Changes

[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

However as I have shown previously in the case of the "Celtic" territory of Atholl and Macdougall of Lorne,intermarriage with Anglo-Norman aristocracy was occuring continuously throughout the middle ages so that by the time of the wars of independence it is no longer credible to make a distinction between Celtic and Anglo-Norman aristocracy.Even Celtic nobles had adopted the dominant value system from the Teutonic incomers.I think these incoming Anglo-Norman aristocrats were one of the key factors in English becoming more widespread,for while they themselves didn't regard English as their language of choice they brought with them an entourage of retainers,tradesmen etc. from the south who would have spoken English.It is the fact that this occured at the same time as the growth in Burghs around the thirteenth century that leads me to conclude that the spread of English must have been rapid in the period prior to the wars of independence and I believe that thereafter it must have been reasonably well established throughout the lowlands.

By the 12th century, no aristocrat in Europe would have had genes from one linguistic group. The point is irrelevant. The distinction between Scottish and Scotto-Norman aristocrat is not genetic, I am not a Nazi; it was both cultural and organizational. The distinction was enshrined in the military workings of the medieval Kingdom of the Scots. The servitum Scoticanum (Gaelic service) and the exercitus Scoticanus (Gaelic army) was left to the native mormaers, in contrast to the more prestigious exercitus militaris (knightly army) and liberum servitium (free service), which was left to the French nobles on royal desmesne land. This division, BTW, was destroyed at the Battle of Dunbar when the Knightly army showed itself to be utterly useless, and the exercitus Scoticanus took over and expelled the English.


YOur prejudices are illuminated ingloriously in all the light of dreadful inconsistency BTW. You put "Celtic" in inverted commas, yet do not do so with Teutonic. Even more incomprehensible given that the aristocratic incomers to whom you attribute this ethnic name were in fact French, whereas the native did actually speak a celtic language.

You continually ignore the role of French in Scotland, when as I've pointed out to you, it is the most well attested language of pre-14th century Scotland, as well as being the language of the Norman and French rulers whose aristocratic network spanned the whole of north-western Europe, relegating both Scottish in Scotia and English in Lothian and England, as well as Flemish, Breton, Welsh and Irish in their respective areas, to inferior status. Do you know, for instance, that some English Kings are recorded as needing interpreters to speak to their English subjects? These are just the ones who happen to be recorded. Yet you're so willing to believe with no evidence that a man of Scotto-Norman and Scottish background from a Scottish mormaerdom with no English in it ... knew the language? I think there's no denying a little strangeness here.

[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Albanactus

At last we find some common ground because I accept that the balance did indeed shift towards a predominance of Scots speakers during the 16th century and without recourse to demographic evidence no one can really provide a compelling argument to suggest that it occured earlier.However on the basis of conjecture and circumstancial evidence I tend to believe that this point was reached sometime in the late 15th century with the consolidation of Stewart power over the majority of the country,and the creation of a system of law written in the Scots tongue.

Our main difference is that you are buying so willingly and naively a set of increasingly defunct and discredited "Germanicist" historical interpretations/distortions which marginalize the Gael from Scottish history. This may not be your intention, nor your wish; but it looks like your function. In our 5 pages of discussion not once have you shown any awareness that Scottish history has been subject to unconscious (or conscious, who knows) distortion from Anglo-Scottish writers wishing firstly to find a place in the conceptualization of Scottish identity, secondly to alienate the ethnic-Scot (usurping the name and labelling him "Irish"), thirdly to be dissociated from the barbarous and catholic (and Jacobite!) "Irish," and finally to make their history conform as closely as possible to the model of England; and that these writers have by and large monopolized Scottish historiography with a few exceptions from Fordun to Alexander Grant. I suggest to you that a better awareness of this undeniable theme in the history of Scottish historiography might make you less naive in this area. I further suggest that you read or consult both Murray Pittock's Celtic Identity and the British Image and William Ferguson's The Identity of the Scottish Nation: An Historic Quest. You may not end up buying into this view, but I'll guarantee you'd have a much more sophisticated attitude to a discussion such as this; and you certainly wouldn't be quoting any old early 20th century published writer purely for his conjecturistic interpretation.

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by Albanactus
Our main difference is that you are buying so willingly and naively a set of increasingly defunct and discredited "Germanicist" historical interpretations/distortions which marginalize the Gael from Scottish history.This may not be your intention, nor your wish; but it looks like your function. In our 5 pages of discussion not once have you shown any awareness that Scottish history has been subject to unconscious (or conscious, who knows) distortion from Anglo-Scottish writers wishing firstly to find a place in the conceptualization of Scottish identity, secondly to alienate the ethnic-Scot (usurping the name and labelling him "Irish"), thirdly to be dissociated from the barbarous and catholic (and Jacobite!) "Irish," and finally to make their history conform as closely as possible to the model of England; and that these writers have by and large monopolized Scottish historiography with a few exceptions from Fordun to Alexander Grant.

