There'll always be an England

It has already been remarked that the recent unrest following the murder of the three little girls in Southport has largely played out in England - but why?

While there have been outbreaks of disorder in Belfast, Northern Ireland, there have been none recorded, so far at least, in Scotland or Wales. What is it about the English, and the Loyalist community in Northern Ireland, that gives rise to this xenophobic phenomenon, while in Scotland and Wales it is not apparent? 

Population size may have something to do with it. England has by far the largest population in the Union, at 68 million. If such problems were liable to manifest themselves there was a statistically much higher likelihood of them doing so in England. But the fact that, with the smallest regional population of 1.8 million, Northern Ireland is also affected, suggests that something else is in play here. Scotland, with a population of 5.5 million, and Wales with 3.2 million, are unaffected.

The largest metropolitan areas of the UK, with the most diverse demographic, are in England, which might suggest such tensions would be more likely to flare up there. And yet the largest counter-demonstrations have occurred in precisely these areas while the worst disorder seems to have focused on specific city neighbourhoods and smaller towns. The common thread here appears to be the presence of Muslim communities, with mosques acting as a focal point for attack, and also for reaction.

The inference must be that this latest bout of civil unrest, though ostensibly prompted by concerns about mass-migration, is not so much xenophobic as specifically Islamophobic in nature. There are Muslim communities in Scotland and Wales, of course (comprising 2.2% of the population in both countries according to the 2021 Census), but Islamophobia is nowhere near so apparent there as in England, where the statistic is 6%. In Northern Ireland it is 0.57%.

So what are we to conclude from these varying statistics? Is it purely a matter of numbers anyway? It appears that the issue is an English one, in which disaffected elements of the Northern Irish Unionist community have joined, jumping on the bandwagon in making common cause with English rioters. (There is also a suggestion that anti-immigrant elements from the Irish Republic have joined these protests, making for an odd form of cross-border cooperation.) The parts of the Union with the strongest independence traditions, on the other hand, appear more inclined to see England, rather than immigration, as the problem.

Statistics can be confusing. Wales voted Leave by 52% in the 2016 EU Referendum whereas Northern Ireland voted 55.8% Remain. One might have expected this to be the other way round but, despite Wales being a major beneficiary of EU funding, the outcome was blamed on English voters living in Wales. In Northern Ireland, however, the result was skewed by a largely rural vote favouring ease of access to the EU export market for its dairy produce. Follow the money, as usual.

If England is the problem, as it seems to be, what is the cause? I suggest that lies in its history as the huge beneficiary of the Union of 1707, now feeling resentful at being left behind by Tony Blair's devolution settlement for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And it's not just down to abstruse regional funding calculations such as Barnet Consequentials seeming to benefit all parts of the Union except England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland now all have their own national assemblies whereas England does not. The lack of an English parliament has, arguably, had much to do with gross English regional disparities leading to Labour's 'Red Wall' defeats and Boris Johnson's 'Levelling Up' agenda, now seeing increasing powers being granted to regional Mayors (all but one of whom are now Labour politicians).

But the English had their opportunity - and blew it in spectacular fashion. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 paved the way for a series of. referenda on English regional assemblies but the first such, held in the North East on 4 November 2004, was a rout. Almost 78% of the electorate voted against the proposition. Unsurprisingly, no further referenda were held and the Act itself was quietly repealed. The only English region to gain an assembly was the capital, with the creation of the Greater London Authority (GLA) in 2000. Now, twenty years since the North East referendum, we appear to be inching our way toward something similar. We shall see.

Regional Assemblies, however, would still not address the supposed grievance of Little-Englanders - the lack of an English parliament. The main reason why the 2004 referendum failed in the North East was the perceived fear of the cost of yet another layer of government bureaucracy. Were England to gain regional assemblies and an English parliament, the inevitable question might then arise: what's the point of a UK parliament?

I raise that as a rhetorical question but, really, what indeed?

Popular posts from this blog

Looking to Africa - long read

As I sit here on an island just off the coast of North-West Africa I can't help pondering the future of that vast and seemingly unknowable continent, so near and yet so far. I'm writing this in Tenerife, one of the eight Canary Islands forming an archipelago off the coast of Morocco and Western Sahara - tantilisingly close and yet a world away from the 'mainland' of continental Africa. As an Autonomous Community of Spain, the Canaries form an outpost of the European Union (EU). Yet, despite their proximity to Africa, their outlook, politically, culturally and economically, is resolutely European. Africa may as well be Mars, though only a narrow gulf of the Atlantic Ocean separates these offshore islands from their continent. I say resolutely European but that resolve may, little by little, be weakening. There is a growing sentiment, especially, though not exclusively, amongst young Canarians, that they have been sold a pup. True, the economy is superficially buoyant, du
Read more

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more