open Democracy News Analysis - Britishness - Comments

Not logged in on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Not logged in — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:37:37 +0000

Signs of the times.

We can still keep the letters UK. They would be the anagram of United = "Untied".

A Greek of my acquaintance once said "We know all about Empire. We had one once and have yet to recover from losing it."

The Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" model still holds good. The English established the British Empire, by annexing Scotland, Wales and Ireland. The rest is history. At present the English are at the "bread and circuses" stage of disintegration of Empire. As long as they have football on Saturday night, takeaway pizza and a six-pack, the English will remain quiet. Once the bread and circuses era passes we can expect the next stage will be the appearance of the barbarians in Parliament.

Could we also expect to eventually end up with an Italian style democracy, which is one of the outcomes of the Fall of Imperial Rome.

The Cornish Democrat on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

The Cornish Democrat — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:14:24 +0000

Yes France THE centralised Jacobin state that forces national identity and republican state into the same box, from which emerges the French Republic une et indivisible.

Not likely to let Brittany, Corsica, Alsace or its bits of the Basque Country or Catalonia go without a struggle.

But these solid seemingly indestructible states can often provide the biggest surprises.

However yes a sovereign Cornwall within a federal Europe is also tempting.

The Cornish Democrat

Alex Buchan on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Alex Buchan — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:29:14 +0000

I would like to add to the analysis presented in the article by discussing its obverse 'Britain and Scotland: A Case of Split Identity'. The following may seem abstruce but I feel it is important to have as full a picture as possible in order to identify what we are dealing with.

Scotland didn't so much have 'the institutional trappings' of a distinct nation as a lack, on the ground, until the modern era, of British-wide institutions, ditto for Ireland. This was the unique feature of the UK state.

It was a feature built in from the beginning and always demanded a certain amount of creative ambiguity/dissembling on the part of politicians. The situation may have been changed by devolution, but there is nothing new in how the political class is behaving. Because it has been going on for so long it is part of the DNA of the British system, which is why it will not be eradicated until that system is itself replaced.

The position in Scotland was that everything was duplicated and, like the English, Scots saw their separate state institutions as Scottish and British at the same time. Even the monarchy and the army, two of the very few British-wide institutions, stressed their separate Scottish lineages.

The monarchy, self consciously, created a distinct Scottish identity for itself, including having duplicate orders of chivalry, to replicate the 'Order of the Garter' The army encouraged Scots to identity with the kilt and the bagpipes.

The fact that the only truly British-wide institution: Parliament [and its political parties], was located in England, meant that, regardless of the efforts of the monarchy and army, there was always a limit to the extent that Scots could complete their blurring of Scottish and British identities.

This situation was made more complex with the arrival of a new Britishness in the early 20th cent. in the form of the Labour movement, the welfare state [including the NHS], the broadcast media and nationalised industries. All of these broke up the earlier constitutional status quo by being organised on a British-wide basis. Their decline, especially during the Thatcher period, has lead to a reemergence of the ascendance of earlier constitutional status quo.

What is left of these British-wide institutions is therefore under pressure to duplicate so as to be acceptable in Scotland. The BBC has tried to withstand pressure for a separate Scottish 6 o'clock news, but, nevertheless, tries to portray itself as having a separate Scottish corporate identity in how it presents both BBC 0ne and Two.

This is only a stab at an attempt to outline the differences in how things look from different sides of the border. Devolution was meant to placate the Scottish desire for duplicate Scottish institutions at all levels. Scots are unlikely to move quickly towards independence because what they want more than anything is for their right to duplicate institutions within the union to be enshrined.

This is a dynamic the UK state, in its many guises, has been trying to grapple with since its inception. The political class therefore is perplexed when the English public takes exception, because it sees itself as doing all of this in order to secure Scotland for England/Britain [note Tony Blair's comment on 'Barnett' being a small price to pay].

Zen9 on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Zen9 — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:56:11 +0000

For this to work we need a narrative of our history.

but NOT a history of England, rather a history of the English. None of this mucking around with Roman Britain, obscuring and confusing the issue.

Carole E on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Carole E — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:43:56 +0000

My Grandfather was naturalised in 1913. My grandmothers father never bothered, her own mother's parents also came from another country. My Mum & her siblings considered themselves Londoners, English & British in that order. Consider Prince Naseem, the boxer. He is "Yorkshire" first. The people of the post WWII wave of migration & their descendents who live in England are equally & uniquely English. Consider how often people allow themselves a "regional" identity, perhaps because this particular national identity has been suppressed!

Carole E on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Carole E — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:25:28 +0000

Over the past 15 years or so I've often argued that our "BME" brethren need to take "ownership" of their &/or their children's Englishness, just as they would allow a relative in Wales or Scotland their Welsh or Scottishness. "Britishness" is just too broad and not easy to provide an adequate description. We in England seem to have lost the right to call ourselves English, & I think politicians feel it's been tainted by association with extremist right groups. That may be one of the reasons for their reluctance to use the word - but that is secondary to the fiction of a properly British government!

gelosgrapos on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

gelosgrapos — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:52:39 +0000

@britologywatch you are absolutely right that scratch the surface and it is Englishness rather than the more all inclusive and arguably nebulous Britishness that ethnic minorities identify with.

From personal experience that is certainly the case.

However part of the reason that one has to "weedle this out" in any research is because of the perceived strength of Englishness and whether real or not the degree of "exclusivity" that Englishness represents.

Indeed it is this exclusivity and social conditioning that has sustained Englishness and as you rightly highlight purposefully linked it so closely to Britishness.

