PDA

View Full Version : Don't Scots Claim More of Murray than Brits?


kimbahpnam
06-19-2009, 06:12 PM
I thought Murray had Scottish roots.....and considering the history b/t Scots and Brits (best seen in 100% historically accurate Braveheart lol), isn't there a little irony here? :)

Feņa14
06-19-2009, 06:14 PM
I thought Murray had Scottish roots.....and considering the history b/t Scots and Brits (best seen in 100% historically accurate Braveheart lol), isn't there a little irony here? :)

Not this again :rolleyes:

jimbo333
06-19-2009, 06:38 PM
Murray is British if he wins:)

leonidas1982
06-19-2009, 06:44 PM
All Scots are British. Not all Brits are Scots. Britain is a sum of England, Scotland, and Wales.

Syfo-Dias
06-19-2009, 07:18 PM
Scotland is part of Great Brittain, so it's accurate to call Andy Murray British. What Scottish people don't like is when you call them English.

gj011
06-19-2009, 07:28 PM
What is OP talking about. Scots are Brits too.

ChanceEncounter
06-19-2009, 07:38 PM
Scots are Brits.

It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Considering Scotland is obviously not "Northern Ireland," where else do you think they fall?

Clydey2times
06-19-2009, 07:51 PM
I thought Murray had Scottish roots.....and considering the history b/t Scots and Brits (best seen in 100% historically accurate Braveheart lol), isn't there a little irony here? :)

Scottish roots? We're not talking about a guy who has Scottish grandparents here. He is Scottish. Scotland is part of Great Britain, however. That makes him both Scottish and British.

You're making the same mistake that most people never fail to make. 9% of foreigners seem to think that England and Britain are the same thing.

sh@de
06-19-2009, 09:03 PM
Scot = Brit, Brit not always = Scot. Murray = Scot, therefore Murray = Brit.

batz
06-20-2009, 02:30 AM
I thought Murray had Scottish roots.....and considering the history b/t Scots and Brits (best seen in 100% historically accurate Braveheart lol), isn't there a little irony here? :)

As others have already stated, the events portrayed in braveheart related to England and Scotland. It happened hundreds of years before the concept of Britian even arose.

Dutch-Guy
06-20-2009, 02:30 AM
Why does Scotland have his own football team that rep. it at the European Football Championship and World Cup?
I think Scots feel more Scots than Brits.

maximo
06-20-2009, 02:32 AM
Murray is British, im British, and He's gonna win WimbledoN!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lVzmtPHBr8

batz
06-20-2009, 02:35 AM
Why does Scotland have his own football team that rep. it at the European Football Championship and World Cup?
I think Scots feel more Scots than Brits.

Some do, some don't. I'm Scottish, but feel equally British. There is no 'right' answer on this.

Scotland has its own football team for the same reasons as England Wales, NI and Eire - historical anomaly. Some countries resent that the British Isles get 4 separate teams - this is why there is such a furore in the UK about a GB team at the Olympics. Only Egnlish players will be involved as the other home nations fear that will result in a GB team being forced to enter into the WC/EC rather than the individual kingdoms of the UK.

vtmike
06-20-2009, 06:46 AM
Murray is British, im British, and He's gonna win WimbledoN!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lVzmtPHBr8

Yuck what a bad song...This is so much cooler & better though,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv8jkkrlWew

miyagi
06-20-2009, 06:53 AM
Think the OP doesnt understand the difference between a Scot, a Brit and an English man

effervescence
06-20-2009, 07:18 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/su/thumb/2/27/British_Isles_Venn_Diagram.png/300px-British_Isles_Venn_Diagram.png

:)

Badger
06-20-2009, 07:26 AM
Why does Scotland have his own football team that rep. it at the European Football Championship and World Cup?
I think Scots feel more Scots than Brits.

Some do, some don't. I'm Scottish, but feel equally British. There is no 'right' answer on this.

Scotland has its own football team for the same reasons as England Wales, NI and Eire - historical anomaly. Some countries resent that the British Isles get 4 separate teams - this is why there is such a furore in the UK about a GB team at the Olympics. Only Egnlish players will be involved as the other home nations fear that will result in a GB team being forced to enter into the WC/EC rather than the individual kingdoms of the UK.

I don't think you realise how offending what you have just said is! Eire has nothing to do with Britain and why shouldn't it have its own team? As an Irishman I hope and am guessing that you worded your statement wrongly!:neutral:

gj011
06-20-2009, 07:28 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/su/thumb/2/27/British_Isles_Venn_Diagram.png/300px-British_Isles_Venn_Diagram.png

:)

Ok that is a nice picture, but I have to ask why is Wales in the same circle as England?
Also aren't Isle of Man and Channel Islands part of UK?

janipyt05
06-20-2009, 07:31 AM
Well well his queen is my queen so therefore scotland, wales and britian case closed, he can be and is rightly scotish but his queen is the same

batz
06-20-2009, 07:31 AM
Ok that is a nice picture, but I have to ask why is Whales in the same circle as England?

Because it has the same legal system.

gj011
06-20-2009, 07:33 AM
Because it has the same legal system.

OK I see. Thanks.

Badger
06-20-2009, 07:34 AM
Ok that is a nice picture, but I have to ask why is Whales in the same circle as England?
Also aren't Isle of Man and Channel Islands part of UK?


Em I think that it might be because of the historical idea that Wales is more loyal to Britain and the crown than th Scots were. I think you can still see this in that the Welsh soccer teams play in the same league as the British whereas the Scots have their own league. Not sure though.


Yeah think you're right with Isle of Man and Channel Islands.

slice bh compliment
06-20-2009, 07:34 AM
''Whales'' and ''England'' yeah, same laws.
Also, though differentiated culturally....that guy Prince Charles, the son of the Queen of England and also the man who was married to Princess Diana is known as the Prince of Wales. England and Wales are connected like that, I guess.

As a red-blooded American man, I'm alsmost embarrassed I knew that.

Anyway, the Prince of Whales is a boat on the Pacific Coast of British Columbia.

''I'm On A Boat''
[just wanted to sing that for a second] Now I feel American again.

Go Murray! I'm for Murray over Roddick .... and Murray to challenge Federer in the final.

dincuss
06-20-2009, 07:38 AM
Yuck what a bad song...This is so much cooler & better though,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv8jkkrlWew

Thats what I said-er-er :mrgreen:

gj011
06-20-2009, 07:38 AM
''Whales'' and ''England'' yeah, same laws.
Also, though differentiated culturally....that guy Prince Charles, the son of the Queen of England and also the man who was married to Princess Diana is known as the Prince of Wales. England and Wales are connected like that, I guess.

As a red-blooded American man, I'm alsmost embarrassed I knew that.

Anyway, the Prince of Whales is a boat on the Pacific Coast of British Columbia.

''I'm On A Boat''
[just wanted to sing that for a second]

Sorry for misspelling it originally. I fixed it already.

batz
06-20-2009, 07:46 AM
The Channel Islands are not part of the UK or the EU. Neither is Man.

slice bh compliment
06-20-2009, 07:53 AM
Sorry for misspelling it originally. I fixed it already.

Hey man, no big. I liked it....it made me think of the Pacific coast.

EDIT:
Back to the point of the OP, most of us Americans confuse The UK, England, Brits, Scots, Welshmen, Glaswegians, Edinburghers, Mancunians....etc. We've got a decent feel for Irishmen, though, at least [thanks to the millions of them over here, U2, the fact that they've been in the news a lot, the whole Catholic/Protestant tensions and the IRA/Sinn Fein stuff.

Well, anyway, I loved Braveheart, and I like how Andy Murray plays tennis.....Go Murray!

markmurray
06-20-2009, 07:57 AM
I'm English and I'm British, in no particular order. Andy Murray is Scottish and he is British. It is my hunch that Andy Murray would attribute more emphasis to his "Scottishness" than his "Bristishness". I think this rings true for most Scots and at least part of the reason is the common mistake of equating English with British. I would be annoyed if I was called Scottish, it's precisely as wrong as calling Andy Murray English.

