Thread: Purgatory: The Un-United Kingdom? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001086
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
OK, I'm a dumb 'Merican. I admit that until I started hanging around here, I thought it was all "England". I mean I knew about Wales and Scotland and Cornwall, but I thought they were kind of like different states. In 'Merica we've got fifty of them, but we all consider ourselves Americans.

So I've learned to say "the United Kingdom" or "Britain" and not "England". I'm amazed at some of the anger I pick up on, especially from some of the Welsch about England. And how do the Scots feel?

Is the "United Kingdom" really a myth? I look at the map and here's this not particulary big island that you could stick in a corner of Texas or California and it seems to have three different countries going at each other hammer and tongs. What's the deal?

Do you see yourselves as a single nation state? Or are you some sort of loose confederacy floating around on the edge of Europe?

I really am curious.

[ 08. January 2006, 22:01: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
It's simple really.

Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales.

Great Britain is England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The United Kingdom is England, Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which are in the EU; and the Channel Islands, which are not part of the EU.

The Channel Islands are made up of four countries, Jersey Guernsey Alderney and Sark.

There, I told you it was simple.
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
It is a touchy subject Sine. We Welsh have been a persecuted minority for hundreds of years - but that's because everyone else is jealous of us. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
[Confused] If I read you correctly, Sine, the anger works the other way round in Britain. The Welsh in particular seem to get very annoyed when you say 'England' but mean 'Britain' etc. This works especially well - if you ever want to see a Welshman spontaneously combust - if you say something like 'The Gower Peninsula is a very beautiful part of England'. Hours of fun for all the family, winding up the non-English British (or UKers or whatever).

(btw, I'm the first generation of my family not to be Scottish, so don't go getting out of your prams about this. I just have a sense of humour about the whole England/GB/UK thing.)
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
We Welsh have been a persecuted minority for hundreds of years - but that's because everyone else is jealous of us. [Paranoid]
It's those lovely daffodils. They just don't grow like that anywhere else. Mrs Trellis has a wonderful display in her garden and wins the North Wales In Bloom award regularly, I'm told.

I was surprised to discover that some people think that Dublin, and indeed the whole of the Republic of Ireland) is in the UK. I heard this from one Welsh person who assured me it was common knowledge and an admittedly not terribly bright older Irish man. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
I like the confusion in this country about our identity, means you can pick and choose who you are in various situations.

Sometimes I am Devonian, sometimes English, sometimes British, sometimes European...

Neil
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
We Welsh have been a persecuted minority for hundreds of years - but that's because everyone else is jealous of us. [Paranoid]
It's those lovely daffodils. They just don't grow like that anywhere else. Mrs Trellis has a wonderful display in her garden and wins the North Wales In Bloom award regularly, I'm told.
Ah, Mrs. Trellis. What would we do without her?
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
You all are making fun of me, aren't you? [Paranoid]

What do you feel your essential identity is? Mine is being American. The Southern thing is basically a schtick.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
And how do the Scots feel?
Well, during the recent football (soccer) world cup the Scots supported a wide range of teams (in particular Argentina and Brazil picked up a lot of support north of the border). Why was this? Simple ... any team playing England will be supported by Scots.

The official opposition in the Scottish Parliament (that is, the second largest party after Labour) are the Scottish Nationalists ... for whom Scottish independance from England is almost the most important part of their political position.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
So you really don't feel you're part of one country?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So you really don't feel you're part of one country?
Heavens, no. For a start I've always seen Wales as a country in its own right. It has its own language - everywhere you go, there are public signs and notices which are bilingual - it has its own culture and customs. It comes across as having a strong national identity. I haven't been to Scotland and don't know whether Gaelic is used in the way that Welsh is on public notices and whether it is taught in all schools but there's no doubting that they also have their own culture and customs and a sense of national identity.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
So what holds you together besides Her Majesty?
 
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

What do you feel your essential identity is? Mine is being American.
I really don't feel I need one, being me is enough.

Neil
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
I find that very hard to understand (along with much else in life). I would think that where you are from would be an important part of who you are. Did it not in large part form you?
 
Posted by ce (# 1957) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So what holds you together besides Her Majesty?
Inertia and tax revenues.

I suspect that for many people a vague sense of a long shared history fulfills or replaces the need for any clear sense of national identity.

ce
 
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I find that very hard to understand (along with much else in life). I would think that where you are from would be an important part of who you are. Did it not in large part form you?
Well yes, living in Exeter affects me, living in Devon affects me, living in England affects me ... which bit is "me"?

Neil
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
So putting the Welsh and the Scots to one side for the moment, do the English feel a sense of national identity for "England"?

(A sweeping question. Sorry. I really am curious. This is another of those pond divides. What you're saying is really foreign to me.)
 
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So putting the Welsh and the Scots to one side for the moment, do the English feel a sense of national identity for "England"?
For me it's only a little bit, but then perhaps I live too much on the fringes to really feel it, I know we have had the "are you English/British" debate before without all even slightly agreeing on what we felt we most were.

Neil
 
Posted by Christopher (# 982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So putting the Welsh and the Scots to one side for the moment, do the English feel a sense of national identity for "England"?

(A sweeping question. Sorry. I really am curious. This is another of those pond divides. What you're saying is really foreign to me.)
I think one of the really valuable things that being 'English' means is the fact that it is very hard to identify what exactly Englishness is. This enables the 'idea' of England to be flexible, constantly changing and ultimately un-definable. But what do I know? Never, ever tell a Cornishman that he/she 'belongs' to England, that foreign place beyond the Tamar, 'up country' as we like to call it.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
Sign, btw, I am not Welsh. [Big Grin] I am a Scot living in Wales.

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
don't know whether Gaelic is used in the way that Welsh is on public notices and whether it is taught in all schools but there's no doubting that they also have their own culture and customs and a sense of national identity.
Gaelic is taught in some schools, typically in the Gaelic speaking areas and more recently in the cities. There are Gaelic medium schools, and schools where Gaelic is taught as a subject. The same is true for Welsh, except that there are more Welsh speakers than Gaelic speakers.

quote:
Sign asked:
So what holds you together besides Her Majesty?
That woman must have terribly strong shoulder muscles!

Lizzy Windsor does not hold us together. It is things like the laws and institution that do. To make a spilt with the rest of Britain/UK/etc would take an Act of Parliament. There has been some measure of devolution for Scotland, NI and Wales, too much for some, and not enough for others.

The reason that "everyone hates the English" is because of the way that the English overlords tried to repress the local languages, evicted people from the land (to replace them with sheep), treated the locals are almost subhumans, ooh and any number of other things. "Everyone" includes the Cornish, the Devonians, the Cumbrians, the Lancastrians, the Yorkshiremen/women etc.

But quite frankly, that all happened a long time ago, and we need to pick ourselves and stop defining ourselves as 'not English'. The English (by and large) are a charming people, polite and considerate. Hatred is not a good thing, and the national rivarlies are to be pitied rather than condoned.

Far too often 'being English' is the preserve of the extreme xenophobic nationalists, or the arrogantly smug WASPs. So they deny their Englishness to avoid being mistaken for those people. It is time for the English to stand up and be proud of the their country, culture (and multi-cultures), their people and achievments.

English people start claiming back your flag, your heritage and your national pride. Rejoice that you have a beautiful and diverse land and are blessed with many excellent peoples and cultures. Be English, and be proud.

bb
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So putting the Welsh and the Scots to one side for the moment, do the English feel a sense of national identity for "England"?
Over the last 5 years there has been an increasing use of the English flag so I think the answer is yes. There was a good (humourous) book about this by Jeremy Paxman

I have found my new identity as Irish (which i am not) very helpful when travelling to Arabic countries since there English British and americans are not very welcome.
 
Posted by Never Conforming (# 4054) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
living in Devon affects me,
I bet it does. It sure affects me!! I have to have counselling just to recover from it. [Big Grin] [Snigger]

Jo
 
Posted by ce (# 1957) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So putting the Welsh and the Scots to one side for the moment, do the English feel a sense of national identity for "England"?

(A sweeping question. Sorry. I really am curious. This is another of those pond divides. What you're saying is really foreign to me.)
Yes, though to nowhere near the extent that US citizens seem to for "America". I think that most of us are secure enough about our own identites without having to think about it.
Also we tend not to think of England as a "state", it is often more specific things like landscape (relative irrelevancies like green countryside and pretty villages) that people bring to mind in notions of "Englishness", or "Britishness" for that matter.

Try and look at your op from a different tack; I feel much more "at home" in a French city than I do in deepest rural welsh-speaking Wales - and it's not just to do with ability to understand language (and France is nearer as well).

ce
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Thank-you all. This is really interesting to me. Not very Hellish perhaps, but you never know.

Have to go rake leaves, but will be back.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I find that very hard to understand (along with much else in life). I would think that where you are from would be an important part of who you are. Did it not in large part form you?
It depends what you mean by "where you're from". It isn't always clearcut. I was born in one country, my ethnic origin is from another, I grew up overseas in three different countries on three different continents and went to some ethnic community schools. If I'm asked I will say I'm Anglo-Irish, but I can't be any more precise than that. I've been influenced by three different cultures and have now accepted that I'm not typical of any of them and I'm just me.

The Irish and Scots have been celebrating their respective national saints' days for years - I don't know whether the Welsh go in for this to the same extent - it came as a surprise to a Welsh colleague when I wished her a happy St David's Day! - but it's only in recent years that we've started to see St George's Day cards on sale and English flags, as opposed to the Union Jack (or Union Flag if you want to be pedantic). Which might be said to be a sign that a sense of English national identity is becoming more important.

This isn't hellish at all - we'd be better off in Purgatory.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So putting the Welsh and the Scots to one side for the moment, do the English feel a sense of national identity for "England"?

(A sweeping question. Sorry. I really am curious. This is another of those pond divides. What you're saying is really foreign to me.)
Ingore starbelly for a minute. He is just being a random guy, and talking out of his arse [Biased]

I am English. As bb said, it used to be hard to say that, because of the two groups who claimed they were English: BNP and WASPs. It's changing slowly, and now it's more-or-less ok to be English.

So, I am English. I am emphatically not European though.

English is terraced houses, hedgerows, few and precious greenspaces, rights and duties being inextricably linked, history going back 2,000 years, small sweet shops, greengrocers, high streets/town centres, to name but a few things.

[Big Grin] Hope this helps.

Sarkycow
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Uses toasting fork to lob thread over to Purgatory

This is all too reasonable to stay down here.

Sarkycow, hellhost
 
Posted by Intégriste (# 4959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
So, I am English. I am emphatically not European though.
Which continent do you think England is in? Asia? America?
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
England (and the whole of UK/GB) is part of a group of islands off the coast of continental Europe .

As a Scot, I might be more European than the sassenachs... but then they came from Saxony...

{edited because I can't spell "continental" [Hot and Hormonal] }

[ 08. November 2003, 15:29: Message edited by: daisymay ]
 
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
So, I am English. I am emphatically not European though.
You are only proving my point that no one can agree on it, so as such we have no coherant collective identity.

Neil
 
Posted by JohnBoot (# 3566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So what holds you together besides Her Majesty?
Well, in the Six Counties' case, many thousands (I don't know the current number) of heavily-armed troops of occupation.

[ 08. November 2003, 15:58: Message edited by: JohnBoot ]
 
Posted by Zipporah (# 3896) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
... it's only in recent years that we've started to see St George's Day cards on sale and English flags, as opposed to the Union Jack (or Union Flag if you want to be pedantic).
About time too! As a Scot I always found it deeply insulting that our English neighbours used the British flag and national anthem (which represent all the British nations) as if they were exclusively the English flag and anthem alone - especially so when used at international events in which Scotland and Wales also take part. [Roll Eyes]

Not that I'm anti-English in any way - far from it! I just dislike the way "British" and "English" are used interchangeably as though the other nations didn't really exist, though admittedly it is getting a lot better now.

[Edited for UBB.]

[ 08. November 2003, 19:12: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JohnBoot:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So what holds you together besides Her Majesty?
Well, in the Six Counties' case, many thousands (I don't know the current number) of heavily-armed troops of occupation.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by angloid (# 159) on :
 
Originally posted by Sarkycow
quote:
So, I am English. I am emphatically not European though.
I was all set to respond to this thread with a defence of true English patriotism, on a par with Welsh and Scottish patriotism. But if we English are not European what the H*** (sorry, we've been moved) are we? Welsh and Scottish nationalists talk very positively and sensibly of having a national identity within a wider European context. In England we have been so long used to being top dog and acting unilaterally (often or even nearly always dragging the rest of the UK behind us) that we could pretend not to need the rest of the continent. But this Euroscepticism doesn't fit the fact that we are no longer a major world power and so must act in concert with others. Blair's government is moving fitfully and inconsistently towards some kind of federal UK; but even if that works (and it's doubtful) we need to link with something wider. And if we are not European even less are we American.
Incidentally, the fact that the UK is geographically an island (or islands) doesn't mean we are not part of the continent - Sicily and Sardinia are part of Italy; the Isle of Wight used to be part of Hampshire.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zipporah:
I just dislike the way "British" and "English" are used interchangeably as though the other nations didn't really exist, though admittedly it is getting a lot better now.
"The other nations"? Are Scotland and Wales nations? I know they have their own parliements now, but I had thought they were more like our state legislatures. Or do you mean in their own minds they are nations, but Westminster just hasn't recognized it yet?
 
Posted by TheGreenT (# 3571) on :
 
Just to add my 2p worth....

I live on the south coast of england - and have rarely been into Wales and Scotland. Mainly due to ignorance I admit but I think a lot of us southerners dont really realise the differences between eng/wales/scotland.

I will use British/English interchangeably when describing myself - simply as it makes no difference to me which I use.

I use the words Europe and European to describe the continent "over there" - as per most english folk I think as discussed on another thread recently.

I dont tend to like the use of the British flag prolly cos for me its identified with patriotism which is often portrayed as Not A Good Thing in england.

er -t hink thats it!
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Zipporah:
I just dislike the way "British" and "English" are used interchangeably as though the other nations didn't really exist, though admittedly it is getting a lot better now.
"The other nations"? Are Scotland and Wales nations? I know they have their own parliements now, but I had thought they were more like our state legislatures. Or do you mean in their own minds they are nations, but Westminster just hasn't recognized it yet?
Scotland and Wales are nations. Have been for hundreds of years.

In 1603 James VI and I took over as king of England as well as Scotland. Edward I of England had defeated the Welsh previously and killed off their rulers (13th/early14th C). Still separate parliaments in Scotland and England, but not a Welsh one.

In 1707 there was the Union of Parliaments when there was bribery of the Scots Lords and they sold Scotland to the English and the Parliaments were united. Been like that till recently, but now we have our Parliament (albeit minus a building) back.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
In 1998. a report was published that to call onesself English or to display the English flag was racist. On the day it was published black English athletes at the Commonwealth Games were proud to parade the same flag around the stadium on winning gold medals.

Through the 1980s and '90s use of the flag by organisations such as the National Front and the BNP had made the flag the preserve of the racists.
Now thanks to the athletes the flag has returned to the country.

It can only be good for the country when members of ethnic minority communities start flying the flag. As happened last St. Georges day.
 
Posted by Zipporah (# 3896) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheGreenT:
I will use British/English interchangeably when describing myself - simply as it makes no difference to me which I use.
Fair enough. You are English and British in the same way that I am Scottish and British. It's only when "England" is used to refer to the British Isles as a whole, or "Britain" is used to refer to England exclusively, that I get a little pissed off with it all.

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
"The other nations"? Are Scotland and Wales nations? I know they have their own parliements now, but I had thought they were more like our state legislatures. Or do you mean in their own minds they are nations, but Westminster just hasn't recognized it yet?
Scotland and Wales always were nations in their own right, as clarified by Daisymay above. Yes, we are all British. But Britain and the UK is made up of a number of nations, each with its own unique identity, working together.

There is the Union Flag and National Anthem, which are only supposed to be used to represent Britain as a whole. Each nation within the UK also has its own flag and national anthem. Scotland has its own education and legal system separate from England too - I'm not sure whether the same is true for Wales.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
So, do you guys feel you're living in the same country, or three different countries?

Or is it like the mystery of the Holy Trinity? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Actually, I don't regard myself as British [Disappointed] My ethnicity would be Scots, Pictish, Viking etc...

My children are born and bred in England, are true Londoners, but are of even more mixed ethnic origin.. must be English because of supporting Arsenal, I suppose. [Big Grin] But they are more "European" and "Asian" and "Sephardic" than "British".

