Re: Stupid answers

[Streetwalker]

The construction of houses with round tables in them is not rocket science. The house I grew up in had a round table in the living room...

How's that for a sensible contribution to the debate?

Its true there were many round tables . The Winchester round table would have been a better  answer than Windsor  . Its been hanging on a wall in the great Hall for 500 hundred years  .The Round Table in the Great Hall at Winchester (hampshire-history.com)

[srb7677]

. The construction of the house of the round table at Windsor was abandoned before completion in 1346 after victory in France 

The construction of houses with round tables in them is not rocket science. The house I grew up in had a round table in the living room...

How's that for a sensible contribution to the debate?

[Streetwalker]

Re. the Windsor Round Table . . .
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/dig-unearths-round-table-evidence-at-windsor-castle-413714.html
so not such a stupid answer after all !!!

No Im not having that . The construction of the house of the round table at Windsor was abandoned before completion in 1346 after victory in France  

[HDQQ]

Re. the Windsor Round Table . . .
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/dig-unearths-round-table-evidence-at-windsor-castle-413714.html 
so not such a stupid answer after all !!!

[Thomas]

Your responses are often so long and detailed that I often lack the time or inclination to respond to them sentence by sentence as you often do. That is a criticism of me by the way and not you.

Anyway, I will concede your basic point. Whilst I do not know enough about the dominance of English in Scotland to be able to confidently put forward a firm opinion about it and will probably accept and take on on board honestly any narrative you care to put forward on that subject, I am well aware that over many centuries of English dominance, the Welsh language was repressed and discouraged, and English promoted by force of law, not least via education. This was a form of cultural warfare raged against the indiginous culture of celtic Wales. An attempt at forcible anglicisation. In all probability - I know you will confirm this if true - similar occurred in Scotland during periods of English rule. I do know enough about history to understand that after the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745-46, there occurred a period of active repression of Scottish culture and identity. And the Scots who fought bravely were dealt with with great brutality after Culloden in 1746. Something akin to a reign of tyranny followed for a time.

The history of the scottish language in scotland today is a book that has yet to be written.  Much of the suppression of scotlands native language came at the hands of the scottish elite who had been largely angliscised for various reasons between the 14th to 16 th centuries , and scottish was largely pushed back west and north where once it had been the language of the whole scottish nation.

Its not as simple as blaming the english for the decline of the celtic languages , its much more nuanced than that.  As you pointed out earlier , the english people themselves were the first victims of the piratical elite who sailed across the channel in 1066 , and set about ethnically cleansing and destrying large parts of the english language and culture itself over the next three centuries.

I am not quite as ignorant of history as you sometimes assume.

I dont think for one minute steve you arre ignorant , and pardon me if im coming across as thinking that way. I do believe you have it wrong though on the british nation argument.

And like many a lefty I do not automatically assume that my own nation and people are the good guys.

There are no good or bad guys steve  , especially in a historical context. I can assure you , one thing that stands out from scottish and irish history isnt "the bad englishman" , but the scots and irish who seem to be hell bent on destrying their own people.

I am in fact more temperamentally inclined to assume that the ruling classes of my own nation - like those of most others - are more likely to be the common enemy.

Same here. On that we can 100 % fully agree on.

But I digress. Yes Welsh is the main surviving remnant of an original British language and as such - in historical terms - is far more British than English can ever claim to be. I am not even going to begin to argue that - in historical terms - Welsh is not the closest thing we have to an original British language. Clearly it is. I will concede that point, because any true knowledge of history makes it obvious.

ok thank you , thats fair enough , and its been an interesting discussion.

[srb7677]

There is a british language today. What  part of welsh is the native british language today do you not get steve?

Your responses are often so long and detailed that I often lack the time or inclination to respond to them sentence by sentence as you often do. That is a criticism of me by the way and not you.

Anyway, I will concede your basic point. Whilst I do not know enough about the dominance of English in Scotland to be able to confidently put forward a firm opinion about it and will probably accept and take on on board honestly any narrative you care to put forward on that subject, I am well aware that over many centuries of English dominance, the Welsh language was repressed and discouraged, and English promoted by force of law, not least via education. This was a form of cultural warfare raged against the indiginous culture of celtic Wales. An attempt at forcible anglicisation. In all probability - I know you will confirm this if true - similar occurred in Scotland during periods of English rule. I do know enough about history to understand that after the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745-46, there occurred a period of active repression of Scottish culture and identity. And the Scots who fought bravely were dealt with with great brutality after Culloden in 1746. Something akin to a reign of tyranny followed for a time.

I am not quite as ignorant of history as you sometimes assume. Yes I was educated in a highly anglo-centric education system, whicxh I could join you in criticising to the hilt. But history has been one of my lifelong passions and I have read extensively about many aspects of it. And most of my historical knowledge is self taught, and not brainwashed into me. And like many a lefty I do not automatically assume that my own nation and people are the good guys. I am in fact more temperamentally inclined to assume that the ruling classes of my own nation - like those of most others - are more likely to be the common enemy. I do not go in for jingoistic bullshit and never have. In essence as a socialist I believe that the ordinary people of both our nations - and of most nations everywhere - have far more in common with each other than they do with any of our ruling classes.

