Britain | The English question

Handle with care

The Tories flirt with a growing English nationalism

|

SOMEWHERE among the stiff upper lips and a fondness for queuing, a sense of fair play is to be found in any shortlist of the traits readily associated with the English. No wonder, then, that they are animated by the “West Lothian question”—the constitutional anomaly that allows Scottish MPs to vote on laws affecting only England but, since devolution in 1999, denies English MPs a say on a wide array of matters that pertain only to Scotland.

One answer to this question—limiting the right to vote on English-only matters, including health and education, to MPs with English seats—was proposed by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a Conservative MP, on October 28th. It is not yet party policy, but his plan for a “grand committee” of English MPs is being considered by the Tories.

The present arrangements are lop-sided but Sir Malcolm's proposals, experts say, could hasten the break-up of the United Kingdom. A government with a majority of British but not English seats might struggle to pass many of its manifesto pledges, and ministers from Scottish constituencies would be unable to vote on their own bills. This is not just a theoretical worry: the present cabinet is led by Scots, including the prime minister and his chancellor of the exchequer. Moreover, determining which bills are purely English is a fraught task, as William Gladstone, a Liberal prime minister, discovered in 1893 when he had to abandon a plan similar to Sir Malcolm's to deal with Irish MPs. Accommodating MPs from Wales and Northern Ireland, whose national legislatures have fewer powers than Scotland's, would complicate things further.

That the Tories are flirting with the idea is at first sight remarkable, given their history—theirs is still officially the Conservative and Unionist Party. In 1955 the Tories won an outright majority of seats and votes in Scotland, the only party that has done so since the war. Only last year David Cameron, their leader, gave a robustly unionist speech in Oban.

Yet a glance at an electoral map explains why the Tories' views may be changing. Margaret Thatcher tried out her hated poll tax there and that, plus the impact of privatisation and union-bashing on Scotland's industrial economy, turned off voters north of the border. The Tories now have just one MP in Scotland.

So their pitch to the English may be understandable, but it is risky in two ways. By reducing the Scots' stake in British government, it could encourage them to pull out of it altogether. It may also embolden an English nationalism that threatens the union just as much as the Scottish kind.

Polls suggesting that two-thirds of the English support an English-only parliament may be flawed (the questions are often leading), but support is definitely up from the 17% registered in the early years of devolution. The proportion of English people who define themselves as “English, not British” has risen from 30% in 1992 to 40% in 2005. English MPs report that voters nobbled on their doorsteps complain increasingly about England's subsidy of the Celtic fringe and the “Scottish Raj” that dominates Westminster.

For its part, the Labour government has allowed the union to suffer through neglect. It has not addressed English concerns over the West Lothian question or the Barnett spending formula that has seemed to favour the smaller nations. Its part-time Scottish secretary appears unable to counter Alex Salmond, the wily nationalist leader of the Scottish government, who aims to drive a wedge between Westminster and Holyrood. And although Gordon Brown, the prime minister, touts Britishness, Labour has seldom made a positive case for the union, telling Scottish voters at the May elections only that they faced public-service cuts without their English subsidy.

If there is an answer to the English question, it is less likely to lie in dramatic reform such as Sir Malcolm's grand committee or an English parliament than in a clutch of partial measures: rejigging the Barnett formula, devolving power to local government in England, cutting the number of Scottish MPs. For if there is anything as English as fair play, it is a preference for messy compromise over radical change.

This article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under the headline "Handle with care"

The new wars of religion

From the November 3rd 2007 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

Discover more

The future of Drax, Britain’s largest power plant

From coal to wood to carbon capture and storage?

A new hate-crime law in Scotland causes widespread concern

Transgender identity is protected; biological sex is not


Britain’s kings of sourdough

The rapid rise of a firm that makes bread very slowly