The English response to devolution, and to Scottish hostility, has thus far been remarkably muted. There has been growing publicity down south about the much larger per capita slice of public spending which the Scots receive over the English. If any aspect of devolution has seriously roused popular anger, it is the government’s proposals to match its Scottish and Welsh legislatures with a mad new layer of regional government for England. Beyond keeping the deputy prime minister off the streets, most English people find it impossible to discover any merit in these proposals, which further diminish the powers of county councils, and must ultimately strengthen the hand of central government, because the English regions command no possible loyalty to match that given to Scotland, Wales and the traditional English counties. Back in 1707, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun was one of few Scots who raised objection to the Union, and urged the English instead to contemplate regional government for themselves. Then as now, he was wasting his breath. As Scottish historian Christopher Harvie has said, English regionalism is ‘the dog that never barked’.
Yet the fact that Scotland has become overwhelmingly the political territory of the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Nationalists has caused some Conservatives to consider turning their faces altogether away from the northern kingdom, in pursuit of political and economic advantage. They argue that Scottish independence, and thus English independence, would be of real benefit to English taxpayers, who would no longer have to pay the bills for Scotland; and to the Conservative Party, which at a stroke could be sundered from troubling itself about scores of constituencies which are unlikely ever again to vote Tory. They fantasise about thus creating an almost permanent Tory majority in an English House of Commons. By a bizarre twist, a community of sentiment has thus evolved, between the Scottish nationalists and some right-wing English nationalists.
The English right-wing dream seems to most of us wildly misplaced. I remember a Tory cabinet minister saying to me 15 years ago that he believed the separation of Scotland and England would diminish both nations far more than either recognises, and more than any raw economic calculation might suggest. This seems just. It is surely significant that some European nations, and notably France, regard a partition of Scotland and England with enthusiasm, precisely because they believe that it would diminish the voice of both nations in Europe. Most of us here tonight, I suspect, also feel a profound visceral dismay at the notion of Scotland’s departure from the union. The cultural and social bond is precious.
One more political factor must be mentioned- the notorious West Lothian question first raised by Tam Dalyell. What is to be done about the substantial Scottish over-representation at Westminster, now that Scotland has its own parliament in which the English have no voice, while Scots MPs continue to vote early and often upon every aspect of our affairs down here ? This is not so easy a question to answer as some suppose, and not only for partisan reasons. Tony Blair is pledged to a very modest reduction in Scottish representation. It is a strange paradox, that so much Scottish animus is directed against the English, at a time when Scottish ministers exercise unprecedented power over the affairs of the United Kingdom. Rationally, there is a good case- however unlikely it is that any Labour Government will heed it- drastically to reduce Scottish representation at Westminster. Yet no measure seems more likely to drive Scotland towards independence, if a future Conservative administration entertains it.
Should the Scottish people perceive their influence in the United Kingdom dramatically diminished, however ungrateful they seem for it today, I suggest that they would soon convince themselves that there is no longer cause for them to remain on board our ship of state. Likewise, if Scottish MPs were denied the right to vote on explicitly English matters- for which there is also a perfectly logical case- Scotland would quickly lose interest in the wider affairs of Britain. We ought to be encouraging the Scots to behave less parochially, not more so. Would we respect Scottish MPs more, if they began to behave like today’s Northern Irish MPs of all parties, who sit in the House of Commons, yet display not the smallest interest in British affairs, and remain entirely preoccupied with the business of their own fractious province ?
I suggest, therefore, that if we wish the Union to survive, we must put aside some of the perfectly logical arguments for diminishing the role of Scottish MPs at Westminster, and swallow some measure of Scottish over-representation. I should acknowledge, however, that it is easier to urge this when the Labour party possesses a huge majority, with or without its Scots. A few years hence, if we find ourselves with a tight and turbulent House of Commons, in which Scottish support alone enables the Labour party to retain power, the political issues could become far more difficult. English pressure to push out some of the Scots might become a major issue, and understandably so. Some MPs suggest that within 10 or 15 years, Scottish MPs will voluntarily refrain from voting on explicitly English issues such as education. This would be welcome. But, if we wish to tread sensitively on issues that can expose the Union to further stresses, it would be rash to hasten to compel them to this course.
