Who are the British..?

[Huguenot]

I thought this was quite fun, and it reminded my of my good friend Mockney who when startled by his father's insistence that he couldn't trust me explained that you should never try and grasp any idea too tightly, for fear that it escapes between the fingers of your outstretched hand...

Who are the British...

[nashoi]

It's interesting that people are asking this question more and more. When Jeremy Paxman wrote a book about English identity 10 or so years ago, he claimed in the intro that he had found there were dozens of books written about Irish identity a few less about the Scottish and a few less again about the Welsh, however he'd come across none at all about the English, presumably no-one had ever felt the need.

Maybe a culture doesn't need to define itself until it feels threatened, that's a new feeling in these parts, so now we have 20,000 people trying to chase cheese down a hill because they don't know what else to do. Anyone making the mistake of attending the Leeds Castle open air concert in the summer will see another 15,000 people bobbing up and down, proms style, waiving their Union Jacks at the start of that well known celebration of all things British, Tchaikovsky's 1812 overture.

[Huguenot]

I'm absolutely insulted that he suggests that Britain is a less decent and tolerant place than the Netherlands!

[*Bob*]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm absolutely insulted ..

How very British!

[Huguenot]

:))

For the most part it appears that describing yourself as 'British' is a habit mainly of the English (the Scots, Irish and Welsh preferring to stick to their roots).

But describing yourself as either British or English apparently reveals a lot more about your approach to the world:

"The president of the pollsters YouGov, Peter Kellner, recently noticed this: "When we compared the attitudes of 'English' compared with 'British' respondents, we found something odd. 'English' voters want to leave the EU by a margin of 58-26% - but 'British' voters favour remaining members by 46-37%."

"And while 'English' voters overwhelmingly prefer an isolationist foreign policy, 'British' voters divide fairly evenly between going it alone and doing compromise deals to tackle world problems."

Mr Kellner concludes that "what distinguishes people who call themselves 'English' is a passion for keeping other countries at arm's length"."

[*Bob*]

A good friend of ours emigrated a short while back.

The thing he misses the most is the British sense of humour - and I think I'd be in agreement.

[????]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> :))

>

> For the most part it appears that describing

> yourself as 'British' is a habit mainly of the

> English (the Scots, Irish and Welsh preferring to

> stick to their roots).

>

> But describing yourself as either British or

> English apparently reveals a lot more about your

> approach to the world:

>

> "The president of the pollsters YouGov, Peter

> Kellner, recently noticed this: "When we compared

> the attitudes of 'English' compared with 'British'

> respondents, we found something odd. 'English'

> voters want to leave the EU by a margin of 58-26%

> - but 'British' voters favour remaining members by

> 46-37%."

>

> "And while 'English' voters overwhelmingly prefer

> an isolationist foreign policy, 'British' voters

> divide fairly evenly between going it alone and

> doing compromise deals to tackle world problems."

>

> Mr Kellner concludes that "what distinguishes

> people who call themselves 'English' is a passion

> for keeping other countries at arm's length"."

Bit of a crap, generlkaised, conclusion given that the differences are both relatively small and are marginal if you add in error matgin on attitudinal reserach, especially. From this rather blythe conclusion we get all sorts of supposition etc about people who claim to be english. Actually they are just a 'bit more inclined to etc etc@ statistically.

I consider myself English not British and have written that as my nationality for about 10 years or so. Will, of course be proof of this to Huge, who STILL seems to confuse criticism of the Eurozone with some sort of rabid .anti-European.

Acrually, the emergence and renewal of natioal oir even more regional focussed cultures is global and a trend, after the war I suspect far more scots and welsh considered themselves British than now. Even the rise of Islam is a battle against western monmolithic secular culture. In the 70s the PLO were all sleeping together wearing flairs and drinking. In the 70s Cairo hardly had anyone in veils. The trend is away from a mss global identity...in some ways.

[Huguenot]

Hee hee, I knew you wouldn't be able to keep away from a thread like this one Quids :))

I agree with you in some ways: international travel and communications mean that people have to work harder to create a sense of identity. If you were born in France, lived in France, didn't travel overseas, and only watched or read French news about French issues there was never any need to establish a French identity, it was just what you were.

However, I think it's a big jump to go from symbols and identity to nationalism and terrorism.

Sense of humour could be a good gauge of being British. I miss the pork pies and cornish pasties the most.

The rest of the world may consider our cuisine to be appalling, but I reckon it's great!

[nashoi]

Is our sense of humour really something to be proud of? It usually just means taking the piss out of people and along with drunken rage the only emotion we're traditionally allowed to express in public. Admittedly it's not as cringe inducing as "We're a nation of animal lovers".

