Welcome To The World Of The UK Celt!

Nicola Sturgeon is the leader of Scotland, a (non) Celtic Nation. She believes that resources found off the shoreline of her part of the UK belong to HER country, and UK resources also belong to HER country, as part of the UK. She enjoys scoring points against the basically moribund English, and insists on 'Scots' not 'British' for her country's peoples - whether they like bagpipes or not. She thinks men are a 'problem', women are not, and is basically a Marxist Feminist and historical revisionist. She is the daughter of celebrated 1980s comedian Jimmy Krankie. Whoops, sorry, she LOOKS like the daughter of celebrated 1980s comedian Jimmy Krankie.

Hello, good morning/afternoon/evening/night to all who have come here eager to discover what it means to be a Celt in today's UK, and what it means NOT to be a Celt in today's UK.

Does being a Celt mean that you are English, 'Cornish' (I insert speech marks here because many 'Cornish' people consider themselves English), Scottish or Welsh with some historic lineage in the UK?

Bless your heart, no. It means that you call yourself a 'Celt' because of what academic and Welsh Nationlist Edward Lhuyd said in 1707 (a linguistic label - he didn't actually call your forebears or your nations Celtic) and you are a 'Cornish'/Scottish/Welsh/Irish person with a grievance, who wants to prove your moral superiority and the 'superior' length of tenure of your forebears in the British Isles.

It means you go on Wikipedia and rewrite the history of your 'Celtic nation', and basically play up to the notion that your ancestors were wonderful, mystical and basically a lovely white race. You brand their artefacts 'Celtic', whereas 'Iron Age' or similar would be a better description, and you create a complete work of fiction, designed to get you and your 'kind' better treatment than the 'rabble' in England - the most multi-ethnic UK nation, even proportionally.

You pursue this aim by claiming historical victimhood for your nations, and base it on the Marxist model of oppressed/oppressor. The English = Oppressors, The 'Cornish'/Scots/Welsh/Irish = Oppressed.

Braveheart? Total truth, of course - although it's absolutely not.

Being a UK Celt means that you are not actually a Celt. DNA evidence proves that amply. But historians are so cowed by your vehemence and victim culture they will say you have a 'Celtic' heritage instead, even though your genes are far more like the English (who, although largely of the same background, do not term themselves 'Celts') and the Celts didn't have male voice choirs, bake pasties or wear kilts.

Of course, in reality, your countries are not perfect and 'victims' as you claim. Historically, Scotland had clan warfare, the Darien disaster, the Clearances (which weren't an English imposition), the fact that the Poll Tax was the brainchild of Scot Douglas Mason, that it was implemented there a year earlier because the Scots Secretary of State wanted it, and was disproportionately active in the British Empire... and I could go on.

Of course, some Scots Nationalists (more about nationalists later) believe that the majority of North Sea oil belongs to Scotland alone, not the UK, despite being bailed out of near bankruptcy by England with the Darien 'equivalent' after Scotland had tried a solo colonisation project, and huge financial profits and elevation on the world stage by gaining access to formerly English resources and ventures via the union.

What's England's is also Scotland's, but what's Scotland's is Scotland's alone.

And Wales? Ancient and lovely and all so purely of this island? Bunk. What became Wales was a hotbed of factions and kingdoms, slugging it out, not a unified ancient nation, long after the formation of England. But they must invent something else. Wales believes itself lovely. England is always to blame.

And the English - Anglo Saxons? Well, the North Sea newcomers didn't call themselves Anglo Saxons and were very quickly marrying locals (as proven at Oakington) and that partnership coalesced into what became the early English. Inclusive!

Phrases like 'insular languages' were coined by fake Celtic nationalists - like John Rhys - establishing a fictional history for his own country, Wales. But this island has long been the new homeland of diverse peoples - going right back to the Beaker People, who displaced most of the population here long before England, Scotland and Wales existed. So, all languages here will have external influences. So, why can't English which, after all, was formed in England, be an 'insular language' too? Because it affronts the highly exclusive Celtic myth adherents, that's why.

If, like Ireland, your country is partitioned by a Welsh Prime Minister, with the eager backing of Protestant Scots, the terrorist group formed years later will come over and bomb, kill and maim the English in protest because it will not harm its 'Celtic kinfolk'.

Scots, Welsh and Irish English-phobics always blame 'the English' - England - a country which was subsumed in the so-called 'union' hundreds of years ago as 'British'/'Britain', while their countries went on fiercely self-identifying.

There is a related movement to the white Celtic fiction endorsers and they are called 'nationalists'.

Nicola Sturgeon again. Go and change that suit, Nicola. It looks clarty.

Nationalists are very similar in their aims to preserve their countries' elitist status - and sometimes believers in the 'Celtic' myth too. They also believe that the far larger and more ethnically diverse England is evil, and that they would fare better alone.

Despite scooping more from the UK tax pot per capita than the people of England, sponsored largely by their largesse. 

And so you have the Barnett Formula (and, for Scotland, another formula before that, Goeschen, from 1888), which means that your people get more per head for essential services than the people in England (the formula was called 'grossly unfair' to poor people in England by its creator, Lord Joel Barnett), and asymmetric national devolution, and all sorts of lovely and expensive things - like free prescriptions for millionaires - that the most ethnically diverse nation can't have.

And there's the West Lothian Question: MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland get a non-democratic vote on England's domestic legislation. They are not elected in England. The UK Parliament is not 'London' or 'England' centric. It permits the smaller countries' politicians undemocratic votes on England.

The UK Parliament likes to argue that it cannot have two levels of MPs in this 'house'. well, it does: those who are accountable to the electorate they serve, and those who are not.

The UK Parliament worships the union, and doesn't even particularly like England, treating it as something not to be mentioned unless absolutely necessary, and submerging it under 'Britain' and 'British'.

The UK Parliament values its own continuation in its current form far more than fairness and an inclusive, civic English national identity. It seems to have absorbed all the one-sided anti-England bile from Scotland and Wales and run with it.

And, despite the UK Parliament's attempts to keep control with artificial regions in England, thus creating rivalries and more layers of expensive bureaucrats and politicians, there are areas of intense poverty across the whole of England.

Over the next few years we'll be diving down the rabbit hole of Celtic-ness in the UK, from dialects being redubbed languages, to the need of these people to belong to something white, mysterious, beautiful, ancient and fake, to more money and democratic representation for being of fake (and WHITE, of course) lineage, we'll have it all.

Welcome and please stay tuned.