Failure to speak for England imperils the Union

Expecting English voters to pay up, shut up and put up with the SNP’S divisive politics isn’t sustainable

In the struggle for the future of the Union, who speaks for England? For that matter, when will England be allowed to speak at all? The implicit assumption on both sides of the political aisle has long been that the role of the English in all this is simple: pay up, shut up, and put up with whatever divisive bile the SNP might choose to sling your way. For the most part, occupants of Westminster have obliged – feeling both fearful of the fury of the Scottish Nationalists and underinformed about the complexities of Scottish politics. Most would rather opt out of the fight than risk putting their foot in it.

Such terrified deference is exactly what Nicola Sturgeon and her allies want, for reasons of long-term strategy and short-term opportunism. They are separatists, after all. Of course they work hard to cultivate the myth that the political culture of Scotland is immeasurably and inscrutably different to that of England and Wales. By denying and minimising all that we have in common as constituent parts of the same country, and exaggerating our supposed differences, they seek to create a cultural and psychological border in order to make a real border seem like the inevitable next step.

The SNP’S essential modern insight was the realisation that there are serendipitous by-products of that strategy, which can be harnessed to bolster their cause still further.

The first is that silencing effect. Convincing the majority of the Union that it cannot and should not speak to or about its own partner, without the risk of setting all Scotland aflame with resentment, is a master stroke. It muzzles many of the SNP’S opponents, preventing them from saying anything to advance or defend their cause, and leaves Sturgeon free to set the theme, timing and terms of the debate.

Suddenly, preserving the Union becomes primarily about how to sate a political party which will never be satisfied with anything that Unionism might offer, and a wider bidding war to woo floating voters away from them.

That bidding war is the SNP’S second happy by-product. If Westminster is cowed, then the Barnett Formula will continue undisturbed, pumping money to Holyrood decades after the temporary arrangement was meant to expire. In 2018/19, public spending per capita in Scotland was 21 per cent higher than in England; several English regions suffer higher levels of poverty than Scotland, but none receives as much public spending.

Much of that money is spent by the Scottish government, with all the attendant branding, fanfare and invective which have come to characterise the SNP’S smack-in-theface subtle approach to delivering their message. It might have only limited effect were Westminster to splash cash directly in the hope that Scots be grateful – but it is downright counterproductive to fund your opponents to do so.

England’s politicians might opt to absorb such an imbalanced settlement indefinitely, but it would be a mistake to assume that English taxpayers and voters will necessarily do so. Indeed, the third element of the separatist strategy is to assume that they will eventually lose patience.

The goal is a win-win scenario: while England keeps schtum, the unhappy status quo continues, and when the English finally get fed up with being taken for granted, snubbed and insulted, the Union will be brought closer to dissolution. When ahistorical theories are touted portraying Scotland as a victim of the “English Empire”, or nationalists put up offensive banners next to the border, the aim is to inflame English resentment at least as much as it is to rally the nationalist base.

The Unionist impulse to indulge the SNP’S strategy is dangerously mistaken. English voters’ affection for the Union may be deep but it is not bottomless, and if their temper holds for longer than she expects, Sturgeon will simply use that time to twist the knife further. Silence is not a policy, it is an abdication – ironically, for fear of playing into the SNP’S hands, English politicians are doing precisely what the First Minister wants. Conceding that the debate over the Union should be a Scottish-only activity amounts to accepting a fundamental premise of Scottish nationalism.

Failing to find a productive, positive, active voice for England does harm to the Union, and it lets down English voters. People are not stupid; they noticed that while devolution was swiftly embraced for Wales and Scotland, England was expected to swallow John Prescott’s farcical and arbitrary regionalism. They hear the apologetic or even suspicious tone that is still used to discuss Englishness, and Englishness alone. They see the way in which Holyrood attempts to frame the Union as something which Scotland endured, rather than something a family of nations chose to do together. They wonder why nobody seems to stand up and set the record straight.

The silence can’t last forever. Someone must speak for England – in the right way, and soon – before it is too late.