What does it mean to be British?

Rory Hamilton

***Long Read Ahead: as this is the last newsletter before the new year, here’s a little something to mull on over the coming festive weeks. Enjoy!***

I have recently been going back through the Desert Island Discs Archives on my lunch time walks, and recently listened to the late sociologist Stuart Hall’s episode. He made comparisons between the relationship of Black Britons to their national identity, as being Black and British, with the relationship that Scots had between being Scottish and British. It was an interesting comparison, and one that got me thinking about Scotland’s relationship with the UK and the Empire. 

Many years ago, Norman Tebbit famously utilised the “cricket question” to construct Tory Party policy on who counted as British or not - who do you support at the cricket? Of course, the question was aimed to exclude a large minority of the population who were first or second generation Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans and Indians, with whom cricket is hugely popular - as a cultural export during the Empire years of course!

However it also excludes probably most Scots. While we are not a cricketing nation, we do have a national cricket team, unlike the poor Welsh who are incorporated into the English Cricket Board - yet another marker of Wales’ internal colony status - a hangover of its position as a mere principality.

I digress - regardless of who you support in the cricket, the question is a misnomer in and of itself. There was a time when the British Empire (of which Scotland played an active role in as coloniser), stretched one third of the globe. The effects are still felt today and Prime Ministers past and present resist the reparations many feel they are due. The legacy we have left behind in countries the world over extends beyond cricket, to go as far as citizenship.

Immigration is a highly-fraught issue, particularly as the far right make gains across the UK, and race riots targeted the hotels housing asylum seekers. People of colour, descendant from the Windrush generation or from former colonies in Africa and Asia too, are made the scapegoats of many problems.

When we consider that the post-war Windrush generation came to Britain at the request of the British government to help rebuild the country with guaranteed citizenship but years later the lack of paperwork saw Theresa May and Boris Johnson’s governments attempt to round them up and “send them on home”, and that white Britons born outside the UK often maintain a British passport (despite having Harare, Calcutta, or Hong Kong under Place of Birth), the double standards for people of colour in this country have always been clear. As Stuart Hall said, "The problem of identity for black Britons is bound up with the history of colonialism...and the long history of being 'othered' in the national imagination."

But indulge me for a second, as I make an appeal in terms that conservatives might at least be able to appreciate if not agree with - communications is my role after all. If the Empire remains a source of pride for you, I urge you to consider why. Arguments often made against what some have called the doing down of Britain’s international legacy point to Britain bringing industry to non-industrial countries, which in turn, some argue, brought the advance of democracy (there are many articles and books which decolonise these understandings). Thus, Britain’s exporting of capitalism and democracy (which we might extend to Iraq and Afghanistan as well) is a source of pride for many on the Right and shows what a proud nation we are to defend the values of freedom around the world against uncivilised regimes, including communism and nationalisms.

If all these qualities which Britain exported is a source of pride for you, then it should also be a source of pride for you to confer those rights upon people whom we have a historical responsibility to. If we brought them democracy, capitalism and all the rights that go with them, then we are duty-bound to look after them and their descendants - we should take pride in their being a part of the British nation, as they once were part of the British empire.

Not only this, think of the enormous industrial growth and GDP that these colonies and their peoples produced for us, and the position in the world we have as a result. Do we not owe it to them in some regard to offer them shelter and political freedom on ‘these hallowed shores’ years later if and when many people from former colonies come to live in Britain?

Extend this further, if Britain has an international role to play in the defending and extending of capitalism and democracy around the world (not my personal view), against tyrannical and oppressive dictatorships, then do we not also have a responsibility to the people who are made refugees as a result of our military campaigns to liberate them - take shelter here while we carry out bombing campaigns that will one day make it safe in [Syria / Libya / Iraq / Afghanistan] (insert country here).

When I tell you it is challenging trying to put yourself in the shoes of conservatives and think about how they might articulate their views… I really hated writing those paragraphs - there is much I disagree with, but isn’t it incumbent upon us to try to win the argument on all fronts?

