90:
The idea that england -or scotland/wales are in need of national liberation is clearly way off.
- Who gets to decide if people are oppressed enough that they merit their own government and democracy in order to run their own affairs in the way want?
If people aren’t oppressed then why do they need socialism or even democracy?
The answer to your first question is that it would be the people themselves, though socialists should be aware that such a choice may be determined by false consciousness - i.e. the people have the right to decide, even if it’s not in their best interests.
The answer to your second is that saying that the idea that Scotland, Wales or England are in no need of “national liberation” is not the same as saying that English, Scottish and Welsh workers aren’t in need of liberation from capitalism. If you want to argue for Scottish independence then don’t base it on the fact that Scottish workers are oppressed - because so is everyone else. Base your argument on some inherent positive quality - if you can find one…
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
Through the wonders of LIberal Conspiracy I found this blog - very nice too.
Anyone worried about Barnett ought to have a read of Fred Harrison’s “Ricardo’s Law: House Prices and the Great Tax Clawback Scam” which shows how it doesn’t really matter in terms of wealth generation because of relative land wealth sucked into London leaving those “on the margin” falling continually behind no matter what is sent out allegedly from London and the South East’s wealth to try and balance things out!
I agree about the democratic deficit, but would rather have an Oxfordshire parliament than an England one personally - if Vermont can have the relative autonomy of a state with a similar population why do we need to have an education minister from Hull deciding on policy for Oxfordshire, say?
Comment by Jock — 4 June, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
So Graham, socialists because they say so, don’t have ‘false consciousness’ and anybody who isn’t a socialist by your criteria, does.
I was talking about Trotsky after the revolution, not before Graham.
If you want to argue for Scottish independence then don’t base it on the fact that Scottish workers are oppressed…
- I haven’t argued that at all.
My argument was something like how do you decide when people are or aren’t oppressed, and who gets to decide if they should be allowed to run their own affairs in the way they want?
Liberating the workers of the world from capital isn’t going to be much affected, either way, if Scots achieve sovereignty I expect. Except to strengthen Scottish industrial democracy hopefully. After Scottish sovereignty is achieved it will be interesting to see what happens without the suffocating British state on the back of our community.
As I said, how come the Great British Revolution stops at the water that surrounds Britian - is it scared to get its feet wet, has it got rabies or something?
if you can find one…
- Easy.
We won’t have to put up with British Nationalist Imperialists posing as international socialists.
Comment by joe90 — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
In response to Graham Day’s post.
The only time since devolution that Welsh Labour has been able to win a majority was when it ditched New Labour and advocated ‘Clear Red Water’ between Welsh Labour and Labour in England.
So i think the working-class movement (such as it is) can only be stronger in Wales through disassociation from the right-wingers that run the Labour project in England.
The unions in Wales are already ‘independent’ anyway? What would be the difference? In fact the unions in Wales (who aren’t particularly radical or left) have access to the government in a way they do not in London.
Finally, on Scottish independence, Graham Day wrote “It may be that the union will break up, but there won’t be any “principle” involved: from a Scottish perspective, there’s a feeling that anything would be better than another Tory government. Whether that turns out to be the case, who knows?”
Are you even following Scottish politics? There isn’t a feeling that ‘anything would be better than another Tory government’. But there is a feeling that the SNP government are the first government Scotland has ever has- and people like them, alot.
Comment by Luke Nicholas — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
Joe90, eh? Am I being too grown up?
First off, I didn’t say that “socialists” don’t have “false consciousness”. I said that the people as a whole/fraction (Scottish, Welsh/English) may make a democratic decision that is not in their own interests, and that that democratic decision should be respected, but socialists should recognise that that decision might be a bad one - as the popular vote for Margaret Thatcher’s government in 1983 was a bad one.
And well except to strengthen Scottish industrial democracy hopefully. I’m materialist, I’m not interested in your “hopes”. Prove that it will be better.
And as I said, if Trotsky’s ideas had been followed “before the revolution”, then there wouldn’t have been a revolution. If Lenin hadn’t blocked his lunatic motions, then the revolution would have been defeated. The man was a chancer of the highest order. Try looking at something that wasn’t written by the man himself, or his acolytes.
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
Luke Nicholas, I live in Scotland. Do you?
