The Scots Gaelic Myth

[Allan Thomson]

Indeed & it's the same as Tynwald & Tinwald. My point was that's Norse & yet not in the areas typically associated with Norse influxes.

[neloon]

Indeed & it's the same as Tynwald & Tinwald. My point was that's Norse & yet not in the areas typically associated with Norse influxes.

I'm not so sure about that. Place name studies suggest that the whole of Ross-shire had a fair Norse presence - even the name itself may derive from Norse hross = horse.
https://ssns.org.uk/resources/Docume...6_pp_23-32.pdf
Certainly the Earls of Ross were of Viking descent.
I believe that the point Patrick was originally making is that, at least for a period of time (albeit short), Gaelic was the most widely spoken language in Scotland long after Pictish and Norse had disappeared. Even James VI (1473-1513) had Gaelic and possibly also his son James V. Accepting this does not in any way diminish the input of Pictish, P-Celtic, Norse, Anglish, Anglo-Norman etc into early Scots, It certainly does not imply that one is a Gaelic "extremist" or "separatist nationalist".

Alan

[PatrickHughes123]

I'm not so sure about that. Place name studies suggest that the whole of Ross-shire had a fair Norse presence - even the name itself may derive from Norse hross = horse.
https://ssns.org.uk/resources/Docume...6_pp_23-32.pdf
Certainly the Earls of Ross were of Viking descent.
I believe that the point Patrick was originally making is that, at least for a period of time (albeit short), Gaelic was the most widely spoken language in Scotland long after Pictish and Norse had disappeared. Even James VI (1473-1513) had Gaelic and possibly also his son James V. Accepting this does not in any way diminish the input of Pictish, P-Celtic, Norse, Anglish, Anglo-Norman etc into early Scots, It certainly does not imply that one is a Gaelic "extremist" or "separatist nationalist".

Alan

Quite right, my point is, there is Gaelic place-name evidence over most of Scotland. The only places where Gaelic was never spoken was the extreme South-East and North-East. Robert the Bruce spoke Gaelic, believe it or not because he was born in Carrick, a place in South-West Scotland that spoke Gaelic.

To deny Gaelic for most of Scotland is to deny Scotland itself. I never denied the Germanic influence on Scotland, nor the Norman influence, nor the Norse influence. Surnames on both side of my family and my knowledge of Scottish history suggest I'm genetically a Norse-Gael, Anglo-Norman, Scoto-Norman, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Irish, Brythonic adult from Glasgow, the place of the green hollow, whatever that means.

Scotland is a nation that has its roots in the Celts and in Gaelic.

Point made.

[Allan Thomson]

Quite right, my point is, there is Gaelic place-name evidence over most of Scotland. The only places where Gaelic was never spoken was the extreme South-East and North-East. Robert the Bruce spoke Gaelic, believe it or not because he was born in Carrick, a place in South-West Scotland that spoke Gaelic.

To deny Gaelic for most of Scotland is to deny Scotland itself. I never denied the Germanic influence on Scotland, nor the Norman influence, nor the Norse influence. Surnames on both side of my family and my knowledge of Scottish history suggest I'm genetically a Norse-Gael, Anglo-Norman, Scoto-Norman, Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Irish, Brythonic adult from Glasgow, the place of the green hollow, whatever that means.

Scotland is a nation that has its roots in the Celts and in Gaelic.

Point made.

So you're happy to ignore the far older roots of the Brythonnic speaking people as if their foundations count for nothing? This is what I would brand as Gaelic extremism - reinventing history and ignoring the much older roots of a none gaelic culture in Scotland in favour of stamping a manufactured homologous Gaelic culture in the place of the true culture of that area as a means to provide some feeling that the people on one side of the border are somehow massively different from those to the South when in fact it's more of a gradual evolution.

Perhaps this is the real reason why the Lowlands were more anglicised -gaelic was just a culture foisted upon them by invaders from Ireland so absorbing the later incoming cultures came just as easily?...

Like I said a fair few of those Gaelic placenames you've claimed in the Lowlands could just as easily been P Celt or Saxon. It just depends on the mindset of the person who observes them.

Regarding Carrick but I've already discussed why Norse Gaelic was prsent there. It was part of the Kingdom of Galloway which had connections with the Kingdom of Mann & the Isles... So the Gaelic may well have come from a more Westerly direction forming a little enclave rather than implying there was a spread of Gaelic across all of Southern Scotland.

