Changes

[ANDY-J3]

"By the fourteenth century ... [Scots] had become the dominant spoken tongue of all ranks of Scots east and south of the Highland Line, except in Galloway". It also had become the language of the royal court. "From about this time, too, the same ... tongue was beginning to be used in Caithness, Orkney, and Shetland".
Http://www.medievalscotland.org/scot...anguages.shtml

That is the opinion of one linguist and it is an indisputable statement of fact.We have evidence furthermore,contrary to what another contributor to this thread has stated that Inglis was indeed the language spoken by the social elite.For one thing we have the Scots phrases interspersed into the Latin laws of David I-



"In these we hear of blodewit, styngisdynt, hereieth."
http://www.bartleby.com/212/0501.html

They are all recognisably English words so there is indisputable evidence that the social elite and crown used English during the early middle ages never mind the late fourteenth century.


Furthermore-


"In the north of Aberdeenshire there is evidence that the harrying of Buchan, carried out by Robert the Bruce, in 1308, as part of his vengeance on his enemies the Comyns, introduced the English language to the inland districts, for in local documents the names of persons change speedily after that date from Gaelic to English."

Ibid.


There is a clear indication therefore that a systematic process of supplanting Gaelic with Inglis was underway very early in the fourteenth century and if the future King Robert the Bruce was the instigator of this process as the evidence indicates how can it be believed that he would not actively have promoted the Inglis language throughout his kingdom?It can't which is why it is not tenable to argue that Inglis was not firmly established as the language of all lowland Scotland by the fourteenth century.

[Steaphan]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Steaphan

I don't accept that the social elites' attempts to anglicise Scotland were successful in allowing English immigrants and English speakers to outnumber Scots in the country of Scotland until at least the 15/16th centuries, which you previously argued for Andy.
I do believe however, that the history of Gaelic in Scotland was re-written from the late 18th century onwards, after the battle of Culloden and once English control had been cemented following the continuous expulsions/emmigration since that fateful day.

You don't accept it yet what evidence can you provide to challenge it?I'll sum up the argument that you are putting forward.You are not disputing that Scots was firmly established as the language of the Scottish lowlands as defined as the counties of Lothian,Fife,Tayside,Grampian and parts of Moray and Strathclyde by the late medieval period,so really your argument is founded solely upon the fact that there must have been more people living in the highlands than in the rest of Scotland combined.It is a non argument that would rely on you being able to provide detailed and reliable evidence of Scottish demographics during the period that don't in fact exist.If you are unwilling to challenge my assertion that the lowlands were by the fifteenth century almost exclusively Scots speaking then it is hardly credible that you can continue to state that Gaelic still predominated in Scotland as late as the sixteenth century.



However, according to Charles Withers, "Gaelic in Scotland 1698-1981", in 1808 John Walker calculated from Alexander Webster who used figures available in 1755 that 23% of the Scottish population were Gaelic speakers and to me, that was likely to be an under-estimate, since 1755 was after the new Government had stepped up official oppression.

They had decided that, in and around 1745/6, out of a population of
1, 200 000 around 300 000 had Gaelic as their first language, about a quarter of the total population of Scotland.


Firstly that is based on conjecture but even if we accept it's validity it contradicts your original statement that by 1745 a majority of Scots were Gaelic speakers.As regards rewriting history that is the very reason why I am challenging your assertions on this because I don't see why I should accept people re-writing Scottish history to conform to their romanticised idealistic notions.





Now, if we accept that Gaelic speakers were around a quarter of the population in 1746, and I personally believe the numbers would have been higher, as these figures are based[ on figures supplied AFTER the hostile and victorious English government of the time had consolidated it's control, then it is certainly obvious that Gaelic speakers in Scotland were NOT in a minority around the 13th century or anytime soon after that.


But what you personally believe doesn't add a great deal to the debate in way of hard fact.You are working wonders at choosing a form of words and manipulating figures to conform to what you would like to believe were true.even if we accept that Gaelic speakers made up around 25% of Scotland's total population at that time we cannot use that to make concrete assumptions about the number of Gaelic speakers in existence 400 years previously without introducing a whole range of demographic evidence detailing change throughout that period.I could turn your logic around and say that if 75% of Scots did not speak Gaelic at that time it proves that the process of Gaelic decline must have begun several hundred years earlier,perhaps even as early as the thirteenth century.






