[Calum Mac Neill]

Andy-J3, I introduce facts in discussion, not merely 'forms of words'. Now you accuse me of glibness at every turn (on a forum of this nature) despite the length of my missives and the size of some of my paragraphs while you statedly refuse to treat any facts I provide. And you have decided to introduce the phrase "we're now going to examine". I don't just do things because you say I am going to. You cannot assume that I will give any future posts a reading (especially after your constant refusal to acknowledge the facts I present). Furthermore, in this context, the phrase carries possible paternalistic associations as if you may be somehow arrogating to yourself the authority of educational guide. If you do not see me as your equal as an adult human being, please state this unequivocally, so that I can withdraw from any conversation with some Anglophone who would regard me as inferior. Otherwise, kindly refrain from such potentially belittling phraseology if you wish to be treated as an equal yourself.

You can cite the Anglophone view of history away all you like. The old adage is that history is written by the winners, not by the losers, and the values by which Anglophone historians judge Scottish history are not necessarily Gaelic ones. For example, an Anglophone historian may consider himself just as Scottish as a Gael and evaluate Anglophone culture in Scotland accordingly, a stance I take issue with as I regard Gaels as true Scots and Anglophone Scots as a radical qualification of the ethnicity and several steps on the road to being English. A discussion of a historian's 'opinions' is not a discussion of the facts, many of which I have presented to you, some of which are common knowledge and readily accepted as fact by many, though not you as you prefer to ignore facts when I present them.

Historians have access to facts on which to build viewpoints. This does not always lead to them to adopt similar viewpoints. This is not physics or biology. Different historians offer the reader different viewpoints and it is up to the student to develop his own. While I am willing to discuss with you, I am not at all bound to accept any individual historian's viewpoint any more than your viewpoint. Facts can support opposing cases, as in any law court. I hold to my personal viewpoint, not to any single historian's, and in my view, an Anglophone Scot is not a true Scot and you have not convinced me otherwise.

It is not clear from the quote itself what people are being described by Anglophone Tom Devine when he uses the word 'Scottish'. By 'a distinctive Scottish identity', he may actually be referring to Anglophone Scots, not such a straightforward beast as a Gael. If so, we disagree in our terms, as I do not consider Anglophone culture as being equatable with genuinely true Scottish culture. 'Scottishness' is not 'Anglophoneness' and Anglophone Scots need to come to terms with the idea that their ultimate identity and destiny is as an arm of English culture unless they make a big cultural turnaround towards the true Scot, the Gael. The laws and institutions and patriotism of an Anglophone people are not necessarily the laws and institutions of a Scotophone, ie, Gaelic, people.

If your first quotation reflects the view that a distinctive Scottish identity was not being crushed beneath irresistible forces of Anglicisation after 1700, Tom Devine would be quite wrong in my view. Post-Culloden oppression and the Clearances, together with the vanishing of the Gaelic language from the Highlands and the adoption of English from across the border for the majority of official matters are ample evidence of this, although more is available.

Again, you provide evidence that in fact supports my argument. The Napier Commission was set up as a direct result of the Crofter's War. In other words, it was a response to a demand on the Highlander's part for rights. Its recommendations were considered suspect by Gaels. Why would Gaels resist Gaelic medium education then and not now? Because modern educational values are an improvement on those of late 19th Anglophone Scotland. Gaels supported their own language but not an educational syllabus that they feared might be created for the purposes of cultural brainwashing - just the ticket after a Crofter's War. My argument is hardly 'blown out of the water' - quite the contrary. You are absolutely right to say that 'there are far more complex issues involved'.

And you provide even more evidence that backs my view. We have already discussed the issue of the complexity of history, for example, that elements within a population can become their own worst enemies, and I have made it clear that I consider the evidence of trends to be more telling, so the quote from the 'Oxford Companion to Scottish History' is quite in line with my thinking regarding multiple events throughout history indicating a general trend.

I completely agree with the book's quoted assertions about the effects on Gaelic culture of opening up the Highlands (an Anglophone action) post-Culloden and the (even forced) removal of Highland population to work in urban areas. The opening of the Highlands for political control was anti-Gaelic and part of an attempt to control Gaels. The removal to urban areas (and abroad) was partly down to the Clearances, poverty, famine, etc. However, this migration does not explain the retreat of Gaelic in the Highlands - that was caused by a gradual Anglophone takeover. The Anglophone view of Highlanders in the nineteenth century roughly runs along the lines of regarding the contemporary Gael as lazy, profitless curs who cause their own misfortune in contrast to their noble kilt-wearing ancestors. In fact, they had been thrown off their own land mainly by Highland chiefs Anglicised by Lowland powers.

Bandying around individual facts does not necessarily illustrate the general trends. Anglophone Scots should face up to their past anti-Scottish behaviour, leading to such wholesale destruction of Scottish culture and language, and start making up for it. They have not been true Scots, they have been true Anglophones, and that is quite different. If they want to be true Scots, they should join in the recovery of the true Scottish tongue, which gave birth to the whole concept of a 'Scot-land' in the north of Britain. That would be truly possessing a heritage.