The SNP is setting in places its plans for a referendum on Scottish secession from the UK. If they vote yes, will this open the door to Welsh aspirations for separation too? What do you think?

Umn, what's the question? Is it, 'Will Wales seccede from the UK?' or is it 'What will Wales do after it seccedes from the UK?'.

I dont think there is a great deal of appetite for independence in Wales. You shouldn't make the mistake of thinking Scotland and Wales are comparable in anything other than some mythical shared Celtic heritage. They are not and the nationalist movements in both countries are different as well. Scotland has been effectively self governing in law, education etc for many hundreds of years. Whereas Wales has had a small degree of autonomy for just over 10.

Wales has a long and permeable border with England and 25% of it's population is English. Similar amounts of Welsh people (not percentages) live in England. The economy is much more interlinked. All routes in Wales run east-west rather than north south which tells you much about the way it has developed and the connections it has with England. I don't think Scotland's position is comparable.

Whatever happens in Scotland will not automatically have an impact in Wales. To be honest what happens in England (whether Scotland leaves the UK or not) will be much more of a determining factor.

Certainly not mythical shared heritage. The whole of southern Scotland was once brythonic (Welsh) as was all of England.

Depends what figures you look at. The government of Wales issued a report claiming only 33% of the Welsh are actually Welsh. The conclusion was reached by surname studies so is admittedly unreliable. Anyway, most inhabitants of Wales will probably classify themselves as Welsh whatever their heritage.

Certainly not mythical shared heritage. The whole of southern Scotland was once brythonic (Welsh) as was all of England.

Depends what figures you look at. The government of Wales issued a report claiming only 33% of the Welsh are actually Welsh. The conclusion was reached by surname studies so is admittedly unreliable. Anyway, most inhabitants of Wales will probably classify themselves as Welsh whatever their heritage.

The mythical Celtic heritage thing was just a dig at the usual hazy type of connection that people make between Wales and Scotland and Ireland as though that's enough and binds us in some pact against the English. I'm just as likely to be called a sheep shagger by an Irishman as I am by an Englishman. I don't really buy this Celtic solidarity thing. It only ever manifests itself in sport ie, wanting whoever playes England to win.

The 2001 census states that 25% of people living in Wales were not born in Wales. In north east Wales here are more English born people in Flintshire than there are Welsh. In Powys, Ceredigion, Monmouth and Conwy over 40% of the population are English. This means that great geographical swathes of the country have taken on a very English tinge and most of those people will be ambivalent about how Welsh they are or their children. The likelihood of them voting for Wales to leave the UK is very small.

This is an element of Wales that is very overlooked. Our politicians seem to proceed on the basis that we are a homogenous lump but most of Wales is actually a great deal more eclectic than England. Outside of London there are very few area's of England where the majority of the population were not born there.

I think Wales should be given it's chance to leave the UK, so to should England and N. Ireland, we should all have the right to vote and decided on the subject, and we should all have our own parliment, something England and N. Ireland don't have. Weather or not we all decide to leave is another question, but we should all have that choice.

^^ NI has ruined its chances of ever having its own parliament again. (Or at least for a very long time.)

It's barely economically viable for Scotland to leave the UK, so its practically impossible for Wales to leave. It would be the wrong decision.

Certainly not mythical shared heritage. The whole of southern Scotland was once brythonic (Welsh) as was all of England.

Depends what figures you look at. The government of Wales issued a report claiming only 33% of the Welsh are actually Welsh. The conclusion was reached by surname studies so is admittedly unreliable. Anyway, most inhabitants of Wales will probably classify themselves as Welsh whatever their heritage.

In its traditional sense, the "Celtic" history is indeed a myth. The idea of Central European celts spreading out of western Europe from about 700bc is 18th/19th century romantic-nationalist hogwash. Celtic languages are likely to have arrived in Britain from Spain and Southern France via the Atlantic trades and may have been in the country a lot longer. There was no great iron age population replacement either.

Large parts of Scotland were Pictish, and their language does not seem to have been Celtic. Noone really knows what it was - some people have even suggested Semitic.

