By Michael Kenny
A year has passed since the historic referendum on Scotland’s future but its imprint upon politics and politicians across the UK remains indelible.
One of the overlooked effects of the referendum has been its impact upon English sensibilities.
There is some evidence to suggest that many who live in England were concerned that the award of additional powers to Scotland represented an accentuation of an already unbalanced, and possibly unfair, situation. England is the one remaining territory in the UK that has not been the beneficiary of devolution, and a gathering sense of territorial grievance has settled over many English voters since the mid 2000s.
Other sentiments complicate this picture. The Union remains popular in England and polling undertaken during the referendum campaign suggested that the number of those who wanted the Scots to remain part of the UK grew during its course.
But a more uncertain, anxious national mood has begun to settle south of the Border. And a people who long prided themselves on their aversion to nationalism are now far more culturally self-conscious, and more likely to see themselves possessing a collective interest the Union state does not seem to recognise.
In this context, the Conservatives’ championing of English Votes for English Laws (Evel) for the Commons has struck a chord, as well as serving a useful political purpose. Ever since David Cameron tabled the "English Question" in response to the referendum result, Labour has been on the back foot on constitutional and territorial issues. Unable to summon a positive response to the idea of English devolution, the party was left vulnerable during the election campaign to the Tories’ relentless focus upon the prospect of a minority administration that would be reliant, in some way or other, on SNP support.
In this Parliament, the Conservatives have sought to press home their political advantage and to address what they see as a growing desire for an English "voice" in the political system. They have also, more controversially, devised plans for a veto English representatives can use if the UK Government seeks to pass legislation that affects England only, and with which a majority among them do not agree.
But the reforms proposed by Chris Grayling, Leader of the Commons, before the recess came unstuck. This says much about the intrinsic difficulty of reforming the UK Parliament in this way, and is also a reflection of the hardening of differences along territorial lines in British politics.
Mr Grayling’s proposals to amend the Commons Standing Orders failed to satisfy those in the Conservative party who want a more full-bodied, and radical reform, and also provided an opportunity for SNP MPs to place themselves at the head of the anti-Tory parties in Parliament, while arguing that this reform reflects a new Conservative attempt to diminish Scottish interests.
The SNP’s about-turn on this issue, following their previous habit of abstaining from voting on legislation that affected England alone, is a striking sign of the conflictual nature of the new territorial politics. Evel has become totemic. It is part of the terrain upon which the leading parties are battling over the territorial soul of the UK state.
And it is for this reason that the seismic events happening inside the Labour party, culminating in the election of veteran socialist Jeremy Corbyn, could have wider constitutional consequences. Over the last two decades Labour increasingly played the role of being the most conservative party of the Union, but its position weakened as it started to lose two key arguments. The first was with those at Westminster who wanted to rebalance the Union to give the English more of a say and greater protection; the second was with the SNP over whether Scottish interests were better served by the present constitutional arrangements or by a radical change.
The election of a Labour leader – who is likely to steer well away from the kind of progressive Britishness figures like Gordon Brown promoted and is more likely to identify with attacks on the British state rather than promote arguments for its rebalancing and reform – brings a new and unexpected dynamic to these issues at Westminster. Whether Labour will continue to operate as a buttress for the Union, or will leave that role to the Conservative party alone, is one of the many questions posed by Labour’s choice of leader.
Michael Kenny is Director of the Mile End Institute at Queen Mary University of London and Fellow of the Centre on Constitutional Change.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here