Another guest post today, this time from Yorkshire activist Arnie Craven. See, it’s not just Labour folk we give guest slots to.
Someone once told me about a time they were in a University seminar on constitutional reform. The seminar tutor spent some time listing possible constitutional reforms for the UK, mentioning among them Yorkshire devolution. As he finished listing, he fell silent, looking around the class, waiting for a reaction. Nothing was forthcoming. So he started laughing, and said something along the lines of ‘I was only joking about Yorkshire devolution, it wasn’t a serious idea’.
This is the problem any Yorkshire devolution project has to deal with. That’s why, when the FAQs section for YorkshireIndependence.com, a cross party group concerned with Yorkshire devolution, was written – it was agreed that the first question we had to answer was ‘Is this a serious campaign?’.
This is the most frustrating part of the whole endeavour: it’s not like regional devolution/autonomy/federalism is such an outlandish idea. Spain has it, Australia has it, Germany has it, Canada has it, the USA has it. Yet in the UK we seem to think that devolution can only lead to one thing – secession.
Similarly, it’s not as if suggesting regional government for Yorkshire is such a silly idea due to its small size or weak economy. It was Mrs Thatcher’s Press Secretary, Sir Bernard Ingham, who famously stated:
If the Scots can have independence, then in terms of being a viable unit Yorkshire can too. It’s larger, it has more population, it has every asset you could need.
Yet people in Yorkshire don’t seem to get this. The population of Yorkshire is just over five million, similar to Scotland’s, bigger than New Zealand’s, Norway’s and many others. Our overall GDP is similar to the State of Israel’s, a small but relatively wealthy country. We have industrial areas and rural areas, financial centres and vast natural resources. But people don’t see to recognise this.
Ultimately it’s a question of getting information out, I think. However I suppose that could be said for all movements concerned with nationalism/regionalism.
Thankfully, and rather unexpectedly, progress seems to have been made over the last week. And who do we have to thank for this? Well, one obvious, one not so obvious. I won’t insult your intelligence and suggest that David Blunkett standing up at PMQs and discussing Yorkshire’s inferior funding arrangements/whether a Yorkshire Parliament should be formed wasn’t helpful to our cause.
But equally, and perhaps unexpectedly, we have Secretary of State for Transport Philip Hammond to thank. This week he, despite approving funding for mass transit schemes in Nottingham, Birmingham & Tyneside, decided to ‘postpone’ funding for Leeds Trolleybus (a poor man’s tram system). This is after the original Leeds Tram plans were cancelled by Whitehall in 2005, coincidentally just after Labour were ejected from Leeds City Council.
Now I’m not going to go into a discussion on the merits of a tram/trolleybus scheme (I know better than talking about trams too much on a Scottish blog!), but this was seen as a massive kick in the teeth for Yorkshire, and perhaps indicative of the fact that Westminster/Whitehall wouldn’t always have our best interests at heart.
Am I being blinded by optimism because of my own desire to see devolved Yorkshire institutions? Maybe. But do I honestly feel like something has happened this week, as if we, the people of Yorkshire have finally begun the long walk towards regional government? Yes.
#1 by James on October 30, 2010 - 12:41 pm
Thanks for the post, Arnie.
Just to be clear, is your ultimate preference for independence (as per the campaign domain name) or devolution for Yorkshire? If the people of Yorkshire come to want either, they should of course have the right to choose a change.
Also, could devolution be achieved by bringing together councillors from the borough and district councils to manage pan-Yorkshire issues?
Finally, what are those issues? What’s specifically different about Yorkshire in policy terms, compared to Derbyshire or Northumberland?
#2 by Arnie on October 30, 2010 - 2:35 pm
It’s firstly a devolutionist movement. After all, independence is a debatable concept in a world with bodies like the EU and the UN. The campaign name was simply chosen for ease of understanding, people understand that independence means self government, whilst I once talked to a person about devolution and he thought I meant humans turning back into monkeys!