[Alan Medic]

I find it amusing that the British think they are the only ones with a sense of humour. It's probably because for the most part they don't speak other languages and/or they just think it's superior because they find it funny.

[*Bob*]

I don't think I suggested it was better, or that other nations are devoid of one. But it is different, it's particular, I like it - and I'd miss it.

Most of the other half's lot are English speaking, but not British (American, Australian, South African) and we've spent a lot of time with them as such. They're great - but they are different. It's not a diss!

[Otta]

Exactly, where has anyone said the British were the only ones with a sense of humour? They're the only ones with a British sense of humour.

Personally, I think Brits are best at sarcasm. Try some on an American, it's good fun.

As an aside, did anyone see "Making Bradford British" the other night? Quite a good look at the variety of people who consider themselves (quite rightly) as British.

Also not surprising (having tried the online test) that of 100 British Citizens from different cultural groups that they made to sit the UK Citizenship Test, only about 5 passed.

[Alan Medic]

That's what H wrote. It's fairly normal to like your own sense of humour simply because it is yours and you understand it.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, someone once wrote.

[Annette Curtain]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Bit of a crap, generlkaised, conclusion given that

> the differences are both relatively small and are

> marginal if you add in error matgin on attitudinal

> reserach, especially. From this rather blythe

> conclusion we get all sorts of supposition etc

> about people who claim to be english. Actually

> they are just a 'bit more inclined to etc etc@

> statistically.

>

> I consider myself English not British and have

> written that as my nationality for about 10 years

> or so. Will, of course be proof of this to Huge,

> who STILL seems to confuse criticism of the

> Eurozone with some sort of rabid .anti-European.

>

> Acrually, the emergence and renewal of natioal oir

> even more regional focussed cultures is global and

> a trend, after the war I suspect far more scots

> and welsh considered themselves British than now.

> Even the rise of Islam is a battle against western

> monmolithic secular culture. In the 70s the PLO

> were all sleeping together wearing flairs and

> drinking. In the 70s Cairo hardly had anyone in

> veils. The trend is away from a mss global

> identity...in some ways.

????'s

Have you been using the "Stella-Spell-Chekka"http://img.dooyoo.co.uk/GB_EN/175/food_and_beverages/drinks/stella_artois.jpg

(tu):)-D

[PeckhamRose]

I get mildly and pointlessly irritated when - doing the customs forms on the way into USA - you have to state that your country is UK. They don't understand their mistake and if you try and write England they'll send you to the back of the queue and do it again. Seen that done!

[maxxi]

I see myself as a British Islander and would count all inhabitants of these isles in the same way (whether Irish, Scots or from the Isle of Man etc.).

We have differing regional (and national) characteristics but I don't think they differ as much from each other as they do - as a whole - from mainland Europe. A man from Cork may have more in common with a Yorkshireman than the latter does with a Midlander but all three will have more in common with each other than with a Belgian.

The English have been lost for a "windswept and interesting" tag in the face of constant Celtic cultural clamouring and I think being an Islander could reawaken the pioneering spirit in us all.

*fashions davy crockett hat out of grey squirrel carcass*

[Huguenot]

I'm pretty confident that no-one else in the world has a sense of humour.

The Irish clearly don't or they wouldn't be so uptight about it ;-)

[Alan Medic]

Dead right H. I never laughed until I arrived in the UK!

[indiepanda]

I think in large part I describe myself as English because it seems odd to call myself British when you'd struggle to find a Scotish / Irish / Welsh person who would call themselves British. It almost feels like calling myself British means I am ashamed of being English.

They might have a point about the tendancy to slightly more isolationist policies though. All for free trade with Europe but the EU project went far too far for my taste and financial union would have definitely been a step too far. Mind you that looks quite a sensible stance at the moment.

[Huguenot]

Do you mean the Euro or the EU went to far?

If you mean the Euro, then you do need to be aware that the fiscal compact us an agreement on the amount that can be borrowed, not financial union.

If you mean the EU, then what part went too far?

[indiepanda]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you mean the Euro or the EU went to far?

The EU went too far, the Euro was just a bad idea from the start - it went too far in as much as it shouldn't have been introduced in my opinion.

> If you mean the Euro, then you do need to be aware

> that the fiscal compact us an agreement on the

> amount that can be borrowed, not financial union.

I know we don't have financial union, but things are starting to head that way with the requirements imposed on Greece. I don't think it's really practical to have the same currency and make it work without something approaching fiscal union.

> If you mean the EU, then what part went too far?

Amount of rules / laws set at EU level - I'd prefer us to retain the power at a local level so the decision makers are more accountable to us.