Blinkism
06-20-2009, 08:31 AM
Murray is a quarter English, though. A lot of his family comes from Northern England, as well.

So it wouldn't be wrong to call him of mixed Scottish and English heritage...

so basically, British describes him best, although if you want to nit-pick, he is a Scot mostly.

vive le beau jeu !
06-20-2009, 09:36 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/su/thumb/2/27/British_Isles_Venn_Diagram.png/300px-British_Isles_Venn_Diagram.png

:)
... and what about Rockall ? ;)

slice bh compliment
06-20-2009, 09:50 AM
This whole thing is reminding me about Long Island looking to secede from the State of New York. LOL!

I think on the Daily Show, Sam Bee did a funny piece on it, complete with 3 bozos from the Island, and divergent views from local politicians. Pretty funny.

Anyway...

C'monn Murray! ''They can take away ourr lahnd. But they can't.... Take awayyy.... Ourr Frrreedommmm!''

Lotto
06-20-2009, 09:57 AM
Why does Scotland have his own football team that rep. it at the European Football Championship and World Cup?
I think Scots feel more Scots than Brits.

Some do, some don't. I'm Scottish, but feel equally British. There is no 'right' answer on this.

Scotland has its own football team for the same reasons as England Wales, NI and Eire - historical anomaly. Some countries resent that the British Isles get 4 separate teams - this is why there is such a furore in the UK about a GB team at the Olympics. Only Egnlish players will be involved as the other home nations fear that will result in a GB team being forced to enter into the WC/EC rather than the individual kingdoms of the UK.


Dont drag my dear Ireland into this :p We won our freedom from you enslaving little pups. Took over us a ruled us for a few hundred years...but then....Michael Collins and Eamon De Valera took back what is rightfully ours :D

batz
06-20-2009, 09:58 AM
[quote=batz;3579791]


Dont drag my dear Ireland into this :p We won our freedom from you enslaving little pups. Took over us a ruled us for a few hundred years...but then....Michael Collins and Eamon De Valera took back what is rightfully ours :D

You're right - I shouldn't have said Eire.

helloworld
06-20-2009, 10:01 AM
Scotland is part of Great Britain, just like Hawaii is part of the United States. Is Hawaiian citizen american?

BigJock
06-20-2009, 10:14 AM
guess we dont know oursleves yet,

but we'll find out :

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/lifestyle/2009/06/20/tennis-fans-decide-if-andy-murray-is-scottish-or-british-in-internet-poll-86908-21456853/

im scottish, but hope all of britain gets behind him win or lose:)

Badger
06-20-2009, 10:14 AM
[quote=batz;3579791]


Dont drag my dear Ireland into this :p We won our freedom from you enslaving little pups. Took over us a ruled us for a few hundred years...but then....Michael Collins and Eamon De Valera took back what is rightfully ours :D



Damn right! Nice to find another Irsh guy on the site!

slice bh compliment
06-20-2009, 10:17 AM
Yes, Hawaiians are American citizens just like Alaskans, New Yorkers and Californians.

It's Louisiana that's a little off. Kidding.

I don't think we have anything like that here. Maybe Puerto Rico? They get to vote...they are a territory, not a state. Guam?

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 10:35 AM
Murray is a quarter English, though. A lot of his family comes from Northern England, as well.

So it wouldn't be wrong to call him of mixed Scottish and English heritage...

so basically, British describes him best, although if you want to nit-pick, he is a Scot mostly.

One grandparent is English. That isn't a quarter.

The point is that he is both Scottish and British, no matter how you slice it.

SempreSami
06-20-2009, 10:35 AM
The level of stupidity reeking from the title of this topic, my word.

malakas
06-20-2009, 10:40 AM
this maybe a stupid question but..what is england geographically?

Also ..scots are a different nation than english right?
Excuse my ignorance,but before Murray became known in the world of tennis,I didn't even know there was a difference between england and britain.

angharad
06-20-2009, 10:40 AM
I don't think we have anything like that here. Maybe Puerto Rico? They get to vote...they are a territory, not a state. Guam?
It's similar to Spain, actually. The Catalonian region of Spain (Barcelona/Balearic Islands/etc) as a whole feels quite separate from the rest of Spain. There are many people who consider themselves Catalonian before Spanish.


One grandparent is English. That isn't a quarter.

Yes, that is a quarter. If one grandparent is English, then one parent is half-English, and Murray himself is one-quarter English. Assuming the grandparent is entirely English, or course.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 11:11 AM
It's similar to Spain, actually. The Catalonian region of Spain (Barcelona/Balearic Islands/etc) as a whole feels quite separate from the rest of Spain. There are many people who consider themselves Catalonian before Spanish.



Yes, that is a quarter. If one grandparent is English, then one parent is half-English, and Murray himself is one-quarter English. Assuming the grandparent is entirely English, or course.

That's not really how it works. You have to take into account where they were born, not just parentage. Both his parents were born in Scotland. One had two Scottish parents, while one had one Scottish parents and one English parent. It's a hell of a leap to call someone a quarter English if they were born in Scotland, to Scottish parents (both born in Scotland), with 3 Scottish grandparents.

batz
06-20-2009, 11:21 AM
this maybe a stupid question but..what is england geographically?

Also ..scots are a different nation than english right?
Excuse my ignorance,but before Murray became known in the world of tennis,I didn't even know there was a difference between england and britain.

This is getting interesting now :)

roughly 2/3rds of the bottom end of Britain is England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

Re the 2nd question in bold - the answer is quite contentious. It all depends on your defintion of 'nation'. I think in truly technical terms, neither England or Scotland are sovereign states - they are subcomponents of the nation that is the UK. For example Andy Murray and Tim Henman both have UK passports but Murray is Scottish and Henman English. Their Head of State is Queen Elizabeth and their Head of Government is Gordon Brown - although Scotland does have its own parliament with some devolved powers.

mzzmuaa
06-20-2009, 11:39 AM
Everyone knows that he's British and Scottish, but the papers love screwing with language.
The Scotts will call him Scottish if he wins and the English will call him British. When he loses, the Scotts will probably still call him Scottish, but the Brits will call him Scottish.

If murray never makes it, then England should invade Switzerland to stop their nuclear programs and civilize those brutes into UKness.

angharad
06-20-2009, 11:52 AM
That's not really how it works. You have to take into account where they were born, not just parentage. Both his parents were born in Scotland. One had two Scottish parents, while one had one Scottish parents and one English parent. It's a hell of a leap to call someone a quarter English if they were born in Scotland, to Scottish parents (both born in Scotland), with 3 Scottish grandparents.

If you're considering heritage, as you do in genealogy, than Murray's one-quarter English. He's obviously Scottish, but he has English ancestry. It's not that difficult to comprehend.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 12:06 PM
If you're considering heritage, as you do in genealogy, than Murray's one-quarter English. He's obviously Scottish, but he has English ancestry. It's not that difficult to comprehend.

Like I said, it's not just about parentage. You also have to consider where he and his family were born. If we simply went by ancestry, we'd all be African.

maximo
06-20-2009, 12:07 PM
Like I said, it's not just about parentage. You also have to consider where he and his family were born. If we simply went by ancestry, we'd all be African.

Are you British Clydey?

angharad
06-20-2009, 12:08 PM
Like I said, it's not just about parentage. You also have to consider where he and his family were born. If we simply went by ancestry, we'd all be African.

So, if my parents are both from Norway but they settle in Japan before I'm born, that makes me Japanese? Or am I Norwegian by heritage, Japanese by birth? :confused:

I'm really interested, I haven't heard this take on it before.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 12:15 PM
So, if my parents are both from Norway but they settle in Japan before I'm born, that makes me Japanese? Or am I Norwegian by heritage, Japanese by birth? :confused:

I'm really interested, I haven't heard this take on it before.

