Clare Short
What does it mean to be English today?
I was born in Birmingham and am of Irish origin. My father was from Northern Ireland and strongly resented the partition of Ireland and felt himself to be Irish. My mother was born in Birmingham as were her father and grandfather, but her great grandfather came to Birmingham during the Irish potato famine and she and her family had an Irish Catholic sense of their identity. We had a strong ethos of educational achievement and public service in the family. I was always strongly committed to serving my community and country but was strongly opposed to any sense of Englishness or Britishness that gloried in the British Empire. I became aware of immigration to Birmingham from the Caribbean and India, Pakistan and Bangladesh from the age of 10. My father pointed out postcards in shop windows which said things like “Room to let - No coloureds or Irish”. Later, Enoch Powell made his “rivers of blood” speech and the National Front started to grow. My sense of my identity included a deep hostility to racism and a need to organise to resist it. I remember Ghana becoming independent when I was 11 and can still recall the sense of happiness and pride that Africa was beginning to throw off the shackles of colonialism.
At this stage, I did not call myself either British or English but as time went on I was happy to see myself as British of Irish origin. Birmingham was an increasingly multicultural city and we talked of Black British, British of Asian origin, British Bengali, Sikh, Muslim etc. I think we were all evolving a sense of belonging to our country which incorporated our origins.
Until very recently, I would say I am British but not English. This seemed clear because I am of Irish origin and I could not be English and many who boasted of Englishness seemed to be quick to boast of Empire and often mouthed racist sentiments.
I have adjusted this view, I think, since devolution to Scotland and Wales. This leaves Birmingham clearly in England and throws up the obvious anomaly about voting in the House of Commons. I favour the establishment of an English Grand Committee (on the same lines as the previous Scottish Committee) where English MPs vote on devolved questions. This is a simple matter of fairness and democracy but it makes me more willing to accept an English label. I have until recently been totally opposed to the break up of the United Kingdom but am impressed by the argument that if Scotland became independent, Britain’s delusions of grandeur, which led to the role of US poodle, would have to end. We could then become a more useful, modern country helping to build a stronger multilateral system and a more just and equitable world.
In conclusion, events have led me to accept the idea that as well as being British of Irish origin, I am English of Irish origin. In my city, white people will be a minority within 10 years and many of them are of Irish, Scottish or Welsh origin. No one ethnic group will be a majority but we will all be English within a devolved UK. But over the last 50 years, we have evolved a different sense of Englishness. This was brought home when people started to put the flag of St George (much used by the British National Party) on cars and in windows to show their support for England in the World Cup some years ago. I held my breath and then smiled as young men of all origins proudly put up the flag on their vehicles and in their homes.
What do the English think of England?
I suspect there are different English with different views of England. In the Home Counties, there are probably those who see it as pretty villages, Empire and Monarchy. In Birmingham and all our other cities, I think a different sense of Englishness has evolved (as outlined above).
What do the English think of Britishness?
Britishness is the passport we hold and includes Welsh and Scottish people. There are also 8 million people of Irish descent who live in Britain. Interestingly, Britishness is ambivalent about Northern Ireland. I got caught out once after introducing a motion in the House of Commons calling for equality for British women and being criticised by the Ulster Unionists for excluding them!
My original answer spells out how my sense of my Irish origin and rejection of Empire and racism, originally seemed ill at ease with Britishness but later became part of a new sense of Britishness that easily incorporated all the people who were recruited from the Commonwealth to work after the 1950s. Over time, the arguments over racism towards black and brown people from Commonwealth countries reminded British people of the diversity of the existing population and broke down the dominant image of white, conservative, Church of England Britishness. This challenge created a more inclusive sense of Britishness.
The new sense of Englishness that is demanding political power and resents devolution leaving Scottish and Welsh MPs deciding English questions, is not yet fully formed. I suspect it includes people of diverse origins who bring the new inclusive sense of Britishness to Englishness and those of an older mindset who resent multiculturalism and still glory in Empire.
How do others see England and the English?
