The UK Now: Part II – The Culture
Much is made these days of the fact that the UK is supposed to be a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society, which indeed it is – and a remarkably stable one at that. However, a brief look at the history of this country shows that this is nothing new. In fact, the UK has been a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society for most of its history.
Those with any knowledge of history will know the Iceni, the Romans, the Celts, the Angels, Picts, Scots, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and so on, not to mention those refugees from religious persecution such as the Jews and the Huguenots. These groups have all lived together, at one time or another, on these small islands in relative harmony. Obviously one can quote conflicts, persecutions and wars, but in the generality of things, there has been co-existence. British culture is clearly a blend of all these inputs and has changed over the years as peoples become more dominant or arrive and live here. It will, of course, continue to change over the years and centuries to come as groups and people come and go.
Irrespective of your race, culture, ethnic origin or whatever, it is clear that in the 25 or so years since Tony Blair became the leader of the Labour Party and transformed it into a non-Socialist party under the banner of New Labour, the country seems to have changed greatly. This is, in all probability, more to do with the passage of time and international events, rather than Labour Party policies. However, the collapse of the John Major government and the rise of New Labour does seem to mark a change of attitude in the country. Looking back there seems to have been a changing of the guard, almost a generational change. The general attitude of the population seems to have shifted from one of self-reliance and limited expectation to one where most people expect the State to support them, both in terms of welfare and in terms of economic need. In many ways, this is the reverse of President Kennedy’s famous phrase “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”.
This change in general attitude appears to have coincided with a number of things: the “nanny state” concept which was core to the Blair government’s strategy, along with the accompanying general enhancement of the welfare state and huge increase in the size of the civil service to operate that enhancement; the enlargement of the EU to 27 countries and the establishment of the “freedom of movement within the EU” principle; the arrival in the UK of a substantial number of new residents from countries both in the EU and outside.
A major consequence of all this change in cultural attitude has been that the country is now far more inward looking. This has resulted in a generation growing up who see the EU as the natural home of the UK. They see the UK as just another middle-sized European country. In large part, those under 30/35 don’t see the relevance of the Commonwealth, and a significant number now openly question the principle of the monarchy. The possibility that Charles (or maybe William) will be the last King of England & Scotland is now freely discussed. This sits well with their view of the UK as just another European country. After all, the remaining monarchies of Europe are an anachronistic irrelevance and most states within the EU are republics. So the logic is that if the UK were to remain in the EU it would be better as a republic than a monarchy.
It is this generational disconnect which is particularly relevant to this discussion, the divide between young and old. This divide seems to extend across racial and ethnic boundaries so that those over 45 (which coincides nicely with the date of the referendum on joining the EEC which was held in the 70s) have a quite a different view of the EU to those younger. The younger generation to whom I have spoken and with whom I deal, in general, cannot see a role for the UK outside the EU. They firmly believe in the EU as a principle – warts and all. In addition, they cannot see how the UK can exist outside the EU and see the EU as the spur to drive the country forward. They see no choice but to belong to the EU and that to leave is suicidal. They don’t seem particularly worried by the lack of democratic process and take all at face value. The older population, in contrast, and again as a generalisation, see things very differently. They see the EU, not as a spur to the future, a driver of research and intellect, but as something binding and suffocating the country, controlling and limiting actions; allowing patronage and nepotism to grow in the corridors of power in Brussels and elsewhere. Whilst this is clearly an exaggeration, there is, as in most perceptions of the EU, more than a grain of truth here. It is this divide within the population which I think is more relevant to this discussion than any of the others.
In addition to the various cultural, ethnic, generational and social divides, it is also clear, from travelling the country, that there is also a major divide between the cities/towns and the rural populations. More so than ever before. There now appears to be almost no understanding of farming, country sports and other rural activities, by those living in towns and cities. Likewise, the rural populations know very little of what life is like in the vast urban sprawls that make towns and cities of the UK. It is also worth mentioning that the rural population of all countries which make up the UK is almost exclusively white and Christian. Again, whether this is good or bad we will find out in the fullness of time.
[N.B. The EEC was the European Economic Community and was simply what it claimed to be; a community of European countries with common economic links; an early Customs Union with no political union. In a referendum in 1975, the UK voted 67% to 33% to join]