Michael Wills

Transcript of Gareth Young's speech to the Convention on Modern Liberty, 28 February 2009

"I think almost every question that we have to deal with about the future of Britain revolves around what we mean by Britishness, whether it is asylum or immigration, the future of the constitution, our relationship with Europe or terrorism. Who we are, what we stand for, what we are fighting for, is crucial to any nation’s future in the modern world."

Those are not my words, they are the words of Gordon Brown, speaking in 2005. But how true are they?

I certainly don’t view almost every political question through the prism of Britishness, I tend to view these questions on many levels, and one of those levels is as an Englishman. The Scottish Government, led by Alex Salmond, have their own ideas about immigration, the economy, their relationship with Europe and the constitution (which includes civil liberties). In Scotland they have thought about these issues as Scots and as they pertain to Scotland. It is perhaps because of this that Privacy International can praise Scotland for its civil liberties record whilst condemning the British Government for turning England and Wales into “endemic surveillance societies”. In England we are unlike Scotland because we allow the British state to retain the DNA profiles of innocent children, we have a national database of children and English kids are fingerprinted at school without their parents’ knowledge. This is not the England I want, these things are being done to England by a political class for whom the word England means absolutely nothing.

Gordon Brown continues:

"I want to have this debate…about whether Scotland has a different view of tolerance to England, or whether Scotland has a different view of the stiff upper lip and so on—I want to debate these things in far more detail."

What has happened to that debate? We cannot have a debate on the ideological and political differences between England and Scotland because we are denied a debate about England and what it means to be English. The Government presses ahead with its Governance of Britain project, to define our values, and in Scotland there is a National Conversation (and Calman Commission), in Wales there’s a public debate called the All Wales Convention, and in Northern Ireland a Human Rights Commission and an Assembly Road Show. For England there is nothing but denial. A point blank refusal by our politicians to mention the elephant in the room.

Gordon Brown tells us that Britain is based on a covenant that binds England, Wales and Scotland together and that there is no distinction between being proud to be British and being proud to be Scottish or Welsh because devolution acknowledges dual identity.

Well, if you’re Scottish or Welsh devolution does more than just acknowledge ‘dual identity’. Devolution is an act of national liberation, it is recognition of political and cultural difference, it’s a hiving off of political and moral authority, and it’s a division of those things that has occurred along national boundaries.

I would like to try a small experiment. I’d like everyone in the room to ask themselves three questions. Ask yourself:

1.What is my ethnic identity?
2.What is my national identity?
3.What is my state identity, my citizenship?

I’m ethnically English, my national identity is English (it’s England that has my allegiance, I feel that I belong to England and England belongs to me), and my state identity is British. My wife, on the other hand, is a Canadian citizen and her national identity is Canadian, so there is a marriage between her national identity and her citizenship - her national identity is formally recognised.

Now. This is not a test, national identity is a personal thing, and subjective, so don’t worry you’re not going to be judged on this. But can I have a show of hands to see who in the room considers their national identity to be British? (Yasmin Alibhai-Brown puts up her hand). And who considers their national identity to be Scottish? (Gerry Hassan puts up his hand)

The question that we should ask ourselves is why Yasmin and Gerry’s national identities should have constitutional recognition and political expression, but not mine?

In a speech to Guy’s IPPR in March 2008 Michael Wills went to great length to elaborate on why Britishness, and articulating our idea of Britishness, was so important, and he made great play on Britain’s tolerant and plural nature. British identity, he said, was different from English identity because it was “inherently inclusive”.

He then went on to reveal some IPSOS Mori polling (commissioned by the Ministry of Justice) that demonstrated that both whites and visible ethnic minorities have a greater sense of belonging to England than they do to Britain.

To feel a sense of belonging to England is different to feeling comfortable describing yourself as English. Asians in Scotland, for instance, are much more likely to describe themselves as Scottish than English Asians are to describe themselves as English. The thought that I would like you to take away from this session is whether, in concentrating on building up Britishness, are we ignoring to our detriment the case for building an inclusive civic English national identity.

Before I came here I looked up liberty in the dictionary. There were a few definitions but the two that seemed most apt for this session on the national question were “the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges” and “the power of choice”.

I choose England.