Well, that's ultimately your own choice. The point is that where you are born counts for a lot. Nationality is a complicated subject. Take this as an example. You have a man born to Scottish parents. Going back 400 years, his entire ancestry is Scottish. He goes over to America, takes a citizenship test and a piece of paper says that he's American. He now lives in America and has kids, who in turn have kids. As far as his grandchildren are concerned, he might as well never have been Scottish in the first place.

That shows you how fickle nationality is. Like I said, if we went solely by heritage, we would ALL be African.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 12:16 PM
Are you British Clydey?

Yes. I'm both Scottish and British. If I'm honest, though, I am fiercely Scottish. While I'll happily support Brits, I always have and always will describe myself as Scottish.

BigJock
06-20-2009, 12:18 PM
Like I said, it's not just about parentage. You also have to consider where he and his family were born. If we simply went by ancestry, we'd all be African.


funny you should mention that, isnt one of federers parents from south africa?

dont think too many people would see federer as 50% south african (though i may be wrong),

angharad
06-20-2009, 12:19 PM
You have a man born to Scottish parents. Going back 400 years, his entire ancestry is Scottish. He goes over to America, takes a citizenship test and a piece of paper says that he's American. He now lives in America and has kids, who in turn have kids. As far as his grandchildren are concerned, he might as well never have been Scottish in the first place.


I don't see that being the case at all, actually. Very few people I've met identify themselves as solely "American": It's Irish-American, or Japanese-American, or German-American. Heritage counts for an awful lot.

I honestly don't see where you're born as counting for that much unless you choose it. I've known people who were born on vacation in another country, and although they're technically citizens of that country, they don't consider it their birthplace.

If Murray wants to identify as all-Scottish, that's his choice. I can understand why, as his heritage is mostly Scottish and he was both born and raised there. But he does have one English grandparent and that is part of his heritage.

Cesc Fabregas
06-20-2009, 12:19 PM
Yes. I'm both Scottish and British. If I'm honest, though, I am fiercely Scottish. While I'll happily support Brits, I always have and always will describe myself as Scottish.

If Scotland don't make to the World Cup and England do do you support England?

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 12:23 PM
If Scotland don't make to the World Cup and England do do you support England?

It depends really. I initially have good intentions for the team. I find it tough to deal with the commentators, though. They make it very difficult for me to maintain my support.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 12:25 PM
I don't see that being the case at all, actually. Very few people I've met identify themselves as solely "American": It's Irish-American, or Japanese-American, or German-American. Heritage counts for an awful lot.

I honestly don't see where you're born as counting for that much unless you choose it. I've known people who were born on vacation in another country, and although they're technically citizens of that country, they don't consider it their birthplace.

If Murray wants to identify as all-Scottish, that's his choice. I can understand why, as his heritage is mostly Scottish and he was both born and raised there. But he does have one English grandparent and that is part of his heritage.

Of course heritage counts (a lot more than birth place, in my opinion), but it does not matter how you look at it. All of these people you describe as Irish-American, Japanese-American, etc. are African by your definition. How do you think someone becomes Irish? The very first Irish person wasn't born to Irish parents.

batz
06-20-2009, 12:25 PM
If Scotland don't make to the World Cup and England do do you support England?

I don't - because they're not representing Britain, they're representing England. That doesn't mean i want them to do badly, but I don't support them like I would the Lions or Team GB at the Olympics. I do support English clubs in Europe but that's not the same thing as supporting our oldest and fiercest rivals. It doesn't mean I don't like Enland or the English (my son considers himself English and is a big England fan) - it just means I don't want to see my football country's rivals do brilliantly well.

Do you ever want Spurs to do well? It's the same thing - just a football rivalry.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 12:26 PM
funny you should mention that, isnt one of federers parents from south africa?

dont think too many people would see federer as 50% south african (though i may be wrong),

That's why it comes down to choice. Federer has one Swiss parent. He obviously chose Switzerland because he was raised there.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 12:27 PM
I don't - because they're not representing Britain, they're representing England. That doesn't mean i want them to do badly, but I don't support them like I would the Lions or Team GB at the Olympics. I do support English clubs in Europe but that's not the same thing as supporting our oldest and fiercest rivals. It doesn't mean I don't like Enland or the English (my son considers himself English and is a big England fan) - it just means I don't want to see my football country's rivals do well.

Do you ever want Spurs to do well? It's the same thing.

I really try to support them. It's just the damn commentators...

Cesc Fabregas
06-20-2009, 12:28 PM
I don't - because they're not representing Britain, they're representing England. That doesn't mean i want them to do badly, but I don't support them like I would the Lions or Team GB at the Olympics. I do support English clubs in Europe but that's not the same thing as supporting our oldest and fiercest rivals. It doesn't mean I don't like Enland or the English (my son considers himself English and is a big England fan) - it just means I don't want to see my football country's rivals do brilliantly well.

Do you ever want Spurs to do well? It's the same thing.

Hell no!! Yids are unbarable.

Cesc Fabregas
06-20-2009, 12:28 PM
I really try to support them. It's just the damn commentators...

Yeah guys like Tildsley and Pleat are bad.

maximo
06-20-2009, 12:30 PM
Im a firm fan of Barnet FC.

Cesc Fabregas
06-20-2009, 12:31 PM
Im a firm fan of Barnet FC.

I go every year to the annual Arsenal Barnet friendly.

batz
06-20-2009, 12:32 PM
Hell no!! Yids are unbarable.

LOL :) There we go mate. Like I said, nothing nasty - just football. You know the score.

Re commentators - Gabriel Byrne? Absolutely does my scone in.

I guess it's a bit like British commentators at a Murray match :)

maximo
06-20-2009, 12:36 PM
I go every year to the annual Arsenal Barnet friendly.

Great for you when Arsenal score 6 times while Barnet score...

angharad
06-20-2009, 12:40 PM
Of course heritage counts (a lot more than birth place, in my opinion), but it does not matter how you look at it. All of these people you describe as Irish-American, Japanese-American, etc. are African by your definition. How do you think someone becomes Irish? The very first Irish person wasn't born to Irish parents.

Exactly, and that is my issue with heritage: Where does it end? For most people, it seems to end however far back you can trace it. Someone removed from you by two generations is a lot more immediate than someone removed from you by several millenia.

If you want to go that far back, though, then Murray's African. ;)

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 12:49 PM
Exactly, and that is my issue with heritage: Where does it end? For most people, it seems to end however far back you can trace it. Someone removed from you by two generations is a lot more immediate than someone removed from you by several millenia.

If you want to go that far back, though, then Murray's African. ;)

It doesn't matter. We are all African. Nothing we do can possibly change that. Those two people who are "more immediate" are no less African. Let's say they are Irish. What made the first Irish person Irish in the first place?

angharad
06-20-2009, 01:01 PM
It doesn't matter. We are all African. Nothing we do can possibly change that. Those two people who are "more immediate" are no less African. Let's say they are Irish. What made the first Irish person Irish in the first place?

Who was the first Irish person?

batz
06-20-2009, 01:02 PM
It doesn't matter. We are all African. Nothing we do can possibly change that. Those two people who are "more immediate" are no less African. Let's say they are Irish. What made the first Irish person Irish in the first place?

I think the point that he/she is making is that you cannot trace your lineage back to Africa (well, i'm guessing you can't). That is not to say that **** sapiens did not come out of Africa - of course we did.

You are talking over very long timescale Clydey, whereas you'll be hard pressed to track your lineage more than a few centuries. Heck, some of the guys on this board live in Countries that aren't even that old ;)

Commando Tennis Shorts
06-20-2009, 01:09 PM
Don't know how true this is, but I had read (of course, I don't remember where it was now) that early in his career, Murray caught a lot of flak and prejudice against him from English Brits b/c he was from Scotland and representing Britain as a whole, and some English folks wanted a champion from England, not Scotland. Interesting, b/c I bet a lot of those English haters are now jumping on his bandwagon and accepting him as their representative, but I wonder how Murray feels about this.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 01:14 PM
I think the point that he/she is making is that you cannot trace your lineage back to Africa (well, i'm guessing you can't). That is not to say that **** sapiens did not come out of Africa - of course we did.

