The SNP’s Pete Wishart, speaking in the Commons on 12 November 2008, claimed that the British Social Attitudes survey found that only 3 per cent of Scots “now recognise themselves as British”.
But the survey actually suggests only that “3% of people born and living in Scotland, describe themselves as ‘only’ or ‘mainly’ British”, which is of course both completely different and entirely natural. Indeed, the survey’s co-author noted that “for most people it is still a question of being both English (or Scottish) and British, rather than a choice between them”. The Scottish Social Attitudes surveys have gone into greater depth, the 2007 edition finding that only 27% of people, fewer than even tend to vote SNP, define themselves monochromatically as “Scottish not British”.
15 November 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with postings such as this. Leave the 'Cybernats' ranting inside a glass-ball, like those witches in the Shakespeare episode of Doctor Who.
I don't know why SNP politicians so regularly twist facts such as this. There's masses of freely available data on identity issues.
For example, a January 2007 ICM poll seeking views on the extent to which Scots consider themselves British found that (aside from the 2% of people living here who actually aren’t British) only about 24% of people living in Scotland have no sense of Britishness.
Going back a few years, the 2003 SSA survey contained this question about national pride.
Q: How proud are you of being British, or do you not see yourself as British at all?
• Very proud 23.8%
• Somewhat proud 40.9%
• Not very proud 13.2%
• Not at all proud 4.8%
• Not British 16.3%
• Don't know 0.9%
SU, you're saying that you don't know why, but of course we all do know why! It's the same with many politicians - twisting figures to suit what they want to say, if it doesn't twist then ignore it. The SNP are becoming quite the regular abusers of statistics.
From a speech by Michael Wills, which facts he cleverly used in Wednesday's debate to beat Pete Wishart's misrepresentations into the dust:
In January, the Ministry of Justice commissioned Ipsos-MORI to carry out a survey to explore what sources of identity gave people a sense of belonging. 2,000 people were asked in face to face interviews how strongly, if at all, they felt a sense of belonging to Britain, to England/Scotland or Wales, to their local area or neighbourhood, their own age group, their religion or faith and their ethnic group.
* 45% said they strongly felt a sense of belonging to their religion or faith
* 69% said they strongly felt a sense of belonging to their ethnic group
* 70% said they strongly felt a sense of belonging to their own age group
* 78% said they strongly felt a sense of belonging to their local area or neighbourhood
* 80% felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain
* 82% in England felt a strong sense of belonging to England
* 91% in Scotland felt a strong sense of belonging to Scotland
* 95% in Wales felt a strong sense of belonging to Wales
Of course, there are variations from these national figures within sub-groups. For example, 81% in England felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain, compared with 87% in Wales and with 70% in Scotland and it's worth noting that, that for all the focus on the role on the Union in Scotland, 71% in London felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain, virtually the same percentage as in Scotland.
What emerges strongly from these findings is the strength of British identity as a source of belonging. And this is true across age, gender, region and ethnicity. 75% of black and minority ethnic respondents, for example, said they felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain.
I would say that 'twisting the facts' and 'misleading parliament' are not necessarily compatible statements. It seems to me that, coming from different sides of the arguement, you and Pete Wishart simply interpret these statistics in different ways.
That 2003 survey you quote is a nonsense. Any competent survey would have asked the latter part as a separate question first and followed up with the former part as a second question to those it applied to. Talk about twisting survey results, that survey would produce twisted results to begin with!
I was wondering why you concentrate so much on picking up on every tiny 'distortion' a nationalist makes.
I suppose it would be futile for you to concentrate on building a positive case for the Union or too time consuming to report every similar distortion a Unionist propogates at Westminster.
Maybe one day you will find something a nasty nationalist says that is comparable to the bare faced lies the unionists spouted during the run up to the invasion of Iraq.
And that Ipsos-Mori poll is even worse.
A huge percentage of respondents would have interpreted 'belonging to Britain' as a geographical fact rather than implying any sense of identity.
So Micahel Wills is at least as guilty as Pete Wishart in 'misleading parliament'.
West-world
The 2003 survey is by NatCen, the National Centre for Social Research, and adheres to the highest possible standards in such matters. Your claim is without foundation.
The rest of your post is woefully off-topic.
Sorry, SU. I didn't see the rules about meandering off-topic. Just fancied a bit of more general banter because arguing over survey results and their interpretation usually comes down to your own point of view.
