Last Friday morning, 5,295,000 Scots woke up still British. The Scottish independence referendum was defeated and as the results came in, it was clear that it never really stood a chance. Only four of 32 constituencies voted in favor of independence and sub-nationally there was nearly an 11-point gap favoring unionism. In the wake of this result, the Scottish National Party’s chairman and Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, the primary force behind the pro-referendum camp, resigned from both positions.
This win for unionists should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the status quo; the current British political and civic situation is untenable. Institutional reform will be necessary (perhaps even democratization of the House of Lords), further devolution to sub-national legislatures will occur, and the United Kingdom will be on its way to a federal system. The redefinition of the relationship between Westminster and the rest of Britain partially assuages many of the nationalist demands and claims that those in power are out of touch elitists who do not represent the will of the people. What these reforms will not do is answer the more pressing question of what it means to be British.
This is not a new discussion. David Cameron famously punted on the British question 8 years ago, with the cynical “We don’t do flags on the front lawn” response to Gordon Brown’s push for a more defined and robust British identity. The consequences of this detachment can be felt not just north of the border, but across the kingdom, from economically deprived corners of English cities to the persistently sectarian, divided quarters of Ulster. The vacuum created by the absence of a coherent British identity is not always filled by something as benign as separatist Scottish nationalism: it is at risk of being filled by extremism, be it the radical Islamism that has driven hundreds to take up arms in Syria and Iraq or the exclusionary and xenophobic right-wing nationalism of groups like the English Defense League.
The pro-union,”Better Together” campaign itself illustrates this problem well. The case made by Better Together was more about highlighting the risks of independence rather than offering an alternative, British identity. Only in the last moments of the campaign did Gordon Brown attempt to sway voters with a sense of shared history; and ultimately his argument did not rest on the Britishness premise, as he retreated and declared, “If you’re unsure, vote no.” This lack of a cohesive sense of identity will remain problematic for Unionists, even with full fiscal autonomy at the sub-national level, otherwise known as devo-max, a democratically elected upper chamber, and a federalized government in Westminster. In the wake of the decision, nationalists in Wales and Northern Ireland have already called for increased devolution in the former and a referendum of their own in the latter. As the question of Britishness remains unanswered, nationalists see this as the perfect moment to demand more.
There is little disagreement that British identity needs to be promoted; the difficult questions, however, are how to define British identity and what role the state should play in its propagation. British identity will need to be inclusive and resonate in South Armagh as much as it does in South Kensington. It will need to have its roots in a common history (which will also need to be taught effectively in schools) and shared values, both distinct from uniform views on specific policies.
Most importantly it will need to offer outlets for citizen involvement and encourage public input in the political process. British citizens, particularly young people, will need to be taught not just about their political system, but about their role in it and how they can influence public policy. This is crucial. It is simply not enough that students understand government and democracy from an academic perspective. They need to understand the role of citizens in their democracy and be proficient in the skills and knowledge necessary to exercise their rights. Most importantly, they need to be instilled with a positive attitude regarding citizen participation and believe that their voices and those of their fellow citizens can influence the public policies that affect their lives and their communities. Simply put, the state needs to cultivate in young people the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to be an effective citizen.
To move this forward, those in the British educational establishment should prioritize defining Britishness through high quality civic learning. They should learn from American organizations that are on the cutting edge of civic engagement research and programming.,To understand the best way to measure youth voting and engagement trends, policy makers should collaborate with Tufts University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). To learn how to promote youth engagement in local assemblies and parliaments and excite, engage, and inspire the next generation of citizens, Westminster should look to the Washington, DC-based Close Up Foundation (note: this is the author’s employer), which focuses on civic education.
To follow this track means that one day there may be a United Kingdom where individuals identify not based on retrenched sectarian and nationalist positions, but through inclusive terms. A well-defined British identity would celebrate a shared history and common values, but the key to success is the promotion of the citizen as the ultimate holder of political power. As Britain progresses towards a federal system, the stakes for promoting British identity could not be higher. The rejection of the Britishness question opens the door to further entrenchment of extremist ideologies and the Balkanization of Britain through increased hostility between various sub-national factions. The Union is safe for now, but the Caledonian question was just the beginning.
James Sheehan is the Grants & Communications Manager at the Close Up Foundation, a Washington, DC-based civic education non-profit. He holds an MA in Terrorism, Security and Society from King’s College, London. The views expressed are his own.
Photo credit: matthew Hunt
Krogh 
Rodney Wade 
David 
Is a British identity synonymous to an English identity? That is to say, do only the English see themselves as Brits while the rest define themselves as Scots, Welsh, or Irish?
We Americans, I think, have a healthy love of our states (in some cases, too strong a love. I’m looking at you, Texas) while also recognizing ourselves as American. I am a proud Michigander, but also an American.
Great Britain has a strong and proud history which could be celebrated as a unifying force. Each country could then be proud of their contributions to that united kingdom.
I say all of the above, however, having never been to the UK and not having a grasp on some issues which may divide those within.
British elites speak with pride of their “unwritten Constitution” by which they mean the whole corpus of Commmon Law and legislation over, perhaps, a thousand years. However, as actors are wont to say, “if it ain’t on the page, it ain’t on the stage”.
Britain needs a written Constitution.
James,
I have little doubt that the UK needs to change. Simply put I would take your advice.
The governance of the UK is under pressure today not from the fringes of politics, but from the very people who are making political decisions – our elected politicians.
It may surprise you that WE know who we are. The UK has always been a coalition of interests, values and institutions. Many, if not the majority of Scots feel they are Scottish first and British second. Being British has evolved, sometimes slowly, occassionally at a faster pace and not always at our own choosing.
The roots of our British identity include what you listed and more. The snag is that there is no concensus on what are our shared values and as the population changes a common history.
You have missed the steady decline in public ‘trust & confidence’ in our politicians, especially those at national level. One opinion poll found only 21% trusted their own elected MP. Political party membership has ebbed away and the parties are seen as vehicles for interest groups, lobbies and for political careers. Fewer people vote; the Scottish referendum had a very high turnout – around 85% and in the last General Election in 2010 65%.
Single issue campaign groups get far greater support and membership. The trade unions have shrunk in size and power – so have all the Christian churches.
Many of the changes to governance in my lifetime have reinforced the national government in London, notably with the steady dilution of local government, especially in England. Add in the devolution of considerable powers and responsibilities to the governments of Northern Ireland (with a unique system), Scotland and Wales.
You totally ignore the transfer of powers and revenue to the European Union (EU) – that has been the BIGGEST change. The recent rise in support for a UK Independence Party (UKIP) partly reflects unease and more in this move to federal Europe and a general protest vote.
Understandably many in Scotland and Wales want to have a direct government speaking on their behalf with the EU in Brussels, other member governments and regional partes. Why because that is where so much power resides and the UK government is not seen as responsive enough.
It is VERY hard to imagine any political agreement, let alone that of teachers and others to the instillation of a positive attitude towards citizen participation.
What is the role of the nation-state today internally and externally? The fixtures of yesteryear are no longer ‘fit for purpose’.
We are not heading towards ‘Balkanisation’ or the extremes of politics, we will do it our way. A British way, so keep your programmes!
How about looking at yourself? From this side of the Atlantic the USA has enough problems at home for your programmes to focus on.
Sorry to break this to you, but your country is dead.
Britain will be finished by the end of the century, precisely because you have embraced all this ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ and ‘secularism’ and ‘globalism’. Cultures that abandon their traditions (and by that I mean the traditions that served the islands for well over a thousand years), die. Whether it will be to social disintegration, economic collapse, or the long arm of Islam, it can at least be said the death of modern Britain will be immensely positive for the rest of the world, as will the death of modern America, and the rest of Western Europe.
These nations, their people, their governments, are a blight on the earth, some of the most immoral godless hypocrites to ever walk this planet. One need only watch a single episode of ‘Question Time’ to see the garbage these lands are filled with. You might as well watch a room full of people with guns to their heads, young and old, just waiting to pull the trigger.
An interesting comparison with regard to Islam in the UK.
When Ancient Israel disobeyed God and became idolatrous and sexually deviant, lazy in their rituals, and corrupted at heart, He sent the pagan Babylonians from the east to dash them in pieces for their insolence.
Low and behold, in what Blake called the ‘New Jerusalem’, the same thing has occurred, Nebuchadnezzar replaced by the quixotic Anjem Choudary, swords swapped for rhetoric and breeding (well, for the most part, we all know what happened to Lee Rigby).
So, modern Britain, go with grace, pass from this world into the night and take your influence and so-called ‘Britishness’ with you. Nobody wishes to buy this hollow husk.