Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by mairead, Feb 19, 2011.
Every man and every nation should be free.
Now, I saw the Mel Gibson Movie 'BRAVEHEART' I tought that Scotland fought for it's freedom from England.?
Crap!.....With America in need of money. I would like to see our country sell off the state of New York.
Don't believe everything Hollywood tells you.
I would hate to see the people of Scotland to be British like, I would think the Scots would hate that as well. Not that there is anything wrong with the British, it's just that there is nothing wrong with the Scots as well. It's going to be a sad day when all countries are the same, it sure seems some genius's have it all planed out like that..one big Kumbaya.
Screw that!!, how utterly boring....
True the Scott's are real nice people.....Unlike those arrogant snob-nose Brit's.
Besides who would want to be part of British rule.?.....England's simple mind society are controlled like drones by a Socialistic goverment.
Thus, they are and have been boreing and are annoying to have around.
The Scots are British, there is no getting away from that. If Scotland were to be an entirely separate nation-state, then not all of the British would live in the one state - just as not all Scandinavians live in one state, nor all Iberians nor all Arabs etc.
Possibly. depends on your definition of 'British'.
If it's 'residents of the island of Britain', then they obviously are. If it's direct cultural descendants of the 'Ancient Britons', then they aren't. Neither are the English.
Confusing little place we live in, ain't it?!
ETA: Note I said 'cultural descendants', not direct 'ethnic', 'racial' or 'genetic' descendants. In that sense, pretty much any of us in the UK could be virtually anything!
Does Mad Mel Gibson have to make a movie of the Gododdin (in the original) for the Scots to be cultural descendants of their own ancestors?
The populations of former Gododdin and Ystrad Clud territories may be 'ethnic' descendant of those ancestors, but those cultures and their languages were long since displaced by the Gaelic Scots that came over from Ireland (and the Anglo-Saxons, of course). Aneirin wasn't writing in Gaelic! The predominant culture and language of the 'Scots' is from an entirely different branch of 'celts' from the culture and language of those societies and Kingdoms who occupied their lands previously, even if many of the population were 'converted' rather than 'replaced'.
What Mad Melvin (he doesn't sound nearly so 'cool' if you call him Melvin!) chooses to do with history is a different matter, of course - whatever he does, they'll probably build a statue of him somewhere!
Lothian was never Gaelic - and chroniclers speak of the "Strathclyde Welsh" well into the late-mediaeval period.
Surely only a linguist could find a stronger cultural link between dark-age Angles and modern English than between dark-age Caledonians and modern Scots? In all other respects, if you look at social history or artefacts, land-use or architecture or settlement patterns, you'll see continuity.
The French don't speak any form of Frankish, the Normans don't speak any form of Norse - and the Bretons aren't British.
That may be true, but Welsh was still a fairly common language spoken in many parts of England in the medieval period too. Elements of 'the old ways' persisted for centuries all over this island, of course, but the way they evolved was significantly different in the different parts because of the differing dominant cultures which led the changes. Only one part of the UK remained predominantly influenced by the Brythonic throughout the period (even when other forces were actually in military charge), and it's therefore quite reasonable to suggest that it is by far the most direct descendant of that older culture which formerly dominated most (if not all) of Britain.
Obviously, though, all parts evolved, accepted (and continue to accept) various influences, sometimes in tandem and sometimes separately. I'm certainly not going to argue that we are all so totally different that we have nothing historically or culturally in common. That would be nonsense, just as much as saying that we are all culturally and historically the same would be nonsense. We have, however, ended up at a point where we now have several (three or more!) distinct national identities, but only one of those has really descended directly from the previous one we all shared - the others we overwhelming dominated in their cultural evolution by other (previously 'outside') forces.
In fact, in the case of Scotland, I think it would be reasonable to argue that the Scandinavians may well have had greater influence on the development of the modern national identity than the former Brythonic kingdoms. The Britons were culturally displaced from Scotland by a 3 pronged 'attack' (effective cultural attack, not in the direct, military sense!) from Anglo-Saxons, Irish Gaelics and Norsemen. That mix (together with the different types and levels of Norman activity) is part of what makes Scotland different from England and Wales. The influences which changed things were significantly different.