There is also some debate about whether parts of Southern and Eastern England were Brythonic speaking due to the almost complete absense of a Celtic substrate in the language and place names of the area AND the pausity of evidence for the kind of genocide and complete population replacement that you would need to get such a phenomenon. There are differences in the genetics of people on either side of the Offas Dyke but these look to be older than the "Saxon invasions" and the majority of the DNA material of the average Englishman has been in the UK since the Bronze age or earlier. Belgic tribes of Northern France / Belgium often spoke Germanic languages and tribes in South East England often shared names with Belgic tribes so there is some evidence that there were Germanic speakers in England, at least in Coastal South East England, before the Roman Conquest.

It was quite right to call the Celtic History of these Isles a myth. As popularly understood its true, thats what it is.

^^ I agree celtic history has been mythologised, but the idea of a shared ancient heritage across Britain is not untrue, be it brythonic, Iberian or whatever.

The archaeologist Simon James has a very interesting sceptical take on the Celts. He points out that prior to 1700, no-one used the term 'Celtic' to describe ancient Britons or Irish.

http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/alternative.htm

There have been a couple of recent books and articles on 'the origins of the Britons', genetic and linguistic, and they've prompted a lot of controversy in the blogosphere. I find this kind of stuff fascinating.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000648.html
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/03/origins-of-british.php
http://www.grsampson.net/QOppenheimer.html

In its traditional sense, the "Celtic" history is indeed a myth. The idea of Central European celts spreading out of western Europe from about 700bc is 18th/19th century romantic-nationalist hogwash. Celtic languages are likely to have arrived in Britain from Spain and Southern France via the Atlantic trades and may have been in the country a lot longer. There was no great iron age population replacement either.

Many would argue that celtic languages were introduced into the British Isles by the neolithic farmers 6000 years ago, this merely strengthens the "celtic" identity of these islands though.

Large parts of Scotland were Pictish, and their language does not seem to have been Celtic. Noone really knows what it was - some people have even suggested Semitic.

The idea that Pictish was a pre-Indo European language is a discredited crank theory. The vast preponderance of obviously P-Celtic/Insular Celtic placenames in North-east Scotland (Aberdeen, Abertay, Perth etc.) cannot be explained by anything other than the Picts speaking a P-Celtic language closely related to British.

There is also some debate about whether parts of Southern and Eastern England were Brythonic speaking due to the almost complete absense of a Celtic substrate in the language and place names of the area AND the pausity of evidence for the kind of genocide and complete population replacement that you would need to get such a phenomenon. There are differences in the genetics of people on either side of the Offas Dyke but these look to be older than the "Saxon invasions" and the majority of the DNA material of the average Englishman has been in the UK since the Bronze age or earlier. Belgic tribes of Northern France / Belgium often spoke Germanic languages and tribes in South East England often shared names with Belgic tribes so there is some evidence that there were Germanic speakers in England, at least in Coastal South East England, before the Roman Conquest.

Your first sentence makes no sense, you are explaining the absence of evidence for a celtic invasion by postulating a german one. As I said, it's perfectly possible that Celtic languages were introduced into Britain entirely peacefully maybe as much as 6000 years ago. Language change can happen quite suddenly, completely and with absolutely no violence, 150 years ago Aberdare was almost entirely Welsh speaking, it's pretty damn English now, and you'd find many people who were convinced it always has been.

In any case there is plenty of evidence of celtic place names in south-east England. London, Thames, Kent, the howlingly obvious Dover. The names recorded by Roman historians at the time of the invasion are also obviously celtic e.g. Camulodunum (Colchester). Their relative scarcity in comparison to other places in Britain is most simply explained by believing the contemporary Welsh accounts of a violent Saxon invasion beginning in Kent and East Anglia, resulting in the ethnic cleansing or extermination of the indigenous population from these areas.

It was quite right to call the Celtic History of these Isles a myth. As popularly understood its true, thats what it is.

Well you've done a very thorough job of demolishing the straw man you constructed, but not much else I'm afraid. Revisionist history theories are very good for selling paperbacks, but shouldn't be taken too seriously as genuine historical scholarship.

