Earlier this month Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, announced the creation of a new council, chaired by the Prime Minister, ‘bringing together the first ministers of Scotland, Wales, and the first and deputy first minister of Northern Ireland to find solutions to mutual problems and work more closely together on other issues.’
ast Thursday the House of Lords Constitution Committee published a report, recommending changes for how the union can be shored up for the 21st century.
It said: ‘The UK Government needs to articulate a compelling vision and narrative for the United Kingdom.
The committee’s vision is of a more cooperative union based on a renewed sense of respect and partnership between the different layers of government and a new emphasis on shared governance in the interests of all its citizens… But for this to be a success requires good faith and a constructive approach from central, devolved and local government.’
So far, so good. There does need to be a compelling vision and narrative if the UK is to remain truly united.
There does need to be a significant shift from the top-down thinking which has dominated Westminster strategy for decades; even after the introduction of a devolved parliament and assemblies in the late 1990s in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, along with elected majors—with significant powers—in some English cities.
And it’s also true that encouraging broader cooperation and best practice when it comes to issues and problems (like Covid, for instance) is likely to produce better results than simply leaving it to each devolved region to do its own thing.
Gove’s council proposal - which I think was a pre-emptive strike ahead of the House of Lords report - has merit, as does the report’s support for shared governance across all levels.
But while what can be understood as the levelling-up approach of both the report and Gove has value in terms of setting out some of the challenges, they completely ignore the identity/emotional/constitutional/competitive aspects of Welsh, Scottish, English, Ulster unionist and Irish nationalism.
Building a narrative and vision to sustain the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom depends on more, much more, than block grants, bailing out poorer regions, sharing resources and expertise and woolly paragraphs about ‘mutual respect and genuine collaboration at the heart of a remarkable partnership.’
Indeed, bringing it closer to home for a minute, it does seem slightly unsettling to read Gove’s comments and the contents of the Lords report at a moment when there are concerns across unionism that the Protocol has pushed Northern Ireland further away from Great Britain, leaving it half in and half out of the United Kingdom.
Similarly, Scottish nationalists believe their concerns about the consequences of Brexit have been trampled over by a Conservative government which relies on the votes of a regenerated English nationalism to keep it in office.
Ironically, that English nationalism doesn’t give a stuff about either NI unionism or Scottish nationalism.
All of which raises an interesting question: who actually speaks for the United Kingdom anymore?
During the 2014 Scottish referendum David Cameron, describing himself as “a Prime Minister of and for the United Kingdom,” spent most of his time trying to frighten Scottish voters about the awful economic consequences of independence.
He barely made the case for the fundamental values and principles underpinning the Union. It was almost as if an English Tory couldn’t even speak the same language as his fellow UK citizens north of the border.
That task was left to Gordon Brown: who probably ensured victory for the union at that moment.
During the 2016 EU referendum Cameron made exactly the same mistake, opting for what I described as the ‘be afraid, be very afraid’ approach, rather than making the case for how the United Kingdom could grow stronger by staying in the EU.
In so doing he left the door open to the leadership of a regenerated English nationalism to present its vision and narrative of a free, sovereign, independent UK.
The result — a consequence of those competing narratives and nationalisms — is a UK which remains divided. So divided, in fact, that the question of whether or not it can survive in its present form has moved from the fringes of debate to the very centre of politics. Which explains the interventions by Gove and the Constitution Committee — and others.
So, what binds the people of the United Kingdom together? A shared history? A shared ambition for the future? A common identity? Culture? Values? Beliefs? Principles? The Monarchy? The Houses of Parliament? A constitution?
Not everyone will be able to tick everything on that list: indeed, many would add to it, or detract from it.
At the heart of the question about the UK’s future is whether what binds us — what we have in common, in other words — is greater than the forces which threaten to tear us apart.
Or, putting that another way, can the competing identities and nationalisms across the four main parts of the UK ever be brought together in common cause (which was, I think, the original purpose of Tony Blair’s ‘great devolution experiment’ in 1997-9)?
The answer to that question takes me back to an earlier one: who, now, speaks for the constitutional integrity of the Union and the UK? Who champions the unity of the four parts? Who deconstructs the arguments of the various nationalisms and, instead, presents and promotes the binding-together option?
Or will English nationalism be so preoccupied with its own angst and identity that it will neither notice nor care if the United Kingdom simply disintegrates?
