Three Thousand Versts of Loneliness

O’Neill has picked up on the SNP’s slant on the results of the British Social Attitudes survey which has detected a decline in the propensity of people to define themselves principally as British. O’Neill quite rightly points out that the nationalists’ interpretation of the results reflects their own narrow conception of identity, rather than any meaningful rejection of a multifaceted, multilayered identity which includes a sense of Britishness. A healthy and vibrant Union does not require its citizens to define themselves “only or mainly” as British. On the contrary, people in the United Kingdom may adopt any number of cultural, ethnic or national allegiances, without dissipating their sense of political allegiance to the Union. It is only when the prescriptive and political nationalist reading of identity is applied that “only or mainly” becomes a relevant category in assessing the strength of Britishness. O’Neill cites my post on Michael Longley’s thoughts on identity and wid

On a couple of occasions people have mentioned that I might have certain common ground with the Union Group . This has surprised me, as other than a desire to see unionism presenting itself in a more articulate and thoughtful manner, there is little in the Group’s documents which I could subscribe to. Central to the documents they have produced are assumptions which I regard as wrong. Firstly they assume that the issue of the Union can only be understood in terms of identity politics, ceding the argument that unionism is a better or more inclusive political philosophy than Irish nationalism. The Union Group’s thesis is that to be inclusive, both political traditions on the island must be accorded equal status. That rather undermines the entire concept of being a unionist and is reflected in the all-Ireland vision the group outlines. While national identity is an important aspect of Irish politics, it is not the only consideration in ordering a state or political arrangements, nor i