The archaeologist Simon James has a very interesting sceptical take on the Celts. He points out that prior to 1700, no-one used the term 'Celtic' to describe ancient Britons or Irish.



The word became necessary with the development of linguistics, when it became clear that languages could be grouped into related families. There is a family of languages related to Welsh, with an associated distinct archaeological record, and "celtic" is as good a name for them as any other.

Anyway all this is by the by and belongs on another thread. The question is if Wales would be inspired to secede, or if they would see any point maintaining a Serbia and Montenegro type position.

I just spent bloody ages drafting a reply to Lyndon and the damn thing logged me out. Its too late to do it again now but I will tomorrow. Basically, Lyndon set up a straw man in parodying what I said and being selective with his evidence. He also uses a revisionist history himself (basically putting back the origins of Celtic by about 2-3 thousand years), before warning against them.

I think Wales should be given it's chance to leave the UK, so to should England and N. Ireland, we should all have the right to vote and decided on the subject, and we should all have our own parliment, something England and N. Ireland don't have. Weather or not we all decide to leave is another question, but we should all have that choice.


Actually Northern Ireland has an Assembly and it has more power devolved to it than Wales does currently with more to follow.

Northern Ireland did have a Parliament, a Senate, a Supreme Court and a Prime Minister before the IRA fucked it up in the 60's.

If Scotland has a vote on independence, I'm pretty sure it's people will vote to stay in the UK. If Wales had one, I'd bet my house on the fact that by a overwhelming majority people would vote to stay in the UK.

There's not much appetite for independence in Wales. What there is more appetite for is for a stronger assembly that has the power and balls to enact change in Wales.

The acceptance speech of the new first minister Carwyn Jones pretty much spelt out the Welsh situation:

"Proud to be Welsh, Proud to be British".

At what point along the devolution road do you actually become de facto independent?

Actually Northern Ireland has an Assembly and it has more power devolved to it than Wales does currently with more to follow.

Northern Ireland did have a Parliament, a Senate, a Supreme Court and a Prime Minister before the IRA fucked it up in the 60's.

Hardly a shining example of governance tbh :/ I dont condone the IRA, but it was plenty fucked up already tbh.

Interesting this. How credible would the union be if Scotland withdrew? Would this not force re-evalution of membership in the constiuent countries regardless of sentiment? Serbia and montenegro are seperate now.

It was cool to see how "welsh" wales was when I was there, it seems very comfortable in the union, great place. There is probably greater political impetus in NI concerning this issue, but greater economical barriers/advantages.

Wales is Britain. Maybe that's why it's comfortable in the union. Isn't the Irish word for Wales Bhreatain or something like that?

Come lets face it, Wales is just basically an English county!

Wales is Britain. Maybe that's why it's comfortable in the union. Isn't the Irish word for Wales Bhreatain or something like that?

Britain is an anglicised version of the Welsh word Prydain. Little known fact.

In its traditional sense, the "Celtic" history is indeed a myth. The idea of Central European celts spreading out of western Europe from about 700bc is 18th/19th century romantic-nationalist hogwash. Celtic languages are likely to have arrived in Britain from Spain and Southern France via the Atlantic trades and may have been in the country a lot longer. There was no great iron age population replacement either.

Large parts of Scotland were Pictish, and their language does not seem to have been Celtic. Noone really knows what it was - some people have even suggested Semitic.

There is also some debate about whether parts of Southern and Eastern England were Brythonic speaking due to the almost complete absense of a Celtic substrate in the language and place names of the area AND the pausity of evidence for the kind of genocide and complete population replacement that you would need to get such a phenomenon. There are differences in the genetics of people on either side of the Offas Dyke but these look to be older than the "Saxon invasions" and the majority of the DNA material of the average Englishman has been in the UK since the Bronze age or earlier. Belgic tribes of Northern France / Belgium often spoke Germanic languages and tribes in South East England often shared names with Belgic tribes so there is some evidence that there were Germanic speakers in England, at least in Coastal South East England, before the Roman Conquest.

It was quite right to call the Celtic History of these Isles a myth. As popularly understood its true, thats what it is.

