A BATTLE royal has broken out over a potted history of Britain that was written as a guide for immigrants wanting to become British citizens.

Historians have condemned the Home Office booklet as being “riddled with errors” that risks misleading the public. But its author, Sir Bernard Crick, a biographer of George Orwell and former mentor to David Blunkett, insists that the document is independent and that the omissions are “quibbles”.

In Life in the United Kingdom: A Journey to Citizenship, Oliver Cromwell’s victory over Charles II at Worcester occurred before he invaded Scotland, Harold Wilson was Prime Minister until 1979 and the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707 marked the birth of the United Kingdom.

The document, published to inform immigrants about British culture and customs in preparation for the citizenship test, contains information ranging from how the electoral reform system works to buying a person another pint if you spill his drink. Since November, all prospective citizens have had to take a 45-minute test, covering government and social and practical issues, at one of 90 centres across the country. Officials said that they had made a conscious decision not to test history.

The Historical Association, which represents historians at schools and universities, is outraged at some of the “facts” in the booklet and is proposing to write its own account — but is hampered by the very concept of having official historical accounts at all. “Official histories are a bad thing because they can be used for establishing government purposes and can be reinvented to support the official Establishment,” Barry Coward, president of the Historical Association, said. “This has been shown throughout history, as we saw in Hitler’s Germany. We think this is the thin end of the wedge and that history shouldn’t be used as a tool of Government.”

Some “quibbles” might be considered issues of emphasis. Britain’s victory in the Falklands conflict and Margaret Thatcher’s defeat of the miners’ strike might be considered turning points in our nation’s history by some; to Sir Bernard they are merely details.

But certain passages in Life in the United Kingdom are guaranteed to raise historians’ hackles. Professor Coward, a specialist in 17th-century history, took particular exception to the document’s description of Cromwell as a “God-fearing dictator”. He said: “It’s historical interpretation. I don’t think he was a dictator — that is a contested adjective. A more balanced and independent account would have avoided using that word.”

As an Orwell expert, Sir Bernard is well aware that comparisons are being made by his detractors to Winston Smith, the clerk for the Ministry of Truth in 1984, whose job was to rewrite historical documents daily according to the party line. However, although he admitted that errors had occured because of the speed with which the booklet had had to be written, he said that it was an independent work despite the official-looking binding.

“I made mistakes but some of the stuff is sheer quibbles,” he said from his home in Edinburgh. “In a brief account, you can’t put everything in.

“I think the interest in the miners’ strike is symbolic of left-wing bias. There are other things that could have been mentioned.” He also disputes the claim that the Act of Union with Ireland in 1800 marked the birth of the United Kingdom, rather than that signed in 1707 with Scotland, as he wrote.

Although he wishes that he had had the time to send a draft to “professional historians”, Sir Bernard said that it had been more important to get the document into print.

“I don’t mind being mocked for my errors, as long as overall it was helpful for teachers of immigrants,” he said — adding that he thought Orwell would have been perfectly at ease with the booklet. “I think he would have approved of people becoming British citizens and knowing something of British history. But, I repeat, it is not a Home Office draft; it is a personal draft from my lifetime of reading history. It is not a government document.”

Historians pointed out the errors in a seven-page letter to the Home Office when they discovered them last May. Officials said that some changes had been made and that a fully revised edition would be available towards the end of the year that would “obviously take into account the information that the Historical Association provided”.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• A vicar’s wife: ‘There is no one to fight for us’
• Every little helps at the supermarket
• Ugg or Fitflop? The battle of the boots