IN DEFENCE OF ENGLISH NATIONALISM

In an article in the Daily Mail on the 25 June, Gordon Brown, a Scot and the former Labour prime minister, proclaims that he is fearful for the unity of the UK. He bemoans recent polling that reveals that Tory Party members are so committed to Brexit that, if necessary, a majority would contemplate splitting with Scotland to achieve that objective.

The main focus of Brown’s fire is against Boris Johnson, of whom he accuses:

‘Were Scotland in dire need, Mr Johnson’s answer would be unequivocal: “I propose that we tell them to hop it.” So his knee-jerk response to counter a divisive us-versus-them Scottish nationalism is to embrace an equally divisive us-versus-them English nationalism. In his version of the Union, Scotland would not have any pride of place: at best, it would have to “know its place”.’

Brown alleges:

‘Even if we strip away his inflammatory rhetoric, we find that for the past 20 years [Boris Johnson] has vehemently opposed the three constitutional pillars upon which today’s union is built — Scottish parliamentary representation, the devolution settlement and the funding arrangements.

First, Scotland is, Mr Johnson has repeatedly said, grossly over-represented at Westminster. Yet this ignores the fact that in almost every great political union — America, Australia and Canada, for example — special allowance is made to safeguard minorities.

Second, he opposes — and has even said he wants to strip away — devolved powers that the Scottish Parliament already has, specifically those relating to universities and social care.

And, third, he calls “reckless” and “unfair to England” the established principle of funding Scottish services: the 40-year-old settlement which, with all-party agreement, allocates resources by taking account of differing needs and changing demography.’

Brown further alleges:

‘Few now doubt that, whether through ignorance, carelessness or malice, [Boris Johnson] would be prepared to play fast and loose with the Union when it suits his personal electoral needs — not least by whipping up English nationalist fervour against the prospect of Scottish nationalists holding the balance of power in the UK.’

In that last statement, Brown inadvertently blurts out the crux of the problem. The problem is not that the Scottish National Party (SNP) might hold the balance of power in the UK, but that they might hold the balance of power in England. The UK has been corrupted, and its unity threatened, by the devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – and yet England is still ruled by the UK parliament in which Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs still have votes even on matters that have been devolved to their own national parliaments.

Not only is this constitutional settlement, that Brown himself championed, tantamount to vote rigging, but that outrage is made even worse by Scotland and Wales having smaller constituencies than England and so Scotland and Wales are ‘over-represented at Westminster’.

On top of which, Scotland, is the wealthiest part of the UK outside London and the South East. Yet even the poorer parts of England have to pay a thumping subsidy to Scotland to enable the Scots to enjoy higher standards of living than the English. The funding formula is a disgrace and is long overdue for change. Of importance, is the assertion by Brown that despite its unfairness, the funding formula has ‘all-party agreement’.

But Brown rejects any change, any recognition for English democracy and the need for equality for the English. For Brown, it is a case of ‘I’m All Right Jock’, and anyone who advocates fairness for the English is a threat to the UK. In fact, the opposite is true.

In Brexit Means Brexit: How the British Ponzi Class Survived the EU Referendum (page 250), I wrote:

‘The result of the 2017 general election was that the Tories won handsomely in England (with 297 seats to 227 seats for Labour and a 61-seat overall majority). But the phalanx of MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (each of which, unlike England, had their own parliaments) meant that the Tories were narrowly short of a majority. The governance of England was determined by non-English MPs. This is in addition to the large number of non-English voters allowed to vote and the abuses of the postal ballots. Then there was the out-of-date constituency boundaries. The vote was rigged against the Tories by the Tories. Instead of fudging and waffling, they needed to govern. They were too useless to introduce an English parliament, and they paid the price. They preferred to appease a coalition of anti-English vested interests who were out to plunder the English for all they could get – Plaid Cymru, the SNP, Sinn Fein, a multitude of supposedly oppressed groups (militant homosexuals, feminists, ethnic minorities, Muslims, etc) and the EU. No one stood up for the English.’

That the English are now starting to rebel should not be unexpected – such a rebellion is long overdue. It is Brown who is a threat to the UK and Brown who is stirring up hatred. Instead of preaching victimhood for the Scots, who he regards as an oppressed minority, he should mind his own business and allow the English an English parliament and equality as is their right.

In Turbo Brexit: And the Case Against Brino (page 118), of the ten points comprising a policy of Turbo Brexit, I wrote:

‘Point nine is concerned with constitutional reform. Key is the creation of an English Parliament. There is absolutely no reason why the English should be denied their democratic rights and no reason why they should be treated as second-class citizens in their own country. For Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish people to have a vote to elect representatives for their own governance in their own parliaments, and then another vote as to how Britain as a whole is governed – including England and over matters that only affect the English due to such matters being devolved to the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish parliaments – with the English being denied the same voting rights as the other British nations, is the ‘democracy’ of a banana republic. It is a constitutional outrage. Furthermore, is the arrogant assumption that the English must subsidize the Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish parliaments to ensure that those assemblies do not have to pay their own bills. For example, in August 2017, figures showed that Scottish people each received £1,437 more state spending per year than the UK average. In 2016/17, Scotland’s net deficit was £13.3 billion – 8.3 per cent of GDP. The English subsidies to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are in excess of £25 billion, for which there is little gratitude. This funding imbalance needs to be redressed and is a part of the long-overdue constitutional reform to create an English parliament.’