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Finally i’d like to add without the SSP’s breakthrough in 2003 the SNP would never have been able to win in 2007, and the experience of both parties proves that parties can be elected in the UK to parliaments on policies that are to the left of Labour (obviously much further to the left in the SSP’s case). Plaid Cymru also proves this, as to people’s surprise keeping the NHS in public hands has turned out to be a popular policy.
Now why is it that in England this is not the case? With the exception of George Galloway and Labour Left MP’s, there has been no breakthrough.
I do not buy the line that England is a ‘Conservative Nation’ although in the past I have wrongly analysed this. The class structure in England has a larger middle class and larger upper class compared to Wales, which explains the difference in voting patterns.
However, I feel a party that reclaimed what Labour originally stood for would have a chance at challenging the right- if it was electable. If this doesn’t happen and the far-left continues to ignore the national question, the far-right are going to walk in to England while Wales & Scotland break away and form social-democratic style consensuses.
Comment by Luke Nicholas — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
Graham Day, no I obviously don’t which gives you an advantage in engaging with my post if you get the time. Maybe I am misinformed but the picture I am getting is what everyone else down here is getting too, so you might want to wonder why that message is being put out in the media or on blogs.
Comment by Luke Nicholas — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:38 pm
PS Luke, last general election Labour won 29 out of 40 Welsh MPs. Obviously a massive increase on any previous election?
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
I certainly do wonder, Luke. Polls show support for Scottish independence running at around 30% up here - far from a majority. As I’ve stated, the reality of a Tory government might lead to a marginal “yes” result in an independence referendum, but there is no obvious will in Scotland for “independence”, however some might wish.
I think some have their own agenda here…
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
If you told the man on the street that nations are artifical constructs he’d look at you funny, but he wouldn’t stop thinking of himself as English - no more than telling him that his gender was an artificial construct would make his dick fall off.
Martin, Mark P is obviously working for the break-up of Britain, he’s not hedging his bets - He’s edited a book of essays on England After Britain which has recently been published.
Oh, and Graham - when was the last time someone from a polling organisation asked you your opinion on Scottish independence?
On the lack of progressive challenge to New Labour, let’s not forget that both PC and the SNP are long-established parties. Obviously, we want a political party that is explicitly for working people, rather than just focused on the national question.
Comment by Charlie Marks — 5 June, 2008 @ 2:42 am
Its difficult to engage with the catechism of internationalism being incompatible with any identification with the nation. Thankfully outside of the time-warp of the sects many find it perfectly feasible for the two to co-exist but those on high seem incapable of recognising this self-evident fact.
‘ National LIberation’ for Scotland, Wales, England isn’t the issue. The reality is that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland are each governed by nationalist parties or coalitions involving nationalist parties. In each case those parties are substantially to the left of Brownite Labour. Now that might not be far enough to the left for some tastes but few would disagree that they are at least left of Labour. Any scenario for a 2010 General Election outcome suggests the separation will accelerate. Cameron wins, Scots vote for independence in 2011. Brown wins narrowly dependent on Scots and Welsh Labour MPs, Cameron detonates the ‘English votes for English Laws’ option.
Does anyone seriously expect this issue to quietly disappear? The Far Left’s grim determination to cling on to its own pre-existing model of ‘class politics’ in the face of this huge change in the poilitical terrain is yet another indicator of its utter irrelevance.
Of much greater significance of course is the Labour Party’s adulation of the Union in the face of this impending break-up. It is Brown’s personal crusade, which Tom Nairn has brilliantly described as Brown becoming the ‘bard of Britishness.’ The Far Left simply tails Labour on this issue, why? Because Labourism and the Far Left share a determination to ignore the changes underway since the devolution settlement which BLair expected to solve the question.
As for ‘hedging my bets’. Look its very clear this debate is driven by Scots, Welsh and Irish breaking up the Union not the English. That is largely because of the success of a civic nationalism in each of these countries, mainly social-democratic in political inflection. In England the politics of nationhood are much more under-developed for pretty obvious reasons, because we have thought of ourselves as British first, including shamefully the Left, at the expense of the democratic rights of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. This is changing but England will emerge in the first instance in the context of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland pulling away, a process that of course is already beginning. The point is does the Left play a role in shaping that outcome in England or does it seek to ignore the process while clinging to the wreckage of the Union in the name of ‘class politics’.
