The ThunderDragon

Britishness. What is it? Quite possibly one of the most elusive concepts known to man.

Is it a racial concept? Not in my opinion. But others would disagree.

Is it culturally defined? Maybe.

Is it a constitutional arrangement? Yes, and no.

None of these are absolutely wrong, and none of it right. Really, the question “what is Britishness?” does not have an answer. For that answer relies almost entirely on where you are sitting. From where you look - depending on how your experiences in life have moulded you and your opinions - defines how you see and conceive the elusive and almost mythical concept of “Britishness”.

We have “symbols” of Britishness - the Union Flag, the Queen/Monarchy, Big Ben, the Houses of Parliament, National Anthem etc. - and we have “concepts” of britishness - liberty and freedom, democracy, equality and so on - and we have history to tie them all together. But none of these are Britishness. Even all together they don’t make it.

Because, in the end, Britishness can’t be defined once and for all. There is no all-encompassing “definition” of it. Everyone’s view is different. If you grew up in Scotland you have a different view to someone who grew up in Cornwall, if you grew up in Wales you have a different view to someone who grew up in East Anglia… And if you grew up rich, poor, middle-class, with parents that were left-wing, right-wing, apolitical, if you went to state school or public school… and so on and on and on. Not to mention the unique individuality of every single person.

Ask ten people to define Britishness and you’ll get twelve different answers. [Personally, I'd define Britishness as a ultimately cultural concept, born out of a belief in individual freedoms and a basically shared history, forged together through political union and personal experiences, and bolstered by the symbols of the nation. But that's just me.]

Frankly, attempting to define Britishness is, in the end, like emptying a bucket with a sieve. Excruciatingly slow going and frankly idiotic.

* Or maybe the beer-holder. One or the other.

A report on British citizenship recommends that school leavers swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country to give them a “sense of belonging”, and to “mark the passage between being a student of citizenship and an active citizen.” This has come in for a large amount of criticism from across the blogosphere and political spectrum, with this post from Asp being the only one that I have seen in support.

I salute the Union Flag on a weekly basis and have made an oath of allegiance to Queen and country literally hundreds of times in my life, as a Scout and a Scout leader, through making the Scout Promise:

And one of the things I do as a Scout leader is explain what this means to new Scouts before they are formally invested.

However, I myself and every other member of the Scout movement does so of our own volition. What is being suggested by Lord Goldsmith is making people do it. People who are British, and have not chosen it, unlike those who come to Britain from another country and want to become British citizens.

I think that it would be a good thing if more people chose to make a pledge of allegiance to Queen and country - but if it isn’t by choice, it is meaningless. And that is what implementing this would be: a meaningless gesture, which would do nothing but undermine Britishness, rather than reinforce it.

The governments new[ly reannounced] citizenship tests appear to be expecting immigrants to do more this country than is ever expected of “native” Britons.

So they have to do more than just work and pay taxes - which is itself something that way too many Britons are too lazy to do - but they also have to contribute extra towards public services through an extra levy on their visa, expected to raise a minuscule [in the scheme of public services] £15 million a year. Rather short of the £250 million needed by councils to prevent the need for council tax rises, wouldn’t you say?

But not only that, now migrants are to be expected to do charity work and the like in order to show that they are “active” citizens and earn the right to be a subject of the Queen. We don’t expect any “native” Britons to do this, so why should an immigrant’s citizenship be reliant on doing it?

I don’t think that it is all bad though. The idea that citizenship should be have to be earned is a good one, but this is hardly a new revelation. And the same goes for the requirement to speak English. Nothing new, trotted out again by a different Home Secretary and with a few slight differences to go with it.

Basically, this is a gimmick. None of it will cover citizens of other EU countries, and so is basically meaningless in reality.

I’m not exactly thrilled by the Conservatives suggestion of “a limit on the level of immigration” either. Rather, immigration is good for us, and fuelled by economic expansion and the sheer laziness of too many “native” Britons. Benefits: the cause of immigration.