But I digress. Yes Welsh is the main surviving remnant of an original British language and as such - in historical terms - is far more British than English can ever claim to be. I am not even going to begin to argue that - in historical terms - Welsh is not the closest thing we have to an original British language. Clearly it is. I will concede that point, because any true knowledge of history makes it obvious.

[Thomas]

I am not denying that I said that. I meant it in terms of there being no British language today, Welsh having become the first language of a large minority of the people of Wales, which is just a regional part of Britain.

Eh?

There is a british language today. What  part of welsh is the native british language today do you not get steve?

Welsh having become the first language of a large minority of the people of Wales,

Welsh hasnt become anything today. The language you are calling welsh , the native british language  , has regressesed from being the lingua franca of the popualtion of these islands south of a line roughly from the clyde to the forth , to where it is today.

Its very roughly the same original language with dialectical differences that have grown over the centuries that is currently still spoken in brittany in north west france , and the revived language in cornwall.

You may suggest that I am wrong to regard Welsh as no longer a British language - in my view because it has long since ceased to be spoken by most of the inhabitants of Britain - because it is historically descended from a language that used to be the language of Britain.

The majority of academics and historians regard it as the native british language  , and thats good enough for me.

That is a point that can reasonably be debated, though I think such a debate would resolve nothing and go round in circles. I said there was no British language - present tense - because Welsh is now so regionally centred that it no longer constitutes a de facto language of Britain in my view. Vastly more people in this island speak English than they do Welsh.

That argument doesnt stack up yet again .What i suggested was you had taken the native british name for this island , while ignoring the native british language and customs.

The native british language isnt spoken across the current uk for obvious historical reasons we dont need to keep regurgitating , and neither do the native british control the uk today.

I was highlighting the hypocrisy of  englands elite using an old name for these islands , while rejecting the language and culture that comes with it.

A countries language , british for the britons , is the very foundation of a nations uniqueness in culture ,  heritage , traditions and thinking , and britain doesnt use it . It uses your countries language.

We all know why , england hides behind the name britian , as a sort of greater england of which the jocks taffs and depdending to whom you speak , the paddies are all part of in your mind.

Vastly more people in this island speak English than they do Welsh.

No shit steve. Up to around the reformation , the vast majority of the peoples of these islands , roughly 60 % , didnt speak english. Scottish irish and welsh were historically and systematically abused and ridiculed to the point of them almost becoming extinct. The fact a small percentage of scots irish , and a larger amount of welsh still speak the native gaelic and british languages  is a miracle.

Where I am taking issue with you is your inference from my words that I failed to know anything about the history of the Welsh language, just because I said there was no British language today, and belief that Welsh no longer constitutes such.

Thats your personal belief , as yet , not backed up by any evidence. Clearly once again the majority of academics regard welsh as the native british language. I see no point in carrying on with you on this point as clearly you are arguing black is white.

I have in fact known since my school days that Welsh - albeit with additional subsequent influences from both Norse and English and with additional changes inherent in the passage of time - is descended from the original Celtic languages spoken by the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of Britain as a whole.

once again , you would be wrong.

Much of scotland didnt speak welsh/british.

though it must be stressed that different celtic tribes spoke different dialects of it

dialectical differences are common in english and any other language. This is the norm. However , there are two main celtic languages , not one , and britian past or present has never at any point in history we are aware of had only one single common language until today with english.

so there was no single language spoken by all.

agreed. Thats because there wasnt an british nation in the sense you mean historically encompassing the entire island of what we now call britian. Just as their isnt a british nation today.

The Celts of Cornwall, for example, whose language survived as a first language until well into the 18th century, spoke a dialect different to that of the Welsh, albeit with marked similarities.

poor example. Cornish , welsh , cumbric etc were all the same language , that ended up dialectically differnt over the centuries as wedges of english speakers cut them off from each other before they then died out except welsh.

For example , the oldest literature in the welsh language that we have today comes from South east scotland in the 7th century.

In short, because I say that there is no British language today,

you can say it foir the next thousand years steve , but there is a british language today , its called welsh . You might not speak it , it might not have been spoken in your area for centuries , but it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

the survival of Welsh as a regional language notwithstanding,

Wales isnt a region . A region of a country would be like devon in england. Wales is a constituent nation of the multi national uk state , and is often also portrayed as a principality.

Wales itself is made up of welsh regions. You might wish otherwise , but unfortunately this isnt the case.

that I failed to understand that the Welsh language is decended from a language or group of languages that were spoken throughout Britain many centuries ago

You did misunderstand it , and i highlighted that fact earlier on this thread.

However  , again you digress from my point that a native british language still does exist today.

I clarified that I did understand that and merely meant that I thought Welsh no longer constituted a British language today because of it's regional confines.

