Carryfast:
matamoros:
Carryfast:
matamoros:
Carryfast:
Mike-C:
whatever is happening, it went from…“its a question for Scotland”…just a few short weeks ago, and in the last fortnight/ ten days all the English poloticians have stepped up a gear and done a lot of behind the scenes lobbying and going up to Scotland to actively lobby support for a NO campaign.
That’s probably because they know that independence for Scotland means the end of the Union because what’s left of it would lose its credibility and validity.With at least the implication of the return of an independent seperate English nation which has been dismantled by an invading alien aristocracy over Centuries. To the point where now UK law doesn’t allow any official recognition of the nationality of English.
IE It’s likely to be the possibility of the rise of English nationalism,resulting from a possible Scottish yes vote,that is bothering them,not just what Scotland decides to do. 
Why not go the whole hog back to the Dark Ages along with plague,pestilence, tribal wars.
From historyofengland.net/kings-a … troduction
“Alfred the Great of Saxon descent, from Wessex who ruled between 871-899, many historians consider the first king of all England but this was 450 years after the Romans left. Before this the country had been divided into 7 self ruled kingdoms, Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex, East Anglia, West Anglia or Mercia and Northumbria.”
Exactly who formed this independent separate English nation, was it Alfred the Saxon. The Saxons where, I believe earlier invaders from the area of Europe now known as Germany!!
What a load of ■■■■■■■■ 
No it was Athelstan not Alfred who made the mistake of federalising England with resistance from at least Wessex.The original ( correct ) idea being a Confederation of locally governed regions which together made ( would/should still make ) up England the nation of the Anglo Saxon based English.Which probably would have eventually been put back to the more democratic idea of local regional government accountability at some point ‘if’ Harold hadn’t been defeated in 1066.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athelstan
The fact is what existed before that is totally irrelevant in our national identity just as what came after the French/Norman invasion in the form of the UK is.In this case this is England and Scotland is Scotland.The problem being the small matter of an invading alien French based culture that was all about federalisation on both sides of the channel.Which somehow managed to indoctrinate the indigenous population to accept it.Nothing new there.
I would agree with you on that so why have you been imposing your faux intellectual ramblings on us, I doubt very much that it impresses anyone on this forum, certainly not I.
As I said, a load of ■■■■■■■■(non intellectual speak)
Maybe you could explain how you can ‘agree’ that what came ‘before’ Anglo Saxon England and what came ‘after’ are irrelevant but you ‘also’ don’t seem to agree that the idea of England itself,based on that Anglo Saxon nation,is relevant either. 
Which is more or less the same logic which all those who have removed our English national identity in any official meaning are relying on.The reason being that,as in your case,they refuse to admit that it is the result of the indigenous population being indoctrinated by centuries of an alien federal occupation of our government systems which has systematically taken away the rights of the English to call themselves English and be governed under the English system of democracy.Just as they did in the case of the Scottish and the Irish.Hopefully the Scottish will now play their part in putting that right by seceding from that alien,foreign imposed,federal system known as the ‘UK’.
The point that I am trying to make which you seem to be having difficulty with is that you have made what seems to me an arbritrary decision on what and when our English national identity is and began and it is all irrelevant anyway.
Now is now, then was then…tempus fugits and all that.
The Romans were here for 400 years, then the Angles and the Jutes and the Saxons, at some point what we now call England came into being for a few hundred years before the Norman Vikings conquered the country and that has roughly been it for almost a thousand years apart from various waves of peaceful immigration, oh and a few foreign interlopers in our Royal Family.
How long does it take before an invader becomes part of the indigenous population. I think a thousand years is long enough for us to get used to their ways.
I say ‘us’ but personally I do not know my ancestry past 1838 and I doubt many do, we are a nation that has always been subject to varying forms of immigration, the idea of ‘Englishness’ has always been transient.
I do not see the point of trawling all this up on this forum in a thread on a Scottish referendum about independence, it is for the most part totally irrelevent.
A couple of last thoughts in the form of well worn sayings:
‘Strength in Unity’
‘Divide and Conquer’
I take it the rolling eyes mean that you do not understand how I cannot understand your comments 
