‘United we stand, divided we fall.’ First uttered by Aesop, the famous phrase has never seemed more appropriate than in the current predicament in which British politics finds itself. Since its formation in 1707 under the Act of Union, the United Kingdom has been plagued by parliamentary disagreement, political conflicts and a long running and often bloody feud across the Irish Sea. The Oxford Dictionary’s definition of united means to be ‘combined into a single entity, being in harmony and characterized by unity’. In today’s Britain the idea of unity is drifting further away amid calls for the break-up of the British constitution and the grant of independent status to all four countries.It is not just the political issues that need to be addressed; a new era of terrorism has caused social divisions and the fragmentation of an entire generation. So what does the future hold for the United Kingdom and where shall we be in 10 years? In this essay I will analyse the potential impact of independent countries within Britain, both upon each other and upon the European Union. I will deduce what proportion of each population wants self-rule and whether a set of solitary nations can sustain a stable economy.
There are a number of factors to consider when discussing the issue of independence. An ICM opinion poll published in the Sunday Telegraph (November 2006) revealed that 48% of English voters wanted a complete divorce from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In addition to this, 52% of Scottish voters backed a move to go it alone. In a seemingly desperate attempt to re-ignite patriotism former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith suggested extending citizenship ceremonies to all 18 year olds, with an oath of allegiance to the Queen. However, many English citizens are reluctant to celebrate their British roots and the ludicrously unfair allocation of public funds perhaps is one of the reasons for this.
Across Britain, recent figures of public spending per head showed that Scottish citizens received £8,623, Welsh citizens received £8,139, and in the UK public spending per head was a paltry £7,121. Scotland’s lavish spending on health services, education and social services are possible partly because English taxpayers subsidise so many benefits that they themselves do not receive. For instance, Scotland can afford to offer free care for the elderly, free dental checks, eye tests, and university fees. The equivalent ‘cost of being English’ for the same services is around £7,000. The Scottish National Party (SNP) pledged free prescriptions for all Scottish citizens by 2011, meanwhile it was announced that the prescription charge will rise to £7.10 in England.
In Wales it is a similar story; nurses receive a 2.5% pay rise in comparison with just 2% in England. Prescriptions do not cost a penny and pensioners have free use of public transport, although England has introduced free local bus travel for seniors. Students who study locally are likely to qualify for a grant of nearly £2,000 towards their fees and to rub salt into the English wounds, the Welsh authorities have announced plans for free hospital parking. In contrast, some English hospital car parks charge up to £7 per day.
With rising fuel and food costs, as well as failing services and high council tax, the English taxpayer is unlikely to see the irony. England generates the greatest profit of all four countries in the United Kingdom but is certainly the ‘poor relation’. So why are funds divided so disproportionately?
Over 30 years ago the Chief Secretary of James Callaghan’s Labour Treasury was asked to devise a formula that would not only provide a fairer distribution of public funds, but also offer a means to combat the rising threat of independence parties in Wales and Scotland, Plaid Cymru and the SNP respectively. Lord Barnett’s temporary solution was to provide greater funds to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales until the differences between the countries eventually diminished. Three decades on and even Barnett himself has branded the system ‘increasingly unfair’ and desperately needing a ‘thorough review’.
It is difficult to understand why nationalist parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland demand independence. Dr Ian Mckee, SNP candidate for Edinburgh Pentlands said ‘The most successful nations in Europe are not the largest. The advantages of economy of scale are more than offset by other factors. What all these countries have in common is their independence. They can speedily make decisions regarding tax, investment or social policy that suit their own circumstances. For example, Norway invests its oil revenues in a fund for future generations. Also, the Republic of Ireland has invested heavily in the education of its people so that it now attracts hi-tech investment from overseas.’