I suspect there are a variety of views. One is of drunken yobbishness. Another is America’s poodle. People abroad tend not to distinguish between Britishness and Englishness. In Ireland, the reference is always to England. In Sylhet, it is to London which includes Birmingham. Some people say Britain and some refer to the UK. There is a residual sense of an arrogant colonial power in some of the countries colonised by Britain but this has softened and many people saw Britain as a fair country that always stood up for international law. That image has been weakened since the attack on Iraq. Many people who have relatives and friends living in the UK see it as a fair country that gives everyone a chance to improve their lives. Recent events have made the Arab and Muslim world more hostile to Britain and British Muslims also feel increasingly marginalised and under attack.
Is Englishness a spiritual inheritance or does it only describe the condition of living in England?
Englishness certainly is not spiritual in any way whatsoever. I have already described the dissonance between a majority of the people living in most British cities coming from countries colonised by Britain, and the “proud of Empire” sense of Englishness. But there is much in English history that predates Empire and remembers occupation by the Romans or the Normans or celebrates the fight for freedom of religious belief, trade unionism, the vote and social reform. There are different historical emphases that go with different senses of Englishness, but the landscape leads to a sense of affection and belonging that includes all.
Does Englishness have a nature or is there only history?
People often talk as though Englishness has a nature; the English have always loved alcohol, the Englishman’s home is his castle, the English are brave fighters, the English are a polyglot nation etc. I suspect that these are a vague series of images that are called into play when someone wants to claim authority for their view by emphasising continuity with the past.
Is Englishness a political or cultural idea, or both?
I think Englishness is largely a political idea which is changing politically at present. But there are writers, ideas and events in English history that create a broad, and probably self-contradictory, sense of Englishness that is cultural.
Is the cheapest form of pride national pride or is national pride essential to modern England?
National pride has often been used historically to whip up war fever and a sense of superiority that justifies domination and exploitation. These are ugly elements of nationalism. But it is natural to care for the people one lives amongst, the values of society, the behaviour of your government and to be fond of the landscape and developments in your place before these times that helped to shape the present.
There is a sense of national pride which is cheap and ugly and another sense which is about love of place and desire for a just and caring society and world order.
Where does English fit in the new, devolved United Kingdom?
The first response in Labour circles, which I supported, was to balance devolution to Scotland and Wales with devolution to the English regions. We agreed to follow the Spanish model and give the choice to each region. I suspect if the referenda had been held earlier, some may have passed. The Northern region in particular always wanted the same powers as Scotland. But by the time the referendum was held, the Government was unpopular and it was lost. We now have administrative regions and a highly centralised state with weak local government. The demand for decentralisation is growing which may in the future lead to a call for democratic devolution to the English regions. In the meantime, the sense of injustice that Scottish and Welsh MPs can settle questions in England that are devolved elsewhere is unacceptable (also see above). New Labour will not support an English Grand Committee because the Tories would dominate it but with the likely Tory electoral advance, this may be implemented before long.
How does England connect with Europe?
The old pro-Empire, superior, nationalistic vision of England is hostile to Europe and still wants to think “England rules the waves”. The new inclusive England fits easily with Europe but like people across Europe is disgruntled at the EU’s over-regulatory interventions. It is time to insist on real subsidiarity to build a more popular EU.
What is the distinctive place of England in global culture?
Our distinctive place is our land, our history and the English language, though in reality English is the global language more because America speaks it - though the global spread of the language because of colonialism is part of the explanation.
The fashion of the last 10 years favouring the Anglo Saxon, marketised state and booming economy is already losing its allure.
The country that has successfully absorbed a diversity of people into an equal, modern citizenship is an attractive model but is currently being undermined by the marginalisation of the Muslim community.
Clare Short is Independent Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood
Share This
A very good essay. As someone who shares the same heritage - English-born of Irish parents - much of what you said resonated with me. It’s good to see you would support the establishment of an English Grand Committee - why not a parliament? - and see Scottish independence as positive. I hope you will be supporting efforts to force a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Charlie Marks
3 Feb 08 at 10:36 pm
Subsidiarity eh?
That would be regions then?
A popular EU built upon unpopular regions.
I’ll stick with an England based upon our ancient counties thanks.
