Email
Craig Johnston knows what way he'd cast his vote, if he had one. A large man, and commensurately passionate about his politics, the former Labour mayor of Carlisle will be up on a Glasgow housing estate next week, campaigning for yes.
"I live six miles from the border," says Johnston, a regional organiser for the RMT union (and no longer in the Labour party). "I look one way out of my window, I see somewhere with free elderly care, no tuition fees, free prescriptions and a strategic government working for its people.
"I look the other way, I see somewhere with ... none of that. The Scots have got a whole new railway line; here we've been campaigning for years to reopen an existing one, and we can't even do that. I look with envy at what devolved Scotland has achieved. How much more could it do, independent?"
Whatever its feelings about independence (and opinion here is as divided as anywhere), the enormity of the stakes and the sheer unbounded energy and enthusiasm of the debate across the border are prompting more and more people in northern England to conclude, as Professor Keith Shaw of Northumbria University puts it, that "we'd like a bit of what they've got".
Not full independence, plainly. But there is a mounting sense here, Shaw says, in the art deco tearoom of Newcastle's Tyneside cinema, that "the United Kingdom does not serve the north of England. It doesn't work. There's an imbalance. And I think the scale of this change in Scotland might be so great that only an elected assembly will be able to give democratic legitimacy – a real voice – to this region."
North-south divide
Shaw says that in the face of political centralisation, a widening north-south divide and Westminster policies made to suit booming London and the south-east, politicians and business leaders in the north – which suffers from many of the same post-industrial problems as Scotland – are unable to take decisions for their region's social and economic future.
The view is one that crosses political divides. In his offices in central Newcastle, Ross Smith, director of policy at the not notably left-leaning North East Chamber of Commerce, makes it clear that that many of his members see "great dangers" in the way Scotland's settlement – whichever way the referendum goes – ends up being negotiated.
Businesses in the north-east are "nervous about the possible negatives", Smith says, particularly the north-east's "relative competitiveness if Scotland gets to tailor its policies even more to its needs – like by cutting corporation tax – while we're stuck with policies made for somewhere else".
But he, too, acknowledges that "the Scottish debate, and the referendum, could prove a really powerful catalyst for finally getting these issues addressed: essentially, how we can better balance the United Kingdom economy".
Economically, the north has suffered, many here argue, from the abolition of regional development agencies, replaced by lower-budget local enterprise partnerships. Scotland's Scottish Enterprise agency, on the other hand, has used its devolved powers to pull in more business.
On infrastructure spending, the north has lost out too: the £42bn high-speed rail project HS2 will never reach the north-east or Cumbria. The think-tank IPPR North calculated in 2011 that the UK National Infrastructure Plan allocated £2,731 of transport spending per head in London and the south-east – against £5 per head in the north-east.
So, Smith says, business leaders, too, see the point of a regional government with powers not just over transport spending, but also to develop strategies for business development, inward investment, training, skills, even – though he admits this might be sensitive – immigration. For his part, Shaw sees real opportunities for the north in deeper and stronger partnerships with Scotland, independent or not.
Beyond unfair economic treatment, though, many here argue it is the democratic deficit that hurts most. If people on Carlisle's English Street last night expressed sorrow at the possible departure of Scotland, or anxiety about the complications independence might bring ("Will it mean different VAT rates, new insurance rules?" asked Brian Richardson, CEO of the city's teeming livestock market, a big cross-border business), Iain Sanders, a trainee teacher, and Sarah Short, a history graduate, could not have been less concerned.
Sitting in the sun outside Bar Solo, Iain's verdict was: "Nobody will stop anyone from here having a pint with a pal in Dumfries. Not even the people who govern us are that stupid." And if the Scots need independence to get "politicians who think about them, instead of about bankers and big business", said Sarah, "they should go for it. Wish we bloody could."
The push for devolution
And so Scotland, says Peter Mortimer, leading Tyneside poet, playwright and editor, in his front room in seaside Cullercoats outside Newcastle, "is actually reflecting a wider mood". (In passing, he also observes that government spending on arts and culture in London last year totalled £69 a head, against £4.60 for everybody else in England). "It makes no difference who you vote for; nothing really changes. But there's a real feeling now that for the regions, the UK is no longer fit for purpose. London and the south-east aren't just 300 miles away from here: socially, economically, politically, they're another planet."
What next? Paul Salveson, visiting professor at the University of Huddersfield and director of the Hannah Mitchell Foundation, which promotes directly elected regional government for the north, said the past few days have let the UK's regional genie "well and truly out of the bottle".
Northern regional politics are "probably about 20 years behind Scotland's", he estimates. But two new parties, the North East party and Yorkshire First, show they are stirring. And, he says: "These are not crank groups, they're led by serious modern politicians, one an ex-Labour MP."
Combined authorities and "city regions" – the most the main national parties seem willing to consider – are far from enough, Salveson says. "The north needs a directly, and proportionally, elected regional parliament," with big constituencies forcing members to "think regionally" and devolved powers over transport, regional development, a single police force, strategic healthcare, the environment and tourism.
In Westminster
The main Westminster parties, certainly, have no such plans – arguing essentially that Britain has no need of yet more politicians – and are unlikely to develop any until they are hit, hard, in the ballot box.
But unlike 10 years ago, when the north resoundingly rejected a proposal of elected assemblies, Salveson argues the "tectonic plates of government have shifted. People have seen the success of devolution in Scotland, and Wales; they've seen the difference elected regional government makes."
In Carlisle, Johnston is plainer still: "What's happening in Scotland is waking people up to the fact that if this country wants a legislative system that works properly, for people, for communities, the economy, it has to be modern, accountable and democratic. Ours isn't. It's not that we're sick of politicians; we're sick of politicians who don't do anything for us."
;