One of the major successes of the past 13 years, depending on your point of view, has been devolution. The establishment of Parliaments and Assemblies has transformed the governance and the culture of three of the four nations within the Union. However, this has left a big question at the heart of government, which ash also had a knock-on effect culturally:
How should England be governed?
This is often referred to in the media as “The English Question”. It is a question that the major political parties have, so far, avoided answering in a satisfactory manner. In fact, the major parties seemed to avoid any mention of England and Englishness altogether. They have either pushed the British agenda or wished to impose the regionalisation of England against the will of the people.
There has also been a current of thought, especially on the Left, that to debate England and Englishness is inherently racist. This has acted as a marvellous recruiting sergeant for parties and organisations such as the British National Party, with their promises of an English “Folk” Parliament, and the English Defence League.
This is why I have established the England Left Forward network. The aims are two-fold. The first is to provide a space for those of us on the Left, whether progressives, socialists, social democrats, liberals or greens, to articulate, debate and resolve the various aspects of the English Question; in particular with respect to providing England with a legitimate political voice.
The second is to identify a vision for the various aspects of England and Englishness that is not nationalistic in nature, but draws on the experience and contributions of all who engage in the debate. A vision that also incorporates the values of individual freedom, equality of opportunity, and a fair and just society based on the rule of law. For England is a country; it is not a colour, a race or a religion.
Where there’s disagreement on the aims, we hope to come to an acceptable consensus. Where there’s agreement, we intend to articulate the most appropriate way of taking things forward.
Currently the Left seem to be playing a game of catch-up over the English Question. If we can offer a collective, forward-looking, dynamic and all-inclusive vision of England and Englishness that the people of England can sign up to, we have a good opportunity to counter the arguments of the Right.
Dave Dyke is Founder and Facilitator, England Left Forward
‘The Independent View‘ is a slot on Lib Dem Voice which allows those from beyond the party to contribute to debates we believe are of interest to LDV’s readers. Please email [email protected] if you are interested in contributing.
36 Comments
My first question is, rather, “why should England be governed?”
“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.” – Edward Abbey
The problem is that over three-quarters of the UK in terms of population is England. Neither a separate English and UK Parliament, nor English MPs in the UK Parliament doubling as an English Parliament seem ideal. Roughly Scotland-sized regions of England in terms of population were not, as you seem to suggest, some evil desire of politicians for malicious reasons but simply what seemed to be a workable solution to avoid the awkwardness of a subdivision which is over three quarters of the whole. But, as you say, there seems to be no strong popular desire for this, and some of the arguments that used to be put forward for it no longer apply: regional English parliaments can no longer administer regional energy boards on account of energy supply no longer being government business (sold off to Sid who sold it on to the French or whatever).
Jock
“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”
So, as I said, we entrusted it to Sid, who sold it to the French.
While I object to being labelled as ‘Left’ I support the debate
I have always argued England is too big compared with the other nations to be governed by a single English parliament which would rule over 80% of the UK population. Instead I have always supported regional parliaments (with real powers, such as Wales is trying to achieve)
Above that would be a true UK parliament with representation form all of the UK including the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Gibraltar etc. because these smaller semi-independent entities have to live with the result of our foreign, defence and economic policies but have no say in the process that creates them.
I cant see any objection in principle to an English Parliament, the problem is purely practical – will voters turn out to elect both that & Westminster ? Right now there seems very little demand for English Devolution of any sort, this is an obsession for southern Tories, no-one else seems to care very much.
Matthew,
“Roughly Scotland-sized regions of England in terms of population were not, as you seem to suggest, some evil desire of politicians for malicious reasons but simply what seemed to be a workable solution to avoid the awkwardness of a subdivision which is over three quarters of the whole.”
There’s a difference between regionalism, where the people have a say in the geographical composition of the regions they want to represent them, and regionalisation, which is what the government imposed. Also, the powers of the assembly offered to the North East in the 2004 referendum were drawn UP from county councils, not DOWN from Westminster and Whitehall.
England Left Forward is looking at debating the various options available for England, not imposing a solution from the start. One possibility is suggested by the England Devolve network (http://www.devolve.org/MixedDem.htm). This approach suggests regional assemblies, but with greater powers as offered in 2004, with the regions chosen on the ground by the public. But it also allows for a Council of the English Regions as an all-England body for co-ordinating England-wide issues.
