Jim, I agree with nearly all you say.

You were lucky to encounter, at a young age, people who led you into this music at a time when things were clearer. The trouble is that though there are some great performers who seek to open that door today, there are many more 'champions of The Tradition' who seem to want to do the opposite - vis how Moray, Lakeman and others are vilified here on the web and elsewhere. Even worse, there are many (90% of the English population, BBC executives, advertisers of Sprite lemonade, the US Government, the list is endless) who are so separated from this culture that they fail to recognise any value in it. Our challenge is to reverse this - but only a very few are preared to stand with one foot inside the door and one out, and the die-hards inside trying to shut the door make life even harder for them.

I agree wholeheartedly with this;

"We can do anything we wish with the songs we borrow, sing them unaccompanied or to electric guitars, orchestrate them, sing them in mass choirs, even perform them standing on our heads while drinking a glass of water; so long as we don't mis-represent them by claiming that what we are doing is part of the tradition. Our national traditions as far as I can see, are made up of smaller traditions which, I believe, are, sadly, dead (possible exceptions – childrens' songs and sports chants)."

So - if 'the tradition' is no more, yet people come from outside, step inside, then shut the door, it we're bound to have problems.

I said: We SHARE ownership when we play or use the music - but we should never forget the maker.
You said:Fair enough; tell me their names and I'll acknowledge them in the appropriate manner.
I say: Good - not that it's easy to find a maker, and often it's impossible of course, but it can be done more often than many realise (specially for more recent songs and tunes that lie outside your definition, but within other people's). The trouble is many don't think it's necessary.

I said: IF they are out of copyright.
You said: All traditional songs are – or should be out of copyright – long may it stay that way.
I say: But that's my whole point. Read this page again and you'll see that many have a definition of 'traditional' which takes no account of copyright or 'creative ownership.' The word has too many conflicting meanings, to too many people, to be of any real use now.

I said: We have a problem here in England. The population at large has become divorced from the music which used to be our heritage
You said: It was only ever SOME of our heritage – our tradition is largely a rural or small community one, not one of the whole population. Our urban culture is very different and by and large received passively rather than participated in (with a few exceptions).
I say, as you clarify in your post-script: Again that's only by your definition of the word (shared by many but not all). Others might say it included songs from the revival, music hall, protest songs, union and poltical songs, singer-songwriter stuff that happens to use an acoustic guitar, anything with a story, anything they learned aurally from a floor singer or in a session, anything they've danced to at a ceildh - whatever they fancy. Again - redundant term, too nebulous for effect.

It wasn't the revival that finished off your definition of tradition, it was technology. Other versions thrive, but most importantly the music lives on. Treat your 'rural stream' it as one strand among many and there's no problem. Treat it as the Holy Grail and soon no-one will be able to find it any more.