I do maintain, however, that that 2003 question cannot be credible because it splices two entirely different propositions into one question. It's almost as if the survey was conducted with some end in mind... ;-)
As for my own blog, well its been on the go for a wee while now. I don't really want to hold anyone to account but I find it's a good way to get things off my chest.
I'm not sure that blogging for any other purpose is necessarily productive.
Absolute nonsense, West-world!
I suggest you read this research, which was funded by the ESRC and conducted by Anthony Heath and Jane Roberts at the University of Oxford.
In particular, do you imagine that people with varying levels of attachment to Britain being asked if they "would worry if GB broke up" refers to cataclysmic tectonic movement rather than political separation?!
So Micahel Wills is at least as guilty as Pete Wishart in 'misleading parliament'.
Don't tell him Pike!
Michael Wills is definitely using this research to mislead.
That doesn't excuse Wishart, but Unionists aren't in any position to claim moral highground after some of the disgraceful scaremongering that they have engaged in.
The full results can be obtained here (only made available after I issued a Freedom of Information Request).
I think you may be pursuing a straw man argument there, Toque. Where exactly did Michael Wills say anything about England not being pluralistic in nature? As a constituent country of Britain, it would surely share that attribute - would it not? It seems to me that you may have missed the actual significance of the research.
Thanks for the link toque. I tell you what I found scary, as an Englishman, it was the comments by English nationalists. Evelyn Glennie is purposely excluding Scotland from Britain because she refers to Britain and not GREAT Britain? I couldn't understand that comment, but it got better with Nicole Cook. It purposely mentions she is Welsh, but wouldn't mention if she was English, and so is a slight!!!
I was pleased that not all the contributors were English, and saw no offense. It's typical nationalist finding offense where none was intended. If we see much more of this the mainland nats are in danger of becoming worse than the republicans in Ulster who see offense in everything.
Very sad.
That doesn't excuse Wishart, but Unionists aren't in any position to claim moral highground after some of the disgraceful scaremongering that they have engaged in.
I've said it before and I will say it again, there is no single political party representing Unionism. There arguably is for separatism.
Once more we see the tactic of attempting to make idiotic comments from S.N.P. spokesmen or supporters look less worse by comparison. It's dishonest.
Wills said that British identity is different from English identity because it is quintessentially plural.
But he's being economical with the truth, because his own research proves that English identity is just as plural within the territory that it operates.
It is not as a "constituent member" that England shares that characteristic, but rather that as the dominant member England lends that characteristic to Britain. To quote a Unionist who actually knows what he is talking about, Arthur Aughey:
"The freedoms bequeathed by England to the United Kingdom, guaranteed by law, represented an exceptional method of social integration, ‘the most civilized and the most effective method ever invented by mankind’ (1948: 476; 489-90). This method of social integration translated a specific aspect of the English political tradition - parliamentary sovereignty - into a British one in order to secure the unity of the United Kingdom (Crick 1991). This made the development of a specifically English nationalism not only counter-productive but also irrelevant (Crick 1995). This has been usually interpreted as an expression of English arrogance. The opposite reading can also be made and it is possible to interpret it as an expression of English modesty, for what is often ignored is the attraction of English civilisation as a method of social integration.
The problem for British nationalists, if you don't mind me being frank, is that you are yet to define what sort of union it is that you want. Is it the authoritarian union of Brown, reliant on statecraft to forge a national identity, or should it be an umbrella identity that allows the national identities of its constituent nations to flourish, or; alternatively, to phrase it another way, should it be a union state of nations, or should it be a unitary imperial nation state?
It's the fifth nation dilemma! (the UK being the fifth nation). Nationalism is all about territory and ownership. English and Scottish nationalisms are not in competition with each other because they lay claim to separate territories, and have their own history and narrative. In many ways Scottish and English nationalism can seen to be complementary. The nationalism that has no territory to call its own, no national story that does not borrow from other nations is British nationalism.
If, as British nationalists, or Unionists, if you prefer that word, you set your stall against the more elemental national identities of the United Kingdom, you are onto a hiding.
I am an English nationalist. By which I mean that England is my nation and the English people should be free and sovereign to decide their constitutional future, whether inside or outside the Union (for what it's worth I would prefer inside).
My opposition to the likes of Wills and Brown is because they refuse to recognise an English right, equal to the constitutional sovereignty that the UK Government has granted to the other nations of the UK. I believe that they do this because they are (and yes I realise that Brown is Scottish) Anglo-Brits. They inhabit a world where England is the centre and all else the periphery; where Britain is 'greater England', and; where English interests and British interests are indivisible (see Simon Lee for a discourse on how Brown borrows entirely from an English narrative when describing "Britishness"). They do not allow for legitimate political expressions of Englishness, because they feel that to do so would endanger the Union, because what is left of Britishness if you separate out English identity to the degree that separation has occurred in Scotland? Rather than forge a UK that can accommodate England, they instead choose to ignore and deny England.
