Summary of project findings

Migrants and Nationals Panel Study England

Susan Condor, Lancaster University

This was a 5-year longitudinal study, involving qualitative interviews with 100 people born in England, 60 people born in Scotland, and 25 people of ethnic 'minority' background born outside the UK. The primary research problematic as specified in the proposal concerned the relationship between changing patterns of national identity, social inclusion and constructions of citizenship rights and duties: Will an assertion of Scottish and English identities to the detriment of British identity lead to an increased emphasis on blood criteria [of national identity], and will this present problems for Scots negotiating entry and rights in England, for the English negotiating entry and rights in Scotland, as well as for Afro-Caribbean and Asian people negotiating entry and rights in both countries? In the original proposal it was noted that the consequences of devolved governance were difficult to predict in advance: In some contexts the range of those defined as 'fellow nationals', as 'people-like-us', may increase, with the corollary that, say, English people in Scotland - or Scots living in England - are included and welcomed as members of the nation. However, in some contexts, more exclusionary definitions of national belonging may be articulated and acted upon.

General conclusions

In line with the findings from the survey research, we identified a post-devolution rise in the extent to which white people born in England were willing to claim an identity as English. However, our findings did not suggest that English identity had developed to the 'detriment of British identity', or that expressions of English identity were necessarily associated with exclusionary understandings of civil society or citizenship. English identity was commonly constructed in apolitical terms. However, this did not necessarily reflect a passive, unthinking adherence to a pre-devolution status quo. On the contrary, there was evidence that people in England were actively attempting to maintain a clear dissociation between matters relating to (English) national identity and those relating to civil society and citizenship.

Scots-born people living in England did not generally report having experienced prejudice, or of being treated as social outsiders. There was no indication that devolution had influenced the quality of Scots' reception in England. The experiences of people who identified with some other nationally, racially or ethnically defined 'minority' varied considerably, but there was no evidence that processes of social inclusion or discrimination had been affected, either directly or indirectly, by changes to UK constitutional arrangements.

Scots migrants generally displayed a commitment to maintaining their national identity, and tended to continue to regard 'English' as a negative comparison category. Far from than experiencing 'problems' in being 'welcomed as members of the nation', people who had moved to England from Scotland demonstrated more concern over the maintenance and recognition of their distinctive national identity. A sense of potential identity threat tended to be strongest during the first five years of residence, after which time respondents generally reported feeling less defensive, although people rarely reported having come to regard themselves as 'more' English or British even after 20 or more years residence in England.

Scottish identity does not currently appear to constitute an appreciable barrier to social inclusion in England. On the contrary, respondents often noted how a Scottish accent can function as a social 'passport', positively facilitating social acceptance. Scots migrant respondents generally evidenced a high level of civic participation, often being directly involved in community life, running voluntary organisations etc.. Engagement in community activities did not relate in any appreciable respect to an individual's national self-identification, or apparent level of acculturation.

Although devolution did not appear to have impacted directly on Scots' experiences of living in England, there was some evidence that it might be impacting on the experiences of those who were attempting to return to Scotland. Although Scottish respondents did not generally report having experienced discrimination in England, they often reported feeling culturally alienated. When this was the case, among the most common reasons for not returning to Scotland were: (a) concerns that their English partner or children would not be accepted in Scotland; (b) lack of social capital (i.e. not being networked into the relevant occupational or professional culture in Scotland); (c) non-recognition in Scotland of professional qualifications or experiences obtained in England; (d) having become out of touch (e.g. due to lack of media coverage) with contemporary Scottish culture and political events.

People identifying with other nationally, racially or ethnically defined 'minorities' generally perceived threats to multi-racial or multi-cultural conceptions of citizenship to come not from devolution, but from the BNP or the EU. Orientations to English identity varied in part as a function of frame of reference. 'English' could be used as a self-inclusive referent when the category was elided with 'British' or when it was treated as a geographical referent. Alternatively, the category 'English' could be used to designate the racial or ethnic majority 'other'. However, insofar as civil society was understood as a multi-ethnic 'community of communities' the practice of excluding self from the category 'English' did not necessarily imply a sense of social exclusion.

Experiences of social exclusion and discrimination based on 'race' or culture obviously varied considerably, although respondents rarely reported experiencing prejudice specifically in terms of their perceived national (i.e. non-English) identity. Respondents who identified with particular ethnically defined groups (such as Pakistani-origin Muslims) were often as concerned about negotiating entry into, and acceptance on the part of, their local ethnic 'community', as they were about possible responses from the ethnic majority 'community'. People who did not personally identify with a specific 'ethnic community' sometimes reported finding that the prevalent multi-cultural norm of respect for diversity could paradoxically militate against their attempts to establish common identity, culture or interests with the indigenous white English population.

White people born in England oriented to perceived normative injunctions against racist constructions of national identity. Claims to English identity were typically accompanied by an attempt to delimit the personal or societal significance of national identity. Citizenship rights and obligations continued to be regarded primarily as a matter of formal British citizenship status.

Respondents often oriented to normative concerns against publicly 'articulating and acting upon' a subjective sense of English identity. Displays of English identity and interest were permitted in so far as they were framed as non-serious and non-'political' (e.g. as 'just' a matter of football support), or could be justified on the basis of the limited rationality or responsibility (e.g. youth) of the individual concerned. Otherwise English identity was acknowledged (and sometimes celebrated) as an aspect of personal identity, but its public expression was subject to normative constraints in the interests of civility and responsible citizenship.

Devolution was not typically regarded as a particularly important issue, but respondents generally expressed positive attitudes to the Scottish Parliament in so far as it was framed as a matter of 'minority rights' to self-determination. This perspective in turn entailed a normative requirement that the (English) majority disclaim rights to political voice with respect to the devolution settlement. In this context, then, a claim to English national identity could be seen to entail a positive moral obligation to political inaction.

The Far Right: The exception to the rule Although the terms of our initial research problematic did not square very well with the understandings displayed by most of our England sample, they corresponded very well with the discourse of people who were members or associates of the BNP, for whom civil society and citizenship status were commonly understood to pertain to an imagined community of 'people like us', understood specifically as 'fellow English nationals'. These respondents welcomed devolution and the prospect of Scottish independence from the perspective of a general commitment to political nationalism, and cited Scottish Home Rule as legitimation for adopting a specifically English political voice. Although 'blood' criteria of national identity may be stereotypically associated with discourses of social exclusion, the BNP members were in practice inclined to use more rather subtle ('cultural racist') formulations, and to cast English nationality (and hence community membership and civil rights) as a matter of common culture or of commitment to country.

Home | Contact | Edinburgh University Homepage

Nations and Regions research programme
The Institute of Governance
The University of Edinburgh,
Chisholm House, High School Yards,
EDINBURGH EH1 1LZ, Scotland
Tel: (+44) (0) 131 650 8093

email: Nations and Regions research programme

email: The Institute of Governance

Last modified: 7 March 2005
Pages updated by rosstait

Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all material is copyright ©The University of Edinburgh