The island of britian is a regional and geographic consign of the uk state , yet you tell me people see the uk as britian. So why would that logic which professes a region ( or island) as a nickname for a larger nation then not apply to a language which is the native language that goes with that nickname??

Ie....a geographic name for part of a multi national state can be used for the whole , but a language which is only part of that same state cannot be used for the whole.

Your logic is all over the place again.

So I ask you to accept my clarification as a honest one, even if you disagree with my belief that Welsh is now too regionally based to constitute a British language today, or you call me a liar, at which point there is no longer any basis for honest debate between us.

Im saying i reject what you are saying steve , as your argument doesnt stack up. I have provided 2000 years of scholastic research and history right up to modern day historians who say welsh is the native british language and people  , however marginalised they and their language are now  is totally irrelevant to my point.

You may disagree with my assertion that because it is now so regionally based Welsh can no longer be reasonably regarded as a British language.

I do.

I understand that historically speaking it has much more claim to having been such than English ever can

Aghain you are sideswerving from the point.

But my assertion is based upon facts on the ground today

Which facts are they then steve? You havent provided any facts im aware of.

You talk almost always of "belief" rather than fact thoughout your posts on this thread. Belief in a nation called britian , even though no one can find it on a map.

Belief in welsh not being the native existing british language today , even though historians regard it as the native british language .

Which facts on the ground do you speak of steve?

I have gone to great and boringly long lengths here to clarify why I said there is no British language today whilst knowing that Welsh is descended from a group of Celtic languages that used to be.

You havent clarified a single thing steve that contradicts or disproves anything im saying. Once agin , we have been lectured from you at lenght on your personal beliefs. When i ask for evidence  , you ignore it and run away , or sidestep onto something else.

I have provided reams of evidence in my posts , you nothing. I explained where the term britihs comes from , and why we use it , and how for exmaple two thirds of scots dont see themselves as british.

You ignore all this and cling to falsehoods while littering the thread with innuendo and outright nonsense.

You tell me northern irish people who are among the most "british " people in the uk cannot be british becuase its what "some people ( is some labour people or english lefties )belive.

You ignore the fact people across the world , outside the imaginary british nation ,( which you try and define but can't prove exists ,) also hold british passports and the right to call themselves british.

In short , you have ignored most of the uncomfortable truths i have put to you in our discussion on the imaginary british island nation , the history , and the refusal of people like you who so steadfastly tell me are british in the one sense , but in the next refuse to accept the british language .

When scotland gains its independence steve , i think it will be a good thing for you and those like you., You will then be able to put this delusional imaginary nonsense to bed and england will be able to become a modern progressive state proud of its language culture and traditions without hiding behind a british name while rejecting the british language and culture.

I understand where you are coming from on that, but think that reality as it exists on the ground today actually matters too.

That is surely all that the difference between us on this boils down to?

Reality on the ground is what im talking about steve , while you are almost exclusively talking "beliefs".

[srb7677]

Steve. With respect i quoted you word for word where you said there was no british language.

I am not denying that I said that. I meant it in terms of there being no British language today, Welsh having become the first language of a large minority of the people of Wales, which is just a regional part of Britain. You may suggest that I am wrong to regard Welsh as no longer a British language - in my view because it has long since ceased to be spoken by most of the inhabitants of Britain - because it is historically descended from a language that used to be the language of Britain.

That is a point that can reasonably be debated, though I think such a debate would resolve nothing and go round in circles. I said there was no British language - present tense - because Welsh is now so regionally centred that it no longer constitutes a de facto language of Britain in my view. Vastly more people in this island speak English than they do Welsh.

Where I am taking issue with you is your inference from my words that I failed to know anything about the history of the Welsh language, just because I said there was no British language today, and belief that Welsh no longer constitutes such. I have in fact known since my school days that Welsh - albeit with additional subsequent influences from both Norse and English and with additional changes inherent in the passage of time - is descended from the original Celtic languages spoken by the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants of Britain as a whole. In a sense it might well have constituted a British language back then, though it must be stressed that different celtic tribes spoke different dialects of it, so there was no single language spoken by all. The Celts of Cornwall, for example, whose language survived as a first language until well into the 18th century, spoke a dialect different to that of the Welsh, albeit with marked similarities.

In short, because I say that there is no British language today, the survival of Welsh as a regional language notwithstanding, that I failed to understand that the Welsh language is decended from a language or group of languages that were spoken throughout Britain many centuries ago. I clarified that I did understand that and merely meant that I thought Welsh no longer constituted a British language today because of it's regional confines. So I ask you to accept my clarification as a honest one, even if you disagree with my belief that Welsh is now too regionally based to constitute a British language today, or you call me a liar, at which point there is no longer any basis for honest debate between us.

You may disagree with my assertion that because it is now so regionally based Welsh can no longer be reasonably regarded as a British language. I understand that historically speaking it has much more claim to having been such than English ever can. But my assertion is based upon facts on the ground today, and does in no way constitute a lack of knowledge of the fact that Welsh is descended from the Celtic dialects formerly spoken throughout Britain. So again please understand and acknowledge that clarification, then by all means tell me you think I am wrong for dismissing Welsh as a British language today, or call me a liar.

