Who killed Britain?

When they come to write the obituary of Britain, they may not dwell too long on the cause of death. The post-mortem won’t be straightforward and will be complicated by a list of long-term health conditions that should have been addressed before it was too late.

But the evidence of decline is fairly clear, recent research shows that:

‘Over the last decade, people have become less likely to take pride in the country’s achievements and less likely to feel Britain is better than elsewhere.

• In 2013, 86% said they were proud of Britain’s history. Now the figure has fallen to 64%.

• Only 53% now say they take pride in the way Britain’s democracy works, down from 69% in 2013.

• Just 49% now say they would rather be a citizen of Britain than of anywhere else, compared with 62% in 2013.’

Curtice J and Scholes A (2024); Attitudes and trends around conceptions of British identity; National Centre for Social Research

In Scotland, British Identity has been in long-term decline. In the 2022 Census, 66% of the population gave their identity as Scottish only, 8% as Scottish and British and 14% as British only. So less than a quarter of the Scottish population claim to hold any British identity.

Tom McTague, writing in 2022 stated that:

"The 20 years from 2000 to 2020 might have been objectively awful for Britain, but the country has been through other grim periods in its recent past and not seen its coherence come quite as close to breakdown as it is today. At the heart of Britain’s crisis is a crisis of identity. Put simply, no other major power is quite as conflicted about whether it is even a nation to begin with, let alone what it takes to act like one."

Tom McTague (2022), Will Britain Survive?, The Atlantic

The tabloids will look to point the finger at the usual suspects: immigrants, Irish republicans and vile cybernats. But the truth will be much harder for them to comprehend. So, who or what is to blame?

Let’s look at several factors which have made an impact:

• Lack of English devolution;

• Brexit; and

• The failure of Labour to federalise.

The failure of English devolution

I feel sorry for the English. Beyond their sports teams they struggle for a positive identity that is distinct from Britishness. And even with their own football and rugby teams they lazily choose to use the UK national anthem and Royal Family patrons, turning England into de facto Britain. You can’t really blame them though, because England has chosen not to pursue its own national identity. Instead, it has lashed itself firmly to the mast of Brittania.

This is something that even English politicians and BBC news readers struggle with. Listen to any Radio 4 news or current affairs broadcast and you’ll hear multiple references to issues that affect ‘the country’ or Britain; which in reality only affect England (and in some cases England and Wales).

One factor that has fuelled this phenomenon is asymmetric devolution. When the Blair Government legislated for Scottish and Welsh Parliaments they didn’t bother to introduce an English Parliament. The assumption being:

• There was no pressure or demand for an English legislature;

• Westminster acts as a de facto English Parliament so we don’t need another one.

English people are not required to think about devolution because nothing is devolved to them. So, when the de facto English Parliament at Westminster is wrestling with issues around planning, housing, water, children’s homes, tuition fees or the NHS, it is not always clear to people that these are English-only matters. As Tom McTague noted about Boris Johnson:

‘In dealing with the pandemic, he acts almost exclusively for England. In most of his job duties he acts as the de facto prime minister of England and is treated, psychologically at least, as a foreign leader when he visits Scotland.’

David Cameron introduced a very untidy solution after the Independence referendum in the form of English Votes for English Laws (EVEL). If anything, this just emphasised the asymmetry in devolution without offering any serious fix. This has arguably led to a further weakening of the concept of Britishness.

Brexit

Ironically, Brexit was supposed to lead to a stronger and more independent Britain. But, in reality, it has generated a further schism within the United Kingdom. It was an English project, pushed and promoted by the English Nationalist UK Independence Party. There was broad consensus across the political spectrum in Scotland that EU citizenship was a positive thing; and that Scotland belonged historically, culturally and politically in Europe. Perhaps because of this there was no significant debate or campaign within Scotland. EU membership was a ‘no-brainer’. Brexit was a ‘foreign war’. McTague sees this as a key factor which has harmed British cohesion:

‘For many, the root of Britain’s existential crisis today is Brexit – an apparent spasm of English nationalism that has broken the social contract holding Britain’s union of nations together, revealing the country’s true nature as an unequal union, of the English, by the English, for the English.’

