Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Scottish history thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow

    Looked up the word sassunnach essan and i am afraid you are mistaken.

     

    Perhaps you have heard of edward dwelly?

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Dwelly

     

    Edward dwellys dictionary is to the gaelic language as the oxford is to english.

     

    Anyway , he is regarded as an icon for modern scottish gaelic.

     

    You are assuming the word sassunnach has stood rooted in meaning throughout time. It translates as saxon man , originally used to describe the germanic speaking tribes and later used  in scottish to describe the english speaking lowland areas in scotland. Used from the mid 14th century onwards increasingly as gaelic retreated.

     

    In the 16th and 17th century , it was increasingly used as an insult against anglified scots ( similar terms applied to anglified irish and welsh in their respective countries) with the corresponding term used to insult by the lowland scots against the gaelic speakers by calling them teuchters.

     

    The corresponding word for england is sassainn , where the corressponding word for the scottish inglis speaking lowlands was never sassainn , but ghallda.( foreigners)

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

    Aye, lowlanders are sassunachs - whether you come from London or Newcastle or Edinburgh makes no difference.And while we're at it, Alba is the Gaelic form of Albion.  Which does not mean Scotland.  It means Britain :) 

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Manhattan, USA
  • Location: Manhattan, USA

     

    Looked up the word sassunnach essan and i am afraid you are mistaken.

     

    Who is this aimed at ? What is this thread about ? Who is mistaken ?

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow

    Aye, lowlanders are sassunachs - whether you come from London or Newcastle or Edinburgh makes no difference.

    And while we're at it, Alba is the Gaelic form of Albion.  Which does not mean Scotland.  It means Britain Posted Image

     

    Yes , but its not an ethnic term (in the way you mean). The lowlands were once part of the gaidhealtachd , while london and newcastle never were.

     

    London and newcastle are in sasainn , but edinburgh in alba.( using modern terms of course.)

     

    Yes your right about albion , but not english britain , celtic britianPosted Image

    Who is this aimed at ? What is this thread about ? Who is mistaken ?

    hi see thread title , its a spill over from scottish politics and a discussion essan and i were involved in.

    Edited by balmaha
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

    Yes , but its not an ethnic term

    Exactly!   We're all British, whether townie or county, highland or lowland :)But don't tell the politicians who want to divide us!

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

    Yes , but its not an ethnic term (in the way you mean). The lowlands were once part of the gaidhealtachd , while london and newcastle never were.

    Like most of Scotland, the Lowlands were originally Welsh*. And, laterly, in the east (Lothian etc), Anglian - from whence Scots dialect is derived.Gaelic is to Edinburgh what Polish is to Glasgow.* it's not sure when Irish first became established in the HebridesBut a Highlander refered to anyone from the lowlands, or who spoke Anglian, as a Sassunach.  Whether they be from Edinburgh, Dumfries, Aberdeen, Carlisle or  Paris.  

    Edited by Essan
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow

    Exactly!   We're all British, whether townie or county, highland or lowland Posted Image

    But don't tell the politicians who want to divide us!

    Well no we are not. The british are not homogenous , any more than europeans are. No one can argue we have been in a union for 300 years , that doesnt eradicate differences politically , historically or culturally.

    I have as much in common to a lesser or greater degree with an irish man , french , norwegian than i have with an englishman. Dont want the irish , norwegian nor french parliaments ruling scotland either.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow
    Essan its interesting hearing your thoughts on Scottish history on a weather forum.Posted Image
     
    Hard to compress down to a post on a thread but ill try.
     
    Earliest culture we know of in Scotland is the celtic culture . The celts didn’t build skara brae any more than they built Stonehenge , these were pre celtic people we know little about. At some time around approx 1200 to 1000 bc the celts came to Britain and what is now modern Scotland.
     
    The hard thing is the pre christian celts practised the druidic religion which forbade the writing of anything down. So its hard to find out much about them till the Mediterranean peoples like the greeks and romans , who called them the keltoi and celtae , encountered them. 
     
    The term celt isn’t racial , but linguistic and cultural. The celts spread out from their origins at the headwaters of the rived Danube in central Europe , west to Ireland and east as far as central turkey and Galatia.
     
    When the romans first came to Britain , they recorded the language as celtic , or what we term brythonic celtic. In manner and dress etc the british celts were like the gauls of what is now modern france.
     
    As the romans pushed north throughout Britain , they eventually stopped around the forth clyde ( building the antonine wall) as well as a line of forts along the edge of the highlands. The british celts to the north became sundered from their fellow celts to the south . Although we have no written evidence it is assumed their  language developed different in the north , while the brythonic celtic of the south developed different to its contact with latin. The northern language and people became known as the picts and pictish , the southern as british which was a forerunner of modern welsh.
     
    Around 300 ad approx the irish tribes the scots , hiberni and attecoti enter the fray. Although they are in historical tradition supposed to have colonised what is now modern argyll at this time ( earra gaidheal seabord of the gael) archaeology puts them in argyll a lot earlier than this. Some have claimed the gaels colonised Ireland from argyll. This small kingdom was known as dal riada.
     
    By the end of the roman period in 410 ad , Scotland was divided between gaelic dal riada , the majority pictland , kingdom of Strathclyde , rheged in the far south and y goddodin in the south east centred in dynas eidyn.
     
