In my posts about football and how it reflects society (and also how it doesn't), I have sometimes talked about Britain and sometimes talked about England. To be honest, it went back and forth wildly. And before you assume I don't know the difference, I do. In fact, the British themselves switch between descriptions all the time. Sometimes arbitrarily, sometimes because they mean it. In fact, the distinction is often complicated. Especially when it comes to politics and the healthcare system, which I will explore in more detail in future posts. So I better explain exactly where the lines are drawn and why it's so complicated.... At least, I will try.
Why some people just say England when they mean the UK and vice versa is easy to explain: England is by far the largest and most populous part of the Union. Almost 80% of the British people live there. There is often no need to distinguish between the two. At least if you look at the kingdom from the outside or only talk to English. (Scots will very much disagree).
But let's start with the basics. The United Kingdom consists of four countries: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I often use Great Britain as a synonym for the whole union (country?), but this is actually wrong. It only refers to the main island without Northern Ireland. However, to the annoyance of the Northern Irish, many British people make the same mistake. Even the athletes at the Olympics are labeled as Team GB and not Team UK.
The United Kingdom is centralised. Despite this, the countries have their own governments and their own state institutions. Only England does not have its own government and is administered by the British Parliament and central government. As I said, it is complicated.
The strange structures are due to British history. Sooner or later, the other three countries came under English rule. Celtic Wales' ties to England are the closest, since it was conquered by Edward I in 1282 and got incorporated into his empire. Even today, male heirs to the throne bear the title Prince of Wales.
Parts of Ireland came under English control as early as the 12th century, but not permanently. It was not until the 16th century that the English crown extended its rule. And Henry VIII declared himself King of Ireland in 1541. However, the island did not become part of the English state.
Scotland also fell to the English crown in the 12th century. However, as in the case of Ireland, control was lost again until 1603 when Queen Elizabeth I died without an heir to the English throne. The closest relative was King James VI of Scotland. The royal houses were united.
In 1706, England and Scotland formed a new state, the Kingdom of Great Britain. The English and Scottish crowns were merged into the British crown. In 1800, Ireland was admitted to the Union. The country was now called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and was governed centrally from Westminster.
Despite the union, the respective national feelings remained. There were significant unique features such as the Celtic culture and language in Wales and Ireland, or the predominant Catholic religion in Ireland and Scotland.
The rule from the English, Protestant Westminster was viewed sometimes more, sometimes less, critically. The Irish in particular strove for more autonomy, with success. In 1914, the British Parliament passed a Government of Ireland Act. It provided for the creation of an Irish parliament and limited self-government. However, implementation was delayed due to World War I.
During that time, Sinn Féin, the party of Irish republican separatists, gained influence. And the Irish Republican Army started a guerrilla war to force the island's independence. London lost the support of a large part of the Irish population, and Ireland gained its independence in 1922. Only the Protestant-dominated north remained in the Union. A parliament was installed there until it was dissolved in 1972 due to the destabilisation of the country.
After World War I, there were several initiatives to further decentralise the political structures of the United Kingdom and to place competences in the hands of national parliaments of the remaining non-English countries. They failed, however, because of the dilemma that English politics would continue to be determined by a British parliament, whilst Scottish politics, for example, by a Scottish parliament.
This remained the status quo until 1997 when Labour won the general election, partly on the promise of devolution. After several positive referendums, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were given their own parliaments and governments, whose areas of responsibility were extended more and more in the following years.
England was also to have devolved powers, but a separate parliament has still not materialized, despite several initiatives. Instead, regional assemblies were introduced and abolished again. Moreover, the members were not directly elected, but appointed by local institutions.
Only London was given an administration, the Greater London Authority, with a directly elected legislative assembly, and still exists today. Further plans for devolution were abandoned after a negative referendum in North East England.
Thus the situation in the United Kingdom today is as follows. All power still lies with the central government in Westminster. From there, it is partly transferred to the parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, as well as to the Greater London Authority. Competences that are not explicitly reserved for the central government, e.g. foreign and security politics, can be taken over by the single countries/regions, e.g. education, health, justice and domestic politics.
However, the transferred power can be taken away again. The dissolution of the parliament in Northern Ireland in the 1970s was not a singular event. By Order from Westminster, the Northern Ireland Assembly was also suspended from 2002 to 2007 and from 2017 to 2020.
The balance of power between the centre and the single countries reminds me a little of the Indian political system after World War I. There, too, internal affairs were largely dealt with by local Indian authorities, but the British Parliament had the final say. No wonder that with these structures, some Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh still feel patronised by England.
The dependence of the individual countries is also reflected in their funding. Budgets are set and funded by the central office. Contributions from London are calculated according to a predetermined formula based on the size of the population, the expenditure of comparable Anglo-British institutions and other factors. The single countries can levy their own taxes, but the revenues are offset against the contributions from Westminster. They do not form an additional budget.
At least the single country governments can distribute their funds independently to the individual departments. On a small scale this gives them the opportunity to set different priorities than the British government for England. For example, with higher spending on education.
The legislative and bureaucratic branches of the single countries therefore have a surprisingly high degree of autonomy, in some cases greater than the states in Federal Germany. For example, each single country not only has its own budget for healthcare, but also its own healthcare system.
The separation can be confusing. Often the healthcare budget is mentioned in the press, such as the £123 billion during the Brexit campaign. However, this is only the British government's funding on the current expenditure of the English system.
The separation of the healthcare systems goes so far that during the pandemic, the individual countries not only pursued their own lockdown policies, as in Federal Germany, but also developed their own Corona-apps for tracking…
As I said, it's complicated. But now at least you know why.
Note: If you would like to be informed about new blogposts by e-mail, please register at the top right of the page.
Comentarios