Ian Campbell
Until quite recently I never thought very much about being English. England was simply home. 20 years ago if anyone asked me my nationality I have said British. Oddly enough, it is only in Scotland that I am immediately recognised as an Englishman. I have been mistaken for an Italian (in France), an Irishman (on the ferry to Dun Laoghaire), a member of the Romany people (at university), an Austrian (in Germany), a Norwegian (in Norway and by a Norwegian taxi-driver!) so perhaps I am not a typical Englishman.
When Mr Callaghan and then Mr Blair proposed a devolved Scottish Parliament this seemed a good idea. I assumed naively that if the experiment were successful the same offer would be made to England. When I learned that the Government had no plans to hold an English referendum I joined the Campaign for an English Parliament in the hope that we could persuade the Government to do what was fair, just and democratic. It was Mr Prescott who turned me into an English nationalist. The discovery that our British government had decided to partition England made me realise that we English must stand up for and reclaim our country. You sometimes never know what you value until you are in danger of losing it. After our family, our nation is the strongest bond.
Although I was born and brought up in the small town of Luton in England and my mother was English, my father was a patriotic Scotsman - there is of course no other kind. As a child, Scotland was for me a different, interesting and exciting place where we met relatives we did not see very often. I knew that England and Scotland were different countries though both were part of Britain. I always knew that I was partly Scottish - my friends treated me as if I were Scottish. I was first taken to Scotland, in the cab of a lorry, when I could barely stand. My father humorously claimed that the air was different as soon as one crossed the border. He was quite serious later on when he made me promise that if he had the misfortune to die in England I would ship his body back to Scotland for burial. When very small, my sister and I could count up to ten in Gaelic and the first songs we learnt were in Gaelic. Even at school, we had a dashing Scots teacher who made sure that, for little English boys, we were unusually well-informed about Robert the Bruce and his battle axe, William Wallace and his two-handed sword and of course the Battle of Bannockburn. My father was a piper as well as a Gaelic speaker and when we were older my sister and I did our homework in the living room to the tremendous sound of pipes as my father and his friend patrolled round the room practising their tunes. The volume of sound indoors made by two pipers was impressive and did wonders for our powers of concentration. We frequently took holidays in Scotland when I was a child - visiting relations in Port Glasgow, the Isle of Skye, the Isle of Tiree, or the Kintyre peninsula. My father’s family came from Tiree but when he was a boy his father and mother had taken three children to the mainland to find labouring work, leaving two children with the grandparents in Tiree. The whole family used to camp in the cottage in Tiree in the summer. None of the family was at all well off but in all my visits to Scotland I have never met the “mean” Scotsman of legend. On the contrary, my Scottish relations and their friends almost overwhelmed us with their hospitality and generosity.
Although very proud of being a Scot, my father was not anti-English. He served as a police officer in England for 30 years and told me that the English had always made him welcome and treated him well. He had no complaints. My mother and her relations seemed a lot more relaxed in their Englishness, as befits the majority indigenous population, but they did not apologise for being English. In those days many English towns still celebrated St George’s Day, a celebration that is now happily returning, and we joined in English and Scottish events, Easter Bonnet parades as well as Highland Games. I was not particularly aware of Englishness but I noticed that my agreeable Scottish cousins thought I was English. I have always enjoyed having one foot in Scotland as a “second country”. My home town had grown considerably from immigration - first in the 19th century when labourers moved in from the surrounding countryside to join in the straw plait trade and hat manufacturing; then in the early 20th century when families came from all over Britain and Ireland to find jobs in motor manufacturing, engineering and building; later still from the middle of the 20th century people arrived from the West Indies, India and Pakistan.