Michael Wills (now Baron Wills for no apparent reason) has been engaging in his favourite past-time, poo-pooing the idea of an English Parliament.

Lord Wills spoke of England’s dominance in the current parliament, a response which concurred with a lot of the questions presented to him. He went on to explain the argument that an English parliament could undermine the British union whilst admitting ‘thank God’ there was no groundswell of support for the idea, a position that seemed almost universal throughout the audience.

Michael Wills has long opposed the idea of an English Parliament and has been known to be economical with the truth in order to make a convincing argument against it.

In the most recent opinion poll (ICM for Power2010 | April 2010) to address this issue, 68% agreed that "England should have its own parliament with similar powers to those of the Scottish Parliament".

Results
Strongly agree: 43%
Slightly agree: 25%
Neither agree nor disagree: 10%
Slightly disagree: 8%
Strongly disagree: 12%

Transcript of my speech to the Convention on Modern Liberty, 28 February 2009

"I think almost every question that we have to deal with about the future of Britain revolves around what we mean by Britishness, whether it is asylum or immigration, the future of the constitution, our relationship with Europe or terrorism. Who we are, what we stand for, what we are fighting for, is crucial to any nation’s future in the modern world."

Those are not my words, they are the words of Gordon Brown, speaking in 2005. But how true are they?

I certainly don’t view almost every political question through the prism of Britishness, I tend to view these questions on many levels, and one of those levels is as an Englishman. The Scottish Government, led by Alex Salmond, have their own ideas about immigration, the economy, their relationship with Europe and the constitution (which includes civil liberties). In Scotland they have thought about these issues as Scots and as they pertain to Scotland. It is perhaps because of this that Privacy International can praise Scotland for its civil liberties record whilst condemning the British Government for turning England and Wales into “endemic surveillance societies”. In England we are unlike Scotland because we allow the British state to retain the DNA profiles of innocent children, we have a national database of children and English kids are fingerprinted at school without their parents’ knowledge. This is not the England I want, these things are being done to England by a political class for whom the word England means absolutely nothing.

Gordon Brown continues:

"I want to have this debate…about whether Scotland has a different view of tolerance to England, or whether Scotland has a different view of the stiff upper lip and so on—I want to debate these things in far more detail."

What has happened to that debate? We cannot have a debate on the ideological and political differences between England and Scotland because we are denied a debate about England and what it means to be English. The Government presses ahead with its Governance of Britain project, to define our values, and in Scotland there is a National Conversation (and Calman Commission), in Wales there’s a public debate called the All Wales Convention, and in Northern Ireland a Human Rights Commission and an Assembly Road Show. For England there is nothing but denial. A point blank refusal by our politicians to mention the elephant in the room.

Gordon Brown tells us that Britain is based on a covenant that binds England, Wales and Scotland together and that there is no distinction between being proud to be British and being proud to be Scottish or Welsh because devolution acknowledges dual identity.

Well, if you’re Scottish or Welsh devolution does more than just acknowledge ‘dual identity’. Devolution is an act of national liberation, it is recognition of political and cultural difference, it’s a hiving off of political and moral authority, and it’s a division of those things that has occurred along national boundaries.

I would like to try a small experiment. I’d like everyone in the room to ask themselves three questions. Ask yourself:

1.What is my ethnic identity?
2.What is my national identity?
3.What is my state identity, my citizenship?

I’m ethnically English, my national identity is English (it’s England that has my allegiance, I feel that I belong to England and England belongs to me), and my state identity is British. My wife, on the other hand, is a Canadian citizen and her national identity is Canadian, so there is a marriage between her national identity and her citizenship - her national identity is formally recognised.

Now. This is not a test, national identity is a personal thing, and subjective, so don’t worry you’re not going to be judged on this. But can I have a show of hands to see who in the room considers their national identity to be British? (Yasmin Alibhai-Brown puts up her hand). And who considers their national identity to be Scottish? (Gerry Hassan puts up his hand)

The question that we should ask ourselves is why Yasmin and Gerry’s national identities should have constitutional recognition and political expression, but not mine?

In a speech to Guy’s IPPR in March 2008 Michael Wills went to great length to elaborate on why Britishness, and articulating our idea of Britishness, was so important, and he made great play on Britain’s tolerant and plural nature. British identity, he said, was different from English identity because it was “inherently inclusive”.