The difference with Wales is that there wasn't quite the same pressure from the outside forces that Scotland and England had (although obviously there was some), and the evolution saw adaptions, but within the context of the older culture (and language) remaining the single most dominant force. In the post-Roman period, there wasn't the same level of (non-Brythonic) population or cultural migration into Wales as there was into modern Scotland and England. It wasn't until the Normans came that Wales again became 'conquered' or 'invaded' (in any sense) on a wide scale by an outside force, and even they did not displace former cultures (anywhere) in quite the same way as other migratory invaders had.
The same kingdoms and ruling families/classes remained in place in Wales throughout the Dark Ages and early medieval period - in fact, some historians suggest that the 'Dark Ages' really did not happen at all in Wales in anything like the same way as it did in Europe - Wales retained a 'stable' and uncollapsing governmental and Kingdom structure throughout the period. The Kingdoms of Wales waxed and waned according to the peculiarities of Welsh inheritance laws, of course, as Kingdoms were split and combined in different ways through death, marriage and so on, but they never collapsed, and were never taken from the hands of the same ruling nobility that held power in them throughout. In that, Wales differs significantly from the rest of Britain.
There is, of course, some continuity of culture and so on in all of Britain (and particularly when it comes to things like land use patterns and population demographics, because they are predominantly dictated by environmental conditions anyway). However, it is quite clearly at by far its greatest in the case of Wales, which didn't suffer anything like the same levels of outside 'interference' from other dominant migratory cultures over the 1000 years or so after the collapse of the Roman Empire. In the case of Scotland, the former Brythonic cultural identity was effectively largely displaced over that period by the activities of 3 other major cultural forces, to form what has become the modern nation of Scotland.
Ypu've misunderstood me - the people of that region are referred to as "Strathclyde Welsh" long after the Cumbric language ceased to be spoken. Because a language is not the be all and end all of "a culture".
During the post-Roman centuries which Victorian romantic-nationalists liked to hark back to for the foundation myths of the various British "peoples" there was very much one culture in these islands (and beyond, for that matter). Archeologists can only identify a ruin or a knife or a pot as Saxon or Pictish or British by reference to the inscriptions found nearby, not by typology. We know nothing of the speech of the "Beaker People". They may have exhibited as much linguistic diversity, and experienced as many shifts of language, as the British of the "Dark Ages" - but it would still be quite correct to speak of a Beaker People culture.
Weren't the biggest "cultural" shifts in these islands the introduction of the villa system by the Romans and feudalism by the Normans - neither accompanied by any language shift (unless we count the Reformation or the Industrial Revolution, which didn't even involve any migration of people)?
I think, Cenydd, that you wish to make it all about language because of being Welsh.
Not really, in the context of the development into separate 'nations' in Britain. Certainly the Roman influence was huge, but we're talking about the post-Roman period, and the subsequent cultural evolution of the 'Romano-British' anyway. The Normans probably changed the governmental system more than they shifted the actual culture, although they obviously also had a cultural and linguistic influence. Significant post-Roman cultural shifts came during the 'Anglo-Saxon period' (for want of a better term), when the old Brythonic Kingdoms were gradually taken over, turning from Brythonic to Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in the case of what became England, and from Brythonic to Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Gaelic Kindoms in the case of Scotland. It is this post-Roman, pre-Norman period that is really the key in the development of the 3 'nations' we have today.
In Wales's case, unlike Scotland and England, they remained as Brythonic, effectively 'Romano-British', Kingdoms until the Normans arrived. Obviously, there was a Norman involvement in the evolution after that, but by that time the contexts were already different in (modern) Wales, Scotland and England. As a result of this, the Normans behaved differently, had different policies, and had a different kind of influence on development. Where they tended over time to assimilate with the English, creating a 'Normano-Saxon' system, they worked differently in Wales, and treated the pre-existing culture differently (because the background of it was different, and the people of 'England' and 'Wales' were different). It's partly why we had the 'Marcher Lord' system, and why we have so much higher a density of Norman castles - 'England' and 'Wales' were already distinct and different from each other as 'nations'. The whole context of the Norman period was different, and the evolutionary effect of the Normans was therefore different, because of the pre-existing differences at the time they arrived.
Not at all. I've never said it's all about language at all - it isn't. Language isn't the be all and end all of culture, although it can be a fairly useful indicator of broad cultural shifts. There are others, of course - religion would be another cultural indicator, and one where again the contexts differ between the 'nations' of Britain (with Christianity probably partly established by the end of the Roman period, pushed back by the incoming pagans, and gradually shifting back in over subsequent centuries as the Gaelic and Brythonic missionaries, along with Roman ones, brought it to the Anglo-Saxons).