    Around 547 a new people enter the fray in the north. Dinas guaire falls to the angles to be renamed Bebbanberg or modern bam borough. Both rheged and y goddodin fall to the angles around the start of the 7th century and a new kingdom called Bernicia is founded round the mouths of the tweed.
     
    In 603 the gaelic dal riadans are beaten at the battle of degas tan in south west Scotland. In 638 , the angles burn dinas eidyn to the ground and attack the picts , setting up a bishopric at Abercorn by the banks of the forth. 50 years later , the angles of Northumbria are slaughtered at dunnichen in angus forever ending their expansion north of the forth. One of the major turning points in the foundation of modern Scotland.
     
    The next attempt by expansion is by eadhbert king of the Northumbria’s in 750. He lays claim to lands in the south west , attempts to beseige Dumbarton and is attacked and defeated on his way home. Contemporary and archaeological evidence for the angles in Scotland is scant to say the least , except the ruthwell cross and 6 place names , nothing remains of the anglian period in southern Scotland. 
     
    The turning point in the foundation of the warring kingdoms is the emergence of the Vikings in the late 8th century.  They essentially cause the fall of nearly every kingdom throughout the british isles. In the north , the joining of the picitish and dal riadan peoples in the fledgeling gaelic kingdom of alba centred around scone from 850 ad , and in the south the kingdom of Wessex survives to claim lands to the north.
     
    Whatever was left of anglian Northumbria , it was certainly danish settled and controlled form the mid 9th century onwards. The remains of the anglo british kingdom in the south east of Scotland came under sustained attack from the Scottish kings. By 1018 and the Scottish victory at carham , the new boundary of the gaelic kingdom of Scotland was fixed by the tweed , and some gaelic lords like gille Michael as recorded by symeon of durham ruled as far as the tyne. This was the period of the gaelic languages greatest extent , from the pentland firth to the tweed and beyond. 
     
    Whatever was left of the old british and pictish languages were dying out , possibly lasting in remote areas as late as the 12th century. The anglo danish language of the far south east was certainly impacted by the annexation of the area by the Scottish kings. The gaelic lords settled the area , as many place names testify.
     
    Events in the south were to stop gaelic ultimately in its place. The events at hastings and the fall of England , and the subsequent  displacement of the last celtic king of Scotland by malcom canmore introduced new and foreign ways to the Scottish court.
     
    The beginning of the end for gaelic Scotland really began in 1124 when david the first introduced norman knights into Scotland in an attempt to modernise  the country and end the old celtic ways. The means to this were the introduction of feudalism which was an anathema to the semi communist gaels.
     
    Large provinces like moray rose against the Scottish king and this new foreign elite , and david quickly replaced many of the old celtic aristocracy in the south and east of the country while offering those that would accept his new ways a place in his feudal pyramid.
     
    This was the beginning of  the division of Scotland culturally and linguistically . While gaelic remained the language of the court and administration till the 1400`s , many of the Scottish elite came to speak norman French. It was also around this period the old celtic church of Scotland went into decline , to be replaced by roman catholiscism in a feudal structure centred around rome. David also set up the first merchant burghs at Berwick and Roxburgh. Many Flemish and Normans were invited to settle Scotland.
     
    Around the mid 14th century , an important development took place in norman England as a result of the hundred years war. The English language was reintroduced as a way of galvanising the saxon peasants in fighting for the norman elite against the French. Many of these same norman elite held lands in both England and Scotland , so inglis , which became known as scots , was born and introduced at the Scottish court. While the majority of Scottish people  and kings of Scotland would speak gaelic for centuries , this was the time of the beginning of the end for gaelic in Scotland. It began to lose its status as the Scottish language , and retreated to the more remote corners of the kingdom. The first british census of1800 showed that a fifth of the population still spoke it . It is also around this time mid 14th early 15th century , that the term highland and lowland come into use in Scotland. This was to show the linguistic divide.
     
    Rather than a separate people as later historians were wont  to describe the highlanders , they were simply those scots that refused to give up the ancient language and culture. It became a problem region for the anglified , feudalised Scottish kings who spent centuries attacking the area in an effort to bring them into line with the rest of Scotland. A favourite tactic was to give one clan the rights to tribal lands of another , and the Scottish kings would sit back and watch the fireworks. Both the highlands and borders remained essentially outwith the control of many Scottish kings , until the union of the crowns when james the 6th  forced many trouble makers out of the borders and settled them in Ireland.
     
    The highlands was to remain a problem until the Scottish now british elite destroyed the area after Culloden.
     
    Very brief and quickly written , feel free to discuss  and pick holes and I will reply as and when I have time and hopefully other will join in if interested.
    • Like 5
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow

    Well no we are not. The british are not homogenous , any more than europeans are. No one can argue we have been in a union for 300 years , that doesnt eradicate differences politically , historically or culturally.

    I have as much in common to a lesser or greater degree with an irish man , french , norwegian than i have with an englishman. Dont want the irish , norwegian nor french parliaments ruling scotland either.

    thought i would add essan that parts of scotland have been controlled or in a union with ireland and norway a lot longer than the british union. The whole of scotland was in various alliances and unions with france for a lot longer as well. All languages have been spoken in scotland as well for centuries. What makes the union with england any more special or important?

