Climate towards Scottish independence

[bell-the-cat]

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.
[/url]

A total misrepresentation of the facts. The reason that certain organisations use "English" when they should use "British" is simply down to English racism.

Reminds me of a run-in I had a decade ago with the bunch of English racists (and genocide deniers to boot) that ran the British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara (funded by British taxpayers, btw). They, in both their nameplates and stationary, referred to their organisation as the "English institute of Archaeology", and had been doing so since it was founded in the 1950s. Apparently none of the poodle-Scots (or Welsh or Northern Irish) who had visited the place in the intervening years had ever complained. I made up for that - and eventually got them to at change the name in English to "British Institute", but the name in Turkish still remains the same (though a word for British does exist in Turkish - as it does in EVERY language). Maybe I should complete the task.

[Scottish_Republican]

It's not misrepresentation, it's to do with, a) other people's perception of the UK, and b) the history of the UK, which effectively is an enlargement of England.

"(though a word for British does exist in Turkish - as it does in EVERY language)."

Not true at all. Most Asian languages, and many African languages do not have a word for Britain. Hindi, Urdu, Arabic, Chinese, Bahasa Indonesia, and Japanese are amongst these.

I would think many native American languages do not either.

[bell-the-cat]

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

It's not misrepresentation, it's to do with, a) other people's perception of the UK, and b) the history of the UK, which effectively is an enlargement of England.

"(though a word for British does exist in Turkish - as it does in EVERY language)."

Not true at all. Most Asian languages, and many African languages do not have a word for Britain. Hindi, Urdu, Arabic, Chinese, Bahasa Indonesia, and Japanese are amongst these.

I would think many native American languages do not either.

There is no English word for Mexico, Bolivia, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatamela, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, etc. Yet I don't see their embassies in London calling themselves "Embassy of the third (or fourth, or fifth, etc) spic country south of the USA." If Britain can use the native name for a country then it should be a simple matter for other countries to do the same for Britain (unless their populations are total morons).

[NovaBritannia]

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

Erm, no. If the word for "British" is a corruption of "English", then it is not really a word for British.

I don't see why not. Scotland's name is just a varient on the name of one of its constituent tribes.

If they want to give Britain a name based on its largest or more influentual constituent tribe (ie, the Anglo-Saxons) then that doesn't lessen its legitimacy in any way. The use of it in the context of Britain makes it quite clearly their word for Britain.

[Scottish_Republican]

Originally Posted by bell-the-cat

There is no English word for Mexico, Bolivia, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatamela, Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, etc.

Yes there is. The English is borrowed from the Spanish/Portuguese/native terms - we just use the same terms as Spanish and Portuguese pronounced slightly differently. Just as the terms for "Britain" are borrowed from the English words for "England" and "English".

Spanish has a word for "Britain" - I think it's Bretana. In French, "Britannique" means "British". Same Italian, all the European tongues.

But the Asian ones don't.

[Scottish_Republican]

Originally Posted by NovaBritannia

I don't see why not. Scotland's name is just a varient on the name of one of its constituent tribes.

Very simple, because Scotland is not part of England.

[NovaBritannia]

Originally Posted by Scottish_Republican

Very simple, because Scotland is not part of England.

No, but it is part of a state that foreigners have a tendancy to call by whatever name they fancy - if they derive that from the main tribe (and I remind you that Scottish culture in the modern day is a mainly Anglo-Saxon one) then that's their business.

Equally, Albion - and its derivatives, including Alba, are (as I recall) believed to refer to the white cliffs of Dover. Scotland is not in Dover, but on the same island.