What is united about our kingdom? Is it the economy, governance or identity?
Show Hide image

What is United about our Kingdom?

A professor, a pollster and a journalist hashed out the question at Chatham House last week.

As the debate on Scottish independence centres on the alleged differences between the Scots and the English, the New Statesman headed to Chatham House last Thursday, where the question at hand was what is united about our fair kingdom.

Journalist and author Sir Simon Jenkins kicked off with a history lesson, pinpointing the end of the British Empire as the beginning of profound changes to our “confederacy, which is the proper way of describing the British Isles.”

A stickler for precision, he pointed out that when discussing the Union at all, we must acknowledge that the “United Kingdom”, in its original formation, ceased to exist following the Partition of Ireland in 1921; since then we have been but the isle of “Great Britain plus Northern Ireland”.

Turning his attention to the referendum on 18 September, he slammed the Better Together campaign for its “ham-fisted” strategy, which centres on promoting the economic argument for Scotland remaining in the Union.

“Secession is not about money,” he barked. “It’s about emotion, tribalism... It's about the way people feel about identity in a changing world.”

Localism is the dominating trend in identity politics, he argued: “In a globalised world, people want a local identity.” The smaller the unit of locality, the stronger the affinity people feel with it (though it was pointed out that London remains the exception, where the city resonates more with residents than their specific borough).

Another complication of British identity is its variation throughout the Union. Most damagingly: “To the English, it means England and little bits on the outside."

If that were not galling enough for the Scots, Jenkins argued that their nation should be as rich as Denmark now, but alas, “it has been ruled badly from London for 50 years if not 200 years”.

No wonder some Scots hate the English, you would be forgiven for thinking. Indeed, they do, said Ipsos MORI chief executive Ben Page.

The pollster pointed out that among football Scottish fans, 15 per cent would always support a national team playing against England than plump for their southern cousins.

Channel 4 news broadcaster Jon Snow described those hard-line nationalists as “angry, entitled, resentful, alienated”, who have come to the conclusion on independence: “Let's just do it ourselves because nobody's done it very well for us yet.”

Still, “devo max” will “cure” the antipathy of these Scots towards Westminster, he maintained.

Page argued that there is more that unites the Scots, the English and the Welsh than divides them, pointing out that the greatest gulf in culture and identity is between London and the rest of the UK.

He said: “London is becoming something other than the countries of which it is in charge; it's almost becoming a separate city-state in its own right.” He added: “That’s a problem”.

Jenkins stood up for the city: “I’m a London nationalist”, he declared.

Princeton-based Professor Linda Colley argued that Westminster and the physical set up of Parliament turned many voters off, but particularly the Scots living hundreds of miles away.

Westminster should emulate the Welsh Assembly, she said. Unlike the rectangular House of Commons, with facing benches designed for rhetorical combat, the Welsh Assembly, she eulogised, is a "light, airy, circular building, where people can do their emails while listening to talks. And you get translations of debates into Welsh, not just English. People can gather outside and look at what their representatives are doing.”

Jenkins snorted. "It’s a citadel of total incompetence", he said.

The growing need for a written constitution to codify the nature of the Union was also discussed. Colley said that the complexity of Parliament today meant a constitution was required for the aid of MPs, a viewpoint shared by a parliamentary clerk – not usually the type to eschew tradition and embrace change – with whom she had spoken.

She issued a warning, however. “It can’t just be a car manual, it can’t be like the cabinet guide recently created. There has to be an inspiration element to it, that’s the trick.” she said. 

So a written code would spark further questions about who we are as a nation and what kind of people we want to be. 

 

As to the central question of what unites our kingdom, the panel was passionately divided.

Page surmised: “Ultimately, it’s still the economy stupid. Essentially people are pragmatic - most polls show that people want to vote to stay in for pragmatic reasons”. Colley agreed, but only in part. She added: “It’s governance stupid”. With a grin and delighting in his own contrarianism, Jenkins had the last word: “I’m going to say: it’s identity stupid.”