Some thoughtful observers believe that sooner or later, Scottish independence is likely, if not inevitable. Norman Davies, in his recent book The Isles, reminds us how relatively brief is the history of the United Kingdom. He suggests that its dissolution is inevitable in a new world in which the advantages of union seem much less plain than once they were, and in which the independence of minorities within the wider entity of Europe is being pursued by many national groups around the continent. Richard Weight, in his important study of British nationalism Patriots, suggests that the Scots will continue to hover on the brink of secession, while finally flinching from adopting this option, because they do not wish to pay for it. Yet Weight also argues that the loss of empire, the fading of the memory of the Second World War as a unifying force, together with decline in public enthusiasm for the shared monarchy, and increasing blurring of British national identity in Europe, make the long-term future of the Union seem doubtful. He suggests that it would be rash to believe that it can survive for more than a century, if that.
In looking to the future, I believe that we must come back to the issue I raised much earlier- that of self-esteem. Today, for a variety of reasons some of which are their own fault and some not, the Scots do not feel good about themselves. A recent reported by two academics, Scotsman David Bell and American David Blanchflower, is entitled: ‘The Scots may be brave, but they are neither healthy nor happy’. This concludes that over the past 30 years, neither devolution nor increased prosperity has dispelled the gloom about their own predicament quantified in a 1973 survey. Professor Bell says: ‘We Scots turn out to be a little bit negative about life. There is this unexplained difference’. While the morale of other UK citizens has risen significantly over the same period, only 28% of Scots described themselves as ‘very satisfied’ with their circumstances, against 35% of the English and Welsh.
If Scots were more self-confident about their own status and identity, they might enjoy a much more comfortable relationship with the English. Yet because we are overwhelmingly the larger and richer partner, the chief responsibility must fall upon England, to work harder than we have done in modern times, to respect Scottish sensitivities and to boost Scottish self-esteem. That penetrating historian Linda Colley told a Downing Street conference in 1999: ‘Instead of being mesmerised by debates over British identity, it would be far more productive to concentrate on renovating British citizenship, and on convincing all of the inhabitants of these islands that they are equal and valued citizens irrespective or whatever identity they may individually select to prioritize’. In other words, it is scarcely surprising that some Scots choose to think little of their British status, when many of the British themselves seem to regard their Celtic extremities with condescension. Conversely, the Scottish comedian Billy Connolly expresses his contempt for his own peoples’ nationalism with a vigour which must strike a chord with many English people. He describes ‘a new Scottish racism, which I loathe- this thing that everything horrible is English’. It is striking that while Scottish accents prosper mightily on England’s broadcast air waves, it is impossible to imagine an English accent being acceptable on most stations in the north. A while ago, I heard the US Trade Representative in the Bush Administration, Bob Zoellick, complain that Europe’s foremost, if not only way to establish its own identity appears to be in terms of its determination not to be American. It may be argued that Scots likewise find it much easier to define themselves through hostility to things English than through a coherent positive vision of their own destiny. If they felt more comfortable with themselves, they might feel less confrontational towards England
To sustain the union over the next century, it will be necessary for the Scottish people to perceive its advantages more clearly, and for the English to work harder to foster Scottish national self-regard, even in the face of constant provocation from Scottish politicians and the Scottish media. If the Scots perceive themselves forever doomed to be clutching a begging bowl before the English, sooner or later they will find it more appealing to break away, however irrational such a decision might seem. Only If the Scots recover their faith in themselves as respected partners in the union, rather than as despised dependents, can the settlement hope to survive. In the short term, the nationalists are perceived to be on the defensive, because of the visible failures of Scottish self-governance. In a few years, however, I suggest that the forces for independence will rise again, if Scots feel themselves to be failing under the Union flag. If this is true, it is not important here to argue about whose fault it is, to what degree the Scots have brought their troubles upon themselves. We need only observe that unless the English can assist the Scots to find a way forward, then sooner or later they will break with us.
