15 April 1999
Speech by the chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown MP at the smith institute
Introduction
Today I want to talk about the new Britain and a new and inclusive vision of Britishness for the twenty first century.
A Britain grounded in enduring British values of creative enterprise and hard work, of outward-looking tolerance and fairness.
A Britain which, on the firm foundation of these values can be, in every area and in every community, equipped to meet and master the new challenges of the twenty first century.
I will demonstrate that British people believe that we are stronger as one Britain together, weaker apart; that this belief in Britain is rooted not so much in old institutions as in enduring values; and that these values which evoke pride in Britain include our tolerance and fairness, our belief in enterprise and hard work and an outward looking approach to the world.
Indeed I will suggest that in the eighties and early nineties the divisive forces of separatism grew - and uncertainty about Britain developed - not because different values were driving the peoples of our country apart but because our unreformed institutions had ceased to reflect our shared values.
So I want to show how, on the basis of reaffirming and, in some cases, rediscovering British values, we can move from the old Britain of unreformed institutions that were increasingly out of touch with British values - from an over centralised and uniform state - the old Britain of subjects - to a pluralist and decentralised democracy - the new Britain of citizens.
And I for a story-book uniformity, for things that are lost and things that never were, can and must yield to a Britain increasingly strengthened, not divided, by the reality of our diversity and by the shared values that flow from the rich interaction of our traditions, experiences and peoples.
I will suggest that the whole of Britain will benefit from the birth of new centres of power and initiative throughout our country and that we can be proud of a Britain which becomes the first successful multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-national country in the world. Indeed when diversity becomes a source of strength and when British values are given new expression in modern British institutions, Britain will not only become a more culturally confident, and socially cohesive country, but a more economically successful one too.
The old Britain
Two years ago when I gave the spectator lecture on 'the British genius' I argued that Britain is best defined not by ancient institutions but by living values that British people shared.
I suggested that the old order of unreformed institutions that was once 'the ground of Britain's being' was passing into history.
And I said that by rediscovering great British qualities - being creative adaptable and outward looking, believing in liberty duty and fair play - what I called, in Orwell's words, the British genius - Britain will be best placed to tackle the great challenges of a global economy.
Professor Linda Colley argues that great Britain was an eighteenth century construct. It was crafted in response to perceived external threats - religious and military - and then subsequently reinforced in tile expansion and defence of the British empire and the perceived benefits it brought.
For two centuries Britishness was most commonly expressed in this imperial role and in deference of the institutions which embodied empire, from the monarchy downwards.
This traditional view of Britishness - bound up with imperial ambitions and responsibilities - could not indefinitely survive the end of empire.
Linda Colley has written:
"the factors that provided for the forging of the British nation in the past have largely ceased to operate........different kinds of Britons no longer feel the same compulsion to remain united in the face of the enemy from without........and crucially both commercial supremacy and imperial hegemony have gone........and no more can Britons reassure themselves of their distinct and privileged identity by contrasting themselves with impoverished Europeans or by exercising authority over manifestly alien peoples'.
Indeed the post war period in Britain can be seen in retrospect, as a time of soul searching."
Of course, all European nations had to embark on similar introspections amid the ruins left by the second world war. But for us the task seemed to be longer, harder and more complex.
From the independence of India in 1947 to the Hong Kong handover half a century later as it shed the old empire, Britain has been engaged in a protracted and agonising quest to define a new identity a new sense of ourselves and a new purpose.
In the 1950's Harold Macmillan tried to give Britain a defining purpose, as the civilising Athens to the new thrusting Rome of the united states for Britain in the white heat of a technological revolution, an economy, society and culture rebuilt around new institutions underpinning the supremacy of science and professionalism.
By the end of 1970s, when it was clear that neither approach had succeeded, Margaret Thatcher came to power, striving to resurrect our pre-war status by creating a Britain defined by what she saw as a return to nineteenth century individualism, an unchanging constitution and mistrust of foreigners.
Mrs Thatcher certainly understood the need for change. She recognised the importance of an appeal to enduring British values. Sadly her view of Britishness was far too narrow, and she learned the wrong lessons from the past.
