The Break Up of Britain: Crisis and Neo-Nationalism

by Tom Nairn

Break-up of Britain

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, British Literature

416 pages, Paperback

First published June 16, 1977

About the author

Tom Nairn was a Scottish political theorist of nationalism. He was an Honorary Research Fellow in the School of Government and International Affairs at Durham University.

Nairn attended Dunfermline High School and Edinburgh College of Art before graduating from the University of Edinburgh with an MA in Philosophy in 1956. During the 1960s, he taught at various institutions including the University of Birmingham (1965-6), coming to prominence in the occupation of Hornsey College of Art (1967–70), after which he was dismissed. He worked at the Transnational Institute, Amsterdam from 1972–76, and then as a journalist and TV researcher (mainly for Channel 4 and Scottish Television) before a year at the Central European University with Ernest Gellner (1994–95) and then setting up and running a Masters course on Nationalism at University of Edinburgh (1995-1999). In 2001 he was invited to take up an Innovation Professorship in Nationalism and Cultural Diversity at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia, leaving in January 2010. Returning to the UK, he became a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study at Durham University in 2009.

Reviews

[Brendan McKee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rarely have I read a book which so perfectly delves into the politics of a state. Though the drama of the title may throw some off, as Britain has not broken up as Nairn predicted in 1977, I would advise not allowing it to distract you. This book is fundamentally a critical examination of the British state, it’s history and it’s politics, particularly it’s progressive politics. The scathing criticisms that Nairn reserves for the left are particularly on the money in my opinion. The only criticism I would have is that history has rendered the two postscripts rather defunct, as they exists mostly to explain the continued relevance of this book in 1981 and 2003 respectively. In 2021 however, we have returned to a world and a Britain that shares much with 1977 and, as such, I would argue that this work is more relavent than it has ever been. The Break-up of Britain is undoubtedly a must read.

[Malcolm · Rating 4 out of 5]

It has been a little unsettling to re-read a series of essays on the state of the British union 35-40 years after they were written, and about 25 years after I last read them – but more importantly the collection has reminded me of the limits of much of the contemporary idealist, psychologistic (especially the nations are about identity form) and/or romantic writing about nations and nationalism. Nairn attempts to get beyond these to explore a theory of the nation grounded in capitalism’s inevitable uneven development, and the means by which various bourgeoisies attempt to secure advantage in the process of uneven development. In doing so, he points to one of nationalism’s great paradoxes – a need to reject capitalism’s uneven development while at the same time pursuing strategies to secure its benefits. He might have got a lot wrong – but the basic model of uneven development and class manoeuvring for power and advantage has much going for: much more, I suspect, than many of the dominant Weberian models that seem to take for granted some notion of ethnicity.

At the same time, reading the essays 34 years after they were first published shows the perils of prediction – so much is plain wrong, reminds me how significant Thatcher was in forcing a rupture in Britain’s political trajectory, and how powerful Enoch Powell seemed in the mid 1970s as an expression of little England reactionary nationalism (with a view to reassert English power and status).

Two chapters, however, stand out after all this time: the first exploring the archaeology of the British state as grounded in revolutions of the 17th century (the Civil War and Restoration) which in being claimed by the monarchy and new old elite separated English nationalism from a populist base, and the last one which then returns to many of the key conceptual points here (and some explored in the intervening essays) to propose the beginnings of a new Marxist theory of nations. Flawed, indeed, but it remains a major if poorly used and often by-passed contribution to the study of nations and nationalism.

[Quan Nguyen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Warning: this is not actually a polemic against the United kingdom, but a fairly dense piece of academic writing. It's good, and really convincing but not a chill evening read

Recommendation: read the last chapter (the modern Janus) first where he sets out his main argument fairly systematically, then read the rest of the chapters

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

Difficult read but now seems a precient view of the break-up of Britain.

[Gavin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Took 40 years but give this man a cigar

[Michael Macdonald · Rating 4 out of 5]

classic polemic that raises man y questions of variable quality. Witty but ultimately futile belief that the UK must collapse into a socialist utopia disguises some clear thought about the nature of nationalism and the real forces that drive change

[Aftermanyasummer]

One of a few academic books that almost made me cry (in a good sense).

[Anisha · Rating 3 out of 5]

So interesting, some great ideas that have stuck with me but so so hard to read and get through.

[Martin Raybould · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dated but still accurate

[Marc Livingstone]

Voting no in the referendum but currently reading as much of the left yes literature as I can, this has been the best so far. I still disagree with the conclusion that Scotland should withdraw from the union, but there were many thought provoking arguments about the British state, the material basis for modern nationalism in general and Scottish in particular, and the final chapter on the Marxist view of nations on nationalism was particularly interesting. I'm still voting no though.