All options are on the table.
But the English Question is not just about the political dimension. It is about the cultural dimension too, allowing the people of England to express their culture freely and equally with the other cultures on these islands, whether home-grown or imported. Not dominant, nor subservient, but equal, in peace, democracy and brotherhood. About what sort of democracy the people of England want. Allowing the people of England to choose their regions, if they wished to do so, as well as allowing them a national voice and political identity.
I’m with Jock. The devolved governments in Scotland and Wales have proved petty minded, officious and largely useless, creating another layer of political space wasters. We don’t need it in England.
Chris – I’m pretty sure that your description of the devolved governments could be applied to any level of government anywhere in the world at any time – all governments are inevitably “petty minded” because they look after what (they believe) matters to the people of their country.
It’s important that England debates this – and equally as important that the debate isn’t interfered with by Scots like me trying to dictate to England how they should be governed (we had enough of that in the 1980s!) What shouldn’t be up for debate, though, is a return to pre-1998 centralisation – that would simply be a gift to the nationalists, and where my intervention would be appropriate.
Chris, I didn’t think my question was *that* ambiguous, especially given the quote after it.
Matthew, yet again you confuse state managed crony capitalism with the free-market:
Kevin A Carson, “Studies in Mutualist Political Economy“, Preface
It is right to consider the cultural aspects of the ‘English Question’ and not simply descend into a wonkish debate about regional boundaries.
To be English implies an awkwardness that is the fault of the left. Throughout most of nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Englishness was subsumed under Britishness; indeed, we used to use ‘England’ as a synonym for ‘Britain’ in much the same was as foreigners (particularly Americans) continue to do. Look at archive footage of the 1966 World Cup final at Wembley and you’ll see the England fans waving Union Jacks, not the flag of St George. The English flag was not brought out of the closet until the 1996 European Championships (“Three Lions” and all that).
But in the 1980s, ‘identity politics’ took hold. For some reason (probably over-compensation for past colonial sins), the left decided that identity politics legitimised Scottish and Welsh identities but delegitimised English identity. This problem was captured by rock musician Morrissey, in his 2004 song ‘Irish Blood, English Heart’, in which he sings, “I’ve been dreaming of a time when to be English is not to be baneful, to be standing by the flag not feeling shameful, racist or partial.” Until that time comes, the field will be left clear for ‘white van man’ and the BNP to appropriate English symbols.
Meanwhile, a healthy way of expressing English cultural pride was expressed by Devon folk band Show of Hands, in the song ‘Roots’ (video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5h4PFBuzvw; lyrics: http://www.allthelyrics.com/lyrics/show_of_hands/roots-lyrics-1259096.html). It was notable that Show of Hands recently had to resort to legal action to prevent this song from being used as a running soundtrack on the BNP’s website.
As long as the English left celebrates every ethnicity bar its own because it thinks that being English is not ‘right-on’, we have a problem that the far right can continue to exploit.
Simon,
Sad to say, you hit the nail on the head.
The BNP will continue to exploit the problem unless those of us who class ourselves as progressives, socialists, social democrats, liberals or greens stop being ‘right-on’ as a whole, start listening and start looking for answers.
It always disappointed me that, as a member of the left, I would see Labour and the Liberal Democrats throw themselves into the fight for Scots and Welsh self-determination, but remain oddly silent about the same right for England. Throw in the abandonment of the working class in England by Labour to woo the middle classes, and trouble was bound to start brewing.
The Liberal Democrats, in my opinion, have a golden opportunity here: they are the only federal party out of the three major parties, and the only one with a dedicated party for England – The Liberal Democrats in England. It puts them in a better position than Labour and the Tories. It’s a shame I had to search the party constitution to find its existence, though.
It would only take little steps, such as a webpage on the Lib Dem website for The Liberal Democrats in England, coupled with a manifesto dedicated to England alongside the Scottish and Welsh manifestoes, and the expression of a desire to address the English Question, both politically and culturally, to start to counter the BNP arguments. The question is, are the Lib Dems and their leadership willing to take that leap of faith? Or do you just ignore it, as has been the case so far, and wait for the genie to come out of a bottle it won’t go back into once out?
