Scotland - Independence Referundum

[jctg]

Very good ;0)

[LondonMix]

The term Great Brittain funny enough is a way to distinguish here from Little Britain (i.e. Britanny in France which is also historically populated by Celtic Britons who migrated there many centuries ago. The term has existed for more than 1,000 years.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not googling, so could be wrong, but I thought

> Ireland was part of the British Isles, hence why

> they initally objected to 'Great Britain' at the

> time of the union, because that implied just the

> greater island not the little island(s). But this

> could be from a fogged memory.

>

> I guess they object now because GB has coopted use

> of the term british as an exclusive political

> entity despite the fact that it predates the

> romans as an inclusive one.

[vgrant]

dear mr comeon and mr clogg- all the scotch want is a blue passport with a lion on, state subsidised munchie boxes and irn bru fountains on every street corner - promise 'em this and you have their support for life. they are not complex people.

[JohnL]

As opposed to Irish and Scottish Goidelic Celts.

Seems to be an argument whether Celts are a race

at all mind or a culture/language.

And who were the Picts? :)

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The term Great Brittain funny enough is a way to

> distinguish here from Little Britain (i.e.

> Britanny in France which is also historically

> populated by Celtic Britons who migrated there

> many centuries ago. The term has existed for more

> than 1,000 years.

>

> El Pibe Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm not googling, so could be wrong, but I

> thought

> > Ireland was part of the British Isles, hence

> why

> > they initally objected to 'Great Britain' at

> the

> > time of the union, because that implied just

> the

> > greater island not the little island(s). But

> this

> > could be from a fogged memory.

> >

> > I guess they object now because GB has coopted

> use

> > of the term british as an exclusive political

> > entity despite the fact that it predates the

> > romans as an inclusive one.

[El Pibe]

If I'm going to get all pedantic, 'celtic' is a bit of a misnomer. The inhabitants of the both isles and our near neighbours are very close genetically across the board, mainly from original immigrations plus lots of cross pollenation, but more trade and communication than migration.

They had lots of names for themselves of which briton (priton? touch to say, not much written record except from the romans) was one.

But none of them called themselves celts.

The reason for the 'celtic' fringe is thanks to common cultural markers spreading up the seaboard channels of trade up the atlantic, and most of those emanate from Spain (and the northern tribes actually DID refer to themselves as celtae), but are cultural ideas rather than migrations (though I'm sure the sailors had the odd tryst with a lovely local lass).

The application of 'celtic' as an idea of seperate identity from the nasty saxon english is the work of a Welsh nationalist historian who basically got most of it wrong, though it accorded with a post reformation english redefined narrative as good protestant germans, but wrong things often stick ;)

[El Pibe]

ooh cross post John.

Yeah I think it's important to rescue this idea of national tribal difference that underpins our divisive sense of who we are, when in fact we're all close cousins.

The saxons changed some of the culture in the south east, but then the scots were hugely influenced by the vikings until conquered (and theeir language crushed) by the irish.

It was really the normans that made the political split of us and them, though even they took Ireland then got sort of culturally subsumed.

Aaanyway, i think it'd be great if we all focussed more on our huge comonality rather than ill perceived seperation.

Except in the rugby, cos that's good fun!!!!

[maxxi]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seems to be an argument whether Celts are a race

> at all mind or a culture/language.

>

> And who were the Picts? :)

The ones who chose to mix?

[El Pibe]

Kenny Anderson's more honest take (King Creosote) on Westminster's role for Scotland.

""I'm definitely in the no camp because I don't think there's an argument for independence.

"Glasgow or Edinburgh can't be a Scottish London. London is a portal for the world, and Glasgow or Edinburgh isn't. All it will do is create another level of bureaucracy and that's not going to change anything. It's dangerous.

"The Scots are pretty good at being the reserve team - all five million of us. And Scots don't get behind our own. We don't accept our failures. We need someone to blame and if that's not Westminster, who is it? If Scotland is going to be an oasis in a UK hell, why can't we share it?"

