We in UKIP have at last realised that we believe in Britain. Despite the weakness and sickness of the British present, we believe in the greatness of the British past and the greatness of the British future. How does our belief in Britain influence our thinking on devolution?
The political union of the two halves of the island of Britain has been a wonderful blessing, giving us three centuries of internal peace. But this blessing may be taken from us. Scotland and the Rest of the United Kingdom, earlier this year, appeared quite likely to become two independent countries. The whole thing happened to us like something in a dream, without anyone realising its appalling implications.
No responsible British government could permit it to happen. The possibility of Scotland, or any other constituent part of our island becoming separately independent, perhaps in the future to become part of a political grouping or alliance hostile to the remainder of the country, would be too dangerous to everyone in Britain. For three centuries, we have enjoyed the strategic benefits of living on an undivided island with a common loyalty. Unlike almost every other country in the world, we have lived in internal peace in that time. Rather than allow this island to be divided politically, we should be willing, if necessary, to fight, as the United States fought 150 years ago.
I’ve suggested in an earlier article that the current trend towards devolution did not arise because of an increase in the strength of Scottish and Welsh nationalism It was stimulated and drew strength from the nationalisms once it got going, but devolution was invented by two mischievous and irresponsible Labour governments – those of Harold Wilson and Tony Blair – with the party object of installing Labour as the permanent party of power in Scotland and Wales. This object, until the Nationalists came to power in Scotland, was successfully achieved. But now that an appetite for devolution has been aroused in many people in Scotland and some in Wales, we have to decide what future policy should be.
Our thinking on devolution in general needs to be guided by three considerations:
- It is inconceivable for strategic reasons that total political separation could ever be allowed to happen.
- Better government in London and a greater pride in our common identity as British will make the whole problem of devolution much easier to solve. The devolution we have experienced recently is not primarily inspired by positive feelings of Scottish and Welsh nationalism, but by Labour exploitation of a collapse of belief in British central government.
- Both these considerations apply to Scotland and Wales equally. But after that, it becomes pointless to discuss devolution in the abstract. Scotland and Wales have very little in common.
Scotland
In 1707, England and Scotland already had the same monarch and this fact was far more important than it is now. The 1707 treaty united the two parliaments but also provided that the Scottish Legal System and the Scottish Church should continue. This meant that for most people in Britain at that time, little changed. England and Scotland remained two allied countries rather than a single country. The Union opened up great new commercial opportunities for Scotland and the people of our two countries exploited and colonised the world together. But on this island, they have not mixed much. One does not encounter very many Scots people in England, and even fewer English people in Scotland.
In the twentieth century, the disappearance of the Empire diminished the sense in Scotland of sharing a common destiny with England. At the same time, the power and scope of the British state expanded greatly. This expansion of the state has happened as a result of legislation by the Union Parliament in Westminster and Scotland increasingly found herself governed by systems emanating from London. This aroused anti-English feelings and these feelings have been greatly exacerbated by the Westminster arrogance and bad government against which we in UKIP also protest.
The two countries need each other and must not be separated, but the two national identities remain different and allowance needs to be made for the differences. Devolution may be necessary, so that we are not yoked together any more than we want to be, but the present system favours Scotland far more than England and this imbalance needs to be corrected. England’s viewpoint must be heard, England’s interests must be allowed for, and then the Scots should surely have as much of a separate identity (within the limits of a common sovereignty, defence and foreign policy) as they truly wish for.
Wales
Wales is quite unlike Scotland. Wales has its own language, but Welsh is only spoken by about 20% of the Welsh population: in the farms and villages of upland Wales and in a few small inland towns. The Welsh-speaking minority are intensely and justifiably proud of their language and of the cultural traditions that go with it; and their language and cultural traditions have much to contribute in a world where so much traditional culture has disappeared. But most people who live in Wales, and particularly those who live in the big centres of population in South Wales, speak only English and do not share the Welsh cultural identity. And of course the vast majority of Welsh speakers also demonstrate that they speak and understand English fluently.
Devolution in Wales is divisive, in the same way that multiculturalism is divisive in other places. Wales is ruled by a Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition and the result of devolution is that the Welsh language is promoted at the expense of English. The non-Welsh speaker is at a disadvantage in schools and in the workplace. Welsh speakers are employed in large numbers as translators and interpreters (even though almost everyone in Wales speaks English) and it has become more and more difficult to get any job in the state sector in Wales if one does not speak Welsh. This disqualifies most of the Welsh population. The Welsh language and Welsh cultural traditions deserve to be perpetuated. Perhaps they deserve specific government subsidy. But they cannot be best perpetuated by antagonising the majority of the people of Wales. For this and other reasons, it seems likely that devolution in Wales has done more harm than good.
