Incidentally, you should have mentioned clay. Biggest export for sometime now, as the Tin’s mostly gone.
You joke, but in some ways the Cornish separatist movement has more support from the average person.
Though it’s true that it’s 99% loonies who campaign for “Cornish Independance” a lot more people do agree that Cornwall gets overlooked and marginalised by the rest of the UK. The same sort of feelings that lead Scotland and Wales to campaign for their own assemblies.
I’ve heard variations of that myth repeated many times over the years but I’ve yet to find any evidence that it was ever true, let alone true today. I’d love to know the context in which that idea sprung up.
Much of the stuffing was knocked out of the Welsh nationalist movement when the Welsh language was given official recognition and a Welsh language TV station was set up. That was all that most of the Welsh speakers wanted, really. Political devolution came a very distant second. The Welsh Assembly was set up after barely 50% of the Welsh electorate voted for it - compared to the situation in Scotland it was very unimpressive.
Although its worth pointing out that a substantial number of the arson cases may actually have been insurance jobs. What better way to get rid of an overpriced holiday home than to torch it and blame it on taffy militants?
A variation of this myth is that you can killed a priest with a bow and arrow from one of the towers in Trinity College Dublin on a specific day of the year. From what I can see all variations of this myth are complete bollocks.
My dear chap. :rolleyes:
Please reread the OP, which mentions battles between Scotland and Britain. And the thread title mentions Wales.
There is a popular misconception that a united Scotland fought the English. As my example shows, politics, religion and clan / family were just as likely to decide what side you fought on.
And the fact that a Scottish King ruled a united Kingdom by the 1600s was also important.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Actually the OP mentions “Brits”; who are they? If you interpret the word to mean “Britain” then the question is erroneous since Scotland is part of Britain, Britain did not exist as a political entity until Scotland formed a union with England. The Scottish army has never fought the British army. Sure, groups from Scotland have sometimes fought the British army, but they did not represent Scotland, and no one in this thread was suggesting they did. Furthermore the thread title mentions Wales and England; clearly the OP is confused enough to justify a number of interpretations.
However, the OP did not demonstrate any confusion about the Battle of Culloden. You are right in saying that many people think wrongly that it was a battle between England and Scotland, but there was no example of that in this thread.
Culloden was a battle between the government of Great Britain, represented by the British Army (your description of the government side as being “the House of Hanover” is as open to debate as anything in this thread), and a rebel army supporting the claim of the father of Charles Edward Stuart to the British throne. No army was representing Scotland, no army was representing England. Perhaps it wasn’t worth posting about, but my point was that by putting Culloden in the Scotland vs England context, your contribution has unnecessarily created confusion that previously did not exist in this thread.
The points you make about Scotland not being united (has England or any other country ever been truly united when in war?) would be more relevant to your interpretation of the OP if you applied your knowledge and analysis to a battle such as Flodden or Stirling Bridge.
I might also helpfully point out that before the ascension of James VI / I, “British” referred to the Welsh (and presumably the Cornish, though I have no cite for that), specifically excluding the English. That usage has been supplanted by the current “British = inhabitant of Great Britain (English, Welsh, Scottish, Bengali, etc.),” and like some of the other posters I have heard a great number of people use “British” specifically to mean “English,” even people like the newsreaders on BBC Wales who ought to know better!
And just to stir up the hornet’s nest, I can add that the Welsh (and Cornish) are [culturally] the aboriginal inhabitants of the island, so far as we can tell, with the Old Irish, Old English, and Old Norse speakers arriving in the historical period. I say “culturally” because, of course, genetic evidence suggests that the Brythonic Celts don’t have a lock on prehistoric British ancestry, and because the Celts all seem to have come from the continent, anyway, it’s just that no prior culture survives in any recognizable form. That’s not really a fact you can do anything with, but it does make the anti-immigration wing among the English BNP a bit more amusing.