He then went on to reveal some IPSOS Mori polling (commissioned by the Ministry of Justice) that demonstrated that both whites and visible ethnic minorities have a greater sense of belonging to England than they do to Britain.

To feel a sense of belonging to England is different to feeling comfortable describing yourself as English. Asians in Scotland, for instance, are much more likely to describe themselves as Scottish than English Asians are to describe themselves as English. The thought that I would like you to take away from this session is whether, in concentrating on building up Britishness, are we ignoring to our detriment the case for building an inclusive civic English national identity.

Before I came here I looked up liberty in the dictionary. There were a few definitions but the two that seemed most apt for this session on the national question were “the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges” and “the power of choice”.

I choose England.

Michael Wills blathering on in the Times:

It's more than 300 years since this country last had a Bill of Rights. It has served us well but it is time to explore whether we need a new one.

Whassat Wills?

Sorry?

Which country?

This Bill of Rights, is it?

Oh, that country.

Hard times also call for hard drinking, which leads me onto my latest article for Our Kingdom: The death of community pubs

Back in March, in his speech on the Politics of Identity, Michael Wills informed us that "Our British identity is different from our English identity...because it is quintessentially plural. And therefore inherently inclusive".

His speech was informed by the findings of an Ipsos MORI poll, which has only this week seen the light of day on the Ministry of Justice website. I was particularly interested to see that the MoJ chose to break down the results into ethnicity: "BME" (Black and Minority Ethnic) or "white".

When asked "How strongly, if at all, do you feel a sense of belonging to Britain?", 81% of whites and 75% of BMEs pick "strongly".

In England alone when asked "How strongly, if at all, do you feel a sense of belonging to England?", 82% of whites and 77% of BMEs pick "strongly".

In other words both whites and BMEs feel a greater sense of belonging to England than they do to Britain, which casts doubt on the idea that "British" is a more inclusive umbrella identity than "English".

Of course, Michael Wills neglected to mention these facts when he gave his speech on Politics and Identity; what he said was: "What emerges strongly from these findings is the strength of British identity as a source of belonging. And this is true across age, gender, region and ethnicity. 75% of black and minority ethnic respondents, for example, said they felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain."

Of course it doesn't necessarily follow that BMEs feel comfortable describing themselves as English, but it does tend to suggest that England is just as plural a nation as the much heralded inclusive Britain (or possibly more so given that the former has a higher %age of BMEs than the latter).

Michael Wills in his speech to the IPPR, March 2008.

Despite all the comment about the growth of national sentiment in England, Scotland and Wales and the detachment of minority groups, 54% said their sense of belonging to Britain had stayed the same over the last five years, 16% said it had become stronger and only 28% said it had become weaker. And again, there aren't significant variations across age, gender, region and ethnicity. 54% of whites, compared with 48% of black and minority ethnic respondents, for example, said their sense of belonging to Britain had stayed the same over the last five years.

These figures are significant. For years, commentators have argued that this government's measures of devolution have wounded, perhaps fatally, the Union, and that multiculturalism has fragmented national cohesion.

Commentators who have argued that devolution has wounded the Union are closer to the truth than Government ministers who maintain that devolution has strengthened the Union.

Those results in full.

"Would you say your sense of belonging to Britain has got stronger or weaker over the last five years, or has it stayed about the same?"

From these results I suppose that there's an element of truth in the theory that devolution has strengthened the union, because although our sense of belonging is declining across the board, it is in Scotland, the only country to get proper legislative devolution, where the decline appears to be slower.

However, a cynic, like myself, might argue that the decline in British identity is faster in England and Wales precisely because of the unfairness of asymmetric devolution.

I am informed that the full results will be appearing on the Ministry of Justice website sometime soon, just eleven months or so after Ipsos MORI did the fieldwork.

Dear Mr Wills,

In your speech on The Politics of Identity, reproduced on the Governance of Britain website, you say that national identity is a central issue for politics. You elaborate by stating that:

"Identity is important also on a more profound level, defining the territory within which politics operates. Democracies depend on a covenant between the individual and the state, between government and the governed. Democratic politics can only take place within a framework of common purpose and a sense of shared destiny between voters, creating a moral community, not necessarily defined by geography or class but by shared sentiments of mutual and reciprocal respect and obligation, which can only take place where there is some sense of some shared identity."