Problem is, we all get "British" written in our passports, even when they are EU ones.
 
Posted by Off-centre view (# 4254) on :
 
Balaam, I'm really happy to see that a lot of this extremist "if-you-say-you-are-english-you-are-evil-racist" is exposed for the rubbish it is.

Back in the UK, I usually refer to myself as either British or English, though I am pro-European and consider myself a European as well. But which do I consider myself first as? Well, it differs from time to time.

Does being "English" make me automatically hate anyone? No, of course not. I have many close French and German friends, as well as friends who are not the same skin colour as me. As for the other nations of the United Kingdom I have no problems whatsoever with them or their feelings of being whatever they choose to be. The people who I have a problem with are those who use that choice to turn hatred toward me over things that had been done by people not even related to me years before. However I can understand the resentment over the imperialism of the past and can fully understand some of their urging for independence.

To further complicate things, I would not be considered as "just" English. I'm part Cornish (one of my Grandparents came from Bodmin) and and also part Scottish (my late great uncle gave me permission to wear a kilt of the clan if I so wished. Cameron if you were wondering).

At the moment I am living abroad and the Swedes here refer to me as an "engelskman" rather than britishman or any other titles. It is weird but now I feel consciously more English than I have done before, but I can't really express what that means very well. Perhaps people from other countries are best to identify what being "British" or "Welsh" etc really mean. Any suggestions?

Off-centre view
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Off-centre view:
At the moment I am living abroad and the Swedes here refer to me as an "engelskman" rather than britishman or any other titles. It is weird but now I feel consciously more English than I have done before, but I can't really express what that means very well.
Yes - not uncommon in expatriates. People abroad do sometimes feel a stronger sense of national identity when they live in a foreign country.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
This is fascinating. I may have to overcome my fear of flying and come check this out.

I've been to Manhattan and I've been to L.A. and San Francisco -- opposite sides of a large continent, and very different from each other and from my neck of the woods, but still part of one country.

Maybe the fact that our history is shorter and nearly all of us are immigrants makes the difference.
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
I'm English and living in Scotland. Most of what I wanted to say has been said. This puzzled me though:

quote:
Each nation within the UK also has its own flag and national anthem
What's the English anthem, then? I hope its Jerusalem! [Biased]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mrs whibley:
What's the English anthem, then?
"Swing Low, Sweet Chariot"? Is there an English national anthem ... and if not, why not?
 
Posted by Zipporah (# 3896) on :
 
Sorry Mrs Whibley, I thought England did have its own anthem. Can't think of any reason why there shouldn't be one. [Confused]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zipporah:
Sorry Mrs Whibley, I thought England did have its own anthem. Can't think of any reason why there shouldn't be one. [Confused]
I think the Scots tend to think that "God save the Queen" is the English anthem because of the verse about the "perfidious Scots"...

I'd have thought maybe "Land of Hope and Glory"?

When I was young, the Scots national anthem was "Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled" and now it's changed to "Flower o' Scotland". At one point, they even tried to have "Scotland the Brave".
 
Posted by coffee jim (# 3510) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JohnBoot:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So what holds you together besides Her Majesty?
Well, in the Six Counties' case, many thousands (I don't know the current number) of heavily-armed troops of occupation.
Hmmm... As an ex-pat Englishman living in Belfast (ever been there, John Boot?), I don't see squaddies on a daily basis. Numbers (which I, also, don't know) have been reduced markedly over the last few years.
Forget the kneejerk Brit-bashing. The fact is that the (narrow) majority of the NI population wants to be part of the UK, and many of them feel more British than Irish. The way they express it is frequently unpleasant and incoherent, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid.

As many on this thread have suggested, no-one really knows what 'Britishness' means. This is a
big problem for NI Unionists, particularly the younger generation. Although there's definitely a cultural divide between those who identify as Irish in the North and in the South, I'd hazard that it's not nearly as big as that between, say, a Union Jack waving Shankill teenager and your average yoof from Birmingham.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
It's simple really.

Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales.

Great Britain is England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The title page of my passport says:

'European Community
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.'

Which seems to indicate that Great Britain and Northern Ireland are two separate entities; Great Britain being Scotland, Wales, England (and the various islands?), and Northern Ireland being, well, out on its own, natch!

The National Anthem for Northern Ireland is 'God Save the Queen'. But nobody will be surprized to hear that a significant section of the community prefer 'The Soldier's Song'!
 
Posted by mrs whibley (# 4798) on :
 
Alan [Killing me] I assume you mean 'go home' in the nationalist sense rather than 'Home' in the Christian sense originally meant by the song, though - the nuke is making me nervous.

Daisymay - oops! I'm sure that fewer English know that verse of 'God Save the Queen' than know what Perfidious means. (Wheras in Scotland the verse is probably better known - and people have dictionaries). Now I see why it is seldom sung up here.

I don't know all the words to either 'Land of Hope and Glory' or 'Rule Britannia' although the latter's title suggests a British rather than English song.
 
Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 
Johnboot you have been called to hell since i can't PM you and you wish me to reveal my e-mail address but keep yours secret I won't be e-mailing you.
 
Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
I am English, with an Irish wife. Ethnically I am a quarter Irish and a quarter Scots, so I have enough of the mix of these islands in me to relate to the problems. I posted a thread last year in which I lamented that in an international football competetition, most English people, if England had been eliminated, would support Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, because they are British. But the Scots would support Outer Mongolia or anyone against England. This is IMO because the English have a completely different view of the union than the Scots.

To the English, as the dominent force within the British Isles, they can afford to take a patristic attitude towards the Celtic peoples of this island. The Scots, like the Welsh see it as occupation and as a denial of their culture. I think that, whatever the differences we have between us in these islands, and in this I include Ireland, we have far more in common as inhabitants of an archipeligo, than we do with the French or Germans. We all eat bacon and black pudding. We all drink beer in the pub. None of us can undo history, we need in this day to accentuate the positives rather than denigrate the negatives.

But I call on JohnBoot to defend his ignorant misunderstanding of affairs in Northern Ireland in which he says that thousands of occupying forces are keeping control against its people's will. I suggest to you, JohnBoot that you do some research on what's going on there before you stick your uninformed Boot into the situation.
 
Posted by JohnBoot (# 3566) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:

But I call on JohnBoot to defend his ignorant misunderstanding of affairs in Northern Ireland in which he says that thousands of occupying forces are keeping control against its people's will. I suggest to you, JohnBoot that you do some research on what's going on there before you stick your uninformed Boot into the situation.
Did I say something inaccurate? Are there less than thousands of British troops in the Six Counties? Are they not an army of occupation? Perhaps they are on training exercises? Or perhaps they are "peacekeepers" - we Americans know that designation well - that's what we call our troops in Iraq.

And are they not heavily armed? Perhaps they carry no arms at all, just that plucky sense of English fair play. Perhaps.

No, coffee jim, I've never been to Belfast. My family was kicked out of County Tyrone some time back. I'd kind of like to see Ireland unified before I come back.

And, Nightlamp, I blame my dewy freshness to these boards for not knowing what being called down to Hell means. It sounds like some sort of yummy macho pose-down. Do elucidate me!
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
JB,

Go to Hell.

CB
 
Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 
I'm one of those English people who feels that they have to deny being English to avoid being associated with the superiority-complex-obsessed nationalist elements that seem to have typified 'English' for the last couple of decades. Those and the violent, ignorant, beer-swilling football hooligans that seem to dominate the European image of the English when abroad.

With images such as those, is it any wonder that I'd rather be considered European than English.

An English-by-birth, Scots-by-marriage, man living in Wales for 15 years so far!

quote:
Originally posted by Off-centre view:
and also part Scottish (my late great uncle gave me permission to wear a kilt of the clan if I so wished. Cameron if you were wondering).
There is no such thing as 'being given permission to wear the kilt.' It is a piece of clothing which typically comes in tartan colours. No-one can tell you you're not 'allowed' to wear the kilt in whatever colours you like. I was married in the 'Flower of Scotland' tartan and now own a kilt in the Gunn Ancient which happens to be the tartan of babybear's family (though her Sept is Wilson - you can see why I chose Gunn over Wilson!), but I could have chosen just about any I could have afforded.

Gremlin
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by JohnBoot:
I blame my dewy freshness to these boards for not knowing what being called down to Hell means.
It means there is a thread in Hell with your name on it. You should go and have a look at it.
 
Posted by Zipporah (# 3896) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
When I was young, the Scots national anthem was "Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled" and now it's changed to "Flower o' Scotland". At one point, they even tried to have "Scotland the Brave".
Ah yes "Scotland the Brave" ... possibly the only anthem in the world sung to "La la la-la la la la" because no-one knows the words! [Big Grin]

I always think of "Flower of Scotland" as the real anthem though! [Smile]
 
Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
I think that, whatever the differences we have between us in these islands, and in this I include Ireland, we have far more in common as inhabitants of an archipeligo, than we do with the French or Germans.
<tangent>
It is, of course, a myth that the Germans or the French are a united society without UK-like divisions. You only have to look at the differences between Bavaria and Northern Germany, or between Southern France and Alsace-Lorraine (the area which has repeatedly flip-flopped between France and Germany over the centuries).

Similarly, even countries as small as Belgium and Switzerland are far from immune from these kinds of sub-divisions. In Belgium it is the Flemish and French speaking Belgians, and in Switzerland, there are the French Swiss, the German Swiss and the Italian Swiss!

I guess this makes the US quite unusual in the apparent wish of most US citizens to be seen as a coherent nation.
</tangent>

Gremlin
 
Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
I think that, whatever the differences we have between us in these islands, and in this I include Ireland, we have far more in common as inhabitants of an archipeligo, than we do with the French or Germans.
John Major's government - a pretty dreadful one - took Rhyl, re-drew a line on a map, and put it in Denbighshire. Why? God had put it in Flintshire. What do I have in common with Denbighshire people?

No offence...
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gremlin:

I guess this makes the US quite unusual in the apparent wish of most US citizens to be seen as a coherent nation.
It's odder than that, Gremlin. Whatever our ethnic, political, or socio-economic differences, we feel, and are a part of a coherent nation.

Even us Southerners who thought we might like to go it alone a while back.

I had wondered about Germans. I've read a fair amount of German history. I like to say "Love Bavarians. Hate Prussians." From my reading I see them as two separate states.
 
Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
I've heard it observed that the Welsh national sport is really fratricide...
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
...took Rhyl, ....What do I have in common with Denbighshire people?
I hear you brother! But don't worry, you can always strive to be better educated and have a decent bit of culture. There is no need to admit to anyone that you are from y Rhyl, just say that you are Welsh and you will instantly gain people's respect.


bb
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
You folks in North America can never really understand the heights of passion which we, in Scotland, feel for our hills, our narrow wee roads, our little churches and our sheep. Och, I'm gettin' a wee tear in my eye...

*sob*

Raspberry Rabbit
Penicuik, Midlothian
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So you really don't feel you're part of one country?
Heavens, no. For a start I've always seen Wales as a country in its own right. It has its own language - everywhere you go, there are public signs and notices which are bilingual - it has its own culture and customs. It comes across as having a strong national identity. I haven't been to Scotland and don't know whether Gaelic is used in the way that Welsh is on public notices and whether it is taught in all schools but there's no doubting that they also have their own culture and customs and a sense of national identity.
Oh, it's simple. Wales is like Québec. I can sleep in peace tonight knowing this.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
You all are making fun of me, aren't you? [Paranoid]

What do you feel your essential identity is? Mine is being American. The Southern thing is basically a schtick.
Let's find out if this is true.

Sine, what was the name of that pesky little old conflict that was fought during the early 1860s? You know the one, between the Blue and the Gray.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:
Originally posted by Gremlin:

I guess this makes the US quite unusual in the apparent wish of most US citizens to be seen as a coherent nation.
It's odder than that, Gremlin. Whatever our ethnic, political, or socio-economic differences, we feel, and are a part of a coherent nation.

Even us Southerners who thought we might like to go it alone a while back.
Yes and no on the cohesive part, IMHO. Yes, there is a Federal Republic to which individual states and commonwealths joined (or were forced back into union) and agreed to abide by some umbrella rules and regs. And most of us recognnize and respond emotionally to things like the national anthem, certain skylines and dramatic landscapes, or the charm of our own home town. And pop culture is coast-to-coast. But the fact that different states have different laws (some of them quite crucial) provides a sense that one has gone into new culture/society when one moves. I've lived in New York and LA, South Carolina, Detroit, and now near Chicago. I've had to learn new ways of using language, new customs, new rules of ettiquette in each place.

And please, those from Texas (once a nation itself), please speak up. I've always had the impression from friends in the Lone Star State, that unless we're fighting terrorists or fielding an Olympic team, one is a Texan first and foremost. I may be wrong, I have very individualistic friends.

Add to this the children/grandchildren of relatively recent immigrants (a common situation in any developed country these days, actually), and you have loyalty to the old country thrown in and a whole bunch of non-cohesive cultural references and foodways to content with--not to mention ritual hoidays no one else quite understands or worse, appropriates and changes.

One of my best friends in graduate school is from Puerto Rico, and by virtue of that is an American citizen, but she sure doesn't feel cohesiveness nor does she especially want to (as well as all the Puerto Ricans who have consistently voted not to become part of the Union).

A current friend is a member of a First Nation--that must feel like a major disconnect, and was never really a choice.

I'm not sure if this is analogous to the UK/Britain/Endlang/Wales/Scotland/No.Ireland thing but it seems a bit relevant.

The development of European identity should be interesting.

sabine
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
TBAS, that would be the War of Northern Aggression. I'm surprised you didn't know that. [Disappointed]

[Edited to show reference.]

[ 09. November 2003, 03:56: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
Tortuf, we cross-posted, which saved me from double posting. Thank you.

I was thinking--and I'm not speaking for any Americans on the Ship, just for the people of my RL acquaintance--the people I know actually resent being seen as a cohesive nation for the most part, especially in the face of stereotypes and politics.

sabine

[ 09. November 2003, 04:03: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Sine, what was the name of that pesky little old conflict that was fought during the early 1860s? You know the one, between the Blue and the Gray.
It was "the War between the States". Why do you ask?

[ 09. November 2003, 04:33: Message edited by: Sine Nomine ]
 
Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
quote:
I hear you brother! But don't worry, you can always strive to be better educated and have a decent bit of culture. There is no need to admit to anyone that you are from y Rhyl, just say that you are Welsh and you will instantly gain people's respect.
Er - thanks, bb...

But actually, if I'm speaking to anyone who seems to know Rhyl, I tell them I was born in St. Asaph...

(Flintshire...)
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Tangent alert:
quote:
Posted by Zipporah:
I always think of "Flower of Scotland" as the real anthem though!
Am I the only person who can't tell the difference between the first couple of bars of 'Flower of Scotland' and the Chorus of Hebrew Slaves from Nabucco?

Which, given that the Chorus is a rendering of Psalm 137, might not be as much a tangent as I thought. [Biased]

End of tangent
 
Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
But actually, if I'm speaking to anyone who seems to know Rhyl, I tell them I was born in St. Asaph...
Very wise! [Big Grin]

Rhyl is probably one of the worst places I know... which is really unfortunate as it's the most easily accessible shopping center from here when you only have public transport.

Gremlin
 
Posted by Lurker McLurker, of the clan Lurker (# 1384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zipporah:
I always think of "Flower of Scotland" as the real anthem though! [Smile]
I prefer the song that was sung at the opening of the Scottish parliament:
For a' that. It's far better than singing about old battles. An anthem that looks to the future, not the past.

quote:
For a' that, an a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That man to man, the world, o'er
Shall brithers be for a' that.

 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zipporah:
I always think of "Flower of Scotland" as the real anthem though! [Smile]
I was just recalling today the first time it was really used in anger, as it were. 1990 , Murrayfield. England swaggered up to knock off an easy win and pick up their Grand Slam. They went white when we started to sing. Grown men shaking in their shoes at a few verses of a popular song. Admittedly sung by 40,000 people who wished them nothing but harm.

What a beautiful day that was.
 
Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
[Snigger] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Bongo (# 778) on :
 
Englishness is almost impossible to pin down and describe. I'd recommend "The English" by Jeremy Paxman to you, Sine.

For what it's worth, I wasn't at all patriotic until I went and lived in Michigan for a while - and found that I was pleased, and even a little bit proud, to be British! (It wore off quick enough when I came home, though; phew.)

THis whole debate is linked to the recent thread about BNP policemen. The BNP sort of co-opted the term "English" so that to describe yourself as English was, in some people's opinions, to declare yourself a racist.

I still would be a bit suspicious of anyone who was noisily patriotic about being English.
 
Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
We were in Brittany on holiday a few years ago.

One day, we'd ordered up lunch in a cafe and were sitting outside. The waiter was asking the kids, in passable English, if they were having a "good 'oleeday". He was really nice.

When the younger child tipped its drink all over its plate, he came out, mopped up the mess, took it away, brought out replacements refusing money for them with "children do this, it's not a problem."

As we sat, up came The Englishman. Shorts, shirt, long socks, hat. He looked like an English caricature.
No attempt to speak any French, and the waiter who'd been so nice was giving the Gaulic shrug to "CHEESE" with a pointing finger, which was how the Eng. was trying to order a baguette.

His very manner was offensive. The nice waiter who'd been making contact with us waited till he'd gone, then said he knew we couldn't be English, because we spoke French and were polite.

The same attitude was widespread in all places.
Eventually we became a bit saddened that all English are so labelled. Trouble was, over some years, we never came across any other types.

Maybe it's only the loud objectionable ones from everywhere that get noticed.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by musician:
Maybe it's only the loud objectionable ones from everywhere that get noticed.
It's the same in any community. The quiet polite people may outnumber the few noisy ones, but because they're quiet and polite, they don't usually get noticed.
 
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Babybear:

quote:
The reason that "everyone hates the English" is because of the way that the English overlords tried to repress the local languages, evicted people from the land (to replace them with sheep), treated the locals are almost subhumans, ooh and any number of other things. "Everyone" includes the Cornish, the Devonians, the Cumbrians, the Lancastrians, the Yorkshiremen/women etc.
The Devonians (I am a Devonian) do not hate the English. We are English. The Lancastrians (my grandparents) do not hate the English. They are English. Ditto the Cumbrians. Ditto the Yorkshire men/ women. Presumably you think that "the English" all live in the Home Counties and spend their free time hunting foxes and highland urchins with dogs.

I can respect a sensible Scottish nationalist. What I despise is the ignorant anglophobia, which, like a kindred prejudice, might be described as 'the socialism of fools'. It consists of taking a series of complicated historical events and reducing their socio-economic causes down to a "Braveheart" account of history in which everything is the result of wicked Englishmen played by Alan Rickman and Patrick McGoohan.

What unmitigated drivel.
 
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on :
 
For the record, I feel Scottish and if one employs the "hotel test" (what does one put down as one's country in an hotel register?) I invariably put Scotland.

I'm an Anglophile in the same way that I'm a Francophile and a Germanophile. I don't really feel "British" in any strong sense.

In politics I'm a Scottish Nationalist.
 
Posted by angloid (# 159) on :
 
Slight tangent alert - I won't disagree with Professor Mr Callan, although growing up in Yorkshire the images of 'Englishness' that we were presented with by the BBC/press/magazines etc seemed very foreign and 'home counties'. That has changed somewhat as the media have taken on board regional accents and cultures, and it's now I think easier to feel English and not be a southern toff. But here in Merseyside England seems something of a foreign country still, as Irish, Welsh and other nationalities make up the majority of the population.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
It's simple really.

Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales.

Great Britain is England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The title page of my passport says:

'European Community
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.'

Which seems to indicate that Great Britain and Northern Ireland are two separate entities; Great Britain being Scotland, Wales, England (and the various islands?), and Northern Ireland being, well, out on its own, natch!
Indeed, I've been waiting for someone to query Balaam's statement. Great Britain = Britain. It refers to the largest of the islands which make up the British Isles. There are a lot of these; GB, Ireland, Mann, Wight, Shetlands, Hebrides and Orkneys at least!

Carys
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Callan:
Originally posted by Babybear:

The Devonians (I am a Devonian) do not hate the English. We are English. The Lancastrians (my grandparents) do not hate the English. They are English. Ditto the Cumbrians. Ditto the Yorkshire men/ women. Presumably you think that "the English" all live in the Home Counties and spend their free time hunting foxes and highland urchins with dogs.
I agree with all of this, but have a little story from Cumbria. My Mum and Dad grew up there, and live there again now. The people of their valley- the Duddon Valley- refer to places outside the valley as England. If someone drives 40 miles to Kendal, his friends might say: "Really? I haven't been over to England in months."

It doesn't mean much in this debate- they don't really mean they're not English- but I find it quaint and interesting.

[ 09. November 2003, 15:53: Message edited by: Peppone ]
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Sorry for getting it wrong, but its not as clear as that. If Britain refered to just the largest of the islands where does that leave, among others, Myself? I'm English with some Scottish (and some French) Ancestry. Married to an English woman wit Welsh ancestry. So that makes our children [Confused] .
 
Posted by Peppone (# 3855) on :
 
Ooop. Screwed up the code in my post above. The line "Posted by Babybear" should be deleted.

Sorry.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Callan:
The Devonians (I am a Devonian) do not hate the English. We are English. The Lancastrians (my grandparents) do not hate the English. They are English. Ditto the Cumbrians. Ditto the Yorkshire men/ women.
We have obviously been talking to different people. I have quite often heard "But we are not really English, we are....".

But I am delighted that your experience is differnt from mine! I would love normal, everyday English people to stand up and say that they are English. It will steal back a huge amount of power from the racists.

quote:
Clan's man MacLurker said:
For a' that. It's far better than singing about old battles. An anthem that looks to the future, not the past.
You don't know what Flower of Scotland is about then. The last verse says:
Those days are past now,
And in the past
they must remain,
But we can still rise now,
And be the nation again,
That stood against him,
Proud Edward's Army,
And sent him homeward,
Tae think again.

It is about Scotland putting aside the things of the past, the old battles and old grudges and moving forward. It is about the writer believing that the people of Scotland have the potential to become a great nation once more.

bb
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Babybear

Far too often 'being English' is the preserve of the extreme xenophobic nationalists, or the arrogantly smug WASPs. So they deny their Englishness to avoid being mistaken for those people. It is time for the English to stand up and be proud of the their country, culture (and multi-cultures), their people and achievments
One of the cultural differences I have noticed between England and America (and I do mean England, not Britain) is that an awful lot
of English lefties are genuinely extremely hesitant indeed to make pro-English nationalist statements.

I think there are a number of reasons for this this: including the fact that it is easy to unintentionally cause offense to the other nations and also because English nationalism has been almost the exclusive preserve of the far right for a long old time. Although, as Sarkycow and others have pointed out, this is slooooooooooowly changing.

Incidentally, I lived in the the Orkney Islesfor about 10 years and many if not most Orcadians do not even consider themselves to be a part of Scotland, let alone Britain.

It seems to be that right-wing English people are far more likely than anyone else to be “one-nation” Tories and to use “Britain” and “England” interchangeably. However, the cultural differences between the nations of Britain are vast.

I still, however, find it amusing that the kilt was invented by a stingy Englishman. [Big Grin] [Devil]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Tangent alert:
quote:
Posted by Zipporah:
I always think of "Flower of Scotland" as the real anthem though!
Am I the only person who can't tell the difference between the first couple of bars of 'Flower of Scotland' and the Chorus of Hebrew Slaves from Nabucco?

Which, given that the Chorus is a rendering of Psalm 137, might not be as much a tangent as I thought. [Biased]

End of tangent
Oh dear, dashing babies against rocks. That's definitely a problem those of us in oppressed exploited nations have to eradicate - hatred, rage and revenge.

The anthem's power is beginning to make more sense to me. Echoes of the wonderful music of "Nabucco", echoes of the words (and so probably the amazing tune too) of the "Flowers of the Forest" - tragedy, echoes of historical times of victory, decisions not to be trampled on in the future. Makes for a rather amazing anthem.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Then there's the difference between Anglo-Saxon Southern England and the Northern historical Danelaw, settled by Vikings.
 
Posted by Indie Rob (# 3256) on :
 
I have very strong opinions about this. You're ALL wrong!!!

National identity, is quite frankly, a load of bollocks. The only difference between the English and the Welsh is that the Welsh have another language. It causes division, we all live under one sun and most of the people on the geographical archipelago we have indistinctly called "Britain" seem to have no shared values of one kind or another but yes there are characteristics that we all share.

So, in answer to the original question, I am, in the cheesiest, hippy-like, wrong-in-official-documents way "a citizen of the world". Up yours, national identity.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Wotcha doin in Cardiff? There's Britain for you! The old Welshman down our road used to speak Welsh to the Breton Onion Johnnie, who spoke to him in Breton. They seemed to understand each other perfectly.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Indie Rob:
So, in answer to the original question, I am, in the cheesiest, hippy-like, wrong-in-official-documents way "a citizen of the world". Up yours, national identity.
"Citizen of the world" is one of those idiot phrases that sounds good to the unthinking, but means nothing.

What does it mean to you, Rob? How many different countries and cultures have you lived in that makes you a "citizen of the world"? How many languages do you speak?

I do think there are some "citizens of the world" but I very much doubt you're one of them.

Please prove me wrong.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Speaking personally, I don’t really know what being English means to me since I don’t really have a lot to contrast it with. I. E my knowledge of most other nations ranges from pretty limited to non-existent.

I tend to think that I primarily see myself in terms of my personality, my occupation, my friends and that even my taste in music defines “me” far more than does my nationality. I certainly don’t feel personally insulted when people have a go at England and I doubt that I would be prepared to die for England; per se.

England is not so much a place as a hard-to-define social construct.However, I am probably far more English than I know or would care to admit.
 
Posted by TheGreenT (# 3571) on :
 
I dont think I ever really was pleased to be British or English/whatever, until I went abroad a bit, and even the US/Uk threads on here!!!! I think in seeing the contrasts, i was better able to realise what there was in England that was "me" - if that makes *any* sense!
 
Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
I found this thread interesting as I have, at one time or another lived in both Scotland and Wales, as well as England.

For what its worth- my take is that the labels Scottish and Welsh are very important to those from Scotland and Wales. I call them labels rather than national identity, because, my opinion is that in truth, they are not particularly different to the English.

Scottish culture is pretty similar to English, and so are the people- relative to say the French or Germans. One thing I found with most expressions of Scottish national identity was that they tended to be essentially anti-English. Rather than defining Scottishness in terms of something positive, it was seen as being "not English"- where English was taken to be arrogant, aloof, imperialistic etc etc.

I really didn't feel like a foreigner in terms of culture, or the way I behaved, I only felt different because I had a different label attached. I can understand where Rob comes from when he says about nationalities because in Wales, or more particuarly Cardiff, there is a very similar feel to England- and for someone who has experienced life in England, it seems hard to understand what all the fuss about "Welshness" is about.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Indie Rob:
So, in answer to the original question, I am, in the cheesiest, hippy-like, wrong-in-official-documents way "a citizen of the world".
Yes, but whose world? The world where you're permitted to accrue wealth, enjoy good health, education and freedom to worship, or not, as you wish? Or the world where you might be lucky to live to 35 due to malnutrition, lack of food, livelihood and income; or conscripted at the end of a rifle-butt into a tribal war along with your ten year old children? Who built the world of which you are a citizen, and who provides, and upholds your right to have, the freedom for you to express your interesting opinion?

The world's a big place [Eek!] .
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
Sorry for getting it wrong, but its not as clear as that. If Britain refered to just the largest of the islands where does that leave, among others,
Landmasses and countries are not the same thing. So Angelsey and Bardsey and many other islands are part of Wales; Wight, Scilly, Lindisfarne are part of England. However, I might revise my Britain = Great Britain thing from my last post. Great Britain is definitely the land mass, the island of Great Britain which contains the majority of the countries of England, Wales and Scotland, whereas Britain could be said to refer to the whole of those three countries. Maybe.

Personally I'm half Welsh, half English. I grew up in England, although my dad's from Cardiff. Went to Uni in Wales and learnt Welsh, then returned to England for Post-grad. In someways though I felt more English in Wales (especially amongst Welsh speakers because I didn't have the shared childhood of Eisteddfodau ayb (etc)) than I do in England. But when it comes to Rugby it's Wales all the way. We've corrupted my mum too, she was cheering for Wales today over England, unfortunately despite a good start we let them have too many penalties. Attitudes to Wales England matches during the Six Nations (or indeed World Cup) are very interesting. It's the key one for the Welsh, but just another game to the English. I think it's more important for the English to beat the French than the Scots or the Welsh.

Welsh speaking Wales has a very different culture to England. There are different cultural institutions - especially surrounding the Eisteddfod (especially Gorsedd y Beirdd which has nothing really to do with druidry) - a different religous history - Chapel not Church and the different language. Poetry is far more important, I remember going into the Quad in Old Coll. in Aber to find one of the lads from my class sitting there writing a poem. I'm not convinced you'd get that in England.

Carys
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
You guys are making me really envy my nephew's year in Wales. Although he's in Swansea, which I understand is the armpit of the universe.

I think if I had a chance to do it, I'd rather be in Edinburgh.
 
Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
Dear psyduck

What John Major's not very good(I agree) government did in moving you from Flintshire to Denbighshire by redrawing a map, is what Harold Wilson's not very good government did to me in 1967. I was born in Carlisle, the county town of Cumberland in 1954, though I've lived in the south since 1961. Wilson's government oversaw the creation of new larger counties. Rutland, England's smallest county was absorbed into Cambridgeshire. Many of the old Scottish shires such as Sutherland were amalgamated into larger groups.

Cumbria was formed from the counties of Cumberland, Westmorland and Furness. Furness, though detached physically from Lancashire, was always part of it. The people of Barrow always looked o'er the shimmering sands of Morecambe Bay to their spiritual home. And then some beurocrat sends you a letter telling you that you have changed counties. The Westmorland people have never accepted Cumbria as a county. The lovely town of Appleby, famous for its annual gypsy fair in my childhood, has renamed itself "Appleby in Westmorland" because the grey uited planners tell us that Westmorland no longer exists.

Ask many Humberside people from Hull and they will tell you they are North Yorksire. Ask a Merseysider from Wallesy and they will say they are Cheshire. For a Whitehall beurocrat to draw a map and think that in doing so he can change people's identities is a fallacy. Governments should get out of this kind of manipulation.
 
Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
PaulTH: I weep for you as you will be weeping for me. I think we need a support group.

Acronym, anyone?
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
TBAS, that would be the War of Northern Aggression. I'm surprised you didn't know that. [Disappointed]
Oh, I knew about that name. I was curious about which of the three names Sine used:

 While WWI, WWII, Korean Police Action, and the Viet Nam Cluster Fuck has moderated some views somewhat, there are historic regionalisms that can divide us in the US.

(And yes, I do think that Ken Burns still managed to oversimplify the causes in spite of all the time he had available--a luxury these days. Considering that the split almost happened in 1850 over tarrif collection, why would a person want to say it was about one topic? And, I heard Burns defend his mono-cause views by quoting some scholar somewhere, so he is unrepentant.)
 
Posted by Manx Taffy (# 301) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
It's simple really.

Britain is made up of England, Scotland and Wales.

Great Britain is England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The United Kingdom is England, Isle of Man, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which are in the EU; and the Channel Islands, which are not part of the EU.

The Channel Islands are made up of four countries, Jersey Guernsey Alderney and Sark.

There, I told you it was simple.
Not that simple Balaam
The Isle of Man is not part of the UK or the EU.
It is a crown dependency with the oldest parliament in the world.
It has its own government, laws and taxation but the sovereign head is the Lord of Man currently Elizabeth WIndsor (QE2 of GB and NI).

About 2 years ago The IoM gained recognition to have its own country label in ISO standards and should appear on internet country lists in its own right but not many sites update the list very often.

Anyway, on a clear day from the Isle of Man it is possible to see 6 kingdoms, Mann, Ireland, Scotland, England, Wales & Heaven!
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
Bede, at the risk of derailing an interesting thread, I don't think most of the participants in the "Late Unpleasantness Between the States" really knew what was going on or what they hoped to accomplish with a war. BTW, both sides shot at my family. We have the holes in the family homestead to prove it. [Paranoid]

You may want to open a thread on the subject of the war.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Sine, what was the name of that pesky little old conflict that was fought during the early 1860s? You know the one, between the Blue and the Gray.
It was "the War between the States". Why do you ask?
I believe Mr. Nomine is from Tennesee. See my comments about border states--which TN is sometimes included within. Tennessee clearly is not southern Georgia, for example.

Looking at my post on the three names, QED.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:

Those days are past now,
And in the past
they must remain,
But we can still rise now,
And be the nation again,
That stood against him,
Proud Edward's Army,
And sent him homeward,
Tae think again.

It is about Scotland putting aside the things of the past, the old battles and old grudges and moving forward. It is about the writer believing that the people of Scotland have the potential to become a great nation once more.

I get it even more now:
Having figured all this out, I should really sleep soundly tonight. Understanding the UK really isn't all that difficult, after all.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
I believe Mr. Nomine is from Tennesee.
Ah, but my mother's family, with whom I more closely identify, are Virginians. I actually have a pair of oil lamps that my great-great grandmother used to light the music on her pianoforte when she played such songs as "When this cruel war is over" for her brother and his friends who were in the Confederate army.

But oddly enough, she married a Union officer, from New York, who fell in love with Virginia during the war and moved there afterwards. He ended up being a state legislator, and even wrote a book called "Life in old Virginia".
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
I found this thread interesting as I have, at one time or another lived in both Scotland and Wales, as well as England.

For what its worth- my take is that the labels Scottish and Welsh are very important to those from Scotland and Wales. I call them labels rather than national identity, because, my opinion is that in truth, they are not particularly different to the English.

Scottish culture is pretty similar to English, and so are the people- relative to say the French or Germans. One thing I found with most expressions of Scottish national identity was that they tended to be essentially anti-English. Rather than defining Scottishness in terms of something positive, it was seen as being "not English"- where English was taken to be arrogant, aloof, imperialistic etc etc.

I really didn't feel like a foreigner in terms of culture, or the way I behaved, I only felt different because I had a different label attached. I can understand where Rob comes from when he says about nationalities because in Wales, or more particuarly Cardiff, there is a very similar feel to England- and for someone who has experienced life in England, it seems hard to understand what all the fuss about "Welshness" is about.
This sort of view drives me nuts.

Yes, there are strong similarities between Scotland and England but Scotland is a different nation with its own identity. How is it different from other countries?

(1) history

(2) languages

(3) education system

(4) law

(5) religious tradition

(6) voting behaviour

(7) musical tradition

(8) literature


That's just for starters. To consign national identities in Britain other than 'Englishness' to the status of mere 'labels' is astonishingly condescending. I can see why attitudes like yours might bring on a bout of 'anti-Englishness' in those you encountered.

L.
 
Posted by Lurker McLurker, of the clan Lurker (# 1384) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
You don't know what Flower of Scotland is about then. The last verse says:
Those days are past now,
And in the past
they must remain,
But we can still rise now,
And be the nation again,
That stood against him,
Proud Edward's Army,
And sent him homeward,
Tae think again.

It is about Scotland putting aside the things of the past, the old battles and old grudges and moving forward. It is about the writer believing that the people of Scotland have the potential to become a great nation once more.
It's about being the nation that defeated King Edward's Army. It is still, like many national anthems, focussed on war. The last verse does look to the future, but it is hardly the message of universal brotherhood contained in For a' that .
 
Posted by MarkE (# 4660) on :
 
I think one of the mistakes that non-British people make is to think "small, therefore not culturally diverse." Just understanding what another British person is saying can be diffcult enough! The ('Mercin!) writer Bill Bryson makes quotes a guy called Simeon Potter in his book "Mother Tongue" saying
quote:
it would be no exaggeration to say that greater differnces in pronunciation are discernible in the north of England between Trent and Tweed than in the whole of North America
(the Trent and Tweed are rivers about 250 miles apart.)

I'm from the "Black Country" in the midlands of England. When I went to University the guy two doors down from me in halls was from Durham. I genuinely didn't understand about 25% of what he said, and he had the same problem with me. (We became great friends!)
 
Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
Dear Louise

I lived for three years in Scotland, and can safely say that whilst there are historical and cultural differences that you rightly point out, I can't really view Scotland as a "foreign" nation in the same way that I would view Italy, Germany or France.

In many European countries- notably Italy- there is a vast difference in the culture between regions, without anyone suggesting they have a separate national identity.

I fully understand that Scottish people are very proud to be Scottish, but I didn't find there to be a vastly different culture between England and Scotland. Fans of a given football team can be very proud of their team (and get annoyed when classified in the wrong team), but that doesn't necessarily mean that supporting Stockport country is a radically different identity than supporting wigan Athletic.

I am not equating this situation with the English-Scottish thing, but there is a point to be drawn that just because someone is very proud to be in group X (and may dislike being associated with group Y) that groups X and Y are radically different.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
I believe Mr. Nomine is from Tennesee.
Ah, but my mother's family, with whom I more closely identify, are Virginians. I actually have a pair of oil lamps that my great-great grandmother used to light the music on her pianoforte when she played such songs as "When this cruel war is over" for her brother and his friends who were in the Confederate army.

But oddly enough, she married a Union officer, from New York, who fell in love with Virginia during the war and moved there afterwards. He ended up being a state legislator, and even wrote a book called "Life in old Virginia".
Well, I would think that you would understand that there are some people, still today, that are waiting for the South to Rise Again. To say "Southern" is a schtick might be true for you, but not all in the Old South. It's not that I'm expecting Arkansas to declare independence any time soon, but there are some differences in feeling, outlook, and hope for the future.

Fortunately Virginia doesn't have all the good generals anymore.
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
Dear Louise

I lived for three years in Scotland, and can safely say that whilst there are historical and cultural differences that you rightly point out, I can't really view Scotland as a "foreign" nation in the same way that I would view Italy, Germany or France.
I'm not Louise, but I'll respond to this anyway. Maybe Scotland feels less foreign to you but that doesn't mean that it is not a separate country. There is a degree of shared history - united parliaments since 1707 (until 1999 at least) make for a large degree of that - but there are differences - in law and the education system. I daresay there are other neighbouring countries which don't feel as foreign to each other as they do to other countries. Would people from the US find Canada less foreign to them than they would Brasil or Argentina (I'm guessing here, I know there are big differences but less great than with other countries)? Does that mean they're not separate countries?

quote:
In many European countries- notably Italy- there is a vast difference in the culture between regions, without anyone suggesting they have a separate national identity.
That might be the case in Italy (and given the existence of the Northern League I'm not sure it is) but there is nationalism within 'regions' of other countries. Brittany, the Basque Country (Euskera), Catalunia, (Valencia?), Galicia spring to mind. France and Spain probably provide better comparisons to the UK than does Italy because Italy has only existed as Italy for a short period of time, but I belive it to have been a truer union than in France, Spain and the UK, where you had (have) one group, (the French, the Castillians and the English) domininating the others. Also, I don't think there's the language issue in Italy whereas there is in the other examples. France's treatment of Breton is no better than England's treatment of Welsh.

Carys
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
Not that simple Balaam
The Isle of Man is not part of the UK or the EU.
It is a crown dependency with the oldest parliament in the world.
And I thought you had Eu, UK passports.
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
I do think it is good to have a sense of national identity. It somehow places you in an historical context, and helps you understand where you come from, and value the things (e.g. laws/customs/freedoms) that might distinguish your nation/people from others.

I have lived in England all my life, but know that my surname shows I have ancestry from the Scottish 'border reivers'. So we have a tartan, and there is an annual 'clan gathering' (which I haven't been to as I'm not American!!) at Hermitage Castle near Hawick.

But my mother's mother's maiden name is from the Northumberland ('English) side of the Border.

I have some Irish and Cornish and Breton in me also. So I find the label 'British' to be probably the most helpful. I would be happiest to call myself 'Northern English' or better still perhaps, 'Northern British'. The latter reflects better my love of Scotland and Scottishness, as well as my love of (particularly) northern England. I feel in many ways that the North-East (where I come from) has more in common with South-East Scotland than with SE England.

I find the 'Six Nations' Rugby Union interesting in what it says about allegiances. The order of preference for the teams for me goes:
1)Scotland
2)Ireland
3)England(!!)
4)Wales
5)France
6)Italy

So I don't think I'm that much of an 'English' patriot!

I don't mind Britain being considered 'European', as it obviously is geographically. But as you may have observed, I am definitley a 'Euroskeptic' and think 'we should not sign up to the single Currency, or the EU Constitution. I do not think of myself as a 'citizen of the EU' and wish we were like Norway, a European country that has decided that the benefits of EU membership do not outweigh the drawbacks.

See the Daily Telegraph editorial today for a discussion of the questionn of whether the much-vaunted, much-assumed 'benefits' of UK membership of the EU actually outweigh the costs. I am not at all convinced that they do, and Blair's government seems notably unwilling to properly investigate whether they do.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Rutland was made of Leicestershire, not Cambridgeshire - that fate befell Huntingdonshire.

And this all happened in 1974, not 1967, and was the result of the Local Government Act 1972 - legislation introduced by Heath, not Wilson.

And no-one can really describe Lancashire as a "spiritual home" in all seriousness.

Otherwise, Paul's last post is absolutely fine.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
do the English feel a sense of national identity for "England"?
Some. But not as much as in the other nations of the British Isles, and not necessarily stronger than local loyalties to home town or county.

And not always stronger than loyalties to Britain, or to Europe as a whole, or to divisions by culture, class, sports team, party, or religion (in about that order of importance!)

National identity hasn't been a big deal in England for 250 years. English is the default nationality, the unmarked identity.

English people think about being English the way white Americans think about being white. They don't notice it until someone else points it out, they think it is normal and ordinary to be English, it is not something they think about from day to day, or even year to year. The non-English are the oddities that need explaining.

We also tend to find other people's strongly expressed nationalism in rather bad taste. And sometimes amusing. You can raise a laugh on a radio comedy show by reading out translations of other countries national anthems - or even our own patriotic songs. Being over-nationalistic is regarded as Bad Form. The idea of something like the US habit of swearing of an oath to the flag in school, or the Irish habit of standing for the Soldier's Song at the end of a session in the pub, seems at best rather quaint to the English, and at worst dangerously nationalistic.

It might be coming back again now, although so far the main impact has been in sport. And even then they are more likely to be singing Swing Low Sweet Chariot than Jersusalem or Land of Hope and Glory. And I have met teenagers who think of the Cross of St. George as being the "England Flag", i.e. the flag of the England footbal team, rather than the "English Flag". But then I met at least one footbal fanwho proudly wore a Star of David to show his support for Tottenham Hotspur and claimed to not even know it was a Jewish symbol!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
So what holds you together besides Her Majesty?
The sea.

That's a serious suggestion by the way. (& hardly original!) The sea made it possible for one government to control all the territory, and keep other governments out.

On another tack, some have suggested that a revived English nationalism, standing against Scots, Irish, Welsh, or Cornish nationalisms (strict order of population there) might be a Good Thing. I think I disagree.

The trouble with specifically "English" cultural symbols is that - apart from beer-drinking - they are mostly the property of minority sections within England.

"St. George", if he ever existed, wasn't English, and his flag stands for a thuggish, militaristic, ignorant, Englishness that I could imagine myself fighting against in a civil war.

Foxhunting and all that crap has got no more to do with my traditions than baseball or Bastille Day. In fact an awful lot less. On the other hand I could take to the streets to efend our right to have bonfire celebrations and fireworks, which are part of my culture. And I love singing Jerusalem. [Smile]
 
Posted by ce (# 1957) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Foxhunting and all that crap has got no more to do with my traditions than baseball or Bastille Day. In fact an awful lot less. On the other hand I could take to the streets to efend our right to have bonfire celebrations and fireworks, which are part of my culture. And I love singing Jerusalem. [Smile]
How do you feel about Morris Dancing?

ce
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
If Britain referred to just the largest of the islands...
"Great" Britain is simply Big Britain as opposed to Little Britain, that is Grande Bretagne vs. Petit Bretagne - what we call "Brittany", the Armorican peninsula which is inhabited by ethnically British people speaking the British language. That is the language the English call "Welsh", which is descended from the ancient British language spoken at the time of the Roman conquest.

The Isle of Wight, the Scillies, and so on count as part of Britain.

Orkney and Shetland are debateable. Ask an Orcadian if they think of themselves as British - I suspect most do. (Though they were offered back to Denmark as recently as the 1640s as part of King Charles's desperate attempt to import foreign armies to fight Parliament for him - the Danes politely refused, having their hands full with the Thirty Years War at the time)

The Channel Islands are neither part of Britain nor the United Kingdom, they are part of Normandy.

Ireland and Man aren't part of Britain and were never culturally or linguistically British - as England was before the English invaded, and Scotland was before the Irish invaded.


Someone mentioned feeling more "foreign" in Wales than France, someone else English said they didn't feel foreign in Scotland.

"Foreign" isn't either/or, its not binary or qualitative, there are degrees of foreign-ness. Foreignness is definitly a spectrum, a range, a variable.

I come from the south of England, but my family are all from Scotland or the north (& before that from Northern Ireland - as far as I know none of my ancestors were English.) So when I am in Scotland I feel a only tiny little bit foreign. Hardly foreign at all. I could imagine that if I had moved to Scotland in my teens or early adulthood I would now think of myself as Scottish. My second home. The same goes for the north-east of England. I don't feel foreign there - I have lived there for some years, my Dad was born there, and both my brother and my sister are married to north-easterners (I married a southerner & am now divorced - see what happens? You can't trust these soft southerners [Biased] )

But I feel a tiny bit more foreign in the north-west of England, or the west country, or the Midlands, or even strange parts of the south of England. They do say that men do have tails in Darrset.

Wales and Ireland are more foreign again - about equally foreign to me as each other, though in different ways. I have no family connections in Wales at all, but it is British, after all old chap. Even if I can't understand a word and they all go quiet when we walk into the pub [Smile] Ireland on the other hand is full of people who are only too happy to tell you just how Irish you are, whilst taking your money off you for the privilege.

Belgium is perhaps just a little more foreign than Wales or Ireland - not much, just a little. I like Belgium. Proper beer.

Denmark or Norway, are a little more foreign than that, and Germany quite a lot more so than they are - the south of Germany more than the north.

All this is "on the whole" and "in general" and "with many exceptions" of course. Belgium (& perhaps Denmark) are enough like England (& perhaps small enough) to feel more like some parts of England than like others. (Though some of that might be geology rather than culture)

France is more foreign than Germany (again the south more than the north) and Greece and Hungary a lot more foreign than France.

The USA, despite having the same language on the whole as we do, comes out as about as foreign as France. In practice I've found that Germans and Scandinavians and Dutch people tend to have more in common with us than Americans do. Their sense of humour is more like ours, their body language is more like ours.

I've never been to Australia or New Zealand, but from the people I meet here my guess is I'd find those countries less foreign to me than the USA, but more foreign to me than the other nations in the British Isles.
 
Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I actually have a pair of oil lamps that my great-great grandmother used to light the music on her pianoforte when she played such songs as "When this cruel war is over" for her brother and his friends who were in the Confederate army.
Good God. I have absolutely no idea what any of my ancestors were doing at the time of the US, erm, War Between the States. (Invading India, for all I know.)

While it's perfectly true that Britain would fit snugly into the Gulf of Mexico, our population is, I believe, around a third that of the whole United States. We just live very close together. (The idea of Americans having those huge tracts of wilderness just sitting there in the middle of your country fascinates me. I doubt it's possible to be further than a mile from a road or building over here, in England at least.)

There's an enormous wealth of cultural diversity within Britain, and people from the less densely populated Anglophone countries often miss the fact. I once read the first page of a book called The English Language. It began "There are three major dialects of English: Northern English, Midland English and Southern English". Turned out it was talking about the Northern, Mid- and Southern USA. That's parochialism for you.

I went out with a Welsh-speaking Welsh nationalist once. The cultural differences were enormous.
 
Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Ken:

quote:
"St. George", if he ever existed, wasn't English, and his flag stands for a thuggish, militaristic, ignorant, Englishness that I could imagine myself fighting against in a civil war.
Where does it say that patron saints have to be locals? St Patrick was, IIRC, a Yorkshire man. St George was a martyr to religious intolerance. His victory over the dragon is an eschatological symbol of the martyr's triumph over evil. I'd have thought that you of all people would have appreciated that. Why shouldn't we make George an honorary Englishman? It seems rather depressingly ubernationalist to seek out someone who would be more acceptable to a certain government office in Croydon.

As for the flag of St George, it was adopted by England supporters at about the time that people realised that having "England football supporters" as synonymous with "Neo-nazi thugs" was a bad thing. The neo-nazis, btw, always adopted the Union Jack (in which, famously, there ain't no black) as their symbol. In Mark Perryman's book 'The Ingerland Factor' no less a luminary than St William of Bragg argues that the evolution of an English nationalism around the flag of St George, rather than a British nationalism based on the Union Jack, could and should be the basis of an English national idenity which is no longer based on the unitary British state and which is comfortable with Europe and multi-culturalism. So, unless you've gone over to the Hanoverians, [Biased] do be careful who you are shooting at on the barricades, comrade!
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
Seems to me that the issues are far more complicated than I had thought, and I thought I was reasonably clued up on it all.

