From the Irish World of 16 July 2004:
A few months ago, this column touched on the implications of a Gordon Brown premiership for the British state.
Back in February, the Conservative Party came out against allowing Scottish MPs to vote on matters where Westminster legislation only applies to England and Wales. In response, the Leader of the Commons, Peter Hain, accused the Tories of undermining the United Kingdom. Significantly, Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble also joined in the criticism.
I pointed out at the time that the ‘Westlothian question’, the issue of Scottish MPs voting on English matters, could become explosive under a Scottish Prime Minister. It was not surprising therefore that Gordon Brown joined in the criticism of the Tories last week.
“Even if a significant section of the Conservative Party has ceased to see itself as the Conservative and Unionist Party, our Labour Party must stand resolute as the party of the Union,” the Chancellor said in a lecture to the British Council.
Of course few people have a stronger personal interest in the health of the union, at least the union between England and Scotland, than Brown. His political aspirations depend upon it.
That was well illustrated by an incident last month involving Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair’s chief of staff and a key figure in the peace process. Powell reportedly told Spectator editor Boris Johnson that Brown could never become Prime Minister because he is a Scot.
The claim was a clear reference to the vulnerability of a Brown Premiership on the Westlothian question.
This context gives an added dimension to Brown’s speech at the British Council. His defence of British identity was simultaneously a defence of his right to be British Prime Minister.
The lecture was short on references to Northern Ireland as such speeches often are, an implicit recognition that even while the north remains part of the UK, it will never be in the mainstream of British political life.
Otherwise, as you might expect, it was a strong speech which noted the surprisingly broad range of people who have predicted the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Brown gave a reasonably objective summary of arguments which will be familiar to readers of this column: that the British state is a product of an imperial age which is now over, and that is only held together by state institutions.
In response, Brown argued that there is “a golden thread which runs through British history of the individual standing firm for freedom and liberty against tyranny and the arbitrary use of power.”
This appeal to the liberal tradition will not do as a foundation for a distinctively British identity, however. After all, in the past men like George Washington and Wolfe Tone appealed to this very tradition to break with the British state, and others may do so in the future.
Brown’s decision to highlight the traditional distinction between English liberalism and continental statism would also have been more credible if his colleagues at the Home Office were not so keen to move in the latter direction on issues like identity cards and trial by jury.
If Brown failed in his defence of Britishness, he at least acknowledged there is a problem.
Indeed one detects a certain frustration that relative economic success has not translated into a greater sense of national self-confidence.
“For the twelve years I have been Shadow Chancellor or Chancellor, I have felt that our country would be better able to meet and master the challenges of ever more intense global competition if we could build a shared sense of national economic purpose,” he told the British Council.
There is no sign of that sense of shared national purpose materialising. Instead, Britain is divided over its relationship to the US, paralysed over Europe, and tempted by military adventurism.
That is still recognisably the same set of challenges which Britain has faced since the 1950s. New questions have also emerged about the relationship between the different nations within Britain.
Devolution has not settled that issue because it has not addressed the question of England. That was highlighted last week by the first report of the British-Irish Council, a body which brings together the British and Irish governments together with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, and (when it’s up and running) Northern Ireland.
Who represents England on the British-Irish council? Presumably, The British Government does.
Would that still be acceptable with a Scottish Prime Minister? The answer to that will tell us a lot about the fate of Gordon Brown’s ambitions, and about the future of the United Kingdom.
Leave a Reply