Englishness as I grew up was taken for granted. People frequently said “England” when they meant “Britain”. That annoyed the Scots as did post boxes in Scotland bearing the legend EIIR when of course Queen Elizabeth I had never ruled in Scotland. Then suddenly, around the year 2000, it seemed that England had ceased to exist. It disappeared from EU maps. Following the creation of national assemblies which provided devolution to Scotland and Wales, the British government announced (so quietly that few noticed) that England was to be divided into regions. Over 1000 years of national history was to be set aside in favour of recent, meaningless regions which, apart from Yorkshire, lacked any cultural or historic identity. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister explained that this was because England was “too big” to fit in with the Labour government’s idea of the United Kingdom. It became official policy to refer to the “nations and regions of Britain”. The British government poured money into promoting and researching regional assemblies. All regions were to be offered a referendum. Then as the English began to resist, the first round of referendums was restricted to the North East, the North West and Yorkshire. Finally, the North-East was selected for the first referendum. The British government clearly hoped to achieve a “domino” affect but lost by 78% to 22%. It has not given up. Ministers have been appointed “to represent the Government” in each of the so-called regions. It has now become official policy to call England “Britain”. The Prime Minister, Mr Brown, has announced that “Britishness”, whatever that is, will be taught in English schools but not in Welsh or Scottish schools. He says “this country” (not England) when he refers to health, education and transport in England. Supermarkets flag up Scottish and Welsh produce with their national flags while English produce usually bears only the Union flag. Henry VIII is described as a “British king”.
Poland was partitioned in the 18th Century between Austria, Prussia and Russia and ceased to exist politically until 1919. Despite 150 years of partition, the Poles never forgot that they were Poles. We English are now becoming the “Poles” in partitioned Britain. It has become essential to reclaim and defend our Englishness. Recently I met up with a school-friend I had not seen for nearly 40 years. “When we were at school, Ian,” he told me, “if anyone asked me, I used to say I was British. Now I reply that I am English.” So must we all. I thought I lived in a democracy, protected by the great statutes - Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, the Declaration of Rights - and the Common Law of England. No longer. We English have never been asked what sort of government we want for our country. Being English means that in the last resort we must stand up for England and defend our liberties. We are told that devolution is the “price we pay” for the Union. If that price includes the partition of England, it is too high. Those who speak up for England are often denigrated as “Little Englanders”. The term was used in the 19th Century to excoriate those Radical members of the Liberal Party who were opposed to the expansion of the British empire. They did not wish to rule over other peoples. That is probably a majority position today.
1,000 years ago England, already by then a centralised and wealthy country, was seized by the Normans. William the Conqueror built the Tower of London, over which the Union flag now flies. His cronies built castles over England to terrorise the English and snuff out any revolt. Having secured England, the French kings of England turned to Wales, which was finally incorporated into a Greater England under Henry VIII. An English king born in Chinon, Henry II, was the first to sail to Ireland with a great army. The Irish gave in. The Pope had already granted Ireland to Henry as a papal fief. Next the French kings of England turned to Scotland, putting down an insurrection led by William Wallace. They were only defeated when they came up against one of their own, a Norman knight called Robert de Brus who made himself King of Scots. From 1314 until 1707 Scotland maintained a precarious independence from Greater England, briefly united in a Union Parliament under Cromwell. The Acts of Union 1707 were however agreed between the respective Parliaments. Scotland was almost bankrupt and needed access to the English overseas empire. The negotiations were pressed by the English government, anxious to secure Scotland against the French. Money was provided. The threat of military force if the Scots did not come to heel was implied. It was an arranged marriage, with force behind it. The Union was completed in 1801 with the closure of the Irish Parliament.
This is the Union, essentially a guise for Greater England, that the Unionist parties now declare to be sacrosanct because “it makes us stronger”. Stronger to do what? Invade other countries? If the Union is to continue, it should rest on the consent of the people. Many politicians have recognised, in the Claim of Right for Scotland, the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. The UK has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 1 of which recognises the right of peoples to national self-determination. Devolution started a process in Scotland but paradoxically, within Great Britain, England has become a colony itself. No national devolution for England - it is the national equivalent of Middlesex. Sovereignty of the people means that all the British nations have the right to decide whether they wish to have their own national assembly, within or without the Union. They have the right to leave the Union if they wish. British Unionist politicians extol the Union but refuse to test it against the popular will. Outside the UK, peoples have the right to choose. Within the UK, Unionists close down discussion.
