Articles

Brown must answer ‘the English question’

Email this to a friend Print Delicious Digg Facebook Reddit

by Katie Schmuecker, Research Fellow at ippr north.
Tribune Magazine - 23 July 2007

In his landmark statement on constitutional reform Gordon Brown rejected the Conservative policy of English votes on English matters out of hand on the grounds that he “will do nothing to put at risk the Union”. He is right that English votes would be a fast track to the dissolution of the Union. His alternative response to the “English Question” – regional Ministers and regional question times – is a step in the right direction but he needs to go further if he is to head off the Tories on what may become their main line of attack.

Certainly the English question can no longer be ignored. While constitutional anoraks and the chattering classes have spent much of the last eight years worrying about the English reaction to devolution, and specifically about the ability of Scottish MPs to vote on English laws, their concerns have been slow to find popular political expression. Opinion polls taken over the past nine months suggest this may be changing, with support for an English parliament leaping from around 20% to over 60% (although as ever care must to be taken with how the questions were worded). While these polls may over-estimate support for particular policies, they might indicate a direction of travel. This year may mark the first stirrings of discontent from the English dog that is yet to bark.

The idea of a resurgent England and English identity is one that the left has often struggled with, equating Englishness with a right wing ‘little Englander’ viewpoint and an inward looking exclusive view of who can qualify as English. The left has traditionally felt more comfortable with class identities than national identities. But the left can no longer ignore this issue as an growing proportion of English people are primarily identifying themselves as English rather than British. In 1992, 30% of the English identified with being English rather than British; by 2005 this had risen to 40%.

For some, Brown’s ‘Scottishness’ is a weakness for the new Prime Minister, which may serve to fuel a sense of discontent among the English. This may make it hard for the Conservatives to resist playing politics with the English Question.

These are issues that the right wing press has been quick to jump on, seeking to galvanise any growing sense of injustice among the English. With cries of Scottish Raj and caricatures of dour Scots telling the English what to do, some argue that the press have come down with a bout of ‘Scotophobia’ without parallel since the passionately anti-Scottish days of (another Scot) Lord Bute’s eighteenth century premiership. This historic episode witnessed Scot bashing on the part of the political classes and political cartoonists.

What remains to be seen is whether the Conservative Party chooses to make whipping up English grievance an explicit part of their strategy against Brown. Cameron was quick to criticise Labour’s constitutional reform plans for a lack of answer to the English question. But for the Tories such political opportunism must be weighed against their historic attachment to the Union, as well as Cameron’s stated plans to increase his Party’s representation in Labour’s Celtic heartlands. Nonetheless, even if this doesn’t become part of an explicit strategy against Brown, some suspect that the ‘Scottishness’ of the new prime minister has become the new Tory dog-whistle - the new subliminal message they wish to communicate to middle England, particularly the super-marginals of the M25 belt.

So what should Brown do to head the Tories off on this issue? Certainly he is right to reject their policy of English votes on English matters. While it sounds like a seductively simple solution to this knotty constitutional problem, in practice it would be unworkable because the devolution settlement is not so clear cut that whole policy areas can be designated ‘English’. For example the legislation introducing top up fees contained clauses extending to Scotland. English votes would require each clause of each bill to be designated ‘English’, ‘English and Welsh’ or ‘UK wide’, resulting in legislative ‘hokey cokey’ in the commons.

But a more fundamental problem with English votes is that it would create a constitutional crisis far greater than the current anomaly the ‘West Lothian Question’ poses. It raises the prospect of a UK Government with a majority in Britain but unable to govern England. Analysis by Professor Iain McLean of Oxford University finds that this chaos would have afflicted 8 of the last 32 election results. Rather than answer the ‘English Question’ this could lead to the end of the Union.

As for the Tories, Cameron has made English votes a point of constitutional principle for his party. Such principles cause no great pain when the party only has one Scottish MP who must refrain from voting on ‘English matters’. Their concern for this issue is driven more by political calculation, and would be less tempting if they had more Scottish MPs.

An English Parliament too is rightly rejected by both parties. It would create the most lop sided federation the world has seen, with England constituting over 80% of the UK’s population and wealth. This would be a recipe for instability and would also be likely to herald the end for the Union.

There is an English question that must be answered, but who votes on what is not the right one. The English question that Brown should seek to answer is how to improve the way England is governed. The real problem the English face is not ‘rule by Scots’ but the overbearing centralism that saps the life out of local and regional politics in England. Brown’s announcement of regional ministers and regional question times are welcome moves in the right direction. He must compliment them by giving these new Westminster structures far more to scrutinise by decentralising power in England, and allowing creativity and innovation to flourish. By doing so he will also prove his pluralist credentials and undermine another of the oppositions’ favoured attacks on him – that he is a power hugging centralist.

And there are other things that Brown could do to take the sting out of this issue. Further reducing in the number of MPs from territories with devolved institutions (in line with the different powers available to different administrations) would reduce the likelihood of Celtic MPs carrying votes against an English majority. While the number of Scottish MPs has been reduced since devolution, they are still overrepresented compared to the English.

But his coup de grâce should be a move that would demonstrate his concern for the English and for fairness all in one fell swoop: he should open the question of reforming the Barnett Formula for distributing public money. By moving towards a funding system that is transparently based on need and perceived to be fair he can not only demonstrate his social democratic principles, but show that he has heard the South’s claims that they are unfairly subsidising other parts of the country, as well as listening to the concerns of the North of England and Wales that they are receiving less public money than their needs would warrant. He could combine this with an examination of the question of greater fiscal autonomy for Scotland, a move that Alex Salmond would be likely to welcome. By doing this he could change the terms of debate and wrong foot the opposition. At the end of the day, most people care far more about cash than they do about constitutional anomalies.

Katie Schmuecker is a Research Fellow at ippr north.