    Britain is defined as a multi national state , not a homogenous country.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion

    This could become an interesting discussion :)But you'll have to bear with me until I have time for a detailed response later in the week - when I will prove that its all the Roman's fault :D

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow

    no worries essan. outwith family and work constraints , we can both reply as and when.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow

    http://www.romanscotland.org.uk/pages/narratives/tribes.asp

     

     

    Logic suggests that the tribes will have prudently melted away and vanished into the mist in the face of an invading well organised Roman army and it seems likely that this indeed did happen and prevented easy and rapid ironfast conquest by the legions. Clearly not always, notable hills -often crowned by forts- appear to have been focal mustering points for the tribes in Scotland and many of the known Roman marching camps record that Roman armies on campaign in Scotland frequently and ominously head to and pitch up aggressively at the base of such hills. This confirms that historical confrontations or negotiations did indeed take place in front of both sides marshalled manpower as clearly happened between the Emperor Septimus Severus and the Caledonians at Mither Tap - Bennachie in 209 AD (link to the Timeline 208-210AD) or led to bloodshed as at Mons Graupius in 83 AD.

    That hillforts could and would be defended however is recorded at Burnswark near Ecclefechan in the Scottish borders and possibly also elsewhere. Here the large oppidium hillfort is invested by two Roman siege camps, one bristling with artillery platforms in advance of the ramparts from which the hillfort was bombarded. The small fortlet here suggests a continuing Roman caretaker presence, clearly this is an ancient training camp like its modern equivalent at Warcop firing ranges in Stainmore. The chilling probability however is that at Burnswark the Romans simply continued to re-use the remains of the camps from an original earlier action, proving the tribes could put seemingly outdated old forts to good use and that the Romans in Scotland did - and subsequently kept their skills up to scratch- in the methodical process necessary of leaguering, bombarding and assaulting native forces ensconced within such potentially problematic nuts to crack.

    Posted ImageMost of the tribes however lived in small scattered communities. Roundhouses were the habitation of choice generally and these often cluster in small, probably family groupings. These often have a slight ditch and rampart around them but these are domestic in function and scale, being designed to deter predators, they were not designed nor used to primarily stall Roman invaders who would have overcome them without major difficulty.

    Posted ImageIn the Roman period souterrians or weems associated with roundhouses are known. These are underground stone lined passages, generally curved to assist structural stability which were used to store foodstuffs in a cool dry environment. As such they probably belong to tribal chiefs, whose tenants would pay rents and dues in kind and who required suitable storage for these goods.

    Posted ImageAnother notable construction was the broch, a large tower structure usually - but not exclusively- found in the far north. Shaped like an upturned plant pot these impressive drystane structures again probably acted as positions of refuge in times of trouble and their great height would allow lookouts good views allowing plenty of warning when coastal raiders and Roman slavers approached. This is confirmed by their often prominent coastal locations and the clusters of habitations around their base.

    In war the tribes of ancient Scotland fought much like Celts had elsewhere and before. Tribal warfare was an endemic but accepted natural part of Celtic life. For the majority who worked the land war had little direct impact on them aside from the depredations of predatory raids from neighbours. Fighting off such enemies was the task of the tribal chief and his immediate family elite and their personal retinues of henchmen.Young males, if contemporary Irish practice was followed were either fostered out or roamed in predatory bands until old enough to take their proper place in society.

    The scale of the Roman invasion was hitherto unparalleled and to face such numbers the usual tribal chiefs individual warbands numbering dozens would be swelled by a general mass call out to hundreds. All able bodied males between sixteen and sixty were liable for service in medieval Scotland in similar circumstances, similar if not more extreme age limits may have been applied in-extremis in the face of approaching overwhelming Roman forces in urgent defence of kith and kin, hearth and home and the tribal homeland.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)
  • Location: Back in Edmonton Alberta(via Chelmsford, Exeter & Calgary)

    Exactly!   We're all British, whether townie or county, highland or lowland Posted Image

    But don't tell the politicians who want to divide us!

    Im not British..im English as are many so called Scots, Welsh and 99.9% of the Cornish..but dont tell them i said that..or that chip will get even bigger.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)
  • Weather Preferences: Wind driven falling snow
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)

    I think Scottish history is very interesting, it's something I've come to later in life. At school we were always taught "British" history which meant English history. It made history a very boring subject, studying events from hundreds of years ago which happened hundreds of miles away. We learnt about 1066 and all that...very useful to a ten year old living in Glasgow.

     

    I did learn a few bits and bobs of local history from my parents...but it wasn't until after I had left school that I learnt much, if anything, about Scottish history.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    I’m no doubt being a bit thick but it’s not obvious to me how you can separate Scottish and British history during the 17th century. A very interesting and important period.

     

    This was the time of the Stuart Monarchy and the path to Civil War.

     

    The Civil Wars would have been impossible without the creation of a new ‘composite state’ in 1603, when James V1 of Scotland inherited England, Wales , Ireland and the Channel Isles from his childless cousin, Elizabeth Tudor. It was an unequal union from the first. Ireland’s population in 1603 was perhaps 1.5 million and Scotland’s was well under a million whereas England’s exceeded four million The disparity was even greater a century later when the totals had tisen 2.5, 1, and 6 million respectively. The contrast overwhelmed King James.

