• Current Releases
• Archive

You are in: ippr north

Government needs to address the ‘English Question’ to prevent future backlash

25 February 2008

English public opinion and an increasing sense of English national identity could pose a challenge to the Union in the future, according to two new reports published today (Monday) by the Institute for Public Policy Research North (ippr north).
 
Where Stands the Union Now? Lessons from the 2007 Scottish Parliament Election by Professor John Curtice suggests that there is little support within England for ending the Union or for the creation of an English Parliament - which only 22 per cent support. But he shows that the English do want something done about the perceived inequities of devolution, such as the public spending disparities between England and Scotland and Scottish MPs voting on English matters. Curtice argues that while the level of public awareness about either issue is not yet very high, they both have the potential to create future tension:
  
“…just as people in Scotland might support devolution rather than independence but would still like the terms of the settlement changed, so England may not want devolution, let alone independence, for itself, but might still want the apparent anomalies created by the current settlement removed. The discrepancy posed by the West Lothian question clearly falls into that category, while the difference between the level of spending per head in England and that in Scotland could potentially do so even if it has not done so yet.”
 
In the second report, Beyond the Constitution? Englishness in a post-devolved Britain, Michael Kenny et al argue that the Government has not paid enough attention to English national identity within the newly devolved UK or in debates about Britishness.
 
They maintain that the Government needs to engage with the growing sense of English identity, and in particular needs to address the position of England within a post-devolved UK as part of its plans for future constitutional reform. A failure to do so might fuel English disaffection with the current settlement. The authors also challenge the widely held presumption that the rise of Englishness cannot be reconciled with a wider British identity: they argue that the two can be developed in a way that is mutually supportive. 
 
The report also suggests that since the collapse of plans for regional government within England - following the 2004 'No' vote in the North East - there has been a policy vacuum at the heart of the Government's thinking about the so-called ‘English Question’.
 
Kenny et al go on to argue that:
 
“In his early days as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has demonstrated a refreshing willingness to pick up the torch of constitutional reform. Yet for all of its scope, the Governance of Britain Green Paper betrays a degree of uncertainty about the English Question.”

And that:
 
“A modern, vibrant, English identity need not be a British loss. Indeed, the future strength of the democratic, civic Britishness that Gordon Brown wishes to advance is substantially dependent on the nature of the Englishness accommodated within.”

ippr recommends that the Prime Minister should follow the lead of Wendy Alexander, who has set up a review of devolution in Scotland, with a root and branch review of English governance. This would not only address the West Lothian Question and reforming the Barnett formula but would also examine how England is governed from centre to locality.

Guy Lodge, ippr Senior Research Fellow, said:
 
“The English public is beginning to wake up to the anomalies created by devolution and want something done about them. This does not yet amount to a backlash against the Union, nor does there appear to be any serious support for radical policies like an English Parliament. But it does suggest the need for the Government to address the position of England within the Union as part of their plans for further constitutional reform if it is to prevent disaffection within England growing.
 
“Under Blair, constitutional reform dealt with the different parts of the UK in isolation. For Brown, the key is looking at the UK as a whole and how the different parts fit together.”

Notes to editors:

Where Stands the Union Now? Lessons from the 2007 Scottish Parliament Election by Professor John Curtice and Beyond the Constitution? Englishness in a post-devolved Britain by Michael Kenny, Richard Hayton and Richard English are available as free downloads.
 
Disparities in public spending: Public spending per head is higher in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  This is partly as a result of the Barnett Formula, a population based formula that apportions any increase (or decrease) of spending in England to the devolved administrations. 
 
The Treasury annually produces figures for 'identifiable public spending' in the UK, which covers the vast majority of spending.  For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland these figure include all spending through the Barnett formula plus other central government spending in those territories.  The figures exclude 'unidentifiable' expenditure, which covers items like defence and overseas aid. In 2006-07:

• £1142 more per head was spent in Northern Ireland compared to England.
• £938 more per head was spent in Scotland compared to England.
• £524 per head more was spent in Wales compared to England.

Identifiable public spending per head in 2006-07

Identifiable public spending per head (£) / Index of identifiable public spending per head (UK=100)
England / 7,121 / 97    
Scotland / 8,623 / 117   
Wales / 8,139 / 111   
Northern Ireland / 9,385 / 127   
UK / 7,362 / 100   
  
The West Lothian Question: refers to the post-devolution anomaly which means that MPs from Scotland can vote on English matters when English MPs cannot vote on Scottish matters devolved to the Scottish parliament. This is particularly contentious when the votes of Scottish MPs carry votes against an English majority. This happened in the case of foundation hospitals and university tuition fees for England.
 
English national identity: the most recent British Social Attitudes Survey (2006) found that when English people are asked to select one national identity for themselves 47 per cent chose English up from 31 per cent in 1992. The main shift took place between 1997 and 1999, and so predates devolution. In 1992 63 per cent of people in England said they were British, by 2006 this had fallen to 39 per cent.

Review of the powers of the Scottish Parliament: Wendy Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, with the support of other Unionist parties in Scotland, has called for a review of the powers of the Scottish Parliament, including its financial powers. The review has since been supported by the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/alexander_looks_ahead_to_constitutional_debate
 
John Curtice is Professor of Politics and Director of the Social Statistics Laboratory at the University of Strathclyde.

Michael Kenny is Professor of Politics at the University of Sheffield, and Visiting Research Fellow at ippr.

Richard English is Professor of Politics at Queen's University, Belfast.

Richard Hayton is a doctoral student and tutor in the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield.
 
These papers form part of a series of commissioned research papers for ippr north and ippr's 'Future of the Union' project. The project explores the state of the Union today, the challenges it faces and its future. Other papers in the series will look at:

• Barnett and the politics of the distribution of public spending.
• The social union and marriage and migration between England and Scotland.
• Economic interdependence and the trade relationship between England and Scotland.
• The impact of the media on the cultural union between England and Scotland.

Contact:
 
Matt Jackson, ippr senior media officer, 020 7339 0007 / 07753 719 289 / m.jackson@ippr.org