Mike Knowles comments on the IPPR publication:

Is An English Backlash Emerging?
Reactions to devolution ten years on.
by Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University.

Synopis:

a. The British Social Attitudes (BSA) findings, despite their disagreement with other equally reputable polling organizations, provide firm reasons to maintain the demand for England to have its own parliament.

b. Some of Professor Curtice's comments on this demand and its supporters are not academically appropriate as they are not supported by or attributable to the findings of the BSA survey. It would appear that they derive from his personal perspective on both the demand for an English Parliament and its supporters. They should therefore be withdrawn, even if that entails the IPPR having to publish an amended version.

I. Summary of the BSA findings with some critical comments on the observations and interpretation thereon by Professor Curtice.

The Curtice paper is his analysis of the responses to the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey conducted by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) in 2008 and 2009 into 'how public opinion in England has developed following the advent of devolution in Scotland and Wales' (p.3) in 1998. 'During the course of the last decade NatCen has regularly asked people in England about their national identity, how they would like their country to be governed and how they feel about the distribution of public spending' (ibid). In its surveys 2001, 2004 and 2006 'there was little sign' (ibid), they concluded, of any serious discontent among English people with their governmental situation as it stood in 1998. However the survey of 2007 discovered 'a striking new development' (ibid) two in fact: an increase from a quarter to a third of the English people feeling that the Scots were securing more than a fair share of 'the distribution of public expenditure across the UK; and 'tentative signs that support for an English Parliament might be becoming more closely linked to feeling English rather than British 'the first sign perhaps that a form of English nationalism was beginning to merge among the general public' (ibid). Finally, in 2008-9 the BSA visited the topic again, again restricting itself to people living in England.

The outcomes of that survey were as follows:

1 English national identity

since 1992 a 10% increase, from 31% to 41%, of people in England choosing to say they were English rather than British, but no increase since 1999. 'Little sign of any further significant growth (ie since 1999) in English national identity' (p.4).

2. Support for an English Parliament

a. since 1992 a 13% decrease (from 62% to 49%) in support for England being governed as in 1998, ie for all laws governing England to be made by the UK parliament.

b. in 1992 15% support for regional assemblies, which rose to 26% in 2003, the year before the referendum in England's North East 'region' when a regional assembly was rejected by 78% to 22%; now falling back to 15% in 2009;

c. since 1992 an 11% increase (from 18% to 29%) in support of an English Parliament with law-making powers.

d. since 1992 a 20% increase (from 14% to 34%) in support of an English Parliament among English people who choose to say they are English rather than British.

Curtice comments:

a. 'It (the above) shows that now that the idea of elected regional assemblies has fallen off the political agenda, the demand for devolution in England is beginning to coalesce around the potentially more radical and more 'nationalistic' solution of an English Parliament' (p.5).

My response to this is:

It would seem that Curtice without evidence is attributing the increase in support for an EP to the rejection by England's North East of a regional assembly. This could well be the basic error of 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'. I would think that such a deduction can only logically be made if NatCen had conducted surveys that looked to specify such a connection, particularly in the North East. Curtice might be interpreted to be saying that the demand for an EP is the less favoured alternative among the people polled as the form devolution might take. It might be useful to recall that opposition to an EP has so far been almost endemic among UK academics.

My second comment has to be about the word Curtice uses to describe the sort of solution to English devolution and English Parliament, namely -the inverted commas are his- 'nationalist'. It is an emotive word with which to describe the demand for an EP. It can also be derogatory, and is frequently used in that way. No evidence is supplied by the survey which can justify its use. It is not the sort of word expected in an academic paper, which is what Curtice intends his paper to be. I suspect that the fact that Curtice puts it in inverted commas might indicate he himself was aware he was exceeding his professional brief, though possibly he couldn't resist it. So it might be said to tell us something more about Curtice himself and his attitude towards an EP and its supporters. It is typical of how very many opponents express themselves when they speak about an EP. In a word, the use of the word constitutes a serious departure from the requirements of academic rigour. For that reason I would propose to NatCen that they have the word withdrawn, even if it means re-issuing the paper. I would even recommend the same to the publisher, IPPR. I am aware that the IPPR was founded as a New Labour think-tank in 1988 with the purpose of restoring Labour fortunes after losing three consecutive elections and that opposition to an EP is declared Labour policy. However in its blurb about itself in the foreword to this publication the 1PPR claims to have 'a truly world-class reputation for high quality research'. The issue of an English Parliament is first and foremost one of justice and equality within the United Kingdom. To represent its supporters as 'nationalist' is a subjective, not an objective, statement.

b. Curtice: 'On this evidence it would seem the idea of an English Parliament is capable of appealing well beyond the ranks of those who might be regarded as 'English nationalist'' (p.ibid).