Now-Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, made the case for a ‘progressive realism’ whilst on the opposition benches. In a buzzword-filled Guardian article, Lammy argued that “partnerships with the so-called global south work better than lectures and hypocrisy.” And yet, in the five months he has been in office, the UK Government has not only lectured those criticising the Israeli government, but made a case study for themselves in their rank hypocrisy over arms sales to the same government who they say should enforce an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the confirmation that Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant would be arrested on entry to Britain as demanded by the International Criminal Court arrest warrants hanging over them.

The legacy of imperialism hangs over us today in the form of modern foreign policy interventions (or lack thereof), and today being Black and British, or Asian and British, comes bound up with the repercussions of that foreign policy.

So what does it mean to be Scottish and British?

When Stuart Hall made the comparison between being Black and British and being Scottish and British, he did not meant to draw comparison terms of Scotland experiencing colonialism - Scottish has never been a colony, and I’ll vigorously debate anyone who suggests as such. I think there are some interesting practices utilised in the Highland Clearances which might merit comparison, but read the likes of Neil Davidson and James Hunter and you will come to the much more appropriate conclusion that the pursuit of rent and profit - the motives of capital - played a much more exploitative role than anything of the British state, indeed many Scots were part and party to that exploitation (many still are if we consider our patterns of land ownership).

I do consider myself British though - like it or not, all Scots are born on the island of Britain - indeed, Robin in our team discussion staunchly stood by British sarcasm, cups of tea and our plug sockets. Scottish first, but still British - these are in many ways contradictory identities and yet sit within each other, even if with a little discomfort. As Stuart Hall said of blackness and Britishness:

"The 'Black experience' in Britain has always been about a 'double consciousness': it has been about being both 'Black' and 'British'—two identities that often contradict and conflict with each other."

Blairite understandings of ‘multiculturalism’ are overtly racially coded, although multiculturalism doesn’t necessarily have to be defined this way. I am sick of seeing the British flag EVERYWHERE - yes, ok I get it! If anything the presence of it makes me more disillusioned with the British state, just as much as the actions of any Westminster government. Flags wont win the argument - sticking faux patriotism over identity problems doesn’t fix the underlying issues which make people disillusioned with the idea of being British.

Defending values of collectivity (the NHS, trade unions, public broadcasting, redistribution, cooperativism) can though, even if that alone wont solve many of our identity problems. These are the values embodied by the asks of the Windrush generation - solving problems together. Identity building is a shared project - people need to buy into it - and symbolism only gets you so far.

For me then, being British (in any capacity, Black, White, Scottish, English, Welsh …) has to be about cooperativism, about the collective, not the individual.

Robin’s ask for contributions this week was to keep them positive as each year seems to drone on in misery worse than the last. I fear I may have fallen back to type in bemoaning some of the problems which we face in the UK today. For me though, when I look ahead to 2025, I see more individualism and more discontent as a result of exploitation. So this partly-introspective piece was really about me asking for more compassion and more collectivism in the year that comes.

So many people are facing challenging conditions and we will never realise our ability to change this on our own - we need to revert to good old British values of pulling together when times are tough to help each other out. Communities are already struggling to do this, but it is the role of the government to do this too - in the echoes of Thatcherism, government has abdicated its responsibility.

Collectivism is essential to a coherent identity, it is about the creation of a sense of belonging. I think the problem many face right now is that they lack that sense of belonging. It’s why independence offers a fresh start, a way to build a new sense of belonging. It’s why many young men are turning to the far right, because they don’t see themselves in today’s individualist Britain and require a sense of belonging to fill their identity.

To end on a hopeful note, Stuart Hall remarks,

"We are caught between the force of the past, which is always being reworked, and the potential for transformation, which lies in the cultural politics of the present."

We must embrace the potential for transformation and create spaces of belonging. Let 2025 be the year we make inroads in rebuilding that belonging, a sense of place, and a sense of pride.