You are talking over very long timescale Clydey, whereas you'll be hard pressed to track your lineage more than a few centuries. Heck, some of the guys on this board live in Countries that aren't even that old ;)

That's the point, Batz. He is saying that it is only heritage that matters. If that were true, we would all be 100% African. The first Irish person was not born to Irish parents, for example. The point I'm making is that heritage is only part of what defines a person's nationality.

I don't know what it is that you guys aren't getting about what I'm saying.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 01:15 PM
Who was the first Irish person?

I have no idea and it's not relevant. The point is that the first Irish person was not born to Irish parents.

batz
06-20-2009, 01:20 PM
That's the point, Batz. He is saying that it is only heritage that matters. If that were true, we would all be 100% African. The first Irish person was not born to Irish parents, for example. The point I'm making is that heritage is only part of what defines a person's nationality.

I don't know what it is that you guys aren't getting about what I'm saying.

Are you sure you mean nationality rather than ethnicity? Blood and Geography are pretty much the only criteria I can think of for determining nationality (where you were born and who your forebears are) but if you're talking about ethnicity then that is a far more nuanced concept and I agree with you completely.

angharad
06-20-2009, 01:21 PM
That's the point, Batz. He is saying that it is only heritage that matters. If that were true, we would all be 100% African. The first Irish person was not born to Irish parents, for example. The point I'm making is that heritage is only part of what defines a person's nationality.

I don't know what it is that you guys aren't getting about what I'm saying.

First of all, I'm a she.

Second of all, I've never said that only heritage matters. I've said that it's a large part, but not all. I even agreed with you quite some time ago - a person has the right to choose on the basis of heritage and birthplace, although I added that they can't gloss over or ignore heritage entirely. I'm not sure what you don't or won't understand about that.

Feņa14
06-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Don't know how true this is, but I had read (of course, I don't remember where it was now) that early in his career, Murray caught a lot of flak and prejudice against him from English Brits b/c he was from Scotland and representing Britain as a whole, and some English folks wanted a champion from England, not Scotland. Interesting, b/c I bet a lot of those English haters are now jumping on his bandwagon and accepting him as their representative, but I wonder how Murray feels about this.

Nah not true, the only real controversy he caused was when he was doing an interview with Henman before the World Cup in 2006. Henman and the Interviewer were giving him a bit of banter about Scotland not being at the World Cup and he gave it back by saying he'd be supporting whoever England played :)

Obviously, when you see that written down on paper then people might take it the wrong way. In reality though this kind of thing goes on between the English and Scots across offices and pubs everyday and it's just harmless fun. I'm good friends with Jonnyf from here and everytime we talk there is always some of the usual Scottish/English banter! It's all in good spirit.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 01:23 PM
Are you sure you mean nationality rather than ethnicity? Blood and Geography are pretty much the only criteria I can think of for determining nationality (where you were born and who your forebears are) but if you're talking about ethnicity then that is a far more nuanced concept and I agree with you completely.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Nationality is not defined by one factor. That's why it's not accurate to say that Murray is 1/4 English.

If we're talking only blood, everyone is African. It doesn't matter how you look at it.

malakas
06-20-2009, 01:24 PM
This is getting interesting now :)

roughly 2/3rds of the bottom end of Britain is England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

Re the 2nd question in bold - the answer is quite contentious. It all depends on your defintion of 'nation'. I think in truly technical terms, neither England or Scotland are sovereign states - they are subcomponents of the nation that is the UK. For example Andy Murray and Tim Henman both have UK passports but Murray is Scottish and Henman English. Their Head of State is Queen Elizabeth and their Head of Government is Gordon Brown - although Scotland does have its own parliament with some devolved powers.

No,I don't think that nation is the same as official nationality.I mean,do they consider themselves(yourselves) as a different nation?For example Palestines are a different nation but they dont' have a country.

I believe in the right to choose yourself your nationality(I don't know the exact english term).Like Clydey says,if he thinks he's scottish and speaks the english language and has the scottish culture it doesn't matter if he lives in America and has american passport.That's my opinion and that's what I ask.Do Scottish people think themselves as a separate nation??

malakas
06-20-2009, 01:25 PM
Are you sure you mean nationality rather than ethnicity? Blood and Geography are pretty much the only criteria I can think of for determining nationality (where you were born and who your forebears are) but if you're talking about ethnicity then that is a far more nuanced concept and I agree with you completely.

what's the difference??:confused:

Nation=ethnos in greek,so exactly it means nationality=ethnicity!!

Commando Tennis Shorts
06-20-2009, 01:26 PM
Nah not true, the only real controversy he caused was when he was doing an interview with Henman before the World Cup in 2006. Henman and the Interviewer were giving him a bit of banter about Scotland not being at the World Cup and he gave it back by saying he'd be supporting whoever England played :)

Obviously, when you see that written down on paper then people might take it the wrong way. In reality though this kind of thing goes on between the English and Scots across offices and pubs everyday and it's just harmless fun. I'm good friends with Jonnyf from here and everytime we talk there is always some of the usual Scottish/English banter! It's all in good spirit.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

Blinkism
06-20-2009, 01:30 PM
Like I said, it's not just about parentage. You also have to consider where he and his family were born. If we simply went by ancestry, we'd all be African.

Yeah, some of his family does come from Newcastle, according to Murray.

So he does have roots in England, although he is mostly Scottish. He said he is equally proud of both and his girlfriend is English.

So to characterize him as being Scottish and only Scottish wouldn't be fully correct.

He's a Scottish man with some English Heritage, and of British citizenship.
How's that sound?

Don't know how true this is, but I had read (of course, I don't remember where it was now) that early in his career, Murray caught a lot of flak and prejudice against him from English Brits b/c he was from Scotland and representing Britain as a whole, and some English folks wanted a champion from England, not Scotland. Interesting, b/c I bet a lot of those English haters are now jumping on his bandwagon and accepting him as their representative, but I wonder how Murray feels about this.

This is a good point. I mean, Bunny Austin, Fred Perry, Tim Henman; all ENGLISH tennis heroes. Now we have this Scottish guy, and so what the ENGLISH want is a BRITISH tennis champ all of a sudden.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 01:31 PM
First of all, I'm a she.

Second of all, I've never said that only heritage matters. I've said that it's a large part, but not all. I even agreed with you quite some time ago - a person has the right to choose on the basis of heritage and birthplace, although I added that they can't gloss over or ignore heritage entirely. I'm not sure what you don't or won't understand about that.

Heritage, as you see it, is largely defined by a person's birthplace. You cannot overlook the importance of one's birthplace. Why? Because nationality is a social construction. The very first Irish person was not born to Irish parents and had no Irish heritage. What, therefore, made him or her Irish?

Blinkism
06-20-2009, 01:33 PM
That's exactly what I'm saying. Nationality is not defined by one factor. That's why it's not accurate to say that Murray is 1/4 English.

If we're talking only blood, everyone is African. It doesn't matter how you look at it.

When I said he's 1/4 English I just meant he has 1 English Grandparent.

I consider ethnicity a genetic thing, and nationality a political thing. So he'd be, ethnically speaking, 3/4 Scottish and 1/4 English, and his nationality would be Scottish... and he is a British Subject/Citizen.

That's how I look at it.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 01:33 PM
Yeah, some of his family does come from Newcastle, according to Murray.

So he does have roots in England, although he is mostly Scottish. He said he is equally proud of both and his girlfriend is English.

So to characterize him as being Scottish and only Scottish wouldn't be fully correct.

He's a Scottish man with some English Heritage, and of British citizenship.
How's that sound?



Well, he's Scottish and British. I don't think that's in dispute.

malakas
06-20-2009, 01:36 PM
When I said he's 1/4 English I just meant he has 1 English Grandparent.