My comment on this is that if Curtice were more familiar with the Campaign for an English Parliament and not, as it would appear, indulging somewhat unprofessionally in subjectivity, he would know that support for an EP has never been limited to people he calls 'English nationalists'.

c. Curtice: 'the idea of an English Parliament may be becoming linked a little more to adherence to an English national identity' (ibid).

We welcome this. The two fertilise each other.

3. Finance

The BSA survey found that since 2000 there has been a 20% increase (from 22.5%) to 42.5%) in people in England regarding Scotland's share of UK government spending is 'more than fair'.

Curtice comments:

'Having an English Parliament may be beginning to be regarded as a means of defending England's interests within the Union' (p.7).

I would not disagree with this nor with most of the rest of his deductions from the survey's finding in this area. For example, his statement that 'dissatisfaction with the status quo and support for the idea of an English Parliament have become more closely linked with feelings of discontent with Scotland's share of public spending' (ibid) is the case by and large. There is in the CEP membership a strong sense of the inequality and injustice that has been created by the form the 1998 devolution legislation took between the three nations of this island in relation to the Union Parliament and to each other. The 1997 government, led energetically by Scottish MPs, many of whom belonged to the Scottish Constitutional Committee and who had signed the March 1989 Scottish Claim of Right, committing themselves 'to making the interests of Scotland paramount in everything' they did, Gordon Brown being one of them, obtained a degree of self-rule for Scotland and other immense advantages which was denied in part to Wales and totally to England. It gravely unbalanced the Union. They displayed no misgivings about it at all. The representatives of Scotland in the Union Parliament achieved a most advantageous settlement for their country. However, it is that that has offended the strong sense of injustice and inequality I have mentioned among CEP members. It is a sense of injustice that should be shared by all people of a genuinely democratic perspective. It has also been very considerably increased by the growing understanding of how the Barnett Formula and the Block Grant work. However, so far most regrettably it has not yet been in evidence in the political parties, in academia inclusive of think-tanks and in the UK Establishment generally. Political party members are concerned to protect their individual interests first and foremost, as are political parties. Within academia hostility to England as a nation with its own identity and culture is endemic and is the product of decades of ideology.

II. My more general observations.

The findings of this survey are more than welcome to members of the Campaign for an English Parliament, and that in two ways. Firstly, they see that the attitude of the people of England on devolution as a requirement for England and in support of it taking the form of an English Parliament is now decisively moving in their direction. Secondly, it is now only a matter of time that the English Establishment, in academia and think-tanks, the media, and politics, will reflect critically upon their attitude to date of opposition to an English Parliament, will begin to harbour misgivings about their attitudes, and will at the very least begin to give the idea serious consideration and possibly even lend support. If it is not altogether undiplomatic to say it, people prefer to back winners. If there is one trend noticeable in the BSA survey on this matter, it is the movement of the English people in the direction of an English Parliament. MPs and political parties, very sensitive to voting developments, will quickly take on board the percentage of support for an EP which the BSA has found among people. We could hardly ask for more.

The CEP met with the most irrational, even disreputable, opposition when it first made its appearance in 1998 and certainly up to the North East referendum in 2004. The idea of an English Parliament was just written off. It was variously described as racist, xenophobic, nationalistic, pro-Tory, exclusive, and anti-Union. Undoubtedly the most outrageous, biased and unfair example of this was the Fabian Society publication 'The English Quesition' 2000, edited by Tony Wright MP and Selina Chen. I would refer people particularly to pages 12-13. To stand up in certain circles and propose an EP was at times very difficult indeed. Our arguments were just not listened to or read and frequently we were smeared, even to our faces, as racists. It is an amazing situation. A parliament for Scotland is universally regarded as a very good thing. Scottish and Welsh patriotism is regarded as a very good thing. A parliament for England is greeted however very differently.