And although supporters of the union argue that Brexit and Scottish Independence are driven by the same type of nationalism, this has been solidly debunked by analysis from the National Centre for Social Research:

‘The nationalism that underpins Brexit (for which England voted but Scotland did not) is relatively ‘ethnic’ in character whereas that associated with support for Scottish independence is relatively ‘civic’.’

Curtice J and Scholes A (2024); Attitudes and trends around conceptions of British identity; National Centre for Social Research

Brexit has pulled mainstream parties in the UK towards the right; fuelled by an anti-immigration rhetoric that has not gained similar traction in Scotland. This has created a further wedge between the politics of England/ Britain and Scotland.

Unionism over federalism

Readers my recall the (ahem) promises of former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown that Scotland would get: the closest thing possible to full federalism in a union state where one of the constituent members accounts for 85% of the population. He also stated that within two years of the referendum that Scotland's devolved Parliament would be on an equal footing to Westminster. These were never within his gift and were unachievable without English devolution. Yet the voters drank his Koolaid.

Fast-forward ten years and we're back in the same territory of Scottish Labour politicians making promises they're unable to keep. It's worth noting that, despite the best efforts of their pals at Pacific Quay to suggest otherwise, there is no such thing as Scottish Labour. Anas Sarwar (the putative leader of this non-party) has as much power and influence over Sir Keir Starmer as the House of Commons tea lady (or Gordon Brown for that matter).

Sarwar promised us that ‘Scottish’ Labour would wield disproportionate influence in Westminster after a decisive election victory in Scotland. Sarwar was going to make sure that:

‘Scotland has a voice at the heart of the next UK Labour Government so that it delivers for Scotland.’

‘Scotland’s voice must be more than just a protest.’

‘maximising Scotland’s influence and giving Scotland a seat at the table, making decisions that benefit the lives of people across the country.’

Anas Sarwar MSP, speech to Labour Conference, Rutherglen, January 2024

But instead of a powerful block of 37 Scottish Labour MPs wielding influence and arguing for special status on customs and immigration, for example, we have 37 UK Labour MPs providing lobby fodder for Starmer’s damaging pro-Brexit policies. If the Labour party had a federal model, we could have Scottish Labour MPs pushing the case for policies that helped Scotland instead of hanging on to the coat tails of Starmer’s Anglocentric agenda. Labour is, first and foremost, a party of the union. That is clear from their preference for right of centre coalitions with Tories at Local Government level over left of centre coalitions with the SNP and Greens.

The UK Labour Manifesto offered no economic growth proposals for Scotland aside from the nebulous Great British Energy. And, since coming to power, they have:

• Failed to overturn the two-child benefit cap – which is increasing child poverty in Scotland.

• Axed the winter fuel allowance for pensioners – which will disproportionately impact Scotland where the weather is colder and fuel is more expensive.

• Allowed the energy cap to increase twice despite promising lower energy bills.

• Hiked tax on Scotch whisky.

• Increased the National Insurance burden on all employers, risking jobs and pushing up prices.

We can only assume that they’ve put the fear of raising taxes on the rich ahead of tackling child and fuel poverty and growing the economy. UK Labour’s agenda is set by looking over their shoulders at Tories and Faragists, and not by anything Anas Sarwar says or does. How can it be that social democratic Scotland’s priorities coincidentally align with such an alien agenda?

Labour’s choice of defending unionism over championing Scotland’s distinct priorities may be the final nail in the coffin of Britain as a viable concept. If UK Labour can’t change the unitary state to a functioning federation, effectively change the archaic voting system or House of Lords, or change any of the damaging consequences of Brexit, then the UK is fast on its way to becoming a failed state.

As the renowned Advocate and Scottish Nationalist Ian Hamilton has stated:

‘I don’t know how long independence will take. But it’s no longer a tide. Tides go in and out. It’s now a river. When it will reach the sea is anybody’s guess.’