I remember being very confused as a child when I was told by my Dad that I was not allowed to refer to myself as English, but had to call myself British as this had superseded the term English at the time of the Union. To a six year old this makes no sense at all, and precious little more to a 25 year old, but there you go.

I tend to think of myself as Kentish, rather than English. But that prob'ly stems from a dislike of the Jingoistic way in which the term English has previously been used, as others have pointed out. And, try as I might, I just can't help really enjoying the Last Night of the Proms!
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Posted by Mr Callan:
quote:
Where does it say that patron saints have to be locals? St Patrick was, IIRC, a Yorkshire man. St George was a martyr to religious intolerance. His victory over the dragon is an eschatological symbol of the martyr's triumph over evil. I'd have thought that you of all people would have appreciated that. Why shouldn't we make George an honorary Englishman? It seems rather depressingly ubernationalist to seek out someone who would be more acceptable to a certain government office in Croydon.
No one has proved where Patricius came from: it is apparent from his autobiographical Confessio that it is Western Britain. South-West Scotland or Cumberland are perhaps the favourite contenders. He was a Romanised Briton, sone of a Deacon.

I think we 'English' ended up with St George as 'patron saint' beacuse the Norman rulers didn't want to let us have a saint that could be a rallying point for anti-Norman Anglo-Saxon sentiments. So we didn't get an appropriate Saint: we could have had Cuthbert, Bede, Oswald or Aidan, for example. Three of which were 'English' and one a Scot who had played a huge role in converting the northern English.
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
I think St Andrew isn't Scottish either. Didn't he just happen to get shipwrecked and washed up in Scotland, or some such thing?

Rat
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
I think St Andrew isn't Scottish either.
IIRC, St David is the only one of the "Home Nation" saints to be from the country of which he is patron.

St Andrew isn't Greek either, but I don't supppose they will take kindly to the suggestion that they give him up.

[ 10. November 2003, 12:54: Message edited by: Chapelhead ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
No one has proved where Patricius came from: it is apparent from his autobiographical Confessio that it is Western Britain. South-West Scotland or Cumberland are perhaps the favourite contenders. He was a Romanised Briton, son of a Deacon.
Interesting. I was told he was originally Welsh, but I don't suppose anyone will ever know for sure.
 
Posted by Manx Taffy (# 301) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
Not that simple Balaam
The Isle of Man is not part of the UK or the EU.
It is a crown dependency with the oldest parliament in the world.
And I thought you had Eu, UK passports.
Our passports look british but are not UK they say:
British Islands - Isle of Man
They are EU style as the UK looks after Foreign Policy and Defence for the IoM (for a fee)and the IoM has a protocol relationship with the EU.

The IoM contributes nothing, nor receives anything from the EU.
True Manx people (not originally from the UK) have a stamp in their passport - not eligible to work in the EU (though they can work in the UK).

Confusing??
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
No one has proved where Patricius came from: it is apparent from his autobiographical Confessio that it is Western Britain. South-West Scotland or Cumberland are perhaps the favourite contenders. He was a Romanised Briton, son of a Deacon.
Interesting. I was told he was originally Welsh, but I don't suppose anyone will ever know for sure.
Well, what (at that time) does 'Welsh' mean? The Anglo-Saxons called all Britons 'Wealas' meaning (originally) 'foreigners'. So they would have called Patrick 'Welsh'. The oldest 'Welsh' poetry to have survived ('Y Gododdin', etc.) concerns the warrior kingdoms of Lothian and Rheged (one around Edinburgh, the other covering Cumbria and SW scotland, i.e. where Patrick may well have been from).
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Thankyou Manx Taffy for clearing up the Mann issue. A further complication is IIRC the Manx compete for the UK at competitioms such as the Olympic Games.

Can someone now please clarify the position of the Channel Islands.

{Capitalising proper noun.}

[ 10. November 2003, 13:34: Message edited by: Balaam ]
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Just to add a bit of perspective to the discussion:

2001 Census showed the following:

'The population of the United Kingdom on Census Day 2001 was 58,789,194 it has been revealed by the Registrars General for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.'
(UK Government Statistics website Here )

The page goes on to give the breakdown as follows:

England 49,138,831 - 86.6%
Scotland 5,062,011 - 8.6%
Wales 2,903,085 - 4.9%
N Ireland 1,685,267 - 2.9%
-------------------------------------------------
With regard to the 'official' use of the description 'English'; not only was there the report in 1998 that indicated that to call oneself English was a racist statement (WHAT??) but in the 2001 Census those who classified themselves as 'white' had a choice of Scottish, Welsh, Irish, British or Other White. When some English people (including myself) objected they were told that they could tick 'Other White' and add 'English'! This in an official government document!!

I am English, British and European(sigh) - in that order!

If the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish or any other minority group in the United Kingdom wish to be independant - I wish them every success. But it must be total independance, not relying on English taxpayers' money to support their objectives.

And if that doesn't get this thread back to Hell, nothing will [Big Grin]

[Edited for link.]

[ 10. November 2003, 14:39: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
quote:
But it must be total independance, not relying on English taxpayers' money to support their objectives.
Oil
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK: (with my italics)

Just to add a bit of perspective to the discussion:

2001 Census showed the following:

'The population of the United Kingdom on Census Day 2001 was 58,789,194 it has been revealed by the Registrars General for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.'
(UK Government Statistics website Here )
Does this mean that Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate countries within the UK, but Wales isn't, according to this government document.

[Edited for link.]

[ 10. November 2003, 14:40: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
quote:
But it must be total independance, not relying on English taxpayers' money to support their objectives.
Oil
Can we have our taxes back with independance Tony, or is that asking too much?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:
Well, what (at that time) does 'Welsh' mean? The Anglo-Saxons called all Britons 'Wealas' meaning (originally) 'foreigners'. So they would have called Patrick 'Welsh'. The oldest 'Welsh' poetry to have survived ('Y Gododdin', etc.) concerns the warrior kingdoms of Lothian and Rheged (one around Edinburgh, the other covering Cumbria and SW scotland, i.e. where Patrick may well have been from).
Just trying to imagine if St Patrick had actually been English. [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Just trying to imagine if St Patrick had actually been English. [Ultra confused]
When Patrick was around the English were still living in a saltmarsh in Jutland.
 
Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
quote:
The oldest 'Welsh' poetry to have survived ('Y Gododdin', etc.) concerns the warrior kingdoms of Lothian and Rheged (one around Edinburgh, the other covering Cumbria and SW scotland, i.e. where Patrick may well have been from).
Why is 'Welsh' in italics here, Alaric? I did bits of the Gododdin at school. In Welsh - the subject. My understanding is that the watershed between Brythonic and early Welsh is the disappearance of case-endings. Anyway, didn't Aneirin have conections with Prestatyn? Asaph and Mungo/Cyndeyrn/Centigern were certainly connected. Language and identity are very closely connected for the Welsh, though in complex ways (a lot of Anglo-Welsh culture has been dismissed quite unjustly by the Welsh culture-police).
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Apologies, psyduck, for putting 'Welsh' in italics. I probably did so beacuse of (a) ignorance that 'Y Gododdin' dates from the start of Welsh as distinct from the end of Brythonic and (b) the fact that an ex-English student friend of mine, whose wife is Welsh, has objected to me calling the Britons of Strathclyde, Rheged and Manau Gododdin 'Welsh'! Just shows how much he knows!
 
Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
Dear Carys

What is or isn't a nation is in a sense a completely arbitary thing. Why is that that Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Andorra are independent entities, but Catalonia is not?

One can point to the different legal system in Scotland, and to its marginally different educational system (though the latter is found in many federal countries), but in essence Scotland never felt like a foreign country to me. It always felt like another part of the UK.

Or alternatively put- if the people of Norfolk want to declare independence, and this is backed in a referendum- then so be it!

I think one aspect of the nationalism debate is that the term "nation" is very emotive. In particular, the term region in the UK doesn't have any meaning because England has more regional homogeneity than most other European countries- so to think the unthinkable and call Scotland "a region" is daft because it puts its differences on a par with those between say: East Anglia and the West Midlands. However, in Europe, there tends to be greater cultural diversity between regions in places like France, Italy, Germany- indeed many Italian cities were nation states in their own right and had empires. To take the extreme example- Belgium (where I am not from!) is split between two linguistic groups and the only thing that is done jointly is the foreign policy; yet it is rare to here of Flanders or Wollonia spoken of as nations- why? Because the term region is not seen as derogatory. Whereas in the UK- it is often seen as a case of "nation" or bust- whereby if you are not a nation, then any other term is patronising, incorrect and wrong.

What I found strange about my time in Glasgow was that Scottishness seemed to be defined primiarily in negative terms (an experience confirmed by my non-British friends who observed the same)- i.e we are not English. This seemed puzzling because of the overwhelming similarities between Scotland and England. Since moving to Wales, I have found that although Cardiff feels very "English" in some ways, Welsh culture is expressed in a far more positive way- i.e people are proud to be Welsh for what being Welsh is.
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
quote:
But it must be total independance, not relying on English taxpayers' money to support their objectives.
Oil
Can we have our taxes back with independance Tony, or is that asking too much?
Until the point of independence we are still a United Kingdom and taxes are raised from all, for the benefit of all: after a hypothetical independence each side should be self-supporting.

Are you asking for taxes paid before independence to be reimbursed? Are Scots taxed more heavily than the rest of us?

I have looked hard but cannot find any evidence to support what an article in the Daily Mail said some months ago - that £1.30 is 'spent' by the government in Scotland for every £1 raised there in taxes. Does any shipmate have evidence to prove or disprove this? Incidentally, as long as we are one country, I have no problem with this - if it is indeed true. 'From each according to his ability; to each according to his need' (Karl Marx, ?) is a perfectly good maxim.

However, devolution has thrown up some anomalies. Certainly Scottish university students do better than their English counterparts - as do, as I understand it, the elderly needing nursing-home care north of the border.
 
Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
As has already been covered Ken ... Oil revenues, and also Whisky duties, are not counted as Scottish tax. They are Westminster tax because they are instituted from there. Your £1 comes from Scottish income tax and VAT etc. In 1995 government figures showed that oil and whisky tax revenue at Westminster amounted to £4.2bn pa. I'm quite sure that's more than enough to make up your 30p. Over the last 30 years oil, 90% of which is in Scottish waters north of the 55th parallel, has contributed £160bn in tax revenues to Westminster. Any of that which has been spent to help the people of Scotland has come via Brussels - a channel of funding which will stop after EU enlargement. An independant Scotland would be poor enough to still qualify for European aid. In fact, Scotland is the only country in the world to have discovered oil and become poorer.

1995 Scottish office figures showed that for 8.9% of the population the Scots contributed 9.3% of the tax bill for the UK, so Scotland does in fact subsidise the UK budget. This is much to do with the higher cost of petrol the further north you travel leading to a higher VAT revenue in Scotland.
 
Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
Anglo-Scottish finances are a bit of a minefield.

Firstly, you have to consider that public spending per capita is higher in Scotland than in England- largely due to the higher costs of providing an equivalent service North of Border.
(Because Scotland is more rural- services like hospitals and schools are more expensive to provide than if you have everyone in one big city)

Secondly, Tax revenues are difficult to calculate and the estimates vary- not least because so much of them depend on the price of oil- which is currently very high. As the oil dries up, the financial picture varies.

Thirdly, bear in mind that the UK average figure includes Wales which is definitely a net recipient, and Northern Ireland which is a huge net recipient. So the picture of the greedy English raiding the Scots bounty isn't necessarily true.

Fourthly- any given statistic can be used both ways. If Scotland is a net contributor- does that mean it is economically booming and should be cut free; or does it mean they are clearly doing well within the union. Or if Scotland is a net recipient- does that mean it should stay in the UK and benefit from the handouts- or does it mean it is clearly lagging behind the rest of the UK and would benefit from being set free?

In my professional opinion there isn't a huge amount either way in terms of Scotland being better or worse off for taxes/spending as an independent nation. The more pressing issue economically is the gains that could be had from control over economic policy. If Scotland controlled all of its own finances, it could tailor fiscal policy to Scottish needs; and if it had its own currency, it could do the same with monetary policy. Of course, fiscal autonomy need not mean independence- after all, many regions of Europe, and states of the US have some degree of fiscal autonomy.

Finally, emotive though they are, I don't think that the case for or against independence should rest on whether or not a country is a net recipient/net contributor of funds through a tax system. Otherwise London and the South East should declare independence from the rest of the UK- then of course, the Home counties would become net contributors to the newly formed country so they would declare independence, then the posh bits of London would secede from the poor bits etc etc etc.

What really matters in independence are the wider issues of economic policy and national identity. If Iraq were made the 51st state of the US, they would become a net recipient- but I don't see too many people on the streets of Baghdad calling for statehood.

[ 10. November 2003, 15:29: Message edited by: Flying_Belgian ]
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
SCZ - ah well, it just goes to show what can be done by the mis-use of figures. Mind you, I am not much inclined to trust the Daily Mail anyway!

Incidentally, can you give me a source for those figures - I'd like to point them out to a work colleague.

And, of course, the oil is nearly all gone, isn't it? Though sales of whisky must be as good as ever! Would Scotland still be better off independent?

Perhaps I had better change my argument ..... though the points about students and the elderly still stand.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
scz, you claim 90% of British Oil is in Scottish waters. The American Energy Information Administration States
quote:
Waters in the central North Sea off the east coast of Scotland contain nearly half of the UK's remaining oil reserves, with about a quarter of reserves located in the northern North Sea near the Shetland Islands.
While I'd be first to admit that 'nearly half' and 'about a quarter' is a significant amount, it doesn't add up to 90%.

{link to site. }

[ 10. November 2003, 15:41: Message edited by: Balaam ]
 
Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by psyduck:
John Major's government - a pretty dreadful one - took Rhyl, re-drew a line on a map, and put it in Denbighshire. Why? God had put it in Flintshire. What do I have in common with Denbighshire people?

No offence...
I know that Henry VIII wanted to be head of the Church, but I didn't know that he aspired to the top job when he formalised Welsh counties in 1536...

And, in the light of yesterday's defeat, may I also say that I have resiled from my traditional position of supporting anyone against the English (I was always certain that, in a straight fight, I would probably support a Satan's Select XV against an England team): for the time being, I will only support France against England [Razz]
 
Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
Balaam - that's down to Westminster changing the historic boundary between the countries a couple of years ago.

I acknowledge that my sources are one sided (I'm lazy and looked up some activist websites [Big Grin] ) and they don't reference very well where they obtained their figures from. But:

Oil Statistics
Monetary Figures
SNP Election Pledges on the economy 2001 (slightly more up to date)

And ... the real reason Westminster fears independence.

Flying Belgian - I agree with you that finances between Scotland and England are a minefield and my argument was deliberately slanted to prove this point, however the example of small countries and small states shows that small can be successful at the edge of big economies. I think Scotland would be more successful given it's own chance to be positive about itself rather than the small brother.

The further north you go in Scotland the more people love Brussels and hate Westminster. Brussels gives us grants for new facilities, services etc. Westminster gave us the poll tax and fishing deregulation.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Flying_Belgian:
Whereas in the UK- it is often seen as a case of "nation" or bust- whereby if you are not a nation, then any other term is patronising, incorrect and wrong.
"County" is an acceptable term. I've always been proud of my Worcestershire roots.

The reason the proposed "Regions" are so unpopular is because they will throw out all the old county lines and draw new ones. Can you imagine a map of England without Yorkshire, Lancashire, Worcestershire, Somerset etc?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Counties aren't the same as regions.

It's certainly true that what local political feeling there has been in England - a lot less than in most European countries - has been based on towns or counties though. There isn't much regional emotional identification, with the notable exception of the north-east (which is only 2 counties). And just possibly East Anglia.

In fact we disagree with each other and with the government as to where the boundaries of the regions are, or ought to be.

If you believed the government then Oxford and Cambridge are both in the south-east - which to me (a real south-easterner) seems ludicrous - Oxford is central-southern England (you'd call it "south midlands" if that was a word we used), Cambridge is in East Anglia.

Regional government would be ludicrous in the SE of England because it would either have include London - in which case it would just be be London + bits - or not, in which case you get the absurd choice between a doughnut and a banana - either a "big" SE with the missing London making a hole in the middle or a little one.
 