Another way of putting this would be to say that: a contract of trust between citizens and politicians on a defined national community – we can elect you, we can remove you – is fundamental to a democracy.

The "we" in that statement is of vital importance. In England, since devolution, for a significant part of Government policy, the "we" has contracted to exclude Scots, and to a lesser extent the Welsh and Northern Irish. The same has happened in Scotland where "we the British", has, in regard to devolved matters, become "we the Scottish". But unlike Scotland we in England have politicians elected outside our national community, deciding Government policy as it relates to our nation, and then voting upon it. We - the English - cannot elect or remove these politicians, the contract of trust is gone.

In areas such as education, health and housing, and other areas where significant powers have been transferred away from Westminster, there has been a breakdown in the sense of common purpose and shared destiny, and the covenant between the governed and the government has been abrogated because the appellation that defines "we" is slowly changing from "British" to "English" - even if the terms are not mutually exclusive.

Further on in your speech you inform us that 82% in England felt a strong sense of belonging to England, and that 81% in England felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain. The English have therefore defined a plural national identity that is both English and British. If identity is important then why not recognise that English identity politically; and why not reflect the sense of common purpose, mutual respect and obligation - and common governance - that still holds for England, but which is disappearing from Britain in the wake of devolution?

On reserved matters we - the English - may have common purpose with our fellow Brits but, as Alex Salmond is only too keen to demonstrate, policy divergence is accelerating on devolved matters. And things are set to get worse. It may soon be the case that the Scottish Parliament assumes greater powers over taxation, which may further erode the sense of obligation that we Brits feel for each other. If the Scottish Government does begin to fund its devolved commitments directly through taxes raised in Scotland then the equivalent budgets in England should be minus any Scottish contribution. Why, therefore, should any MP elected in Scotland have any say whatsoever in how those taxes are spent?

Gordon Brown, elected in Scotland, has no moral right whatsoever to determine policy in England for which the concomitant legislation is the responsibility of the Scottish Government. The only reason that he can wield power undemocratically over the English is because the House divides along party (not national) lines, and the sentimental tradition of a unitary parliament continues in the face of cold hard logic. That will change with a Conservative Government, if only as a result of electoral arithmetic, when the party affiliation of the governing party will mirror their national affiliation.

The question I have for you is: Are you prepared to allow England its own parliament and government to properly reflect English identity and respond to English aspirations, and to prevent an English Conservative administration ripping the Union asunder?

Best regards,

Michael Wills' speech on Britishness that I mentioned previously is up on the Ministry of Justice website. The key findings are these:

• 80% felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain
• 82% in England felt a strong sense of belonging to England
• 91%% in Scotland felt a strong sense of belonging to Scotland
• 95% in Wales felt a strong sense of belonging to Wales
• 81% in England felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain
• 87% in Wales felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain
• 70% in Scotland felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain

All of which makes Wales the most British nation of Great Britain (curiously Northern Ireland is not mentioned). This follows on from a YouGov poll which also found British identity to be the most popular identity in Midlands/Wales, but in a forced response on primary national identity.

Michael Wills doesn't go as far as claiming that devolution has strengthened the Union, but:

For years, commentators have argued that this government's measures of devolution have wounded, perhaps fatally, the Union, and that multiculturalism has fragmented national cohesion. But, while it is true that English, Welsh and Scottish sentiment has strengthened and that, for example, twice as many black and minority ethnic respondents felt a sense of belonging to their religion or faith as white respondents, nevertheless being British remains central to a sense of belonging for the great majority of the peoples of these islands. There are many and complex reasons for this resilience but, among other things, it must point to the importance of the pluralism that defines being British.

Naturally it is the pluralism of Britishness that distinguishes it from the "other allegiances we feel to one or other of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom". Nevertheless, 28% say they feel less British than five years previous, so maybe pluralism on its own just isn't enough.

From the audience the English Question was posed and ignored:

Wills dodged a direct question by Anthony on why the government doesn’t just offer the English a referendum on an English parliament inside a British Union, which, after all, would seem to be the logical outcome of an emphasis on the need for both identity and public participation.