     

    England and Scotland had spent much of the previous four centuries at war, having a reservoir of hatred and suspicion, and the economic, social lolitical differences of the two kingdoms were exceeded only by their incompatible religious establishments and doctrines through a panoply of of laws and courts.

     

    Ireland too was a major thorn in james’s side. In 1603, after a bitter nine-year struggle, English forces managed to suppress a major catholic rebellion, supported by Spain, and soon afterwards James confiscated the lands of many former rebels and granted them to settlers from Britain. By 1640 some 70,000 English and Welsh, and perhaps 30,000 Scots had settled in Ulster.

     

    To overcome such diversity, and to guard ‘against all civill and intestine rebellion’ James srove to foster a common loyalty among his subjects.. He assumed the title’King of Great Britain’ and stated that ‘his wish above all things was at his death to leave one worship to God, one kingdom entirely governed, and one uniformity in laws’ throughout his realms.

     

    James strove to ‘Anglicize’ his native Scotland. In secular affairs he worked through the  Privy Council. A body of nobles and officials sitting in Edinburgh whose proclamations had the force of law, After 1612, a standing committee of the Scottish parliament, known as the ‘Lords of the Articles’, prepared legislation for ratification by the full assembly and enabled James to control the parliamentary agenda.

     

    After this foreign events began to undermine the king’s authority with his son Charles popping over to Spain to marry, but the marriage negotiation languished. To try and help thing along James relaxed anti-Catholic penal laws in England, a move guaranteed to alarm and alienate his Protestant subjects at any time, but especially during a depression.

     

    Charles didn’t marry and on returning He and Buckingham exploited their popularity by persuading James to declare war against Spain. Not a wise move as it had to be paid for.

     

    There then followed ‘The crisis of Parliaments’ and then The Scottish Revolution. The latter is complicated and I’m sure the Scots on here can summarise it far more adequately than myself.

     

    Note I desisted from mentioning how climate change during this century may have played a role. Admiral restraint.

    Edited by knocker
    • Like 3
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    To continue along the 17th century with the proviso it is extremely difficult to condense this into a few words in a forum post so apologies if it reads a tad disjointed. Also some might not appear to be directly relevant to Scottish history although in my opinion, for what it’s worth, it’s a continuing narrative interspersed with broader issues.

     

    Anyway back to the war with Spain. By 1624 this was predicted to cost £1 million a year which the English treasury didn’t have. So this made the crown a hostage to Parliament as long as hostilities lasted, and Charles reconvened Parliament as soon as he succeeded his father in March 1625, and requested more funds to prosecute the war. There the followed a number of acrimonious debates that destroyed Charley’s popularity and national unity. As Richard Crust put it, “Charles’s honeymoon with the English people was now overâ€

     

    So along came “the crisis of Parliamentâ€. Millions of words have been written about this so let’s keep it short.

     

    After countless disasters Charles once again responded with an immediate dissolution of Parliament. By this time, 1630, he had made peace with Spain and France but his debts totalled four times his annual revenues. In addition, both economic malaise and bad weather continued. As this is a weather forum perhaps a break for a little more detail on the weather remembering what century we are in.

     

    The year 1629 saw a great flood that hadn’t been seen for forty years; 1630 saw widespread harvest failure; the summer of 1632 was the coldest anyone living had ever known; the summer of 1634 brought drought; and the following winter brought such intense cold the entire Thames froze over. Then came two summer droughts, that of 1636 so excessive that nobody had a memory of such a misfortune in England.

     

    Nevertheless Charles managed to govern for eleven years without Parliament but not without alienating many, including the Scots, which brings us to the Scottish Revolution.

     

    Charles had offended the Scots ever since his accession in 1625 when as part of his mobilization plans for the war with Spain he resolved to create among his kingdom ‘a strict union and obligation each to the other for their mutual defence’. To obtain funds for the Scottish contingent of the Union army, the new king announced a ‘Revocation’, a device traditionally used by Scottish monarchs at their accession to reclaim lands usurped from their immediate predecessor. The problem was that the manner with which Charles presented his initiative provoked widespread opposition.

     

    The Act of Revocation subsequently appeared to loyalists as the root of all evils. In fact looking back in the 1640s, the historian James Balfour saw in the Revocation ‘the groundstone of all the mischief that followed after, both to this king’s government and family’, and believed that it ‘laid open a way to rebellion’.

     

    The resentment generated by the revocation had scarcely abated before Charles took steps to create a single ‘form of public worship’, He wished to end the ‘diversity, nay deformity’ of worship he observed when he returned to Scotland in 1633.  In effect he planned to impose a new liturgy on his homeland by royal proclamation.

     

    This naturally went down like a lead balloon. It led to many acts of rebellion, riots, imprisonment and more. Eventually a minister called Alexander Henderson and his colleagues drew up a ‘supplication’ against religious innovations, to be presented to the king in the name of the godly nobles, burgesses and ministers. Charles regarded this selected act as sedition and ordered the committee to disperse. But instead Henderson, ably abetted by Archibald Johnston a determined Edinburgh lawyer, drafted a formal protest that they called ‘The National Covenant’ to solidify popular support.

     

    Events went rapidly downhill with basically only two solutions. The death of Charles (a decade before it happened) or an English invasion. The army of the Covenant was formed and reinforced by Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna of Sweden who sent 30 heavy guns, 4,000 muskets and 4,000 suits of armour and released over three hundred Scottish officers including General Alexander Leslie, a veteran of 30 years experience of continental warfare.

