Is England a nation?

Tweet

 

And does it matter anyway? The questions were prompted by this report last week about the establishment of the Northern Independence Party to campaign for an independent Northumbria. It’s an interesting development, to say the least, although whether anything will come of it in the long term is another question. Certainly, if different parts of what we today call ‘England’ were to successfully dissociate themselves from Westminster and become independent states, the possibility that the federalism fairy is anything more than, well, a fairy tale, becomes a little more real, although it’s a very big ‘if’, and it would be foolish for anyone to start making plans around such an outcome.

Many will respond by arguing that Northumbria is not a nation, merely a region of England (a fairly arbitrarily-defined one at that, on the basis of the NIP’s proposals), and that the right of all nations to self-determination therefore doesn’t apply. But if we stop and think for a moment, isn’t that almost exactly what British nationalists also say about Wales, or Scotland, claiming in effect that both are part of the ‘British’ nation, and therefore already enjoy the right to national self-determination? Nationality is not an easily defined concept. I’ve never seen, nor been able to devise, an entirely satisfactory and objective definition of what constitutes a ‘nation’, not least since most of what makes people feel that they belong to nation X or nation Y is about a subjective identification with other people who happen to live in the same defined geographical area.

If the people living in Northumbria (however the area is defined on a map) come to consider themselves a nation over the coming years, there is no obvious basis on which anyone else can tell them that they’re wrong. And that applies whether they consider the new national identity to supplant or merely supplement their existing English/ British identity. Some nationalists in Wales attempt to tell people that they can’t be members of two overlapping nations, both Welsh and British, but telling what is probably a majority that they can’t be what they quite comfortably feel themselves to be has never struck me as a particularly productive approach to discourse.

Does it matter, though? One of the reasons for preferring the term independentista to nationalist is that it avoids the question of what a nation is or isn’t and simply affirms that the people living in any defined area have the right to decide collectively how they wish to be governed. That surely applies as much to ‘Northumbria’ as it does to Wales or Scotland. Ultimately the difference in viewpoint owes less to any sense of nationality or nationalism than it does to the simple belief that sovereignty starts with the people rather than the monarch (or God, to be strictly accurate in terms of the English constitution). ‘England’ as an entity came into existence in the same way as the UK – kingdoms and territories were conquered and assimilated. ‘England’ has no more of an absolute claim to be treated now and forever as a single entity than does any other state. The ultimate triumph of the ‘English’ nationalists now running the UK is that their ‘Englishness’ is increasingly being seen to be relevant to only part of ‘England’; their assumption that they can simply impose their own version of Englishness on the rest is leading many to question whether the entity known as England serves their interests. There would be a certain irony if the term ‘Little England’ came to be seen as a geographical term as well as one describing an attitude.

The problem is the way we measure

Tweet

The UK Government’s proposal to extend the use of selection in the process of allocating spaces in secondary schools doesn’t apply to Wales of course.  I guess that means that it will be classified as an ‘England-only’ measure in the House of Commons meaning that Welsh MPs – including Owen Smith – will not have an input to the decision, no matter how much they huff and puff with indignation.  The Conservatives in Wales and their ideological chums in UKIP will, no doubt, renew their demands that Wales should follow suit, and open selective schools here.

To listen to the opponents in Labour’s ranks, one would think that they are totally opposed to selection in education.  But that simply isn’t true – we have selection now, including here in Wales, but it’s selection based on wealth rather than ability.  Whilst it’s true that there are fewer private schools in Wales than in England, and their role in the education system here has always been more peripheral, they do still exist, and in any event, parents can always send their children over the border to an English school if they wish.  It’s an aspect of the education system which Labour has, at the very least, tolerated for generations, and they still show no sign of wanting to end that selectivity.

Over and above that, sending children to private schools isn’t the only way in which wealth can help secure a ‘better’ education.  Again, this is less common in Wales than in England, but the use of private tutors and the ability to move into the catchment area of the ‘best’ schools are options which are simply not open to all parents.

