In the last issue I discussed the question of immigration and the need for an open, rational and informed debate so that we can move forward as harmoniously and positively as possible. That means that we move on from present mindsets, whether bland assurance and political correctness, or indifference and quiet hostility. People need to know more, and they need to know that we have some idea of where we’re going. In particular, there are a lot of fears out there to be allayed.

With that in mind, a remarkable document published by the Observer last April is of particular interest. It is a list of the top 500 British surnames in 2007.
Now, people in Ireland who are worried about immigration often refer disparagingly to Britain. They cite particular towns that are now more Asian than English, and describe Britain’s multicultural society in terms of instability and disruption rather than stability and continuity.
None of these claims are without basis.
Yet, the Observer list of surnames shows that Britain is still absolutely and undeniably Britain. The most common name is Smith. This is an old English name, driving from metalworking. The second most common name is Jones, third is Williams, fourth is Brown, fifth is Taylor and sixth is Davies.
Guess what? In 1881, the most common name in Britain was… Smith, second most common was Jones, third was Williams, fourth was Brown, fifth was Taylor and sixth was Davies.
Well! Just think of all the changes that have occurred in Britain since 1881. Think of the wars that decimated its manhood. Literally millions died. Think of the diseases, think of inward and outward migration, industrialisation, the fall of mining and heavy industry. And yet, the six most common names 125 years ago are still the most common and in the same order.
But there’s more. Not only are they in the same order, but they are still most common in the same places. Smith is most found in Lerwick in Scotland, as it was in 1881. Jones is now most found in Llandudno, as it was in 1881. Williams is also most found in Llandudno, as it was in 1881. Brown is now most found in Galashiels, in 1881 it was most found in Kilmarnock, not a million miles away. As for Taylor, in 2007 and 1881 alike it is most found in Oldham, likewise Davies in Swansea.
And it goes on. Wilson (7), Evans (8), Thomas (9) and Roberts (10) are still in the same order and location as in 1881. Johnson (11) and Walker (12) have merely changed positions.
As you read through the list, the pattern remains steady. There are some changes of course, but on the whole, the same names are common, and to the same degree, and also in generally the same locations, as 125 years ago. For example, Hall is at 19, just as it was in 1881.
The first name that stands out as different is Patel, which is 20th on the list. The next ‘non-English’ name is Kelly, an Irish name as we all know, which is 46th. In 1881 it was 98th. Then at 64 we have Begum, a name of Turkish origin. At 65 is Murphy, another Irish name. At 66 is Khan which, though Turkic in origin, is largely Pakistani in modern Britain. At 76 is Singh, a Sikh name and at 77 is Hussain, an Arabic name. Ali enters the list at 81 and Ahmed at 89. Kaur, an Indian name, is at 99.
A few other Irish names are found – Kennedy at 125, O’Neill at 159, O’Brien at 162, Ryan at 182, Quinn at 185 – but not many.
You can see that ghettoes were established and that some cities were colonised, for example Liverpool by the Irish and Bradford by the Asians. But overall, the same names hold strong in the same places as they did four generations ago.
What it all points to is a remarkable level of stability and continuity in Britain, despite the wars and diseases and immigration and other huge changes. And if this is the case in Britain, which has been in the immigration and multicultural arena much much longer than we, why would it not be likely here?
Indeed, it would be fascinating to conduct the same exercise in Ireland. I suspect that, for all that you hear about auld decent Ireland, we would find less continuity and stability here.
Sure, some of this is because of emigration and internal migration. But if that’s so, then isn’t it the case that we’ve always had movement and redistribution? Other than the fact that newcomers come from other countries, where’s the difference? And if there’s no difference, what or where is the problem?
Well, sometimes it’s within, it’s fear.
Look, the experience in Britain indicates that immigration doesn’t change as many things as some people think. But it also makes it clear that integration doesn’t happen easily, if at all. This isn’t necessarily or always the fault of the host societies. Some minorities do not want to integrate. And when I talk of an open and honest discourse, that’s one of the things that needs to be confronted.
Come on! The glass is half full!!!