In defining Britishness in terms of individual self interest, an unchanging constitution and distrust of foreigners, she ignored our greatest strengths - the great British qualities of tolerance, fair play, public service and a practical outward looking internationalism. And instead of responding to the need to modernise our institutions around our values, she mistook an unwritten constitution for an unchanging constitution and became the apostle of constitutional rigidity.
We should not forget that by the time she left office the great questions about our future - questions about our future relationship with Europe and the world, the future relationship between the nations of the United Kingdom, the future of our constitution, and indeed questions about the very cohesion of our society - were all unresolved.
So, in the end, Mrs Thatchers project foundered on too narrow a concept of Britishness, and on her stubborn faith in unreformed institutions that increasingly failed to reflect British values or respond to the demands of a new era.
By 1997 when new labour came to power, Britain's traditional institutions were no longer able to command the loyalty they once did - to function as a sufficiently powerful cohesive force binding Britain together. Indeed unreformed institutions - based on an antiquated and indeed deferential view of British society - could not and cannot meet the challenges and pressures of our day. It is this old unreformed Britain that evoked the new nationalism, a nationalism an unreformed Britain found it difficult to contain.
It is in these circumstances that - as Michael Wills has suggested earlier today - we have embarked on a programme of constitutional economic and social reform.
We recognise that our unity as a country cannot be based merely on memory or geography.
Indeed anyone trying to build the Britain of the twenty first century solely on institutional change will fail unless that change is rooted in deep seated and long held beliefs of the British people.
We must not forget that what went wrong for Britain is not that different communities in our country rejected values we had shared in common but that our institutions has ceased to reflect these values.
And we must not forget either that these shared values come not from the imposition of a narrow uniformity of values or in institutions but from the interaction and cross-fertilisation of all the peoples, experiences and nations of our islands.
The old empire of interests must now be succeeded by the new Britain of shared values. And British institutions must be reformed and re-founded explicitly on British values.
What are these?
Not least because of our geography-our island status - and our history I believe that the peoples of our islands have always been remarkably outward looking and open. I believe that, this country has, at its best, fostered a vigorously adaptable society that has given rise to a culture both creative and inventive.
And I believe also that our open and adapting society is rooted in a passion for liberty anchored in a sense of duty and an intrinsic commitment to fairness.
Taken together these qualities which add up to the British genius - being creative, adaptable and outward looking, our belief in liberty duty and fair play - are not only important in understanding our past but give us new direction for the future - new social and economic purpose.
So in my view the British way is not to fear change but to embrace it, confident in the knowledge that British people have the practical creativity and innate adaptability to master change and turn it to our advantage.
The British way is not to exalt a self interested individualism but throughout the centuries to foster a uniquely rich and continuously evolving relationship between individual community and state, a strong vibrant civil society where there is opportunity for all.
The British way is not to retreat into a narrow insularity and defensive isolationism but to be open and tolerant, confidently outward looking and to lead by example.
This notion of Britishness is more important than ever in the new context of globalisation.
40 of the top 100 economies are now companies not countries.
The lightning speed of technological transformation -while bringing us closer together in many ways - is also challenging our sense of ourselves and putting national identity to the test.
Changes in the global economy are creating a worldwide culture - global communications an travel, global brand names, global music, films, and entertainments and global media outlets.
But many people also seek refuge from these homogenising forces in a reassertion of their own distinctiveness.
Arthur Schlesinger writes:
"the more people feel themselves adrift in a vast impersonal, anonymous sea, the more desperately they swim towards any familiar, intelligible protective life raft; the more they crave the politics of identity"
"unless a common purpose binds nations together, tribal antagonisms will drive them apart. In the century ahead civilisation faces a critical question - what is it that holds a nation together?".
Today Britain has been under greater pressure because the new forces are beating against unreformed structures.