He adds: "In an ocean of sharks, we don't need to be a smaller shoal. I really despair at it.""

Did we ever get an unflippant vgrant take on it? I'm curious.....

[LondonMix]

Sorry, my point wasn't about how true or pure the concept of a celtic race is. My point was the people know as British Celts who spoke Common Brittonic migrated towards of the end of the 4th Century to modern day Brittany. Brittany thereafter was know as Little Britain / Lesser Brtain and overhere was know as Great Britain.

My point is really about the etymology of the term Great Britain. I agree the concept of the Celtic people and the ethnic origins of the people of the Britain are very complex.

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As opposed to Irish and Scottish Goidelic Celts.

>

>

> Seems to be an argument whether Celts are a race

> at all mind or a culture/language.

>

> And who were the Picts? :)

>

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The term Great Brittain funny enough is a way

> to

> > distinguish here from Little Britain (i.e.

> > Britanny in France which is also historically

> > populated by Celtic Britons who migrated there

> > many centuries ago. The term has existed for

> more

> > than 1,000 years.

> >

> > El Pibe Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I'm not googling, so could be wrong, but I

> > thought

> > > Ireland was part of the British Isles, hence

> > why

> > > they initally objected to 'Great Britain' at

> > the

> > > time of the union, because that implied just

> > the

> > > greater island not the little island(s). But

> > this

> > > could be from a fogged memory.

> > >

> > > I guess they object now because GB has

> coopted

> > use

> > > of the term british as an exclusive political

> > > entity despite the fact that it predates the

> > > romans as an inclusive one.

[El Pibe]

its alright i understood that, hence why i was going off on a pedantic point, which I'm wont to do.

One that more or less says its very hard to conclude who migrated where, especially when the genetic stock is so similar that you can't use genetics as definitive proof of migration within something like the British Isles and their very close neighbours.

The more popular modern theory of long term cross pollenation, movement of elites and of course ideas and language is generally preferred to migrations of peoples, in which case we have to conclude that Brittany's britainness is because of those 'celtic' cultural markers coming up from spain as far as scotland and that they tended to interact outwardly on the sea more than they did inwardly to those nasty belgae, franks and norsemen (who in turn were a transference of elites, not people) rather than a bunch of greater britons upped sticks and made brittany our first foray into french* conquests.

For instance barring some known transference of elites from ireland to scotland, its INCREDIBLY hard to ascertain the levels of migration and transplantation of people to and fro between scotland and ireland, because there are no mutations to mark them apart.

All we know of poor old pictish is that it died in a pincer movement of english ,irish gaelic and norse. Of the Picts we can probably conclude that they're all still there and some live in Ireland and Northern Britain**, but that we kind of have to go with our gut on that one.

*for want of a better term

**actually they all hang around kings cross drinking Super Tennants to briefly nick Stuart Lee's line ;)

[*Bob*]

Politically, 'losing' Scotland would a major blow (esp for the Cons) - but is Joe Public up and down the rest of the UK that bovvered if Scotland goes or stays?

Whilst I'm watching it all with great interest - and a bit of genuine historical one-off hubbub excitement - underneath that it's curiosity value really: like seeing if someone can eat fifty pork pies in thirty minutes without throwing up.

[El Pibe]

I guess in the scheme of things, given ew have free movement of labour and capital (ish) within the EU, I don't suppose it ought to make that much difference. And given we have contradictory 'evidence' of whether scotland is a net contributor or consumer of the treasury, i guess that remains to be seen.

As i've said best of luck and i can't wait for London to secede in a careful what you wish for sort of fashion.

[Loz]

ITV news did a poll last night - 20% of Londoners think independence for London would be a good thing, with 44% of 25-34 year olds agreeing.

Not sure about London alone, but I think an independent south-east would work. Say, north to Cambridgeshire and west to Reading/Berkshire.

