cassie

What ground? Well, let's just step back one on your latest evasion. I asked: "Whose heritage? Perhaps you'll give us more particulars . . . if you are able to do so?". Couldn't be much plainer than that. So, where are the particulars?

Thus far, we've had only generalisations [ie evasions] from you about 'customs' [unspecified], 'culture'[unspecified] and 'identity' [again, unspecified] 'etc' [well, that speaks for its vague self!]
Judged by your earlier evasions, I don't suppose you'd care to define what you mean by 'Cornish people' and what distinguishes them from English people?
It was not I who avoided dealing with the substantive issue with petty remarks such as "you have a very small grasp of this subject or anything meant for those over 12 years old." The difference between you and me is that I attempt to substantiate my position with facts; you merely make sweeping assertions.
I would have thought that was obvious, but as you ask: it was to support my argument that the present inhabitants of Cornwall are not significantly different from other parts of England. Indeed, the very name Cornwall itself is relatively recent and, the fact of that territory and its occupants having formed part of and come under the jurisdiction of England for centuries, means that it meets the requirement for English nationality of having a shared culture, language and history.

You, for your part, have failed to substantiate any material differences. Indeed, you've rather conceded the process since ancient times with your admission of "the fact that the heritage and identity of the Cornish people continued to evolve after that period" It most certainly did - into Englishness!

Now, go on, resort once again to that well worn formula of yours when cornered of telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about! All other things being unequal, your Scottish upbringing and education serves you well.


____________________