The reason why nobody is able to define “British values” or “English
values” without coming across as complete
tit is as follows.
Great Britain came into being as a result of the Acts of
Union of 1706 and 1707, combining England and Scotland – which had previously
been separate states in personal union (ie with the same monarch) since 1603.
That became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
following a couple more Acts of Union in 1800. Ireland had been in personal
union with England since 1542.
If “Britain” can be said to have values – in the sense of
something that more or less united its people in pursuit of something or other –
then that was global economic and political dominance, expressed as imperialism and colonialism.
The primary beneficiaries of imperialism and colonialism were
the aristocracy of wealth – not the British people as a whole. That is, of
course, not to say that the British poor and working class didn’t do somewhat
better out of colonialism than a lot of the colonised peoples. But I think it’s
reasonable to say that the principal benefits they accrued were:
- Not being killed or formally enslaved
- A vicarious sense of being part of the biggest and best power in the world – much like the World Cup today
At the height of the imperial period, local elites in
Edinburgh and Dublin started agitating for a bigger share of London’s power –
and started developing ethno-cultural Scottish and Irish nationalism as counterforces
opposing “Britain”.
Economic grievances in poor parts of England and Wales were
no doubt comparable to some of the suffering experienced in Scotland and
Ireland. But they have lacked voices capable of mobilising those grievances
behind an articulation of “being different”.
That Britain has already lost its struggle. It lost it with
decolonisation, which really began with the Easter Rising of 1916 in Ireland.
And so of course there is nothing we can say really
represents “British values” – because in a postcolonial world, nothing that you
could genuinely hold up as “British” is considered a virtue any more, other
than instrumental virtues or means to ends we can’t talk about any more.
Why should “keep calm and carry
on” be a virtue? Carry on doing what? Endure whatever shit you are being
subjected to quietly, without questioning why you should be going through it in
the first place?
Hence we make a virtue out of stoicism or quietism, no
matter what use it is put to. Hence we make a virtue out of democracy, no
matter how disgusted we are with what it leads to.
These are just means to the sort of ends people can actually
identify with.
In 1962 the American Secretary of State Dean Acheson
famously said:
Great Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role.
52 years later, it pathetically avoids finding a new role by clinging on to its absurd imperial
dreams, buying aircraft carriers at the same time as closing hospitals;
pretending there’s nothing wrong at home while threatening pointless wars
abroad.
No wonder a hell of a lot of Scottish people want to leave.
Because the hope of something better is the kind of motivator people can get
behind, even when it’s irrational or even when that hope is forlorn.
It’s only in recent years that people have begun to think
about “Englishness” at all, primarily as a result of recognising how moribund
British identity is compared to those which have defined themselves in
opposition to it.
Are English people really more selfish and right-wing than
Scottish people? Or are English people really less hospitable and prone to romanticism
than Irish people? I don’t think they are. I think these are attributes appropriated
by cultural nationalists to distinguish the Scots, the Irish etc from cold,
materialistic Britain – in the sense of the British Empire. And they’ve proved
themselves on the right side of history by distancing themselves from that.
Trouble is, what does that leave the English to define
themselves with? A whole host of “good” virtues and attributes pinched by
various Celts, a load of “bad” virtues and attributes nobody sensible wants to
associate themselves with any more or a load of thoroughly tedious virtues and
attributes that no one gives a toss about?
We might as well be discussing “Ukrainian
values” or “Iraqi
values”. Or Austro-Hungarian values or Yugoslavian values. The people who live or lived in these places form multiple communities based on values, but those communities don't and never did coincide with the shapes marked on the maps going by those names.
Only when the English let go of “Britain” will they be able
to decide who they want to be. Once they’ve done that, maybe we’ll find that we’ve
got more than we thought in common with all our fellow inhabitants of the
British Isles.