Because I am a far more accurate authority on what I have known and not known and for how long than you are. If I tell you I have known something for decades, you either accept that and continue on that basis or call me a liar, which would make honest debate impossible. I have gone to great and boringly long lengths here to clarify why I said there is no British language today whilst knowing that Welsh is descended from a group of Celtic languages that used to be. 

I think the difference between us that needs to be grasped is this.

I no longer think Welsh constitutes a de facto British language today due to it's regional limitations, regardless of it's history.

You believe it is the only thing that can be called a British language today precisely because of it's history.

I understand where you are coming from on that, but think that reality as it exists on the ground today actually matters too.

That is surely all that the difference between us on this boils down to?

[Thomas]

The new census for scotland has been delayed , and is due to be filled in at the end of february this year. So we will see what has changed if anything in that in terms of stuff like nat id.

Many scots support the scottish nations place in the union , without believing in the fantasy you try to project of a mythical british nation . Many older scots like my old grandpa when he ws alive traditionally belived in the scottish nation  ,and himself in terms of national identity as being scottish , as part of the british empire.

[Thomas]

Happy New Year by the way. They have died now but I used to have a number of Scottish  relatives hailing from the Perth area, and know what a big deal Hogmanay is up there. I hope in spite of covid you manage to have a good one, Thomas.

Happy new year to you and yours as well steve. We may disagree but dont take it all personally.

As for scotland , can i also point out with regard to our discussion , the vast majority of scots dont see themselves as british.

Census suggests most Scots 'feel only Scottish'

Most people living in Scotland describe their national identity as being "Scottish only", according to the latest census figures.

Data released from the 2011 census showed 62% described themselves as "Scottish only", while 18% said they were "Scottish and British"

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-24282271

[Thomas]

You did what you often do...you read something into my words and just assumed a negative.

Steve. With respect i quoted you word for word where you said there was no british language. That isnt assumption. Im addressing what you said clearly in black and white, and for you to wriggle or deny what you said is unbelievable. Eveyone can clearly see what you wrote.

But it is not a British language today.

Steve , with respect , the greeks , romans , the celts themselves , the anglo saxons , danes , norman french , the english irish and scottish , various historical figures i quoted like Bede and King athelstan , all the way donw to modern academics ,historians and linguists like Pof. Wiliam watson , Prof. K jackson , Prof. Geoffrey Barrow , And on and on regard the welsh as the native british and their language the native british language that you said doesnt exist.

You are in denial , trying to defend a narrative that has so many holes in it that it is laughable.

To paraphrase. You can take a man to facts but you cant make him accept them.

I cannot recall anyone in Truro or Tunbridge Wells speaking it. Nor anyone in Glasgow or Grangemouth for that matter.

Sure , but all these areas spoke british at one point in history. Glasgow was founded by a briton , and the language was widely spoken in glasgow for centuries , before being replaced by scottish.

No one is claiming the language is being spoke there today. This is nothing more than yet another puerile dodge to the point.

As for Britain the nation not being on the map, the UK is.

Again more of your disingenuous nonsense. I am well aware the uk can be found on a map. I asked you to show me where this nation called britian is on a map , and yet another post on this thread and you cannot do so.

Quite clearly the face speaks volumes as i said .

And that is what most people who deem themselves to be British mean by the word. You may disagree with such an appropriation of a geographic term and using is as an alternative word for a nation, but that is nevertheless what most of those calling themselves British are doing

No it isnt , and we will come to this in a minute.

People call themselves british because we were all part of an enitity called the british empire , parts of which are still in existence today.( in a modified from) We arent called british because we are part of a mythical nation that doesnt exist on any modern day map.

Many think of Northern Ireland as a place apart, and the unionist portions of the populations are really thinking about all the inhabitants of England, Scotland and Wales when they talk of Britain, ie the inhabitants of the island of Britain

This is just absolute waffle here steve.

You tell me one minute the people of the uk call themself british , down to a misuse of a geographic term , then the next you tell me the people of the uk who live in northern ireland arent british , and that some see them as a place apart.

Do you not see the lack of logic and inconsistency in this nonsense you are laying before you?

The people of northern ireland have a right to call themself british as much as you do. That isnt because ireland is part of great britian , although some argue it is part of the british islands  , but becuase yet again ireland was part of the british empire.

I appreciate when you talk of "some people" beliveing northernireland as a place apart , you are probably talking about your former comrades in the labour party among others. The british lefts illogical stance on independence for northern ireland is well known , but not the jocks or taffs who are potentially usefull voting fodder .

We all know corbyn and many others in that party were staunch irish republicans and supported the IRA. Lets move on though.

You yourself see the component parts as seperate nations and thus reject any notion of a unified British state, especially one ruled from Westminster and dominated by the English.

No i dont . Dont put words in my mouth and twist what i am saying to suit your false narrative.

