When I worked for the NHS, “The Crown” was effectively the Government, and “Crown Cars” were government-owned vehicles, which were subject to different rules from those for privately owned vehicles. For example, the “Crown Cars” in my fleet were not subject to Vehicle Excise Duty and were not required to be insured. Services provided and charged for were not usually subject to VAT.
But it’s true. If you want to live in Wales and interact with Welsh people, you won’t be able to do that unless you speak English, because that’s the only language spoken by most Welsh people. A person who speaks only English will do fine there, while a person who speaks only Welsh will be severely hampered.
A requirement that proceedings can be carried out in either language is fine. The problem here is that that requirement was not being enforced, because you can’t carry out proceedings in either language if there’s no translation service provided. What there was instead was a governmental meeting that was deliberately structured in such a way that it was not accessible at all to the majority of its constituents, which is a guaranteed recipe for trouble.
Which is very convenient for the English, isn’t it? Might as well just give up and BE English. For the Empire!
Language rights can vary. The right to use either language in proceedings does not necessarily carry with it an obligation on the body to provide translation. It sounds to me like the law provided that participants could use either language, not that it required all proceedings be bilingual.
For example, in my province, any participant in court proceedings can use either English or French, but the law doesn’t require that all proceedings be bilingual. The right to use French in a trial is not the same as the right to a trial in French.
Several years ago I was involved in a court application where the lawyer for the applicants filed all his materials in French, and made all his submissions in French.
I filed my submissions in English, and my recollection is that I mainly argued in English, but occasionally spoke in French.
The third lawyer in the proceedings was unilingual English, filed his materials in English, and only spoke English.
The judge was bilingual and used French or English as the situation demanded.
There was no translation provided to the third lawyer, but he’s a very smart guy and somehow was able to follow the arguments and make his case even though he didn’t understand everything that was being said.
That’s an example of the right to use either language, but not a right to have the proceedings be bilingual.
The exact nature of language rights will vary with the organization and the law, but I don’t think we can presume that there was a legal obligation in the example given to have the proceedings be bilingual. Sounds to me more that it was a right for the participants to use either Welsh or English, as they saw fit.
(It’s not like having a common language is the recipe for perfect human harmony. It doesn’t take many syllables of spoken English for two speakers to realize how much they despise each other based on accent alone, either in Britain or in the U.S.) (Sorry if this is a semi-hijack.)
To be fair, I am sure that if you stopped random people in an English, Scottish, or Welsh street. Very few would either understand or care about the minutiae of the definition of British, but would identify as from their home country.
Concise history of Northern Ireland: The Anglican foot stomping on the Catholic neck wore a Presbyterian boot.
All of this (the tensions between England, Wales, and Scotland in particular) makes me wonder why they ever even came together in the first place. Conquest, I presume?
Of those in the UK who do not identify as English (i.e., the Welsh and Scots in particular), do they even feel any connection or loyalty to the English (or maybe “British”) culture? Are there some things they all share (like cuisine, or certain sports, or traditions), or is just kinda the reluctant remnants of historical conquests?
As in, do they have some sort of cross-border shared cultural identity, the equivalent of our “watching the game and grilling”?
I believe there is a legal right for a translation into Welsh to be made available for all official proceedings, however it is very rare for these to be wholly in Welsh, so there aren’t officially any rules about providing an English translation as this, certainly at the time the situation with my parents occurred, was still assumed to be the default. They had the right to do it, but it was very much not the norm, and I do maintain it was basically a deliberate asshole move to exclude non-locals. There was no other reason to not notify them in advance that a translator would be required to take part.
All written official commucation can be requested in either language, while signs and similar are bilingual by default. Even when this accidentally ends up with this:
The Welsh at the bottom translates as: ‘I’m not in the office at the moment. Send any work to be translated.’ Note that this was put up in Swansea, where very few locals actually speak any Welsh at all, and was quickly taken down when someone pointed it out.
If someone says they’re British, 9 times out of 10 they’re English. Some people don’t care, but Scottish and Welsh people typically strongly identify as such, even if they don’t really mind much about being in the UK.
