Britology Watch: Deconstructing \’British Values\’

1 April 2011

The ‘nations and regions’ model of the UK enshrines division and inequality

Some of us hoped that Gordon Brown’s demise would have seen his beloved ‘nations and regions’ travesty of the UK put to bed: the idea that Britain / the UK is comprised of (devolved) nations and (British) regions, with no place for an English nation. But it seems this idea is too deeply embedded in the British-establishment consciousness to fade away along with its biggest fan.

One of the reasons why this concept won’t simply disappear relates to one of the ways in which it in fact perpetuates a divided and unequal vision of the UK. There are two main aspects to this:

  1. The nations and regions idea re-works the old Anglo-British conflation of England with Britain / the UK. The language and the thinking have changed significantly, but the underlying structure is the same. Previously, because the identities of England and Great Britain were so profoundly fused in the mind of the establishment, and of many ordinary English people, it used to seem perfectly normal and acceptable in England to say ‘England’ when you really meant Britain, and vice-versa. Now, that’s reversed: the politically correct thing is to say ‘the UK’, ‘Britain’ or ‘the country’ irrespective of whether you do actually mean the UK, Great Britain or England. But there’s still fundamentally the same conflation of England with the UK, except now you can’t overtly express it. Hence, the total taboo on saying ‘England’.
  2. Even within the logic of the nations and region concept, there is an implied inequality and demarcation between the regions and nations, which is perhaps even more divisive than the previous careless projection of Englishness beyond England’s borders. That is, what is effectively England – historically and territorially – is viewed as more ‘properly’ British and as the ‘core’ of Britain; whereas the ‘nations’ are by definition somewhat other than Britain and not viewed as an integral part of it. In other words, instead of four equal but distinct ‘home nations’ joined together in a shared Britain and Britishness (seen as both a political union, and common cultural and national heritage), only England is truly Britain (except, of course, you can’t call England ‘England’ any more, but only ‘Britain’). You end up with a nation of Britain whose heartland is effectively England but is divided up into regions surrounded by other merely affiliated, and not integrally British, nations.

So the ‘nations and regions’ model of Britain / the UK is deeply divisive, and in fact fosters and enshrines a Dis-United Kingdom: it denies the distinct identity of England while also denying full British status to the non-English nations. Ultimately, it’s designed to prevent the emergence of a different, federal model for the UK in which four nations (or five if you include Cornwall) can be joined together in an equal political union without suppressing either their distinct national identities or their shared Britishness.



  1. “So the ‘nations and regions’ model of Britain / the UK is deeply divisive, and in fact fosters and enshrines a Dis-United Kingdom: it denies the distinct identity of England while also denying full British status to the non-English nations.”

    I’d actually argue that it shows something else though I can understand why you view it in the sense of the above quote. From my viewpoint the, ‘nations and regions’, model is actually a version of Britain in which England is the default mode or default nation for Britain and where Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are reduced to the equivalence of English regions. The best way to think of it is a Greater England where Scotland, Wales and NI form Greater England and England proper forms the core.

    All the default culture of the UK is English. In history, where British historical TV series do opt-outs episodes for Scottish and Welsh history as they are not covered by English history. In sport, where the FA and RFU don’t have to have a country name as a prefix because they are the real ones. In the media and poltics, where discussion of English issues is presented as British issues and in the establishment where the English church gets to sit in a UK Parliament as a right.

    I understand your annoyance that the term Britain has replaced England but from a Scottish viewpoint what has happened is that there has just been a rebranding of an old product. Nothing in the attitude or default assumed national culture in the establishment has changed, just the name.

    Comment by DougtheDug — 3 April 2011 @ 7.31 pm | Reply

  2. Is it really true that you can’t call England ‘England’ any more, it has to be ‘Britain’? I wonder if it’s just a bit too difficult for people to use ‘England’ alone because so many administrative statistics and the like cover England and Wales together. I can’t see what’s wrong with calling something English when it IS English.

    If people could get out of the habit of using English and British synonymously it might make things clearer for them (especially the habit of using English when they are proud of what’s being talked about, and British when they are not.)

    Comment by Jim Fraser — 27 July 2011 @ 8.44 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: