The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

Josq, surely it's not too difficult a point to concede that countries other than England have regional differences. Even if we reduce it to Europe only.

That's not a point to concede as its completely irrelevant to the point.
What is being disagreed with here is not that there are differences between different parts of basically every country (or every town even). That's so fucking obvious its ridiculous to think there could be disagreement.
Its that the north of England is more akin to Scotland than it is to the south of England thus rendering the concept of England in a cultural sense pretty pointless.

[Grey Fox]

Where, how & why does that matter?

How different is Scotland to England?

[crazy canuck]

Josq, surely it's not too difficult a point to concede that countries other than England have regional differences. Even if we reduce it to Europe only.

That's not a point to concede as its completely irrelevant to the point.
What is being disagreed with here is not that there are differences between different parts of basically every country (or every town even). That's so fucking obvious its ridiculous to think there could be disagreement.
Its that the north of England is more akin to Scotland than it is to the south of England thus rendering the concept of England in a cultural sense pretty pointless.

I don't understand.  If the north of England is more like the Scottish than the English, aren't you conceding that there is something called England as a cultural concept?

If not, what is the south of England culturally?

[Josquius]

Where, how & why does that matter?

How different is Scotland to England?

That's the point. Saying "British" would be a better solution in most circumstances. You won't find much that is common between the north and south that isn't also the case in Scotland- you will however find far more that is common between Scotland and the north.

I don't understand.  If the north of England is more like the Scottish than the English, aren't you conceding that there is something called English as a cultural concept?

England exists as a legal concept. There is a clear border that can be pointed to.
But if you're talking about differences between the people in the north and south of Britain that's not a very good place to draw your line, you'd be looking 200-250km further south.

If not, what is the south of England culturally?

Sexland :p

[crazy canuck]

People living in the South of Scotland are also different from Northern Scotland. A good argument for moving the border North?

[Grey Fox]

Where, how & why does that matter?

How different is Scotland to England?

That's the point. Saying "British" would be a better solution in most circumstances. You won't find much that is common between the north and south that isn't also the case in Scotland- you will however find far more that is common between Scotland and the north.

I think I finally understand what all of this is about.

No, all yous are England.

[Josquius]

People living in the South of Scotland are also different from Northern Scotland. A good argument for moving the border North?

Absolutely its often worth distinguishing the Highlands and Lowlands. It could be argued there's another border there and 'north Britain' is actually 'middle Britain'.
Though the Highlands does have a pretty low population, especially in the truly distinctive areas (see also Wales), so if one line is to be drawn its the Mersey-Humberish one.

[Sheilbh]

England is, with Denmark and Japan, probably the earliest "settled", stable, still surviving national identity in the world. There's been a state on basically the same borders as England now for the last 1,000 years (given, Berwick moves back and forth). I'm sorry but it's nonsense to claim there's no such thing or that it excludes or is exclusive of the north over really, really minor cultural differences that are really common around the world.

That's the point. Saying "British" would be a better solution in most circumstances. You won't find much that is common between the north and south that isn't also the case in Scotland- you will however find far more that is common between Scotland and the north.

No. As someone who grew up in Scotland the only thing more enraging watching the news than people saying Britain when they mean England is people saying England when they mean Britain.

Absolutely its often worth distinguishing the Highlands and Lowlands. It could be argued there's another border there and 'north Britain' is actually 'middle Britain'.

North Britons not hitherto associated with Scottish inclusive views

People living in the South of Scotland are also different from Northern Scotland. A good argument for moving the border North?

I'd actually split Scotland in three. Lowlands = basically English, Central Belt = urban, (post-)industrial, historic Irish/Catholic presence and still more diverse and the Highlands.

Although as I've mentioned before my parents were very involved in setting up Gaelic medium education in our part of the Highlands when I as a kid and there were regular outraged letters in the local press (John O'Groat Journal) about how Gaelic had never been spoken there as it was part of Norway until Margaret of Denmark married the Scottish king, so they should be setting up Norse medium education instead. So maybe in four

Edit: And not lost on me that the view from most of Scotland is that the bit of Scotland Jos would join the North onto is viewed as more or less English and the least "Scottish" bit of the country

[crazy canuck]

 

The only meaningful distinction I can add is that when I hitchhiked from London to the Highlands back in the mists of time, it was incredibly difficult to get a ride in the South.  It was really just transport trucks in the South, and each time the driver tried to convince me it was madness to go further North.  When I reached the Borders, it was easy to get a ride in private vehicles, and as I got into Scotland the driver was astonished to learn what I had done and that I had survived the South.

[Josquius]

England is, with Denmark and Japan, probably the earliest "settled", stable, still surviving national identity in the world. There's been a state on basically the same borders as England now for the last 1,000 years (given, Berwick moves back and forth). I'm sorry but it's nonsense to claim there's no such thing or that it excludes or is exclusive of the north over really, really minor cultural differences that are really common around the world.

We've had 300 years of Britain.
And even before then you'd be surprised at how big cross border links were.
It's a weird blip of history that the borders basically solidified after the Scots had taken Edinburgh. Until pretty late in the day you have sources of people from South East Scotland declaring themselves to be English.
Also as mentioned a weird blip that the name England is the one that stuck despite this being the northern name.
Again you're completely misunderstanding the point here. It's not that differences between north and south are especially huge in all the world. It's that they're smaller between Scotland and the north than between the south and the north.

No. As someone who grew up in Scotland the only thing more enraging watching the news than people saying Britain when they mean England is people saying England when they mean Britain.