I consider ethnicity a genetic thing, and nationality a political thing. So he'd be, ethnically speaking, 3/4 Scottish and 1/4 English, and his nationality would be Scottish... and he is a British Subject/Citizen.

That's how I look at it.

genetic thing??!Like there is an american gene,a english gene,a greek gene??

batz
06-20-2009, 01:36 PM
No,I don't think that nation is the same as official nationality.I mean,do they consider themselves(yourselves) as a different nation?For example Palestines are a different nation but they dont' have a country.

I believe in the right to choose yourself your nationality(I don't know the exact english term).Like Clydey says,if he thinks he's scottish and speaks the english language and has the scottish culture it doesn't matter if he lives in America and has american passport.That's my opinion and that's what I ask.Do Scottish people think themselves as a separate nation??

I can only speak for this Scottish person.

I see Scotland as a separate country but if pushed, not a separate nation, but purely because I have a less fluid definition of 'nation' than the one you are using - although I'll contradict that now by saying again I'm happy to describe myself as Scottish and British. It's complicated.

There is much debate in Scotland at moment about breaking away from the UK and goinf it alone. The Nationalists are in (minority) power at the Scottish parliament and their leader is a quite a popular guy. An independence referendum has been mooted but I'm not sure it will happen anytime soon. Support for full indpendence usually sits around the 30- 35% mark in the opinion polls.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 01:36 PM
When I said he's 1/4 English I just meant he has 1 English Grandparent.

I consider ethnicity a genetic thing, and nationality a political thing. So he'd be, ethnically speaking, 3/4 Scottish and 1/4 English, and his nationality would be Scottish... and he is a British Subject/Citizen.

That's how I look at it.

Ethnically, he's 100% African. We all are. You can't isolate one factor, as they are intrexicably linked.

I mean, that isn't how we look at it. As a Scotsman, I don't identify with Africans. I am culturally Scottish. I was born to parents who are culturally Scottish and I am proud of that. It's a complicated subject and it's tough to get one's head round it.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 01:39 PM
genetic thing??!Like there is an american gene,a english gene,a greek gene??

No, there isn't. We're talking about a lot of different factors.

batz
06-20-2009, 01:41 PM
Ethnically, he's 100% African. We all are. You can't isolate one factor, as they are intrexicably linked.

I mean, that isn't how we look at it. As a Scotsman, I don't identify with Africans. I am culturally Scottish. I was born to parents who are culturally Scottish and I am proud of that. It's a complicated subject and it's tough to get one's head round it.

No he isn't. He might be genetically 100% of African origin, but we aren't all ethnic Africans.


The very first sentence on the Wiki entry for Ethnic Group:

An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed.[1][2]


Genetics are hard-wired. Ethnicity is not.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

We are all linked genetically, not ethnically.

angharad
06-20-2009, 01:42 PM
The very first Irish person was not born to Irish parents and had no Irish heritage. What, therefore, made him or her Irish?

And once again: Who do you consider to be the very first Irish person? What and when are we defining as Ireland?

And one more question for you: I believe Murray currently lives in Surrey. If he were to remain there, and have a child born there, would you consider that child English or Scottish?

I have to imagine that, with your emphasis on birthplace, that child would be English, correct?

malakas
06-20-2009, 01:42 PM
No, there isn't. We're talking about a lot of different factors.

...So..what's the difference between ethnicity and nationality?Because in my language they are the same.:neutral:

You ....english speakers!!Always inventing new words to devide people up in more ways!:rolleyes:
Caucasian-Hispanic
Ethnicity-Nationality

malakas
06-20-2009, 01:45 PM
I can only speak for this Scottish person.

I see Scotland as a separate country but if pushed, not a separate nation, but purely because I have a less fluid definition of 'nation' than the one you are using - although I'll contradict that now by saying again I'm happy to describe myself as Scottish and British. It's complicated.

There is much debate in Scotland at moment about breaking away from the UK and goinf it alone. The Nationalists are in (minority) power at the Scottish parliament and their leader is a quite a popular guy. An independence referendum has been mooted but I'm not sure it will happen anytime soon. Support for full indpendence usually sits around the 30- 35% mark in the opinion polls.


a different country..but not a different nation!Interesting!
So,the situation is not like the Catalans exactly,no?You have the same culture and national identity with english?

batz
06-20-2009, 01:45 PM
...So..what's the difference between ethnicity and nationality?Because in my language they are the same.:neutral:

You ....english speakers!!Always inventing new words to devide people up in more ways!:rolleyes:
Caucasian-Hispanic
Ethnicity-Nationality

See the Wiki link I posted Malakas.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 01:46 PM
No he isn't. He might be genetically 100% of African origin, but we aren't all ethnic Africans.


The very first sentence on the Wiki entry for Ethnic Group:

An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed.[1][2]


Genetics are hard-wired. Ethnicity is not.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

That depends on how you define heritage. There are various ways to define it. When I think of heritage, I think of genetics. Ethnicity, as some define it, is a social construction.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 01:49 PM
...So..what's the difference between ethnicity and nationality?Because in my language they are the same.:neutral:

You ....english speakers!!Always inventing new words to devide people up in more ways!:rolleyes:
Caucasian-Hispanic
Ethnicity-Nationality

It really depends on how you define it. It's a bit like the difference between "sex" and "gender". There are various ways to define ethnicity. Basically, it is seen as separate from race, which is seen as purely genetic. Ethnicity can refer to culture, race, etc. It's basically about how one identifies oneself.

malakas
06-20-2009, 01:52 PM
See the Wiki link I posted Malakas.

From WIKI:
A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory
An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed

I don't see any real difference,except that a nation TYPICALLY inhabits a particular country.
Am I really stupid here?:confused:

batz
06-20-2009, 01:52 PM
a different country..but not a different nation!Interesting!
So,the situation is not like the Catalans exactly,no?You have the same culture and national identity with english?


Yes and No. :)

There are things that could be described as culturally British that both countries subscribe to, and there are things that are specifically culturally Scottish and English.

We have the same National identity with the English at the British level. This is ususally seen now in sport. But we are most united and at our 'most British' when our little island is under threat.

told you it was complicated.

Can I just state my admiration for you on discovering you are not a native English speaker. You polyglots put most of us Brits to shame.

batz
06-20-2009, 01:58 PM
From WIKI:
A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory
An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or presumed

I don't see any real difference,except that a nation TYPICALLY inhabits a particular country.
Am I really stupid here?:confused:

Not at all, but we're talking about Nationality rather than Nation - if you see what I mean.

From Wiki:

Nationality is the relationship between a person and their state of origin, culture, association, affiliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality

So whilst Nation is quite anlalogous to Ethnic Group, Nationility is not; as it as a much more narrowly defined concept.

hope that makes sense.

Fascinating thread BTW!

batz
06-20-2009, 01:59 PM
That depends on how you define heritage. There are various ways to define it. When I think of heritage, I think of genetics. Ethnicity, as some define it, is a social construction.



That's how I see it Clydey. There's an element of selection with ethnicity that doesn't apply to genetics.

agree that all can be filed under 'heritage' though

Feņa14
06-20-2009, 02:00 PM
And once again: Who do you consider to be the very first Irish person? What and when are we defining as Ireland?

And one more question for you: I believe Murray currently lives in Surrey. If he were to remain there, and have a child born there, would you consider that child English or Scottish?

I have to imagine that, with your emphasis on birthplace, that child would be English, correct?

Probably yeah, if he was born in England and had an English Mother.

My Dad is from Ireland and Mom is from England, but I was born in England and have lived here all my life so i'm English/British in my eyes.

batz
06-20-2009, 02:04 PM
Probably yeah, if he was born in England and had an English Mother.

My Dad is from Ireland and Mom is from England, but I was born in England and have lived here all my life so i'm English/British in my eyes.

Can I also add that my 18 year old son sees himself as English becasue of where he was born and grew up. His Mother and I are both Scottish but he was born in Portsmouth and has grown up there.