Stephen Gash
4 Feb 08 at 6:52 am
I would like to put the empire behind me too, but New Labour are intent on imposing the union flag on England
(England only) and imposing britishness on England(England only).English children are to be indoctrinated at school and the british empire portrayed as an English empire. The Irish, Scots and Welsh were only reluctant participants and were forced into it by the English blah blah blah.
gadgie
5 Feb 08 at 1:04 pm
Sounds fairly typical left wing esp Labour attitude. Every culture is great and must be considered except for the English.
Large scale immigration to England’s fantastic but god forbid the immigrants should be expected to hold any pride, loyalty or identification with England. 3rd generation immigrant and it’s perfectly okay not to consider yourself English.
WRT the break-up of the UK it is considered more important whether or not this would mean England could contribute the US’s “war on terror” that whether it would be good or bad for the English.
Sarah
5 Feb 08 at 2:02 pm
I think Clare needs to take a more balanced view of Empire. One of the best examples of diversity at work in Empire was the Indian Army’s magnificent campaign to liberate Burma from the Japanese in 1944 and 1945. I wish that a British film maker could celebrate that story of Anglo-Indian co-operation for the benefit of a modern generation of Britons without falling into tired old clichés of colonialism such as pompous, prejudiced red-faced colonels. And that Indian Army included Pakistan.
Nicholas
7 Feb 08 at 4:32 pm
I agree with Clare’s explanation of the failure to push through regional devolution. It was down to the most part to an unpopular administration, and not necessarily because it was a bad idea.
If I had to pick - I would support regional government over National government. Both the Scottish and Welsh assemblies preside over populations of approximately 5 million or less. So it would seem sensible to extend this same political ratio to the rest of Britain.
An English assembly representing 50 million people would be no more effective than the one representing that we currently have - representing 60 million Britons.
But if you ask me - we had far too many politicians even before devolution!
Bart Hulley
14 Feb 08 at 9:44 am
I’m sad to see Clare (whom in many ways I admire) saying:
“The new sense of Englishness that is demanding political power and resents devolution leaving Scottish and Welsh MPs deciding English questions, is not yet fully formed. I suspect it includes people of diverse origins who bring the new inclusive sense of Britishness to Englishness and those of an older mindset who resent multiculturalism and still glory in Empire.”
I am an advocate of a parliament and government for England — the whole of England, not regions — but solely in the context of a full federal system for the whole UK, including further powers for the Scottish, Welsh and N Irish legislatures (and their executives) and a federal government and parliament at Westminster whose powers would be almost wholly confined to foreign affairs and defence. This is the only viable answer to the West Lothian question and the only way to maintain our country as a durable, democratic state. An English Grand Committee would be a nonsense (leaving England with a quasi-legislature and no executive) and Scottish independence would be a tragedy.
It’s a pity to see an elected British MP apparently advocating the break-up of a country that has so to offer its own citizens and even, under a new and better government, the rest of the world. And what a pity too to see this faddish assumption that the British empire, with all its defects, was unremittingly evil, a hopelessly unhistorical view. Apart from anything else, Britain’s record of voluntary decolonisation (and yes, it was almost entirely voluntary) is something that all Brits, from all our four nations, have reason to be intensely proud of.
Brian Barder
15 Feb 08 at 4:27 pm
“The new sense of Englishness that is demanding political power and resents devolution leaving Scottish and Welsh MPs deciding English questions, is not yet fully formed”…
Sorry Clare. My sense of Englishness IS fully formed, thanks very much. I do resent Scots and Welsh MPs noseying in English business - but then I would, wouldn’t I? You see, I am one of those strange people who believes in democracy, who believes that within a union, everyone should be treated equally - If the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish have devolved NATIONAL government, then I’ll have it too for my country also.
“I suspect it includes people of diverse origins who bring the new inclusive sense of Britishness to Englishness and those of an older mindset who resent multiculturalism and still glory in Empire.â€
Dear me, what a sweeping statement of ignorance! How disappointing to see your default position so easily exposed - English nationalists resent multiculturalism and still glory in Empire, apparently.