So don't do that?
This makes absolutely no sense. Why would you say Britain when you mean England?
Say Britain when you mean Britain.
Say northern Britain when you mean northern Britain.
Say southern England when you mean southern England.
Say Scotland when you mean Scotland.
But say England when speaking about something other than history, law or sport and be met with suspicion.  As that's a weird place to draw a cultural border.

North Britons not hitherto associated with Scottish inclusive views :

Eh?
Of course Scotland is included.

[Maladict]

This is pretty cool

These Weird Sea Creatures Can Fuse to Become a Single Animal When Injured


Time doesn't heal all wounds. If you're an injured comb jellyfish, you might just need another of your species to meld with.

That's what biologists at the University of Chicago's Marine Biological Laboratory found when they were examining samples of a species called Mnemiopsis leidyi, also known as the warty comb jelly. Native to the western Atlantic, these jellyfish have a bizarre ability to fuse together after being injured, merging not only their outer tissues but also their nervous and digestive systems. The findings could have huge ramifications for the study of human regeneration.

The discovery was spurred by a random observation. A day after collecting some of the comb jellyfish from the wild, the researchers noticed that one of them had weird characteristics. These types of comb jellyfish normally have one apical organ, a sensory organ possessed by many invertebrates, but this specimen had two. It also had two aboral ends: In other words, it had two butts, which, again, is odd.

The biologists theorized that the jellyfish (singular) had previously been jellyfish (plural), and had fused together as a way to survive injuries. To satisfy their curiosity, they partially amputated lobes from other jellyfish and placed them together into a tank. As they reported in Current Biology, in nine cases out of 10, the pairs of comb jellyfish combined into a single entity. In all nine of those cases, the fused animals survived for three full weeks in their holding tanks. As three weeks was the duration of the experiment, it's possible they could survive even longer after shmushing themselves together.

The process was a quick one. After just a single hour, the movement of grafted lobes became synchronized. An hour after that, the overall movement of the combined creature's lobes were 95% synced up. After just one night, the boundary between the combined jellyfish had become "continuous," the biologists wrote, with the outermost layers of tissue looking "seamless." Even the nervous systems showed signs of gelling together. When the biologists poked a lobe on what had been one jellyfish, it caused a startled response in a lobe that belonged to the other.

"We were astonished to observe that mechanical stimulation applied to one side of the fused ctenophore resulted in a synchronized muscle contraction on the other side," said Kei Jokura, a postdoctoral researcher who worked on the study, in a statement.

Even the digestive system acted as one. In a video of one of their experiments, one side of a fused jellyfish can be seen digesting a brine shrimp that had been injected with a fluorescent substance. As the jellyfish began digesting it, fluorescent particles can be seen flowing into the lobe of its attached compatriot, which pooped out some waste.

"The transport of digestive particles across the fused canals suggests that such systems are functionally coupled and not just physically connected," the biologists wrote. However, the fact that only one side expelled waste may actually indicate the two jellyfish don't truly become a single animal. "The lack of synchronized excretion suggests that the transient nature of the anus and its ultradian rhythm remain independently controlled in the fused individuals," the scientists added.

There's still much to learn about how the fused jellyfish function, and why this weird behavior helps them survive. In the paper, the scientists said it's not clear how the nervous systems are able to join together, something they hope to learn more about with further experimentation.

   
The discovery could go beyond describing a novel survival mechanism. Jokura said it appears the jellyfish lack a system for allorecognition, or the ability to recognize if cells belong to the self, or to others. Allorecognition is a key component to medical procedures like organ transplants, so these weird sea creatures, who might be big Spice Girls fans, could hold the key to advances in immune system and regeneration therapies.

[crazy canuck]

Very cool

[Josquius]

Have to question the ethics of the experiment though.

Then again jellyfish suck. They deserve it.

[Barrister]

I genuinely feel a tiny bit stupider from reading Jos's posts over the last few pages.

I get it dude.  You don't like London.  I feel your pain - I live in Canada and don't like the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto axis either.  I mean - put aside the fact there/s 2700 km between Edmonton and Toronto, versus 400km between Newcastle and London.

(Holy crap - only 400km?  That's a fucking day trip by car).

But that doesn't by any stretch mean that western Canada is more like, well I guess the USA, than it is eastern Canada.  I know from personal experience the Scots would be quite offended at the notion that northern England should be a part of Scotland (extreme edge cases like Berwick notwithstanding).

[Sheilbh]

The only meaningful distinction I can add is that when I hitchhiked from London to the Highlands back in the mists of time, it was incredibly difficult to get a ride in the South.  It was really just transport trucks in the South, and each time the driver tried to convince me it was madness to go further North.  When I reached the Borders, it was easy to get a ride in private vehicles, and as I got into Scotland the driver was astonished to learn what I had done and that I had survived the South.

Yeah. It's six of one half dozen of the other. Part of it I think is fairly common in most countries - so I was in rural Scotland where everyone is friendly, but everyone also knows everyone else's business and you can live there for 15 years and you'll still be "new". And a lot of what they say about Southern unfriendliness is true - but it's also what they'd say about Edinburgh (also true ).

And I think even the "why are you going there?" is common (at least in this hemisphere). Always remember we had a family camping trip down the Great Glen and literally no one else in the family could understand why we were choosing to go somewhere with worse weather and midgies for a holiday. I think that nowadays Southerners at least broadly accept that the Lake District, Edinburgh and the Highlands are pretty to visit and Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester and Liverpool are a good night out.

There's definitely similarities, especially Liverpool and Glasgow and lots of overlap. As I say I think talking of differences on these isles is really vanity of small differences stuff. (And in all this it's the Welsh I feel sorry for - and the far less talked about but quite striking East-West divide )