On the Tory side, whilst the argument that it is better to select on ability than on wealth has a certain ring to it, there’s a lot left unsaid by such a simplistic formulation.  The first and most obvious questions are how we define ‘ability’ - and then how we measure it.  Plus – where is the evidence justifying the choice of 11 as the magic age when children’s ability and potential can definitively be judged?  Even if there were clear evidence that it is even possible to assess the long term academic potential of children from one simple test, given that children develop at different rates, how has the catch-all age of 11 been set as the basis for making a determination?

It strikes me that a lot of those arguing for selection are really pining for the past; a golden age (in their memory at least) when the old certainties held sway.  It was a time when the middle class sheep were largely separated from the working class goats (although a small number of the latter were allowed in as long as they showed the potential to become middle-class sheep in time).  But effectively it wrote off the potential of a lot of children at the age of 11.  Some overcame that with time, but a lot did not.

One of the great failures of the comprehensive system in the UK has been that, for all the well-meaning words, we have still not succeeded in giving equal value to different types of ability and success.  Schools and pupils are judged as being successes or failures overwhelmingly on the basis of exam scores, rather then on the contribution they make to society as a whole.  In that sense, at least, it’s true that comprehensive education has not lived up to its promise - but is that the fault of the approach or of those making judgements on such a narrow basis?

From the past

Tweet

Yesterday’s Western Mail, like many other papers, contained a lot of coverage about the start of the First World War 100 years ago.  Part of the coverage included a reprint of the paper’s editorial from 4^th August 1914, justifying, and supporting the decision to go to war.

But it was the final sentence which caught my eye.  It read:

“In times to come, if Russia does become a menace to us in the East, well, England, allied with Japan, can deal with that situation.”

I suppose that it was a long time ago – I don’t think they would have dreamed of calling the Western Mail the ‘National Newspaper of Wales’ in those days. 

It wasn’t just the Western Mail, though; another story on the same theme in yesterday’s paper referred to an obelisk at St Symphorien dedicated to the “German and English” soldiers who died in the Battle of Mons.  Much of what was said and written at the time portrayed it as a war between England and Germany with a few supporting characters from elsewhere.  England, Britain, and the UK were more interchangeable then than now, to the extent that the second and third were used at all.  History is always changing.

It’s too easy to see this conflation of England and the UK as being some sort of slight to Wales; but it was the accepted norm at the time – even in Wales.  Sometimes, it feels as though we are not making much progress, but stories like these help to underline how far we’ve come in building the confidence and identity of a nation which was all but invisible a century ago.  There’s still some way to go, though.

Flawed arguments

Tweet

Peter Hain, with the support of the Western Mail editorial writer, is apparently worried that ‘English votes for English MPs’ would create two different classes of MP, and threaten the future of the Union.  I’ll leave aside the way in which the continuance of the Union is perceived to be such a good thing that it can be used as a reason for opposing anything with no further justification; there are enough problems with his argument without bringing that one in.

In the first place, only someone completely immersed in, and constrained by, the institution of which he is a member could fail to see that there are already two classes of MP.  Being able to vote on every issue that comes before the House of Commons is not the same as being equal; and Welsh and Scottish MPs are already effectively prevented (quite properly) from voting on a whole range of issues affecting their constituents.  There are already two (or more precisely, four, given the different settlements) classes of MPs.

Secondly, he argues that England can’t have a parliament of her own, because England is too big in relation to the size of Wales or Scotland.  I wouldn’t presume to tell England how she should govern herself, let alone that her pattern of government has to be based on units which are of a size closer to that of Wales and Scotland.  It’s a sensible argument only for those who see Wales and Scotland as being simply ‘regions’ of the UK, with no ‘national’ dimension.

And thirdly, he calls for regional assemblies in England without specifying their powers.  I don’t know what he has in mind, but I find it hard to imagine that he is proposing legislative assemblies on the Welsh model, let alone on the Scottish model.  And introducing yet another variant on the model actually makes the initial problem (who in Westminster votes on what) worse.  I really can’t believe that he’s thought through what he’s saying.