Im saying a british nation does not and never has existed in the terms you mean........an english speaking island nation. Quite clearly we dont have to troll through history to see that fact , you cant produce this mythical nation on any modern day map.

I am a realist though , and i fully accept we are all part of a united kingdom soveriegn multi national state , and our british status is a hangover from the days of empire , not because we are part of a british nation as you imply.

My politics and beliefs are irrelevant to the reality i am discussing , and the fantasy you are trying and failing to imply.

Nevertheless, unionists see Scotland, Wales, and England as integral parts of a united British state

No they dont. They see themsleves as british , subject citizens of the british empire , and part of the UK multi national state. Many unionists in scotland see themsleves as both scottish and british nationally , and others see themselves in terms of national ID as scottish only , yet voted to remain in the uk state.

I know as a Scottish nationalist seperatist you hate that.

My likes or dislikes dont come into what is being discussed. Unionists in northern ireland england or wales can call themselves whatever they like. Its the scottish unionists i am concerned with .

And they hate you for that' But their right to think of themselves as British is as much their democratic right as it is yours to think of yourself as Scottish and to reject the very notion of Britishness as it is meant today - inhabitants of a unified state that occupies the island of Britain. Of course when you gain independence you can drive a horse and cart through all that. But that day has not yet come.

That is all I am really likely to say on the matter, since we are arguing about mere labels and how people choose to perceive themselves. Such things are a matter of personal freedom and not to be dictated by others. I would rather debate more important matters than labels and individial self perceptions. You see, whether or not someone calls themself British and for whatever reason, that is their right. If you want to call them stupid for it that is yours. But calling people stupid is not the best way to make friends and influence people. I myself have had to learn that lesson over Brexit.

This is more nonsense .

Everyone knows there is no british nation . The britishness as i understand it historically and now comes from the fact we were all part of an empire called the british empire , of which wales ireland and scotland were among the first colonies in that order under the control of westminster.

Your britishness today stems from one document and one document only , a travel document called a passport is the only official document that im aware of that calls you a british citizen/subject.

This is a hangover from days of empire , as people on this forum like john of gwent has said many a time , anyone anthwere within that empire had the right to a british passport and the right to call themself british. That included far flung places like hong kong or india .

So that sort of facks up your delusion its because we are part of a british nation that doesnt in relaity exist , and the delusion that british people in northern ireland are somehow a "palce apart " as northern irelands existence as part of the modern uk state is an uncomfortable truth in your nonsensical narrative.

Northern ireland isnt part of the island of great britian , the nation state you imply exists , but it is part of the uk state and they have a right as much as you to see themself british if they want.

People in the isle of man are also british , despite the isle of man not being part of great britain , ot part of the uk state.

Further afield , in the channel islands , the people there are also classed as british citizens , despite them not being part of great britian or the british isles in general. They carry british passports same as you or i , once again , as a hangover from the british empire, not a mythical british nation.

People in gibraltar are also british citizens .They even took part in the breixt referendum in 2016 , despite gibraltar being pert of iberia , and no where near these islands.

On every level your arguments clearly dont stack up.

[srb7677]

clearly you didnt know it.

You did what you often do...you read something into my words and just assumed a negative. I have long known that Welsh is the descendent language of Britain. But it is not a British language today. I cannot recall anyone in Truro or Tunbridge Wells speaking it. Nor anyone in Glasgow or Grangemouth for that matter.

As for Britain the nation not being on the map, the UK is. And that is what most people who deem themselves to be British mean by the word. You may disagree with such an appropriation of a geographic term and using is as an alternative word for a nation, but that is nevertheless what most of those calling themselves British are doing. Many think of Northern Ireland as a place apart, and the unionist portions of the populations are really thinking about all the inhabitants of England, Scotland and Wales when they talk of Britain, ie the inhabitants of the island of Britain. You yourself see the component parts as seperate nations and thus reject any notion of a unified British state, especially one ruled from Westminster and dominated by the English. Nevertheless, unionists see Scotland, Wales, and England as integral parts of a united British state. I know as a Scottish nationalist seperatist you hate that. And they hate you for that' But their right to think of themselves as British is as much their democratic right as it is yours to think of yourself as Scottish and to reject the very notion of Britishness as it is meant today - inhabitants of a unified state that occupies the island of Britain. Of course when you gain independence you can drive a horse and cart through all that. But that day has not yet come.

That is all I am really likely to say on the matter, since we are arguing about mere labels and how people choose to perceive themselves. Such things are a matter of personal freedom and not to be dictated by others. I would rather debate more important matters than labels and individial self perceptions. You see, whether or not someone calls themself British and for whatever reason, that is their right. If you want to call them stupid for it that is yours. But calling people stupid is not the best way to make friends and influence people. I myself have had to learn that lesson over Brexit.

Happy New Year by the way. They have died now but I used to have a number of Scottish  relatives hailing from the Perth area, and know what a big deal Hogmanay is up there. I hope in spite of covid you manage to have a good one, Thomas.

[Thomas]

Sp you actually think I don't know that Welsh is the surviving remnant of a British language?

No welsh is the british language as im saying , and aye , quite evidently from when you said this...

As for not speaking British, there is no such language as we both fully well know. Which is why no one speaks it

clearly you didnt know it.

Of course it is, but no one today, not even the Welsh themselves, call it British.

They call it cymraeg , the language of the compatriots.

However , historians , linguists and place name experts all regard "welsh " as the native british language.So do many welsh. ( thier name for england means "lost lands" giving the impression of dispossession of britian)

Some examples.

From the venerable anglo saxon monk Bede , widely quoted and regarded in english history today..

Bede (673-735) was an Anglo-Saxon monk based in Northumbria. He is now often considered the father of English history for his book Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum "Ecclesiastical History of the English People,

He wrote..

There are in the island at present, following the number of the books in which the Divine Law was written, five languages of different nations employed in the study and confession of this knowledge [of Christianity], which is of highest truth and true sublimity: these languages are English, British, Scottish [Gaelic], Pictish, and Latin,

Bede clearly distinguishing between English and british as languages.

https://exploringcelticciv.web.unc.edu/bede-the-history-of-the-english-church/

Modern placename experts will also often talk of British placenames , from the british language , as something "other" , Different from your english.

The principal substrate of British toponyms is thus Celtic in origin, and more specifically Brittonic ('British'), ancestral to modern Welsh and more distantly related to the Goidelic languages of Ireland and Scotland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toponymy_of_England

However you wriggle , quite clearly british and welsh as languages are interchangeable and regarded as the same language over the course of history from the same people..british/welsh. Its quite clear from a basic scratch of linguistics , history , placnemanes and all the basic ingredients that make up a nation and a homogenous people that english and british , in terms of language  , nationhood and culture are widely regarded outside the minds of the delusional as being different from each other.

England is not and never has been britian , and britain isnt england.

In that sense there is no British language today.

Quite clearly there is. When throughout the welsh language history and culture , they reagrd themselves as the "british" , and their language "british" as do historians , linguists etc.

Even the scottish and irish regard the welsh as the british .A famous document from scottish history was the old laws of what is now modern scotland , codified by king david.

They were called the laws of the scottish and british , which king edward of england abolished in 1305. Parts of the document still survive today.

Dumbarton , near my own native glasgow , was famously a fort of the british , which the placename suggests. The constant refrences to the british across these islands in language history and placenames all refer to the welsh , not the english( or scottish).

There is merely Welsh and English, and maybe Gaelic in a few isolated areas up there.

Again you swereve into areas not relevant to what we are discussing. A language can survive for centuries with only a few speakers. It isnt dependent on large numbers of people speaking it to survive. You only need to look at cornish to see this. Cornwall is roughly the size of lothian , but the cornish language survived as part of England from the 8th century to the 17th century , with relatively few people speaking it. Again , cornish is regarded as part of the "british" language ,while scottish , irish and english are not.

And I am well aware that the language spoken by the Anglo Saxon invaders was referred to as Old English.

So why did you infer this then...

I should of course point out that English itself is far from being an ancient language. It didn't exist a thousand years ago.

Quite clearly you are talking nonsense , and are trying to u turn on your earlier statement. English quite clearly did exist a thousand years ago. It celarly wasnt the same language as now , just as frankish wasnt the same as french today , but english a thousand years ago is regarded as part of the same language we speak today.

Words in english 70 years ago meant something differnt to what they do today or are no longer in use , but it doesnt mean they arent english language words. This really is desperate stuff from you steve , and you further my view that you are talking not only in desperation , but in ignorance.

It is  de facto a foreign language to us, widely recognised as a Germanic language.

So is modern english.

Why English Is a Germanic Language
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/why-english-is-a-germanic-language/

English is (still) a West Germanic language

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nordic-journal-of-linguistics/article/english-is-still-a-west-germanic-language/FFF1593D4EC6A2E7D9671595509F0815

Really is basic stuff steve. I remember being taught in english classes at high school in glasgow basic stuff like this , that english is regarded as a west germanic language . In terms of the fact the basic skeleton of the language is west germanic , (not british:D)

Are you that unaware of your own peoples history and culture?

The English we speak today did not exist in pre-Norman times.

Some 30 % of the words did , but i take your wider point that the language has evolved , but im not claiming otherwise. Clearly you are simply throwing grenades into a conversation you are struggling with to sideswerve.

I can't think of any language on this earth that remains exactly as it did a thousand years ago , all langiages evolve , but that doesnt detrct from my point english isnt british , and english then and now was regarded as a germanic language while modern welsh is widely regarded as the native british language.

And anyone believing in a United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Wales can legitimately talk of a British nation, which - albeit usually including Northern Ireland - is easy to find on any map.

I invite you yet again , show me on a map where this "nation/country " called britian is please? I can find a multi national sovereign state called the uk of gb and ni , spanning the island of britian dna the island of ireland , i can find the geographical entity of great britian , an island off the coast of europe , but nothing else.

Over to you?

Now since you choose to to try and portray me as ignorant and/or stupid because you don't like what I have to say, well I have said all I am going to say on this subject.