     

    Thus started the first campaign but these reinforcements gave the Scots a critical advantage over Charles who had decided to lead 20,000 men to the Scottish border in person while the Royal Navy blockaded the east coast and an Irish army invaded the south west. Not a bad plan but it was undone by the naivety of the king and the brilliant strategy of General Leslie. So instead of triumph on 18th June 1639 Charles signed a ceasefire and opened negotiations with his rebellious Scottish subjects.

    Edited by knocker
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow

     

     

    Note I desisted from mentioning how climate change during this century may have played a role. Admiral restraint.

    Thanks for both posts knocker. Please feel free to mention climate change during this century and no need to restrain yourself. 

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    Well not really the thread for this balmaha so suffice it to say.

     

    Whatever the connection and natural phenomena (and not all scientists agree), the mid-seventeenth century certainly experienced both an unusual spate of earthquakes, fireball fluxes, volcanic eruptions, and El Nino episodes, and a drastic reduction in sunspot activities, the weakest monsoons and some of the lowest global temperatures recorded in the past few centuries.

     

    ENSO events in the mid-seventeenth century, 1638, 1639 1642, 1645, 1648. 1650, 1651, 1652, 1659, 1660 and 1661.

     

    Plus more wars than any century up to WW2, worldwide droughts, famines, floods, etc. Not a century to pop back to in the Tardus.

     

    One third of the world's population died.

    Edited by knocker
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    • 1 month later...
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow
    Just replying to summer of 95 in this thread if ok mods
     
    “Well if the former is true that's Scotland getting special treatment again, there's no such boxes on English or Welsh ones. I think I understand the second bit as "Even if you were born in Wales or Scotland, if you don't support Scottish independence you're an English ******" If so and that is the mind set up there, I really fear for any Scots in Scotland who don't support it.â€

     

     

     
    As per my pm , I have carried this on to the Scottish history thread . 
     
    I have never called anyone an English b… , so please stop putting words in my mouth to wriggle out of the pit you have dug for yourself. Nor have I insinuated it either.
     
    I thought you were welsh anyway? You are the most anglified Welshman I have ever come across .
     
    I am well aware there isn’t on English / welsh certificates which is why I am astounded at how little you actually know about “Britainâ€.  Wales was legally seen as a region of England through right of conquest , so the lumping together of England and wales in many areas is a hangover of this till devolution while Scotland , as a founder member of the union rather than through conquest , retained many rights of nationhood like law , there is no british law , church  , no british church and education. Those that signed away our sovereignty in 1707 left us this in a parting gift , so Scotland has always retained many of the things that define a nation within the uk state.
    As for scots who don’t support independence , some of my older family members among them but not many , are you ridiculously suggesting they are going to be strung up???? Come on , lets keep the conversation real eh???You are getting more hysterical by the minute , doing zero for your credibility.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    “Proto-Celtic was spoken millennia ago, probably somewhere in central Europe. Its date isn't known for certain, some linguists reckon as late as 1000BC but personally I (and several others) think more like 3000 or even 4000BC. I also think Celtic was in Britain by 2500BC at the latest, unlike some who think it came just before the Romans. And Goidelic (we don't say "Gaelic" here) "Mac" didn't become Brythonic "Mab", they evolved separately from Proto Celtic, where the word was something like "maqqos". As part of the same branch of Indo-European they do show many similar words, some of which are shared with other branches too (e.g. the numbers). That's how we know about language families.â€
     

     

     

    Sorry to denigrate you but please , which university taught you this utter cac??? We have no written records about the celts in Britain and Europe before the greeks and romans first encountered them and wrote about them due to the practising of the druidic religion and the prohibition of writing anything down. Wasn’t until Christianity we get native written celtic records , especially here in Britain.Prior to this is based on archaeology , and educated guesswork.
    That the celts , originating at the head of the Danube river , spoke a common tongue is generally accepted and the estimation for them reaching these islands is put anywhere between 2000 bc and 1000 bc . Old irish mythology puts them in Ireland by around 1100 bc , the famous tale of erebor and eremon coming from spain.  Britian and Ireland allegedly spoke a common celtic tongue between 1100 bc to around 600 bc when the brythonic language arrived here from continental Europe , mainly from gaul. How many words , which are basic stuff that is taught on celtic studies do you need as an example of a common root?
    Head , pen , cenn
    Worm , pryv, cruiv
    Feather pluv , cluv
    Everyone , paup , cach.
    I am well aware about goidelic and gaelic and the rest of your paragraph but if you remember , we were discussing gaidhlig place names throughout Scotland which to wriggle out of the vast amount in southern Scotland you were alleging they were p celtic and I was pointing out the similarity of many old celtic words and place names. Also as I originally said to you , the names were carried over from p celtic to q celtic as the language changed in the area. 
    I really don’t see how hard it is to understand this , it’s a general theme of many languages  in many countries during language change as shown in place names. There are many names in Scotland defined as british ( welsh) -gaelic names examples are  , minto in Roxburgh , pressmennan in haddington and montgreenan near Kilmarnock are a few.Once again , are these English speakers deciding to for some strange reason use welsh/gaelic names to name hills , rivers and settlements?
     