Having a UK legislature where all members have equal voting rights on all matters requires as a starting point a symmetrical settlement between the various nations.  It is for England to decide whether that symmetry takes the form of an English parliament or the regionalisation of England, but an asymmetrical solution will always leave a difference between MPs as to who can vote on which issues affecting their constituents.

Red, White, and Blue

Tweet I've never been a fan of football. In fact, I don't think I've ever watched a whole football match from beginning to end in my life. When I was a small boy, watching the Swan Stars play on the Murch Field in Dinas Powys consisted of spending ten minutes on the touchline before we all got bored and went to kick around a ball of our own in a far corner of the field.

So no-one will be surprised if I don't particularly suffer from world cup fever. I don't think that I've paid any attention at all to the world cup since 1966.

I didn’t pay a lot of attention then either, to be honest, but my youngest brother did manage to collect a complete set of the little plastic coins of the England team's players which were being given away with petrol. That was quite an achievement, really, considering that we didn't have a car. Indeed, only about three families in the whole street owned cars, but one of those had no small children of their own, and were feeling kindly towards us…

I can still remember the song, though. World Cup Willy it was called, although a name like that would probably be taken to mean something rather different today.

Insofar as I and my friends supported any team at all, it would inevitably have been England. There simply wasn't, in my part of the world at least, anything like the same awareness of the difference between England and Britain as there is today. For most of us in Wales, that has changed, and markedly so. But it still hasn't changed that much in England, and we don't always understand that.

So, when Cameron pointedly urged MPs from Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland to get behind the England team, I think that he really didn't understand the way that will sound to many of us. We've moved on; they haven't. He simply doesn't understand that his remarks are likely to have precisely the opposite effect to that intended.

As for me, well with the avowed lack of interest in the game itself which I outlined above, I won't be supporting anyone. But I usually feel a slight surge of pleasure when any small nation defeats a much larger one at any sport. I somehow doubt that Cameron would understand that, either.

The English Question

Tweet From my reading of what Kenneth Clarke had to say today, the Tories are continuing to struggle with the whole issue of devolution, and particularly with the question of what to do in England. It would be pretty easy for us here in Wales – particularly in Plaid – to say it's an English problem; leave them to it. After all, our argument is that we want Wales to be free to follow its own path; why wouldn't we be content to allow England to do likewise?

Easy, but mistaken in this case. If the Tories (or any other party come to that, but Labour have already been bitten once, and seem unwilling to come back to the question) were suggesting some sort of separate institution for England, either as a whole or else by establishing regional assemblies, then I would be quite content to leave them to it. But they're not; they're trying to tinker with UK institutions to achieve their objectives – and that makes it our concern as well.

The first question is why they are doing it. Their proposals bear little sign of serious thought about what the constitution should look like, and every sign of trying to play on – and foment – English resentment and anger as a tool for their own electoral purposes. In the short term, it may even work, but they are likely to find that they create as many problems as they solve in the process.

The second is that, since the extent and nature of devolution differs in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the issue isn't as simple - as they seem to think - as defining 'English-only' legislation. Some laws will apply only in England; some only in England and Wales, some only in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, some only in Northern Ireland - and just about every other possible permutation. That makes at least four different classes of MP, and deciding which MPs can vote on which laws looks like an absolute nightmare to me.

This confusion might also create an opportunity for Wales, however - if the Tories were ever to discover the concept of consistency. Given that devolution, particularly to Wales, remains incomplete in a whole host of areas, Westminster may still be passing some laws which apply only to Wales – and there are rather more which include clauses relating only to Wales. What about only allowing Welsh MPs to vote on these laws and clauses?

The Tories' proposal is aimed at preventing Welsh and Scottish MPs (predominantly Labour) imposing their will on England (which is generally predominantly Tory). Logic would surely dictate that English Tories should, in the same way, be prevented from imposing their will on Wales, wouldn't it? And, while we're about it, how about only Welsh MPs voting on Assembly LCOs...