Fortunately we stuck to our guns. We made it clear that the GLA was not a form of devolution in England but yet just another re-organisation of English local government. We opposed regional assemblies, particularly out on the streets in the North of England and in Newcastle, Durham and Sunderland, pointing out they amounted to the same thing as the GLA in the form they took for the 2004 referendum; and that in the purpose of their more ideological supporters they were intended to spearhead a process of the balkanisation of England. We opposed the Conservative Party policy of English Votes on English Laws with a booklet distributed to every member of the Commons and the Lords; and we oppose it still even in the watered-down form it might take if the Tories form the next government. We certainly welcome EVEL as what will be the first constitutional recognition since 1707 of England as a distinct political and national entity, which recognition was explicit for Scotland and Wales in the 1998 devolution legislation. However, it is not devolution as provided to Scotland and in part to Wales in the legislation of 1998. Itt does not even approach what Scotland got in 1998, namely the institution of self-rule on the basis of nationality, the establishment of a legislature physically, electorally and operationally distinct from the Union Parliament, and the establishment of an Executive. However, we welcome EVEL as a first step towards the formal constitutional recognition of England as a distinct nation.

There is a 10% increase in people in England identifying themselves as English, up to 41% of England population. There is an 11% increase in support for an EP, as many as 29% of the population. Indeed, as much as 34% of the English who regard being English as their identity. This increase is not confined to those whom Curtice calls, unscientifically, 'English nationalists' but extends to English people who regard themselves first as British. In other words the issue of fairness and justice for England, denied in the 1998 legislation, is now firmly on the Union agenda. There is a growing link between increasing support for an EP and the notion of adherence to an English identity, precisely, I would add, as it manifested itself, mutandis mutatis, in Scotland in the 1997 referendum. We welcome all this intensely. The tide is turning.

Nothing will solidify the basis of support for an EP like both the notion of English identity and the identification of the issue as one of fairness, equality and justice. It is for that reason we unhesitatingly welcome the increasing awareness of the English people of the financial advantages Scotland has obtained first through the Barnett Formula and then through the Scottish Parliament and its block grant, with the astonishing beneficence that has ensued. However, there is no desire on our part for a withdrawal of the subsidies to Scotland. Rather we want the same expenditure for the people of England. In a union of nations, if the union is to make sense and continue to have justification to exist, that is basic. Nothing threatens the continuation of the Union as much as the political, constitutional and economic injustice to England as the devolution legislation of 1998. Brown and co in 1998 thought only of Scotland. However, each component nation of the Union should stand in the same relationship to the centre and to each other.

The CEP welcome the outcomes of this survey. We recognise that there is an immense work to be done on the crucial issue of English identity; likewise we are all too aware that a 29% support for an EP, if it a reliable figure, is in no way good enough. I say 'if it is a reliable figure' because its findings do not accord at all with the findings of other equally reputable polling organizations. They are as follows: July 2006 Ipsos Mori for the Observer, support for an EP at 26%, but when those polled were informed of Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on English-only issues, support rose to 41%; November 2006 ICM for the Sunday Telegraph, 68%; and January 2007 BBC poll at 61%.

However, whatever the situation, and we are very aware the BSA poll did not put the alternative of EVEL to the people it polled, we know that these percentages have been achieved in the face of total government opposition and the policy on both of the Labour Party and the Lib-Dem Party of support for the balkanisation of England into regions with their own assembly, a policy Will Hutton perceptively described as 'a veritable witches' brew of internecine rivalries. We have operated on a shoestring; we have never had anything like the huge financial support enjoyed by such organizations as the Constitution Unit or the Power Inquiry or the Campaign for English Regions which have displayed systemic opposition to an English Parliament as the form English devolution might take.

Yet we have done very well indeed. I think our strength has been the strength and the logic of our arguments, contained in our innumerable articles and letters appearing in newspapers and periodicals, our presence at meetings to put the case for an EP, our meetings in the rooms of the Commons where we held public meetings and where we have given evidence before select committees, the three booklets we have written and published, and distributed widely, particularly to where and to whom it matters like MPs, our leafleting across the country, from Berwick to Cornwall, from Dover the Carlisle, from the Wash to the Wirral. Even as I write this, we have a 'battlebus', on the road with banners and huge posters, touring every major town throughout England.

We are greatly heartened by the BSA findings; and we welcome what on the whole is the very positive response of Professor Curtice. I am sure he can take criticisms kindly. We know all too well how immense are the obstacles to achieving an English Parliament. Getting one for Scotland was chicken feed in comparison to the task we face. However, the tide would appear to be turning.

Michael Knowles, National Council member of the CEP.