GREAT BRITAIN – A DISINTEGRATING KINGDOM?

Friends of Ely Cathedral AGM. September 27^th 2008

  

I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the AGM of the Friends of Ely Cathedral. The title I have given this address is: Great Britain- a Disintegrating Kingdom? 

In March 1946,  Deitrich Bonhoeffer, 39 years of age and one of the most outstanding theologians of the 20^th century, awaiting execution for conspiracy to kill Adolph Hitler, penned a poem entitled ‘Who Am I?’ It is a troubled poem. He asks: 

“Who am I? This or the other?

Am I one person today and tomorrow another?

Am I both at once? A hypocrite before others,

And before myself a contemptibly woebegone weakling?

Or is something within me still like a beaten army,

Fleeing in disorder from victory already achieved?

Who am I? They mock me, these lonely questions of mine.

Whoever I am, Thou knowest, O God, I am thine!” 

There are few things more upsetting than the disintegration of a personality. Some here may have had the experience of a family member suffering from dementia and we see their sad decline into confusion and loss of personhood. There is nothing to suggest that this was Bonhoeffer’s experience. Facing certain death and asking fundamental questions about himself, he found his identity in his relationship with his God. Happy is the person who can face the most awful experiences of life with such calm equanimity. 

But what about a nation suddenly facing a similar lack of confidence in itself – questioning its identity as a people, wondering if there is anything distinctive at all in its being, and losing hope in its collective being. 

Such seems to be the case of Great Britain. In recent years a steady stream of books, articles and TV programmes have raised questions to do with Britishness. The reasons for this are manifold and are usually attributed to a variety of causes that include devolution, multiculturalism, 9/11 and growing ethnic populations.  In 1999 Prof Norman Davies concluded his huge book , The Isles: A History,  with the words ‘the break-up of the UK is imminent’.[1]  . Recent surveys seem to bear this out, showing that the proportion of people who consider themselves British have fallen from 52% in 1997 to 44% in 2007.[2]   According to Andrew Marr the impact of devolution introduced by New Labour in 1999  strengthened the regions at expense of the national with only 18% of Scots identifying with Britain;27% of the Welsh doing the same and only the English with a more substantial number at  43%.[3] According to Paul Kingsnorth of The Guardian, ‘Britain is dying’ and devolution is the main cause.with the English waking up belatedly to the fact that unlike the Scots, Welsh and Northern Island, the settlement has left the English with few constitutional rights. Kingsnorth states:

“The English, meanwhile, have the worst of both worlds. Instead of our own elected parliament or assembly, we have unaccountable "regional assemblies" - eight of them, which make major decisions on housing, spatial planning and transport, among other things, with no recourse to the people they claim to represent. Meanwhile, at Westminster, Scottish and Welsh MPs can make decisions about the future of England for which they will never have to answer to their constituents”.

The result, according to Kingsnorth, is that England is the only nation without any form of democratic devolution, leading to ill-feeling and to an increasing preference for placing English before British.

But before a verdict can be delivered on the demise of  Britishness, we need to go back to the beginning. Where did the concept arise? What were the forces that led to the formation of the United Kingdom and to what extent are they relevant for today?

Most people are unaware that Great Britain is a fairly recent concept. It goes back a mere 300 years to the 1707 Act of Union  when Scotland joined England and Wales. The Westminster Parliament declared ‘there would be one united kingdom by the name of Great Britain’. There had been, of course, an earlier Act of 1536 which made Wales and England one. Now the three kingdoms would be united under one Protestant ruler, one legislature and one system of free trade, which Daniel Defoe described as a union of policy, not a union of affection. Indeed, it has to be admitted that ‘affection’ could hardly be used to describe Anglo-Scottish relations. War, rather than peace, had been the state of play for many years and attitudes towards the Act of Union, both north and south of the border ranged from suspicion to paranoia. Linda Colley in her magnificent book Britons described Great Britain at the beginning of the 18^th Century to be rather like the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, ‘both three in one, and altogether something of a mystery’[4]  However mysterious the Union was to many Scots and English, it was not before long that Scots merchants found that the larger market now open to them was the gateway to national prosperity and, of course, it also meant that the smaller yet innovative market of Scotland was now accessible to the English. Indeed, it was not long before shrill English complaints began to be heard about the Scots taking over. By 1750 the Scottish economy was growing faster than England’s by a third and was being increasingly seen in the prosperity of Scottish cities and towns.  Although Scots flocked to the south because of England’s larger markets and opportunities, they were given a great impetus through better education. England had few scholars to match David Hume in philosophy, Adam Smith in economics, John Millar in social theory, Joseph Black in science. Whereas in the century following 1750 Oxford and Cambridge produced only 500 medical doctors, Scotland educated 10,000. 