Its nothing to do with like or dislike , it s me calling you out as being wrong , and telling you why i think that.

We go back to the nub of the argument which is why are some americans labelled stupid when clearly they have their "british" counterparts , who bleieve in a mythical nation that doesnt exist?

I mean with respect your narrative is so full of disingenous holes as to be borderline fantasy if not outright delusion.

I mean britain , the nation not only isnt on  modern map  , a basic necessity of anyone claiming a nation exists , but it doesnt even produce simple things like birth certificates. I can see English/welsh birth centrificates , irish , scottish , but no british.

I think you need to distinguish between fantasy steve , and things in your head and reality.

[srb7677]

This is basic history steve , that anyone calling themself british should know. The fact that you dont speaks volumes , and reinforces the celtic nations view that the imaginary name "britian" is nothing more than an empty sop to celtic sensibilities for england ruling these islands. Hence why we reject you utterely , and always will.

Sp you actually think I don't know that Welsh is the surviving remnant of a British language? Of course it is, but no one today, not even the Welsh themselves, call it British. In that sense there is no British language today. There is merely Welsh and English, and maybe Gaelic in a few isolated areas up there.

And I am well aware that the language spoken by the Anglo Saxon invaders was referred to as Old English. But unless you have been taught to read and speak it as if it were a foreign language, no natural English speaker can understand it today. It is  de facto a foreign language to us, widely recognised as a Germanic language. The English we speak today did not exist in pre-Norman times.

And anyone believing in a United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Wales can legitimately talk of a British nation, which - albeit usually including Northern Ireland - is easy to find on any map.

Now since you choose to to try and portray me as ignorant and/or stupid because you don't like what I have to say, well I have said all I am going to say on this subject. There is nothing fruitful to be gained by unecessary aggravation. The points I have made are easy enough to understand and acknowledge, as I understand and acknowledge yours. I am not really up for a long winded debate with quotes at length right now, and only returned to this one at your prompting.

[Thomas]

You have encouraged me to continue although I have little to add beyond what I have already said, little of of which you actually refute when you get down to the bare bones of it, whilst I myself am not exactly arguing with most of what you are saying.

As for not speaking British, there is no such language as we both fully well know. Which is why no one speaks it.

There is a language called british. The native british language is welsh. Welsh is an english language word meaning foreigner , or romanised foreigner , and its an old nickname the english used to call the native british celts.

Its properly called brittonic.

From the 10 th century onwards , when the native british celts were largely dispossessed of their lands in what is now scotland and england , and pushed into areas like lanarkshire in scotland , or wales , or cumbria and cornwall , they started calling themselsves the cymry , the compatriots.

The english called them british , or britons , and their language british , nicknamed welsh.  The first king of the english , or a unifed english kingdom , athelstan , talked of driving the filthy "british " out of the city of exeter , and as late as the 12th century , the welsh in scotland were still being called "bretnachs" , british men.

So the native british language , which you now call welsh , is there. ?Your leaders choose not to speak it or use it as the native language , instead , you merely want to steal the name britian , but not the language or the culture.

This is basic history steve , that anyone calling themself british should know. The fact that you dont speaks volumes , and reinforces the celtic nations view that the imaginary name "britian" is nothing more than an empty sop to celtic sensibilities for england ruling these islands. Hence why we reject you utterely , and always will.

As for Britain, the reason quite a lot of people refer to their nationality as British might well be down to stupidity in a few cases. Every nation after all has it's idiots, no doubt you have a few up there. But in most cases what is happening when intelligent people refer to their nationality as British is quite simply  - as I have already said - that the word is being used as shorthand for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And people who do this are almost invariably believers in the union that they feel themselves to be part of.

You cannot be a national of a country that doesnt exist and doest appear on any map. People call themslef british not becuase ther was or is a british nation , or even because they live on an island called britian.

Its delusions of grandeur of yout elite from the days when there was an empire called the british empire. Long gone and over with. That why people in gibraltar , have passports with the title british citizen in it.Even though they live in iberia , and often than not have never set foot in these islands.

Just as France and Italy are made up of different ethnic mixes who until recent history spoke their own dialects, but were subsumed under the more all encompasing nationalities of French and Italian, so do many unionists see the UK.

Nope you miss my point.

The analogy with what england has done in the yookay with "britian" would be the french taking over the old celtic kingdom of gaul , and its british , german , flemish and basque provinces , then calling the new country Gaul while forcing everyone to learn french.

The franks largely conquered france in something like 50 years more or less with a few exceptions, where the english took 500 years to conquer what is now england , and then tried and failed to conquer the rest.

It was that historical military failure which led to the crown being offered to a scottish king , and union of the two kingdoms , and the pretence of reinventing an old name that had fell long our of use some 6 centuries earlier as a sop to the scots irish wand welsh.

They believe in the wider UK as a nation that they adhere to that is bigger than it's component parts.

People can believe whatever they want. It doesnt make it correct , and as we spoke about the silines of some yanks , doesnt stop people mocking them.