England
London is by far the most prosperous part of Britain. Without London, Britain’s commercial decline would be catastrophic. Increasingly, London is supporting Britain. But London happens to be in England. In a unified state, it is accepted that the parts of the country which happen to prosper are willing to assist the parts which are doing less well. It is not entirely acceptable that parts of the country which are heavily dependent on other parts nevertheless clamour to spend their share of the common purse in their own way. The more separate powers are given to the Scottish parliament, the more England may reasonably complain that Scotland must stand on its own feet economically.
At the same time, the increased powers which have been given to Scotland to rule itself have not in any way reduced the strong tendency for Scots to rule England. Scots have always been over-represented in British governments. No one in England objected because we thought we were all part of one country. But now, we have a situation in which a Scottish parliament makes laws for Scotland and a British parliament, in which Scotland is still proportionately represented, makes laws for England. Everyone knows that this is wrong, but nothing has been done about it.
The Future
The first priority of any UKIP administration must be the common good of the whole of Britain. This means that Britain must leave the EU, overcome any problems or obstacles which this involves, and re-establish Britain’s pride and prosperity. These things in themselves will reduce the urgency of the devolution issue. The next priority must be to address the bad effects of the devolved government we currently have. This means correcting the political and economic imbalances which currently make England a net loser from devolution, and the misuse of power which has occurred in Wales.
After that, provided it is clearly understood that sovereignty, foreign policy and defence must always remain one and indivisible, any part of Britain which wishes for devolution and fully accepts its negative as well as its positive implications should have as much of it as its people want. But surely the better governed we are as a unified country, the less any one of our parts will wish to organise its own affairs separately.
I bring bad news from Planet Telegraph. The resident Kippers, who comment over there in great numbers, are mostly determined Little Englanders who positively welcome the prospect of Scottish independence because they (wrongly) think it will destroy the Labour Party’s chances of ever again forming a left-wing government at Westminster.
So for all St Nige’s insistence that UKIP is fundamentally a British party (and indeed in spite of the very name of the organisation, where the letters U and K ought to be something of a clue as to its purpose and scope) there are very many UKIP supporters in England who see it as an English party, existing to defend English interests.
For as long as that remains the case UKIP’s chances of attracting substantial support inside Scotland, and thus of being a genuinely UK-wide force, will remain slim.
Brilliant! And just what we slow-witted English need. You see, from our point of view, a party which looks after English interests at last looks like a bloody good idea! you’ve made me think, anyway…
UKIP did quite well in the Euro elections getting 1 MEP in Scotland. There is no reason why UKIP cannot improve its standing in the other home nations. Inroads are being made in Wales and N’Ireland. It is vitally important that UKIP is seen not just as an English party but as a British party, looking after the real interests of all who live on these islands. In my English constituency many of the UKIP members are Scots who work tirelessly for the party and for Britain. UKIP must not let division be the new normality.
Good concise article. As you point out in your conclusion the key to our own unity is the absolute requirement to leave the EU. It’s a no-brainer and something that I’ve been banging on about for ages.
I’m delighted to have provoked some good discussion and I plead guilty to the charge of being an Englishman with a limited knowledge of Scotland. One thing I do know about the Scots, however, is that it’s a mistake to provoke a serious quarrel with them.
The purpose of my comparison with the US situation at the time of the Civil War was to draw attention to the strategic dimension, which is vitally important to both Scotland and England. We are so accustomed to internal peace in Britain that it simply doesn’t come into our discussion. I think perhaps the Scots, being a military people, will understand this better than we English do.
MartinR, you ridicule my fears of Scotland becoming part of an alliance against England:
“As for an independent Scotland forming an alliance hostile to the rest of the country, which countries exactly does the author think would be part of such an alliance?’
But we all know exactly which countries they might be and I’ve drawn attention to it in an earlier article about devolution. When it looked as if Scotland might become independent, the idea of Scotland continuing as a member of the EU whilst the rest of the UK became independent again was often mentioned. The EU is moving towards being a single totalitarian state, under the leadership of a great country with a history of militarism. The idea of a European Army, in the Prussian military tradition, massing its forces on the Border, terrifies me personally even more than the idea of a war with Scotland.
We simply cannot afford to ignore this possibility. Of course we none of us want a war with anyone. Of course we must do everything we can not to quarrel with the Scots. Why should we quarrel with the Scots? An international frontier across the middle of our shared island is against their interests just as it is against ours. But we can none of us, whether Scots, English, Welsh or Northern Irish, afford to talk happily about referenda and democracy and ignore the strategic dimension. It’s a matter of life and death.
A very visible thread running through these articles is the concept of the ‘Common Good”. This idea of the Common Good is sadly, nowadays seldom heard of, and so it is all the more welcome here, in a Ukip article rightly concerned with the benefits for everyone in a continuing, united UK.
The concept of the Common Good is of course a deeply Christian derived one, and indeed it is one that would do Ukip well to promulgate. Having been a Christian country for centuries the idea of promoting the good, the benefit of us all, is deeply held within the cultural psyche of the UK, on both right and left. So I say, well done and very well said, Mike Mundford.