And Galloway was Pictish first before it was Gaelic.

[neloon]

So you're happy to ignore the far older roots of the Brythonnic speaking people as if their foundations count for nothing? This is what I would brand as Gaelic extremism - reinventing history and ignoring the much older roots of a none gaelic culture in Scotland in favour of stamping a manufactured homologous Gaelic culture in the place of the true culture of that area as a means to provide some feeling that the people on one side of the border are somehow massively different from those to the South when in fact it's more of a gradual evolution.

Yes, but the language is only one aspect of a general image of Scotland that has been constructed almost entirely from Highland culture and mores. Even the title of this site insists that the kilt is synonymous with Scotland together with bagpipes, tartan, Highland games, Highland dancing and so on. In an era of romanticism and perhaps partly through guilt at the way the Highlands had been treated, Walter Scott, David Stuart of Garth and various Highland societies publicised an unreal picture of the Highlands which took hold of the Scottish and international perception. This was supported by the disproportionate contribution of Highland kilted bagpipe-playing soldiers defending the Empire. And then there was Hollywood.
So the tourists (i.e. the dollars-people) expect to see "Failte gu Alba" at the border or at airports - it gives them a thrill and they spend more money and tell their friends to come. They want to believe in Celticness and clans and muddled versions of Culloden and clearances. They're not much interested in Picts (Brythonic or othrwise) or the Beaker people or whoever came before them who named many of the Scottish rivers and mountains after the gods of some unknown prehistoric culture.
Most countries invent their histories to some extent and it's pretty hard to go against the accepted truth. The Romans just knew that their culture was founded by Romulus and Remus, sons of Mars.

Alan

[Allan Thomson]

Well then that's sad because I think the Picts are a fascinating part of the picture of Scotland & their artwork is one of the most distictive and most pleasing (to my eye) styles of the period. Even if Historic Scotland maintains the fiction that it's only found in North Eastern Scotland ignoring the examples found elsewhere.

I think the whole period between the break up of the Roman empire & the establishment of the two distict countries of Scotland & England is just so much more fascinating. All the little powerblocks forming, some being dominant one minute then crushed and pretty much gone the next. The way that seemingly 'insignificant' places now could be highly influentual and dominant at one period.

I think one major issue when many talk about a history of a nation is that often those who produce the narrative are highly fascinated in their own little area, but not able to step back & see the bigger picture or look outside of theircown little bit of expertise. For example it's like the National Museum of Scotland talking about Somerled's Kingdom of the Isles, whilst not even mentioning that those Isles were part of a much bigger & stronger sea kingdom of Mann & The Isles or Historic Scotland claiming Pictish artwotk is only found in North Eastern Scotland whereas it's also in Dumfries & Galloway & found on the Isle of Man too ( & even in Wales).

I sometimes think the (wilful?) ignorance of anything outside of one's country despite there being connections elsewhere is just part of manufacturing a distinct identity as somehow being unconnected & different from all about...

[Profane James]

...never forget...

[Damion]

Perhaps this is the real reason why the Lowlands were more anglicised -gaelic was just a culture foisted upon them by invaders from Ireland so absorbing the later incoming cultures came just as easily?...

The lowlands were easily accessible to development during the Middle Ages and that development was carried out by Europeans and English. Once the principal trade towns were English speaking then trade became an English speaking endeavour and Gaelic was pushed further back.

[PatrickHughes123]

The lowlands were easily accessible to development during the Middle Ages and that development was carried out by Europeans and English. Once the principal trade towns were English speaking then trade became an English speaking endeavour and Gaelic was pushed further back.

Yes, true. But most of what is now Scotland was once Gaelic-speaking. English only established itself later with David I, it's called the Davidian Revolution.

[Allan Thomson]

Yes, true. But most of what is now Scotland was once Gaelic-speaking. English only established itself later with David I, it's called the Davidian Revolution.

But what you fail to acknowledge is that the country we now call Scotland has had a series of different linguistic influxes and that many of them predate an invasion from Ireland...so Gaelic is no more 'THE ANCESTORAL TONGUE' of the modern country than English is & definitely less so than P Celtic languages....