Another would be the known migration and domination of peoples and cultures from one place to another, taking over total rule and control of lands and installing their own systems of government, language and so on. By this general process comes the disappearance from history of previous identifiable cultural groups (the 'Picts' are an obvious example). In the case of Scotland, the ascendant group were the Gaelic Scots, who over a process of centuries absorbed the previous kingdoms of modern Scotland (including the Brythonic ones, although that did take a while!) into their own. In England's case, of course it was the 'Anglo-Saxons' who took eventual control. In Wales, it remained in the hands of the 'Brythonic celts'.
Of course, none of this means total annihilation of pre-existing culture, but it does significantly change the environment in which the cultures evolve and develop, and drive the process of cultural change to the point where lands which previously shared a common culture diverge into quite distinct cultural entities. The origins of the Welsh identity are quite clearly directly from an evolution of the Brythonic culture, where those in England are primarily Saxon, and those in Scotland primarily drive by the Gaelic celts who came across in Ireland. Those were the dominant political, linguistic and cultural groups that drove the formation of the nations and 'national identity', despite the regional differences that existed (and still exist today, to an extent) within the 3 'nations'. It's what makes us different and distrinct from each other, even though we obviously still share some common ancestry and history.
Flags, national anthems, borders all they do is get in the way of human progress, we need to move away from this near tribal mentality....and now back to reality
That 'near tribal mentality' is one thing we have all retained in common on this island! It's not necessarily such a bad thing, though, as long as we are prepared to recognize, celebrate and enjoy our differences, rather than fight over them, try to eliminate them, or claim our own as being 'inherently superior'. Sadly, not everyone is prepared to do that.
Personally I'd be in favour of all of the UK having bank holidays on all of the national patron saint's days. On March 1st we can all celebrate all things Welsh (whether we are Welsh or not), and on St George's day we can celebrate the great things about English culture (of which there are many), and so on. We all seem to turn Irish on Paddy's day, so why not extend the concept?! Of course, it's all a bit tacky and 'touristy' in a way (with the inevitable plastic inflatable bagpipes, blow up red dragons, wandering troops of Morris Dancers, and so on!), just like St Patrick's day is, but I think it would help us understand and appreciate each other a little more as close friends, which would help us live together a bit more happily.
As you can probably imagine, I'm totally opposed to the previously proposed imposition of a 'Britain Day' - that's the opposite of what I think we need, and will only cause even more resentment and bad feeling between us (which is something we really don't need!).
Points well made, this is effectively my argument I was just being lazy. My point about flags, anthems etc is more aimed at the elements within our society who use them as banners to emphasize differences and as you say claim to be 'inherently superior'. I spent part of my youth in Derry and have seen how stupid these view points are.
As for the UK, one way or the other we all have to live on this island together, independent nations or not we will need each other.
Either you're kidding, or else we have very different ideas of "culture" indeed.
Surely imposing the legal, economic and social status of "serf" on the vast majority of a whole population is shifting the culture to an infinitely greater degree than just turning up speaking a more widely-known language?
See, where there was genuinely popular resistance to rule from London (or Edinburgh, or Dublin) it was against becoming unfree, landless labourers - rather than against road-signs being painted in a language that everyone understands.
Scotland should be independent because they have their own culture and way of doing things.
They are also capable of taking care of their own country without the help of the UK.
The Normans certainly changed the political landscape completely, and that had its effects on culture, of course - no dispute there. However, they did not attempt to 'culturally cleanse' the population in the way that some other invading forces have done - they adapted elements of it to suit themselves while gradually assimilating themselves into it over the centuries immediately after the conquest. They gradually 'became English' (in England, obviously!), as opposed to 'forcing the population to become Norman'. Obviously 'Englishness' evolved considerably under their rule according to their activities, as did 'Welshness', but they evolved in different ways because of the different pre-existing contexts. The point being, though, that the Normans were very much invading 'rulers' rather than a migrating 'culture', and the gradually became part of the 'nation' they ruled rather than making the population they ruled become part of their 'nation'. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
Why the language obsession? The conscious, deliberate and vicious suppression and destruction of the language over centuries (and continuing into the very recent past, certainly within living memory) is a part of the issues in Wales, of course, but it certainly isn't anything like the whole of it! There is the wider cultural issue of the repeated attempts to utterly destroy 'Welshness' of which the languge is one symptom, but there are also the 'political' issues of the way in which Wales has been treated politically and economically as a result government from London - those are of much greater practical importance, and those are the main reasons behind campaigns for greater levels of political autonomy for Wales.
