[Thompson_NCL]

I'll write more on this topic tomorrow, but let me begin by pointing out that Lowland Scots are not Anglo Saxon. I'm not sure where you got that idea, PI. In fact many are the descendants of Highlanders who came down after the clearances. Some may have Saxon roots or be the product of mingling, but the majority are not.

The difference between the Lowlands and Highlands is rooted in religion, not ethnicity. In fact many Lowlanders are probably more "Scottish" than those in parts of the Highlands.

[Thunderhawk]

I thought modern Scotland was formed when the Stuarts (whose power base was in the lowlands and who married into the monarchies of England and Burgundy) defeated the MacDonalds/Lords of the Isles and other noble houses, becoming the power in the area. The previously defeated nobles rebelled and lost, and with that loss came a consolidation of power for the Stuarts. All sides spoke Gaelic, but the Stuarts power base also had a large Scots speaking populace, so Scots became their operational language while Gaelic became symbolic of rebels. This power shifting to the Lowlands, the operational language of the region becoming Scots with the whole area becoming Scotland is modern and forced, as is the national identity of Scottish over the previous identities.. which were in a state of flux from the Norse settlements and integration with the natives and previous invaders. This leads me to view "Scottish" not as an ethnicity of old blood lines, but as a modern national identity.. or perhaps an old civic national identity.

[B0ycey]

There is alot said on here about what it is to be Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish. Nobody was alive in 1707 so this can't be a factor to what it is to be Scottish today - sure watching Braveheart my stir up some passions but still... Anyway Lowlanders have different political ideas/priniples to the Highlanders, Islanders, Glasweigeans etc for one simple reason. They are from a different regions so experience political issues differently. Same is true in England. There is a north south divide. And you can segregate it even further to counties. Yorkshire and Lancashire are different and they are next door to each other. Cornwall has a different language and culture to Devon. Barry in Wales, where my dad's family are from, can't construct a sentence in Welsh, but when I worked in France in 2000, two Welsh colleagues from North Wales spoke to each other in Welsh all the time - try telling my family they are less Welsh!. My point is this. The Lowlanders are Scottish. They have Liberal values. They might be more Unionists than people from Glasgow/Highlands, but they do share similar Scottish values. And the reason there is a sudden rise in Nationism/independencism in Scotland is because there are a bunch of wankers in Westminister and Holyrood are sane in comparison.

[layman]

Scottish nationalism is a mystery to me. Welsh nationalism makes far more sense because the Welsh are ethnically distinct from the English and they have their own language.

Actually, the most recent genetic map shows scots as distinct as the welsh. It roughly matches dark age britain in political terms.



Also, as pote says, there have always been seperate legal systems and different laws. Laws are one of those things that really define a place. Not to mention football teams and flags.

Scotland does not have its own language, unless you include Scots. The Gaelic ethnicity is very marginal now and does not form the vast majority of the Scottish people. If anything you can compare Scotland to Norway or maybe even to Belarus because the lowland Scottish ethnos is not that different to England, although it is still somewhat distinct.

Scotland was formed in a strage way just like england. It is a merger of irish, saxon invaders, combined with the ancient picts. This can be just as distinct as the english who are mostly a mix of german tribes.

[B0ycey]

@layman
I know its not your point, however I want to make it clear. If you define Scottish Nationalism with DNA, then the Scottish are Scandinavian, English are French and everyone is Mongolian who are African! Political standings are culture based. Depending where you live in Scotland depends on your culture - and this is true everywhere in any country. But one thing that links everyone in Scotland is identity. And this never changes wherever you live north of the boarder!

[Thompson_NCL]

Scotland was formed in a strage way just like england. It is a merger of irish, saxon invaders, combined with the ancient picts. This can be just as distinct as the english who are mostly a mix of german tribes.

This again.

There is very little evidence to support the claim of Irish "invaders". The reality is that the people living in Dál Riata were one people who just happened to settle two pieces of land which ultimately became separate nations.

Also, most people in England are not the direct descendants of Germanic tribes. The overwhelming majority are descendent from Britons who absorbed the Saxons and their culture.

[layman]

If you define Scottish Nationalism with DNA, then the Scottish are Scandinavian, English are French and everyone is Mongolian who are African! Political standings are culture based.

Er, no. Not scandanavian. Also, very few english have roots in french. No idea about the mongolian comment and the african one is misleading. Todays africans are those who 'didnt leave' and so are the most distinct genetically.

Thompson, there was an irish take over of part of Scotland which then merged to become scotland later. It may have been just an 'eltites' take over however, just like the normans.

There was certainly large scale german settlement in england though less than was thought in the past.

[Thompson_NCL]

Thompson, there was an irish take over of part of Scotland which then merged to become scotland later. It may have been just an 'eltites' take over however, just like the normans.

I just addressed that very point. What you're citing has no archaeological basis and is falling out of favour for this reason.

There was certainly large scale german settlement in england though less than was thought in the past.

Of course, I'm not denying this. What I am saying is that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes were never a majority and they intermarried with the much larger populace of natives who then adopted the Anglo Saxon culture. The English are Anglo Saxon culturally, but genetically they are mostly descended from the original inhabitants of this island. About 30% of the English DNA is Anglo Saxon, although it varies regionally.