One response to global changes - what Anthony Giddens calls in his current Reith lectures 'our runaway world' - is to let Britain break apart: for those who are separatists the answer is not a better Britain but a shattered Britain. Just as in the nineteenth century the response to industrialisation and uneven development was political nationalism, so too in the late twentieth century, one response to globalisation is to retreat into political nationalism.
So the separatists call forth a different future for our islands - divided into separate national states and taught that their separateness is what matters most.
Yet the progressive response to global change is not to look inwards, to cut ourselves off, to erect new barriers or in the face of profound change to retreat to forms of factionalism.
back to top
What Mario Cuomo has written of America is true of Britain today. 'Most can understand both the need to recognise and encourage an enriched diversity as well as the need to ensure that such a broadened multi-cultural perspective leads to unity. And not a destructive factionalism that would tear us apart."
And the unity we are talking about is not one forced upon all of us by the imposition of a narrow and crude uniformity of values or institutions. It is instead one what knows diversity can give us strength, a multinational Britain in which we are enriched and strengthened by our different contributions and cultures. The loss of any of them would diminish all of us.
Britishness for the new world
So let us examine the values and then the common endeavours that bind us together and what they mean for us in this new world.
All countries share values in common, values that are not necessarily unique to them but which in combination can give rise to a special and unifying identity.
I have said that the reality is not simply that we share a common island, a common language and a common history but a broad range of defining values - a commitment to openness and internationalism, to public service and fair play, to creativity and inventiveness to democracy and tolerance.
Not only does our survey evidence suggests that most people see British identity as important to them -that being British matters - and that they can happily accommodate being Scottish and British, Welsh and British, English and British, or Cornish, English, and British, but that their attachment to Britain is more than sentimental.
Interestingly what defines Britain for people is not so much past glories or even ancient institutions as shared values, and the modern institutions that reflect them. I note that in the survey carried out for this conference 75 per cent agree 'the people of Britain derive positive benefits from living and working together.' and this is as true in Scotland where 73 per cent agree, and in Wales where 76 per cent do .indeed . 84 per cent agree that it is important for England, Scotland and Wales to work together to be a strong force in the new global economy (including 81 per cent in Scotland and 89 per cent in Wales).
So people not only think we are better united worse off divided, but also believe that the set of common values and concerns shared by England, Scotland and Wales is a good argument for the union.
85 per cent describe these values of tolerance and fairness as important, including 88 per cent in Scotland and 82 per cent in Wales.
And ,interestingly, the important institutions most favoured for creating a distinctive identity for Britain were not those which would have resonated a century ago.
We might expect the house of commons to be chosen as very important by only 33 per cent.
The BBC is indeed chosen as very important in defining Britain by more - 36.
The army is chosen by 51. And of all British institutions the NHS was chosen most often as representative of Britain - chosen by 71 per cent.
And if we look at these three British institutions - institutions promoting social provision, defence and culture- and the values that underpin them we discover a great deal of what Britain means to people.
The National Health Service was, of course, not a specifically English or Scottish creation. If anything it was created by a Welshman, and it grew out of the demands from mining and industrial communities in all parts of Britain, that we should never again return to the indignities of the thirties where nurses had to leave the beds of their patients to run charity flag days.
Today when people talk of the National Health Service whether in Scotland, Wales or England people think of the British National Health Service: here national is unquestionably 'British'.
And its most powerful driving idea is that every citizen of Britain has an equal right to treatment regardless be of wealth, position or race and indeed, can secure treatment in any part of Britain
The National Health Service is a concept defined by Richard Titmus when he wrote about blood donor-ship in Britain as the "gift relationship".
Blood freely given by a citizen in any part of Britain is available to any British citizen in every part of Britain.
This is a simple life sustaining proof of a central truth: when we pool and share our resources and when the stronger help the weak it makes us all stronger.
I believe that the ideal of common bonds and mutual interests linking our destinies together is as real for other public services: the ideal that every child in Britain should have equal opportunity in education. And the equally strong belief, widely felt throughout the country, that everyone in Britain who can work has both the right and responsibility to do so. When Scots, English or Welsh talk of the right to work, they do not normally distinguish between the rights of the Scottish, Welsh or English miner, computer technician, nurse or teacher.