So what does it mean to me to be English? My nationality is English but I am a British subject. I am an Englishman who is partly Scottish, just as the son of an immigrant from India may be English. My English nationality is not recognised by the British government. If I speak up for England, I am a “Little Englander”. It seems to me that we need more Little Englanders, and fewer Greater Englanders, so that England can regain its identity, its self-respect, its freedoms and its culture. What began for me as the rediscovery of Englishness has brought me to realise that it is also a quest for democracy. I am happy to be a Little Englander.
Ian Campbell is a member of the Campaign for an English Parliament, the English Democrats Party and the Scottish National Party.
Share This
I am rather sad to read, in a piece so much of whose general thrust I agree with, such an irritable attack on the concept of Britishness, as if those of us who are wholly or partly English have to choose between being English and being British: most English people, in my experience, are perfectly happy to be both, as I am. I agree that the denial to England of at least as great a measure of devolution as that enjoyed by Scotland is indefensible, just as it’s indefensible to limit the degree of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to a status well short of full internal autonomy within a comprehensively federated United Kingdom. But those further steps are essential in order to achieve the overriding purpose of keeping the United Kingdom durably and democratically United, not to set up a Little England for its own sake — still less to set up an even littler Little Scotland. (But our highly literate author here is a member of the Scottish National Party, which is committed to the break-up of the UK through the secession of Scotland, so we shouldn’t be surprised: we’re just entitled, I think, to be disappointed at such narrowness of vision.)
Brian B.
http://www.barder.com/ephems/
Brian Barder
13 Apr 08 at 8:56 am
Is Britishness and Unionism a BAD thing/idea/philosophy?
Personally I think it’s a good thing. What we have failed to do down the centuries however, is sell it to the British people. France had a much greater hill to climb in terms of diversity of cultures and backgrounds, but they did it and they are stronger and better for it. No question.
Part of their success was thanks to non-national devolution. i.e. no region previously recognised as a ‘nation’ was ever given it’s own government. Rather - the nation was dived into departments that over-lapped old boundaries. This made the country easier to run whilst also helping to dilute nationalist feelings.
Perhaps what the British Government should have done was divide ‘Britain’ in this way - making an effort to erase old the national boundaries that constantly sit as a reminder to previous, lost, autonomy?
The French also made an effort to: spread centralised government functions around the country; to provide a high-speed transport infrastructure, so that no matter where you were - you were never far from Paris; they implemented a mandatory policy of French language signs, texts and teaching nationwide - without exception, so no ‘language of dissent’ was ever allowed to flourish.
No surprise then that anyone who now raises nationalist cries such as ‘freedom for Alsace’ are regarded as nothing short of barmy. Because everyone knows - France IS stronger together.
The future for Britain is unclear, but I fear that the rising tide of nationalism that New Labour has unleashed will result in the break up of the Union - ultimately because we are too busy looking back with a rosy spectacled, nostalgic, view of our past, rather than looking forward to the great, united country that we could become.
Bart Hulley
14 Apr 08 at 2:18 am
I always regard the “British” thing as something undefined, beyond my comprehension, not relevant to me at all. It always seemed to do with pomp and ceremony, the old Empire, etc.
I too am half-Scots (my mother is from Glasgow) but regard myself as being English. I regard English, Scots and Welsh as being nationalities, not races - and I don’t believe that the “British” title is inclusive whilst the others are exclusive. Look at the great work taking place in Scotland and Wales to establish civic Scots and Welsh national identities. Then consider just how superfluous the “British” tag is becoming outside UK Government ruled England.