I would say the majority of Scottish people would really rather leave the union, even many of those who voted to stay voted on practical grounds rather than idealistic. Let’s put it this way- living in Scotland, I can normally hear at least one neighbour on my street yell ‘YES!’ when another team scores in a football match against England. Any other team.
For Wales the cities don’t care so much in general, except when the two countries play against each other Rugby but the rural areas sometimes really really do.
For Northern Ireland I’m just not going there. It’s all too complicated, and the people I’ve met are those outside the area, so largely those who don’t care. Those who do care stay put.
And of course, the very close referendum was before Brexit, which most Scots opposed. So even on pragmatic grounds, there’s now an additional reason for wanting to split.
And for all that England dominates the modern parliament, Wales and Scotland seem, in some ways, to dominate history and culture more. The most famous British king (to the extent that he existed at all) was Welsh, not English, and when England and Scotland united, it was by the guy who was already King of Scotland becoming King of England as well. So in some sense, you could say that Scotland conquered England, rather than the reverse. And one of the reasons why Tolkien created his legendarium was to create a mythology that could be regarded as specifically English, because while there’s plenty of mythology to be found on the island, it’s all from the other cultures.
Yeah, we have Robin Hood and that’s about it for purely English mythology.
It is more complicated though, as many regions, especially the Cornish, do have their own legends but they often identify more with their county than the country as a whole.
As an aside for that, the language issue can get really complex in deciding where the oppressed minority even is- where I am now in Scotland, you can legally request all official stuff in Gaelic as the minority Scottish language, but that was never actually spoken in this area, while the dialect/language (opinions differ) actually spoken here has no legal status.
I’ve always found that a bit sad, being English (admittedly with a quarter Scottish roots). I was absolutely delighted that Scotland qualified for the World Cup and I bet a large number of fellow English people were too.
It’s like a family. You may not like your sister much, but would defend her against an outsider.
I gotta admit. I cheer when England gets knocked out. Its a tradition now.
They get in, everyone gets their hopes up, you hear “its coming home” for the 50th time, they get knocked out.
They’re like Toronto Maple Leafs fans. Their team: always good enough to get in and dangle hope, but never good enough to see it through to the end. Their fans, their poor, poor fans (evil giggle).
Except for the women…
Yes; the women’s team have done it. Canadians were looking to win that one too, in Rugby. Next time.
I think the difference between language legislation in Canada versus language legislation in the UK is that in Canada, there actually is a significant proportion of the population that speaks the minority language in everyday situations. In the UK, the number people who speak Welsh, Scots or Gaelic in everyday life is tiny. They might insist on their right to speak it in official proceedings as a matter of principle and politics, but when it’s not about “making a point”, the vast majority of Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish people would use English as a matter of course (or an entirely non-British language, if they’re from an immigrant community - but that’s not what the language legislation is about).
I’m afraid I wouldn’t agree with that. The population balance between francophone and anglophones varies tremendously from province to province.
In my province, the francophones make up about 3% of the population. Pretty much all of them are bilingual; most anglophones are not. That’s very much like the dynamic in Wales, with an even steeper population difference than in Wales. Anglos and francos both have the right to use the language of their choice in the courts of the province, in civil matters, but that doesn’t create an obligation for a trial in both languages.
I also don’t think that minority language speakers, whether in Canada or Wales, use their language “to make a point” in official proceedings. That makes it sound too formalistic and performative.
Their use of their language is to keep it from dying out, and to assert that their native language is not just a private thing, which has to give way so the majority language dominates all public matters.
Use of their language in public proceedings is to assert that it has equal value and authority, as part of their national identity, within the larger nation. That’s not just “making a point”, in my opinion.
I disagree - when we are talking about those who use the majority language in daily life, I think it is about “making a point” ." Making a point" is not necessarily being performative or “just” making a point. In this situation it means the minority language isn’t being chosen because the person doesn’t speak the majority language. The point that I suspect is being made is