People also believe that we are stronger in securing and defending our islands when we do so together. So it is not surprising that in our survey 83 per cent agree that it is important for the nations of Scotland England and Wales to work together to guarantee peace and security (83 per cent in Scotland and 93 per cent in Wales). The British islands have for centuries formed a single natural strategic unit. It is only commonsense ratified by centuries of experience and supported by all the polling evidence that Scotland, Wales and England benefit from the economies of scale inherent in a common approach to defence. Our people know that separate defences would cost more and be less effective and that a separate English, Welsh and Scottish foreign policy would leave each and all of us more vulnerable.
This idea that we are stronger together, that no citizen of Britain should be a foreigner in Britain, no neighbour a stranger in Britain is quite distinct from the nationalist position as is of course the view of a common culture, our view that the culture of the whole of Britain should be equally accessible to the whole of Britain, and that no barriers, geographical, social, or cultural should stand in the way of opportunity for every citizen of Britain.
If we take but one example, the BBC. It was created by a Scot, but healthy devolution should not obscure the fact that it is a service that operates for the whole of Britain, is paid for by a sharing of costs by all the people of Britain, and is seen as a defining feature of Britain.
Scotland or Wales could not, of course, afford the same service on today's license fee. But the real question is how would Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom benefit by excluding itself from the gains that come from being part of a broader mix of cultures. Most people believe that we gain from access to a common culture and the diversity of our distinctive contributions to it.
Indeed the survey evidence shows that people see that Britain is more than the sum of its parts and that there are direct and palpable gains from sharing. Of course the British idea of national insurance has changed over time . But no one can deny that the sharing of risks among 58 million citizens is a more durable and resilient support for the poor and thus for social justice than the sharing of risks among 5 million. And this is as true of the economy generally where barriers should be coming down instead of going up.
Many of the consequences of Scottish or Welsh divorce from the rest of the United Kingdom can already be identified: higher taxes, lost jobs ,businesses driven away and a huge fiscal deficit.
In face of mounting evidence of the costs of separation the Welsh and Scottish nationalists appear to be at odds. The Scottish and Welsh nationalists appear to be separating from each other. The Scottish nationalists insist on independence but have failed to publish their promised analysis of the fiscal position of a separate Scotland. I challenge the SNP to end the dishonesty of their campaign and to come clean with the people of Scotland about the costs of divorce-the black hole in their plans. It is time they published their long promised never delivered independence manifesto. It is the missing manifesto of the current elections.
But the Welsh nationalists are also trying to avoid the questions about the costs of separation, having, for years, put up posters arguing for independence, they are now trying to deny they support independence and have even removed from this year's party membership card its previous commitment to self government and separate representation at the united nations.
Neither Scottish nor Welsh nationalists can reconcile themselves to the realities of the new Britain the new government is forging - its inclusiveness, its commitment to participatory democracy, and its recognition that all citizens have a contribution to make.
Every day the credibility gap grows between the essentially nineteenth century nationalist view of isolated nation states divided against each other - and the twenty-first century reality of inter-dependent economies and societies working together.
I believe that the answer to nationalism, the case for Britain is, in the end, quite straightforward and even more compelling in the age of the global economy where barriers are coming down than in the age of empire - that we gain from common services and are diminished without them; that we achieve more working together than working apart; that unity, out of diversity, gives us strength; that solidarity, the shared endeavour of working and co-operating together, not separation, is the idea of the future, and an idealism worth celebrating. And the sum is greater than its parts. Because Britain gains greater strength from in the rich interaction of cultures and experiences, and thus from its pluralism, and because underpinning our institutions are shared values which have wide support.
We are, of course, talking not just about what Britain has been but what Britain can become.
Not the old unionism, a legacy of empire, with its monolithic view of the state, an old order which, in its present form, cannot meet the challenge of separatism.
We must build a constitution which reflects British values - and that requires a new and resilient relationship among individuals, communities and state-individuals as full citizens, pluralistic cultures as contributing communities, and the state as a guarantor of freedoms, empowering rather than dominating.