Needless to say, it is their conception of Britain that is more of a problem than Britain itself, combined - it has to be said - with a bigoted pathological hatred of any nationalism other than British.
Bernard Crick had the foresight to warn Brown against setting a collision cause with Scottish nationalism:
Over many years I have fought a losing battle to impress on sub editors the use of an upper case for separatist `Nationalism' and lower case for cultural `nationalism', for strong national
consciousness that is not necessarily separatist. Gordon Brown in the 2001 general election attacked fiercely, as hes aid, `nationalists' in the name of the advantages of the Union. I was pompously moved to write to him to suggest that he either gave the SNP its real name or firmly polemicised against `separatist nationalists'. For I humbly pointed out that, to my old English and new Scottish immigrant eyes, nearly all Scots were nationalists, in the sense of having a strong feeling of national identity: the majority were not separatists. I suggested that attacking nationalism as such, lumping separatism and patriotism together, could cause offence as well as confusion and drive some cultural nationalists into separatist politics.
Only recently, I think, have Brown (and also Cameron) begun to understand that message. Unionism cannot beat Scottish nationalism, and nor should it try to. The job of the Union is to accommodate, and the job of Unionists is not to retreat into British nationalism - as Brown has done - but to persuade English and Scottish nationalists as to the benefits of the Union.
The people that inhabit this blog should also take that message on board. Your nationalism, your national identity, is not superior to mine.
Toque,
As an Englishman, and Unionist, I do agree with much of what you say, and especially with the comment about Gordon Brown's retreat into an ill thought out British nationalism. It was clumsy, and made unionists as whole look ridiculous. I also agree with your assertion that the English/Scottish/Welsh/N. Irish people be free to determine whether they want to remain in the union or move ahead as independent nations, and I believe that the majority in all four home nations (five if we count Cornwall, and I have much sympathy for their cry to be recognized as distinct from England) wish to remain united. What I find very irritating is when people find any reason to be offended, and all nationalists, even British nationalists (a term I find somewhat offensive myself when applied carte-blanche to all unionists), seem to have a sizeable element that obviously have nothing better to do than find offense under every rock and stone.
As an English unionist I believe our future is best served alongside our brothers in the other three (four) home nations, but like you I would like to see equal recognition of England (and Cornwall) as a constituent part of the United Kingdom, just as this recognition as been applied to Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland.
United we stand, but divided we fall
I'll be selective, lest this balloon out of all proportion.
"Wills said that British identity is different from English identity because it is quintessentially plural."
Did he? Where? Using what form of words?
"English identity is just as plural within the territory that it operates"
Really? Does English identity encompass Scottishness? Welshness? Irishness? Britishness involves any and all such attributes, and more besides.
"as the dominant member England lends that characteristic to Britain"
I disagree. See above.
"British nationalists, or Unionists, if you prefer that word"
You seem to be incapable of understanding that nationalism is a philosophy which some of us entirely eschew. My kind of unionism (for want of a better word) is essentially anti-nationalistic. It's pluralistic not just in terms of ethnicity, religion and the rest, but actually in terms of national identity. It's a nationality of nationalities, an intertwining of mutually distinct yet closely interrelated and mutually-supporting national identities.
"The job of the Union is to accommodate, and the job of Unionists is not to retreat into British nationalism - as Brown has done - but to persuade English and Scottish nationalists as to the benefits of the Union."
I'm not sure that you're correctly representing Brown's position, but I would broadly agree with the rest of that sentiment.
"your national identity, is not superior to mine"
"Superior" isn't a word I would use. I can only relate my own experience: I'm Scottish, British and Irish, in no particular order. My paternal grandparents were English, and I remember them with sufficient fondness to realise that they form part of my sense of identity. There's a richness in this multiplicity, and probably a lack of richness in the absence of a Welsh component! That's not to demean anyone else's more straightforward or communicable sense of identity, but neither can I deny my own.
My long reply was of course to Toque.
Owling Mad:
You raise an interesting point about Cornwall, which if I may I'll marry with Toque's helpful observation in respect of how the Union should accommodate the various different national identities.
Such nationalities are self-defining, in the eye of the beholder, and if a minority (or even a majority) of people see Cornwall as a nation and Cornish as a nationality, that should of course be respected.