I'm sick of buying him the latest England football tops every year :);)

Dedans Penthouse
06-20-2009, 02:05 PM
It doesn't matter. We are all African. Nothing we do can possibly change that. Those two people who are "more immediate" are no less African. Let's say they are Irish. What made the first Irish person Irish in the first place?

Who was the first Irish person?

Shaquille O'Neal

malakas
06-20-2009, 02:06 PM
Yes and No. :)

There are things that could be described as culturally British that both countries subscribe to, and there are things that are specifically culturally Scottish and English.

We have the same National identity with the English at the British level. This is ususally seen now in sport. But we are most united and at our 'most British' when our little island is under threat.

told you it was complicated.

Can I just state my admiration for you on discovering you are not a native English speaker. You polyglots put most of us Brits to shame.

so it is more a ..regional identity?Like i.e all people from the island of Crete,the Cretans have their regional identity,but also are greeks?Like all the people from Bavaria,are Bavarians but also Germans?Still you have some specific elements of culture and history,but you don't consider yourselves as a different entity.Only a subcategory of the british citizen.

That's quite different than the Catalans,who have a differente language,different history,think themselves as a different group and most of them actively want to be separatated.

HA!Thanx Rob!And yet all these years and expensive lessons studying english,and still can grasp basic words as ethnicity!:rolleyes:

Feņa14
06-20-2009, 02:08 PM
Can I also add that my 18 year old son sees himself as English becasue of where he was born and grew up. His Mother and I are both Scottish but he was born in Portsmouth and has grown up there.

I'm sick of buying him the latest England football tops every year :);)

Well let's face it, by living in Portsmouth he is closer to France than Scotland!
It could be worse ;)

malakas
06-20-2009, 02:09 PM
And once again: Who do you consider to be the very first Irish person? What and when are we defining as Ireland?

And one more question for you: I believe Murray currently lives in Surrey. If he were to remain there, and have a child born there, would you consider that child English or Scottish?

I have to imagine that, with your emphasis on birthplace, that child would be English, correct?

hmmm.Well all the indoeuropeans have the same root,so when the first generations of indoeuropeans inhabited ireland they weren't irish.Irish doesn't mean ONLY that you come from ireland,but also that you drink a lot,have red hair,sing well :p hehe etc etc..meaning all these little details that make up irish culture.Also there wasn't a history behind them.They had no identity as a separate ethnic group.So,the first person to be born in Ireland,no he wasn't irish.Simply because the essense of what an irish was,wasn't developed yet.

I hope I make sense.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:12 PM
And once again: Who do you consider to be the very first Irish person? What and when are we defining as Ireland?

And one more question for you: I believe Murray currently lives in Surrey. If he were to remain there, and have a child born there, would you consider that child English or Scottish?

I have to imagine that, with your emphasis on birthplace, that child would be English, correct?

Certainly. The child would be more English than Scottish. Again, it comes down to choice, though. Rod Stewart, for example, wasn't born in Scotland but considers himself Scottish because his whole family is Scottish.

And again, you just do not seem to be getting this. It doesn't matter when and it doesn't matter where. The point is that the first Irish person had no Irish ancestors.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:14 PM
so it is more a ..regional identity?Like i.e all people from the island of Crete,the Cretans have their regional identity,but also are greeks?Like all the people from Bavaria,are Bavarians but also Germans?Still you have some specific elements of culture and history,but you don't consider yourselves as a different entity.Only a subcategory of the british citizen.

That's quite different than the Catalans,who have a differente language,different history,think themselves as a different group and most of them actively want to be separatated.

HA!Thanx Rob!And yet all these years and expensive lessons studying english,and still can grasp basic words as ethnicity!:rolleyes:

Scotland and England have completely different histories. Scotland has existed as a country long before it became a part of Great Britain. Great Britain is a union of different countries.

batz
06-20-2009, 02:16 PM
so it is more a ..regional identity?Like i.e all people from the island of Crete,the Cretans have their regional identity,but also are greeks?Like all the people from Bavaria,are Bavarians but also Germans?Still you have some specific elements of culture and history,but you don't consider yourselves as a different entity.Only a subcategory of the british citizen.

That's quite different than the Catalans,who have a differente language,different history,think themselves as a different group and most of them actively want to be separatated.

HA!Thanx Rob!And yet all these years and expensive lessons studying english,and still can grasp basic words as ethnicity!:rolleyes:

Again it's complicated. There are a significant number of Scots who would probably diasgree with me and see themselves as solely Scottish. They would argue that Scotland was its own independent country before the Act of Union (1707) and would vehemenly reject their British nationality.

malakas
06-20-2009, 02:17 PM
Scotland and England have completely different histories. Scotland has existed as a country long before it became a part of Great Britain. Great Britain is a union of different countries.

of different countries??Great Britain can only be 1 country,perhaps with more nations yes,but only 1 country.Like USA,is only 1 country.

so Clydey,do YOU consider that scotland is a different nation than england?Because maybe you disagree with batz..The way I have understood it batz,says that scotland is not a different nation,only a regional identity.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:18 PM
Again it's complicated. There are a significant number of Scots who would probably diasgree with me and see themselves as solely Scottish. They would argue that Scotland was its own independent country before the Act of Union (1707) and would vehemenly reject their British nationality.

That's how I'm inclined to look at it. It has nothing to do with hating my British identity, though. I'm just a fiercely patriotic Scot. As far as I'm concerned, I am 100% Scottish. The fact is that I'm legally British, though.

batz
06-20-2009, 02:19 PM
Scotland and England have completely different histories. Scotland has existed as a country long before it became a part of Great Britain. Great Britain is a union of different countries.


Is that really correct Clydey? The histories of England and Scotland have been pretty inter-twined since around the 12th century in some way shape or form.

batz
06-20-2009, 02:20 PM
That's how I'm inclined to look at it. It has nothing to do with hating my British identity, though. I'm just a fiercely patriotic Scot. As far as I'm concerned, I am 100% Scottish. The fact is that I'm legally British, though.


And that is entirely your right my friend, a right that I would defend to the death.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:21 PM
of different countries??Great Britain can only be 1 country,perhaps with more nations yes,but only 1 country.Like USA,is only 1 country.

so Clydey,do YOU consider that scotland is a different nation than england?Because maybe you disagree with batz..The way I have understood it batz,says that scotland is not a different nation,only a regional identity.

Like Batz said, it's down to how each person interprets it. Yes, I consider Scotland to be a different nation. Scotland didn't suddenly stop being a country when it became a part of Great Britain. It was a country long before that even occurred.

crosscourt
06-20-2009, 02:21 PM
Scotland and England have completely different histories. Scotland has existed as a country long before it became a part of Great Britain. Great Britain is a union of different countries.

"Completely different" goes a bit far. The Act of Union is now something like 300 years old. In 1603 we had a common monarch. There is a long tradition of cultural and political interaction between Scotland and England, both nationally and individually, and for hundreds of years England and Scotland have in their politics been significantly/predominantly concerned with their relationship with each other.

angharad
06-20-2009, 02:23 PM
And again, you just do not seem to be getting this. It doesn't matter when and it doesn't matter where. The point is that the first Irish person had no Irish ancestors.

And again, you don't seem to be getting this. There was no "first Irish person", so your point is moot. If you're unwilling to define who you consider to be the first Irish person, I can't answer your question.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:23 PM
Is that really correct Clydey? The histories of England and Scotland have been pretty inter-twined since around the 12th century in some way shape or form.

They are linked, but they have different histories. Real Madrid and Barcelona are forever linked, but they have separate histories. Scotland and England are linked throughout history precisely because they are different countries.

pound cat
06-20-2009, 02:24 PM
Scotland and England have completely different histories. Scotland has existed as a country long before it became a part of Great Britain. Great Britain is a union of different countries.


The English and the Scottish share the same kind of teeth. That's about it.


On the other hand Scottish regiments wear skirts, but so do some Greek soldiers. The English don't. So maybe they are in fact closer to Hellas than to England.


I have to ponder that for a while.....