The two ideologies that have dominated the histories of other countries have never taken root here. On the one hand an ideology of state power, which choked individual freedom making the individual slave to some arbitrarily defined collective interest, has found little or no favour in Britain. On the other hand an ideology of crude individualism - which leaves the individual isolated, stranded, on his own, detached from society around him - has no resonance for a Britain which has a rich tradition of voluntary organisations, local democracy and civic life.
Because of our sense of social obligation and fair play the British people never, for long, lost sight of a middle way: the good that can be done when the individual is empowered by the community around him or her, whether it be public health, welfare or education.
I believe that the British way is to embrace not fear constitutional change-and to reform centralised institutions that are too remote insensitive and devolve power. The British way is to restore and enhance local initiative and mutual responsibility in civic affairs and to strengthen local regional and national centres of power.
The British way is to encourage and enhance the status of voluntary and community organisations in the services of their neighbourhoods.
The British way is to develop a strong and cohesive society in which in return for responsibility there is opportunity for all.
Much remains to be done but the establishment of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland democratic parliaments and assemblies represents a radical devolution of power from the centre.
This creates, for the first time in hundreds of years, a new plurality of law making institutions.
So devolution does not create new identities: it gives existing identities an institutional form, whether it be Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. This is made explicit in the good Friday agreement which for example states 'the birthright of all the peoples of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British or both'.
What Deborah Mattison's survey evidence shows is that people in mainland Britain are comfortable with the idea of being Scottish or Welsh or English and also British at the same time.
So the essence the idea of union remains and is indeed strengthened - that we are Scottish and British, Welsh and British, and English and British.
Within England regional development agencies and regional chambers arise from similar sentiments - that we are, for example, Cornish, English and British, from Yorkshire, England and Britain, loyalties that are not in conflict with each other but reinforce and enrich each other.
None of these complex realities about regional and national - and, potentially, even European identities -are remotely reflected by the old constitutional arrangements - an old centralised state that was long portrayed but can no longer be defended as the eternal expression of Britishness.
And we should not forget that the party that in 1997 supported an unchanging constitution lost all its parliamentary seats in Scotland and Wales.
The new plurality of institutions is not a redistribution of power in favour of one nationality and against another but the constitutional expression of a Britain which recognises diversity can be a source of strength and ensures that at each and every level people can participate and are now not subjects but citizens.
The Britain of citizens will gain even more vitality in the bill of rights which for the first time in Britain's history enshrines in law the basic principles of civil rights; in the freedom of information act which makes the state accountable for information held about its citizens; in the reform of local government which gives substance to a very British idea, that decisions should be made by the people at the level closest to the people; and in the reform of the house of lords, where heredity is no longer permitted to command voting power.
These reforms are not simply protections for the individual against an overbearing state. These measures embody a new relationship between individual citizens, self governing communities and enabling state in which the individual is enhanced by membership of their different communities and the state empowers rather than controls or directs.
And with constitutional reform Britain now possesses not just a past to be proud of but a relevance for our future rooted in where people are from, in what they have long believed and what they feel themselves to be.
So when people say we have embarked on constitutional innovation without thinking, under pressure from this interest group or that, or that we have no coherent overall plan of reform, the challenge is easily answered. Those critics fail to understand that the modernisation of British institutions is rooted in our pride in Britain - applying enduring British values to a new era - and rejecting the constitutional rigidity that would leave us defending as eternal expressions of Britishness ancient institutions like the lords that had long ceased to reflect British values.
Our entire constitutional programme is designed to ensure modern British institutions that reflect enduring British values.
Can a Britain of citizens make the next leap forward in our history and become the first successful multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-national country?
For this we need not just tolerance but a new set of constitutional arrangements and a unifying and inclusive idea of citizenship - the challenge being to acknowledge and celebrate diversity in a way that strengthens our shared values and common institutions.