True, the common celtic story is generally mythology. However, Scots Gaelic and Welsh language share a common ancestor, the south of Scotland was brythonic (Strathclyde) and you're right about the Picts, no one really knows! It's such a shame that we don't have more knowledge of the Pictish language and culture (it is suggested that some of the differences in Scottish and Irish culture are due to Pictish influence under the kingdom of Alba, an interesting thought), whether or not it was Brythonic is unkown. It's unlikely to have been Brythonic however, probably something entirely lost and forgotten. So anyway, where were we...


Oh aye, if Wales feel the need to be independent, good luck to them :yes:

True, the common celtic story is generally mythology. However, Scots Gaelic and Welsh language share a common ancestor,

Can you back this up? They seem to be totally different, which is odd seeing as they have been neighbours for a long time.

Come lets face it, Wales is just basically an English county!

That's well inflammatory!!! :lol:

southwest and northwest England were substantially Welsh-speaking until not tooo long ago. I mean, you could say England belongs to Wales rather than the other way round.

Can you back this up? They seem to be totally different, which is odd seeing as they have been neighbours for a long time.

Proto-Celtic as it's known, this is very old stuff though. P-Celtic is Welsh, Cornish and Breton, Q-Celtic is Irish, Scottish and Manx. The P and Q arms of share a common ancestor, but seperated as the languages evolved.

Come lets face it, Wales is just basically an English county!

England wishes!

Hardly a shining example of governance tbh :/ I dont condone the IRA, but it was plenty fucked up already tbh.

Interesting this. How credible would the union be if Scotland withdrew? Would this not force re-evalution of membership in the constiuent countries regardless of sentiment? Serbia and montenegro are seperate now.

It was cool to see how "welsh" wales was when I was there, it seems very comfortable in the union, great place. There is probably greater political impetus in NI concerning this issue, but greater economical barriers/advantages.

I didn't state it was perfect, merely stated it existed and why it effectively collapsed. Best not to read into statement and find something that never existed in the first instance.

While there may be a greater political will in Northern Ireland to leave the UK than in Wales, as in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, public opinion is firmly in support of maintaining the union and that is what matters most as it's a vote by the people that will decide the future of Scotland, Wales and NI.

That's well inflammatory!!! :lol:

southwest and northwest England were substantially Welsh-speaking until not tooo long ago. I mean, you could say England belongs to Wales rather than the other way round.

er no they weren't.

Come lets face it, Wales is just basically an English county!

It's an English Principality, not county.

:shifty:

Wales is Britain. Maybe that's why it's comfortable in the union. Isn't the Irish word for Wales Bhreatain or something like that?

Hehh, yeah, "An bhreatain beag" or little britain :P

I didn't state it was perfect, merely stated it existed and why it effectively collapsed. Best not to read into statement and find something that never existed in the first instance.

While there may be a greater political will in Northern Ireland to leave the UK than in Wales, as in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, public opinion is firmly in support of maintaining the union and that is what matters most as it's a vote by the people that will decide the future of Scotland, Wales and NI.

Well ye dont tend to fuck up a bad thing, do ye uniguy? ;)

Yeap, of course its up to NI, the way it should, and wasnt suggesting otherwise.

Ive tried to use an acronym for your name, but "bug" doesnt seem right ...though odlum might agree :P

er no they weren't.

I use the term loosely. They were Cornish and Cumbric speaking...

It still doesn't make sense. Yeah I know it was a tongue in cheek thing :blahblah:

It still doesn't make sense. Yeah I know it was a tongue in cheek thing :blahblah:

Why not?

For a start Cornish isn't Welsh. so you're saying people in Wiltshire and Somserset spoke cornish? the clue's in the name.

For a start Cornish isn't Welsh. so you're saying people in Wiltshire and Somserset spoke cornish? the clue's in the name.

Welsh, Cornish, Breton and Cumbric are/were different languages that diverged from the same root, after the groups became isolated by invading tribes from Europe. That proto-celtic root language is ikely as different to Welsh spoken today as Breton is to Welsh but was once spoken (or several versions of it were) over most of Britain. I used the term 'Welsh' too loosely, alluding to this fact. The last to die out was Cornish, though there's some kind of revival. They reckon Cumbric (compare to Welsh "Cymraeg") died out about 12th century but some words still survive as do many placenames.

