Spectator's notebook
Sir : In the first three paragraphs of Nigel Law- son's 'Spectator's notebook' of 7 March he mentions 'England' in contexts where this is inaccurate.
Such solecisms have occurred many times in the SPECTATOR. They are irritating. They tend to induce a reader to attribute ignorance and arrogance to their users. They contribute to ten- dencies towards nationalism within the United Kingdom which good sense should deplore.
As a regular reader of the SPECTATOR for well over twenty years, I would hope the practice of using 'England' as synonymous with the coun- try of which it is but part would diminish, if not disappear. Readers' goodwill, if nothing else, must matter
Andrew C. Bennett 19 Liberton Drive, Edinburgh, 9 On the whole we agree with Mr A..1. P. Taylor, who has written (1965): 'When the "Oxford History of England" was launched a generation ago, "England" was still an all-embracing word. It meant indiscriminately England and Wales; Great Britain; the United Kingdom; and even the British Empire . . . Now terms have be- come more rigorous. The use of "England" except for a geographic area brings protests. especially from the Scotch (sic). They seek to impose "Britain"—the name of a Roman pro- vince which perished in the fifth century and which included none of Scotland nor, indeed,
all of England . Whatever word we use lands us in a tangle.' On the importance of readers' goodwill we are, however, at one with Mr Bennett.—Editor, SPECTATOR.
Previous page