[El Pibe]

We could call it Goldfordshire?

[????]

I'd have Wiltshire and Dorset in too

[LondonMix]

Sorry, was being thick. I think its really interesting. The links between Galicia in Spain and Ireland are facinating. Particularly how it all appears to link in with old folklore about the origins of the Irish as well.

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> its alright i understood that, hence why i was

> going off on a pedantic point, which I'm wont to

> do.

>

> One that more or less says its very hard to

> conclude who migrated where, especially when the

> genetic stock is so similar that you can't use

> genetics as definitive proof of migration within

> something like the British Isles and their very

> close neighbours.

>

> The more popular modern theory of long term cross

> pollenation, movement of elites and of course

> ideas and language is generally preferred to

> migrations of peoples, in which case we have to

> conclude that Brittany's britainness is because of

> those 'celtic' cultural markers coming up from

> spain as far as scotland and that they tended to

> interact outwardly on the sea more than they did

> inwardly to those nasty belgae, franks and

> norsemen (who in turn were a transference of

> elites, not people) rather than a bunch of greater

> britons upped sticks and made brittany our first

> foray into french* conquests.

>

> For instance barring some known transference of

> elites from ireland to scotland, its INCREDIBLY

> hard to ascertain the levels of migration and

> transplantation of people to and fro between

> scotland and ireland, because there are no

> mutations to mark them apart.

>

> All we know of poor old pictish is that it died in

> a pincer movement of english ,irish gaelic and

> norse. Of the Picts we can probably conclude that

> they're all still there and some live in Ireland

> and Northern Britain**, but that we kind of have

> to go with our gut on that one.

>

> *for want of a better term

> **actually they all hang around kings cross

> drinking Super Tennants to briefly nick Stuart

> Lee's line ;)

[LondonMix]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We could call it Goldfordshire?

Hahah

Or Jobsworth...

[StraferJack]

If Scotland does vote yes - can we scrap changing the clocks?

[El Pibe]

THe whole genetic history thing is early doors really, and a bit like trying to tease apart linguistic development, alot of it will remain conjecture until the science gets better, but i have to say the early conclusions make a great deal more sense to me than the stuff I was taught when I was at school and university.

I thoroughly recommend Origins of the British by Stephen Oppenheimer for an intimidatingly comprehensive work on this.

http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/origins_of_the_british.php

[LondonMix]

Thanks!

[DaveR]

I can understand the argument for independence based on there being a distinct Scottish nation, rooted in specific territory and a strong national identity, and I don't think there's ever been any realistic doubt about that. I also don't think that there's any room for dispute that an independent Scotland is in principle viable in economic and political terms. However, the overwhelming likelihood is that for the foreseeable future the Scots will be better off in the Union than out of it, and the short term costs of a Yes vote (both in terms of actual transition costs and 'volatility' costs) will be large, and will fall disproportionately on the Scots. You also have to ask what sort of government an independent Scotland is likely to end up with - Salmond likes to talk up the history of the Scots as inventors and merchants but there's not much evidence of that history now, and you have to think that a newly independent Scotland is likely to see a brain drain to match the outflow of capital.

[*Bob*]

Scotland's biggest problem is the weather - and unfortunately not even Alex Salmond can cure that.

That said, I expect his campaign literature probably promises 28% less rain once the tyrannical yoke of Westminster has been cast off.

[DulwichFox]

So if Scotland leave the Union.. what will become of the Union Jack (Flag) ?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/31/article-0-1CB9878500000578-121_634x392.jpg

DulwichFox

[Otta]

My scottish mate (who has been back up there for about 4 years after a long spell in London) loved living here and was all Team GB when the Olympics were on and flag waving for the royal wedding.

She was a firm "NO".

Now she's a prettyr definite "yes" even though she hates Salmond.

Not making a point, just sharing.

[LondonMix]

What changed her mind?