However, commercial profit was not the major reason for the Union. It is often forgotten in our more secular days that the primary bond of all three kingdoms was the Protestant religious settlement that gave it its primary identity over against Catholic Europe, especially France. France was to be feared as a larger, more populated country than the UK with a more powerful army. But the reason why it was feared was because it represented what many saw as the repressive religion of Catholicism. Although Scotland had significant pockets of Catholic sympathisers, usually from the gentry and - interestingly from an Anglican point of view - the Episcopal Church of Scotland, the vast majority of Scots were enthusiastic supporters of the Reformation.  As Linda Colley makes clear, it was Protestantism that defined the character of Great Britain. From the Act of Union in 1707 to the battle of Waterloo Britain was involved in successive dangerous wars with Catholic France. It was this shared religious allegiance that permitted a sense of British national identity to emerge.  To be sure, it was an identity that owed at times more to sentiment and imagination than to reality. Britain was seen as specially chosen of God and, as elect, was mandated to keep its protestant faith pure and unsullied by any truck with Catholicism. This was expressed in its self understanding as well as by law.  Looking back objectively we may see today how selective imagination played a powerful part in idealising the role of Great Britain.  The Protestant Almanack for the year 1700 places the most significant historical moments as, the creation of the world, the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the reception of the gospel in England, Martin Luther’s thesis of 1517, the first deliverance of England from Popery under King Edward VI, Second Deliverance from Popery under Queen Elizabeth, the horrid design of the Gun Powder plot and the third deliverance from Popery under Queen Mary. This selective reading of history has as much to do with fear as well as imagination. Ernest Renan wrote: ‘Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation’.[5]  

The legal side of an imagined protestant polity that saw itself as elect, standing in opposition to a threatening and powerful catholic European led to British Catholics excluded from state office and from the electorate until 1829. For most of the period from 1707 to 1829 Catholics in Britain faced discrimination in education, property rights and freedom to worship. They were treated as potential traitors; indeed, as ‘un-British’.    

If Protestantism defined the identity of Great Britain and if the growing alliance of the kingdoms secured the profitability of the UK through commerce, the inner spirit of Britain was formed by what was to be called ‘parliamentary democracy’. Of course, the democratisation of Parliament took a long time coming. Although Britain was well on its way to developing a constitutional monarchy by the early 18^th century, it was not until 1867 that working class men could vote. It took Suffragettes’s courage as well as others to secure suffrage for women in 1928 . Nonetheless, central to British identity has been elements of representation, fairness, freedom and equality before God. Unlike France which went overnight from being absolute monarchy with feudal privileges to a Republicanism repudiating aristocracy and the power of the Church, Britain was able to remain one nation in spite of many similar challenges to those that France experienced.  James Thomson’s ‘Rule Britannia’, first sung in 1740 to commemorate the Accession of George 1^st ,helped to foster a British identity with its affirmation of freedom as well as confidence in battle: 

When Britain first at heaven’s command,

Arose from out the azure main,

This was the charter of the land,

And guardian angels sung this strain:

Rule Britannia, rule the waves,

Britons never will be slaves’.

This verse in invariably mis-read as ‘Britannia rules the waves’ which changes the meaning entirely. As misinterpreted it is embarrassing by its arrogance and, these days, by its evident falsehood. We no longer rule the waves. However, the verb in the singular clearly sets forth the verse as a hope. Britannia was well on its way to ruling the waves in 1740, but it was not until much later that Britain was uncontested on the seas. Rather than extolling unbridled chauvinism, it is a prayer for victory so that Britons may be free, possibly reflecting national pride that the British had more freedoms that those of other nations. 

It is now from these reflections we must fast forward to today and our contemporary debate about British Identity.  Let me proceed by way of asking some related questions:

Does it matter if we consign Britain to the detritus of history, concluding that it has served its useful purpose?

Indeed, some would argue, we should ditch it because it no longer has any relevance left. Once you have affirmed your identity as English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, extra identities are unnecessary. I find this argument unconvincing. We are all used to multiple identities. I could say for myself, having been born in London, that I will always remain in some part a Londoner, an Englishmen, a Briton and a European. My wife, with Scottish blood flowing through her veins, will proudly affirm her Scottish identity which always becomes more visible when we go north of the border on holiday, as we did this summer, or when Scotland is playing England at any sport. She too, I am confident, would not see British and Scottish identities as either meaningless or in competition. Linda Colley shows in her book that Great Britain in 1707 was not at all a trinity of three self contained and self-conscious nations but more like a patchwork in which all three were cut through by strong regional attachments with porous boundaries. So it is today.  This would not be affected if devolution proposals were to given England greater independence. It is possibly the case that anger and frustration at the present state of devolution has led some, but certainly not the majority, to prefer their English identity over British. What, however, would be the consequences if Scotland were to revert to a pre-1707 situation in which complete independence were the prize? We should all be the poorer, perhaps in more ways that we realise- culturally, economically, historically and socially.