The french colloquially almost never talk about the uk , almost always the differeing nations of the uk. The uk has never and does not fit the defintion of a nation , as it doesnt meet any of the criteria except being a multi naitonal soverieng state.

You former prime misnister , gordon brown , and the labour party when in government sent a delgation to the UN who descirbed the uk not as a nation but a multi national state made up of two countries , a principality and a province of a third country.

In 2014 , david cameron described the uk as a family of nations , a union of two kingdoms .Never a nation.

But we digress from brtain dont we , and what i originally mocked certain folk about. Here we are still on another post , and no one so far can even show me where britian the nation exists on a map.

I fully understand that this is never going to sit well with a Scottish nationalist wanting an independent Scotland, because you have already rejected the union as any kind of acceptable national entity to which you owe any kind of allegience

.While i am a scottish nationalist steve , i dont agree with you here , i am also a realist. The reality is there is no nation called britian , and never ever has been in history of mankind.

Im waiting for you or anyone to prove me wrong , then i will accept reality. Until then , its nothing more than delusion of certain folk who can't accept they have been brainwashed into beliveing in something that doesnt exist.

So for you when unionists speak of being British - by which they mostly mean a UK national - they are from your perspective holding an allegiance to something you choose not to recognise as a legitimate nation because you reject Scotland's part in it.

Dont accept that false premise. You can for example hold allegiance to the european union. no one i know of claims its a nation or a country unlike the deluded follwers of the british fantasy.

The fact that they have a different sense of nationhood that encompasses the whole UK does not make them stupid just because your allegiences are different.

It does , because you need to have a nation to have nationhood of. You can't mock the yanks for ignorance while you are flying that guff......

As for calling themselves British, I can tell you that it is a common view in England that Northern Ireland is a place apart, with it's own political parties, not fully accepted as part of the union nation state of the UK as Scotland and Wales are.

So digging yourself deeper , ever deeper into a hole. Are you telling me unionists in northern ireland arent british? Doesnt matter what the false view is in england , the fact is the uk is made up of northern ireland. Once as you know it was the entire island.

False views can't be passed off as reality steve. You mocked scott for example for his views on covid as an anti vaxxer , and here you are spinning an even bigger yarn than you claimed scott was.

It is the union excluding Northern Ireland that many believe in, ie the part that is geographically British.

It doesnt matter steve. Without getting hung up on it , northern ireland has been part of the union with england in conjunction with the rest of ireland far longer than scotland ever has. It was ruled over by english kings in a monarchial union , then in 1801 politically became part of the uk sending mps to westmisnter from the english collonial parliament in dublin.

You might belive in unicorns , ir doesnt mean they exist.

nd since the English language has come up, and though you probably already know this, I should of course point out that English itself is far from being an ancient language. It didn't exist a thousand years ago. The area of modern day England was even further back in pre-Roman times mostly inhabited by Celts speaking a variety of Celtic languages. The Romans came and took over down here, introducing Latin as a written language and the language of the ruling elites, which tended to persist for many centuries after the Romans left. Most of the common people though still spoke their native celtic tongues. At around the time the Romans left, the people widely regarded as the true ancestors of the English, the Anglo Saxons, came from Northwest Europe and seized most of the territory of England over the course of a couple of centuries. The native celts were either pushed westwards into the celtic fringes of Wales and Cornwall or were enslaved by these new Germanic invaders who began to arrive in some numbers.

i know most of that. funnily enough old english has almost no celtic words in it , or should i say british words. This shows the two peoples didnt peacfully live side by side , as most languages normally borrow from each other.

Because the Anglo Saxons themselves were not English speakers but had their own Germanic tongues.

Come now steve ,this is pure spin with a small hint of truth here. The anglo saxons spoke originally a language we call old english , and then borrowed a lot of danish into it between the 9th and 11th centuries.

it was dramatcially changed so much due tothe norman conquest in 1066 that it practically ceased to be the same language. This is what is now reffered to as middle english. The point is , at no time did the anglo saxons , the danes , the normans , or the later english see themselves as british nor did they speak british , across a historical continum tht passed over a 1400 year period until the last two centuries .

All of which again tends to demonstrate that nationhood does not depend upon language, though nations can - and often do - of course form around common languages.

No it doesnt. Al these peoples languages contrubuted to england , the english identity , and the english language.None of them spoke british or saw themselves as british.

The few celts in cumbria and cornwall who did see themsleves as british historically and spoke british were ridiculed , humiliated , absorbed and had their britshness and their language beaten out of them.

English , not british became their language , but then to rub salt into the wounds , they were then laughing told they were british on english terms.

Nationhood historically almsot certainly does depend on a common language ,and unfortunately for you , it doesnt exist. More even than that steve , to begin the subject of nationhood, identity language and culture , you can't even show me on a map where this mythical country called britian is .

No language. No culture. No nation . not on any map . No homongenous identity , no common church , legal system and so on and so forth. Face it steve , its a fantasy .

A modern fantasy bulit on foundations of sand.