ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½

If I were Johann Lamont, the recently resigned leader of the Scottish Labour Party, any ill feeling I experience would probably be compounded by people in the South East occasionally calling me La Mont, as if the name comprised two words rather than two syllables.

But that is the least of her problems, and it is for the Labour Party to decide what to do in the wake of her resignation. But her claims that decisions affecting her were badly handled in London have echoes elsewhere.

I'm very privileged in my work to travel all over our four nations, and the one I spend most time in is England. So, in the last year I've been in as diverse places as Norwich, Nottingham, Middlesbrough, Workington, Widness, Ludlow. In each of these localities – whether it be in the company of teachers, farmers, people who work with the homeless, or members of local churches - a recurring topic of conversation has been their puzzlement over whether London understands them.

Probably unique among global capitals, London is not only the largest conurbation in the country, it is also the centre of politics, finance and tourism. These three entities do not share the same living space in any of our major trading partners or Commonwealth affiliates. Now I don't want to deride London. I used to live there and I'm in the capital every other month. But I wonder sometimes whether people who carry national responsibility in different areas of life feel connected with the majority of the British population who live elsewhere.

A tension between the establishment at the centre of power and voices from the fringe is a leitmotif in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. The prophets – who were not all urban dwellers – drew the attention of the rulers to the state of the land and the plight of people whose wellbeing was frequently undermined by those with whom they have little contact.

This tension is heightened when Jesus, looking on his capital city weeps over it and says,
'Oh if only you had recognised the things that make for peace.'

And this tension – which is present in Britain today,- is not necessarily a disruptive thing. It can and should be creative, as indeed is evident in the discussions regarding the best way to expand our national railway system.

But to keep up the creativity, some things need to change.

One is that we should stop referring to Westminster as a 'village'. That is no euphemism for an epicentre. Another is that those at the centre of national life – in finance, law, government, the media, religion - should perhaps be more visibly accountable to the periphery, rather that adjudicate on areas north and west of Watford Junction from a position of relative isolation. Perhaps - as has been suggested - decision making itself will have to be devolved. And there's more... but that's maybe enough to begin the conversation.

Show less