‘Hiding away from class politics’. Ha! Ha! Thats a good ‘un. So ‘class politics’ only exists in tiny, irrelevant far left sects with absolutely zero purchase on their local, working-class communities (0.68% of the vote anyone??). And the world revolves entirely, of course, around the branch meeting and picket line too. Meantime in the real world there are a vast variety of arenas in which the politics of race, globalisation, national identity, and most of all class touch our everyday lives and spark a variety of reactions entirely disconnected from the closed world of the sects. Football is one of them. The idea that fan activism, and thats just one of countless examples of a politics outside of this closed world, is a ‘hiding away from class politics’ reveals just how entirely out of touch you are.
And yes out in the real world English nationalism can take some pretty ugly forms. Funnily enough, rather than ‘hiding away’ from this, some of us think it is the stuff of politics to contest the racism and the xenophobia, the national chauvinism towards the Scots in particular. And some of us do that from the standpoint of an England for all, an England-in-the-making. Its not compulsory to support England, politically or as a football team. But its about time the Left woke up to the fact that those of us who look forward to the break-up of Britain and will identify with England after Scotland, Wales and Ireland depart are not soaked in reaction. Its an irreversible process, those who don’t recognise this, determined to pretend its not in train are doomed to well-deserved irrelevance.
And you can read more in the book I’ve edited, ‘Imagined Nation : England after Britain’ available from www.philosophyfootball.com
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 5 June, 2008 @ 6:19 am
#59 Mark P. Interesting post. I think you’re right about the way that the far left poses ‘class unity’ ikn the context of the national question and by and large become irrelevant.
I couldn’t agree that class isn’t a factor - after all once the nationalists have achieved their independence goal, decisions have to be made on policies and which class benefits. However, it is ludicrous to suggest that class is the only question at any time even if ultimately it will become that.
The key point I do agree with you in this process is the drive by Scotland in particular, Ireland in a more historic role to break up the union. The notionthat England is equal within this process is ludicrous as England has never been politically disadvantaged in the union.
In the context of self-government I see Scottish nationalism having a progressive ring, though not in every aspect. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to engulf myself in the flag of St George - there is nothing progressive about English nationalism, partly for the reason you’ve given yourself - the drive for breaking up the union comes from those opposed to English dominance.
Having said that, I still find your post very relevant.
Comment by Howard T — 5 June, 2008 @ 7:46 am
Thanks Howard.
Realising that the break-up-of-Britain will be a central political development in the next decade is not in any sense a denial of class politics. It is a factor that must inform our undesranding of the narratives of class which are affected by a whole variety of factors. The denial of this leads simply to the nadir of one-dimensional Marxism which betrays an understanding of anything but class.
Yes! Yes! The break-up is being driven by Scotland, Wales and Ireland. It is their breakways more than anythjing else which will shape the England that follows after Britain. But that process is already underway an England needs a Left that realises the necessity to take part in shaping that outcome. Those who deny this are simply ensuring their own irrelevance.
As for draping yourself, or not, in St George. Thats your choice. But to deny any potential for a progressive English nationalism seems to me to be taking leftist miserabilsm a bit far. The political complexion of national identities are shaped by political circumstances and movements. If the Left reteats from this terrain one thing though is certain, the otcome will be an England that defines itself as the frontline against immigration, Europe and the social-democracy that our near-neighbours, Scotland and Wales mostly favour. Why on earth surrender the potential for an inclusive England to all that? This of course is the argument set out by Paul Gilroy, Tom Nairn, Billy Bragg, Rupa Huq and others in ‘Imagined Nation : England after Britain’ available from www.philosophyfootball.com
Mark P
Comment by Mark P — 5 June, 2008 @ 8:51 am
English taxes for England
English law for England
Home rule for England.
Problem solved. Bring it on.
Comment by Wyrdtimes — 5 June, 2008 @ 9:53 am
Graham Day at comment 52 said -
I said that the people as a whole/fraction (Scottish, Welsh/English) may make a democratic decision that is not in their own interests, and that that democratic decision should be respected
- Who gets to decide wether people have made the right decision Graham, you perhaps, with your woolly ideas based on ‘false consciousness’ ?