“One does not encounter very many Scots people in England, and even fewer English people in Scotland.” According to the 2001 Census there were 500,000 living in Scotland who were born in England.
I’ve pointed it out before and I’ll point it out again that the first major UK political party to make a commitment to devolution in the 1960s was the Conservative Party, not the Labour Party. In October 1974 the SNP won 11 seats. All but 2 of those seats were gained from the Conservatives.
As an Englishman living in Scotland, I have to say that this article is obviously written by an Englishman with little or no experience of Scotland. The idea of Scottish devolution as an invention of the Labour Party designed to perpetuate Labour rule in Scotland might appeal to anti-Labour folk south of the border but bears little relation to the actual situation in Scotland. I came to Scotland in the 1960s so have lived through most of the devolution debate as it developed during the seventies, eighties and nineties. During that time there was considerable opposition in Scottish Labour circles to the whole idea of devolution and for much of the time, Labour’s support was faint-hearted to say the least.
However, history is history and it does not matter too much what view we take of the past. Much more important is our view of the future. And I have to say that the idea of England (or the rest of the UK) resisting a clearly-expressed desire of the people of Scotland for political independence is a recipe for disaster. I do not support Scottish independence but if the majority of Scots want it then the rest of the UK would be ill-advised to resist it. Resistance would create a great bitterness in Scotland which could have very disastrous consequences. As for a UK Civil War (“fight as the United States fought”) the mind boggles. If people in Scotland thought that that was an idea seriously entertained within UKIP that would be the end of any prospect for UKIP in Scotland.
As for an independent Scotland forming an alliance hostile to the rest of the country, which countries exactly does the author think would be part of such an alliance?
Can I also reject the idea that Scottish nationalists are all anti-English? Yes, some are but in so far as Scottish nationalism is aimed at the English it is aimed at the perception of ‘English rule’. As an Englishman living in Scotland I do not personally feel threatened by Scottish nationalism because I am English.
One final point, in case there are any lingering doubts about Scotland’s desire for Home Rule, it might be worthwhile to mention that a petition in 1950 calling for Home Rule achieved two million signatures.
I think we all agree that devolution is a mess but this article gets off on the wrong foot almost immediately by proposing a condition
that cannot be solely determined by England or the UK government.
Speaking about independence for Scotland you say:
“No responsible British government could permit it to happen.”
Any decision about independence would rest entirely with the
Scottish people and is not within the gift of the UK government in practice. Setting a condition on the British government about something it has little control over is pointless but, unfortunately the effect of this misperception controls the thread of the remainder of the comment and renders much of it unhelpful.
I would rather see it from the other direction which is that we must always remain open to the possibility that Scotland may, one day,
decide to become independent and acknowledge that possibility rather than sticking our collective heads in the sand.
Other statements are worryingly militaristic or simply wrong.
“Rather than allow this island to be divided politically, we should be willing, if necessary, to fight, as the United States fought 150 years ago.”
If you mean go to war with Scotland as America did with itself
and with England, firstly that was 240 years ago and secondly but probably more importantly I’m not sure you will get many takers.
You also say:
“One does not encounter very many Scots people in England,”
I presume you aren’t counting the 800,000 or so Scots living and working in other parts of the UK which represents about a 5th of
the total current Scottish population. I can only assume you don’t get out much.
The general tenure of the piece will find much agreement, that devolution is a mess, our government is incompetent, and England gets the worst deal but then you avoid the conclusion you have been building up to and offer no solutions other than ‘something must be done’.
I don’t recall your previous articles being anything other than accurate and informative so I’m not too sure why this one misses so many markers. Either way I’m assuming you would want me to be honest with any criticism which I’ve tried to be.
I agree with the writer of the article when he says re Scottish independence “No responsible British government could permit it to happen.” The truth of this was demonstrated before our eyes only 3 months ago when the Unionists pulled out all the stops to prevent the secession of Scotland and succeeded. Now that the price of oil has dropped substantially, perhaps the Scots see that they were saved from the folly of the SNP in promoting economic independence as a mainstay of their argument. Why would the rest of the UK want a Socialist Republic in their backyard? Fortunately, the more intelligent, less hot-headed Scots can see the stupidity of weakening the Union on the basis of anti-English prejudice, especially when many, many Scottish people have benefited from moving South and encountered little or no anti-Scots prejudice.
My view is that in practical terms it is not within the gift of the UK government to prevent the Scots voting to become independent now or at any future time other than by winning the debate. Presumably you, along with the author think it is. The author denies that he was referring to military action so I would be interested to hear what other mechanism you believe to be available to actually and presumably forcibly, prevent secession were it to be demonstrably the will of the Scottish electorate.
Thank you for this article, which clarifies the issues in a readable style. The Labourites who began the process of devolution for their own political ends were and are despicable, divisive, treasonous fools. Yet another aspect of the ruination of the UK for which we have Blair to thank in recent times. Every effort should be made to keep the UK united in the face of EU ambitions to create manageable Federal provinces over which to rule more easily.