What about peoples of other ethnic backgrounds who now live among us in increasing numbers? To a real degree we are a ‘mongrel’ people. Our island home has been invaded countlessly over the centuries- we think of Jutes, Picts, Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and many others. Very rarely have we actually welcomed them but they have settled down and integrated with us, usually successfully.  Today, throughout the world peoples are on the move in great numbers. In the United States, official immigration and illegal migrants are causing great concern and worrying many in that hospitable country. In Europe, waves of new citizens are arriving from third world countries and placing great strain on public services. Many of these newcomers settle down successfully. Britain is a very popular destination for migrants. Trevor Phillips, Chairman of CRE,  remarking on the presence of new peoples among us, notes that there are now 42 communities of more than 10,000 people of foreign heritage in London alone.[6] This is one example of migration in the story of huge numbers now settled in Britain.

The issue, however, is not simply about numbers- it is about identity also. It is natural that newcomers who join us will wish to express aspects of their identity-heritage, ethnicity, faith that make them different from their neighbours.  This usually creates no problem whatsoever. What does create resentment and social disturbances are people who seem unable to make the transition from ‘guest’ to ‘citizen’. A ‘guest’ is a transitory dweller who does not intend to stay among us; a citizen is one who puts down roots, pays taxes, votes, and shops with the rest of us. What then are the boundaries that give identity its richness?  We might wish to separate cultural and religious identities from issues to do with human rights.  Most will agree that customs to do with dress, food laws such as Halal meat, and daily prayers are inoffensive matters that do no harm as long as they are not imposed others. Indeed, they may enrich diverse communities. Of greater important are inalienable values that make us equal in the sight of the law. No newcomer has the right to challenge those laws that have been hammered out over many centuries; laws such as equality of women with men; of equality in marriage ; the protection of children; the right to be educated, etc. We do not insist on assimilation but there has to be integration. When culture is used to defend things that are abhorrent to our values, such as forced marriages, honour killings, female genital mutilation or child abuse – then these illegalities must be challenged as injustices, as indeed they are.

  As Prof Todd Gitlin writes: “A Briton has right to oppose or support British policy in Iraq and may campaign to that effect, write, agitate and stand for election towards the chosen end. It is also  elementary that he does not have the right to stone adulterers to death or blow up the underground or an aircraft”.[7]

On the whole British experience has been very good in this regard.  The Jews are most probably the oldest recognisable group among us and their contribution to the nation has been outstanding and exemplary. We have been enriched, likewise, by Hindus, Sikhs, Chinese and many others.

However, there is much concern that some Muslim newcomers do not show the same interest in integrating with the wider population and their instinct to remain separate threatens community life. When ghettos develop, it is invariably the inhabitants of the ghetto who end up as the losers. 

What then about the vexed and difficult question of religious identity? It is all too common these days to dismiss this as of no consequence; that Protestantism no longer matters, along with its mirror image, Catholicism. At first sight, this seems to be true. When religion gets the headlines, it is usually to do with Islam and not always painted in positive colours.  Andrew Marr comments: ‘the idea that the Christian religion can be a unifying force for Britain in the future looks forlorn”[8] However, this dismissive remark is made without any evidence and with the briefest of consideration. It flies in the face of facts and may be put more positively. The Union Jack, for a start, must make the objector pause. Three overlapping flags- three crosses that express our allegiance to the Christian faith; the flags of St.George, St.Andrew and St.David.

Ian Bradley in his important book Believing in Britain,[9] challenges those who dismiss religion as an identifying factor. He rightly refers to the 2001 census where 72 per cent of the population described themselves as Christians with 15% stating no faith, 8% ignoring the question and 5% identifying themselves as adhering to non-Christian religions. He comments  "These figures suggest that we need to be careful about talking of Britain as a multi-faith society. A very small minority belong to non-Christian faiths and a rather smaller minority claim to have no faith at all, but the great majority of the British population regard themselves as Christian, a fact confirmed by other poll findings, which consistently show around 70 percent saying that they believe in the central tenets of Christian religion."[10]

The hard question, it has to be said, is what is the relevance of this, if the vast majority of those who claim to be Christian do not value it enough to attend church?  However, we should not dismiss this as of no consequence. I have only to think of my working class parents who only started going to church in their 50’s. They would have been astonished by the inference that church going is the only measurement of being Christian. For them, there was always a residual commitment to the Christian faith in terms of their respect for the Christian church and the fact that they said their prayers in their own way. 

