Climate towards Scottish independence

[NovaBritannia]

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

You've never heard of Cardiff or Edinburgh referred to as "the national capital", "the capital" etc? They don't call Aberdeen "the capital", despite being the capital of a large region/county. Or York.

'Capital' is used for a variety of capitals - state capitals, provincial capitals and so forth. Use of that won't pass your nationship test.

I've heard Aberdeen be described as the Oil Capital of Scotland or Britain, how does that suit you? Anyway, county capitals previously had a name - the county seat or county town. Aberdeen is no longer in Aberdeenshire however, thanks to the creation of unitary authorities, and a lot of county councils have moved their functions outwith the county seat - for example, Renfrewshire is not governed from Renfrew, but rather from Paisley.

"Spoken by few."

Millions actually if you tot it all up. About half a million Welsh, +

You can't just class all the minority languages together. They are separate, and usually ascribe to separate parts of the UK.

I don't see how you can describe something as a national language if it is only really used in certain small pockets of the nation by a few people.

several million speakers of Lallans (though that's disputable).

Very. And I raise that dispute.

"Yes, but you haven't made a case for denying a British nation when everyone else in the world seems to assume one exists."

Really? Most people in the world call it all "England", including many of the Americans, Canadians, English, Aussies etc.

The other problem is that several of the major languages of the world, such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Urdu and Japanese have no word for "Britain". Only England. The Arabic for British is "Ingleezi". The Japanese for Britain is "Igirisu" , a corruption of "English". The Chinese for "Britain" is "Ying-Kwok". Kwok means a country. None of these mean "Britain".

And Briton relates to a very narrow ethnic origin too, as does Scotland. We are not all Scots, but largely influenced thereby. Just as British culture is broadly speaking an English (well, Anglo-Saxon) one. It's far from a perfect situation, but I'm not really going to complain about the origins of the words people use to describe my country.

So please, I'd like you to tell me unequivocally what makes Scotland a nation that Britain does not possess?

I'll give you my opinion: the label of 'nation' is useless and essentially just pretention. Cultures and ethnicities differ the world over, yet using the term 'nation' for one group and denying its use for others is simply attempting to create a heirarchy of difference where none truly exists. It's inconsistant and thus useless in any sort of informed debate.

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

The other problem is that several of the major languages of the world, such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Urdu and Japanese have no word for "Britain".

The damning argument against the Union - the Arabs have no word for us. Though, funnily enough, I have plenty of words for the Arabs.

[Scottish_Republican]

Originally Posted by Gypsum_Fantastic

The damning argument against the Union - the Arabs have no word for us. Though, funnily enough, I have plenty of words for the Arabs.

That's as maybe.

Meanwhile BILLIONS on this planet don't even recognise "Britain". They recognise England though.

"I don't see how you can describe something as a national language if it is only really used in certain small pockets of the nation by a few people."

That wasn't the case when Wales was annexed by England. Or with Scotland with its two languages when it came into the union.

[NovaBritannia]

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

That's as maybe.

Meanwhile BILLIONS on this planet don't even recognise "Britain". They recognise England though.

"Britain" has its origins in a label applied to a certain group - the Celts. If they want to have a word for Britain, I don't see any problem with them using the most influential ethnic group's name.

As I understand it, in Irish Gaelic, the term for Wales is Britannia Minor. Therefore one might equally argue that they're calling Britain 'Wales' - as it it only really Wales that can be said to be close to the original ancient British inhabitents of these islands...

"I don't see how you can describe something as a national language if it is only really used in certain small pockets of the nation by a few people."

That wasn't the case when Wales was annexed by England. Or with Scotland with its two languages when it came into the union.

And British in Strathclyde before the Scots invaded?

That's the past, this is the present.

Originally Posted by Gypsum_Fantastic

The damning argument against the Union - the Arabs have no word for us. Though, funnily enough, I have plenty of words for the Arabs.

Hoho.

[Scottish_Republican]

NB - there is no such word as "Britain" in these major languages full stop (period for the American readers). I am referring of course to Britain as a political entity. In Tokyo, Beijing and Jakarta, amongst other places, there is a large copper plate informing visitors that they are passing the "English embassy" in their own languages. Not the British embassy, but the English embassy. The English language version says "British", the local one doesn't.

That's how the world perceives us. Many of the Americans, Canadians, Australians, NZers and SAns also habitually refer to us as "English". As do the English themselves frequently. English for many English people means the Union Jack, not St George, although this is changing.

There's even an example on this very board -
Americans Sicker Than English

[NovaBritannia]

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

NB - there is no such word as "Britain" in these major languages full stop (period for the American readers). I am referring of course to Britain as a political entity. In Tokyo, Beijing and Jakarta, amongst other places, there is a large copper plate informing visitors that they are passing the "English embassy" in their own languages. Not the British embassy, but the English embassy. The English language version says "British", the local one doesn't.

So then it's safe to say that the word that means English also translates as British too - so thus they do have a word for it, just not a separate one.

Oh, and although I don't think it's particularly relevant to what we are discussing - your example link is nonsense. I remind you that the NHS is almost entirely autonomous throughout the home nations and statistics are typically compiled for England alone.

If you go out looking to be offended, you'll eventually find it.

[Scottish_Republican]

Originally Posted by NewBritain

So then it's safe to say that the word that means English also translates as British too - so thus they do have a word for it, just not a separate one.

Oh, and although I don't think it's particularly relevant to what we are discussing - your example link is nonsense. I remind you that the NHS is almost entirely autonomous throughout the home nations and statistics are typically compiled for England alone.

If you go out looking to be offended, you'll eventually find it.

Erm, no. If the word for "British" is a corruption of "English", then it is not really a word for British. Although, curiously enough, the Japanese word for "Britain" is based on "English" (Igirisu) and the word for England is "Ingurando". They are still both "England" not "Britain". To say that they aren't is like saying that "Caledonia" and "Scotia" refer to different countries (they did way back, but not in recent times).