Posted by Anduril (# 5132) on :
 
From TBAS, somewhere up above:

quote:
Many Northerners are amazed when they find out this name [The War of Northern Agression] has actually been used in elementary and secondary textbooks during the last half on the 20th Century in certain regions of the US.
AS I recall, when taking Virginia history in 4th grade, it was 'The War Between the States' - but not two miles from my house is an historical marker at the remains of Ft. Ethan Allen, describing the fort's role as part of the defenses of the Federal capital, constructed during "The War of Northern Aggression" - a case of the losers writing the history, I guess, at least in this case.
 
Posted by Timothy (# 292) on :
 
In the North it was commonly referred to (well into the early twentieth century) as "The War of the Rebellion."

Timothy
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Ken - my point exactly. I was refuting Flying_Belgian's claim that in England "Nation" is the only form of identity which isn't "patronising, incorrect and wrong".
 
Posted by scoticanus (# 5140) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TonyK:
Would Scotland still be better off independent?
I couldn't care less. I'd vote for independence even if it meant that I personally was much poorer. It just feels right for a nation to govern itself.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
the real reason Westminster fears independence.
[Killing me]

scz, I agree with you that given independance over 75% of British oil would be Scottish. I deliberately avoided both Westminster ans SNP statistics as they are both likely to be biased.

Given just this share Scotland would be economically viable.

Whatever next? Is the Isle of Man going to claim its share of Irish Sea Gas?

Ken, I'm surprised that the Government puts Oxford and Cambridge in the South East. I always took the SE to be Surrey, Sussex and Kent.
 
Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
quote:
Elizabeth WIndsor (QE2 of GB and NI).
[Mad]

She is (god help us) QE1 in Scotland, so therefore only QE1 of the UK.
She's QE2 of England, Wales & Ireland, coz they got stuck with the first one too.

James is too often referred to as the 1st, as if only English reference is counted.

mind you, the sooner we send them all back to their estates and have an elected head of state the better. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Ken - my point exactly. I was refuting Flying_Belgian's claim that in England "Nation" is the only form of identity which isn't "patronising, incorrect and wrong".
You misinterpret my point. What I was trying to say was that it would be "patronising, incorrect and wrong" to call Scotland a region. Similarly, if you called Scotland a county- that would hardly be an improvement.

I wasn't talking about all other forms of identity (regional, county, city) just alternative ways of discussing what kind of an entity Scotland is.
 
Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
Dear Balaam

Be careful of using terms like "economically viable" because in terms of a country, it is a meaningless concept.

The term "econimcally viable" implies that there is some kind of "bankrupcy test" that a country might fail- i.e. if a region secedes from the rest of a nation state, it will simply not survive economically- like a company being put out of business.

Looking around the world there are independent nations far far poorer than Scotland. There is not some kind of economic driving test that you have to pass to be viable.

Imagine if Wales (poorer than Scotland) declared independence. Yes, it would be true to say that the country would suddenly face a big budget shortfall (since it is a net recipient of UK funds)- which would then lead to a difficult economic decision: do you cut spending to match reduced revenue levels, or do you raise tax rates to maintain spending at its current level. This might cause a lot of problems, but the country isn't suddenly going to vanish into a black hole, or go bang or something.

The economic of independence are not a binary choice between viability and non-viability, but rather a sliding scale.

It was clear that Slovaks are economically worse off independent as opposed to being part of Czechoslovakia, but they judged it worth doing for the other benefits. Independent Slovakia was not "economically unviable" just less beneficial.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Sorry, bad terminology there. Take it to mean that Scotland would be better off.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by musician:
James is too often referred to as the 1st, as if only English reference is counted.
Depends, of course, which James you mean.

James I (Scotland)

was a much better poet than

James I (England) VI (Scotland) - away win.

************

Is there any argument for devolution for Wales that does not apply equally to devolution for Cornwall?
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
SCZ et al - may I refer you to this Scottish Office document which gives Scotland's Income and expenditure for the period 1996/97.

It includes figures for the oil revenue received in total, though not figures for whisky, other than for the tax from sales of whisky.

A quick, and possibly not reliable, totalling gives income including oil revenue as £28.3 billion and expenditure as £31.4 billion - a shortfall of income compared to expenditure of £3.1 billion, which is equal to approx 11p for every pound of income. Ignoring the oil revenue gives 27p in the £1 - perhaps the basis for the 30p I read about.

How these figures relate to those supplied by Free Scotland I do not know, though I suppose it is possible that the Scottish Office figures are unreliable.

I will try to do some more research tomorrow - unfortunately I have better things to do at the moment (starting to prepare a sermon for Sunday being one of them) [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Jon G (# 4704) on :
 
I've lived a pretty peripatetic existence up to this point - born in the North East of England, grew up in the Midlands lived for a while in London,the South West, Wales and Scotland and now in Yorkshire.

What strikes me above anything is the extraordinary diversity of cultures and communities that make up the countries and regions of the British Isles.

I agree with those who argue that both Scotland and Wales are 'foreign' to England in the sense they have distinct identities and cultural history. However, there is great diversity with in all the countries - between lets say, Gwynedd and Pembroke, Northumbria and the Cotswolds or Glasgow and Edinburgh.

In the long run, I don't think it's that important whether Scotland or Wales have full independence within Britain or not - the cultural mix that exists on this island will continue whatever the political boundaries are. Was Robert the Bruce Scottish or Norman-French? Was the Duke of Wellington, English or Irish? What kind of Welsh identity did Dylan Thomas look to forge in his writing?

For me this is best represented by Iona - which at the time of Columba was not a remote island, as we see it today - but bang in the middle of a busy sea lane - it was a bit like building a monastery in the middle of a motorway junction!

And on Iona,the Irish/Pictish/British/Saxon monks wrote the Book of Kells an extraordinary fusion of Irish,Germanic,and Mediterranean influences.

P.S Like Marvin the Martian - my own cultural heritage is that of Piers Ploughman, Elgar and....Tolkein [Roll Eyes]

[ 10. November 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Jon G ]
 
Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
And no-one can really describe Lancashire as a "spiritual home" in all seriousness.
As a Yorkshireman, I have to agree with my learned friend on this point!

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Otherwise, Paul's last post is absolutely fine.
However, he also claimed Hull to be in North Yorkshire... it is not, it is in the former East Riding of Yorkshire.

Gremlin
 
Posted by Manx Taffy (# 301) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
Thankyou Manx Taffy for clearing up the Mann issue. A further complication is IIRC the Manx compete for the UK at competitioms such as the Olympic Games.

Can someone now please clarify the position of the Channel Islands.

{Capitalising proper noun.}
My understanding is that the Channel Islands are each also Crown Dependencies - though they have less mutaul taxation agreements with the UK. IoM has agreed to apply the same rates of NI and VAT as the UK - this has led to several unwanted (by government and people) rises in taxation recently.

The IOM join the GB team for the olympics but of course have their own team in the Commonwealth games. Manx borm people can adopt any of the home nations if they are good enough to represent at a country at football, rugby etc. About 60% of Manx people would support England whereas the rest often support their Celtic cousins.

On your other point re Irish Sea resources. The Manx Government has full rights to oil/gas within our 12 mile terretorial waters and has already claimed good fees to allow gas exploration in recent years - so hands off! [Biased]
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gremlin:
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
And no-one can really describe Lancashire as a "spiritual home" in all seriousness.
As a Yorkshireman, I have to agree with my learned friend on this point!

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Otherwise, Paul's last post is absolutely fine.
However, he also claimed Hull to be in North Yorkshire... it is not, it is in the former East Riding of Yorkshire.

Gremlin
If by Lancashire you mean the Dutchy of Lancaster (traditionally), then it has the same chance of independance as that other dutchy, Cornwall. See Chaplehead's post above. Wales , being a principality, has more chance.

The former East Riding of Yorkshire, changed to North Humberside, is now East Yorkshire. However the traditional county bounderies still stand in law if not for local government.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
I just want to thank you all for your illuminating posts to date. For a furriner, everything is now as clear as mud. [Confused]

You're doing this on purpose, aren't you.

[ 10. November 2003, 22:17: Message edited by: Sine Nomine ]
 
Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I just want to thank you all for your illuminating posts to date. For a furriner, everything is now as clear as mud. [Confused]

You're doing this on purpose, aren't you.
Oh, absolutely, dear Sine!

I guess it all boils down to the fact that the countries on these islands have a recorded history that goes back more than a mere 25 generations! [Devil]

Of course, the previous occupiers of the lands now known as the USA don't count. Why would they? They didn't speak English or French, didn't read the Bible, didn't write their history down in books, and wore less clothes than the European interlopers. They'd only been there 10-14 thousand years!

Gremlin

[ 10. November 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: Gremlin ]
 
Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
I think Scotland would be more successful given it's own chance to be positive about itself rather than the small brother.
I agree with that. I also lived in Scotland for a few years (one of five countries I have been sometime resident in) and what struck me strongly (as with Flying Belgian) was the manner in which Scotland defined itself as 'not English'. Scotland does indeed have its own legal system and its own education system (which in my experience seemed to work better than their English equivalents and certainly I got a good education there) but as much as not I heard about them in reference to guarding the Scottishness of these institutions against the white faces from the south.

Sadly this attitude had, in my experience, an ugly fringe. I remember my first sight of Glasgow - seeing a fence with 'FUCK THE ENGLISH' written on it in huge letters. On another occasion a ned tried to smash a wine bottle over my head (I'm English myself). A Kiwi friend with whom I studied later told me that he considered a fair amount of what he read in the Scottish media to be simple racism. One such item was a two-page spread in the Glasgow Herald exploring how English people can turn from bowler-hatted accountants to skinheaded hooligans. I regularly encountered people who made it tolerably clear that they would have prefered me not to be in their country. I also remember hearing about an English family whose house was vandalised and anti-English graffiti daubed on it. In itself that's bad but no worse than what a good many Asian families probably have to put up with all across the country. What was telling was the 'who cares, they're English' attitude that most people took which I think would not have been held if the unfortunate family had been of any other ethnicity

I have not encountered these attitudes in any sort of similar measure in the other (formerly British-governed) countries in which I have been resident. For the record these countries are Australia, South Africa and now New Zealand.

At the time the (Conservative) Major government was in office despite having lost all credibility north of the border and I'm sure that contributed to the frustration. But I think it did lead to some mistaken attitudes.

Even more sadly a Scottish friend of mine who got a place at Cambridge to study a PhD left the place like a bat out of hell back north when he'd finished - he got fed up with the hardening attitudes he encountered from the English people around him. English nationalism is not something I would want to see roused, in its current state it seems to be merely about anti-Europeanism as a great deal of Scottish nationalism is about anti-Englishness.

quote:
The further north you go in Scotland the more people love Brussels and hate Westminster. Brussels gives us grants for new facilities, services etc. Westminster gave us the poll tax and fishing deregulation.
Actually Orkney and Shetland returned the weakest vote in favour of devolution when the referendum was held. They may love Brussels but a lot of people went for Westminster over Edinburgh.

[Edited for UBB.]

[ 11. November 2003, 10:30: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I just want to thank you all for your illuminating posts to date. For a furriner, everything is now as clear as mud. [Confused]

You're doing this on purpose, aren't you.
This is what comes from being in a country without a written constitution, there are different oppinions as to what makes up the countries of the UK.

Technicly speaking I don't think countries are the right definitions(other than for the whole of the UK). There are the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, the Principality of Wales and the province of Northern Ireland, all of which have different status.

Within England there are the Dutchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which have a different status to other counties. (I believe the county of Durham may also have a different status due to its separate history.) [Confused]

It's as clear as mud to the residents too.
 
Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sir George Grey:
quote:
The further north you go in Scotland the more people love Brussels and hate Westminster. Brussels gives us grants for new facilities, services etc. Westminster gave us the poll tax and fishing deregulation.
Actually Orkney and Shetland returned the weakest vote in favour of devolution when the referendum was held. They may love Brussels but a lot of people went for Westminster over Edinburgh.
My comparison was between Brussels and Westminster. I'm quite aware that those in the north are not best pleased with Holyrood either.

[Edited for UBB.]

[ 11. November 2003, 10:32: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I just want to thank you all for your illuminating posts to date. For a furriner, everything is now as clear as mud. [Confused]

You're doing this on purpose, aren't you.
I was tempted to ask when I read some of the later postings if you were enjoying your thread, but I thought it might be unkind.

You will just have to come to the British Isles, do your own Triumphant Tour of Her Majesty's Realm, and draw your own conclusions. If you haven't already done so. It may be a small island but it's surprisingly diverse for its size and I think you'd find it interesting.
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
SCZ et al-

Some more up-to-date figures for Tax Year 2000-01

Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland: 2000-2001

Expenditure £,millions

Identifiable: 1 28,428

Non-identifiable: 2 3,407

Other: 3 4,700

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 36,535 Which is 10.10% of UK total

Income

Taxes, rates etc 30,900 Which is 8.2% of UK total

North Sea Oil Revenue 4,300

TOTAL INCOME 35,200 Which is 9.29% of UK total


Av .Expenditure / Head
England £4,529 Scotland £5,558
Wales £5,302 N Ireland £6,424

Notes

1 Identifiable expenditure is defined as that expenditure which can be identified from official records as having been incurred on behalf of the population of a particular country/region.
2. "Non-identifiable" expenditure is expenditure generally incurred on behalf of the UK or GB as a whole. E.g. Defence, trade and industry, overseas expenditure. Shared pro rata
3. E.g. debt interest

[Edited to fix layout slightly!] [And URL]

[ 11. November 2003, 10:55: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
Whisky duty for Scotland. (And whiskey duty for Northern Ireland)

The duty paid on French Cognac and Swedish Vodka in Britain goes to the Westminster government. For the scots to claim all whisky duty is a little unrealistic.

A devolved Scotland would only be able to clain duty for sales in Scotland. Sales in England will continue to go to Westminster.

On the other hand you would get the duty on Scottish sales of London and Plymouth gin.
 
Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
Dear Balaam,

Export duty.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Dear Balaam,

Export duty.
Which is nowhere near as high as the duty on Spirits. If export duty on Scotch was so high it would only serve to increase the sales of Irish.
 
Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
Technicly speaking I don't think countries are the right definitions(other than for the whole of the UK). There are the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, the Principality of Wales and the province of Northern Ireland, all of which have different status.

Within England there are the Dutchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which have a different status to other counties. (I believe the county of Durham may also have a different status due to its separate history.) [Confused]

It's as clear as mud to the residents too.
Sorry, but this is to assume that there is anything like coherence to British constitutional law.

There are no kingdoms of England and Scotland: since the various Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801, it has been the United Kingdom of Great Britain [and [Northern] Ireland, depending on time of question]. The kingdoms of England and Scotland were merged/united: they do not continue to exist alongside the United Kingdom.

Strictly speaking, the Principality of Wales as a legal entity disappeared in the so-called Acts of Union of Henry VIII (1534-1543): Wales was subsumed into England, which is why there is no Welsh element to the Union Flag. (In effect, the independent principality of Wales disappeared in 1282 with the death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, but that's another story)

Northern Ireland is called a province, but no definition of such a term exists: it is a reference to the ancient Provinces of Ireland, of which Ulster is one, but NI only comprises six of the nine counties of the province of Ulster.

The remaining duchies are Royal possessions: the Duke of Lancaster is the Queen, and the Duke of Cornwall is also the Prince of Wales. The duchies only exist for legal purposes connected to the rights and privileges of the crown.

There is no legal difference between the status of Wales, Scotland, N Ireland and any of the counties/regions/duchies/boroughs of England: one of the simplicities of a centralised state is that the United Kingdom is a single legal entity. Parliament has chosen to give some of its powers to devolved administrations, but it can as easily take them back.

Part of the problem with the argument over nations and regions is that we tend to see nations only as nation-states - those which control their own destiny (if such a concept has any validity in the days of the EU, UN, WTO, etc). It is possible to have nations which do not have such control, and even possible to have nations without properly-defined territories.

Clear now, Sine?
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhisiart:
Sorry, but this is to assume that there is anything like coherence to British constitutional law.

There are no kingdoms of England and Scotland: since the various Acts of Union of 1707 and 1801 [...] The kingdoms of England and Scotland were merged/united: they do not continue to exist alongside the United Kingdom.
You are, of course, forgetting the Kingdom of Fife. [Disappointed]

Rat
 
Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
You are, of course, forgetting the Kingdom of Fife. [Disappointed]

Rat
Similarly non-existent in legal terms - but I am in danger of displaying my pedantry again [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhisiart:
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
You are, of course, forgetting the Kingdom of Fife. [Disappointed]
Similarly non-existent in legal terms - but I am in danger of displaying my pedantry again [Paranoid]
Oooh. Come and say that in Auchtermuchty. If you think you're hard enough, like.

