Identity is an incredibly complex issue and therefore, if one is trying to start an argument with someone, a damn good place to start. One’s self image can be shaped by so many factors. Sexuality, gender, nationality, moral beliefs, religious inclinations and skin colour, amongst many other things, can all contribute to identity. An in-depth discussion about personal identity can equate to waving around a tub of pure nitro-glycerine in a fireworks factory. That is to say, expect a reaction. Understandably, people get passionate about how they view themselves as an individual, and as part of a group. Identity is an inseparable part of society, the incomprehensibly multifarious arena in which life must take place. Put simply, identity is bloody important.

It is understandable then that some people have kicked up a great fuss about the seemingly increasing blurriness between English and British identities. A quick search on Google will effortlessly reveal that, not unjustifiably, many people are fervently blogging away to offer strongly worded opinions on this subject. There is a coherent argument that English identity has been lost and forgotten, and is being eroded as we speak. Debate on this is current and furious. A website named ‘Britology Watch’ angrily bemoans the government’s talk of Britishness. “Why can’t Gordon Brown say ‘England’?” it demands. Labour has “no policies for England” it exclaims. This, admittedly, is a fairly extreme example of opinion on this subject, but it represents the fears of a wider basis of people. The 1st November 2007 episode of Question Time on the BBC saw an audience member ask whether there should be English-only voting in parliament for English-only matters. Others believe a separate parliament for England, along the lines of the Scottish Parliament, is the only acceptable solution to prevent non-English MPs from eroding English identity by voting on matters which the English MPs cannot vote on for the other UK member-countries. This can be exemplified by the divisive issue of tuition fees. For instance, Scottish nationals need not pay tuition fees. English nationals are obliged to pay the whopping amount which many of us will spend years paying back. Some Scottish MPs at the time used their power to vote in Westminster in favour of the fees whilst equally voting against them in Scotland, understandably causing some bitterness. This issue though, is a political one. The ‘Englishness’, which is supposedly being eroded by such government, is fairly unrelated.

Nothing is certain, it is said, but death and taxes. However, a fear of identity erosion harks back (at the very least) to the barbarian migrations, which occurred well over a millennium ago. Identity change, and trepidation of it, is a near-certainty in society. The dread that ‘Englishness’ is being corrupted and corroded has existed for quite some time. In 1701, Daniel Defoe wrote A True Born Englishman, in which he eloquently and satirically demonstrated that many feared this process was occurring. That was three hundred and six years ago. Incidentally, he supported the Act of Union, which united England and Scotland in 1707. Despite this, ‘Englishness’ clearly plays a strong role in the identities of many people in the 21st century, and still exists as a concept. It has a large and highly vocal group of defendants which suggests that the existence of its identity is safe, even if the issue of self-government of the United Kingdom’s member countries is complicated.

Linda Colley, a prominent historian and writer on the subject of imperialism and British identity, makes a splendidly insightful contribution to this debate. “Any coherent definition of Englishness was swept into a wider sense of Britishness with the union with Scotland… Englishness is a new concept: a word that has only recently been invented. For any people to pin down their identity as though it is a captive butterfly is simply wrong: people are able to have more than one identity and the fact we’re returning to try to limit ourselves to one identity is a sign of growing insecurity and uncertainty”. This uncertainty, she believes, is caused by the political issues arising from EU influence and devolution to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

In this light, here is my opinion. Sometimes I carry the identity of a proud Suffolk man, pleased to bear the colours of his hometown of Ipswich. Sometimes I carry that of an Englishman, keen to assert the differences we have historically had with those who share our island, and equally keen to assert an English right to govern itself as a country, independently of Scotland and Wales. Sometimes I’m British, and enjoy the shared cultural history that England enjoys with its neighbours. On a greater scale, I’m European, and proud of the incredible diversity which is crammed into such a small part of the Earth, and greater still, I’m human, which should always be, but often is not, a uniting factor.

Identity is fluid, changing, flexible, and related inextricably to the context in which it is deployed. Back to Question Time on 1st November 2007, on which David Lammy stated that “we all accept that there are multiple identities that people can and must have”. Clearly, we don’t “all” accept, but maybe it is a good idea to acknowledge the logic in his and Colley’s arguments. To confuse the intricate political situation in the United Kingdom with a grave fear of declining ‘English’ identity is, to me, a very simplistic way of viewing things.