Which of course leads us to an even deeper layered approach to nationality than exists within what most people currently think of as the home nations: the prospect of Cornwall, within England, within Britain - all free to enjoy and allow us to enjoy their distinctive elements, within a framework of mutual respect one for another.
I like that. As I said, "anti-nationalism".
I'm glad to see that English sentiment is now starting on the long road that we in Scotland started down many, many years ago.
Hopefully soon we will all have our own parliaments and be able to work together where appropriate and apart when beneficial.
The problem for us in Scotland is quite simple, Subservience or Independence?
Politicians like Brown make the possibility of a federal union seem far away, the result will always be the strengthening of separist viewpoints and agenda.
OwlingMad,
I'm a unionist AND an English nationalist, because I believe that sovereignty should lie with the nations, not with the UK. I think there's merit in our union and although it requires radical reform I see no reason to chuck the baby out with the bath water, we must be pragmatic. Besides which there's no such thing as independence in an interdependent world.
Scottish Unionist,
you aren't comparing like with like, i think you are confusing different forms of nationalism, and you also appear to see little distinction between nationalism and separatism.
Does English identity encompass Scottishness? Welshness? Irishness? Britishness involves any and all such attributes, and more besides.
English identity isn't the same as "Englishness". And Britishness is a neologism, because its never really existed. If there is an attribute to Britishness I would say it's stoicism in the face of constitutional ruination.
Because England is a stateless nation, it is, I concede, difficult for some people to feel a sense of belonging to England, particularly those who have traditionally defined themselves in opposition to England (the Scots, Welsh and Irish). Nevertheless, a higher %age of the denizens of England feel a greater sense of belonging to England, than denizens of Britain feel a sense of belonging to Britain - and that's with the 400,000 Scots resident in England, and the countless Welsh and Irish, who you suggest cannot be encompassed by English identity.
Britishness is rather faceless, so it's easier to adopt as an identity. It is essentially a political identity, with little cultural to call its own. When one thinks of cultural icons (Shakespeare, Turner, Dickens, Burns, Dylan Thomas) one tends to think English, Scottish and Welsh. Whereas politicians or monarchy (Churchill, the Queen) people tend to think British.
There's nothing to stop England and Scotland from becoming more political, civic, identities and supplanting Britain - an English passport would certainly confer a sense of belonging. That's the horror scenario for people like Brown because he thinks it would leave Britishness as an empty shell. But that's only because he thinks of Britain as a cultural entity, using an English (Anglo-British) narrative to sustain that belief, when he should view Britain as an exercise in cooperation between a family of nations.
I would say that there is still a fuzziness in England between "English" and "British". There are a great many people who still don't distinguish between the two or care to give it much thought, but these Anglo-Brits are a declining demographic. Devolution has left only the illusion of a unitary state, and the increase in self-identification as English will eventually demand political voice.
Many Scots, Welsh and Irish are more English than they think. In the words of Billy Bragg they are "English/Half-English". When they joined the Union the Scots, Welsh and Irish became part of an Anglo-British state. Whether they liked it or not they became part of a greater England (the Scottish Commissioners were right to demand federation in 1706). This mindset has rapidly declined in Scotland, Wales and (most of) Ireland, none of them content to be governed as peripheries to the English centre. In England the same mindset is also receding, England is contracting. Scotland and Wales, previously 'greater England' are no more, they have their own governments.
I hope that it's not your contention that Scots, Welsh and Irish cannot feel a sense of belonging to England, or develop a feeling of English identity over time. If it is then you rather undermines your own argument.
Our British identity is different from our English identity or Scottish identity or our Bengali or Cornish identities because it is quintessentially plural. And therefore inherently inclusive.
If British identity was inherently inclusive then we wouldn't have the problem of separatism and home-grown suicide bombers. Face it, Wills is talking crap.
The poll itself is also crap because a "sense of belonging" is not the same as identity. My wife is an immigrant and she has a sense of belonging to England.
You seem to be incapable of understanding that nationalism is a philosophy which some of us entirely eschew.
So what's your attachment to Britain; why the national flags at the top of the page? Nationalism is a form of political order. Democracy works within defined boundaries, and works best when those boundaries describe national boundaries or smaller units of common identity like parish or city. My nationalism comes from my belief that England is a nation, and that the people of England should be sovereign. I want English government and a return of English democracy. That's the philosophy. There's not much there to eschew.
I have no objection to sovereignty lying with Holyrood in Scotland, and at Westminster in England, with the two national parliaments ceding power to a Union parliament in...Let's say Liverpool since it is equidistant between the four national capitals. In my book that's preferable to power devolved.