In regards to your second point – no. That’s indirect democracy so any such body wouldn’t have as much clout in negotiating with Westminster/Whitehall. Could you imagine a ‘Scottish leaders board’, made up of members of local authorities, having the same clout as the Scottish Govt/Parl? A body just like that already exists, actually. And it doesn’t work.
Finally, well I’d have to go back to the first principles of democracy. A body with a defined territory, population and distinct culture is perhaps worthy of exercising a degree of control over its own destiny. I’d argue that if it’s good enough for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, all 16 German Lander, all the Canadian provinces, etc then it’s good enough for Yorkshire.
#3 by DougtheDug on October 30, 2010 - 3:04 pm
The whole point of devolution was to create a layer of provincial government in Britain between local councils and Westminster so creating a devolved Yorkshire is quite in keeping with the original plan of devolution though I think the regions they were thinking of in England were a bit larger than county size.
The reason people laugh about Yorkshire devolution is that they think that devolution was about devolving power to the constituent nations of the UK rather than its true purpose of creating regional government bodies within a unified British nation. Since Yorkshire is not a constituent nation of the UK they don’t think devolution applies to Yorkshire even though recognising the four nations of the UK was never the original purpose of devolution.
Devolution was never about recognising internal nations in the UK because in that case it would have recognised England. Devolution was always about creating another layer of local government above councils but below Westminster to create British provinces. The Greater England provinces of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and up to twelve provinces in England proper. The old national boundaries were followed for the Greater England provinces because it was easier in Scotland’s case to keep to the boundaries of the Scottish education and legal systems and in the Welsh case those of the Welsh Language act rather than create provinces where different laws and obligations prevailed in different parts of the province.
Because devolution was never completed only Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland got provincialised which tends to reinforce they idea that devolution was based on the four constituent nations of the UK but once you understand that devolution in the UK is not based on the original nations the idea of a devolved Yorkshire is quite logical.
#4 by Mike Shaughnessy on October 30, 2010 - 3:29 pm
If Yorkshire can be independent then London certainly can. As Nick Griffin has said, ‘London is a different country’, and whilst I don’t usually agree with him, he is right on this.
London is culturally different than the rest of the UK, the whole world in one one city. And certainly economically strong enough.
Mike
http://haringeygreens.blogspot.com/
#5 by Arnie on October 30, 2010 - 6:19 pm
The only comment I’d make regarding that, Doug, is that Yorkshire is actually already defined as a region of England – I mean, its population is 5 million, it might be unfair to categorise it as nothing more than another county.
I completely take your point, though.
#6 by gadgie on October 30, 2010 - 11:37 pm
I doubt the whole of yorkshire would be in to a yorkshire parliament. many in n yorks are against the york and humber because it is too remote. if LEP’s are set up, local councils will not be happy that their local powers will be sucked up by a YP,which is what would have happened with a York and Humber regional assembly had one been directly elected. England does not fit neatly into any boxes that politicians dream up.
#7 by John on October 31, 2010 - 2:36 pm
I would question whether there is sufficient national/ethnic feeling amongst the people of Yorkshire. Do the people identify as English, British or Yorkish(?)?
In Cornwall there is a widespread national/ethnic identification as Cornish. You need this kind of identification and you need the organisations, political parties etc. that Cornwall, Wales, Scotland have to make the case for Yorkshire.
#8 by Philip R Hosking on October 31, 2010 - 4:43 pm
Have you heard of the grass-roots regionslists England Devolve: http://www.devolve.org/ They work closely with Wessex and Mercian regionalists and should not be confused with the Labour government artificial region assembly movements.
#9 by Philip R Hosking on October 31, 2010 - 6:33 pm
I’m surprised you mentioned this quite new Yorkshire regionalist movement before any talk of Cornwall. With no slight meant regarding the arguments of the Yorkshire movement surely Cornwall deserved a word or two before, especially considering the current threat we face: http://keepcornwallwhole.org/
#10 by Carps on November 11, 2010 - 9:17 am
As a Yorkshireman, not only would this be fantastic, but we could start clearing out the undesirables who have befouled our proud land with their foreign ways, unintelligible language, alien customs and dress and the smell of their cooking. I speak of course, of the Lancastrians