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008
And as far as I understand it, the problem is with the unrepresentative nature of British democracy. Despite people being against Trident, or the UK government following its American orders, or against its Hitelrian foreign policy - people are powerless to influence their supposedly democratic British government.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for to Westminster, you always gets the same far-right policies.
So it isn’t a matter of ‘fasle consciousness’ what ever that is, its a matter of democratic reform of government to better represent people’s views.
And well except to strengthen Scottish industrial democracy hopefully. I’m materialist, I’m not interested in your “hopes”. Prove that it will be better.
- You’re a materialist Graham, based on your experience and as Scottish sovereignty has yet to material, tell me it won’t?
I’ve got a list as long as my arm of briilant stuff that has been happening in Scotland under a minority SNP government with the British state on its back, and all accomplished in less than a year and half.
Here is the latest from just the other day - locals get to elected their local health boards - no more unelected quangos slashing hospital services against the wishes of the local community -
Public to elect health boards in Scotland
The Herald (Glasgow)
03 June 2008
Not a day goes by, it seems, that the Scottish Government has again done something brilliant.
if Trotsky’s ideas had been followed “before the revolution”, then there wouldn’t have been a revolution. I
- as far as I understand it,
the Russian Revolution was premature and merely led to the re-establishment of everything the Revolution tried to abolish of the old Tsarist state.
So in a way, Trotsky was correct not to support the Revolution initially - and his diagnosis of what was happening under Stalin merely proved his earlier fears correct.
As I say, I’m not an expert on these matters which is why I like to listen to those who are more up on the subject than I am.
all the best!
ps
by the way
Melvyn Bragg this morning was discussing
TROFIM LYSENKO
In Our Time
BBC Radio 4
The programme is repeated agian tonight at 9.30pm - or listen to it anytime via the internet etc
Comment by joe90 — 5 June, 2008 @ 9:58 am
And from Wales last week - from Leanne Wood’s blog: http://leannewoodamac.blogspot.com/2008/05/asylum-seekers-ruling-is-necessary.html
“I feel that the recent ruling by the Health Minister Edwina Hart to allow unsuccesful asylum seekers access to free healthcare is both necessary and progressive. Helping disadvantaged people in this case is a very brave thing to do, especially when the political debate around the issue will predictably be dominated by misguided and prejudiced fears about “health tourism” and the alleged (but unfounded) strain that asylum seekers put on public services.”
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 June, 2008 @ 10:05 am
I think some have their own agenda here…
- Tell me about Graham!
Comment by Graham Day — 4 June, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
Polls show support for Scottish independence running at around 30% up here - far from a majority.
- Opnion polls at the moment depending on how the question is asked about Scottish sovereignty, range from 17% to 40%.
As it only takes about 20% of British voters for a majority in Westminster, and hence a party gets to be the government, this is quite a result then.
Here is a wee puff from the SNP from the other day -
23 Labour MPs face fuel backlash, survey
02 June 2008
Soon all the ‘British’ MP’s in Scotland will all be able to fit in the same people carrier for their migration down to the Westminster trough.
An excellent blog for analysis of Scottish (and international) facts, figures, opinion polls and what-not is the always effervescent -
Adam Smith was a Socialist blog
all the best!
Comment by joe90 — 5 June, 2008 @ 10:09 am
By the way, worth pointing out that the opinion polls in Cornwall show 55% wanting a devolved assembly with legislative powers, higher than the proportions recieved in either Wales or Scotland for devolution.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 June, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Good piece on Scottish Devolution in today’s Morning Star by John Foster:
Power in whose hands?
(Wednesday 04 June 2008)
JOHN FOSTER
Voices of Scotland
JOHN FOSTER explains how we must work to ensure that devolution advances the interests of the working classes.
“I DON’T even know the estate owner’s name. What I do know is that I have had to sell my cows.”
A scene from the highland clearances? No, it’s May 2008. Andrew Murray, along with other smallholders, was ordered to remove his cattle from land that has been given over to crofters for grazing ever since 1886, when the Duke of Sutherland signed the agreement in the aftermath of the crofters’ war.
Since then, the 22,000-acre estate, like much Highland land, has changed hands many times. The current landlord bought it in 2006 and wants the area for sporting purposes.
It’s not the only clearance in Scotland today. Working class housing schemes are being demolished to the benefit of speculators and property developers. Closures are imminent across large swathes of Scotland’s manufacturing industry.
The power of capitalist wealth continues unabated. Indeed, in some ways it is even worse than it was in the Duke of Sutherland’s time.
At least he felt obliged to make concession towards his tenants, as did the governments of the 20th century when they provided the cash for council housing.
As always, what ordinary people get depends on the balance of class forces and, specifically, the organisation and collective strength of those exploited by capitalism.
This brings us to the unspoken question behind much of Scottish politics. It might be called the Connolly question. It’s about the relationship between formal independence and real economic and class power.
In Ireland’s struggle for independence, James Connolly repeatedly asked what difference flying the Green Flag over Dublin Castle would make if land and capital remained in private hands, whether British or Irish.
If this question was relevant in Ireland, it is doubly so in Scotland where so much of the bargaining power of working people has depended on the united strength of the labour movement across the nations of Britain.
Last week, the self-proclaimed prime-minister-in-waiting David Cameron launched his charm offensive on the SNP.
“Whoever is Scotland’s First Minister, I would be a Prime Minister who acts on the voice of the Scottish people and will work tirelessly for consent.”
The same day, a Glasgow Herald editorial reminded us of something we tend to forget.
“Anabel Goldie, the Scottish (Tory) party leader, and her colleagues have aligned themselves with the SNP to the intended benefit of both. The Scottish Tories have played an important part in maintaining Mr Salmond in power and, in return, have won government backing for policies on business rates, law and order and drugs.”
The SNP believes that a Tory victory in 2010 would do wonders for their ability to win the independence referendum scheduled for later the same year. In turn, Cameron sees himself as benefiting greatly from SNP inroads into Labour north of the border.
To make this point is not to claim that Alex Salmond is aligned to the Tories. Salmond’s political instincts are social democratic.
He is, however, first and foremost a nationalist politician and has shown very considerable skill in seizing the opportunities offered by his inept new Labour opponents.
And herein lies the danger. There is a potentially progressive dynamic within devolution. But there is also a reactionary one.
Which is dominant will depend on the balance of class forces and the effectiveness of interventions by the labour movement.
At present, it is the pro-big business dynamic that is dominant.
SNP MPs are already laying down terms for their support for a Tory government in 2010. Their key demand is lower corporation tax in Scotland.
At the same time, at British level, the big-business press is demanding an end to the current system of financial allocation for social and welfare spending between the nations of Britain. This Barnett formula, they claim, gives the “sponging Scots” far too much and the English regions too little.
As the recession bites, these calls will get louder. If they lead to a Yes vote in an independence referendum, big business will be only too happy.
Lower taxes on company profits will put pressure on England and Wales for the same, as will a new regime of “fiscal accountability” at Holyrood. And a fractured labour movement, in both economic and political terms, would be even better.
Which brings us back to the Connolly question. City of London financial institutions would still own and control everything in Scotland.
At the same time, any independent Scottish government would have to rule within the neoliberal straitjacket imposed by the EU.
Faced with such pressures, social democratic instincts won’t count for much.
So, how can the dynamics of devolution be made to work for working people, as was the original intention? Progress in one nation was meant to lever forward advances in the others.
The policies themselves exist. The STUC in April demanded that the Scottish Parliament is given the powers that will enable it to end its subservience to big business - the power to borrow that will provide an alternative to private finance, the power to control the public utilities essential for Scotland’s infrastructure and an approach to financial allocation at British level that matches social need.
What is required is the political will. In Holyrood, as in Westminster, Labour remains transfixed by the fear of the right-wing media. Which is why trade union pressure is now essential.
Forthright intervention is required within the Labour Party. But something more is necessary. Ultimately, it is collective action that transforms the climate of opinion.
In face of the multiple economic crises affecting Scotland, the trade union movement needs, in a new way, locally and together, to mobilise members, families and communities to demand a progressive resolution.
Why shouldn’t governments intervene to resolve the transport, energy and housing crises or the failure of manufacturing industry? Why should essential services be cut? And why should big business pay even less tax than it does currently?
The sacred cows of neoliberalism need to be ordered off our land as a first precondition for any satisfactory answer to the Connolly question.
Comment by John W — 5 June, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Just to chime in there about the disgraceful treatment of asylum-seekers Andy,
the Scottish Government is forced to look on while officials of the British State indulge in behaviour and tactics, here in Scotland, that wouldn’t look out of place in some of the worst regimes imaginable -
First Minister looks to close Dungavel centre
SNP news
04 June 2008
And the minority SNP Scottish Government are merely expressing and carrying out the wishes of most people in Scotland, as well as some of their major policies being completely in line with the great ‘wee’ parties such as the SSP, Solidarity Scotland, the Greens etc -
- consensus rather than confrontation.
all the best!
Comment by joe90 — 5 June, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Until now I missed this gem from weekly worker:
“Tory MP Nadine Dorries… has announced an intriguing link-up on her website: “I am delighted that following yesterday’s vote I received a telephone call from the widely respected Labour MP, Frank Field MP, who told me that after listening to my speech in the House of Commons yesterday evening, he changed his mind and decided to vote for my amendment. We have decided to establish a new, cross-party group to continue the campaign to tackle issues surrounding the rise of teenage abortions and pregnancy.””
The Ass and His Purchaser.
Comment by martin ohr — 5 June, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
Nadine Dorries is welcome to Frank Field. Can imagine what recipes they will dig up for teenagers….
Comment by sarah hart — 5 June, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
Jeez Joe90, it’s like a stream of consciousness with you…
Saying that “the Scottish Government is doing good things” isn’t an argument for independence. It’s a shame that someone who supports that cause can’t make a case… but maybe that’s why the Scottish people aren’t convinced.
And if Scotland becomes independent, it will be history that will decide whether it’s a good thing or not, not me or you or Alex Salmond. The Union of 1707 was a good thing for Scotland, maybe independence in 2012 would be too. Personally I doubt it, but it’s always possible.
PS: your comments on the Russian Revolution and it’s consequences, and Trotsky’s role (and even his analysis) are way wide of the mark. A starter for you: the Soviet Union, whatever it’s faults, was nothing like Tsarist Russia. If you’re going to invoke his ideas as you did in comment 40, you should at least understand them…
Comment by Graham Day — 5 June, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Saying that “the Scottish Government is doing good things” isn’t an argument for independence.
- Sure it is Graham.
If the current minority SNP goverment are doing things that people actually want, then that is better than the current alternative, which is to remain British and largely marginalised and democratically unrepresented.
Unless it makes no difference that people are actually getting what they want from their own government, then sure, it isn’t argument. Although somehow, I don’t see anybody taking the argument seriously that if the government is generally in line with public opinion then the public will stop supporting it.
It’s a shame a materialist like you can’t come up with a decent argument as to why Scottish sovereignty will be detrimental for the Scottish people - given the successes so far, of the small amount of independence the Scottish government has been granted to date I can see your problem, reality.
As a materialist, previous events do have a right to be taken into account when predictions about the future are made. And the material facts of the acse are that Scots are better off governing themselves than being governed from a foreigh capital. Indeed, I could go further and say that maybe even Iraqis and Afghans, whom the British are currently occupying and slaughtering, would be better off if Scots governed themselves, dealing British imperialism a blow from the inside.
Personally I doubt it, but it’s always possible.
- I was the one being chided by you because I was ‘hopeful’ about the future as well.
And if Scotland becomes independent, it will be history that will decide whether it’s a good thing or not, not me or you or Alex Salmond.
- Yes I know.
Stupid me and my false conscienceness.
I’ve no idea what’s good for me, or what is good for other people, come to that matter.
Unlike Graham Day who knows how to tell if a thing is good or bad, or at least how such judgements achieve legitimacy - what, with him, and his authentic conscience waiting on history’s verdict to decide which is worse, Hitler or the SNP.
the Union of 1707 was a good thing for Scotland…
- Really, was it Graham, how can you tell things wouldn’t have been better if the union hadn’t happened?
Sure the Soviet Union can be equated with the Tsarist Empire - I don’t see why not myself. In typical Tsarist fashion it even expanded under Stalinism.
Comment by joe90 — 5 June, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Joe90, I indicated above why I think the end of the Union would be bad thing.
