I suppose someone had to say it.
Elendil’s Heir, here’s a book review I read the other day that I thought might pique your interest: Acts of Union, Acts of Disunion by Linda Colley – review | Politics books | The Guardian
As much as I would not want to see Scotland leave (without taking the North with them, at least), I think the Nats have a point when they claim that the idea of making things “fairer for the whole of the UK” is about as likely with our current political system as … something not very likely. We have a completely entrenched political system, swapping power between a group of effeminate toffs out to line their own pockets on the one hand and a group of profligate warmongers on the other. London and the Home Counties have an inordinate amount of influence on British politics, and as long as the government, the Civil Service, the highest courts in the land, the British media and the financial centre are all seated in London, that is not going to change any time soon. Even moderate political reform (as long as it does not involve us completely isolating ourselves from the rest of Europe, in which case go ahead and slash away willy nilly!) is shot down wholesale or watered down until there’s barely a change.
At this stage, the best the Scots can achieve is to further insulate themselves from Westminster’s mismanagement as much as possible via another round of devolved powers, and good luck to them. The SNP as a devolved government have governed well. It’s no wonder a subset of Scots look at Holyrood and Westminster and ask what the point of Westminster is.
You could say much the same for Scotland WRT the Edinburgh - Glasgow corridor.
And you’d probably be right. One ameliorating fact being whilst ~16 million people live in the South East of England and London combined as of 2011, or less than a quarter of the UK’s 63 million strong population, around 70% of Scotland’s population lives in the Central Lowlands, so the focus on that region is much more understandable.
Until regional politics is actually of interest to people in England, Westminster centralism is here to stay. I have a feeling that in the long, long term it may be taken more seriously, but for now the general expectation is that Westminster is where the country’s issues should be decided.
There’s something to be said for the idea that countries should work together on a voluntary, self-determining basis, not because of an accident of birth and/or military occupation hundreds of years ago. I suppose that’s just a pithier version of what CSRP said.
Regional politics probably is of interest to people in England (just look at the London Assembly, after all) if they were offered representation tied with real power that actually respected historical cultural boundaries rather than the arbitrary regions used in EU elections that Labour tried to foist on the North East.
Labour’s “regional assembly” plans were always meant to fail, or constructed so ham-handedly that it was inevitable. They were talking shops with no power. We can’t have them undermining the authority of Westminster, after all.
The problem with regional assemblies is that they’re just an extra superfluous level of government/bureaucracy. Currently we have local government and national government (not to mention the EU as well) and I don’t see anyone arguing that inserting another layer of government in between leads to better government.
I can see in some situations that an extra level of government does serve a function, for example in Scotland which is far from the centralized national government, has its own legal system, etc or in other places which are away from the central hub of power. Or in London where there needs to be some form of central authority over the various local government units.
However for someone like me living in the South East, I don’t see any practical need for another layer of government. Further any region would be completely contrived: living in Berkshire I have little in common with the people of Essex on the other side of London and their strange ways and peculiar speech.
I was under the impression that the regions were created to mollify English people who objected to the idea that Scotland and Wales would be represented in their own legislatures and also in Westminster.
Thanks - it did indeed!
You’re not far wrong. Which is why the initial referendums on regional assemblies took place in the North, which were reputed to be most dismayed at Scottish and Welsh devolution.
I also second Asympotically fat’s post.
Doesn’t the term “Home Counties” itself reflect a London-centered or Southeast-centered worldview? Doesn’t it bother people in the north or southwest or midlands or East Anglia that their counties aren’t part of England’s “home”?
That was my point. They were set up to be yet another superfluous layer of government. They needn’t have been. It’s not as if regional assemblies are unknown quantities in the UK: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have them, with varying amounts of (real) power, and seem to work extremely well.
How are the Scottish borders sufficiently far enough away from London to merit a regional assembly but the English borders are not?
I doubt Berkshire and Essex would be lumped in to the same regional assembly. As I said, the assemblies need to govern along historical cultural lines. Arbitrarily lumping in regions together will not work. That’s what Labour tried to do, following the hacking up of the country into weird regions that the EU uses for elections.
I think those historical cultural lines are breaking down. Few people have more than a notional association with their home county, and even that’s half-hearted. Granted, there’s a stronger north/south divide, but beyond being ‘not one of those southern fairies’, I’m not sure how much of an identity there is!
There’s far stronger interest in having a single English Parliament rather than regional devolution, which indicates to me where the cultural concerns are - continued centralism but resentment of the devolution given to the rest of the UK. Shame, really, as I find having an English Parliament while within the UK a ludicrous idea, and the only sensible options being either the status quo or the currently ignored regional devolution.
An English Parliament will be the end of the Union. One regional parliament representing 85% of the population of the UK. Clearly in England the parliament will over time come to be more legitimate than Westminster itself.
I entirely agree.
I don’t think anyone associates the name with these counties actually being Englands ‘home’. It’s a fairly meaningless phrase (like ‘World Series’ :D)
A new thread on the referendum itself: Scotland's referendum on Independence 18 Sept 2014 - Politics & Elections - Straight Dope Message Board