Mckee highlights two countries that Scotland aspires to emulate, Norway and Republic of Ireland. Ireland is the recipient of huge EU subsidies. As Britain is a major contributor to EU funding, the Scots have contributed to Ireland’s success too because it is their taxes that have been spent on Ireland. The SNP would like ‘full financial independence for Scotland’ including control of the North Sea oil revenues, failing that they are happy to stick with the Barnett Formula. In the words of Edwina Currie 'It's the fact that the Scots have their cake and eat it too that I find irritating, especially when we are paying for the cake.'
Alex Salmond, leader of the SNP, claims that the success of the London Treasury was floated on the revenue of North Sea Oil. However, the subsidy provided by the English to the Scots is more than the Government’s receipts from petroleum revenue tax. While Salmond cannot deny that Scotland has the highest unemployment rate, the highest proportion of income support claimants and the lowest business survival rate in Britain, he blames England for Scotland’s poverty. Recent calculations estimate that just 163,000 Scottish taxpayers from a population of 5 million make any net profit for the British Exchequer. The rest of the population receives more in benefits and subsidies than they pay out. This begs the question; could an independent Scotland survive within the framework of the European Union?
The Welsh National Party, Plaid Cymru, is also striving for independence. Ieuan Wyn Jones, leader Plaid Cymru said ‘The current Labour-designed Assembly is an utter shambles due to its lack of power and lack of direction. We believe Wales should take its place among the nations of the world as a free and independent country. The success of small countries is everywhere to be seen. Eight of the ten richest countries in the world by GDP have populations under 10 million. To benefit fully in the global market Wales needs to develop its own laws and institutions, set its own tax rates and represent itself at international institutions.’
The CIA World Fact book shows that of the ten richest countries Mr Wyn Jones refers to, the majority are oil-rich states or tax havens such as United Arab Emirates and Luxembourg, something that Wales could not emulate. In addition to this a Department of Work and Pensions report showed that the Welsh town of Merthyr Tydfil (one of only two places in Wales where ‘Welsh’ as opposed to ‘English’ is the primary language) has the highest proportion of people claiming incapacity benefit in Britain.
Ominously, the current age demographic of the Welsh population does little to support Plaid Cymru’s aims. In the four countries of the UK, Wales has the greatest number of citizens over 60 and the lowest number of citizens under 30. With a dwindling working population it is unlikely that taxes would be available to fund future retirement care for the elderly. If Wales were to gain independence then a possible solution would be to encourage immigration in an attempt to boost the younger population. This provides a different headache for the Welsh Authorities.
So we arrive at Northern Ireland. Offering the most complex problem of all four regions within the UK, Northern Ireland has a history of warfare and bloodshed. In this particular case religion takes precedence over economics and politics because it is the Catholic-Protestant divide that has been the cause of friction in the past. Northern Ireland was defined in 1920 by the Government of Ireland Act. In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement resulted in a ceasefire and the formation of the Northern Irish Assembly. The agreement abolished the Republic of Ireland’s territorial claim on Northern Irish soil, and also determined that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland should be determined by the majority vote of its citizens. The Northern Irish Assembly was established only to be suspended on multiple occasions. Finally, in 2007 it was restored after a four year absence.
Northern Ireland has been for many years the site of a violent and bitter political conflict between those claiming to represent Nationalists, who are predominantly Catholic, and those claiming to represent Unionists, who are predominantly Protestant. In general, Nationalists want Northern Ireland to be unified with the Republic of Ireland and Unionists want it to remain part of the United Kingdom. Unionists are in the majority in Northern Ireland, though Nationalists represent a significant minority. The Catholic population of Northern Ireland is growing rapidly and now accounts for 38.4% of the nation’s population. The higher Catholic birth rate has led to speculation that they will become a majority around 2025. There would of course still be a time lag before this majority was reflected in the population of voting age.
Northern Ireland is the poorest of the UK's regions, its GDP per capita being 74% of the European Union average. (The GDP per capita for the United Kingdom is £31,300). Even this position for Northern Ireland is misleading. The economy is artificially kept at this level by vast subsidies from Britain. What was once the economic powerhouse of Northern Ireland has suffered from de-industrialisation with a vengeance, while the Irish Republic has an economy with much greater underlying strength. In the long term this might provide the North with an incentive for closer political ties.