I would say, Ian, in reply to what you write about Scots being irritated about Britain being referred to as England years ago, in my neck of the woods (Suffolk) in the 60s and 70s it was far more common to refer to England as Britain.
I cannot remember any mention of England in my school history lessons in the 1970s.
I believe that the process of abolishing England began long before devolution. Even Churchill commented on it!
Chris Abbott
14 Apr 08 at 6:25 am
The sad fact is, Brian, that it is “Britishness” and Unionism that has always been used as the reason why England and Englishness must be sacrificed. We musn’t have a Parliament because it will supposedly “damage the Union”. We must pay for the rest of the UK to have free university education, prescriptions, better health care (whilst not getting it ourselves) because of the Union.
It is the establishment that has set Englishness against Britishness- hence the reason why people like Ian and myself don’t feel able to support such a concept.
“…keeping the UK democratically united”? Democratically? There was never a vote on the Union and probably never will be.
Tommo
16 Apr 08 at 6:54 am
Tommo,
I agree with your observation of “It is the establishment that has set Englishness against Britishness”.
But why then are we convinced that devolution is now the only option? Are we fatalistic towards an eventual break up of the union? That Englishness is really the only option?
Are we prepared to ditch Britishness simply because the establishment are incompetent?
Why aren’t we demanding the dissolution of the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, instead of campaigning for another assembly?
And they say the French love their bureaucracy!
Bart Hulley
17 Apr 08 at 3:10 am
I’ve read your comments with interest, many thanks.
Brian - the SNP has at least stated it will offer a referendum on the Union and will abide by the result. The Unionist parties turn that idea flat. What are they afraid of? If the Union is such a Good Thing surely the people would vote for it? The Union was always a union of nations and a multinational state like Britain must secure the agreement of the people if it is to continue.
Bart - my complaint about the British government is that it has become the enemy of democracy in England. (See Simon Lee on ‘Brown’s Britain’ for an exposition of this.) England has become in effect a colony. Our ‘own’ government seeks to divide and rule. It is symptomatic of this colonial mindset that British politicians can say that the Welsh are ‘not ready yet’ for the degree of autonomy enjoyed by the Scots. Where have you heard that phrase before? Unfortunately the Labour party chose to offer devolution to Scotland and Wales on a national rather than a regional basis. (Why not divide Scotland into two regions - Highland and Lowland?) If its objective was solely to preserve the Union, the Labour Government could have told the Scots in the 1990s that we are all British and we have one British Parliament. In fact what it has done is to create nurseries for nationalism in the devolved assemblies.
Chris - Prof Stephen Bush gave a good account of ‘England for Britain’ at the 2006 CEP Open Meeting. It was fairly general, in England and abroad, until the 1980s to say England when the speaker meant in fact the whole of Britain. You still hear it quite often today, particlularly outside the UK. There is even one PM - I think it was Asquith, who for part his career represented a Scottish constituency - who is described on his headstone as ‘Prime Minister of England’. It’s a long time since I was at school but English schoolchildren, who don’t learn much history anyway (one of my daughters who mutliple A grades had never heard of the Duke of Marlborough) learn virtually nothing about Scotland, Wales and Ireland except where they impinge on England. History as taught in schools is largely anglocentric and English history is presented as the history of Britain. Do you recall in 2004 that George Courtauld made quite a stir when he published ‘The Pocket Book of Patriotism? It was subtitled: ‘The History of Britain and the World’. Apart from a brief mention of Columba at Iona in 563, the first mention of Scotland occurs in 1296 when ‘King Edward invades Scotland..’ Similarly the death of Llewellyn in 1240 is the first mention of Wales. One might wonder where these places, Scotland and Wales, were and what had been going on there. This is what is behind my comment that what we call the Union is more accurately described Greater England. When I complained to Labour HQ about the lack of a devolved English Parliament a detailed reply came back saying that it was right that Scotland and Wales ’should have greater independence from England’. The Greater Englanders have been in charge since the Conquest and their mindset is still paramount.
