Dominic Grieve's piece on the Platform today is well worth reading if you haven't done so yet. Quite a bit of his speech is about the role of England post-devolution, and I've nothing to add to my normal line on that - that under the British constitution Wales is a region of England-and-Wales, not a separate crown, has been a region of England-and-Wales for some seven hundred-odd years, and that it would seem to me an unnecessary self-inflicted wound for us to accept any form of constitutional separation between England and Wales at this stage. For this reason, since the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, I have always believed that the proper Unionist response was to favour having regional assemblies throughout England-and-Wales - thereby emphasizing that Wales is just one region of England-and-Wales, not a nation under the Union.
However, that's not what I want to dwell on today. His title them concerned "Britishness". This has been much discussed in recent years, particularly in the context of multi-culturalism (as indeed Grieve discusses it). The thought seems to be that if we want to move away from multi-culturalism then we need to offer an account of an incumbent "British" culture, to which immigrants might be assimiliated.
Let us set aside for now objections to neo-assimilationism, and focus on this "Britishness" thought. "Britishness" seems to me to be a flawed concept, connection with the idea of Britain as a Nation State (as opposed to a state made up of several "nations" - several tribes - or the rejection of the nineteenth-century concept of a "nation" altogether).
"Britain" is not a reflection of some common culture across a geographical area, or the common identity of a British tribe. Britain is, fundamentally, a constitutional entity. Britain is nothing to do with Yorkshire pudding or chicken tikka masala or the love of Steam engines or strong financial services or cricket or playing fields or Shakespeare or "a sense of fair play" or any other such cultural element, except insofar as it becomes embodied into our constitution.
To me, what Britain is about is the Whiggish constitution - the constitution built in the infancy of Britain, reflecting principles developed in the English constitution particularly the in period following the Reformation, but developed further to reflect the lessons of the Civil War and Commonwealth. There is no Britain apart from the Constitutional Monarchy, Britain-as-an-Empire-Unto-Herself (cf Henry VIII famous declaration about England), the Presumption of Innocence, Trial by Jury, Habeas Corpus, the Anglican Church, election to the Commons, the mixed Constitution (including unelected elements), the Establishment, the Whig Party and its Conservative Party daughter, freedom of contract, freedom of commerce, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press, that if it is not forbidden it's allowed (the Englishman has many freedoms but no Rights), private property (under the Crown), the principle that the State can only interfere with me (tax me or stop me in the street) if I engage in a positive act, the oligarchic judiciary, and other such.
If we want to establish a clarity about being British, the only place to act is the constitution. We need a robust Britain back. Then "Britishness", being subjects under the Whiggish Constitution, will flow back to us automatically.
