Morgan Stanley Great Britons

Link to Awards

Morgan Stanley Great Britons Debate
11th October

We held our debate on 'Can Britishness be taught?' to allow our speakers and audience to discuss the challenges of engaging young people in questions of national identity, as well as moving toa broader discussion of Britishness.

We asked our speakers to explore a range of themes that fall under ‘Can Britishness be taught?’ including:

• Is Britishness a concept that can be defined?
• What characteristics reflect Britishness?
• How can we engage young people in society about what it means to be British?
• Have Citizenship lessons been a success?
• How can we use British people to explore concepts of Britishness?

We also asked a number of our speakers to nominate their Morgan Stanley Great Briton of 2007 and welcome you to nominate yours.

Panelists

Jim Knight MP, Minister for Children, Schools and Families:
Jim Knight started the panel discussion by commenting on how timely and important it is for us to have this debate. He posed the question, “Is there a definition of Britishness?” and concluded that the answer to his question was ‘No’.

There is not a single definition of Britishness but there are characteristics that stand out as particularly British. He noted that there are values of tolerance and freedoms that we celebrate as being British but not a single definition of what it is. He discussed the notion of Britishness as ‘an evolving image’ or a ‘moving target’, explaining that that is why it is so difficult to define its meaning. Knight said that the Government is currently engaged in a community cohesion project, which they are hoping to get schools involved in, whereby children from different schools and different backgrounds work together.

He noted the importance of having the subject of citizenship with discussions of Britishness on the National Curriculum. He commented that the citizenship course is more popular than ever in schools and ideas of Britishness should continue to be raised in schools. He said that more emphasis needs to be placed on engaging children in the Britishness debate. He highlighted the Olympics 2012 as key to this.

Alongside education, he commented on the importance of programmes broadcast on the television such as the BBC’s ‘Who do you think you are?’. He said that the Government is looking into extending this particular programme into schools, enabling students to uncover their family history and background.

Jim Knight concluded his discussion by underlining his views on defining Britishness, “The important thing about Britishness is being proud of your country and being able to define the term for yourself”.

David Starkey, Historian:
David Starkey began his speech by giving an assessment of how he would define Britishness. He commented that Britishness has always been ‘Britain versus everyone else’. He also noted that discussing Britishness is, in his words, “not a very British thing to do”.

Starkey commented on the European style of Britishness, which can be defined as cultural nationalism. He noted that for the rest of the UK this has flourished whilst for the English, cultural nationalism has declined. We don’t even own our own language. Countries such as France or Germany are defined by their distinctive language, but the English language is not something the British can claim as their own. British nationalism has, ever since the 19th Century, always been based on the UK being ‘the great nation’. He believes that it is too late for the British to try and define Britishness or create a form of cultural nationalism, “We’re too late for this, we can thank history for that”.

He described London as “the market place of identities”. “In this way”, he said, “it is impossible to give a single definition to Britishness, as there are so many identities within it”.

Trevor Philips, Chair of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights:
Trevor Philips began his speech by posing the question, “What is the role of national identity now? Is it just a passport to get into the UK?”

He noted that the debate has a deeper purpose than simply discussing what defines Britishness. He discussed the situation in the UK at present. Rather than youths today defining themselves by their British identity, they see themselves as defined by the gang or group that they are a part of. He argued that we need to bring a change to this situation. He commented that if the British identity argument has any purpose, it should be to stop our society from turning into a place of fractions. “If it has a purpose”, he said, “it is to remind us that we all live in the same society and must live together.”

He demonstrated his support for a form of constitution, or written document which defines exactly what it means to be British, and which might help to create a more unified society. Philips noted that from his own experience of being brought up in the Caribbean, there are more things which distinguish individuals from each other, not just the colour of your skin. Philips commented that he stood out for the way he walked - at incredible speed - which was a very British attribute.

Philips commented that what characterises the British is the way that we behave towards each other. He said, “As a society we have a million differences between each other but we have a way of managing those differences. Our ability to accommodate them is the great characteristic of the British people”. He concluded his discussion by stating that the secret to Britishness, and what it means to be British, is the way we treat each other. “That”, he said, “was the secret”.

David Willets MP, Shadow Shadow Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills:
avid Willets started his speech by commenting on the different definitions that there are of Britishness. He used the definition of Britishness as defined by TS Elliott, “dog races, cheese, Henley Regatta, Ascot and Elgar”.

Willets defined his interpretation of Britishness as “the face that we present to the outside world”. He commented on Trevor Philips speech, and said that the definition Philips used of Britishness, about the way we treat each other, emerges because of a particular set of institutions that have shaped our identity. He said that we need to learn about the history of the institutions that have shaped our country in order to understand Britishness.

He noted that when you visit a country such as France, it is institutions like the Eiffel Tower which stand out as embodying the French identity. However, in the UK, things that stand out as distinct about the British to outsiders, include the Houses of Parliament, Downing Street and Buckingham Palace: these are a set of historical institutions which define us.

He said that we should learn something from this. He concluded, “Britishness can be taught by understanding the instititutions and our history that shapes the way we behave”.

Michael Wills, Minister of State for Justice:
Michael Wills began his speech by commenting on the importance of this debate, and what a rich and potent subject it is. He dismissed the claim by David Starkey, that it is ‘profoundly unbritish’ to talk about Britishness. He said the concept of Britishness had always been a topic of debate and would continue to shape politics.

He posed the question, “Why do we need to have a national conversation about it?”, answering, “Because without a British identity, there is a vacuum to our identity”.

Wills commented that it is not the institutions that embody Britishness, as David Willets stated, as these frequently change, for example, the Houses of Parliament have radically changed in the last 50 years.

The institutions are only precious to us as that embody our values. He noted how difficult it is to pin down the values of Britishness however, he concluded, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t embark on the task.

Wills highlighted the ‘statement of values’ that the Government is currently embarking on establishing. It is to be in the form of a British constitution but the Government has recognised that they shouldn’t be the ones handed the task of defining Britishness, instead, the public should be allowed to take part in the consultation process. Therefore, the Government will be removed from the process, although Parliament will have the final say, and Wills welcomed the audience to take part in the consultation process. Wills insisted that the process is to be inclusive, something owned by the British people, not the Government.

Nominations

Following the panel discussion, the panelists nominated their ‘Great Britons’:

Jim Knight MP
He nominated a 17-year old girl named Rachel Fulleger, from Dorset. He described her as a very responsible girl who showed people great respect and was an example to us all.

David Starkey
He refused to vote saying that to nominate was “deeply old-fashioned”.

Trevor Philips
Trevor Philips commented, following David Starkey’s comments, that whatever we feel about the issue of Britishness the fact of the matter is that this conversation about Britishness is going on out there. He made two nominations: Firstly, he chose Charles Dickens, as someone who has become integral to the British culture. Secondly, he nominated Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist who was recently taken captive by Palestinian militants in the Gaza strip. He described him as a courageous man, and commented that he had demonstrated the capacity of the British - to deal with any situation. The reserve he and his family showed, Philips commented, is a lesson to us all.

David Willets
He made a number of nominations. Firstly, he highlighted J K Rowling as someone who has been incredible for British culture and is now a household name in Britain.

He highlighted one of the leaders of the technological company, Apple, Jonathan Ive, who has brought great new technology to Britain, most notably the iPod.

Also, in light of the recent England rugby team success, he said Johnny Wilkinson was someone who deserved the title of a Great Briton.

Michael Wills
Did not nominate, only commented that the debate was fascinating in light of the new ‘statement of values’ which the Labour Government are developing.

Supported by