Northern Ireland is massively subsidised by the rest of the UK. Last year public spending in the province amounted to £3.3 billion. The economic subsidy is much more of a drain on the UK Treasury than is the cost of keeping the army there. The total cost of the military presence was £405 million in 2007 - just 1.7% of the total UK defence budget. Northern Ireland is now heavily dependent on direct British subsidy for its employment, with an extraordinarily high proportion of jobs being in security fields like prisons, probation, and the police. One in ten Protestant men now works in these fields.
A BBC Panorama special on 7 April 2008, revealed that segregation in Northern Ireland costs the British exchequer 24 million per year for housing, 2.5 million per year for separate bus travel and half a million for policing. On a positive note, house prices around Belfast are up 70% and Northern Ireland has invested 3 billion pounds into infrastructure, over double the level of investment just a year previously.
England is not without its own set of problems. The threat of disintegration within the separate regions of England is becoming an increasing possibility. Local groups in areas such as Yorkshire and Cornwall have called for independence from England. A spokesperson for the Yorkshire Liberation Party (YLA) said, ‘The demand for home rule in Yorkshire has been brought about by the policies of the Government in allowing such gross inequalities between the South East and many other parts of the UK to persist for so long. For example unemployment is 3 times higher in South Yorkshire than in the South East, and average income per head less than half. These disparities have persisted for decades. The UK is the only country in Europe without proper regional government. Just as Wales will be better served by decisions on its future being made in Wales, then so Yorkshire would be better served by an elected body to decide on issues relating to Yorkshire.’
In Cornwall the feeling is much stronger. Cornwall has several parties calling for the recognition of the area as a country. The region also has its own Celtic language, Kernewek, which is spoken by around 3,500 people. Kernewek is taught in some Cornish schools, and despite being recognized only as a minority language it has a dedicated dictionary and language commission. 11% of the Cornish population voted ‘yes’ to a move for self-government in 2001. Although this does not seem a large amount, 11% accounts for as many as 46,000 people, thus emphasising the considerable level of local support. The supporters believe that Cornwall is not merely a county within England, but a distinctive nation that has never been formally incorporated into England via an act of union. Dick Cole is the leader of the most prominent nationalist movement in Cornwall, Mebyon Kernow. (Sons of Cornwall) He said, ‘The London-based political parties have failed Cornwall. They have collectively tied Cornwall into south west bodies where our Cornish voice is submerged, they have imposed ill-conceived and unsustainable policies that take no account of the unique nature of Cornwall and refused to devolve political and economic power to our nation.’
The ‘balkanizing’ of England is underlined by regional assemblies, a government initiative implemented at the turn of the century. The devolution of power from Westminster to local areas aimed to give regions a voice in Britain and the European Union. However, it seems as though Labour have attempted to abolish 1000 year old counties and replaced them with segregated governed regions.
Outside London eight regional assemblies exist representing South-West England, East of England, West Midlands, North-West, North-East, East Midlands, South–East England and Yorkshire & Humber. Introduced by John Prescott in 1999, the assemblies represent the voice of the region and overlook regional planning and housing as well as scrutinising policy development. Each assembly shares the same powers and the question as to whether different regions require different solutions remains. The regional assembly project has not been welcomed with open arms by everyone. In 2004, the North-East voted against a regional government sparking debate that the area’s assembly should also be scrapped. In a survey carried out for BBC One’s Politics Show, 66% admitted they didn’t know what the assembly did and nearly 25% opposed the idea entirely.
Across Britain, and most notably in England, a number of national issues have divided the public on a social level. Since the 7/7 London bombings, immigration and religious extremism has found itself under the national spotlight. A review published in the Guardian newspaper revealed that 1 in 10 people rejected all four identities of British, English, Scottish and Welsh. The segregation of cultural communities in the UK has led to flaring tensions and racially aggravated violence. To combat this, the first Muslim Council has been created in Britain. The organisation aims to highlight problems facing the Muslim community and attempts to create a multicultural and peaceful environment for the British population. There are around 1.5 million Muslims in Britain, the largest communities being in Greater London, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Lancashire and Central Scotland.
Followers of Islam continue to face discrimination and disadvantage. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis together have a long-term unemployment rate nearly three times greater than people of West Indian descent. In the inner cities nearly half of all Bangladeshi and Pakistani adults are out of work. The number of Muslims in prison in England and Wales rose by 40% in 2007 accounting for 4% of the prison population; Although Muslims constitute only about 4% of the entire British population. A recent report identified ‘Islamophobia’ as a problem besetting British Muslims. Islamophobia is a fear of Muslims as people bent on imposing their religious and political views on the rest of society, if necessary by force.
Relations between the British population and the Government were strained further by the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Although many supported Blair’s decision to overhaul Saddam Hussein, millions were infuriated and a number of protests and marches occurred not just across Britain, but all over the world. In 2003, two million people descended on Hyde Park to attend an anti-war protest. The entire episode resulted in increased distrust between parliamentary officials and the public.
Politicians should argue the advantages and disadvantages of union, but if strong disagreements remain then the people of each country will have to choose by either vote or referenda. It seems that England would be the only beneficiary should there be a break-up of the United Kingdom. Should Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland become independent I don’t believe their citizens would benefit from the subsidies that are currently available. Conversely, if an independent Scotland and Wales resulted in a less affluent population would it matter to the respective populations? It can sometimes be better to satisfy political aspirations even if it acts as a detriment to the economy.
The British public should be proud of its sovereignty and the combination of the four countries provides a strong base, not just economically and politically, but also on a sporting and social level. If the United Kingdom wants to be united in ten years time then it needs to reduce animosity between the countries. Thus, a greater impetus must be put on issues such as public funding, rather than sweeping the problem under the proverbial carpet. A complete makeover of the Barnett system is desperately required and the regional assemblies must be assigned tasks based specifically on the individual region’s needs. I believe the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies should be given greater freedom but any decisions must be for the benefit of Britain as a whole.
To conclude, there are strong feelings in favour of a break up of the United Kingdom and the political importance of these arguments should be recognised. The absence of England would be detrimental to the economic status of Scotland, Wales and, despite not strictly being part of Britain, Northern Ireland. Equally England would be worse off socially should independent status be granted. Arguably, the advantages of union are insufficiently recognised by nationalist supporters. Admittedly, Britain has grown apart for economic and political reasons and each part of the United Kingdom wants to plough its own furrow. But Britain has links so close that they cannot ever be totally dissolved and therefore I feel that Britain should be and will be united in 10 years time.
The British public should be proud of its sovereignty and the combination of the four countries provides a strong base, not just economically and politically, but also on a sporting and social level. If the United Kingdom wants to be united in ten years time then it needs to reduce animosity between the countries. Thus, a greater impetus must be put on issues such as public funding, rather than sweeping the problem under the proverbial carpet. A complete makeover of the Barnett system is desperately required and the regional assemblies must be assigned tasks based specifically on the individual region’s needs. I believe the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies should be given greater freedom but any decisions must be for the benefit of Britain as a whole.
To conclude, there are strong feelings in favour of a break up of the United Kingdom and the political importance of these arguments should be recognised. The absence of England would be detrimental to the economic status of Scotland, Wales and, despite not strictly being part of Britain, Northern Ireland. Equally England would be worse off socially should independent status be granted. Arguably, the advantages of union are insufficiently recognised by nationalist supporters. Admittedly, Britain has grown apart for economic and political reasons and each part of the United Kingdom wants to plough its own furrow. But Britain has links so close that they cannot ever be totally dissolved and therefore I feel that Britain should be and will be united in 10 years time.
(T.E Utley Memorial fund competition, 2008)