The  2001 Census, to which I have referred, revealed that 42 per cent of Scots still describe themselves as 'Church of Scotland’, 40 per cent of English describe themselves as 'Church of England’, despite fewer than five per cent attending its services. Bradley argues that the continuing relatively high level of identification with the two established national churches suggests that these institutions may still play a significant part in defining national identity and raises interesting questions about the actual and potential role of established churches in the changing construction of Britishness.[11].

Indeed, the issue of establishment is an interesting one. My eleven years as Archbishop of Canterbury placed me in a very close position to Monarchy and Government. At no point did I ever feel isolated from major matters of policy and the Government was always anxious to consult. In those rare moments when I felt the Churches voice was necessary there was always an open door.  When it came to expressing the deepest moments of the nation’s grief or celebration there was no uncertainty regarding the place where this should be focused – of course, one of our national Cathedrals. Disestablishment, should it ever come, will change all that and, in my view, would lead to a deeper secularism resulting in the disenfranchisement of religious leaders and in the marginalisation of any faith voice – let alone Christian- in the public sphere. 

However, I need to express some astonishment, that our Prime Minister who has spoken at such great length and with such power regarding the importance of British identity, should have been so casual regarding the Royal Prerogative to choose diocese bishops. Shortly after becoming Prime Minister last year Gordon Brown waived his right to choose bishops; the right by which two names are presented to him by the Crown Appointments Commission, and he, representing the Monarch, is able to choose either name or request others to be submitted to him. 

It is strange that neither the House of Bishops nor Synod saw that, at a stroke, a step had been taken by this son of the Kirk to loosen the ties of Establishment. My experience as Archbishop showed that Prime Ministers did take a healthy interest in the appointment of bishops; indeed, there were two Prime Ministers’ interventions during me time that indicated the value of the Church-State relationship. Even if there is interest on the part of the Prime Minister, his participation in the process is now nil. 

Am I being over cynical in perceiving this as an example of New Labour’s predilection for entering into issues of constitutional reform without any joined-up thinking? Slashing the hereditary peerage was clearly only one step, but the Government has been unable during a decade in power to come up with any formula for the House of Lords beyond that one-act of constitutional surgery. Furthermore, other constitutional reforms have been at best piecemeal. The Privy Council has been all but abolished, as had the office of Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, one of the most ancient offices in the land. The danger of this scattergun approach to constitutional reform lies in the area of unintended consequences. Some, if not most, of these acts have been undertaken by Prime Ministerial ‘fiat’ rather than a wide ranging public debate. This harms the constitutional balance which has taken centuries to develop. It undermines respect for the institutions themselves on which Britishness is founded. For example, the Prime Minister’s decision to give up his role in the Royal prerogative to make Crown appointments in respect of diocesan bishops raises some important questions. Was the Archbishop of Canterbury’s opinion and advice sought? Was the Prime Minister aware that the prerogative was not his in the first place, it was the Queen’s. Did the decision get her consent? Possibly we shall never know the answer to these questions. However well intended the Prime Minister’s decision – and I am sure it was- to take such a step with the minimum of consultation both with the Crown and the Church, results in the unbalancing of constitutional rights and duties.  

Great Britain. Benedict Anderson’s definition of a nation as ‘ an imagined political community’  is as close one can get to definition of the United Kingdom.[12]  The history of this colourful island owes as much to myth as it does to the history of conflict both secular and religious. Britain has been forged into Great Britain not merely by its home to so many tribes and peoples, as much as its self- conscious understanding as chosen by God and as the place where Christian values are cherished and valued. Regrettably that self understanding is under attack and in danger of erosion from lack of historical appreciation as well as deliberate intentions on the part of some to blur the distinctiveness of Britain. 

Ultimately all attempts to capture the genius of Great Britain fail. We may find it in our democratic values, but these are shared by many other nations. To find one particularly and distinctive national characteristic is impossible. But deep down we know what it is about and why most of us want to hold on to it. Perhaps sport is one special place where Britishness is found and celebrated. At Beijing where our national team did so well; we cheered as Scotsman Chris Hoy won three gold medal; as English woman Rebecca Addlington collected two gold medals and as Nicole Cooke, from Wales, claimed Britain’s first gold.  At Beijing sportspeople from the three kingdom’s competed together for Great Britain.   Proud though I am sure they were of their identity as English, Scots and Welsh, they were united in striving for Britain. In my view, the breakdown of the UK into its constituent parts would leave each part the poorer and more impoverished ( not only in sport, but also culturally and politically as well), with much less of a voice in the wider world. 

It may well be the case that a Great Britain 2008 , unlike an individual such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Great Britain in 1707, is unable to find its identity in its relationship with God.  So much the pity, when it was so strongly the glue that held us together. If a religious identity no longer defines us, there are plenty of other bonds of affection on which we can build. If there is no will to find them, the three kingdoms will most certainly drift apart. Should this happen, we shall all be the losers.

 

© George Carey

 

---