It is also this delusion that drives the establishment who continuos to "sell" this idea and refuses to address the issue with any real reform.

My fear however is that having let the devolution genie out of the bottle it is the other nations led by Scotland that will set the agenda putting England on the back-foot.

Interestingly similar parallels can be drawn with Spain another nation based on the supremacy of one region in their case Castile and in language terms castilian, even though the background to the enforcement of this castilian concept has been less subtle than in the UK with the likes of the Franco dictatorship.

Nevertheless repeated democratic governments have failed or are reluctant to address the issue resulting in building fervent Basque, Catalan and to a lesser extent Galician nationalism. In their case it can only end positively with the creation of a federal Spain or negatively in the break up of what we now know as Spain the nature of the result depending on ones politics.

In the meantime as an issue it is hampering the economic growth potential of the country as a whole as the individual regions dig their heels especially if they hold the balance of power on a variety of issues whilst the national government cynically panders to them.

Not logged in on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Not logged in — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:17:48 +0000

No offence Cornish Democrat, but independence from France is a highly unlikely outcome for Brittany. Not that I, as a believer in the independence of all nations from non-nation states, would oppose such a move. Frankly (no French pun intended), I think Cornwall has more chance of full independence from the UK!

Jim on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Jim — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:42:21 +0000

I think this article expresses very well sentiments that I have felt for some time, but have not quite managed to articulate. The key to constitutional renewal is to ignore the "UK" and start afresh. I don't altogether agree that the British establishment is in trauma following devolution. The real trauma is yet to come, with full Scottish independence. That will really expose the "British" project for the hollow shell that it is.

I was briefly involved a few years ago in a think-tank excercise to redefine Britishness. A series of seminars was completely unable to define what it was or what it stood for. The only value they could come up with was "tolerance". I might add "apathy", with the benefit of hindsight.

The Cornish Democrat on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

The Cornish Democrat — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:17:32 +0000

You'll have to get the Dukes permission first, but a union with an independent Brittany would be tempting.

The Cornish Democrat

Hendre on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Hendre — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:50:25 +0000

“native British people, including the English, have been increasingly identifying with the traditional four / five British nations ...”

I’ve seen a lot of variations on this theme but it tends to ignore the fact that the Welsh undertook a nation-building exercise in the late Victorian/Edwardian period, which Kenneth O. Morgan has dubbed the ‘rebirth of a nation’. That period saw the birth of institutional Wales, and arguably, constitutional Wales, following the disestablishment of the Church of England in Wales.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that what we have seen over the 20th century is the process of universal suffrage/full participative democracy allowing Welsh and Scottish cultural identity to find greater political expression? Though in the case of Wales, somewhat cautiously.

Toque on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Toque — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:37:53 +0000

"Gareth Young had to weedle out of them using Freedom Of Information powers (don't have the link to his post to hand)."

The full results that I made them to publish on their website I covered here.

The Ministry of Justice like to tell us, authoritively, that there is no support for an English Parliament, but they've never actually done any research into that.

Insofar as constitutional reform is concerned The Ministry of Justice is little more than a government propaganda machine.

jlhutchings on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

jlhutchings — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:22:16 +0000

"For England to re-emerge and move forward-----and the ruling class accept they must live within this and as a part of this people, this tribe. "

spot on!

Its happening slowly but it IS happening.

britologywatch on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

britologywatch — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:04:27 +0000

I think you raise an important issue, gelosgrapos. The British establishment has tried to use the need to integrate newcomers and ethnic minorities as another pretext to privilege Britishness over Englishness, effectively making Britishness the exclusive civic identity and Englishness a merely ethnic identity. However, at the same time, native British people, including the English, have been increasingly identifying with the traditional four / five British nations, meaning that the efforts to encourage newer Britons to identify as British-only actually marginalises them and separates them from the more established British people.

However, I think the government's efforts are failing. Their own Governance of Britain survey showed that 'non-ethnic Britons' living in England tend to identify as English more than as British - a fact which Gareth Young had to weedle out of them using Freedom Of Information powers (don't have the link to his post to hand).

David Rickard

Not logged in on "Britain and England: A Case Of Split Identity"

Not logged in — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:34:23 +0000

I think there is something called 'Britishness' that all the British peoples share and have helped evolve, but the English have never really allowed any debate about it since they take it as a foregone conclusion that Britishness = Englishness.

However, they do have a point.

If we go back to the mid-eighteenth century, shortly after the Anglo-Scottish union of 1707, and shortly before the loss of the thirteen colonies in America, we find Scots and Americans like Benjamin Franklin proudly referring to themselves as either 'freeborn Englishmen' or asserting 'the rights of Englishmen' or self-identification with 'English liberty'. By which they meant, not an ethnic consciousness or linguistic label, but a juridical-political one.

This was, a belief in and defence of legal principles like the right to a jury trial, the principle of equality before the law, and the rule of law; government by consent (contractarian theory of John Locke), writ of habeus corpus; the right of free speech, free association, free assembly; limitations on the power of government; right of resistance; right of life, liberty and property.

Egalitarian values embodied in sayings like 'sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'; or 'a cat may look at a king'; or 'speak without fear or favour'.

These were the essence of what it was to be counted as 'English' despite the fact that the nexus of this consciousness was the British Wars of the Three Kingdoms (what used to be called the English Civil Wars, until the English began to realise the Scots started it by their principled opposition to Archbishop Laud by the signing of a national petition, the National Covenant, 1638, and the Irish took the brunt of it, by the slaughter inflicted by Cromwell and the Apprentice Boys defence of London Derry).