I was a live long Liberal Democrat supporter until this year. The General Elections this year will be the first time in 22 years that I have not voted Lib Dem in any election (national or local).
I cannot see how England can be ignored any more, seeing politicians embarrassed to even mention England by name whilst spouting the virtues of Scottish and Welsh devolution. I finally wish for the first time for a hung parliament, where Conservatives win a vast majority of England and find themselves under a labour government with Scottish and Welsh MPs giving them power.
I do not agree with the regionalism of England into assemblies. Once England is split into 9 regions competing for money and jobs it is finished.
G: why should I feel any better, living in Oxfordshire as I do, about having a Home Secretary from Hull than about having a Prime Monster from Dunfermline? As far as I am concerned Alan Johnson represents me no more than Gordon Brown does. And that is from someone born in Hull to Scottish parents, so both are areas with which you might expect me to have *some* kind of historical attachment at least.
Why would “competing” for money and jobs be a bad thing? It seems to me that it is competition that engenders enterprise. Perhaps finding that it had to operate within its own budgetary constraints, say, would enable the North East to learn to compete for *real* money and jobs more than for state support?
Of course I am playing devil’s advocate: I would vote against an English Parliament though as I would vote against *any* parliament given the chance. I certainly don’t see the Euro-regions as an answer either. However though it is geographically much larger, I do note that the US state of Vermont has roughly the same population as Oxfordshire, and is credited with the full political competence and subsidiarity as any state in the union. That is perhaps the level at which I might be happy with effective political self-determination.
Jock said “… why should I feel any better, living in Oxfordshire as I do, about having a Home Secretary from Hull than about having a Prime Monster from Dunfermline?”
Because the MP from Hull is accountable to his constituents on such essential matters as Health, Education, Crime, Social policy and Housing.
The PM from Dunfermline not accountable to any single voter anywhere (Scottish or English) on such essential matters, but gets to steer, exercise executive powers and vote on such legislation for England. This is the WLQ and that’s the reason why I’ll not vote Labour in May
This is such a non issue.
I don’t find the notion of Englishness inherently racist – what next, telling us no party will discuss immigration?
or anyone who does is dismissed as racist – what a cliche.
I do find the notion of English used by the BNP as racist. I do find the idea I have some of shared sense of English identity with Nick Griffin faintly absurd.
The Lib Dem have addressed the issue – it’s called devolution. Whether that was by regional government and or by more power to local councils is a matter of circumstances. In thought the Tories have said only english mps will be allowed to vote on english matters – so when you say the parties are ignoring it, you mean they aren’t agreeing with you.
God heavens, I can almost agree with Jock, things must be bad. The point about a Scottish parliament or Welsh assembly is that even in the limited way they work now, they bring decision making closer to the people.
An English Parliament really wouldn’t.
So Scottish MPs, can vote on matters that only effect England – get over it. They can use their brains. What really si the big issue.
Given that 2/3 of the population don’t vote in local elections or euro elections and nearly 40% don’t vote at general elections, who are these people demanding an English parliament ? people like children wanting one cos someone else has got one,
Parties may have discussed it.
The question is: did they ask the people when they were discussing it, or was it behind closed doors, or restricted to party machines?
And, to re-iterate again, we’re not advocating imposing a solution. We want people to engage in the debate so that any solution, whatever solution is chosen, is legitimate and has public backing.
The good thing about not being party-based is not being tied to the management speak spouted by the party leaderships. The downside is that not being party-based may be restrictive in trying to engage with the parties.
“So Scottish MPs, can vote on matters that only effect England – get over it. They can use their brains.”
But they can’t use their mandates, because they haven’t got one.
For the record…
Labour’s answer to the West Lothian Question, is “don’t ask it” (Lord Irving)
Tories’ answer is English Votes for Englsih Legislation, except that they’ve dropped it
Liberals’ answer is regionalism, which has been soundly rejected by the only referendum (in the area where it was perceived to be most likely to say ‘yes’) to the tune of a 78% ‘No’ vote.
BTW, do you consider the suffragettes wanted the vote because someone else had one?
“So Scottish MPs, can vote on matters that only effect England – get over it. They can use their brains. What really si the big issue.”
