"Angof"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jpWdnTTusdmHejPVRVnytAA@posted.plusnet...>> "Angof"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:7K6dnfZKcfJaOTPVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...>>>> "Angof"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:5Kednc4DCaadvTDVnZ2dnUVZ8jSdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...>>>>>> Listening in to the real radio phone in and couldn't believe some of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> callers. Basically it was a similar debate to one that crops up here
>>>>>> lots
>>>>>> of times. Scottish or British?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The jist of the calls was certain fans (aye right i wonder who) would
>>>>>> boo
>>>>>> the NI national anthem coz its God Save The Queen. Then lots of
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> trying to claim we are British coz it says British on our passports,
>>>>>> Birth Certificates and Driving licences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally i am Scottish and only hold British versions of above coz
>>>>>> i
>>>>>> can't get Scottish versions of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, the reason i am posting is to ask, do you consider yourself
>>>>>> Scottish or British? And if available, would you get Scottish
>>>>>> versions of
>>>>>> passports, birth certificates or driving licences?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are missing out a large group, those that are at ease with being
>>>>> both Scottish and British. It doesn't have to be either or.
>>>>
>>>> Are you Scottish Angof?
>>>
>>> I consider myself Scottish but I am British really. I was born in
>>> Wales, as you know, but my father, (who travelled for his work),
>>> returned to Glasgow when I was very young. TBH though I've come to
>>> realise my Scotishness is mostly driven by sport and I have come to
>>> believe more and more that all this petty internal tribalism is a bit
>>> silly really. It has been shown that the indigenous population of this
>>> country are basically the same people that were here before those
>>> illegal immigrants the Scots and English arrived. ;)
>>
>> I'm gradually ploughing through a really interesting book just now by
>> Norman Davies called The Isles. It talks of the integration of these
>> islands and how there are many similarities in our origins and how many
>> diverse people have populated these islands. Including iirc Continental
>> hunter gather migrants when 'England' and 'France' had a land lock, the
>> Celts, Romans, Germanics and Norse. We really are islands populated by
>> intra and inter island immigrants whether in the last century or last ten
>> thousand years. It also talks about the view that the Scots were
>> originally sea fairing people from Ireland, associated with Dalriada.
>> Before Scots was a small kingdom based in Perthshire, but the Picts,
>> Britons and Germanics were assimilated. Also, which may interest you
>> since it's your birth place, Wales has strong Celtic connections with
>> Ireland. But sounds like you travelled alot: Wales, Scotland and now
>> England.
>
> England? Wash your mouth out, I'm in Cornwall. :) I have lived in England
> proper though.
>
>> wiki says "In Davies's view, the whole idea of Britishness was an
>> 18th-19th century myth created in order to justify English rule over the
>> neighbouring 'Celtic' peoples such as the Scots, the Irish and the
>> Welsh."
>
> You could equally say it was a Norman elite rule over England Scotland and
> Wales. Also...I think it's a bit of a fallacy to suggest the Scots have
> somehow been subdued when they have played such a large part in the
> British project. England is really a Celtic country BT, at least it's
> people are to a large extent. Recent genetic studies have shown that
> although much of Britain became 'England', it was not a case of a
> different race/tribe/people sweeping across the country and displacing
> the Britons. The Saxons for example make up less than 10%% of the
> population from that point of view. Same with the Norman Conquest, there
> was no real change to the people who make up the bulk of the population
> of these islands.
>
>> So far I've found the book suggests the historical connections between
>> Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England, and the rest of the world, are a
>> whole lot more complicated that we might first think.
>
> There is a general ignorance about our history as we saw in the thread
> about St Patrick ;) It amuses me is how little many English and Scots
> know about the origins of the countries and how they are kind of portrayed
> as ancient entities.
> I've come more and more to the conclusion that this internal nationalism
> is a bit sad and in reality little more than petty tribalism (which we are
> all prone to). It makes sense for these Island to be one political entity
> IMO. That's not to say that the UK should remain as it is.
I'm happy to admit I know only a small amount about the history of these
islands although I think it's fascinating. From my reading of Davies, I
think you could say the Norman elite, originally Scandinavians, ruled over
England after 1066. But by 1707, the Normans were little more than a memory.
After 1707 England dominated Scotland due to the miserable failure of the
Darian scheme in the Isthmus of Panama. Union was hardly a partnership of
equals since Scotland entered it from a position of weakness and has
essentially had political decisions dominated by England's population for
three hundred years. We've benefited, no doubt, from a unified economy. The
same sort of unification which has lead to the European Union. But at the
cost of pooling sovereignty, indeed denying sovereignty. And individual
members have benefited, a whole merchant class for example. But there have
been some massive cost also. If you believe Niall Ferguson, the Harvard
Historian whose family are from Shettleston, Scotland lost an incredible
amount of soldiers in WW1, 26%% of it's army, the third greatest losses of
armed men after Serbia and Turkey, and the "human atrocity known as the
Great War was entirely England's fault."
I'm not a advocate of Scottish independence. I like the idea that we are all
(Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England) members of the European Union. Most
of the differences is pure symbolism. Pure post-modern angst.
In terms of St Patrick: Davies is quite clear. Britian didn't exist prior to
1654, which means Bishop Patricius wasn't British.
Genetic origins have little interest for me: the changes in the peoples of
these islands through cultural infusion within, across and outwith these
islands does interest me. Genetics don't make a man, culture does. But
that's just my opinion.