[Biased]

Rat
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
It's not just us. Denmark is just as confusing, (Faeroe? Greenland? That little place no-one can ever remember?) and even the Finns have the Aaland islands.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhisiart:
Sorry, but this is to assume that there is anything like coherence to British constitutional law.
There is no written constitution in Britain. As Rhisiart has said there is no coherence in British constitutional law. Therefore any statements by me or anyone else on this board are not 100% true.

Despite the fact that all the parts of the UK should have equal status, the fact that the Westminster government gave different powers to the regional assemblies of Scotland and Wales seems to imply that Westminster regards them as having different status.

It would seem that the status of the parts of the UK is whatever Westminster, at any point in time, regards it to be.

Still as clear as mud.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 4754) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I just want to thank you all for your illuminating posts to date. For a furriner, everything is now as clear as mud. [Confused]

You're doing this on purpose, aren't you.
Sine, it is as clear as mud. Just think of how the United States expanded from "Sea to Shining Sea" in the first seventy-five years of its existence. Now draw the process out and imagine that the Louisiana Purchase, the Northwest Territory, and the Northwest Territory (the part we kept, anyway - although that might be a good Ulster analogue) were more than just Huge Tracts of Land, they were nation-states, perhaps cobbled together thru conquest and/or dynastic marriage, perhaps not, but retaining distinct national identities. Imagine they didn't have a written constitution. Imagine there was no defining event such as The Unpleasantness Between The States - which pretty much curbed the independent tendencies of union states as well as confederate ones. Don't forget our territories (Puerto Rico, especially). You'll be getting close.

All right, you know and I know that there were parts of these United States that were seperate nations at one point or other in their histories. You and I both live in such parts. (I do have to say that seeing a large map of North America ca. 1840 quite etched itself in my brain. I live in what was then Mexico (before it struck out briefly on its own - Tejas _was_ a nation-state then.) And there are "nationalist" leanings there. But what's Over There has been fermenting a lot longer. And as a very broad generalization, over here we do tend to think of ourselves as American in nationality (we might qualify it further regionally of course, I certainly do).

Of course I think that people throwing in the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are a bit of a curveball to the average dumb American. The main special thing about them that I can see is that they belong to the crown (I know Lancaster was through a dynastic marriage, due to the habit monarchs had of poaching great heiresses for their impecunious younger sons) and they're wealthy.

(Okay, my head is still spinning trying to figure out the Channel Island stuff. It's a point of some interest to me since one of my sets of great-great-grandparents, including the original Charlotte I'm named for, was from Jersey. The original, not the "what exit" one. As far as I can figure, those are a remnant from when the English monarchs were Dukes of Normandy as well.)

Charlotte (aka Amazing Grace)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
Of course I think that people throwing in the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are a bit of a curveball to the average dumb American.
Duchies and stuff are just frippery. About the same relevance to British politics as state flowers and birds are in US. Less, in fact.

There is some, mostly rather sentimental and intellectual, non-English feeling in Cornwall, but its nothing to do with Dukes, its because the Cornish people are, or rather were a few hundred years ago, British rather than English. But the English conquest of Cornwall was over a thousand years ago, and the Cornish language has been dead for 200 years.

[...]


quote:

(Okay, my head is still spinning trying to figure out the Channel Island stuff. It's a point of some interest to me since one of my sets of great-great-grandparents, including the original Charlotte I'm named for, was from Jersey. The original, not the "what exit" one. As far as I can figure, those are a remnant from when the English monarchs were Dukes of Normandy as well.)
That's exaclty right. They were never part of Britain at all, just other territories owing allegiance to the person who happend to be king of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

The only reason they aren't independent nowadays, with a purely ceremonial relationship to the monarchy (like that of, say, Canada) is that the British government likes to keep some control over a few offshore banking centres.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is some, mostly rather sentimental and intellectual, non-English feeling in Cornwall, but its nothing to do with Dukes, its because the Cornish people are, or rather were a few hundred years ago, British rather than English. But the English conquest of Cornwall was over a thousand years ago, and the Cornish language has been dead for 200 years.
Are you sure?
 
Posted by ce (# 1957) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
There is some, mostly rather sentimental and intellectual, non-English feeling in Cornwall, but its nothing to do with Dukes, its because the Cornish people are, or rather were a few hundred years ago, British rather than English. But the English conquest of Cornwall was over a thousand years ago, and the Cornish language has been dead for 200 years.
Are you sure?
Well Mebyon Kernow would say that wouldn't they.

It was "re-discovered" by a bunch of middle-class w...ers sorry I mean ex-hippies.

ce

[ 13. November 2003, 17:39: Message edited by: ce ]
 
Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 
Wow, what a peculiar mixture of Welsh, and Old English. With a scattering of Scots too.

Some examples:
Mebyon (k.) = Meibion (cym.) = Brotherhood (eng.)

Pobel (k.) = Pobol (cym.) = People (eng.)

I wonder what they'd think if someone just read out their text using Welsh pronounciation rules... [Yipee]

Of course, unless they have recordings of Cornish spoken by Cornish people 200 years ago (when there were still native speakers), any modern pronounciation is about as valid as the modern academic pronounciation of ancient Greek. [Biased] (you know, the one invented by Oxbridge academics to make sure it didn't sound anything like the clearly debased modern Greek language)

Gremlin
 
Posted by ce (# 1957) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gremlin:
Wow, what a peculiar mixture of Welsh, and Old English. With a scattering of Scots too.

Some examples:
Mebyon (k.) = Meibion (cym.) = Brotherhood (eng.)

Pobel (k.) = Pobol (cym.) = People (eng.)

I wonder what they'd think if someone just read out their text using Welsh pronounciation rules... [Yipee]
Funny you should say that….
Some 15-20 years ago I was involved in cultural funding at a national level.
Some of the smarter Cornish arts groups discovered that there was easy money to be blagged from European “Celtic Fringe” funding sources. The local “independent basket weaving” rep in the South West, call her C…s, (Welsh and resident in Devon) approached me for some modest funding towards sending a raid/Cornish delegation to an “Association of Basketweaving in the Celtic-speaking Countries” conference in Brittany (and kindly offered me a place on their delegation).
I happened to have heard from a well-known “professional Welshman” involved in the organisation that a condition of membership was that a 15-minute presentation had to be given in the “national” language - “to keep the lowland Scots bastards from taking it over like they take over everything else” - according to him.
I enquired of C…s (who has since gone far) as to how we were going to get round this minor problem, as none of the Cornish delegation knew a word of Cornish.
“That’s o.k.” she said. “I’ll read it out like Welsh with a broad Devonian accent – no one in Cornwall knows how to pronounce it so they certainly won’t in Brittany.”
I had to leave the conference hall for an urgent appointment in the Bar during this little farce – paid off though.

ce
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Good to see that Scottish Nationalism is not that much less interesting than Quebec nationalism.

Feels like home.

*yawn*

Raspberry Rabbit
Midlothian
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gremlin:
Of course, unless they have recordings of Cornish spoken by Cornish people 200 years ago (when there were still native speakers), any modern pronounciation is about as valid as the modern academic pronounciation of ancient Greek.
Not quite - Breton, a near sister language, is still living, and Welsh isn't that much further away (linguistically - nearer in kilometres of course!)

Reconstructing Cornish might be like trying to reconstruct East Anglian English if we had living speakers of Geordie and Flemish to compare with written sources.
 
Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
When we were on holiday, Psyduck (Welsh speaker) could read Cornish, or at least decipher it, and similarly with Breton, although he couldn't find anyone to speak Breton. A lot of the folk said their parents spoke it and they understood the parents, but spoke French. Pity really to lose languages.
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
I have a friend who was a fervent Cornish nationlaist, who learnt how to speak the language. She claimed that, at the time it was revived, there were just two or three very old native speakers still alive who were interviewed extensively. She conceeded that was not the most reliable way to build up the entire language, but it does sound better than the picture painted here so far. Anyone know how sound this account is?
 
Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
The greatest losers from Scottish nationalism are the Labour government. When John Smith was Labour leader, he claimed to believe passionately in the union. Its easy to see why. The massive victory which Tony Blair has won at two General Elections would have carried in England alone, notwithstanding Labour's massive majority in Wales and Scotland, but apart from Atlee's win in 1945, all othr Labour governments have depended entirely on their Scottish and Welsh support.

When the Tories finally come back from the doldrums, which they will, it will be, once again, as an English party. With a firm Labour majority, both at Westminster and in Edinburgh, there is little conflict. But imagine a scenario in which the Tories were in power at Westminster and either Labour, or SNP in Edinburgh. That's when the constitution will snap and Scottish independance will become a reality.

It is because of the way Labour depends on its Scottish vote for its Westminster majority that it refuses to deal with the West Lothian issue, which IMO unfairly disenfranchises the English, who make up the largest, by far, proportion of UK voters.
 
Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
It is because of the way Labour depends on its Scottish vote for its Westminster majority that it refuses to deal with the West Lothian issue, which IMO unfairly disenfranchises the English, who make up the largest, by far, proportion of UK voters.
Given that decisions about what happens in Scotland & Wales have for centuries been taken in England, by the English majority in MPs, I think it's only fair that Scottish & Welsh MPs should continue to have a vote on all matters in the Westminster Parliament, just the English ones do. [Razz]

Gremlin
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
the West Lothian issue, which IMO unfairly disenfranchises the English, who make up the largest, by far, proportion of UK voters.
In what way am I "disenfranchised" by having MPs from Lothian in Westminster that I am not disenfranchised by having MPs from Bradford in Westminster?

That the people of Lothian also have another parliament to which they elect members, but those of Yorkshire don't, makes no difference to me at all.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In what way am I "disenfranchised" by having MPs from Lothian in Westminster that I am not disenfranchised by having MPs from Bradford in Westminster?
Because the MP from Bradford will be involved in passing laws that affect his own constituency. The MP from Lothian may not be, as laws affecting England and Wales will not affect his constituency.

It has always been the case in the past that a measure affecting Scotland only might have the support of a majority of MPs from Scottish constituencies but be defeated by a majority of English and Welsh MPs. This was a defect of the system, but as long as there was a single, supposedly united, Parliament was pretty much inevitable. Now we have a separate parliament in Scotland the system is perhaps less defensible.

IIRC the Secretary of State for Health at Westminster represents a Scottish constituency. But as the NHS in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish parliament anything he does regarding the NHS (in England and Wales) will not affect his constituents. So ‘our’ NHS is being run by a furringer who has no direct responsibility to his electors to do a good job.

Taxation without representation is tyranny. Chuck the tea in the harbour. Raise the militia. Rebellion.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I have a friend who was a fervent Cornish nationlaist, who learnt how to speak the language. She claimed that, at the time it was revived, there were just two or three very old native speakers still alive who were interviewed extensively. She conceeded that was not the most reliable way to build up the entire language, but it does sound better than the picture painted here so far. Anyone know how sound this account is?
Depends which revival you mean. The most common revived Cornish is based upon mediaeval Cornish, owing to the much larger corpus of literature to draw the vocabulary and grammar from. This would certainly not have been the Cornish that the last few native speakers spoke.

It's notable how much English there is borrowed into Cornish; this could only have become more and more as the language withered. What is interesting is how little Cornish there is in Cornish English, outside of place names.

Still, it was nice to see a houseboat the other year called "Chy dowr". For the Welsh out there, remember "ch" is pronounced like in English, and it should be pretty obvious.
 
Posted by Gill B (# 112) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zipporah:
As a Scot I always found it deeply insulting that our English neighbours used the British flag and national anthem (which represent all the British nations) as if they were exclusively the English flag and anthem alone - especially so when used at international events in which Scotland and Wales also take part. [Roll Eyes]

Good point - last year during strawberry season, I was bewildered by the fact that Scottish strawberries in the supermarkets were stickered with a Scottish flag but English ones with a Union flag. I kept saying that they should either put a St George's flag on the English ones if they had a St Andrew's flag on the Scottish ones, or put a Union flag on all British strawberries. I have a feeling there were some English flag stickers this year on the strawberries.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Because the MP from Bradford will be involved in passing laws that affect his own constituency. The MP from Lothian may not be, as laws affecting England and Wales will not affect his constituency.
But neither of them have anything to do with me, and I voted for neither of them. Where's the democracy in that?
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
However the traditional county bounderies still stand in law if not for local government.
No they don't. (Trust me - I'm a lawyer).

The only place where "traditional" counties exist at all anymore is for ceremonial purposes, and even that's not consistent. Thus, there are parts of geographical Yorkshire which are, for ceremonial purposes, parts of Durham because they became parts of unitary authorities carved out of Cleveland.

Consider also Halton District - a unitary authority made up of Runcorn (always in Cheshire) and Widnes (was in Lancs, then Cheshire) - part of Cheshire for ceremonial purposes even though half of its north of the Mersey.

Stockport hasn't been legally in Chesire for nearly 30 years, and in law the counties of Notts, Derbyshire and Devon have no responsibility or power over their county towns anymore.

In law Rutland is not a county at all - it's a District vested with county functions. Peterborough is ceremonially part of Cambridgeshire, though the latter has no jurisdiction whatsoever within the city.

The boundaries between local authorities only exist for the purposes of local government - there is no other reason for their existence. So there's no "traditional" county boundaries in law other than those created by the Local Government Acts 1972 and 1994 and subordinate legislation.
 
Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
IIRC the Secretary of State for Health at Westminster represents a Scottish constituency. But as the NHS in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish parliament anything he does regarding the NHS (in England and Wales) will not affect his constituents. So ‘our’ NHS is being run by a furringer who has no direct responsibility to his electors to do a good job.
Devolutionist tangent
The NHS in Wales is a 'devolved matter' - the National Assembly takes decisions on the running of the Health Service. So Dr John Reid makes decisions for England alone (aren't they lucky?)
/End tangent - being a pedantic so-and-so is a busy life... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Dyfrig - you're right (of course), but the 'real' counties, the traditional geographical ones, can't be changed by any stroke of the pen.

Thus the West Riding of Yorkshire ends at the Sheaf, the Meersbrook and the Shirebrook (what a surprise!) and always will. Derbyshire ends at Longdendale, and Black Hill is in Cheshire, whatever administrative and legal units may now bear those names.

Ludditically yours, from the West Riding of Yorkshire.
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
and Black Hill is in Cheshire,
Black Hill is in three counties, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Cheshire boundaries meeting at the top.
 
Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
and Black Hill is in Cheshire,
Black Hill is in three counties, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Cheshire boundaries meeting at the top.
Nope. That's the administrative Derbyshire. The real one stops at Longdendale.
 
Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
It has always been the case in the past that a measure affecting Scotland only might have the support of a majority of MPs from Scottish constituencies but be defeated by a majority of English and Welsh MPs.
The converse is equally possible; a measure effectively affecting only Scotland can be forced through Westminster by the English majority.

Hang on, didn't this happen as recently as the 1980s... the Poll Tax started in Scotland about a year before England and Wales, despite the opposition of the Scottish MPs.

Unfortunately, we have to face the fact that we now live in a much more federal state than we used to have, and decisions made at the top level of government affect the different legislative areas in different ways. A balance has got to be found, or else the whole thing will just spin frantically out of control into a horrible mess. And that mess will only be resolved by imposition from Westminster, or by independence!

Central government needs to be more sympathetic to the individual needs of the different areas of the country. And the Welsh, Scottish and Irish legislatures need to consider their actions in the context of the whole country too.

That is, unless we want the country to fragment even further, in an era of greater greater federalism throughout the rest of Europe!

Gremlin
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gremlin:
That is, unless we want the country to fragment even further, in an era of greater greater federalism throughout the rest of Europe!
Why not?

Seems like a good deal to me.

It would bring government closer to most people, and under stronger popular and democratic control. Our current nation states are too big for democracies. Cut them down to size. Most decisions can be made and scrutinised by much smaller units than our present nation states. There really isn't much that benefits from being organised amongst more than 5-10 million people & quite a lot would be better run by towns and cities than by even small countries. And for that matter by neighbourhoods within towns.

Only what has to be run on a mega-scale need be. And as long as that is a sufficiently small part of the public business, who really cares if it is done in Edinburgh, Westminster, or Brussels? After all a lot of the important foreign policy and military decisions have been made for us in New York or Washington for the last 50 years.
 