English MPs voted against tuition fees for English students, they were defeated because Scottish MPs voted with the government . So Scottish students leave Uni with fewer debts, and need to find less money to attend Uni in the first place. English students need to find more money, and leave Uni in a worse situation that people in Scotland (not because of the will of English MPs accountable to English constituencies – but because unaccountable Scottish MPs voting on English only policy) so “Get over it” does not really cut the muster.
A English Parliament would be easy to implement, would give English MPs more accountability. If in the future they give more power to RDA’s then fine, but at least it will be a English decision and not voted or foisted on us by Scot and Welsh MPs as currently – how Scottish and Welsh MPs can vote to balkanise England in any way is seen as Democratic in your eyes is strange to say the least.
“English MPs voted against tuition fees for English students, they were defeated because Scottish MPs voted with the government .”
Yes, Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies backed the government. SNP MPs usually abstain on England-only votes. Not sure what the Plaid Cymru position is, will check it out…
Dave
All opposition parties were against the University Tax, including SNP and PC, see here http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jan/27/publicservices.uk5
Mouse, I’m afraid you started agreeing with me yesterday, right after dismissing “rigourous liberalism” as “anarchism” which it clearly is not and then starting to do some of it yourself.
lagersocialist (I really cannot conceive of a universe in which what passes for lager in the UK could be called a “soacialist” drink – even if brewed by Tennants): Because the MP from Hull is accountable to his constituents on such essential matters as Health, Education, Crime, Social policy and Housing.
Well, I’ve lived in Hull West & Hessle, and have been through Kirkaldy, and in terms of whether they are accountable to me it seems the difference between 200 and 400 miles is little indeed. They don’t. either of them, speak for me!
Cellular democracy is the answer.
Jock, you’re right. Lager is a bloody awful drink, but one that I’m rather attached to I’m afraid. Better that than a champage socialist, we all know where they led us.
I’ve also lived in Hull; great place. That’s one phone system that wasn’t flogged off to Sid or whoever.
The Hull MP will have to answer to his constituents on Health Education etc, when he votes on legislation that will effect you. The PM from Dunfirmline won’t give a stuff about anything anyone thinks, because he’s not accountable to anybody. That is why Scottish and Welsh rebels are unheard of when it comes to voting on English only matters. (Do you think some might have objected to a University Tax if it applied for the kids (and their parents) who voted them in?)
Under this system, they have power without accountability. It stinks and it needs fixing.
Oh yes – I think I can agree it stinks. But so does most of SW1!
Lagersocialist
Thanks for the link.
So New Labour had to use its Scots MPs and Welsh MPs to push through an unpopular measure for England.
Not surprised.
Interesting conversation and good to see the Lib Dems getting involved.
I’m going to be voting Lib Dem this year, my first time giving you folks a chance at the ballot paper.
I do support devolution and would like to see an English parliament. I’d much prefer to see England and the other devolved nations as EU member states (if the populace voted for it of course) rather then the current British state as a member of the EU with it’s hodge podge of governing models.
England would easily fit within the current EU model, some nations would be larger then us, others smaller. We could still vote for MEPs the same way.
However whilst I support an English parliament, I believe it should devolve much of it’s power to the county and city level, so democracy is closer to the people. I’d also like to see the PR model introduced (another reason for my Lib Dem vote).
With counties and cities really having control over their own operations and their MPs meeting occasionally in the English parliament to discuss bigger issues, this would seem far more efficient then having 6 regional parliaments as well as being cheaper in the long run I believe.
“The first is to provide a space for those of us on the Left, whether progressives, socialists, social democrats, liberals or greens, ”
I’m not on the left, and I don’t think other Liberals would classify themselves as such.
“I’m not on the left, and I don’t think other Liberals would classify themselves as such.”
If that’s your belief I won’t challenge it.
However there are those such as the team behind Liberal Conspiracy who class themselves as liberal-left, so it all comes down to a personal take. Maybe I said that because many of the people I know are liberal describe themselves as being left-leaning as well…
Dave Dyke – to my mind that’s an American usage of the term Liberal.
Tabman, Dave, actually I don’t think either of you are correct.
