March of the Scots

Why the break up of the UK would be a mistake for London

Published in the Evening Standard

A political earthquake is still possible, but if it doesn't come, Britain is about to be ruled by a Scot. Gordon Brown is due to become prime minister, the first man representing a seat north of the border to do that since Alec Douglas-Home more than 40 years ago. At the same time, the ground is trembling in Edinburgh, with a new poll this week showing the Scottish National Party pushing ahead of Labour in May's elections to the parliament there. That party's signature promise, lest we forget, is a referendum on Scottish independence.

It means the next few months are poised to see a renewed surge of angst over the state of the union that has bound these islands together for exactly 300 years. Brown's arrival will see a flaring of resentment, stoked up by a Conservative opposition that will question the government's very legitimacy. A foretaste was provided last year when one of Cameron's lieutenants, Alan Duncan, said it would be "almost impossible" for a Scot to serve as Britain's PM. Cameron himself has pushed the notion of 'English votes for English laws,' whereby only MPs for English seats would be able to vote on laws affecting England. That would turn Westminster into a de facto English assembly - except when, say, foreign affairs or defence were debated, at which time the excluded Scots and Welsh MPs would be quietly ushered back into the chamber, only to be turfed out again when domestic business resumed. That would be one giant step towards a UK break-up.

Yet the demand for it could get even more intense after the next election. I know more than one sage who's looked at the electoral map, seen that the mountain is too steep for David Cameron to climb, and concluded that the likeliest outcome is a Labour-Lib Dem coalition led by Gordon Brown and Menzies Campbell. Or, as one high-level Tory likes to put it, "two old men from Fife."

That would add to the sense of frailty of the United Kingdom that has been felt since Labour began its programme of devolution in 1997, establishing self-rule, in differing doses, for Scotland, Wales and of course London. Yet one voice has been almost silent in this existential debate about whether Britain should stay together or break apart, a debate which is due to intensify in the coming months - and that voice is London's.

Should the people of the capital care if the UK disintegrates? Many Londoners might give an indifferent shrug of the shoulders, even a little cheer. After all, on current form we get out of the UK much less than we put in. If the English don't like subsidising Scotland - a claim the SNP reject incidentally - then Londoners should be furious at subsidising England and everywhere else in the UK. According to London First, the business lobby group, this city sees a staggering £20bn of its wealth flow out to the rest of the country, whether to pay for schools in Liverpool or hospitals in Leith. We make up just 12.5% of the UK population, yet pay 19% of the taxes. If any part of the UK were itching to go it alone, you'd think it would be London.

Indeed, some commentators believe we're already half way there. The latest edition of Prospect magazine, a London special, describes the capital as a "hyper-capitalist city-state," as if we were Singapore or Hong Kong. On Monday, London First held a debate, asking whether London should jettison the UK and fly solo: proposing the motion was the former Tory mayoral candidate Steve Norris.

The logic is clear enough. Once we kept our own money, we could spend it on the things we know we need, starting with better schools, transport and housing. And there might be a cultural shift too. London already prides itself on having the most progressive attitudes in the UK, with a live and let live approach that makes this city the destination of choice for immigrants, gay people and many others. Freed from the more retrograde attitudes that still persist elsewhere in Britain, London could progress yet further.

Indeed, the London case against the union can be made to look powerful: if the kingdom broke up, we'd be all right, Jack. And yet I still believe London should stand firm against what may be a surging tide in the coming months. It's in London's interest for this country to hold firm and stay together.

The first argument is one of caution, even pessimism. It says that London is indeed booming now, with a financial services sector that employs 300,000 people, each earning, on average, a phenomenal £90,000. But that boom may not last forever. Some of the regional speakers at Monday's debate warned that London risks becoming a one trick pony, too reliant on finance and vulnerable to a change in the global economic weather. International capital is unsentimental: if London became unattractive, for whatever reason - say, heaven forbid, a string of terror attacks - it would take its money elsewhere. Suddenly the roles would reverse, and London would be holding out the begging bowl to the rest of the UK. It's happened in the past, when the north-west of England was in its industrial heyday - and it could happen again.

Less gloomy is the belief that we benefit by our place in the heart of the country called Britain. We're not a faceless, antiseptic money-making machine like Singapore. We are who we are because we're anchored in a national history. Just look at our major cultural attractions, whether the National Portrait Gallery, the English National Opera or the National Theatre. Sure, they are international institutions, but they all have deep roots in the national soil. A city, even one as diverse as London, needs that sense of rootedness and connection.

So we should remedy some of the imbalances that currently penalize London. More of those billions London earns should stay here, to pay for the roads, sewers, schools and hospitals currently creaking under the strain. We should explain to the rest of the UK that this is not London greed, but rather a wise investment in Britain's future, ensuring that the golden goose, whose eggs currently feed the entire country, stays healthy. When we ask for Crossrail, linking the city from east to west, we shouldn't have to wait 15 years. We should get it, because if London benefits, so does Britain.

We should say all that, even as we fight those eager to give up on the union, those whose voices will soon be heard louder. This country certainly needs London - but London also needs this country.

Posted on March 29, 2007 11:47 AM

---