What is very likely, is that they were in a majority until at least 1700, and that the English/British government only started to make real successes in reducing their number around the time that Cromwell was on his bloodletting in the 17th century.

I am grateful to Ronald Black of The Scotsman Newspaper for the above information regarding numbers and of course I am responsible for my own personal opinions.

I just find that statement incredible and your argument becomes no more credible through the introduction of unrelated factors such as the Cromwellian occupation of Scotland-after all he persecuted lowlanders as well as Gaels.There is no likeliehood whatsoever (which I think you probably know) that Gaelic was spoken by a majority of Scots after the Scots language became firmly established in the lowlands during the latter middle ages.According to you Wikipedia's statement on the matter is only 500 years astray-that's some discrepancy.

With your blinkered viewpoint about the importance of Gaelic in Scottish history, I'm not surprised you find such clear evidence incredible.
The fact is, there is more evidence to suggest that Gaelic speakers were in the majority until the 17th or 18th centuries (either could be true in my opinion) in that one paragraph I wrote than you have provided in the whole discussion that would suggest the contrary. Despite my misgivings about using figures from 1755 after Culloden, the "conjecture" is sound. They calculated 23% for that time, which I am willing to accept. What I'm not willing to accept is the Gaelic speakers slipping below the majority in Scotland before 17th century. You have provided no evidence for me to change that opinion, despite the fact that I also see Scots English as an important part of Scottish culture.

I can't believe you call yourself a historian. YOu have no credible evidence for your own comments, yet you dispute evidence taken from the periods in question. On top of that, you seem to think WIkipedia (to which any Tom, Dick or Harry can add information) is an indisputable reference point.

You can also ask the Irish what they think of Cromwell, and as you like to refer to Gaelic as Erse, I'm sure you'll see the connection with what he did there and what he did in Scotland.

Now, I'm no historian, and evidently neither are you, neither you nor I have produced evidence as such, what we have done is provide references, and quite frankly, my references are more reliable than yours.

[ANDY-J3]

Originally posted by Steaphan
With your blinkered viewpoint about the importance of Gaelic in Scottish history, I'm not surprised you find such clear evidence incredible.


I wasn't aware that I had made any statement questioning the importance of Gaelic to Scotland's culture and history-this debate hasn't been about its importance it's about what is historical fact.Gaelic's importance doesn't diminish because it was supplanted by Scots as the predominant tongue which is why its difficult to understand why you are so fixated on arguing a point which you must know isn't tenable.



The fact is, there is more evidence to suggest that Gaelic speakers were in the majority until the 17th or 18th centuries (either could be true in my opinion) in that one paragraph I wrote than you have provided in the whole discussion that would suggest the contrary. Despite my misgivings about using figures from 1755 after Culloden, the "conjecture" is sound. They calculated 23% for that time, which I am willing to accept. What I'm not willing to accept is the Gaelic speakers slipping below the majority in Scotland before 17th century. You have provided no evidence for me to change that opinion, despite the fact that I also see Scots English as an important part of Scottish culture.



Whether you are willing to accept it isn't really an issue.You haven't really sought to challenge any of the arguments I've provided you've just avoided even addressing them.What has me confused is your unwillingness to challenge my assertion that Scottis/Inglis was established throughout the lowlands by the fifteenth century-the language of every town,burgh,farmstead,the language of the Royal court and the nobility.Now if you accept that then you must accept that a very substantial proportion of Scotland's population didn't speak Gaelic by about 1500.In spite of that however you still try and insist that Gaelic speakers were in the majority almost two centuries later,without even bothering to introduce any further evidence to support that.Your logic is beyond my comprehension-that isn't historical debate that is ignoring facts in order to promote your own viewpoint.




I can't believe you call yourself a historian. YOu have no credible evidence for your own comments, yet you dispute evidence taken from the periods in question. On top of that, you seem to think WIkipedia (to which any Tom, Dick or Harry can add information) is an indisputable reference point.

I don't really have any experience of Wikipedia-I wasn't fully aware of how it is compiled and I don't regard it as an indisputable reference point but I did think it necessary to question the wide discrepency between your statement and the statement contained on their website.Of the two viewpoints I would have to say Wikipedia's seems closer to a statemnent of fact than your statement,in that it concurs with the viewpoints of other linguists whom I have quoted above.