This was the score in about the 6th century.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Britonia6hcentury.png/342px-Britonia6hcentury.png

Yeah I get where you're coming from but when the majority of the SW and NW England spoke in a celt tongue so did the rest of the country! and when it was just those regions after the Anglo Saxon arrivals it wasn't for a particularily longer period.

As far as i'm aware, East england was strongly Anglian hundreds of years before the western areas. Britain in 600 -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Britain_peoples_circa_600.svg/513px-Britain_peoples_circa_600.svg.png

When you consider that Old Welsh (don't like the term cumbric) died out in the NW in the 12th century... that's a significant margin of difference!.. not that i think it means anything though.

As far as i'm aware, East england was strongly Anglian hundreds of years before the western areas. Britain in 600 -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Britain_peoples_circa_600.svg/513px-Britain_peoples_circa_600.svg.png

When you consider that Old Welsh (don't like the term cumbric) died out in the NW in the 12th century... that's a significant margin of difference!.. not that i think it means anything though.

It is significant because that "old welsh"-speaking corner of England was actually England! Language is a good clue about race and culture but it doesn't tell us everything. The anglo-saxons almost certainly did not exterminate all the britons, but they did dominate them. A Cornishman is still Cornish, whether he speaks Cornish or not, right? Hence a very significant degree of English ancestry is Briton, for sure. This has been borne out by DNA studies.

"Free Wales Army" were responsible for numerous bombing attacks on water pipelines and power lines across Wales. On the eve of the investiture two members of MAC, Alwyn Jones and George Taylor, died as the bomb they were planting on the railway line to be used by the Royal Train exploded.:lol:

It is significant because that "old welsh"-speaking corner of England was actually England! Language is a good clue about race and culture but it doesn't tell us everything. The anglo-saxons almost certainly did not exterminate all the britons, but they did dominate them. A Cornishman is still Cornish, whether he speaks Cornish or not, right? Hence a very significant degree of English ancestry is Briton, for sure. This has been borne out by DNA studies.

No it's the time difference that's literally significant, i.e. very great, there's nothing significant, in the sense of the word significant you're using, about that difference.

Your identity has nothing to do with your DNA. :ohno:

I'm not sure of the benefits of going back too far in time, although it is interesting.

What I will say is that to me (and Englishman very proud to call Wales home) is that Wales is a fascinating and diverse part of our fascinating and diverse country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I do see Wales as a country within a country, and I live in the country of Wales, not a region of the UK, but there is not, and will not be any support for a break up of the UK from west of the border.

What I would ask for on behalf of Wales is more respect from the rest of the UK. It is a fascinating, beautiful and intriguing area. 85% of people would call them selves 'Welsh and British' so everyone in Britain should embrace the place and view it as an indigenous diverse part of the UK.

I met an utterly inept liberal fool from London once who mocked the Welsh language but would defend to the hilt the multiculturalism of parts of London..How braindead is that!?

That is braindead.

I made a detour coming back from Ellesemere today just so I could drive through Wales for longer! I love it and part of my effete romanticism likes connecting with a culture much older and more mysterious than my own.

If Scotland did elect to leave the UK, well that;s their democratic decision. It always funny to tell those who oppose such a notion, then turn to call for the British Army to kill johnny foreigner for those same democratic vaalues.

Looking at various federated states throughout the world, both the Welsh and Scottish governments could travel a great deal further in terms of autonomy without leaving the Union.

It could be feasible to have a UK government that is concerned purely with defence, foreign policy and some other cross national demands, with the constitute nations with the bulk of taxes, laws and administration.

After all Spain, USA, Switzerland and Germany all have this in their own way.

In that regard, secession would be more about whether the Welsh nation still wishes to remain within a federation with the Windsor family as head of state.

Spain, USA, Switzerland and Germany all manage to field national football teams. The UK is not a federation and yet it doesn't.