Are you proud to be British ?

Yes, read that * Elegran* and after the initial confusion, enjoyed the ever changing options.

I'm reading Life After Life. I bought it for the Kindle but have had to get the paperback because the Kindle makes it very difficult to go back and check what has happened on the same date in a different life. I have to finish it for the book group on Wednesday.
All the four home countries plus the individual Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have always had their own teams in the Commonwealth Games which is something of an anomaly as they are not individual members of the Commonwealth.

Mmm, that is a bit weird, anno. I guess I hadn't been paying attention to Commonwealth Games until they came within spitting distance, so to speak, so I hadn't noticed that weirdness.

As for belonging to a particular part of the UK... I don't feel I belong to any particular part. I never have. I just feel Britain is where I belong. I guess that excludes Norn Iron (as a lovely Scottish weather man always calls it).

You need to say that (or think it anyway) with a Scottish rolling r or it doesn't work.

I'm sure that there were Scots, Welsh and Irish as well as English on board RN ships during WW2, so claiming to be Scots would not help I would have thought! Surprising!

I was once spat at by an old French man in Brittany for no other reason than the fact that I was 'Anglaise'.
DH explained to me about the scuttling of the French Fleet to stop it getting into German hands, and said the old man was probably a member of the French Navy at that time.

Yes bags just like the rugby and the football. Bit batty really but there you go.

Rose France's historic animosity towards England doesn't include Scotland. The Entente Cordiale goes away back. Bear in mind that Mary Queen of Scots was brought up in France and her first husband was the Dauphin. When Mary and Elizabeth 1 were at loggerheads, the French ( Catholics) supported her against the (Protestant) English. Later they backed (unsuccessfully) Bonnie Prince Charlie. It is a fact that if French people mistake a Scot for an Englishman or woman, they apologise profusely!

The Auld Alliance pre-dates the Entente Cordiale by almost 700 years. The Entente Codiale was signed in 1904 and the Auld Alliance was periodically renewed from 1295 onwards.

Corrected Anno. Perhaps my truncated version was just too truncated! Serves me right for using shorthand and attempting historical shortcuts!

Indeed Rose and others, the Auld Alliance is the earlier. And this is why the French are generally more friendly to the Scots than to the English.

Perhaps we should have a history forum!

As a confirmed Scottish Nationalist for over 50 years I have been asking this question for a long time without ever receiving a reasonable answer, so without wishing to cause any strife, hoping for an answer that I can understand, here goes again.

Why is being British (a political construct which has existed for only 300 years) and wanting to protect our borders, rule ourselves, stand on our own two feet have our own currency and not be dictated to by any other country = normal, natural, something to be proud of, whereas being Scottish (a nationality which has existed for nearly 1000 years) and wanting to protect borders, rule ourselves, stand on our own two feet, control our resources, set our own priorities, protect our education, welfare and health services and not be dictated to by any other country = bad, extremist, selfish, foolish, (even weird)?

Three hundred years is a long time. I think that a wish for Scottish or Welsh or English independence, given how closely linked those countries are, politically, socially, historically and geographically, even ethnically in large part, is weird. Others are, of course, entitled to have a different opinion and to express it. And they do.

Therefore there isn't a problem. Just a discussion.

Scotland's capital city even has an "English" name: Edwin's Burgh.

There was a very good Radio 4 programme today about defining nationalism. Worth listening to if you can. The Scottish referendum came up. I wasn't aware that in the old days Scotland referred to Ireland and that what we call Scotland now was called Alba by the Romans as it had no name. The view of the programme was that nationalism as such is often an invented and transitory state based upon massaged versions of claimed history adapted to suit more modern requirements. Don't know if I agree with that but it reminded me of the Shrek films, which whilst they are good fun, mix up many countries histories to reinforce national stereotypes. Why does Shrek have a Scottish accent for example, The Lord of the Manor a posh English one, and Robin Hood French? I think we need to know!

Present-day Edinburgh was the location of Din Eidyn, a dun or hillfort associated with the kingdom of the Gododdin.

The claim that Edinburgh's name is derived from an Old English form such as Edwinesburh (Edwin's fort), in reference to Edwin, king of Deira and Bernicia in the 7th century is now refuted by modern scholars as the form Eidyn predates Edwin. Stuart Harris in his book The Place Names of Edinburgh declares the "Edwinesburh" form to be a "palpable fake" dating from David I's time.

There, there PapaOscar just sit down quietly and enjoy your Shrek films. Don't worry your pretty little head about those Nasty Nationalists upsetting the status quo.

Why is Salmond so sure that Scotland will retain the £ when everyone is saying that they can't?
That seems weird to me!

Fear not, Aka, I'm not worried at all! At my time of life there is no point. I just wonder about how nationalism is defined and what factors contribute to it. The old 'British is best' attitude just because it is British is long outdated. I think the more that ordinary people can communicate with each other the better and am sure that modern technology (starting with the invention of the transistor) and the spread of universal languages have made that possible, though not necessarily linked to nationalism.

That's a relief Papa I admit for a moment there you had me worried.

Thank you, aka. It appears I was misinformed.

I read the other day that due to the rapid increase in the internationalism of everything from trade to travel aided by the spread of common languages, the days of the nation state may well be limited. Would that be a good thing?

I remember arguments about internationalism with my (much loved) dad when I was in my teens and twenties. During that period, I longed for borders to be open, and for people to communicate properly and avoid war. there's a big chunk of me that continues to yearn for this utopia, but I increasingly value the fact we are British, or English, Scottish, Welsh, NI, and Irish. I continue to wish we'd appreciate each other more, and I agree with earlier posters in having a fear of excessive nationalism. There are far more positives about our shared history, than negatives.
There is a good article in the Observer today, about the Scottish independence issue. The writer talked to many people in various parts of England. He reports that all the people in the north he spoke to, could understand why the Scotts may vote for independence. They wanted independence from London as well, and felt if Scotland gained independence, that my spur the northern regions on to demand some form of northern independence from London parliament, which doesn't represent them (us!)

Still no answer to my question - I am not holding my breath.
Perhaps I should also ask what for views on the Right to Self Determination - by peaceful democratic referendum - what is wrong with that?

A wee aside to Galen - A commission of learned professors, commissioned by the Scottish Government determined that a currency union would be in the best interests of RUK as well as iScotland in preference to the other available options. The same view has been affirmed by various international experts. Two weeks ago an anonymous Westminster cabinet Minister leaked a statement claiming that the 'No to Currency Union' position was a campaigning tactic and that if there was a YES vote, that position would then become a flexible negotiating tool. Subsequently it has been revealed that any advice from the Treasury was given AFTER all 3 main parties had stated their absolute opposition to the idea i.e. they were asked to find some arguments to back up a political decision, not to give impartial advice as the Treasury of a currently United Kingdom. On the other hand, the Governor of the Bank of England stated clearly that a currency union might pose some difficulties but was do-able and that it was not for him to recommend for or against the proposition.

On holiday last week and without internet connection I read (free) paper copies of the Independent and Guardian and found that their 'take' on many issues was diametrically opposed to the same stories in say the Herald (my usual paper) or even the very anti-independence Scotsman. I do not agree that all the nations of the UK are politically,socially and culturally the same - quite the opposite.