You can also ask the Irish what they think of Cromwell, and as you like to refer to Gaelic as Erse, I'm sure you'll see the connection with what he did there and what he did in Scotland.

Now, I'm no historian, and evidently neither are you, neither you nor I have produced evidence as such, what we have done is provide references, and quite frankly, my references are more reliable than yours.

Cromwell was detested by lowland and highland Scots alike and a great many Englishmen also which is why his head ended up on a spike-I don't think he singled out the Gaels for any special treatment.I have in fact produced textual evidence above from reputable sources however I generally prefer to employ literary sources rather than those which I find on the web which would entail a visit to my local library.However even actually addressing some of my arguments and making the effort to challenge them would be a start.I at least take the time and effort to attempt to point out what I believe are the flaws in your arguments-you just ignore mine.

[Steaphan]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

There is a clear indication therefore that a systematic process of supplanting Gaelic with Inglis was underway very early in the fourteenth century and if the future King Robert the Bruce was the instigator of this process as the evidence indicates how can it be believed that he would not actively have promoted the Inglis language throughout his kingdom?

It can't which is why it is not tenable to argue that Inglis was not firmly established as the language of all lowland Scotland by the fourteenth century.

I wonder if you realise Andy that Robert the Bruce was a mother-tongue speaker of Gaelic? HIs mother was of the Carrick Gaelic aristocracy and he clearly saw his Gaelic as part of his heritage. He saw Scotland and Ireland as allies hence his brother Edward's campaigns in Ireland in which they attempted to help the Irish overthrow the English. He even stated that he saw Scotland and Ireland as inextricably linked in Gaelic culture and customs.
Inglis was not the language of all lowland Scotland by the 14th century, and wasn't even in the 20th century. Places like Callander, Brig O'Turk, Arrochar etc which were bilingually Gaelic-speaking up until the late 19th and early 20th century are part of the Lowlands whether you like it or not, even if they were close to the Highlands geographically.

[ANDY-J3]

I wonder if you realise Andy that Robert the Bruce was a mother-tongue speaker of Gaelic? HIs mother was of the Carrick Gaelic aristocracy and he clearly saw his Gaelic as part of his heritage. He saw Scotland and Ireland as allies hence his brother Edward's campaigns in Ireland in which they attempted to help the Irish overthrow the English. He even stated that he saw Scotland and Ireland as inextricably linked in Gaelic culture and customs.
Inglis was not the language of all lowland Scotland by the 14th century, and wasn't even in the 20th century. Places like Callander, Brig O'Turk, Arrochar etc which were bilingually Gaelic-speaking up until the late 19th and early 20th century are part of the Lowlands whether you like it or not, even if they were close to the Highlands geographically.

A mother tongue speaker?Is that another example of wordplay to convey the impression that Gaelic was his first tongue?I'm aware that Bruce spoke Gaelic,Inglis and Norman French and I wouldn't dispute that he saw Gaelic as well as the culture of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy as being important parts of his heritage.I'm also aware of his statement to the Irish promoting the idea of a Celtic kinship and shared heritage but you would have to agree that that must be seen in its proper context as a piece of propaganda.Did the subsequent conduct of Edward Bruce in Ireland suggest that he was concerned with anything other than the strategic goals of forcing the English to maintain a garrison in Ireland to keep them out of Scotland?How was maintaining the English presence in Ireland conducive to bringing freedom to the Irish?That the Irish eventually turned on Bruce's army gives an insight into their true attitudes towards the Bruce dynasty.Also I'm well aware that you are quite cynically using the ambiguity regarding the definition of the territorial extent of the highlands in order to give yourself a credible argument, but you are also well aware that not only are the trossachs "close to the highlands geographically"-they are and traditionally always have been,to all intents and purposes an integral part of the highlands geographically,culturally and linguistically.

[Steaphan]

Originally Posted by ANDY-J3

Originally posted by Steaphan
With your blinkered viewpoint about the importance of Gaelic in Scottish history, I'm not surprised you find such clear evidence incredible.