Ian Campbell
17 Apr 08 at 4:16 am
Why aren’t we demanding the dissolution of the Scottish and Welsh assemblies, instead of campaigning for another assembly?
Such a demand - which is the demand that UKIP make - would lead to the break up of the Union anyway. And it would be frightfully un-English.
Gareth Young
17 Apr 08 at 9:43 am
Interesting to read in The Spectator’s ‘St George’s Day Special Issue’ today - is this its first St George’s Day Special, I wonder? - that some of the contributors to the feature ‘So what is England?‘ still appear to believe that England and Britain are synonymous.
Nick Clegg starts off,”An island nation. Mud. Humour…”. Since when has England been an island? Doesn’t it have Wales and Scotland attached to it? Similarly, Melvyn Bragg, hearkening back to 1940, writes,”England was the best. Had to be, standing alone as we thought when we fought against a world power of evil…”. What about the Scots, Welsh and plenty of Irish who ’stood alone’ with England? What about all the soldiers from the Empire? Maybe his ‘as we thought’ is a get-out but this is the Greater England mindset at work again, the same mindset which seeks to repress any English desire for national self-expression which it sees as a threat to Greater England disguised as the Union. In the same issue, Roger Scruton, describes how the Arts Council has repeatedly rebuffed Em Marshall’s attempts to get support for English Music Festival held in Oxfordshire, concluding,”For the time being we English must live under governments and institutions that have our cultural annihilation as their hidden goal”. That is indeed what Brown means by ‘Britishness’ and that is what is behind all the gibes about Little Englanders.
Ian Campbell
18 Apr 08 at 6:23 am
Agreed Ian. It is the Greater England mindset. It’s a mindset that has annoyed the Scots and Welsh for some time, and increasingly it’s a mindset that is upsetting English sensibilities because the political manifestation of that mindset leaves no place for England.
Gareth Young
18 Apr 08 at 6:42 am
Dear Iain, I for one enjoyed your essay. No high-falutin idealistic claptrap, just plain fact for the reader to assimilate and digest. It is of deep interest to me (a ten-generation Englishman) to hear a Scottish Englishman’s story. It has sharpened my understanding of how inclusive Englishness has akways been without interference from The British.
I too believe that Britishness and Unionism are a BAD thing if the price is too high, and culturally, economically and politically it has always been way too high for the English. Thanks again Iain.
Jack Cropper
12 Feb 09 at 8:14 am
This is true! Recebtly I have really began to notice that in the media, the English is being used less and less often, and is being replaced with British.
The most telling example was a televised excerpt of the President of France’s criticsim of econonomic policy. On the televised broadcast the French word ‘Anglais’ meaning English was translated ‘British’.
I have no problem at all with the notion of britishness, but this deliberate avoidance of using the term English is a travesty. Why should we be ashamed of being English?
It is true that we have done some bad things over the centuries, but no country is perfect. We should be proud of our heritage and culture not ashamed.
Finally, I am glad you have reffered to the Norman kings of England as French. Until the fourteenth century none spoke English fluently, many had French parents and owned lands in France.
The same was true for most of the aristocracy at that time. They were not truly English, I beleive that they should be reffered to as Norman, or Anglo-Norman.
It really gets to me when these Kings/ nobles are reffered to as English, especailly when this is done by certaim parties who seek to portray us in a negative light.
One example is American films and movies, which will often have these people speaking with stereotypical ‘English’ accents, and refer to them as English.
Joanna
28 Feb 09 at 12:47 pm
Joanna, You’re reading too much into it.
In France they do not understand the difference between British and English, which is why when they say English - they usually mean British. And the general concensus here is that Scotland and Wales are actually parts of England too.
As far as the French are concerned - everyone on the island speaks English - so it must all be England n’est pas?
Bart Hulley
2 Mar 09 at 3:53 am