No tests please, we're British

I've made my views on nationalism clear before. It's impossible to define what constitutes a "British" person, such as by culture, religion, ethnicity and so on in a way that applies exclusively and universally to British people. It's the same with any other nationality, too. This is why the concept of changing nationality is so difficult, and we end up with the infamous and ludicrous Britishness test.

The Britishness test taken by potential Brits is widely recognised as being post ridiculous. It implies you need to have knowledge of British history, institutions and customs in order to be British, something which clearly isn't true of all native Brits. I can see the case for an English language test for citizenship as this is at least something which, if not held by everyone, is necessary in order to be a productive member of society. But above and beyond this it's difficult to say what standard should be met to gain citizenship. New citizens are currently required to pledge an oath of allegiance to the Queen. I can assure you if that were required of current citizens I would be out of the country in an instant. However, it does make a kind of sense. We have no codified constitution so don't have any universal values to swear allegiance to. The Queen represents the sovereign of this country, so an allegiance to her (and to democracy, as is also required) at least acknowledges the government of the day and some kind of recognition of British institutions. However, it's counterintuitive to some not make migrants jump through hoops to gain citizenship which is where the test comes in.


Finally Theresa May, who herself has jumped head first into British society after being left behind by the other astronauts, has decided to reform the test. She has decided to make the test "more patriotic". Now I can personally guarantee you that you don't have to be in the least bit patriotic in order to hold a British passport. You can, in fact, blog about how unpatriotic you are, publish hate-tweets about the royal wedding and jubilee or describe the London Olympics as a tedious, over-hyped garish money pit and continue to call yourself British.


Perhaps the best solution is to take a leaf out of the Judean People's Front's book. "If you wanted to be British you'd have to really want to be British" "I do." "How much?" "A lot!" "Right, you're in".

You could even have different versions to make it comprehensive:
"If you wanted to be British you'd have to really hate the Germans"
"If you wanted to be British you'd have to have a really irresponsible attitude to alcohol"
"If you wanted to be British you'd have to really enjoy talking about the weather"
"If you wanted to be British you'd have to really like Richard Curtis"
and so on.

The good thing is that Theresa May has gone for a slight variation on this. The bad news is I was only joking. From the 146 page "Life in the UK" handbook given to potential Brits she's removing information about how to read a gas meter, how to claim benefits and details of the Human Rights Act and replacing it with information about historical figures, knowledge of British inventions (including the structure of DNA) and an ability to recite the first verse of God Save the Queen.

Let's think about that for a second. The practical information that might actually be of benefit to people living in the UK is removed and replaced with information about historical figures. What we test people on is fairly arbitrary as, like I said, there isn't any range of questions that could be correctly answered by all British people, but if we're going to have questions, it at least makes sense to have ones which give the new citizen practical information about living in the UK. The HRA is perhaps unnecessary, but it's removal is probably more a reflection of the fact the Tory party hates it, and knowledge of DNA structure? Last time I looked DNA wasn't a British invention, and if we're going on British discoveries, why not have a test on America? An ability to recite God Save the Queen is of little practical use, as when British people are in that rare situation where singing is compulsory we scarcely move our lips while mumbling as quietly as possible so the person next to us can't here. Maybe that would be a more useful skill to teach potential Brits.

Not telling people about benefits, getting people to swear allegiance to the Queen, forcing British history on people and getting them to acknowledge Britain as a Christian country seems less like a positive reform of a shoddy system, more like an attempt by Theresa to impose her socially conservative values on people. It's once again a case of the party of small government being keen to use government to push its values on people when it feels like, which suggests small government is not an ideological part of the Tory party, but simply happens to temporarily reflect the economic interests of its voters. Shocking revelation, I know.

But what's the solution? I don't know, I'm just shouting from the sidelines. Obviously I'd prefer the abolition of the nation state to be replaced with a single global federation, but assuming that's not going to happen any time soon, I suppose there should be some kind of language test, but not much else. British "values" can't really be said to exist, and even if we could agree on some liberal democratic principles which potential Brits should share, there would be no way of knowing if people actually hold them. "Do you support liberal democracy?" "Sure, why not?" and this again has the problem of native British people who DON'T support liberal democracy. Although maybe this could be a way of getting rid of all those pesky fascists and communists. Maybe this isn't such a bad idea after all...


