What should happen to Cyprus?

[Wulfhere]

What makes you laugh so?



Still a runt of a Norman whore.

Because what you just said is complete bollocks.

But you're right about Richard though.

[Beorn]

I'm not too sure I would agree with that. It is in no way dominated by either Scottish or English elements. Britishness is pretty much an even mixture of Scottishness and Englishness.

Whilst British identity is well balanced between the English and Scottish, the early establishment of the British identity was Scottish in origin.

It is only through Scottish independence and the previous domination of English culture that British identity has come to be thought of as solely an English identity.

Shame really, as it detracts from the large Scottish influence Britain was made from.

Because what you just said is complete bollocks.

Can you specify further?

[Wulfhere]

Whilst British identity is well balanced between the English and Scottish, the early establishment of the British identity was Scottish in origin.

It is only through Scottish independence and the previous domination of English culture that British identity has come to be thought of as solely an English identity.

Shame really, as it detracts from the large Scottish influence Britain was made from.



Can you specify further?

If you're referring to James I in 1603, as soon as he inherited the English throne he moved to London and only once set foot in Scotland again. The Scots had little or no cultural impact on England. And the union of 1707 was forced on Scotland by England so that it would accept the Hanoverian succession.

[Beorn]

For all your 'lolling' and utterances of bollocks, you fall into the trap yourself.

If you're referring to James I in 1603, as soon as he inherited the English throne he moved to London and only once set foot in Scotland again. The Scots had little or no cultural impact on England. And the union of 1707 was forced on Scotland by England so that it would accept the Hanoverian succession.

We were talking about British identity and not the English identity.

[Wyn]

It doesn't matter though, because what became "British" identity was, in fact, English identity.

Can you prove this?

[Murphy]

The Scots had little or no cultural impact on England.

. . . Don't be stupid. There have been lines of communication between these Isles since man first stood on them. Each have contributed something to the other. One of the most readiest fields that comes to mind that the Scots have contributed to England is that of economics.

Stop living in a bubble Wulfhere, you're not isolated from the rest of the world and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And stop hijacking Tolkien.

And the union of 1707 was forced on Scotland by England so that it would accept the Hanoverian succession.

Many Scottish nobles welcomed the Act though..

[The Lawspeaker]

The original Cypriots chose to be Hellenized and they have been for many millennia's and continue to be today. The Turkish Cypriots are not really Cypriot at all. It would be like calling a black African who've lived in the Netherlands for a number of years then calling him Dutch.

The problem is that the majority of the Turks is indeed not Cypriot. And those should be removed. It should however be noted that there were small Turkish-speaking minorities in Cyprus before 1974.

I don't see why Britain should assume the role of "peacekeeping" and whatsoever. That is world policing and great powers sticking their noses where they don't belong.

British troops have been present in that area since a very long time. There are two British bases on Cyprus and as such the British have the logistical edge thus it should only be logical to put them in command of the peacekeeping operation. It should also be a good idea for the Cypriots to turn down both the Turkish and Greek systems and choose a neutral way: the British Westminster system might work for them.

But you don't know. An independent Cyprus will still remain linguistically and characteristically Greek because the original, non-Hellenized Cypriots are not here today but rather the descendants of Hellenized Cypriots are. And do you know what this means for the Turks? They will not accept such Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriots want Cyprus to be annexed to Turkey and see the Turkification of Cyprus.

The majority of the population is indeed Greek but the island is still too different and too far away from Greece to be integrated within Greece. There is a Turkish minority and possibly some Armenians, Maronites and maybe even the occasional Brit. As such it is a fully Greek island thus there should be a new nation created. It would indeed mean, regrettably, that Islam will be a minority religion for the time being (and let's hope that the majority of those can be converted to Christianity, Alevism or Atheism and that they slowly fuse into the mainsteam Greek population.
There should be no Hellenification nor Turkification and that's why those troops should be there for the time being until a shared identity is found. The majority of the recent Turkish (and Greek) immigrants will have to be repatriated - if necessary by force.

My Balkanization joke is just that, a joke though I do take great pleasure in imagining the demise of European powers through Balkanization as I have saw mine.

It's not a particularly funny joke.. we have seen the results of Balkanisation in Yugoslavia.

[Wulfhere]

For all your 'lolling' and utterances of bollocks, you fall into the trap yourself.



We were talking about British identity and not the English identity.

Indeed. And my point is that there is no difference between English and British identity - at least as far as the English are concerned.

[Beorn]

Indeed. And my point is that there is no difference between English and British identity - at least as far as the English are concerned.

Superficial English identities do not make a British identity, especially when compared to the founding contributions to the British identity.

A cup of tea and a bowler hat, for you I suppose? How very Brit..uh..English...uh...?

The discussion would go somewhere if British Identity, or Britishness was defined.

Britishness is the state or quality of being British,^[2][3] or of embodying British characteristics,^[3] and is used to refer to that which binds and distinguishes the British people and forms the basis of their unity and identity,^[4] or else to explain expressions of British culture—such as habits, behaviours or symbols—that have a common, familiar or iconic quality readily identifiable with the United Kingdom.^[5]

[poiuytrewq0987]

The problem is that the majority of the Turks is indeed not Cypriot. And those should be removed. It should however be noted that there were small Turkish-speaking minorities in Cyprus before 1974.

The Turks came to Cyprus not very long ago in 16th century AD compared to the Cypriots who chose to be Hellenized in 11th century BC.

There should be no Hellification nor Turkification and that's why those troops should be there for the time being until a shared identity is found. The majority of the recent Turkish (and Greek) immigrants will have to be repatriated - if necessary by force.

You're crazy. You want the Cypriots who have felt Greek for a very long time to throw out their identity and conjure up an imaginary identity.