Parliaments based upon what now?

This is interesting (via Doctorvee).

Talk of 'Englishness' as a cultural identity annoys me, particularly when it's used to justify strengthening 'England' as an administrative region, and even more particularly when it's used to lobby for an English parliament. I've finally managed to put my finger on why.

Many bits of the administrative region called England - London, Cornwall, Yorkshire, Newcastle-and-surroundings, Manchester-and-surroundings, Scouseland-and-surroundings and Cumbria, for starters - all have regional identities that are far stronger than any 'English' identity.

This all then follows into suggestions that regional English parliaments are set up on the basis of local cultural identity rather than a single English Parliament for the whole of England (oddly referred to in the Article as an administrative region called England rather than the country of England):

Re regional assemblies: I'm pretty sure [there was a NO vote for the North East regional assembly] because they a) were bollocks talking shops with no power and b) didn't represent the regional identities that people actually have.

One has to remember when considering how to administer a nation that such administration should not be based around cultural lines. On purely practical grounds it’s because cultures within areas change more often and faster than one might expect particularly in very localised parts of those areas (over periods of decades or, sometimes, even faster). Immigration is part of the reason for this and so is migration to different areas. Though I accept that many areas of England do hold on to localised cultures for significant periods this is by no means something that can be relied upon. Nor should it be. Most administrative structures based around cultural identity will, after time, find themselves having to change with the culture change if they are to be culturally representative and this will quite possibly lead to friction and, unless the cultural change is right across the region, impossible to do in a fully representative manner. Of course this goes for national parliaments but they do not exist on the basis of a cultural remit to administer.

Another reason why cultural based administration is not necessarily a good thing is because it would, by its very nature and by its very reason for existing, have to base its policy on cultural grounds. If it did not then there would be no point in using culture as a basis for defining administrative regions. This is a particularly unfair administrative remit, and yet it is the only remit that a culturally based administration could reasonably follow. It’s unfair on minority groups within the area, unfair on immigrants than move to the area and generally unhealthy in my opinion.

Another issue I have with this whole notion is that it attempts to define England by artificial political administration. Nations are generally (except during major upheaval) defined by their traditional borders and I think most people are happy with that. Of course borders are artificial but they are there, they are clearly defined and, more to the point, accepted. The writer of the article I linked to has this to say about what people think:

There are far more people in the administrative region called England who loathe this concept of 'Englishness' than there are people who follow it.

I very much doubt that this particular form of racism is as rife as the author suggests but whether it is or not if one were to ask people if they would be happy for the borders of England to be changed I expect the answer would be a resounding no and that is because most of these people define their nationality by their country of birth (or adoption) which is defined by its borders. If you were to ask everyone in the whole of the English nation if they considered their nationality English I suspect you would get far more answering yes. To try and define England by Englishness is to ask the wrong question. England is a country in a Union of countries and its citizens/subjects are English. Unless, of course, they don’t want to be but this is no different for any other nation on the Earth and is, once again, nothing to do with Englishness.

The question about using artificial regions over and above those that already exist to administer areas of so called cultural identity has already been tested somewhat in the North East of England (a geographical location with an extremely strong culture) and the answer given was a significant blow to those politicians who thought these artificial regions a good idea.

Many nation states have strong cultural subcultures and localised identities (Italy, for instance) and most still use the usual model of administration via single parliaments. An argument against a single parliament for England on cultural grounds must also follow for all other countries with culturally flavoured areas. It’s a plan fraught with danger. It has more to do with representation because of common culture and less to do with representation of people within nation states in-spite of their differences.

I agree with the author that calls for an English Parliament should not be based on purely cultural grounds and that use of the word Englishness as used in Garry Bushell’s article is not helpful (though it was not the bulk of his article).

It’s not about Englishness chaps any more than it is about being a gypsy, or being an easily tanned person with foreign parents such as myself. It is about a country called England and its citizens/subjects and the fact that some countries in the Union have political representation in the form of a parliament and assemblies and are benefiting from them when another member country of the Union does not.

I define my nationality by my country and that country is England. I want my nation to have equal representation in the Union as a nation (lust like all the others). It’s an issue framed by nations. Why should one nation have a parliament in the union and not the others? Cultural arguments simply do not wash because to have them one has to accept that only countries that have a single and strong cultural identity should have a national parliament.

As an aside:

Here is an interesting question that I have discussed long and hard with friends in the past. If you believe that England has less of a cultural identity than other countries in the Union then ask yourself why? How is it that, as an example (and if you believe it) Scotland has managed to maintain a strong cultural identity over a period of a number of centuries while England has not? It’s a fascinating question with a number of very interesting possible answers.

Posted by John at June 22, 2005 11:01 AM | TrackBack