CORRECTION
It has been brought to my attention that the relevant Judean people's resistance group is the People's Front of Judea, not the Judean People's Front. After misquoting Monty Python I will now be renouncing my British citizenship.

Why I'm not a nationalist.

I've never had a very comfortable relationship with nationalism. When it comes to international sporting events I take a 'who cares?' 'I don't know them so they're nothing to do with me' approach, and I don't take a particularly positive view of British soldiers currently fighting in foreign conflicts. And as for the inevitable flag-waving and kitschy nostalgia that will surround the royal wedding...

The main source of my lack of nationalism  is the times when our country is united in collective shame. A recent example of this is in 2007, when we celebrated the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade. There was talk of the British Government apologising for slavery. This is clearly a ludicrous request as it would be extremely difficult to discern who is a descendent of a slave, and do people descended from both slaves and slave-owners have to apologise to themselves? But crucially, I thought that the current British Government had nothing to apologise for, as they were nothing to do with the slave trade. Apologising would imply they felt some kind of guilt, but how can you feel guilty for something that you haven't done?

This is true at a personal level too. I don't think I should feel guilt for slavery just because I'm British. I also don't think I should feel guilty for the British Empire and Colonialism. I resent when people say 'we enslaved people' or 'we dismantled India's economy'. British people were guilty of these things, but not all British people. I had nothing to do with it. More recently, the war in Iraq. I was personally not at all guilty of that catastrophe. I protested against it. This is not to take anything away from what happened. Most of Imperial Britain, including the slave trade, is a regrettable blot on our nation's past, as is the War in Iraq.

I don't believe all the citizens of a nation should be guilty of their government's actions. And presumably many of the people who feel guilty for things their country has done, and call for an apology for slavery 200 years on, would also agree with this in the case of foreigners. How many of these people, who are so liberal and critical of themselves, would expect modern Germans to apologize for the holocaust? Or expect Iraqis who opposed Saddam Hussein's regime to share in its guilt?

Now, so far this might sound like I'm working towards a nationalist conclusion of taking pride in being British, and not feeling guilty. On the contrary, in the name of consistency, I believe that if I don't want to share in the guilt of my country's actions because it was nothing to do with me, I should also not share in its pride at its achievements. How can I justify feeling pride at a Briton having invented the steam engine, when I don't also feel the guilt of a Briton having invented the concentration camp? How can I feel pride in winning the Ashes or getting 3rd most medals in the Olympics when I don't also feel guilt for the BP oil spill, or the invasion of Afghanistan? If a British swimmer wins a gold medal, they are no more connected to me than the French person who came second or the Russian who came third. In the age of globalisation, tribal differences are irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to the idea of 'nations'. They have been tried and tested as a system of political organisation. A single global government may be better, with the absence of war, fairer distribution of resources, the diversion of arms spending to better causes and the end of currency speculation. However, this isn't, and probably never will be, a practical possibility. Therefore the world needs to be divided up, and it's clearly better to do this along cultural and historical lines than slicing up the globe, like was done to Africa and the Middle East, which has caused endless conflict. So I support the system of having nations pretty much like we do at the moment (although maybe stronger supranational organisations would be nice). I guess that means that I am a liberal nationalist in the most broad use of the term. I would never condemn the likes of Guiseppe Mazzini or Garibaldi for their desire for a free and independent Italy, for example. But having 'pride' in my nation is something I can't do, without shouldering the enormous guilt that goes with assimilating the nation with my own conscience. Perhaps this would be easier in a country which clearly has had a more positive than negative impact on the world, but I'm not sure that the UK has. I would also endorse some occasional nationalistic energy on strictly Machiavellian grounds, for example the propaganda of the British government in the world wars was crucial in encouraging people to work towards the war effort. But even this well-meaning nationalism can lead to xenophobia and should be used sparingly.

If anyone can think of a way of me being able to appreciate national pride without bearing the massive guilt of Britain's numerous crimes, let me know.