Over the centuries, yes. Over the space of a few years is a quite different matter. This, in fact, is the great divide in our country now - between the big cities and everywhere else, basically. The real England exists outside the cities - a fact reflected constantly in voting patterns.
I would recommend 'The Road To Somewhere' by David Goodhart on this subject.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Somewh.../dp/1849047995
Last edited by Burney; 05-29-2019 at 03:53 PM.
ikHiTin.jpg
..............................
[QUOTE=Burney;4240725]London is the capital city of England and the principal city of the United Kingdom. For it not to reflect the wider country in ethnic, cultural or linguistic terms is an anomalous situation to say the least. And, given the degree to which it now fails to reflect the wider country, it is fair comment to argue that it has ceased in those terms at least to be an English city.[QUOTE]
The point here is that John Cleese said London is no longer an English city. You are saying that it is a fact that there are more non-indigenous people in London than indigenous. You have not provided any basis for this other than what can only amount to a "feeling"
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just challenging your method of determination. Your use of the word integration is almost unquantifiable.
"Scoring a goal is better than sex" - Whoever said that was sticking it to the wrong woman
[QUOTE=Alberto Balsam Rodriguez;4240989][QUOTE=Burney;4240725]London is the capital city of England and the principal city of the United Kingdom. For it not to reflect the wider country in ethnic, cultural or linguistic terms is an anomalous situation to say the least. And, given the degree to which it now fails to reflect the wider country, it is fair comment to argue that it has ceased in those terms at least to be an English city.The 2011 Census is the basis for that assertion. Look it up if you don't believe me.
The point here is that John Cleese said London is no longer an English city. You are saying that it is a fact that there are more non-indigenous people in London than indigenous. You have not provided any basis for this other than what can only amount to a "feeling"
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just challenging your method of determination. Your use of the word integration is almost unquantifiable.
The union of the kingdoms of Britain and Ireland. Two countries United under the crown. Just as the current United Kingdom is of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the UK (a nation state). It is not geographically a part of Britain (by definition) nor is it politically a part of Britain because Britain does not exist as a political entity. Its a region of a nation state.
I did say technically....
But - and this is actually the point - the people were Britons. They were British. Unlike Indians or Africans who were colonised, they were British. So therefore their movement from one part of the Kingdom to another cannot be termed immigration any more than it could if people from Yorkshire moved to London.