     
     
    Yes that's the one. And they weren't driven out, however hard it may be for raging Scottish nationalists to accept the established presence of English there at such an early date. Nobody ever claimed the whole of Southern Scotland was English, just that apart from Galloway nowhere there has ever spoken Gaelic.
     

     

     

    What is this to do with Scottish nationalism???? As per my pm to you , the danes drove out the angles that were settled in southern Scotland in Galloway , and the gall gaidheals from man and Dublin. Every sensible person accepts within reason most modern countries are a mix of people historically and currently , including Scotland. Once again while losing the argument , you attempt to imply I am an ethnic nationalist.
    Gaidhlig replaced p celtic in southern Scotland except possibly in the area of the lammermuir hills , where anglo danish and possibly p celtic continued to be spoken under a gaidhlig ruling elite before being replaced by norman French from the 12th to the 14th century then inglis , that became scots  , spread through the burgh system. 
    There is a hell of a lot of gaidhlig place names you still havent addressed throughout southern Scotland  that blows your claim out the water.
     
    Lastly , anyone who has an interest in scotland knows , or should do and generally accepts the influence and settlement of the south and east of the country by the northumbrian angles. What is in dispute is how small or great this is. Just like the britons before them , by the mid 9th century they were either massacred , driven out or assimilated by the scots and danes , until the modern boundary was roughly fixed more or less as a result of the gaidhlig king malcolms victory in 1018. I recognise the angles , you dont recognise gaidhlig in southern scotland despite the vast amount of evidence. Lastly , these people werent english , they were angles and latterly anglo danish with  a mix of british. That they became and are now scottish  is beyond doubt which is why today the area is now part of southern and south eastern scotland. They were  absorbed by gaidhlig scotland.  Did these "english "people in scotland use gaidhlig to name altrive near selkirk alt ruighe high slope? Its a well accepted fact gaidhlig was current in  much of the south east of scotland from 960 onwards .
     
     
     
     
     
     â€œ
    Well it is a reason to support it if you live outside of Scotland, but as we aren't getting a vote it's irrelevant.â€

     

     

     
    ……exactly! And neither you should get a vote.  If England /ruk votes to leave Europe , should the French and germans get a vote on it too. You seem to struggle with the term democracy as well.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    If you're going to be that facetious: I thought it was Malin Head?
     

     

     

     
    Dear god ,  is that not in county Donegal , a part of the republic??????
     
     
    Yes I know that too, that's why I don't use "Ulster" to mean Northern Ireland. Unfortunately some people in Britain do, especially news reporters who should know better.
     

     

     

    Well you obviously listen to them judging from some of your comments and lack of knowledge on what the uk actually is , a multi national state made up of differing countries .
     
     
    Put the vote to the whole country and we'll see if it is a minority.
     

     

     

     
    We are putting it to the whole country , just that in the interests of democracy its only right that foreign countries like England and wales don’t get a vote. Imagine the howls of derision if 80 million germans were allowed to vote on keeping England in the eu. You have a strange sense of democracy.
    Edited by balmaha
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow

    heres some more links to gaidhlig in scotland .

     

     

    http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html

     

    The complex interconnections between the economy, politics and the resultant social situation, make the study of the decline of Scots Gaelic particularly involved. Over the last three centuries or so, all of the Celtic languages have declined to a greater or a lesser degree; for various reasons and at many different hands.

    Scots Gaelic has had a colourful history. It has declined from a position of strength in the the early tenth or eleventh century where the bulk of the population spoke Gaelic, to a situation now, where about 1.6% of the population speak it.

     

     

    http://www.visitscotland.com/about/arts-culture/uniquely-scottish/gaelic/

     

    Gaelic is the Celtic language still spoken in some parts of Scotland to this day. Once the main language across the country, Gaelic is now only spoken by around one percent of the population, particularly in communities in the Outer Hebrides. However, Gaelic has left its mark across the whole of Scotland and its influence can be seen in Scottish place names, the names of mountains, on official buildings and on bilingual road signs on the west coast and islands.

     

     

     

    http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/affairs-scotland/1803-scotlands-language-myths-4-gaelic-is-only-a-highland-language.html

     

     

     

    Many of those who dispute the Gaelic heritage of Lowland Scotland point to the substantial number of Cumbric place names in southern Scotland and Pictish names in eastern Scotland as evidence that Gaelic is not relevant to the Lowlands.  These languages belonged to a different branch of Celtic traditionally called P-Celtic in older linguistic studies.  Sometimes the claim is made that the Lowlands have a linguistic heritage more like that of Northern England, where P-Celtic dialects were replaced by Old English in Anglosaxon times.  

    For most of Lowland Scotland this claim is simply inaccurate.  Pictish was replaced throughout its territory by Gaelic, 'English' (however it's defined) only established itself in former Pictish lands hundreds of years after the Anglosaxon period, by which time the region had long been solidly Gaelic speaking. 

    Cumbric was directly replaced by Old English in only a fairly restricted portion of the southern Lowlands - East Lothian and most of the Borders.  In almost all of the rest of Lowland Scotland south of the Clyde-Forth line Cumbric gave way to Gaelic long before the final absorption of the last Cumbric kingdom (Strathclyde) into Scotland in the 11th century.  A few centuries later when Lowland Scots came to replace Gaelic in these districts, Cumbric was merely a historical memory except perhaps in a few isolated valleys in the most remote parts of the Southern Uplands.  For many generations the inhabitants of most of Lowland Scotland spoke Gaelic and considered themselves Gaels.