And you may note that the Scottish Government is currently acting within the context of the Union - which is why saying that it’s doing good things isn’t an argument for independence.
The fact remains that for all your bluster, you can’t actually demonstrate a material benefit that would accrue to Scots from independence.
Indeed, I could go further and say that maybe even Iraqis and Afghans, whom the British are currently occupying and slaughtering, would be better off if Scots governed themselves, dealing British imperialism a blow from the inside
Oh yes, because the USA is going to disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan because the UK “breaks up”. Is this even a serious point?
And if you think that the Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia were the same, then your historical knowledge is obviously as patchy as your political theories.
Comment by Graham Day — 5 June, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Sure Graham,
according your latest bizarre statement about material reality, before Scotland gets sovereignty, it has to be proven that independence is going to be better than being part of Britian - but that can’t be proven because Scotland has always been a part of Britian (since 1707 officially).
I don’t need political theories to prove that the British state is unrepresentative and undemocratic and needs reformed or better still abolished, I just need the facts.
The fact the Scottish government is able to respond to what the people of Scotland actually want, despite the huge burden of having the British government and the anti-Scottish British corporate news media on its back, actually argues in favour of Scottish sovereignty, not against it.
Oh yes, because the USA is going to disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan because the UK “breaks up”. Is this even a serious point?
- As always, I was being pragmatic and seeing thing from the perspective of the victims of British imperialism. I always prefer to give our victims the benefit of any doubt. After all, reforming the British state or abolishing it can’t hurt our current victims. I don’t think the victims of British imperialism are all that fussy about wether there is a political theory, or not, to justify leaving them in peace to get on with their lives.
And anyway, not being part of the British state means I don’t get to take part in its war crimes by subsidising them with my taxes.
I think if you read what I type you’ll notice that I was talking about our crimes, British crimes, not America’s crimes. This is an important point when it comes to stuff like Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal - who was and who wasn’t partcipating in war crimes. Who was and who wasn’t just following their orders etc. It’s called morality. Just blaming the Yanks and saying there’s nothing we can do isn’t an option for people of conscience.
The fact remains that for all your bluster, you can’t actually demonstrate a material benefit that would accrue to Scots from independence.
- Yes, I know, only history can decide such questions Graham.
From the performance of the SNP minority government over the space of just a year and half, there is plenty of material facts to judge the matter by.
The Scottish government actually responding to Scottish public opinion is as good a benchmark to judge the future by as any, as far as a healthy democracy goes.
And if you think that the Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia were the same, then your historical knowledge is obviously as patchy as your political theories.
- I didn’t say they were the same. Nothing in history is ever exactly the same. But I notice, because every point of yours I’ve countered, I’m the one who doesn’t know what I’m talking about rather than yourself.
Comment by joe90 — 5 June, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
Hello Joe,
You make interesting points, I think you are SNP? I am in favour of independence too, but here I will part ways with you.
Cuban, Nicaraguan, Bolivian etc circumstances are completely different from ours (I presume you are Scottish too, correct me if I am wrong.) It is not a case of simple imperialistic power being used on Scotland. We were, are and have been major drivers and beneficiaries of the imperial project. The history of imperialism re Scotland is a complex thing.
I think you’re placing far too much faith in the SNP. I will elaborate on this further if you are interested in the discussion.
Comment by Rusu — 7 June, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Thanks for that Rusu.
I think you’re placing far too much faith in the SNP. I will elaborate on this further if you are interested in the discussion.
- As I often say Rusu,
there is the SNP of today which has to get on with the everyday buisness of being a political party involved in government at the levels of local, national and international (the UK and the EU at the moment).
Then there is the other crucial aspect of the SNP which is it being used purely as a vehicle for achieving Scottish national sovereignty (when Scotland will get its own seat in the UN - and also gets the opportunity to tell NATO to go f*ck itself, as Scottish public opnion currently stands).
It’s one thing to support SNP and it’s policies at the present time - and quite another to support the SNP because it’s a vehicle for independence.
In other words, it’s one thing to support the SNP pre-independence in order to get independence - and a completely different matter supporting the SNP after Scottish independence, if it still exists that is.
Also, there is no guarantee that Scots will vote to join the EU, post-independence.
all the best!
Comment by joe90 — 7 June, 2008 @ 7:52 pm