I wasn't aware that I had made any statement questioning the importance of Gaelic to Scotland's culture and history-this debate hasn't been about its importance it's about what is historical fact.Gaelic's importance doesn't diminish because it was supplanted by Scots as the predominant tongue which is why its difficult to understand why you are so fixated on arguing a point which you must know isn't tenable.



The fact is, there is more evidence to suggest that Gaelic speakers were in the majority until the 17th or 18th centuries (either could be true in my opinion) in that one paragraph I wrote than you have provided in the whole discussion that would suggest the contrary. Despite my misgivings about using figures from 1755 after Culloden, the "conjecture" is sound. They calculated 23% for that time, which I am willing to accept. What I'm not willing to accept is the Gaelic speakers slipping below the majority in Scotland before 17th century. You have provided no evidence for me to change that opinion, despite the fact that I also see Scots English as an important part of Scottish culture.



Whether you are willing to accept it isn't really an issue.You haven't really sought to challenge any of the arguments I've provided you've just avoided even addressing them.What has me confused is your unwillingness to challenge my assertion that Scottis/Inglis was established throughout the lowlands by the fifteenth century-the language of every town,burgh,farmstead,the language of the Royal court and the nobility.Now if you accept that then you must accept that a very substantial proportion of Scotland's population didn't speak Gaelic by about 1500.In spite of that however you still try and insist that Gaelic speakers were in the majority almost two centuries later,without even bothering to introduce any further evidence to support that.Your logic is beyond my comprehension-that isn't historical debate that is ignoring facts in order to promote your own viewpoint.




I can't believe you call yourself a historian. YOu have no credible evidence for your own comments, yet you dispute evidence taken from the periods in question. On top of that, you seem to think WIkipedia (to which any Tom, Dick or Harry can add information) is an indisputable reference point.

I don't really have any experience of Wikipedia-I wasn't fully aware of how it is compiled and I don't regard it as an indisputable reference point but I did think it necessary to question the wide discrepency between your statement and the statement contained on their website.Of the two viewpoints I would have to say Wikipedia's seems closer to a statemnent of fact than your statement,in that it concurs with the viewpoints of other linguists whom I have quoted above.




You can also ask the Irish what they think of Cromwell, and as you like to refer to Gaelic as Erse, I'm sure you'll see the connection with what he did there and what he did in Scotland.

Now, I'm no historian, and evidently neither are you, neither you nor I have produced evidence as such, what we have done is provide references, and quite frankly, my references are more reliable than yours.

Cromwell was detested by lowland and highland Scots alike and a great many Englishmen also which is why his head ended up on a spike-I don't think he singled out the Gaels for any special treatment.I have in fact produced textual evidence above from reputable sources however I generally prefer to employ literary sources rather than those which I find on the web which would entail a visit to my local library.However even actually addressing some of my arguments and making the effort to challenge them would be a start.I at least take the time and effort to attempt to point out what I believe are the flaws in your arguments-you just ignore mine.

My only point is about whether Gaelic speakers were in the majority as a percentage of the total Scottish population after 1600. I have already stated why I think that is the case and cited the most concrete evidence available for that. You, on the other hand, provide your own reference points. None of which I rate as admissable. I'm not going to change my opinion.

[ANDY-J3]

Steaphan,
I'm well aware that no matter what evidence or arguments I put forward none of them will change your viewpoint.I mean I can include statements such as the following from a respected historian-



"The political centre of gravity of the Scottish state shifted away from the Gaelic areas towards the eastern Lowlands, where Old English was the dominant language.... Although some of the barons and prelates would have been French speakers, many of their followers were English, and a form of English became (ironically) the 'lingua franca' throughout the Lowlands. By the C15 the use of Gaelic was considered uncouth and old-fashioned, and Inglis (now significantly called Scottis) was recognised as the national language of Scotland.
The Scottish Tradition (ed. G. W. S. Barrow, 1974)"



And it will sway you not one iota but it is difficult for me to understand why you are so entrenched and insistent on defending a viewpoint that is completely at odds with statements such as the above which is the third I have cited from an authority on the subject challenging your point of view.Either there are a hell of a lot of biased amateur linguists and historians masquerading as scholars or you are wrong in your assumptions.Your stance is all the more difficult to understand because it is unnecessary-Gaelic's importance as a part of our country's heritage doesn't diminish regardless of whether it ceased to be the predominant tongue during the eighteenth or the fifteenth century.