Toque, the last time i looked at census data, 890,000 Scots were living in England, around 3% of the population.
"Toque, the last time i looked at census data, 890,000 Scots were living in England, around 3% of the population."
I'll take your word for that, my figure was plucked from memory.
I lived in Edinburgh for five years, and there are so many English there (particularly students) that Glaswegians jokingly refer to it as Englandburgh.
Toque the English make up around 17% of Edinburgh's population, to many lol..
I did make (2) comments, one to your good self and one to SU but i must have put in the wrong login details for one of them so i will try again..
SU you posted this poll.
Q: How proud are you of being British, or do you not see yourself as British at all?
• Very proud 23.8%
• Somewhat proud 40.9%
• Not very proud 13.2%
• Not at all proud 4.8%
• Not British 16.3%
• Don't know 0.9%
This sort off poll is highly hypothetical and conjectural.As someone who is Scottish and proud of it i also acknowledge that Britain has a lot to be proud of and much of that proudness comes from the Scots but am i proud that Britain took part in an illegal war ? am i proud of Chris Hoys achievements for team GB at the Olympics ? or am i proud that Man U a British team won the European cup ? or am i proud that Britain back China over Tibet ? oh dear its all a bit confusing ??
As you well know i am a Scottish nationalist and want full independence for Scotland but even i would not go as far as to 100% denounce my Britishness while Scotland is still part of Britain, because i am proud Britain's number 1 tennis player is a Scot and more over my Scottish side of the family have gone to war (Grandfather) for Britain during the second world war and i am immensely proud of him.
For me the best way to gage peoples sense of national identity is to ask the simple questions , Are you more Scottish than British ? or do you see yourself as Scottish first then British ? ,on both accounts it would be around the 80% mark for Scottish. Its a far less hypothetical way of gaging the strength of Britishness.
Spookums
"For me the best way to gage peoples sense of national identity is to ask the simple questions , Are you more Scottish than British ? or do you see yourself as Scottish first then British ?"
How is this any less hypothetical?
Still perfectly possible to combine "I am more Scottish than British" with "I do not want independence".
I think the polling that compares national identity is all fairly meaningless.
If the English say that they feel more British than do the Scots, that doesn't necessarily have any political significance.
The Scots have separated out their national and state identities - Scotland is their nation, the UK is their state. The English, to a large extent, have never needed to do this, having viewed Britan/UK as a English state - the English have traditionally conflated their national and state/civic identity, conflated their English and British identity. This doesn't make the English less English than the Scots are Scottish, it just means that Britishness is part of being English.
The only questions that really matter for me are political ones: Do you want and English Parliament; do you want an end to the Barnett Formula; do you want regional assemblies? These are questions that they will not put to England because they know what the answer will be and they don't like it.
If, like Gordon Brown, you believe that Britain is more than just a State, if you believe it is more than the sum of its parts and has its own British culture, common values and shared history, then it is possible to be proud of Britain even if Scotland and England are independent nations.
There is something more substantial to Britain than just the political union that binds us. Hence Salmond's "Social Union".
sm753
My question is like a yes and no question, its simple and its not hypothetical. SU,s poll does not give an option on being Scottish but rather a luckwarm question on how proud are you at being British. I have read polls which say the Asian population feel more British than the white population, thats in England btw.!!
Most SNP supporters would probs say they feel slightly proud to be British on that sort of poll SU posted but say they are more Scottish than British. Its a nothing poll and means nowt.
"Still perfectly possible to combine "I am more Scottish than British" with "I do not want independence"."
Is that a 3rd or 4th pref choice question on the SNP,s referemdum lol ?
"I have read polls which say the Asian population feel more British than the white population, thats in England btw.!!"
This is true. And I think it's a demonstration of the different types of nationalism / national identity. English people connect to England on an ethno-cultural level, and to Britain on a political level.
Asiins are informed by the British government that they are "British-Asians", not "Anglo-Asians", and there is no political expression of English identity and very little civic Englishness to engage asian immigrants. So they engage with Britishness to the detriment of an inclusive English identity. All the while the white population feels more and more English, and less British, opening up an identity gap between whites (who are English) and visible minorities (who are British). The British government is playing a dangerous game by ignoring the English Question.
Let's face, British identity is about as controversial amongst Scots as European identity.
The Nats are desperately clutching at straws, trying to persuade themselves that a largely indifferent Scottish populace shares their core separatist ideology. You hit the nail on the head, SU, with your comment that only about 3% describe themselves as exclusively scottish.