Just taking the sector I work is as an example, from the end of this year insurers are banned from charging different rates to males and females on the grounds it is discriminatory. This will ultimately mean insurers getting scared about the mix of men and women they will sell to so on average prices will go up. Not in consumer interests.

As for Solvency II..... I would guess insurers in the UK have spent billions so far in trying to implement the new capital regime.... guess who will wind up paying for that?? Yes, those lucky customers again.

[maxxi]

@Huge...

Aren't the Irish having a referendum on the 'fiscal compact'?

Will this be the usual Irish referendum - where they 'vote no' until told otherwise then 'vote yes' just as the EC want them to?

I love a good 'rewording' I do.

[Huguenot]

re. the Irish, I suspect they vote 'no' until someone points out 'no more free money' and then they vote 'yes'.

re. regulation, the EU is a red herring from the insurance industry. Business needs regulation - it can either be local or it can be international, but it needs to be regulated.

The complaint levelled against the EU in this is a misdirection from a pickpocket.

The insurance industry is under capitalised. It's run by people who take your premiums and spend them on speedboats. When you try and collect they declare bankruptcy and demand the government pays.

There's a trick on trains in the Riviera where a homeless woman dumps a baby in you lap. Whilst you wrestle in a concerned manner to return the child, her colleagues rifle your pockets and steal your wallet.

This is why the insurance industry is demonising the EU over Insolvency II, they're hoping that they can stir up anti-European sentiment as a misdirection whislt they arse rape you, shit in your pocket, rob you blind and steal food from your children's mouths.

The question over whether this should be local or international law is an attempt by the industry to divide and conquer. They know that if it's down to local regulators that it won't take place, for fear that your next door neighbour has more flexible laws that give them a competitive edge.

So you can blame this on the 'EU' if you like (and regurgitate your corporate position without further analysis), but I'd prefer that people weren't suckered by this. I despise the industry for stirring up hatred of the EU and lying through their yellow stained teeth.

[indiepanda]

Just because I choose not to write "war and peace" every time I post doesn't mean I am regurgitating a corporate position (I don't work for an insurance company) and don't know what I am talking about. However, by the way you are talking it's pretty clear you don't know enough about the technicalities of SII to comment so I am probably wasting my breath on you.

The UK industry is actually one of the best place to respond to SII as they've been operating a risk based capital regime for a number of years in the form of the ICA regime that was introduced by the FSA with a lot less fuss and debate than SII. It's fair to say it could have been developed further as a regime - but if SII hadn't come along they would probably have done exactly that. However both industry and the FSA have been too busy with preparations for SII to develop the local regime in recent years. But I can't recall any significant bankruptcies since ICA came in (think that was 2004) - although my knowledge is related to Life rather than GI. So tell me - which companies did go bankrupt in that period?

Oh - and if they go bankrupt the majority of claims are covered by levies on other insurers in the industry - not the government as you erroneously suggested.

http://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/about-us/how-we-are-funded/

The EU originally stated the purpose of SII was not to increase capital held across the EU but to redistribute it across products which were riskier, then set their rules in such a way that most products required more capital and it was hard to find any that required less. They have dithered incessantly about key issues which affect not just the UK but other countries, which make it quite hard for the industry to know where things will end up and plan accordingly.

I would have no objection to the rules being set at EU level, if the EU seemed to know what they were doing, but the level of procrastination and the poor quality of some of the output is maddening. I've had to trail through consultation papers that are badly written, and seen people struggling to complete some of the EU's quantative impact surveys because the spreadsheets sent out to complete were riddled with errors. Things are often issued later than promised too.

Done properly it would be a good thing - albeit better done globally that via the EU to ensure a level playing field across the whole industry, though somehow I can't picture that happening given the number of stakeholders they'd need to get on the same page.

What I object to about the EU is where things are not being done competently we have limited clout to get it sorted.

[Huguenot]

That just sounds like the usual complaint about bureaucracies.

If the UK would have generated their own regulation anyway, then as you've said you can't moan about the EU as a regulator.

If you accept that a level playing field internationally is better than local conflicts, then that's simply a cost benefit calculation.

You can see why the accusation against the EU is poorly founded by plaing the following game:

"I would have no objection to the rules being set at national level, if the government seemed to know what they were doing, but the level of procrastination and the poor quality of some of the output is maddening. I've had to trail through consultation papers that are badly written, and seen people struggling to complete some of the government's quantative impact surveys because the spreadsheets sent out to complete were riddled with errors. Things are often issued later than promised too."

See? Heard it all before.

Or what about the NHS IT system?

It doesn't take an EU to be annoying to the industry - it's just a general complaint against regulation.

The original question was about being British, so I guess this is evidence that Britishness involves the creation of inappropriate scapegoats, and an illogical hatred of bureaucracy and foreigners ;-)