Jon Bright (Glastonbury, OK): "This isn't weather, it's war" muttered someone next to me, as the heavens opened once more. The British have always had a slightly adversarial relationship with the elements, I mused, before catching myself out - which British? A while ago I wouldn't have considered such a statement controversial, but with West Lothian a live question, nationalist (ish) first ministers (including one leading what claims to be a unionist party) and a still fresh homegrown terrorist attack nearing another anniversary, the fragility of British identity has never been so important.
What interests most about Britishness is that people are debating it. Gordon Brown has occasionally tried to define it - purely in terms of values. A culturally neutral definition, which could apply in many other places, seems to defeat the point of national identity - which is perhaps why Peter Oborne has argued that it ought to be defined by something like our 'institutions'. He was talking about the monarchy of course, but the Telegraph has floated the idea that Glastonbury is one such. Is it? It's certainly pretty special, a 170,000 strong temporary city erected to celebrate incredible creativity and incredible excess (and that's just Pete Doherty), blended oddly with corporate sponsorship and social activism, rounded off with an impenetrable security fence, which nevertheless seems to generate some intangible, inclusive community spirit. I don't really feel it defines a nation (for starters only the middle classes can afford it), though if I have to choose between it and Ascot, as the Telegraph suggests, then it's wellies not hats for me every time. But if we have to go on and on debating what Britishness means (the weather aside) won't it soon lose its interest - and its meaning?