In short, the majority of people in Britain and Ireland are descended from people who've been here for at least ten thousand years. The Anglo Saxons have had the biggest genetic impact, with subsequent invaders leaving progressively less genetic impact. You'd struggle to find people with Norman DNA for example.

[layman]

I never talked about proportions in my original post. Obviously norman DNA imprint will be tiny. Engles, saxons etc, less so.

I just addressed that very point. What you're citing has no archaeological basis and is falling out of favour for this reason.

My understanding though is that there was an irish take over (the scotti tribe) of part of scotland - this is represented in language and place names. I see there is a conflicting theory that this language was not brought but was there already. As with the german invasions, I was never suggesting a total colonization and take over.

The evidence for everything is pretty weak when we go that far back. Especially the 'shrouded in mystery' dark ages.

[Thompson_NCL]

My understanding though is that there was an irish take over (the scotti tribe) of part of scotland - this is represented in language and place names. I see there is a conflicting theory that this language was not brought but was there already. As with the german invasions, I was never suggesting a total colonization and take over.

The evidence for everything is pretty weak when we go that far back. Especially the 'shrouded in mystery' dark ages.

I know exactly what you're talking about and what I am telling you is that this is an old claim that is falling out of favour precisely because there is a lack of material evidence, place name evidence etc to support the myth of an Irish invasion. I have said this three times now.

And the "shrouded in mystery" line doesn't really stack up when we do have evidence from that period and the evidence does not show signs of an invasion.

The current evidence suggests the people of Dál Riata were one people separated by a sea which they traded across, which ought to come as no surprise as most of the people of the British Isles ultimately came from the same place.

[B0ycey]

Er, no. Not scandanavian. Also, very few english have roots in french. No idea about the mongolian comment and the african one is misleading. Todays africans are those who 'didnt leave' and so are the most distinct genetically.

I think you're going off topic here, either that or you are suggesting Scottish Nationism is related to bloodline?

[layman]

I was specifically replying to your points which may or may not have been off topic

No, modern scottish nationalism is barely nationalism at all. Certainly not of the blood and soil variety.

[Decky]

If you define Scottish Nationalism with DNA, then the Scottish are Scandinavian, English are French and everyone is Mongolian who are African! Political standings are culture based.

That is insanity. Only the British aristocracy are Norman and they are a tiny minority. A tinyy proportion of scots are descended from Scandinavians and that would hardly make them distinct from the English or the Irish anyway as the East coast of Yorkshire, the East Midlands, Dublin and county Waterford all viking areas.

[B0ycey]

That is insanity. Only the British aristocracy are Norman and they are a tiny minority. A tinyy proportion of scots are descended from Scandinavians and that would hardly make them distinct from the English or the Irish anyway as the East coast of Yorkshire, the East Midlands, Dublin and county Waterford all viking areas.

I think you and layman didn't get my point. The words I wrote wasn't meant to be a factual statement of UK DNA, but to emphasis bloodline can't define what has caused or what it is to be a Scottish Nationalist. But as it happens 40% of English have French DNA to 30% German. And there is strong Norse link to places like the Orkneys. Nonetheless that doesn't mean the English are French or German. Heritage and ideology defines Englishness. Same goes for Scottishness.

[Political Interest]

I thought modern Scotland was formed when the Stuarts (whose power base was in the lowlands and who married into the monarchies of England and Burgundy) defeated the MacDonalds/Lords of the Isles and other noble houses, becoming the power in the area. The previously defeated nobles rebelled and lost, and with that loss came a consolidation of power for the Stuarts. All sides spoke Gaelic, but the Stuarts power base also had a large Scots speaking populace, so Scots became their operational language while Gaelic became symbolic of rebels. This power shifting to the Lowlands, the operational language of the region becoming Scots with the whole area becoming Scotland is modern and forced, as is the national identity of Scottish over the previous identities.. which were in a state of flux from the Norse settlements and integration with the natives and previous invaders. This leads me to view "Scottish" not as an ethnicity of old blood lines, but as a modern national identity.. or perhaps an old civic national identity.

But in what sense is Scottish national identity modern and forced?

If the Scottish state had been formed in the 9th century then how was the whole of Scotland not Scottish?

[snapdragon]

Cornwall has a different language and culture to Devon.

No, it doesn't any more, if it ever did. Both counties are full of old people who hog the roads.

[B0ycey]

No, it doesn't any more, if it ever did. Both counties are full of old people who hog the roads.

Everywhere has old people hogging the roads, especailly during daylight hours! Few speak Cornish anyone, but the language is still spoken. Ask someone from Cornwall and Devon if they are the same. Ask them how to put clotted cream and jam on a scone. You'll get a different answer. Cornwall is more traditional compared to Devon. Everyone goes to St Ives for there cobble roads and stone buildings. It certainly isn't for their wit or friendly nature. That's for Devon...

[snapdragon]

Everywhere has old people hogging the roads, especailly during daylight hours!

Not as much as Cornwall and Devon. The place is chock full of old people.

Devon is full of old people and inbreds. Can't speak for Cornwall, but it's very likely much the same.