Lucy Fisher writes about politics and is the winner of the Anthony Howard Award 2013. She tweets @LOS_Fisher.

 

Shaun Botterill/Getty Images
Show Hide image

All the Premiership teams are competing to see who’s got the biggest stadium

It’s not just a financial, but a macho thing – the big clubs want to show off that they have a whopper.

Here in NW5, where we live noisily and fashionably, we are roughly equidistant from Arsenal and Spurs. We bought the house in 1963 for £5,000, which I mention constantly, to make everyone in the street pig sick. Back in 1963, we lived quietly and unfashionably; in fact, we could easily have been living in Loughton, Essex. Now it’s all changed. As have White Hart Lane and Highbury.

Both grounds are a few metres further away from us than they once were, or they will be when White Hart Lane is finished. The new stadium is a few metres to the north, while the Emirates is a few metres to the east.

Why am I saying metres? Like all football fans, I say a near-miss on goal was inches wide, a slow striker is a yard off his pace, and a ball player can turn on a sixpence. That’s more like it.

White Hart Lane, when finished, will hold 61,000 – a thousand more than the Emirates, har har. Meanwhile, Man City is still expanding, and will also hold about 60,000 by the time Pep Guardiola is into his stride. Chelsea will be next, when they get themselves sorted. So will Liverpool.

Man United’s Old Trafford can now hold over 75,000. Fair makes you proud to be alive at this time and enjoying the wonders of the Prem.

Then, of course, we have the New Wembley, architecturally wonderful, striking and stunning, a beacon of beauty for miles around. As they all are, these brave new stadiums. (No one says “stadia” in real life.)

The old stadiums, built between the wars, many of them by the Scottish architect Archibald Leitch (1865-1939), were also seen as wonders of the time, and all of them held far more than their modern counterparts. The record crowd at White Hart Lane was in 1938, when 75,038 came to see Spurs play Sunderland. Arsenal’s record at Highbury was also against Sunderland – in 1935, with 73,295. Wembley, which today can hold 90,000, had an official figure of 126,000 for the first Cup Final in 1923, but the true figure was at least 150,000, because so many broke in.

Back in 1901, when the Cup Final was held at Crystal Palace between Spurs and Sheffield United, there was a crowd of 110,820. Looking at old photos of the Crystal Palace finals, a lot of the ground seems to have been a grassy mound. Hard to believe fans could see.

Between the wars, thanks to Leitch, big clubs did have proper covered stands. Most fans stood on huge open concrete terraces, which remained till the 1990s. There were metal barriers, which were supposed to hold back sudden surges, but rarely did, so if you were caught in a surge, you were swept away or you fell over. Kids were hoisted over the adults’ heads and plonked at the front.

Getting refreshments was almost impossible, unless you caught the eye of a peanut seller who’d lob you a paper bag of Percy Dalton’s. Getting out for a pee was just as hard. You often came home with the back of your trousers soaked.

I used to be an expert on crowds as a lad. Rubbish on identifying a Spitfire from a Hurricane, but shit hot on match gates at Hampden Park and Ibrox. Answer: well over 100,000. Today’s new stadiums will never hold as many, but will cost trillions more. The money is coming from the £8bn that the Prem is getting from TV for three years.

You’d imagine that, with all this money flooding in, the clubs would be kinder to their fans, but no, they’re lashing out, and not just on new stadiums, but players and wages, directors and agents. Hence, so they say, they are having to put up ticket prices, causing protest campaigns at Arsenal and Liverpool. Arsène at Arsenal has admitted that he couldn’t afford to buy while the Emirates was being built. Pochettino is saying much the same at Spurs.

It’s not just a financial, but a macho thing – the big clubs want to show off that they have a whopper. In the end, only rich fans will be able to attend these supergrounds. Chelsea plans to have a private swimming pool under each new box, plus a wine cellar. Just like our street, really . . . 

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle