An Independent England?

Green and pleasant future?

The upcoming referendum has given me cause to re-examine some thoughts I have carried for a long time.  As I mentioned in my previous post, my own position as a Scot living in England somewhat compromises me should Bannockburn part II break out in the coming months.  Saying that, it does help when formulating the other half of the debate - the one studiously ignored by the British media so far, that of the makeup and character of England, post UK. (My friends in Northern Ireland and Wales, I haven't forgotten you, but I'd like to focus on England in this post because for me, England will suffer most from a diminution of the British state)

A few years back, and in large part as a response to immigration, various programmes were made about the ideas of Britishness and Englishness.  There was a nervousness at the appropriation of the flag of St George and even Churchill by the BNP.  Our attempt to set down some kind of behavioural contract with migrants to the UK showed up a weakness at the heart of British identity.

"A sense of fair play."  "The Royal Family"  "Wimbledon and Ascot"  "Elgar"  "Cricket"  "Afternoon tea"  "The Village Green"  "Tolerance"

The old lion casts a long shadow

It is no accident that most of these would appear to be more English than British.  (In Scotland we deplore fair play because it means we lose at everything)  But another key point falls under discussion here.  These identities seem to hail from an era that whilst not totally forgotten, would not seem to chime with the modern nation to the same degree.  They also have the unmistakeable whiff of class - white upper middle.  Then there is the great denial…  The missing word that could easily encapsulate much of the aforementioned but is always conspicuous in its absence from BBC polls.  "Empire"

It occasionally jolts my woad-smeared claymore-wielding reality to remember that I am in fact engaged to an Englishwoman and have spent close to a decade of my adult life in England's two largest cities with relatively few excursions into the places where I perceive this brand of chocolate box Englishness to live.  My fiancé is a Londoner.  If I call her English she seems to regard it as some kind of implicit insult.  (Maybe because the word sounds different when a Scot says it)  Saying that, she is, though born here, from a genetic standpoint 100 percent Caribbean (and as such, has a number of issues with the trappings of this Imperial identity).  Therein lies a disconnect that is very very English.

I love London.  It is the most exhilarating place I have ever lived.  It is outward facing, international, vibrant, open-minded and if the latest stats are to be believed, less than half white English in population.  London is the biggest city in Western Europe, and by some distance.  It could be its capital.  In an unguarded moment at a party, I once voiced that I didn't regard London as part of England, and meant it as a compliment. (How to win friends and influence people)  I suspect I was probably young, stupid and inebriated at the time but looking at the shaping perceptions around these arguments, I begin to see something in the honesty of the idealist drunk.

The BBC, in their recent documentary, "Mind the Gap" pointed to the growing economic imbalances between London and the rest of Britain.  The programme did not however, address the cultural or political gap, one espoused by John Cleese.

Robin Hood speaks out

"London is no longer an English city which is why I love Bath," 

Perhaps more tellingly, he went on to explain that the reasons were routed in something beyond racial demographics.

"There were disadvantages to the old culture, it was a bit stuffy and it was more sexist and more racist. But it was an educated and middle-class culture. Now it's a yob culture. The values are so strange."

I love John Cleese.  I can sing all the lyrics to the One Eyed Trouser Snake, but as a Scot, I don't hanker for this vanishing English idyl he describes.  Those moments where I have seen it in modern England, I've noticed that its character has changed.  It's a scared culture, nervous of the future, unable to redefine itself and critically, unable to find the language to defend that which they feel is under threat without straying into that of UKIP with its xenophobic, isolationist undertones.

As an economic migrant to London, the characteristics that seem to define the English identity of the media's home counties seem to draw a great deal of influence from this reactionary dialogue and the ever present spectre of class identity.  The monarchy is lauded, enforced and strengthened by an almost state tv-like sycophancy from the BBC.  The government and most of the key positions in media and business are monopolised by this same elite.  Britain languishes amongst the worst developed economies for social mobility.

Is it cricket?

As an outsider, it seems to me that England, as the dominant shaping force of the 'British' identity of the south needs some sense of superiority - some sense of distinction between the Englishman and the 'other', whether it be EU migrants, the Scots, or the post imperial migrants of the Caribbean and subcontinent.  This identity seems to feel that it can only exist if some sense of Englishness can be exclusively reserved for the historical ideal, the England that ruled the waves and the archetypal white Englishman of Jerusalem - an England for the English, but retaining the rights of empire to go where he chooses and do what he chooses.  The whole concept of "Tolerance" as a national characteristic for me contains an implied superiority.  "I may think your way of life is strange or backward but due to my Englishness I will tolerate it, and by extension, you, in my country."

Here is for me, the fundamental reason for Scottish independence.  In this characteristic, Scots and English are of fundamentally different outlook.  Scotland, in part because of its relationship with England and its economic history has always looked outward.  England has shielded us from the Romans, the Danes, the Jutes and the Normans, absorbed the Lion's share of the imperial hangover, most of the migration. Now England looks inward, anxious to protect the illusive sense of Englishness that has no answer to what London, its capital has become.  An England, shorn of its Britishness would be a place in which these conflicts of identity would have to be faced.  A likely Conservative majority.  An end to the grand isolation with a potential independent European minded country sharing the same island.

The DFM - Looks terrible, tastes amazing

Scotland has a growing mixture of identities, but also has a defined national identity to share not to protect.  The Scottish identity is robust and needs no protection.  Even if that identity is couched in a historically inaccurate film starring an Australian, the tartan tradition or Highland Cathedral (Both invented by English people) ceilidh dancing in which anyone can take part, the worst sounding national instrument in the world, the best tasting national drink. (Whiskey, or Irn Bru if your religion prohibits the former and you don't mind umber coloured lips) Such culinary contributions as the Haggis and the Deep Fried Mars Bar.  This is an identity that has no roots in class or in Empire and one that has rejected conservative principles to be forward thinking and ambitious, innovative whether that be in engineering or economics or ways to lose football internationals.  This could create a nation with no shortage of challenges to overcome, but the progressive, independent nature of our politics has the right to shape the country that gave it birth.  That country is not England, nor, deep down, is it Britain.  British identity as defined by the BBC and the press at its heart, belongs to England, and not even all of England.  It is defined by a scared, shrinking slice of little England society that has no answers to its own shifting demographics.  It does not know where its future lies.  As Scots, we must seek to define our own future and be brave in doing so.