It is dismaying that, partly because of the shortcomings of the Scottish media, debate north of the border about the merits and limitations of the Union is crass, cheap and strident. Scott’s fictional Bailie Jarvie in 1715 rebuked one of his fellow-countrymen for abusing the English in terms that might readily be applied to today’s Scottish media: ‘It’s ill-scraped tongues like yours that make mischief atween neighbours and nations’. Too many thoughtful people in the north, who should be speaking out publicly about the rational case for Union, are reluctant to raise their voices against the fashionable nationalist mood. A few years ago, there was a campaign for BBC News in Scotland to be entirely divorced from its English counterpart. Friends of mine in the upper reaches of the BBC strongly resisted this move. One told me, I think absolutely rightly, that he believed that if BBC Scotland’s News operation became wholly independent, it would inevitably become a voice of nationalism, a force for separation of the two nations. He, as an Englishmen, sought to enlist allies in the Scottish cultural establishment, to make this point. Many told him privately that they agreed. Almost none, however, was willingly to resist popular sentiment, by saying so publicly. This seems to reflect an intellectual laziness, cowardice- call it what you will- that does no service to the interests of Scotland.
In suggesting that we, the English, need to work harder at helping the revival of Scottish self-worth, I do not suggest that we must accept every argument on Scottish terms. It is one thing to recognise that some Scots are irked by tweedy Englishman shooting on their hills. It is quite another to bow to the dotty pastoral visions, and the pretty shameless class-warrior spirit, of such lobbyists as Andy Wightman. It is one thing to ask the English to accept that if we want the Union to survive, we must ungrudgingly fund more infrastructure in Scotland. It is another thing, however, to expect English voters indefinitely to swallow violent expressions of Scottish antipathy to the English, even as we pay the bills for them. The Scots are rash if they suppose they can abuse the English beyond a certain point, without paying a price for doing so. Both parties must learn to look forward, not back. There must be trade-offs, to which they must assent more graciously than they have done in the recent past. Scots should recognise that even if they should some time choose the path to independence, they will not receive from Brussels the huge financial hand-outs from which Ireland profited in the 1970s. Today, there are simply too many rival contenders for European largesse.
For me, as an Englishman who loves Scotland, there is something of the pain of a rejected suitor in perceiving the mood among some Scots towards the English. The folly seems self-evident, of tormenting, even persecuting, rich foreigners- including the English- in Scotland. Yet the wounds on both sides cannot be cured either by ignoring them, or by seeking to trample national sensitivities underfoot. Patience, goodwill, statesmanship, money and above all a fundamental belief that the preservation of the Union is important to all of us will be necessary, if it is to persist beyond our lifetimes. It is unlikely that there will ever again be a time when Scotland and England co-habit in tranquillity, as did the two nations in the palmy years of the 19th century. The future relationship will remain chronically restless and uneasy. The issue of Scottish independence will always be somewhere on the table. Yet the two nations have shared so much in the past, and continue to share so much to this day. Scotland should be able to forge a great future as a centre of 21st excellence, without any necessity to preserve a reputation, as the Scottish Parliament sometimes seeks to wish, as a convalescent home for 20th century lost causes. Both nations will be sorely diminished, much more than any raw statistics would suggest, if the northern Kingdom finally insists upon going its own way. I remain optimistic that, while Scots will continue to flirt and dally with the joys of independence, to teeter on the brink, they will also reject the final step, because at root they are hard-headed pragmatists. The prize of sustaining the Union seems great enough to deserve generosity of spirit, forbearance and goodwill, to preserve a marriage which has meant so much to so many of us for so long, and may yet do so in the future, if wisdom prevails on both sides of the Border.