Hell yes! We should celebrate British history. Not all of it is as great, pretty, and morally righteous as we may wish, be we should showcase it anyway. History is essential to the modern world. It made us what and who we are. Through history we learn lessons, and understand the reasons behind the way the world works.

British history is our history. The history of our nation. What made us who we are. We should have a museum of British history to remind us - and the world - of our history, of our role in making the world what it is. Of course it isn’t all great but I think that, overall, Britain’s role in world history has been positive.

We should have a museum of British history to remind us both of what our nation has done right and wrong in the past, and how we have developed into the nation we are today. After all, it’s not like we would have to struggle to fill it!

WTF? That is an absolutely absurd idea. The Union Flag is an iconic image, and there’s hardly an easy way in which to combine the Welsh dragon into it without it looking absolutely stupid. A flag is just a symbol, it isn’t a direct representation of a nation. All flags are symbols - after all, what else can you do with a rectangle and about three different colours?

As much as I like the aesthetics of the Welsh flag, how could it be adapted into the Union Flag without looking ridiculous? The Union Flag is our flag, and to want to change it just because is just plain stupid.

Source: BBC

Big Ben is back in action.

Should we have a British motto, similar to France’s “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” the US’s “In God We Trust” and Belgium’s [now ironic] “Strength through Unity”. Gordon Brown thinks we should.

I think it’s a stupid idea. We don’t need an “official” motto any more than we need a written Constitution.

Though, if we are to have one, lets think of some ideas:

“God Save The Queen” - nah, we’d never be allowed to have that.

“Always Open” - well, our borders are remarkably porous for an island…

“Freedom - But Only If You’re Part Of A Minority” - too realistic, I suppose.

“Europe Rules UK OK” - again, too realistic…

Any other suggestions?

One British icon - the imperial measurements - are to remain, the EU Commissions has graciously allowed:

Isn’t that nice? They’ve “decreed” that we can keep our own measurements. Isn’t that nice of them?

But as our Lords and Masters of the European Commission giveth, they also threaten to taketh away:

So they’re letting us keep our own measurements, despite lacking the right to force us to relinquish them. But instead they may cause the end of the red phone box, an icon as quintessentially British as the Routemaster buses [removed by Ken], black cabs, and Big Ben. Even though people have mobile phones, nowadays, it doesn’t mean that the battery won’t run out!

We should keep these icons of Britishness. We should keep our measurements, our currency, our parliament, our passports, and our phone boxes. They are our heritage. Besides, without the phone boxes, where would Superman get changed?

Gordon Brown announced back in July that the Union flag could now be flown from public buildings on any day, rather than the previous restrictions of 18 days a year. However, this now seems to not apply to Scotland:

“Proposals to fly the Union flag every day on public buildings are set not to apply to Scottish Executive sites.
The government published the plans earlier this week, and they follow Gordon Brown raising the issue of celebrating Britishness in January.
The SNP said Justice Secretary Jack Straw assured the policy would not cover executive buildings.
SNP leader Alex Salmond, now first minister, previously said Britishness “went bust long ago” in Scotland.” (BBC)

Whilst it is understandable that on a few places, such as Holyrood, the Saltire [the Scottish flag] be flown alongside the Union flag, it should not replace it. We are all still in the United Kingdom, whichever part you may be in.

What this shows mostly, however, is that despite Gordon Brown’s oft-made commitment to Britishness, he is still at heart a Scot - and will give things to Scotland that he won’t to England. I have no problem at all with Scottish public buildings being allowed to fly to Saltire - but it should not be allowed as a replacement for the Union flag. And if Scottish public buildings can fly the Saltire, then English public buildings should be allowed to fly the St. George’s Cross, and Welsh public buildings the Red Dragon.

We are all supposed to be equal partners in the Union - yet inequality is rampant. If England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are equal constituents of the United Kingdom, then they should all have the same rights and abilities. And it is the English who lose out again and again. It is not acceptable.

Source: BBC