I really don't know why you're being hostile about this.
It feels like you're overcooking the distinction between people here, where I actually live. It's significantly more of a smear than anything distinct. Celtish divided into Pictish/Non-Pictish then subdivided into Gaelic and Brittonic. Under which you have later subdivisions of modern Irish, Scottish and Manx vs Welsh, Cornish and English.
The issue you have is that all of these also spoke Common and had barely any borders. Travel was open, intermixing was open, and everything was muddy. The differences are not lines but more of a smear. The clearest distinction that can possibly be made is that the anglo-saxon settlers were a distinct ethnicity from the Celts at the time of settling. But with little limitation on the mixing between peoples and Old-English coming to replace Common-Brittonic that distinction is less clear.
I don't think many people from anywhere in Britain are going to seriously and straight-facedly say to you "I am a distinct and different ethnicity to the Welsh" in anything other than a completely mocking, circlejerky and entirely unserious way.
I am not intending to be hostile. I am just very confused as too what you think ethinc groups are, because you say that the Scottish are not a different ethnic group from the English and then in detail explain how the Scottish are actually a distinct group from the English. Like ethnic groups are not hard boundaries, some people move between them multiple times in their lives. For example tons of people n western anatolia who's ancestors 200 years ago would have considered themselves as Turkish and Greek and were only later forced to become solely Turkish due to the events after ww1. They may not have even changed anything about how they lived their lives, and may still even speak Greek as a second language. Like ethnicity isn't a genetic thing that can be tested for. It also isn't a permanent thing but something that can form expand shrink and be absorbed into another. Like Welsh is a good example of this, 100 years ago you could easily say that the Welsh ethnicity was on its way to extinction, while now it has made a huge comeback as Welsh language and culture have been encouraged in schools.
Like ethnicity also doesn't have to be a serious thing people die over. How ethnicity is handled in the US and Britain are actually one if the few things we have managed to handle well as societies.
The issue here is that the island has had a shared cultural history and language for its entire history. Common Brittonic, and later Old English.
These sub-groups had their own languages yes. But the whole island also spoke Common.
For the people in Britain this produces a distinctly blurring of groups. One where you have your own independent group and also one where you have the larger shared group. If language and culture are the two things you use to define ethnicity then among people on terf island you have the muddying effect of two ethnicities, the minor and the greater.
Wut
I really don't know why you're being hostile about this.
It feels like you're overcooking the distinction between people here, where I actually live. It's significantly more of a smear than anything distinct. Celtish divided into Pictish/Non-Pictish then subdivided into Gaelic and Brittonic. Under which you have later subdivisions of modern Irish, Scottish and Manx vs Welsh, Cornish and English.
The issue you have is that all of these also spoke Common and had barely any borders. Travel was open, intermixing was open, and everything was muddy. The differences are not lines but more of a smear. The clearest distinction that can possibly be made is that the anglo-saxon settlers were a distinct ethnicity from the Celts at the time of settling. But with little limitation on the mixing between peoples and Old-English coming to replace Common-Brittonic that distinction is less clear.
I don't think many people from anywhere in Britain are going to seriously and straight-facedly say to you "I am a distinct and different ethnicity to the Welsh" in anything other than a completely mocking, circlejerky and entirely unserious way.
I am not intending to be hostile. I am just very confused as too what you think ethinc groups are, because you say that the Scottish are not a different ethnic group from the English and then in detail explain how the Scottish are actually a distinct group from the English. Like ethnic groups are not hard boundaries, some people move between them multiple times in their lives. For example tons of people n western anatolia who's ancestors 200 years ago would have considered themselves as Turkish and Greek and were only later forced to become solely Turkish due to the events after ww1. They may not have even changed anything about how they lived their lives, and may still even speak Greek as a second language. Like ethnicity isn't a genetic thing that can be tested for. It also isn't a permanent thing but something that can form expand shrink and be absorbed into another. Like Welsh is a good example of this, 100 years ago you could easily say that the Welsh ethnicity was on its way to extinction, while now it has made a huge comeback as Welsh language and culture have been encouraged in schools.
Like ethnicity also doesn't have to be a serious thing people die over. How ethnicity is handled in the US and Britain are actually one if the few things we have managed to handle well as societies.
The issue here is that the island has had a shared cultural history and language for its entire history. Common Brittonic, and later Old English.
These sub-groups had their own languages yes. But the whole island also spoke Common.
For the people in Britain this produces a distinctly blurring of groups. One where you have your own independent group and also one where you have the larger shared group. If language and culture are the two things you use to define ethnicity then among people on terf island you have the muddying effect of two ethnicities, the minor and the greater.
My apologies I am sorry for being unnecessarily hostile.