Clare, all I wish is that my culture is allowed to get a foot hold - and be celebrated officially. Hey, an English national anthem would be a start, don’t you think? And ‘the Empire’?….. Last time I looked, it was called the ‘British’ Empire. That’ll be ‘Britain’ then, the conglomeration of nations that include Scotland and Wales….
Why is it that you and the rest of the Westminister Establishment cannot resist confusing England with Britain? England is not Britain-Lite - that’s what we are fighting for.
Alfie the OK
27 Feb 08 at 8:31 am
3rd generation and still considers herself Irish? Why is this womans opinion even being sought? All the old labour cliches present and correct, St Georges flag a racist flag? check, reference to BNP? check, uncontrolled immigration a good thing? check, people who consider themselves English first are all swivel eyed loons? check, breaking England into unwanted and not needed euro regions? check. We English will not be fobbed off with any thing less than our own parliment.
andy
28 Feb 08 at 4:12 am
Andy, Clare’s opinion is being sought because she has something interesting to say, even if you do disagree with what she says.
The point of this site is not to push a certain view, or to promote a certain cause, but to canvass the people of England (and that includes people who may not count themselves as English, or fully English) on their views on England and Englishness. It’s a Domesday Book of the Mind because it is an investigation into the nations’ collective psyche.
There is no right or wrong when it comes to a question of ones own identity.
Gareth Young
28 Feb 08 at 4:25 am
Gareth, while there may be no right or wrong when it comes to ones identity, how can it be right that we are represented by MP”s who feel no great connection to this land and may not have our best interests at heart?
Andy
28 Feb 08 at 6:51 am
Quite simply Andy, we vote for them.
And having met Clare Short I can understand why people did vote for her (she steps down as an MP this year).
Gareth Young
28 Feb 08 at 8:49 am
Gareth: Hear hear!
Brian: Interesting points there. Do you think federalism could work with the Monarchy? I doubt that the two are compatible. Maybe it is time for ERII to be hailed as the last queen of England/Britain/UK/Commonwealth?
Bart Hulley
28 Feb 08 at 9:09 am
Bart, thanks. Yes, I see no incompatibility between the monarchy and a full federation of all four of the UK’s nations: Australia and Canada, for example, are full federations that work fine, and both are monarchies. (Australia will probably become a republic at some point but that has nothing to do with its federal system.) To advocate the termination of the monarchy and a full federation in the same breath would anyway be too much for our congenitally conservative population to swallow all at once. One thing at a time! A federal system would be a long-term project, taking at least 20 years to complete and with many setbacks and diversions along the way; adding republicanism would overload it to the point of collapse. Needless to say, I favour both, but not simultaneously, and federalism is far more urgent and important.
There’s a set of FAQ on federalism for the UK with links to other related documents here. (I hope hyperlinks work in comments here!)
Brian B.
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Brian Barder
28 Feb 08 at 10:09 am
If we’re advocating a federal system then the monarchy would be one of the main reference points for peoples’ sense of Britishness while the they get their heads around the transfer of sovereignty from British state to English, Scottish and Welsh nations.
Not that you’d stand a snowflake in hell’s chance of abolishing the monarchy while QEII is still on the throne (even Australian republicans can’t do that).
Gareth Young
28 Feb 08 at 10:52 am
I like the idea of an elected monarchy as half-way house to doing away with it… It amuses me to think of the Queen making a victory speech on election night.
Charlie Marks
3 Mar 08 at 4:44 pm
An elected monarchy, Charlie? Expect King Tony to humbly accept that mantle. (Accompanied by his ‘beautiful’ consort, Queen Cherie, obviously).