     

    Lastly a small link that is directly relevant to your argument. Whatever you were taught about gaidhlig in scotland certainly isnt whats being taught based on scholastic research and archaeology .

    Edited by balmaha
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Shrewsbury
  • Location: Shrewsbury

    I've put up my answers to most of the language topics in a PM to Balmaha, but will put them up here if people want. Most of them are disputing any real evidence for Gaelic among the general population outside the Highlands and Galloway.

     

    Those p-q Celtic examples can be found in any language book so they're old hat to me, but what narrows the Celts down to the head of the Danube so precisely? I think you mean the Hallstatt culture which some people do believe is proto-Celtic, though personally I think that although it may well have been Celtic of some description it's far too late for proto-Celtic. The Celtic arrived in Britain in the first millennium BC thing (argued in many books, so quite plausibly taught in a Celtic studies course) is usually argued by the same people- again personally I think that's too late. I think they arrived in the fourth or at the latest early third millennium. Old Irish and Gaulish/Old British just seem too distantly related to have split only 1000 years before they were first recorded. 

     

    As for Goidelic originating in Spain, yes on all counts. Hibernia and Iberia to me are clearly the same word, and there is ample evidence of Q-Celtic languages in Spain in early Roman times. When it came to Ireland it displaced a P-Celtic language (some people call it "Ivernic"). Again where I tend to disagree is the dates: I think what brought Goidelic to Ireland may well have been the "Bell Beaker" culture of the 3rd millennium BC, which originated in Iberia. And I think it's plausible that the Picts were originally Irish P-Celts who moved to northern Britain after this invasion, and that pockets of P-Celtic in Ireland persisted for a long time after the arrival of Goidelic.

     

    As for being an "Anglicised Welshman" well the reason I identify as British first and foremost is that (as Balmaha knows) I was born in Wales, like my father and most of his ancestors. But my mother comes from eastern England. So I'm half and half, hence the importance of a "British" identity to me.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Camborne
  • Location: Camborne

    I’m afraid I cannot go along with this. Being Cornish I have never felt British and in fact it’s only when I have a senior moment do I entertain being English. Like Scotland, although obviously there isn’t a straight comparison, Cornwall has its own unique cultural history and identity.

     

    Without going right back to when the Irish saints popped over and sticking to the fairly modern history of the 18th and 19th centuries perhaps exemplifies what I mean.

     

    During these two centuries there were a number of diasporas from Cornwall all over the world. This was down to the fact that their expertise in hard rock mining was without parallel. Cornish communities/societies sprouted up everywhere. South America, Central America, the United States, South Africa, Australia, etc. Thus the cultural identity of Cornwall was embedded all over the world.

     

    They weren’t alone in this of course. The Scots, Irish and Welsh all formed communities that identified with their country of origin, or in Cornwall’s case, area. In fact it could easily be said that Scranton in Pennsylvania was more Welsh than Cardiff. This tradition still exists and all over the world you will find Scots, Welsh, Irish and Cornish societies.

     

    The point being they didn’t form British communities, nor was there as far as I’m aware English communities although certainly individual areas of England did so simply because they tended to emigrate to the same area. Derbyshire lead miners in Wisconsin for example.

     

    So in a nutshell ‘British’ is an artificial concept and as such I find it difficult to understand how one can ‘feel’ it. I’m not sure Walter Scott would agree mind.

     

    Sorry strayed from Scottish history.

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: N.Bedfordshire, E.Northamptonshire
  • Weather Preferences: Cool not cold, warm not hot. No strong Wind.
  • Location: N.Bedfordshire, E.Northamptonshire

    Think people may not realise just how mixed their blood may be, I know my Surname is Scottish, my Mother has an American father, her mother is from the North East and I was born close to London (where my father and grandfather are from).

     

    Whether you choose your point of decent or place you reside as your choice of residency is up to you IMHO.

    Edited by Jax
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow

    I've put up my answers to most of the language topics in a PM to Balmaha, but will put them up here if people want. Most of them are disputing any real evidence for Gaelic among the general population outside the Highlands and Galloway.

     

    The evidence is overwhelming from ancient irish , scottish english and norse records , scottish place name society , most modern scottish historians like tom devine , celtic experts like k. jackson , henri hubert , skene , books like nicolaisens scottish place names and watsons celtic place names of scotland  , i mean there is so many to mention.

    Its generally a solidly held view based on what evidence is available , that gaelic was the language of scotland from the pentland firth to the tweed and beyond , spoken in every part to lesser or greater degrees , by the majority of the population till it lost its place as the national language and backing of the scottish elite circa 1400 , but was spoken by the majority of the population outside the various burghs which were islands in a sea of gaidhlig  , the burghs numbering populations in 100 `s , till around the reformation . From 1600 to 1800 scots became the dominant language , but still gaelic was spoken by 20% of the population around 1800.