And the problems stem not from the post Progressive Movement use of “Liberal” in the US, but in the effective “colonisation” of the word “left” as solely theirs by the state socialists during and after the second International.
And it has blighted our political landscape ever since with a meaningless and dishonest dichotomy.
If truth be known, on the axis between trust in the individual at the one end and faith in state power at the other, those who believed most in state power, the original Tories, the Marxist state socialists and so on, are on the right – the more statist the more right-wing. Those who have more faith in individuals working together under systems of voluntary co-operation, contract, are on the left, and the more laissez-faire the further left.
As an individualist anarchist or a mutualist in the anarchist tradition that started with Proudhon and developed largely in the US when coercive socialism was developing in Europe I am, I think, on the “far left” – few today believe in the Labour theory of value, but of those that do, a whole raft of them – those commonly given the term “socialists” – believe that only the state can ensure labour gets its full share of the value of its product. Whereas the individualist anarchists and mutualists believe that it is actually the state that prevents labour getting its full product, because the state *always* and *necessarily* intervenes in ways that privilege capital and land at the expense of labour.
And actually, it is only through having read beyond the individualist anarchists on to the Austrian school economists and what became known as “anarcho-capitalism”, which, you might have thought, was diametrically opposed to Labour theory individualist anarchism, whose strap line is “free-market anti-capitalism”, that in fact you find we are aiming pretty well at the same place – the eradication of privilege so that the ordinary person stand the greatest chance of achieving their own financial independence through an honest and non-coercive division of economic goods. So I, on the far-left, am more likely to make common cause with the Austrians, seen as being on the far-right than with statists who claim to be of the left.
Herbert Spencer, in “The New Toryism” and Benjamin Tucker in “State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ” tell the story from different perspectives.
I, in the meantime, am happy to call myself “left wing” because the outcome I desire is definitely of the left and by the means advocated by the left – less state action leading to less privilege and a fairer world for those previously victimised by that privilege, the ordinary working person.
Tabman,
On the liberal issue, I’d have been damned if I didn’t include liberals in the remit and damned if I did. So if I am damned for wanting liberal input into the Question, so be it. As I said, for legitimacy, the debate needs as many voices involved as possible.
Jock,
Interesting post, and I agree with a lot of your analysis. Have you ever heard of the Political Compass? It does away with the straight left-right axis and puts the economic stance on the x-axis and the social stance on the y-axis. The extremes on the x-axis are communism on the left and neo-liberalism on the right, and the extremes on the y-axis are full authoritarianism at the top and full libertarianism at the bottom.
The test can be found at http://www.politicalcompass.org. The site also gives an analysis of the positions of the UK parties on the compass.
I take the test occasionally when I feel I’m “wobbling”, but I always seem to end up in the same place – around the centre of the libertarian left quadrant.
“you find we are aiming pretty well at the same place – the eradication of privilege so that the ordinary person stand the greatest chance of achieving their own financial independence through an honest and non-coercive division of economic goods”
Agree fully, a marvellous clarification of what we are after.
Yeah, but you have just introduced a pejorative right there – in saying that the horizontal axis is “communism” verses “NEO-liberalism”.
NO! As the individualist anarchists would have it – it is “communism” to “laissez-faire” or radical no-state interference in the economy which is not well reflected in the idea of “neo-liberalism”.
As I have understood this more I have in fact drifted from nearly the far bottom left quarter to the far bottom right quarter on that test. As Carson writes:
People need to drop the pejorative “neo”, at least on “liberalism”, unless what you are trying to say is that “neo-liberalism” is in fact the upper right quadrant perhaps – which is economically fascist and socially authoritarian.
The bottom right hand corner is “liberal” – people who believe that both economic freedom and personal freedom increase for all the less interference there is from the state, and it has historically been the position of the left – from the days of Proudhon and Bastiat in the National Assembly.