Of course, we do want our traditional culture and language to survive, and there's nothing wrong with that, but what is of far, far greater importance is for us to be able to manage our own country according to the will of our own people, to end the generations of Wales being treated either as a political experimentation ground for the worst excesses of English governments who have no mandate from the people of Wales (whatever culture of ethnicity those people may have originated from), or as simply an exploited backwater of poverty and decay with a population that can be treated with utter contempt because they have no electoral power to change their government.
We had some of the most important natural resources and industrial developments on which the industrial might and wealth of the UK was built, and yet we have ended up left as one of the poorest regions in Western Europe (while still being in one of the richest states) - surely it can't really be argued that all has been well with the government of our country from London?! Of course, other parts of the UK have suffered under London rule too, but none have been treated with such consistent contempt, and our status as a 'nation' does have an understandable effect on the way we feel about being governed according to the will of the people of another more populous and more wealthy nation, from a city with wealth built in no small part on the efforts of our population.
In a very, very real sense, they raped our land and stole our wealth, and even when their incompetence and mismanagement killed over a hundred of our children in a little mining village, they raided the charitable fund set up for the relief of those families to pay for the dangerous incompetence to be made safe (while not a single one of the people responsible was sacked from their jobs). That's the level of respect and decency with which the London government and its agents have historically treated the people of Wales, and it is only through the increased assertions and campaigns for our basic rights as a people and nation that the situation has improved somewhat over more recent years (although it is still a very long way from things being as they should be). That isn't just about language.
If the people of Scotland desire sovereignty then it should certainly be granted.
I desire sovereignty too. I demand that the United States of America release me from the Union and allow me to take my land as well.
Again, I really have to disagree. They introduced feudalism (first to what is now "England", somewhat later to what is now "Wales") and if that isn't migrating a culture, then what is? Everything in life changes. Okay, so you can still call an ox "an ox" and a sheep "a sheep", but the only people who get to eat them say "boeuf" and "mouton". Consider this - nobody acquired the French language because nobles didn't come into the marketplace to barter food or buy from tradesmen - you have to be dealing with someone more or less as an equal to feel it worthwhile to learn his language.
Now there's another subtle distinction. Our coalmines and steelworks and shipyards were also closed, throwing the whole region into poverty, but it wasn't done "with contempt" - because of the four and a half centuries between Erik Bloodaxe and Owain Glyn Dŵr? Or because Northumbrian is West Germanic whilst Welsh is Brythonic? As I recall the miners strike, or the closing of Consett iron works, nobody seemed to detect that we were all being shafted in an atmosphere of mutual anglophone respect. I doubt if even the Kent miners, who have neighbours commuting into London to work in banks don't you know, felt that they were the beneficiaries of a particularly pro-Saxon economic policy.
The UK is not a Parent nation it is an artifical construct brought about by the political union of the Scottish and English parliaments of 1707.
Yes. I think Wales and England should be separate too.
I suppose we must blame your ignorance on the English education system.
We have separate judicial system, and Laws, we have the in-alien right to regain our self determination territorial integrity and sovereignty. Stolen by lies and genocide by your french aristocracy. But thats another story you seem to be ignorance of, and why the word "British" was invented. Again they have been remiss on your education.
You should come to Scotland, we still have free education up here, pity your getting shoved back to serfdom buy your French aristocracy!
But perhaps I might interest you in some of the great English sodomites and degenerates, ie Churchill the mass murderer of English and Welsh. Scots the clearances and those sold into bondage on American plantations. Never mind the millions of Irish murdered over the generations of English residents with French Aristocracy, Sorry am I giving you to much English history??? Don't worry it all factual not theory!
Ooooh, I'll not explain to you Churchill's concentration camps or the Gasing of the Kurds, aye right enough, ignorant of the facts and full of keich!
Your colours have been firmly nailed to your tory mast!
British, don't you dare swear at me!
Separate names with a comma.