Based on your posting history, I seriously doubt you actually believe this. It is merely something you are saying, because you think it is funny to pretend to believe this population of English-speaking Euro-'Americans' constitute a separate nation of people.

My guess is you do not actually believe in the mental category 'nation' at all. This is all fine and dandy: that is what Third-Worldism is for. We can ultimately dispense with the National Question and just take it right to the issue of surplus-value calculation. In fact, it is even worse for the opportunists like yourself when this happens, because it becomes even more clear you are acting as nothing but the mouthpieces of a parasitic labor aristocracy.

But if we are to pretend for a moment that you actually take the National Question seriously, nothing you have said even really attempts to legitimately establish that this population you speak of constitutes a separate nation.

What I like to call the 'hard criteria' of nationhood is the language question. It is indisputable that two different languages = two different nations. Sometimes in my mind, I like to think of it not so much as nations, but what I like to call communicative groups. The idea that you can belong to the same nation with someone you can not even communicate with is nonsense, so it is the easiest point to begin the analysis.

But same language ≠ same nation. It could be the case, whenever there is the same language, that the nations are the same, but not necessarily.

This is primarily where the 'soft criteria' come in. A large part of this can be re-described in terms of splitting or absorption.

In the case of the Irish and the Scots, if they belong to the same nation as the rest of the United Kingdom (or 'America', Australia, 'Canada,' and New Zealand for that matter), then it is a case of absorption: at one point in time, they were a separate nation, but through conquest and time, they have been absorbed into the dominant nation. So here, their case for independent nationhood is actually much stronger. They clearly were, at one time, part of a separate nation. There is only a question if they are today.

However, 'Americans' and 'Canadians' are a case of separation. That is, they clearly belonged to the same nation of the people they split with. This is so evident in the case of English-speaking 'Canada', that you can see the Queen of England on their money. Here the criteria for establishing a separate national identity is much more difficult. They clearly once belonged to the same nation that they are claiming to be different from, so there is much less of a historical basis to ground any potential arguments in.

With this "Appalachian" nation you claim (falsely) to believe in, it is not even clear what you are arguing. Did they once belong to the surrounding 'American' nation that your ridiculous arguments claims to believe in, and have separated from at some point? Or were they once a distinct nation of people that got absorbed into the English-speaking Euro-'American' nation?

Until you even try to answer this question, there is no reason to believe you are serious. You not only need to justify why there is a separate "Appalachian" nation, you need to tell us what it is separate from.

Historically speaking, most of the population in this part of 'America' are descendants from Scots. What is the difference between arguing these people are not Scottish with arguing they are not 'American'?