Alfie the OK
16 Mar 08 at 7:37 am
Ms. Short is clearly daft. She rails against folks that are proud that England (and by extension the UK) had an empire. The British Empire was not perfect, but we’re not talking about Nazi Germany here. And what’s wrong with being proud of one’s history or that a tiny island managed to create an empire? If those use past glories to deride and insult ethnic minorities that is one thing; but if one is just proud of his/her country’s history, no matter how absurd it seems today, there is nothing wrong or shameful about it. And that comment about the Welsh, Irish, and Scottish being “unwilling” participants in the British Empire is a load of crap! I’ve seen no documention/evidence that the three other component nations of the UK vehemently opposed empire. Now that it is over and the money is no longer rolling in, it’s quite convenient to blame it on the English and say that the entire insane idea of empire belonged to those nasty, arrogant, loonie English south or east of the border. Ms. Short needs to get out more and stop pushing ultra-leftist ideology.
M. Langstrom
22 Mar 08 at 11:31 pm
A fascinating article, Ms Short.
I would just like to point out though that the Empire was British, not English, and the scapegoating of England for all past “sins” is something I find completely unacceptable.
For instance, the Scots had already failed in one imperialist project and bankrupted themselves at the time of the original Act of Union, and the Scots were disproportionately active in the British Empire; also, Ireland was partitioned under a Welsh PM, and there was a great deal of Scots interest in the event. So please, let’s not confuse England with Britain.
And let’s not live in the past too much. Faults all round. We can all learn from it, but scapegoating and active discrimination against England by the UK Government is not acceptable.
I’m still glad to read your views. It’s pleasing that some people in political circles are at least giving some thought and credence to the “English Question”.
Chris Abbott
9 Apr 08 at 6:09 am
How sad that Clare Short is so prejudiced and adopts such a simplistic political stance based upon erroneous suppositions and beliefs. She shows no understanding of multiculturialism and she shows no respect towards people other than an uncomfortable and confluted mish mash of pronouncements all having no basis of factual or understanding of the world around us. Her attitudes towards the Jewish people and the State of Israel indeed beggers belief. She has no knowledge of the trials and tribulations which the Jewish people have suffered since their dispersement from Israel by Rome. She further disregards the Inquisition, Holocaust and Hitler without even comment! Clare Short is a sad lady who obviously finds membership of the Labour Party to be anathemic and no wonder with her confused and disjointed beliefs.
Len Cohen
24 May 08 at 1:43 am
English are a race of Christian Caucasians with some genetic coding shared with Dutch, Bretagne and Normandy French & Rhineland Delta Germans and pre-Roman Briton (100% identical to “Celts”)_.
No immigrant group ever until the Blair-Brown Left Wing disaster posed such numbers as to be a severe threat to indigenous genetic stock.
English were not solely responsible for Empire- and irrefutably it was an evil empire- an empire of Profit- the elite shareholders stole the nation and its military to pursue their insatiable greed reaped from the oppression of the English poor masses for the eiltes’ monetary benefit.
Many a conveniently forgotten poor, debt-indentured English, Welsh, Irish and Scotsman died a heroes death in some god-foresaken part of the globe for this elite few.
Never forget more English starved during the Famine years than Irish.
More English died at Galipoli than Australians.
Clare’s trite middle-class Socialist Lite angst still cannot refute English wisdom as born by the old folk proverb:
A dog born in a stable is not a horse.
English and proud- grandfather a proud Northern Irish Catholic- survived being bombed at Harland and Wolfe (was a Carpentry supervisor- one of many Catholics with Protestant and Catholic alike beneath them) in 1940’s- served in Liverpool and Coventry as a British Soldier gunnery sergeant. Grandma, also a proud Catholic who hated the South (” uncivilized Republican gobshites”) worked in Randalstown, Antiom building British torpedoes.
Other side- Grandfather and Grandmother- conscientious objectors- loved Germans hated Hitler but hated seeing their fellow Britons suffer- so worked tirelessly for the Red Cross and British Legion.
Hated the IRA, Sinn Fein, the Orange men, Paisleys and “all them thar ejit Fenian feckers and Orangeman & their Freemason buggery chums- hang the lot of ‘em and leave us alone peace”
God bless us simple folk all- Irish, Scots, Welsh an English. As Grandad said: “Feck them idiot politicians- a hanging’s too good for em’”
As per Israel- I’ll remember me Grandad- “Never trust a Fagan. They’ll lend you tuppence and expect a quid and a kind word in return”.
Oberst Minga
2 Feb 10 at 9:14 am