Posted by Corfe (# 633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Dyfrig - you're right (of course), but the 'real' counties, the traditional geographical ones, can't be changed by any stroke of the pen.

Absolutely! Just relax about border changes - unless you are 'moved' from an area where things are done the way you like it to one where they don't.

Every organisation, company, education authority, the Post Office etc. divides the country into regions for its own purposes and you couldn't keep track of sales regions of a national pizza chain or tax office you live or work in so why pay the least attention to what some minor government functionary says about the region for local government purposes? Its just a label for them and doesn't (shouldn't) affect 'Real Life' much.

Those who live in what was 'historically' Rutland can still say they live there, whatever their address is or whovever they have to pay their Council Tax to. I know I would.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Because the MP from Bradford will be involved in passing laws that affect his own constituency. The MP from Lothian may not be, as laws affecting England and Wales will not affect his constituency.
But neither of them have anything to do with me, and I voted for neither of them. Where's the democracy in that?
That is the nature of an elected, democratic parliament; there is collective decision-making by all the elected members that applies to the whole area, nation, borough or whatever. The alternatives are that everything must be decided solely by those directly elected – so all decisions on health, defence, education etc will be decided by the local MP on a constituency by constituency basis (or by a councillor on a ward by ward basis) or everything gets decided by one central parliament and we do away with the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, county councils, local councils etc.

Last night’s vote in the House of Commons is a good example of the Midlothian (or Lothian) problem. The Foundation Hospital Bill will, if enacted, affect only England (Rhisiart – thanks for explaining the situation in Wales). Had Scottish MPs not voted on the Bill it would have failed. The will of English MPs on an English matter has been overridden by Scottish MPs whose constituencies will not be directly be affected by the Bill.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
The alternatives are that everything must be decided solely by those directly elected – so all decisions on health, defence, education etc will be decided by the local MP on a constituency by constituency basis (or by a councillor on a ward by ward basis) or everything gets decided by one central parliament and we do away with the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, county councils, local councils etc.
But those aren't the alternatives! We have an intermediate system between your two supposed opposites - there are national or federal institutions that do one set of things, and various kinds of regional or local government that do others. These aren't the same eveywhere - different arrangements apply in different places.

Lots of other countries also have an intermediate system between all-national or all-local government. I could mention Germany, the USA, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Mexico, India...

According to you they all have impossible systems!
 
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
<snip> ... The will of English MPs on an English matter has been overridden by Scottish MPs whose constituencies will not be directly be affected by the Bill.
And indeed, where the members of the Scottish Parliament had already voted against foundation hospitals!
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Lots of stuff too dull to read again
But those aren't the alternatives! We have an intermediate system between your two supposed opposites - there are national or federal institutions that do one set of things, and various kinds of regional or local government that do others. These aren't the same eveywhere - different arrangements apply in different places.

Lots of other countries also have an intermediate system between all-national or all-local government. I could mention Germany, the USA, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Mexico, India...

According to you they all have impossible systems!
But those aren't my alternatives - they're your alternatives.

You suggested that there is no difference between an MP from Bradford voting on an issue affecting you and an MP from Lothian doing so, both are undemocratic. But what is the alternative? If you are reluctant to have a Bradford MP voting on issues affecting you then you will have to elect the decision-making body in its entirety - the one MP state - or have a referendum on every issue. [Confused]
 
Posted by Aldamir (# 2762) on :
 
The Mid-Lothian question only arises because the UK has decided to opt for piecemeal devolution rather than federalism within the United Kingdom. There is no equivalent in the USA because each state has its own government exercising (in theory) whatever powers are not exercised at Washington. The Mid Lothian question is a consequence of the lack of an English Parliament rather than of the existence of a Scottish one.

In my opinion the UK should become a Federation on similar lines to the USA. In the US the central government has one set of powers and responsibilities while the state government has a different set of powers and responsibilities. The outworking of this system in practice has some difficulties, but in theory each level is sovereign within its own sphere. In other words Congress at Washington cannot vote to overturn a law passed at Albany, New York for example. The British system is one of devolution. Any law passed by the Scottish Parliament can be overturned by Westminster if Westminster so desires. The powers of the Scottish Parliament are restricted to those given to it by Westminster, it has no sphere of sovereignty of its own.

The creation of a Federal UK would involve the establishment of "state" parliaments in England (whether as one state or several - that would be for the English to decide) and the upgrading of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish legislatures to full statehood. The Westminster Parliament would be drastically reduced in size and responsibilities, having only such powers as are not given to the "states".
 
Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
The West Lothian issue was demonstrated at its most unfair tinkering with the constitution yesterday. The government, despite its huge majority in the Commons won its vote on Foundation Hospitals by a mere 17 votes. With 64 Labour members voting against and 35 abstentions, the government was in trouble. It won the vote because of the support of its Scottish members. But Scotland isn't going to have Foundtion Hospitals. Health, in Scotland comes under the remit of the Scottish parliament.

How can it be democratically defensible that Scots MP's can give a casting vote on matters which don't affect Scotland, on issues which have for them been devolved to the Scottish parliament. This is the utter arrogance of this government. It knows well, that long term, its Scottish and Welsh support is its only hope of retaining power at Westminster. So it allows democratic principles for Scotland, which it refuses for England. Since the introduction of the Scottish parliament, Scottish members at Westminster, in which Scotland is massively over represented, should only be allowed to vote on issues which affect the UK. Yesterdays vote was an abuse of any democratic principle, engineered by a government prepared to disenfranchise England to its own benefit.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I don't give a damn about the West Lothian question. It is a red herring - a bit of babble thought up by some well-meaning old-fashioned nationalists and brought out now and again by various Tories who hate the Scottish parliament.

Yes, Scottish Labour MPs allowed the government to pass the Foundation Hospitals. So? They'd have managed it anyway & it is hardly of fundamental constitutional importance

(unlike the crime bill - I notice the English MPs did nothing to stop them getting away with another part of their US-directed clampdown on liberties in the name of the War Against Terror (or the war against Crime, or the War Against Some Drugs, or the War Against Paedophiles, or the War Against Loud Music on Council Estates; or whatever other Bad Thing is this week's White Van Driver of the Apocalypse)

You win some, you lose some, On the whole there hasn't been much difference in voting between Scots and English labour MPs.

Hard to tell about Tories of course. I wonder hy that is? Oh, because no bugger has voted for them in Scotland since the Poll Tax debacle.

Scots MPs voting on the tiny number of bills that concern all of England and Wales but have no effect in Scotland is a pretty marginal democratic deficit compared with, say, the House of Lords. Or the government's abilty to choose the date of the next general election.

But as to regional or federal arrangements I still don't see why one size has to fit all, why constitutional arrangements should be the same in all parts of the country.

An English parliament would just be a foot in the door for the nationalists and bigots. What would be the point in one anyway?

English regional assemblies are a great idea for those places that want them - though towns and counties should be alowed to decide which region they want to be in.

But its just silly for the south east of England, forcing us to choose between the doughnut and the banana.

So do it differently in different places. And let people choose which region they're in.
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
quote:
An English parliament would just be a foot in the door for the nationalists and bigots. What would be the point in one anyway?

English regional assemblies are a great idea for those places that want them - though towns and counties should be alowed to decide which region they want to be in.

But its just silly for the south east of England, forcing us to choose between the doughnut and the banana.

So do it differently in different places. And let people choose which region they're in.
i used to be in favour of some sort of regional government for England, but am not now. It would be a colossal waste of money. And the extent to which I was in favour of Scottish and Welsh parliaments/assemblies has diminished when I see in practice that they are huge 'eaters of funds' and can increase bureaucracy.

I fail to see how you can say that an English Parliament would be a 'foot in the door for nationalists and bigots' and yet be in favour of the Scottish/Welsh ones. Are Scots and Welsh immune form bigotry, then? As the SNP and Plaid Cymru show, they are not immune form nationalism.
I am NOT saying I am against the Scots/Welsh devolution: if I were Scottish or Welsh I would very probably be in favour. As it is, I am cautiously supportive. I wish it could have cost a lot less dosh, though.
 
Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
The simplest answer would be that if the law did not affect Scotland then Scottish MPs could not vote on it, rather like pre-Scottish parliament Scottish only matters were not voted on by English MPs - but then as that would cut the government's huge majority I don't think that they would allow it.
 
Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
The West Lothian issue is not a red herring. It is a serious democratic issue, which this government refuses to deal with. The old arguement that Scotland had Tory governments forced on it by the English vote was a red herring, because in a United Kingdom parliament which treated Britain and Northern Ireland as one country, then no region cn claim about the composition of a ntionally elected government. But devolution changes all of that. The Scots voted for a parliament with tax varying powers, which could levy up to an extra 3p in income tax.

This has never happened because Scotland is still heavily funded from the South. I have no interest in the creation either of an English parliament nor regional assemblies for England. We have enough politicians and beurocrats with their snouts in the trough of taxpayer's money without creating more tiers of government. But the powers that, in Scotland are devolved to its own parliament, and those few things devolved to the Welsh assembly, should be devolved to English only members at Westminster, or English and Welsh members where appropriate.

If Scotland wants to develop further the remit of the Scottish parliament, its numbers at Westminster should be reduced to 45, from 72, in line with its population size. Scotland's over representation at Westminster was a safeguard against English dominence of the national parliament. It no longer applies in a devolved Scotland. This is all part of the West Lothian issue. Tony and his cronies refuse to deal with it because they would squeal like stuck pigs at any move which might jeopardise their Westminster majority. But the current arrangements are unfair and undemocratic to the English, and Mr Blair is going to reap the backlash sooner or later.
 
Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :
 
As a point of information I believe that the number of Westminster constituencies is being reduced. Rather conveniently (for some) Glasgow Kelvin - George Galloway's constituency is being eaten up in the process.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
But the current arrangements are unfair and undemocratic to the English, and Mr Blair is going to reap the backlash sooner or later.
Yes, but its no-where near the top of the list of undemocratic arrangements that need killing. I mentioed two of them in my prevous post, both far worse for what passes for democracy here than either the Midlothian question or the EU soc-called "constitution" are. Why not tackle them first?
 
Posted by Flying_Belgian (# 3385) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I don't give a damn about the West Lothian question. It is a red herring - a bit of babble thought up by some well-meaning old-fashioned nationalists and brought out now and again by various Tories who hate the Scottish parliament.
I disagree completely. It is not a red herring. Why should somebody who has been elected by the people of Cumbernauld (for example) have a vote over legislation which has no impact in Cumernauld? The only acceptable reason is if their is a reciprocal arrangement whereby English MPs get a vote on Scottish matters.

I support the Scottish parliament, but it is clear that the current system cannot persist. The simple solution is to exempt Scottish MPs from voting on purely English matters. The foundation hospitals vote is a classic example- because the Scottish Labour party has rejected the idea- yet it's MPs are then used to drive it through against the wishes of a majority of MPs from England and Wales. It is undemocratic.

And finally, the West Lothian question was actually first posed by Tam Dalyell, long standing Labour MP, on the left of the party- who was actually a unionist. The SNP actually exempt themeselves from votes on English matters, on precisely these "West lothian grounds" (although in the vote last week, they did vote against, on the grounds that it had an impact on Scottish hospital funding).
 
Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :
 
The West Lothian issue would mean Scottish members of the Westminster government would have no say on matters of taxation for England.

Can't see Mr Brown agreeing to that.
 
Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
The West Lothian issue is not a red herring... The old arguement that Scotland had Tory governments forced on it by the English vote was a red herring, because in a United Kingdom parliament which treated Britain and Northern Ireland as one country, then no region cn claim about the composition of a ntionally elected government.
Unfortunately for your argument, Westminster has always enacted separate laws for Scotland, due to the continuation of the separate Scottish legal system since Union in 1707: all these were voted for by all MPs in Westminster, even though they could not affect the constituents of something like 80% of the MPs. Poll Tax is only one example where the Tory majority in the Commons - comprising no more than a dozen Scottish Tory MPs - created laws for Scotland based on their English MPs.

Given access to the Hansard databse, I could no doubt list any number of Acts for Scotland created by Englsh MPs where Scots members were outvoted.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhisiart:
Unfortunately for your argument, Westminster has always enacted separate laws for Scotland, due to the continuation of the separate Scottish legal system since Union in 1707: all these were voted for by all MPs in Westminster, even though they could not affect the constituents of something like 80% of the MPs. Poll Tax is only one example where the Tory majority in the Commons - comprising no more than a dozen Scottish Tory MPs - created laws for Scotland based on their English MPs.
But there was a degree of reciprocity in this. English MPs voted on Scottish matters, Scottish MPs voted on English matters. Of course, there are many more English MPs than Scottish one, but Scotland was over-represented in relation to its population to help compensate.

There is no longer the same degree of reciprocity, with Scottish matters being (in part, at least) devolved to the Scottish Parliament and thus not subject to English MPs but Scottish MPs voting on English matters.

Would anyone think it wrong if Scottish MPs at Westminster weren't allowed to vote on English/Welsh matters?
 
Posted by Aldamir (# 2762) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
Would anyone think it wrong if Scottish MPs at Westminster weren't allowed to vote on English/Welsh matters?
There is a major problem with this idea. If a different party had a majority in England than had a majority in the UK as a whole then all sorts of dificulties would arise. Say there was a Labour majority in the UK, but a Conservative majority in England. There would then be a Labour government in Westminster, but when it came to passing English legislation the government would not be able to govern as it would not have the majority to pass its own measures. This is why the exclusion of Scottish MPs from English legislation would not work.

For the period 1920-1972 Northern Ireland did have devolution, the solution adopted to this issue was that NI had a lower number of MPs than other parts of the UK to reflect the fact that most domestic legislation was made at Stormont. Under Devolution NI had 12 MPs, instead of its current 18, though there are now no plans to revert to the original number.

Because of the sovereignty of Parliament all devolution is revocable and all legislation passed by a devolved parliament is subject to judicial review (unlike Westminster legislation -excepting European/Factortame type issues). Furthermore Westminster may override any Act of the Scottish Parliament if it desires. In Northern Ireland it was merely convention which stopped Westminster overriding Acts of the NI Parliament and this convention was swept away at the stroke of a pen when the NI Parliament was prorogued in 1972. These facts would seem to weigh against the reduction of the number of MPs for Scotland on the earlier Northern Ireland model.
 
Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aldamir:
If a different party had a majority in England than had a majority in the UK as a whole then all sorts of dificulties would arise. Say there was a Labour majority in the UK, but a Conservative majority in England. There would then be a Labour government in Westminster, but when it came to passing English legislation the government would not be able to govern as it would not have the majority to pass its own measures.
But there's no rule that says the government has to have a majority. Minority governments might be uncommon, but they are not unknown.

Nor does the leader of the largest party automatically have to be Prime Minister.
 
Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chapelhead:
quote:
Originally posted by Aldamir:
If a different party had a majority in England than had a majority in the UK as a whole then all sorts of dificulties would arise. Say there was a Labour majority in the UK, but a Conservative majority in England. There would then be a Labour government in Westminster, but when it came to passing English legislation the government would not be able to govern as it would not have the majority to pass its own measures.
But there's no rule that says the government has to have a majority. Minority governments might be uncommon, but they are not unknown.

Nor does the leader of the largest party automatically have to be Prime Minister.

Nor does the PM even have to be elected - but there are conventions that 'require' these things to be so. Not laws as such - but they seem to be broken considerably less often.

[ 26. November 2003, 08:23: Message edited by: Sir George Grey ]
 
Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
Aldamir said

There is a major problem with this idea. If a different party had a majority in England than had a majority in the UK as a whole then all sorts of dificulties would arise. Say there was a Labour majority in the UK, but a Conservative majority in England. There would then be a Labour government in Westminster, but when it came to passing English legislation the government would not be able to govern as it would not have the majority to pass its own measures. This is why the exclusion of Scottish MPs from English legislation would not work.

The question of a different majority in different parts of the devolved UK is so far untested. The UK, Scotland and Wales all have Labour majorities. Any aggressive disagreements, though they may be ideological, such as students fees and Foundation Hospitals, are less important than the long term goal of retaining power in all the forums.

This may all be different further down the line. The Tories may revive enough support to govern England. But never Scotland or Wales. If a UK Pariament were to be Conservative, or if Labour held UK power only by its Scottish support, as happened in 1964, and in 1974, a major constitutional crisis would errupt. The outcome would be the break-up of the UK. I personally, regret it, because I believe that the UK has always been more than the sum of its parts, but I see that once the devolutionary clock was set in motion this Un-United Kingdom can't but disintegrate.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0