No you didn't offend me, Simon. I was trying to be a bit too clever and my attempt at tongue in cheek didn't work too well. If anything, I should be apologising to you!
Your posting raises some very interesting issues about the UK. As you can see, I identify myself as Cornish. That does not make me better than anybody else and I respect totally anyone's right to be what they are. However, in a UK context, there seems to be an official move by Gordon Brown to construct and introduce an artificial 'British' identity, together with a British ethnicity (as in 'White British', 'Black British' etc). Ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with skin colour and is more to do with language and culture. There is no singular 'white' language and there are no singular 'Black' , 'Indian', Chinese or 'Asian' languages. Yet the UK administration insists on using such terms in its ethnic classifications. It is quite bizarre, therefore, that Brown seems hellbent on creating this new identity for us all. It won't work for the simple reason that the British population consists of a number of indigenous ethnic groups (i.e. Eng, Scot, Welsh, Cornish, Manx and Irish) together with a complete multitude of new minorities which, as far as government is concerned, are classified in racial (not ethnic) terms. With such a mixed background, it is impossible for Brown to define what constitutes a 'British' identity.
This you have touched on in your comments and you are quite right in saying that Britain, as a territory of the UK, is so much better off for having such a diversity of ethnic/cultural backgrounds. Who on earth would want to be part of Brown's homogenety in which there are no cultural differences anyway? What a boring place it would be.
As to when it started being the UK, I don't really know. The UK has been in existence officially since 1707 with the Act of Union between England and Scotland when, interestingly, England and Scotland ceased to exist. That is never mentioned these days but it is still officially, anyway, the case. Wales was joined to England in 1536 (although the Welsh had little say in the matter) and was considered part of England for the purposes of the 1707 Act.
However, these days, and the advent of devolution, the old treaties seem to have been dispensed with. How that has been allowed to happen, I am not at all sure. However, even though there has never been an act of union between Cornwall and England (the mere existence of a Duke of Cornwall with prerogative powers confirms this to be the case), Cornwall is always (and illegally) considered to be part of England. So, the advent of devolution for the peripheral regions of the UK has not brought the same for Cornwall, even though it has the best claim out for it, when compared to any of any of the others, including Scotland.
Phew! That's got that off my chest! Sorry to have bored anyone.
