Roy (of the Rovers)

has been watching

too much 'Braveheart'

Eddie Bone and James Black

 

If you've read Kenneth Roy's 'review' (22 September) of three new publications detailing the history of England you might be forgiven for thinking the editor of the Scottish Review had just finished watching Mel Gibson's epic 'Braveheart'.
     Mr Roy's main beef with the three books in question seems to be that they don't pay quite enough homage to our Highland cousins. The three history of England tomes, written respectively by Peter Ackroyd, Simon Jenkins and John Julius Norwich (whom he rather wittily points out should add the word City to his name, ha! Perhaps he should add 'of the Rovers' to his) come in for some rather scathing criticism regarding their reference, or rather the lack of, to just how important Scotland has been to the development of England over the centuries. And he makes what seems a valid point, suggesting that no intelligent history of Scotland could be written without serious reference to England, and that surely the reverse is equally true. 
     This is of course undeniable, but then doesn't it depend on the angle of focus you undertake when penning any historical work? For instance would not a comprehensive history of England need mention in some detail France or Spain? The Roman Empire? Vikings? The list could go on almost endlessly, England has at some point sent men of adventure to every corner of the globe.      Surely an intelligent history of any country is open to at least some respectful interpretation and a limit of focus. In the case of England it would be a near- Herculean task to compile a body of work which encompasses details of each international and domestic relationship cultured in the spirit of union or otherwise. It soon becomes apparent over the course of reading Mr Roy's article that he probably hasn't read any of the three aforementioned books, instead relying on the venerable opinion of Princeton scholar David Cannadine, whom we can assume has never been wrong or unfairly biased in his life.
     Of course, scholarly musings aren't the real aim of this antagonistic and blindly reactive piece. One could imagine that in berating three books that he has probably never read in an article aimed at people who will also probably never read them, that he must be trying to appeal to some attractive English-hating demographic. We're all entitled to our opinions of course, and a negative viewpoint is just as important as a positive one. The problem comes when an opinion has a hidden agenda, one which doesn't make allowances for reaching honest and well-judged conclusions. We are left wondering if regardless of the content Mr Roy would have found fault with the three histories of England simply because they were not histories of Scotland.

 

     Seemingly Mr Roy also cannot help himself but to stick the boot into the BBC News for not showing enough topical news items relating to Scotland for his liking. Well I always thought news in the 21st century was something of a cherry pick wherever you're from. Everyone in England has to wait for their own regional news programmes to find out what is happening in our local area, and we all have to wade through the usual mishmash of celebrity 'non-news' and seemingly cloned reports from Afghanistan before we get there. We've all seen, if only as a listing on BBC iPlayer, that Scotland has its very own BBC service in addition to its regional listings (anyone heard of BBC England? No, me either).
     This sort of nit-picking of course is exactly the kind of thing that gets up the noses of us little Englanders. It paints a picture of a Scotland subjugated by their southern neighbours, and yet if you look at the facts do the Scottish really have it that bad? Indeed there are lots of arguments to suggest that the reverse is actually true. Scotland gets free prescriptions whilst they go up in price in England, and the Scots enjoy free university tuition fees whilst England's future generations rack up massive debts.
     Is it right that 50 MPs from Scotland should vote on English-only matters knowing they won't face any domestic consequences? Is it fair that spending per head of population is greater in Scotland than in England? Mr Roy may wish to read and review the House of Lords report 2009, which clearly states that £49 billion of UK spending goes out of England to the other three nations in the UK each year. He has complained before about the 533 MPs representing English constituencies in the UK parliament but I thought contrary to his and Michael Moore's concepts that UK MPs work in the best interests of the UK?
     But why do so many surveys put support for an English parliament at around 70% and around 36% for English independence? Could it be that many people in England are intensely resentful that their hard-earned tax money is subsidising Scottish benefits? The Campaign for an English Parliament does not begrudge the Scottish these benefits, but surely it is only fair to ask for 'equality' and 'democratic accountability'. Michael Moore foolishly appears not to be listening to the likes of Niall Fergusson, David Starkey, Lord Barnett, Simon Jenkins and many others who acknowledge the union has a problem, instead fixating on his own agenda of two parliaments working for Scotland.
     Loosening the ties around the constituent parts of the UK will continue because the case arguing for the benefits of remaining in the union remains unanswered for England. What benefits does England receive when compared to Scotland? If Mr Roy would acknowledge that these principles above are unfair, would he commit his support to the Campaign for an English Parliament and ask that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs stop voting on English-only matters?
     And if Mr Roy doesn't want independence, would he advocate a federal system where domestic matters are completely separated? I would pay his subscription to the Campaign for an English Parliament if he wants equality for all. I challenge him to find the courage and debate the above with me. I am waiting to book my flight to Scotland.

 

Eddie Bone is chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament. The campaign is not a political party, nor is it linked to any organisation

 

James Black is a researcher and writer for the Campaign for an English Parliament