What does it mean to say you're English, Scottish, British? Does it matter much to people? Has devolution and constitutional change made a difference to national identity? Does the future of the UK depend on whether or not people think they are British? Social and political scientists answer these questions vital to the future of the British state.

On January 6, 2021, white supremacists, Christian nationalists, and other supporters of President Donald Trump stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The insurrection was widely denounced as an attack on the Constitution, and the subsequent impeachment trial was framed as a defense of constitutional government. What received little attention is that the January 6 insurrectionists themselves justified the violence they perpetrated as a defense of the Constitution; after battling the Capitol police and breaking doors and windows, the mob marched inside, chanting “Defend your liberty, defend the Constitution.” In Real Americans: National Identity, Violence, and the Constitution Jared A. Goldstein boldly challenges the conventional wisdom that a shared devotion to the Constitution is the essence of what it means to be American. In his careful analysis of US history, Goldstein demonstrates the well-established pattern of movements devoted to defending the power of dominant racial, ethnic, and religious groups that deploy the rhetoric of constitutional devotion to express their national visions and justify their violence. Goldstein describes this as constitutional nationalism, an ideology that defines being an American as standing with, and by, the Constitution. This history includes the Ku Klux Klan’s self-declared mission to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” which served to justify its campaign of violence in the 1860s and 1870s to prevent Black people from exercising the right to vote; Protestant Americans who felt threatened by the growing population of Catholics and Jews and organized mass movements to defend their status and power by declaring that the Constitution was made for a Protestant nation; native-born Americans who resisted the rising population of immigrants and who mobilized to exclude the newcomers and their alien ideas; corporate leaders arguing that regulation is unconstitutional and un-American; and Timothy McVeigh, who believed he was defending the Constitution by killing 168 people with a truck bomb. Real Americans: National Identity, Violence, and the Constitution reveals how the Constitution as the central embodiment and common ground of American identity has long been used to promote conflicting versions of American identity and to justify hatred, violence, and exclusion.

Ever since Crevecoeur formulated his famous question, Americans have asked themselves: "What, then, is the American, this new man?", and even more urgently so once it became predictable that the traditionally majoritarian position of Anglo-Americans will dissolve in a sea of multi-ethnicity. What constitutes an American nation and produces collective identity among an extremely heterogeneous population? This comparative issue is addressed by sociologist Liah Greenfeld in her introductory essay. Other essays contributed by historians and political scientists from the U.S., England, and Germany discuss historical developments and phenomena which have led to regional or group-specific identities which, in complex ways, contribute to, and interact with American national identity and nationalism.

The book shows how national days are best understood in the context of debates about national identity. It argues that national days are contested and manipulated, as well as subject to political, cultural and social pressure. It brings together some of the most recent research on national days and sets it in a comparative context.

We live in a world in which being a 'citizen' of a state and being a 'national' are by no means the same. Amidst much scholarly debate about 'nations' and 'nationalism', comparatively little has been written explicitly on 'national identity' and a great deal less is solidly evidence-based. This book focuses on national identity in England and Scotland. Using data collected over twenty years it asks: does national identity really matter to people? How does 'national identity' differ from 'nationality' and having a passport? Are there particular people and places which have ambiguous or contested national identities? What happens if someone makes a claim to a national identity? On what basis do others accept or reject the claim? Does national identity have much internal substance, or is it simply about defending group boundaries? How does national identity relate to politics and constitutional change?

This book presents the remarkable constitutional reforms undertaken by the Blair and Brown governments in the UK. The reforms are remarkable in that they had the potential to change the way Britons understood the national identity of the UK. The book illuminates the ambitions of the key players in Whitehall and Westminster and is enriched through a study of comparable constitutional reforms in Canada and Australia: the Charter of Rights and Freedoms pioneered by Pierre Trudeau and the attempt by Paul Keating to make Australia a Republic. The Canadian and Australian chapters are a contribution to the political history of those nations and a device for understanding the changes in Britain. The author is an expert in the use of Freedom of Information and was a senior policy maker in Whitehall working primarily on constitutional reform. Readers will benefit from the author's unrivalled access to interviewees and documentary sources in the three countries covered in the book.

In September of 1997 Scots voted overwhelmingly for the establishment of a modern democratic parliament - their first parliament in almost three hundred years. How did this remarkable constitutional change come about? Jonathan Hearn explores this question by examining how claims for greater political autonomy in Scotland today draw on deeper cultural traditions of political thought and action. Scotland's civic nationalism voices a moral critique of neoliberalism and a communitarian defence of the idea of the welfare state, grounding these in Scottish culture and identity. By placing this movement and its language in their institutional, historical and cultural contexts, this powerful book challenges the conventional distinctions between liberalism and nationalism, and between civic and ethnic forms of nationalism, by arguing for a more nuanced way of thinking about processes of culture, identity and politics. Key Features*An anthropological perspective on Scottish nationalism*An ethnographic, highly readable presentation of the subject*A synthetic treatment of nationalism and liberalism*An in-depth critique of the ethnic/civic dichotomy in nationalism studies