When the writer came to this via his family's Welsh roots, how can he think the Vale of Glamorgan is an expression for all of Glamorgan and includes the Rhondda-Merthyr region? In case you want to know, it specifically means one non-mining rural lowland region on the coast. And how did they typeset Merthyr's ironworks as "Cyfartha" without the second F, at every mention?
The book's thesis carries the same level of reliance. It is a study of shrinkage and overwhelming of Celtic Fringe cultures, including a look at abstract national feeling, but defining their survival by the Celtic languages' survival. This when he is not in the position of having one as his first language: his family had migrated to London and never taught him Welsh, he needed to learn it when his family research in Wales got him interested in the his subject. Yet, without personal axe to grind re the languages, he equates their survival with their nations' continued existence, which is a morally dodgy assumption. Not all nations have their own languages, and as Scotland never had a single national language spanning the Lowland)Highland divide, his point of view does not seem to support that such thing as Scotland exists. He seems to treat just its historically Gaelic-speaking Western regions as constituting a country, and that the idea of Scotland only exists because of that part, though the way its monarchy developed chances to make the kingdom span a bigger area. As he is pessimistic for all the languages and regards cultural assimilation as a demographically unstoppable eventual historical process, he regards the entire Celtic world as a dying out relic. He completely undervalues counter feeling and history feeling in these countries including in their anglicised or English-speaking parts.
He even realises there is an uncomfortable difficulty distinguishing from racism the perception, which he shares with each country's more militant cultural nats, that English immigration and demographic flows of "incomers" take over and assimilate the Celtic cultures. Yet he rightly calls out those migrants to the Isle of Man or Wakes whose motive was to escape England's multiculturalism, holding this same perception of its position.
He has visited each country and discussed their situation with the folks there: that is certainly the good side of his work. Looks at Man, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany as wholes, but only Belfast and west coast Connemara for Ireland, only the Gaelic-speaking Hebrides for Scotland. He has the demographic inspiration to look at 2 emigrated/cleared pockets of ethnically Celtic community across the Atlantic too: Scottish clearances descended Nova Scotia in Canada, and planted Welsh colony Patagonia in Argentina.
For a book on a social issue that is not a religious book, there is far too much church history. Some chapters clogged up with it. He sees the Celtic societies'peripherality as making them susceptible to Evangelical Christian waves of influence, leading to dominating of society, during recent centuries. Through the secular power that a country's strongest church used to have in pre-democratic history, and through the influence of church leaders' attitudes, he sees them as the main decisive power over what happened to languages and whether literary or musical culture was in favour. It offends me that he calls this actually saving the Celtic countries' existence! He defines their existence by anything making them feel distinct from England, and regards all non-Anglican religious revivals as doing that. It offends that it means he does not regard the nations' existence as innate, or able to exist by historical memory, but as down to lucky accidents of a few inspired ppl's work causing these cultural waves of preservation That does not ring true to the strong quantities of cultural memory, Including pre-Christian, in each country!