Glasgow has always been a city where you can find people discussing politics in public. Most Glaswegians would agree that the city wears its political heart on its civic sleeve. But recent political events have ensured that the city has arguably reverberated to the sound of political debate like no other part of Scotland or the UK. This was the city that voted ‘Yes’ in the referendum, while the majority and much of the rest of Scotland voted ‘No’ (Dundee notwithstanding). And like the rest of Scotland, it voted overwhelmingly to stay in the Europe Referendum in 2016.
Glasgow does politics in a distinctive and sometimes raucous manner. There is, for example, a pub – the YesBar – dedicated to Independence. Visitors to the city therefore rarely lack opportunities to discuss politics big or small. So, when the Political Studies Association (PSA) held its annual conference (10 – 12 April 2017) there, members rightly wanted to reach and engage with the people in Glasgow.
As part of the developing PSA ‘Fringe’, the Britishness Specialist Group put on a public panel debate. Not wishing to miss an opportunity to provoke lively debate, Dr Murray Leith and Dr Andy Mycock hosted an event discussing England after Brexit. Held in the basement of the popular Blackfriars Pub, in the Merchant City area of Glasgow, the event saw 80 people eagerly listen to a panel comprising of Robin McAlpine, Director of ‘think and do tank’ Common Weal; Zara Kitson, co-convenor of the Glasgow branch of the Green Party; and David Torrance, a leading political commentator on the Glasgow Herald, biographer of both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, and research student at University of the West of Scotland.
The event began with a short presentation by Andy in which he explored the politics of identity in England during and since the EU referendum. He argued that the typification of the Brexit vote as a product of English nationalism by some in the media and elsewhere lacked compelling evidence and overlooked the significant regional fissures in England. He present a short video made by community activists from the north of England shortly after the Brexit vote which sought to explore why some communities voted ‘Leave’.
The panel then provided short contributions. Robin noted that England was seeking to host a self-exploratory discussion but it was one for which it did not have the appropriate vocabulary or nuance in terms of the geographical diversity of Englishness. He pointed out that Scotland has been discussing issues of national identity for decades (some would argue longer) but England had never really considered itself as being English rather than British. While Scotland had addressed its ‘cultural cringe’, anxieties about English identity were only now being aired. England was as such only just beginning to consider itself in national terms.
Zara echoed some of these ideas, while pointing out that the two-year run-up to the Scottish 2014 independence referendum offered perhaps the first opportunity for Scots to hold an inclusive political and public debate about such issues. She noted that the subsequent Brexit vote offered significantly less time for England to host such a national debate. It was clear that politicians leading the Brexit debate in England were less keen to provide the general public opportunities to discuss questions of identity and citizenship beyond simplistic narratives about national sovereignty and ‘taking back control’.
David rejected the proposition that debates about identity in England were framed in national terms alone. He pointed out that there is a civic basis for much Englishness, but many commentators have been mistaken in explaining the Brexit vote as a produce of the rise of English nationalism. He concluded that while the English had initially been relaxed about devolution, there may have been a shift in attitudes and a hardening of opinion in terms of Scotland.
In response to these points, the audience raised questions and made points about a wide-range of issues discussed including the potentially detrimental impact of Brexit on future relations between England and Scotland, the legacies of inflammatory rhetoric of some English politicians during the vote, and the lack of meaningful debate both during Brexit and afterwards. But although some in the audience clearly felt English identity was growing in strength, others argued that British and European identities were still influential. A final point questioned whether Brexit and the subsequent debate in England was really about sovereignty or elites in Westminster.
The night concluded after nearly two hours of debate with hearty thanks and further conversations at the bar. The PSA Britishness Group were proud to take politics into the heart of Glasgow and ever more pleased that the city’s people were ready to debate, discuss and challenge the views and ideas of commentators, practitioners and political scientists. Roll on Cardiff!
