"liam*"
googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:cec3574b-454f-48ae-a009-f08f9323f328@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On 22 Aug, 19:25, "Angof" yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> "liam*"
mail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> "Angof"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message>
>> In terms of St Patrick: Davies is quite clear. Britian didn't exist
>> prior
>> to 1654, which means Bishop Patricius wasn't British.
>
> Britain did not exist politically. St. Patrick was British in the same way
> as he was European. Davies would agree with that, I'm sure.
>
>> 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.
>
> The divisions have been created by the usual tribal stuff. I believe that
> the people of Inverness have as much in common with the people of Penzance
> than they do with people in Glasgow, who probably share as much in their
> culture in practice, with the population of the likes of Liverpool and
> Cardiff.
There are certainly important rural-urban differences within countries
within the UK. But I certainly don't believe the Scottish identity for
some people is sad. I'd imagine for a lot of people in Scotland it's
important to them and that's fair enough for me.
Was interesting watching Panorama tonight with "what does british mean" and
the only thing that came out of it was either british was a thing long past
or no one really
knew.Interesting on a couple of points though that in the
past 5 years in terms of polls the bbc carried out those in Scotland who
wished to be seen as British rather than Scottish had had dropped from 39%% 5
years ago to 14%% now,yet they did say the vast majority were still in favor
of the union.Was a good programme to watch but also had a lot of sad points
i thought.
JB