The only secondary sources I used for opinions came from dictionaries that dealt specifically with Scots as a language which it was at one time and the dialect it is now and I didn't get the impression that the authors were biased against Gaelic or indeed saw it as being relevant to their subject.I think it's a big mistake to buy into the various conspiracy theories about the assasination of highland culture and what you clearly failed to grasp is that in fact I have a respect and affinity for Highland culture which I see as an important part of Scotland's heritage but I don't see any need because of that to try and rewrite history to conform to what I would like it to be.




I suggest to you that a better awareness of this undeniable theme in the history of Scottish historiography might make you less naive in this area. I further suggest that you read or consult both Murray Pittock's Celtic Identity and the British Image and William Ferguson's The Identity of the Scottish Nation: An Historic Quest. You may not end up buying into this view, but I'll guarantee you'd have a much more sophisticated attitude to a discussion such as this; and you certainly wouldn't be quoting any old early 20th century published writer purely for his conjecturistic interpretation.

Well I'll take on board your views and I'm grateful for you pointing out my naivety to me in fact I'm so disgusted at my naivety and unsophisticated attitude to historical study that I'm considering binning my BA (honours) in history and humanities and my Diploma in European humanities and complaining to my university for short changing me by providing a second rate education in historical study

[Albanactus]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

The only secondary sources I used for opinions came from dictionaries that dealt specifically with Scots as a language which it was at one time and the dialect it is now and I didn't get the impression that the authors were biased against Gaelic or indeed saw it as being relevant to their subject.I think it's a big mistake to buy into the various conspiracy theories about the assasination of highland culture and what you clearly failed to grasp is that in fact I have a respect and affinity for Highland culture which I see as an important part of Scotland's heritage but I don't see any need because of that to try and rewrite history to conform to what I would like it to be.

Highland culture? I said nothing about Highland culture, nor "conspiracies"! Sidelining the Scot from Scottish history is purely the natural product of the ascendancy of the Anglo-Scot and his culture in the earlier "modern" period, and any realisticallly orientated mind would expect such a historiographical occurrance.

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Well I'll take on board your views and I'm grateful for you pointing out my naivety to me in fact I'm so disgusted at my naivety and unsophisticated attitude to historical study that I'm considering binning my BA (honours) in history and humanities and my Diploma in European humanities and complaining to my university for short changing me by providing a second rate education in historical study

Well, that's a bit drastic. As soon as they give degrees which teach historical omnipotence and hand out God-like objectivity, then I'm sure we'll both scrap our old ones and take those new ones afresh.

[Hugh2]

[quote=Steaphan;363205]I always find it unusual that you would use the oft-quoted (by English/Anglo-Scot historians) quotes of English visitors and spies to justify your claims that Gaelic was not spoken by the majority of Scots afer 1500/1600. How exactly would a single person such as Mr Fordun who was only visiting the country on behalf of his English government employers have been able to produce his own demographic census of the Scottish people is beyond me.

I understand your reasoning behind 1500/1600, and it's perfectly credible, however, I would dispute that just because the Edinburgh nobility were English speaking, the majority of the people were.

The Highlands were and still are a vast area, and before the genocide in the immediate aftermath of Culloden, and the subsequent emmigration and ethnic cleansing in later years of the Scottish people, most glens and straths were populated. As the Highlands cover such a large part of the country, it is perfectly feasible to argue that over the whole country, (including the islands in the west and parts of the lowlands which remained majority Gaelic speaking even until the 19th century), a majority of Scots spoke Gaelic until around the mid-18th century. This would have been the case despite the fact that some southern and east coast parts may have been Inglis speaking.
QUOTE]


Steaphan - starting this thread was a masterstroke! You may be on to something. Even the modern census consistently underestimated the number of Scotland`s Gaelic speakers because of the ambiguous question asked.
And, for the enlightenment of many of us, these accurate quotes (only a few) by Albanactus emerged:

Setting the record straight: "...but Gaels are the original Scots, and Scotland is an historically meaningless and incoherent notion without them."

Also, about certain "Scottish" historians: "Historians who say so are always from the increasingly obsolete school of Scottish medievalists who never learn a word of Gaelic, and never consult Gaelic sources...".

Then, about Scotia in its proper Latin sense: "The correct English translation of Scotia is Gael-land, in the same way Angle-land is the correct translation of Anglia."

About Gaelic`s true status in Scotland: "It was the language of the Scots, and hence it was the national tongue. It was, after all, the "Kingdom of the Scots" ... not the "Kingdom of the English.""

About Lallans, now insultingly called "Scots" : "It is a purely objective matter. "Scots" has never had a standardized orthography or dialect, and is hence just a dialect of English (as far as I`m concerned), the literature of which I`m quite happy to celebrate, as long as it isn`t given the inaccurate and insulting name "Scots"."

[Kern]

The Highland clearances put paid to any sense of Gaelic identity. The word is Scots. And we speak English. Full on freekin fact. And I thought that Scots was a Roman word for sea pirate just as Viking or Rus (as in Russia - yes they are Scandinavian,)

This kind of debate should be meaningless. But it goes on and on. And if we go retro and go back to some sort of dreamland - then only we will suffer.

[Croi Sasanach]

Hugh2, what is your opinion of the Brythonic and Pictish speakers of ancient Scotland?