     

    Those p-q Celtic examples can be found in any language book so they're old hat to me, but what narrows the Celts down to the head of the Danube so precisely? I think you mean the Hallstatt culture which some people do believe is proto-Celtic, though personally I think that although it may well have been Celtic of some description it's far too late for proto-Celtic. The Celtic arrived in Britain in the first millennium BC thing (argued in many books, so quite plausibly taught in a Celtic studies course) is usually argued by the same people- again personally I think that's too late. I think they arrived in the fourth or at the latest early third millennium. Old Irish and Gaulish/Old British just seem too distantly related to have split only 1000 years before they were first recorded. 

     

    Well i was taught , and i believe it still remains the case , an indo european society known as celtic originated at the headwaters of the rhine , rhone and danube and then proceeded to move in all directions in europe. The modern celts , scotland , ireland , wales , brittany and man and cornwall are the inheritors of over 3000 years of cultural continuum.

    The first written reference to them comes from the greek merchant explorers in the 6th century b.c who called them the keltoi and said they were spread over much of europe and still expanding. Caeser refers to the gauls as they who call themselves celts in their own language , the name may derive from the indo european root "kel" meaning hidden in reference to them having a prohibition in writing their history , laws etc down. The celts were not a race , but were defined by their languages.

    The indo european root of many peoples are shown in the ancient word  name. anglo saxon nama , namn in gothic , name in german , noma in frisian , nomen in latin , namn in norse , naam dutch , onoma in greek , namman in sanskrit ,aimn in gaelic , anu in welsh and so on.

    professor myles dillon argued that the original celtic emerged from its indo european parent around 2000 bc.

    In ancient celtic mythology , they believed themselves descended from the goddess danu , the mother goddess "divine waters " who gave her name to the danube river.

    Archaeology , documentation and linguistic show the celts originate in this region basically switzerland and south west germany.

    The documentary evidence begins with hecataeus of miletus c500 to 476 bc saying the danube rises among the celts. place names in these areas back this up further and theories by experts like dr.henri hubert.

    Archaeology define two distinct celtic cultures emerging  in this region , hallstat , named after a village in austria who claim the oldest tartan in the world and la tene.They descend from a mix of bronze age  tumulus culture c 1500bc and urnfield culture c 1200 bc , first described in the1940`s by dr`s jacquetta and hawkes as proto celtic.

    So we have proto celtic to 1200 bc , hallstat 1200 to 475bc and la tene named after a lake in switzerland from 475 to the 1st century bc.

    Archaeology show the urnfield culture established the first celtic societies in britian and ireland , by 1200 to 1000 bc at the latest.Experts like henri hunert theorised that goidelic was the original celtic language spoken in these island before langauge change took place to p celtic or brythonic around 600 bc.

     

     
    As for Goidelic originating in Spain, yes on all counts. Hibernia and Iberia to me are clearly the same word, and there is ample evidence of Q-Celtic languages in Spain in early Roman times. When it came to Ireland it displaced a P-Celtic language (some people call it "Ivernic"). Again where I tend to disagree is the dates: I think what brought Goidelic to Ireland may well have been the "Bell Beaker" culture of the 3rd millennium BC, which originated in Iberia. And I think it's plausible that the Picts were originally Irish P-Celts who moved to northern Britain after this invasion, and that pockets of P-Celtic in Ireland persisted for a long time after the arrival of Goidelic.

     

    lois siret in 1913 , well known archaeological expert of pre history in spain , first asserted that goidelic celts arrived in iberia in the bronze age. Irish mythology in the leabhar gabhala(book of invasions) tell the story of the goidelic celts coming to ireland from spain c 1100 bc. I have never heard of any p celtic language being recorded in ireland.

    The goidelic celts in iberia were replaced by p celtic speakers arounf 500 bc. aristotle gives the name celtica to the iberian peninsula in the 4th century bc.

    I dissagree with you on the picts. k .jackson , who we both respect on his work on the celts , speculated they were nothing more than non romanised british celts , some of which were found in ireland as mentioned in irish mythology.old welsh names britian as prydein , and significantly as jackson points out the people called the picts are referred to as pretani.

    The pockets of p celtic in ireland may have been references to the great migration of celts from what is now england from the late 5th 6th centuries a.d. we know many went to france spain and scotland and ireland after this period due to the germanic invasions , and their was definetly interaction between the celts of ireland and britian before this but i have never heard that p celtic  was the original language of ireland nor have i seen anything to back this  up.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: glasgow
  • Weather Preferences: snowy winters hot summers
  • Location: glasgow

    .

     

    So in a nutshell ‘British’ is an artificial concept and as such I find it difficult to understand how one can ‘feel’ it. I’m not sure Walter Scott would agree mind.

     

     

    fully agree knocker. british is the latin version of prydein , abandoned by the british celts in the 10th century when they knew they had forever lost much of their land , to be replaced by the p celtic term cymry , or compatriots.

    No one used it from then on in and especially in england it was rejected and replaced with the derogatory term wealhas or romanised foreigners.

    james the 6th tried to revive it as a sop to celtic sensibilities as king of these islands then it was further promoted by the british government from 1707 onwards. Possibly reaching a height around late 19th early 20th centuries as a national consciousness especially in england , the modern 2011 national identity question has shown how far out of fashion it has fallen.

    No one speaks british , no one can identify british culture etc so for me personally it remains nothing more than a geographical latin name based on an ancient p celtic name.

    A vague term like "european" or scandinavian , or iberian.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...