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:24 PM
And again, you don't seem to be getting this. There was no "first Irish person", so your point is moot. If you're unwilling to define who you consider to be the first Irish person, I can't answer your question.

If there was no first Irish person, there is no such thing as an Irish person. That is where your logic leads us.

How can I possibly tell you who the first Irish person is? It is entirely irrelevant to the question. I was making a point.

crosscourt
06-20-2009, 02:24 PM
of different countries??Great Britain can only be 1 country,perhaps with more nations yes,but only 1 country.Like USA,is only 1 country.

so Clydey,do YOU consider that scotland is a different nation than england?Because maybe you disagree with batz..The way I have understood it batz,says that scotland is not a different nation,only a regional identity.

I think Great Britain is a union of three countries -- England, Scotland and Wales. Of these, Wales is by far the most important having given us our greatest figures. From St. Augustine to Alfred the Great, from Shakespeare to Winston Churchill. All Welsh. Don't believe what you read in the textbooks -- written by the English who will say they were English. They really were all Welsh.

batz
06-20-2009, 02:26 PM
They are linked, but they have different histories. Real Madrid and Barcelona are forever linked, but they have separate histories. Scotland and England are linked throughout history precisely because they are different countries.


I think you're stretching the analogy a bit there mate.

Put it this way; how easy would it be to write a short history of Scotland with mentioning England - a lot?

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:26 PM
"Completely different" goes a bit far. The Act of Union is now something like 300 years old. In 1603 we had a common monarch. There is a long tradition of cultural and political interaction between Scotland and England, both nationally and individually, and for hundreds of years England and Scotland have in their politics been significantly/predominantly concerned with their relationship with each other.

When I said "completely different" I was not suggesting that they are not linked throughout history. My point is that Scotland and England were separate countries for longer than they have been part of the same country. As separate countries, they cannot possibly have the same history.

malakas
06-20-2009, 02:27 PM
Like Batz said, it's down to how each person interprets it. Yes, I consider Scotland to be a different nation. Scotland didn't suddenly stop being a country when it became a part of Great Britain. It was a country long before that even occurred.

yes of course of course.Though it is very interesting and can only add to the discussion to see both opinions on this.:) Even the fact that you have this opinion,and there are others like you (30% separatists ? ) is an indicator to me,that scotland is a separate nation and not just regional identity.Because even if a fraction,though it's pretty big that 30%, think that they are a separate nation,then even this 30% are a separate nation and have the right to be called one.

batz
06-20-2009, 02:27 PM
I think Great Britain is a union of three countries -- England, Scotland and Wales. Of these, Wales is by far the most important having given us our greatest figures. From St. Augustine to Alfred the Great, from Shakespeare to Winston Churchill. All Welsh. Don't believe what you read in the textbooks -- written by the English who will say they were English. They really were all Welsh.

Right Taffy - enough of the fantasies. :)

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:30 PM
I think you're stretching the analogy a bit there mate.

Put it this way; how easy would it be to write a short history of Scotland with mentioning England - a lot?

You couldn't. It's not relevant, though. You've missed the point. They were separate countries. Therefore, they have separate histories.

Different in this case means separate. They are linked throughout history, but that does not mean they have the same history.

crosscourt
06-20-2009, 02:30 PM
When I said "completely different" I was not suggesting that they are not linked throughout history. My point is that Scotland and England were separate countries for longer than they have been part of the same country. As separate countries, they cannot possibly have the same history.


No two places have exactly the same history. England and Scotland have been in a Union for hundreds of years. They aren't completely different. They are of course different, they have been very different for long periods.

malakas
06-20-2009, 02:31 PM
I think Great Britain is a union of three countries -- England, Scotland and Wales. Of these, Wales is by far the most important having given us our greatest figures. From St. Augustine to Alfred the Great, from Shakespeare to Winston Churchill. All Welsh. Don't believe what you read in the textbooks -- written by the English who will say they were English. They really were all Welsh.

haha and why I believe this is an objective opinion!?!:mrgreen:

well..worldwide uk is considered as one country,same as america or germany,who like you have separate states.Maybe there are more than 1 nation,but since you have the same central government,the same nationality paper and the same passport then you're one country as far the UN is concerned!

I like Welsh people!One of my most sympathetical actors is a typical Welsh!

crosscourt
06-20-2009, 02:31 PM
Right Taffy - enough of the fantasies. :)

Don't forget that the drafts of most of Churchill's great speeches were first composed in Welsh. The language of dreams.

pound cat
06-20-2009, 02:32 PM
The English and the Scottish share the same kind of teeth. That's about it.


On the other hand Scottish regiments wear skirts, but so do some Greek soldiers. The English don't. So maybe they are in fact closer to Hellas than to England.


I have to ponder that for a while.....

batz
06-20-2009, 02:33 PM
yes of course of course.Though it is very interesting and can only add to the discussion to see both opinions on this.:) Even the fact that you have this opinion,and there are others like you (30% separatists ? ) is an indicator to me,that scotland is a separate nation and not just regional identity.Because even if a fraction,though it's pretty big that 30%, think that they are a separate nation,then even this 30% are a separate nation and have the right to be called one.

Clydey - are you a separatist (for the record I'm not)? It is an entirely reasonable assumption that Mal has made but it is interesting that I'm having to ask you this question as I know plenty of people who hold exactly the same views as you on their identity but wouldn't vote for Independence (poor Malakas; that will probably just confuse matters more - just when he thought he had everything figured out! We are a complicated bunch):)

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:33 PM
No two places have exactly the same history. England and Scotland have been in a Union for hundreds of years. They aren't completely different. They are of course different, they have been very different for long periods.

I said they had completely different histories. That doesn't mean that they are not linked throughout history. However, they have separate histories. As part of the union, you could argue that they are the same and now have the same history.

The point is that they were separate countries long before the union.

Crayola Oblongata
06-20-2009, 02:33 PM
Don't forget that the drafts of most of Churchill's great speeches were first composed in Welsh. The language of dreams.

Hahaha! The language of dreams!!:)

Blinkism
06-20-2009, 02:33 PM
genetic thing??!Like there is an american gene,a english gene,a greek gene??

Well it's a blood thing, a genetic thing, a genealogical thing, what have you. You know what I mean.

Being 1/4 English doesn't make Murray an Englishman by nationality, is what I was getting at. He is still of English descent and Scottish descent so calling him British is a good catch-all term.

Fitting for Murray.

He is, however, still considered Scottish by most people, it seems. Which is fair.

malakas
06-20-2009, 02:33 PM
No two places have exactly the same history. England and Scotland have been in a Union for hundreds of years. They aren't completely different. They are of course different, they have been very different for long periods.

but how many years were they separated?More than 300?

Greece and the Balkan states,were under ottoman turkish regime for more than 400 years.That doesn't mean,that they have the same history,or that they suddendly lose their identity,because they have been unified for almost half a millenia.

batz
06-20-2009, 02:34 PM
The English and the Scottish share the same kind of teeth. That's about it.


On the other hand Scottish regiments wear skirts, but so do some Greek soldiers. The English don't. So maybe they are in fact closer to Hellas than to England.


I have to ponder that for a while.....

ROFPMSL Genius!

BigJock
06-20-2009, 02:34 PM
And once again: Who do you consider to be the very first Irish person? What and when are we defining as Ireland?

And one more question for you: I believe Murray currently lives in Surrey. If he were to remain there, and have a child born there, would you consider that child English or Scottish?

I have to imagine that, with your emphasis on birthplace, that child would be English, correct?

ofcourse, that child would be considerd english (and rightly so),

although , Andy being a Scot would probably insist on nipping up the road for
the birth (on Scottish soil):)

would you consider that child 50% english and 50% scottish?

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:35 PM
yes of course of course.Though it is very interesting and can only add to the discussion to see both opinions on this.:) Even the fact that you have this opinion,and there are others like you (30% separatists ? ) is an indicator to me,that scotland is a separate nation and not just regional identity.Because even if a fraction,though it's pretty big that 30%, think that they are a separate nation,then even this 30% are a separate nation and have the right to be called one.