Whilst many have argued that England is too big compared with the other nations to be governed by a single English parliament which would rule over 80% of the UK population, and thereby support regional parliaments, is already in the take over scheme for the UK by the European Union. As of January 1st 2009 when the sixth treaty was signed by Gordon Brown and our Queen, it gave the EU the power to control our Parliament as indeed it has been doing for many years through its many Parliamentary servants. It is expected that the European Union will divide England into 9 Regions, and in fact this operation is already under way, with each Region under the control of a Regional Director, who in turn will report only to Brussels. Unless England can extricate itself from the full integration within the EU, it will have to abide by the rules of EU and accept the breaking up of its 48 individual counties into 9 Regions- how sad. The people of England have been truly shafted by those it thought would protect and support it, not turn and chuck 2000 years of history into the control of a few people it did not vote for or have any understanding of,. For the present however we shall all have to bow to the controlling power now in charge. Any words written here can have no strength to alter what is happening to this nation. The EU have the power to close Westminster down anytime they see fit.
Jock,
Thanks for that clarification. The creators of the Compass may be interested to hear that.
They can be found at:
[email protected]
Though there is also a big FAQ that tackles interpretations as well:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq
Lagersocialist – let’s get a couple of things straight here about Brown’s responsibility.
Firstly, you’re right – he’s not directly accountable to any voter in Dunfermline. But that’s because, as most people on this site will point out, he’s not the MP for Dunfermline – that’s Willie Rennie. He’s the MP for Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath.
Secondly, he is directly accountable to people in his constituency – i.e. me. And part of his record on which he will no doubt be attacked locally as much as nationally is the inconsistency of policy across the country. Taking student funding as an example – what’s Labour’s real policy on this? Is it the one they follow at Westminster, or the one they follow at Holyrood? What does he really think – should a student from Kirkcaldy have to pay tuition fees to go to Edinburgh?
Finally, on imposition of the fees using Scottish MPs, let me take you back to 1988 and the introduction of the Poll Tax in Scotland a year before England. The majority of Scottish MPs voted against the tax – but with the votes of English MPs, it was pushed through. There is an element of “what goes around comes around” here, but neither vote was really acceptable. The only real alternative is a proper devolution of power – Scotland already has it, so it’s up to England to decide what it wants to do next.
KL, I didn’t actually say Brown was the MP for Dunfermaline, although I confusingly referred to “a PM from Dunfermline”. It was a response to Jock who illustrated his point by talking about “a PM from Dunfermline” and “an MP from Hull”.
Brown isn’t anymore accountable to you on Education (and Health, Policing, Housing, Social Policy etc) as he is to me or tooth fairy.
You are right however when it comes to Labour’s policy on taxing students. It changes from Holyrood to Westminster (probably becaue the MSPs are accountable and the MPs are not). Labour MSPs voted against it for their constituents and Labour MPs from non-English seats voted for English students to be discouraged from a tertiary education. They weren’t accountable to anyone, so none of them rebelled. Their votes were crucial and as a result working class kids in England are discouraged from getting a higher education… a pox on all their houses.
With regard to the Poll Tax, it was to be introduced UK-wide, but it couldn’t be introduced in England immediately. Scottish Secretary George Younger fought for the introduction of the Poll Tax in Scotland in 1989 because he didn’t see “why Scotland should have to wait for the English”.
Finally, polls consistently show a majority in favour of an English Parliament and a huge majority against regionalisation. Unfortunately we’ve never been offered a referendum and none of the major parties plan on doing so in the near future.
KL, to emphasise the democratic deficit in England, what do you think about the following hyperthetical situation?
> Create 30 additional seats in the SP
> Elect these additional MSPs from English constituencies
> The First Minister will be from one of the English seats
> The First Minister will swear a solemn oath to hold England’s interests “paramount” (as Brown has done for Scotland)
> The Finance Minister will also be English and he’ll sign the same oath (as Darling has done for Scotland)
> The First Minister would not be validated by an election: he would be there because he thinks it’s “his turn”
> The Finance Minister would hold that position because he is the First Minister’s best mate.
These two powerful people will then be sure that every measure they proposed for the Scottish people would have an automatic 20-odd% of votes in their favour, courtesy of the 30 non-Scottish MSPs. (Remember, they never rebel)
Can you see a problem with this situation? Do you think there might be few voices of protest?
Now, imagine that these additional MSPs were crucial to the introduction of a University Tax and Foundation Hospitals: plus a host of other measures introduced via Executive Powers (Nuclear Power, 4Bn NHS cuts, Sunday Trading etc).
Do you think the people of Scotland would feel a tad annoyed?