America is, at its best, a strong multi-cultural, multi-ethnic country. As Trevor Philips has written "Americans have had to construct an idea of their nation from huge groups of people who had barely heard of each other before landing on American soil. "by contrast, Britain "has a thousand or more years of nation building behind it, and historically speaking, we have had ripples, rather than waves, of immigration; change has been incremental'.
While America has absorbed and transcended the diverse ethnicities that came to its shores, America - unlike Britain - has never really been a multi-national state, with large contiguous areas of distinct national history and heritage.
For Britain to succeed as multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-national we must not only tolerate our differences. We must welcome them in a Britain of diversity where our shared life is enriched and reshaped by the very act of citizens communities and nations freely and actively participating in it.
In this way Britain is welcoming not only to the old nationalities which make up British citizenship but to the new nationalities which do so as well.
To realise ourselves as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-national country, colour must never be a badge of citizenship, an invitation to second class treatment, or an excuse for discrimination.
The Stephen Lawrence case illustrated the risks to all of us of institutionalised racism - and the public response to it demonstrated the prize for all of us if everyone, no matter their colour or race, is treated equally.
Britain has the chance to escape the long night of racism that has blotted other democracies.
And to do so the new Britain must not only demonstrate its values of tolerance to old and new nationalities and its determination to root out all discriminatory practises but show that out of the interaction of races as well as cultures we become a richer stronger society.
Britain must also move - as it now is - from the Britain of old fashioned economic and social policies which stifled creativity, work, and fairness to modern policies which make our economy stronger and liberate the potential of our people.
Every economic and social reform we are making is creating a new Britain where from the foundation of these enduring values we harness modern technology for the benefit of all.
The British belief in the virtues of hard work and self improvement are sustained and extended in the new welfare to work programme, our expansion in educational opportunity and investment, our programme for lifelong learning and our programme of making work pay.
The British values of creativity and enterprise - the Britain of Newton, Watt, Fleming and Turing - is given new expression in innovative 21st century industries, from fashion design, music and communications to British breakthroughs in medicine, biotechnology information technology and modern manufacturing itself.
And Britain's history as outward looking, open and tolerant is reaffirmed in our European and international policy.
So after fifty years of soul searching I believe that Britain is ready to be ambitious again and reach for big things, in Tony Blair's words, a beacon to the rest of the world. In 200 days we celebrate the year 2000.
What matters is not that we cross the divide into a new century but what we decide to do with the next decade and next century.
And I see a Britain where new centres of powers in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast become vibrant forces pioneering change. And with regional development agencies and chambers, centres in the north, north west, midlands and south too. London too will have its own authority.
In the new multi-national Britain, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and London are of course leading Britain in the fact and manner of devolution. But regional development agencies and regional chambers are strengthening cities from Manchester and Liverpool to Newcastle and Bristol as centres of power and initiative too.
This is not just about institutions. It is about changing people's lives. Let me give one example - in the scale of educational opportunity, as devolution manifestos make clear, Scotland and Wales have ambitions to lead Britain.
For Scotland and Wales the dream of educational opportunity for all - the democratic intellect - has been as important for our journeys as peoples, as the American dream has been for the American people. Now they must reflect that in the era of lifelong education
Scotland will have not just Britain's but Europe's first drugs enforcement agency in Europe.
Northern local authorities have pioneered in new services from child care to crime prevention, and we are now seeing their innovations followed throughout Britain not least in our national child care strategy and our policies for policing.
The Midlands have been leading Britain in linking universities and colleges and industry to develop modern manufacturing strength.
Wales is pioneering a new bilingualism.
And in culture, for example, British popular music has been successively reinvigorated from different centres of energy - from Bristol to Manchester, Liverpool to London.
So Britain is becoming a country where we can talk of Scotland leading Britain, Wales leading Britain, the north leading Britain - not only London leading Britain.
New centres of leadership, new and vibrant forces for creative change.
So while the old Britain is going, enduring British values are creating the new Britain - British people reaffirming our values reshaping our institutions to express them, and making our country more confident in our culture, more cohesive in our society, and more successful in our economy.
Britain - its citizens, its communities, its institutions - instead of growing apart - are ready once again to grow together.