Riccardo Cantadori is an Italian writer focused on economics, finance, and international relations. He believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility.
On the 19th October, Defence Secretary Wes Streeting declared that the government was building “a country ready to fight and a Britain worth fighting for.” Moments later, Reform UK MP Andrew Rosindell questioned the Royal Navy’s ability to defend the Falkland Islands. The minister immediately dismissed the claim, describing Rosindell’s remarks as “irresponsible” and “inaccurate”.
The following day, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch warned that the United Kingdom risked social unrest similar to that seen in France unless the government adopted a tougher approach to immigration. Her position was also challenged, albeit indirectly, by Housing Secretary Angela Rayner, who earlier that morning had rejected the link between immigration and the unrest in France in response to US President Donald Trump.
Amid accusations from the opposition and denials from the government, the two controversies, taken together, raise a broader question: how strong can a nation’s defences be if its citizens are gradually losing their sense of belonging to their country?
There has perhaps never been a time of unquestioned national unity, except during a few brief moments of grave danger, when defending one’s country meant, above all else, defending one’s home. After all, a democracy can accommodate profound disagreements over domestic and foreign policy, immigration or the economy without undermining the belief that its citizens form one people. The problem arises when disagreement over government decisions extends to the value of the nation itself, calling into question what citizens recognise as their common heritage.
The think tank Demos, in its survey “A Place for Pride 2026”, reveals that between 2011 and 2026, net pride in British citizenship fell from 74 to 47 per cent, while net pride in national history declined from 65 to 39 per cent. The decline is sharpest among the young. Among under-25s, net pride in British history has fallen from 54 per cent in 2011 to minus four per cent today: young people who say they are not proud of British history outnumber those who say they are.
Across the population as a whole, however, net pride in local communities rose from 29 to 40 per cent over the same period. The British therefore appear to retain a strong attachment to the places where they live, yet their sense of belonging to the nation is weakening.
After all, within local communities, a sense of belonging stems primarily from everyday experiences and personal relationships. At the national level, by contrast, it is sustained by the recognition of a shared history and by citizens’ trust in their institutions and confidence in a common future.
Even democracy and social solidarity, no less than national cohesion, ultimately depend on a sense of belonging to a wider community. They presuppose that people with different interests and convictions are willing to work together and to accept obligations towards one another.
In his article “Environmentalism Starts with Loving Our Own” (2017), the philosopher Roger Scruton defines the sense of belonging as “the love of the shared home and the desire to protect it”. This definition matters especially at a time when national security has once again become central to public debate.
The government can increase defence spending, purchase new ships and strengthen its alliances, but a nation’s strength also depends on its citizens’ willingness to recognise something worth protecting. It is difficult to ask a people to protect their country if they have ceased to regard it as their home.
Riccardo Cantadori is an Italian writer focused on economics, finance, and international relations. He believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility.
On the 19th October, Defence Secretary Wes Streeting declared that the government was building “a country ready to fight and a Britain worth fighting for.” Moments later, Reform UK MP Andrew Rosindell questioned the Royal Navy’s ability to defend the Falkland Islands. The minister immediately dismissed the claim, describing Rosindell’s remarks as “irresponsible” and “inaccurate”.
The following day, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch warned that the United Kingdom risked social unrest similar to that seen in France unless the government adopted a tougher approach to immigration. Her position was also challenged, albeit indirectly, by Housing Secretary Angela Rayner, who earlier that morning had rejected the link between immigration and the unrest in France in response to US President Donald Trump.
Amid accusations from the opposition and denials from the government, the two controversies, taken together, raise a broader question: how strong can a nation’s defences be if its citizens are gradually losing their sense of belonging to their country?
There has perhaps never been a time of unquestioned national unity, except during a few brief moments of grave danger, when defending one’s country meant, above all else, defending one’s home. After all, a democracy can accommodate profound disagreements over domestic and foreign policy, immigration or the economy without undermining the belief that its citizens form one people. The problem arises when disagreement over government decisions extends to the value of the nation itself, calling into question what citizens recognise as their common heritage.
The think tank Demos, in its survey “A Place for Pride 2026”, reveals that between 2011 and 2026, net pride in British citizenship fell from 74 to 47 per cent, while net pride in national history declined from 65 to 39 per cent. The decline is sharpest among the young. Among under-25s, net pride in British history has fallen from 54 per cent in 2011 to minus four per cent today: young people who say they are not proud of British history outnumber those who say they are.
Across the population as a whole, however, net pride in local communities rose from 29 to 40 per cent over the same period. The British therefore appear to retain a strong attachment to the places where they live, yet their sense of belonging to the nation is weakening.
After all, within local communities, a sense of belonging stems primarily from everyday experiences and personal relationships. At the national level, by contrast, it is sustained by the recognition of a shared history and by citizens’ trust in their institutions and confidence in a common future.
Even democracy and social solidarity, no less than national cohesion, ultimately depend on a sense of belonging to a wider community. They presuppose that people with different interests and convictions are willing to work together and to accept obligations towards one another.
In his article “Environmentalism Starts with Loving Our Own” (2017), the philosopher Roger Scruton defines the sense of belonging as “the love of the shared home and the desire to protect it”. This definition matters especially at a time when national security has once again become central to public debate.
The government can increase defence spending, purchase new ships and strengthen its alliances, but a nation’s strength also depends on its citizens’ willingness to recognise something worth protecting. It is difficult to ask a people to protect their country if they have ceased to regard it as their home.