Clydey - are a separatist (for the record I'm not)? It is an entirely reasonable assumption that Mal has made but it is interesting that I'm having to ask you this question as I know plenty of people who hold exactly the same views as you on their identity but wouldn't vote for Independence (poor Malakas; that will probably just confuse matters more - just when he thought he had everything figured out! We are a complicated bunch):)

Not necessarily. I'm all about what's best for Scotland. I don't want us to merely survive on our own. I want us to prosper. Unfortunately, sociology and psychology are my calling, not politics. I don't know enough about the politics to know whether Scotland would prosper without the union.

OJ ROD
06-20-2009, 02:35 PM
Scot = Brit, Brit not always = Scot. Murray = Scot, therefore Murray = Brit.

Way to break down. LOL

malakas
06-20-2009, 02:36 PM
The English and the Scottish share the same kind of teeth. That's about it.


On the other hand Scottish regiments wear skirts, but so do some Greek soldiers. The English don't. So maybe they are in fact closer to Hellas than to England.


I have to ponder that for a while.....

But Greeks have better teeth.So no relation!!!:p

malakas
06-20-2009, 02:38 PM
Clydey - are you a separatist (for the record I'm not)? It is an entirely reasonable assumption that Mal has made but it is interesting that I'm having to ask you this question as I know plenty of people who hold exactly the same views as you on their identity but wouldn't vote for Independence (poor Malakas; that will probably just confuse matters more - just when he thought he had everything figured out! We are a complicated bunch):)

haha no.What someone votes,and what someone believes can be two quite different things.Who in their right mind,would vote for a separation,when they have the benefits of a uk citizen??
and it's a she.:)

batz
06-20-2009, 02:38 PM
[QUOTE=batz;3581423]

Not necessarily. I'm all about what's best for Scotland. I don't want us to merely survive on our own. I want us to prosper. Unfortunately, sociology and psychology are my calling, not politics. I don't know enough about the politics to know whether Scotland would prosper without the union.

I knew it!

Just the pragmatic answer I expected.

Malakas - more grist for the mill that is Scottish/English/Welsh/Irish/British history and culture.:)

crosscourt
06-20-2009, 02:39 PM
haha and why I believe this is an objective opinion!?!:mrgreen:

well..worldwide uk is considered as one country,same as america or germany,who like you have separate states.Maybe there are more than 1 nation,but since you have the same central government,the same nationality paper and the same passport then you're one country as far the UN is concerned!

I like Welsh people!One of my most sympathetical actors is a typical Welsh!

The UK is a sovereign state. It has international legal personality as such. But England, Scotland and Wales are separate countries. The UK today is developed from the historical United Kingdom which represented a particular monarchical relationship between one person -- the king or queen -- and a number of different countries.

The US and Germany are one country and are sovereign states. Both are also federal states. This doesn't bear on the point. Ohio is not a country. Scotland and Wales both are.

batz
06-20-2009, 02:39 PM
haha no.What someone votes,and what someone believes can be two quite different things.Who in their right mind,would vote for a separation,when they have the benefits of a uk citizen??
and it's a she.:)


:oops: Please accept my apologies Malakas.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:40 PM
I knew it!

Just the pragmatic answer I expected.

Malakas - more grist for the mill that is Scottish/English/Welsh/Irish/British history and culture.:)

Was my answer a bad one? :shock: I don't get it.

Dedans Penthouse
06-20-2009, 02:40 PM
Speaking of Irish, I would like to **** the living **** out of The Coors.

crosscourt
06-20-2009, 02:40 PM
but how many years were they separated?More than 300?

Greece and the Balkan states,were under ottoman turkish regime for more than 400 years.That doesn't mean,that they have the same history,or that they suddendly lose their identity,because they have been unified for almost half a millenia.

If you have been together for 300 years, it's difficult to say that you are completely different.

malakas
06-20-2009, 02:42 PM
The UK is a sovereign state. It has international legal personality as such. But England, Scotland and Wales are separate countries. The UK today is developed from the historical United Kingdom which represented a particular monarchical relationship between one person -- the king or queen -- and a number of different countries.

The US and Germany are one country and are sovereign states. Both are also federal states. This doesn't bear on the point. Ohio is not a country. Scotland and Wales both are.

If I say I understand this,I would lie.Honestly.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:43 PM
If you have been together for 300 years, it's difficult to say that you are completely different.

I didn't say they were completely different. They obviously aren't. I said they had completely different histories. And that is exactly what I meant. They are separate countries. Logic dictates that they have separate histories. You thought I was glossing over their relationship throughout history. I wasn't.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:44 PM
ah phuck it...why bother arguing.

Nice ax-of-whimsy... 'pence-baby. :rolleyes:

I thought your reply was funny. No need to feel bad. :)

Dedans Penthouse
06-20-2009, 02:44 PM
double post-sorry

batz
06-20-2009, 02:45 PM
Was my answer a bad one? :shock: I don't get it.


No! The complete opposite mate. I was impressed with your answer - It showed that although you describe yourself as 100% Scottish, it doesn't neccesarily follow that you are a seperatist.

hope that clears things up.

malakas
06-20-2009, 02:46 PM
If you have been together for 300 years, it's difficult to say that you are completely different.

oh haha what means COMPLETELY different?We have the same national sport,and no it's not football.It's backgammon!:mrgreen:We drink the same coffee.We dance the same way-:roll: - but..
at the same time,we have a lot in common with Italians, i.e one of the most important identity components : swear vocabulary.We have a lot in common with spanish,and also portuguese.Yet never been unified.It's difficult to find a nation,that we are completely different from,since we are all humans,in a world of globalisation.

Clydey2times
06-20-2009, 02:47 PM
No! The complete opposite mate. I was impressed with your answer - I believed that although you describe yourself as 100% Scottish, it doesn't neccesarily follow that you are a seperatist and you confirmed this.

hope that clears things up.

Oh, I see. Fair enough, mate.

jaggy
06-20-2009, 04:19 PM
The closest comparison for Scotland and England would be whites and blacks in America.

A few Scots hate the English, most dont mind them but none trust them. Similar with blacks towards whites.

Cue the denial.

ClubHoUno
06-20-2009, 04:53 PM
Murray is British, im British, and He's gonna win WimbledoN!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lVzmtPHBr8

You're British just like I'm Scandinavian - so I root for all the countries in Scandinavia. But still you're English and Murray is Scottish - and NO Murray will not win Wimby this year either :lol:

Joseph L. Barrow
06-20-2009, 05:23 PM
Thanks to England's post-Braveheart re-conquering of Scotland, they get to refer to it as part of "Great Britain" and claim its athletes as belonging to their fold.

SempreSami
06-20-2009, 05:24 PM
Im a firm fan of Barnet FC.

Bloody Paul Furlong bullied us (Gillingham) off the pitch when he was on loan at you lot last season.

We still got promoted though :D.

SempreSami
06-20-2009, 05:25 PM
Thanks to England's post-Braveheart re-conquering of Scotland, they get to refer to it as part of "Great Britain" and claim its athletes as belonging to their fold.

Because a film made by an Australian accurately represents things. :roll:

crosscourt
06-21-2009, 05:58 AM
If I say I understand this,I would lie.Honestly.

I might say that I am English. I would never say that I am UKish.

crosscourt
06-21-2009, 06:01 AM
I didn't say they were completely different. They obviously aren't. I said they had completely different histories. And that is exactly what I meant. They are separate countries. Logic dictates that they have separate histories. You thought I was glossing over their relationship throughout history. I wasn't.

But their histories aren't completely different. For example, we have had joint monarchs forn the last 300 years, and have jointly had the Westminster parliament making laws for hundreds of years. There are lots of things that happen in Scotland that don't happen in England. Just as there are lots of things that happen in Lancashire that don't happen in Surrey. But none of this means their histories are completely different.

cc