Scotland is the oldest nation of N.Europe with the oldest national sovereign flag in use in the world, the glorious Ivory White Saltire upon light Celestial Blue.
A lot of what this mystic bond is based on is pure myth and Holywood Yank romance by the ethnic Yanks (US Americans) native of the USA whom state this even though the Irish actually used to be historic enemies of the Kindom of Scots at the time. it is also later myth that was added centuries later to gloss over this. However if you take myth as a basis, then you can take it back to Cú Chulainn of Ulster, long before the 3rd Scottish settlement into Ulster in 1607 which was facilitated by the magnate Sir Randal MacDonnell, 1st Marquess of Antrim. Cú Chulainn was trained by the ancient Scottish warrior Scáthach of the Fortress of Shadows in Scotland, again, another clear distinction and there was no mistake Scáthach was Scottish even as early as 200 BC, which was when the first of three major waves of Scots came to Ulster.
The next occured in the 3rd century AD, around the same period known as the Barbarian Conspiracy (which was also followed by a period known officially as 'The Groans of the Britons', an appeal from the Southern British for Roman help against the Scot/Picts of the North), where they appealled directly to the Roman general Flavius Autius (though Gildas called him "Agitius" in particular).
Gildas himself was born around 504 AD at Dumbarton on the Clyde, he himself described the Scots of being from the North to the West, not from the South of Britain, and certainly not from across a sea. He lamented the fall of the Romans in Britannia when he spoke about the ambitious general Magnus Maximus whom in 383 AD, raised an army in Britain to usurp the imperial throne, and after a series of campaigns, met his end in Aquileia within northern Italy.
Gildas essentually blamed Maximus for the troubles which then befell the old province of Britannia, he saw that as the catalyst for the decline of Romanised Britannia and he said: Britain is left deprived of all her soldiery and armed bands, of her cruel governors, and of the flower of her youth, who went with Maximus, but never again returned; and utterly ignorant as she was of the art of war, groaned in amazement for many years under the cruelty of two foreign nations – the Scots from the northwest, and the Picts from the north.
In other words, they were both from the same land - Alba (Scotland).
This was also the reason the Angles, Jutes and Saxons were actually invited to proto-England, they did not come as invaders, they were actually invited, as hired mercenaries for protection, this is the reason they came to be in proto-England in the first place following Roman abandonment of the British isles altogether, before they stayed and took over and merged as one people and became the modern English - same people in all but name.
The term 'Pict' was merely just a word put on the early Scots by the Roman writer Eumenius in the year 297 when he wrote a congratulatory letter to Tacitus in reference to Agricola, it was recorded no earlier than this and was and gradually died out with the change of language and the collapse of the Roman empire.
The modern understanding of the term 'Gael' (as you understand it), which is nowadays used more as a 'collective' and 'inclusive' term rather than a 'singular' and 'interchangeable' term for just the Scots alone, didn't start to be widely used prior to 1774, prior to that it's definition used to be synonymous with the word 'Scottis' in medieval English, so not Irish. So all Gaels were Scots even if not all Scots were Gaels, and this understanding goes back to Ammianus Marcellinus's own oldest recorded mention of the Scots of Scotland in the year 360 AD - incidentally, at a time they still were not recorded as having settled land in Ulster. Dalriata was a Scottish maritime kingdom akin to a thalassocracy.
What you call Scots-Gàidhlig is 'Albannach' in its own tongue, effectively 'Scottish', as Albannach relates to the word Alba (Scotland), which itself relates to the island of Great Britain's oldest and most ancient name - 'Albion'.
Irish-Gaeilge is 'Èirennach' (Irish) in its own tongue, Èirennach is not as mutually intelligible with Albannach as some people pretend it is, it has no more similarity than the braid Scots leid does with English, the reason why is because Albannach is far more the conservative language of the two - having retained most of its ancient forms and changed very little over time, whereas Eirennach (Irish) has evolved and changed a lot over the past thousand years or so.
Either way though, the word 'Gael' has more to do with France than either Scotland or Ireland, despite what some writers believe, it does relate etymologically to 'Gaul' - which was the name of proto-France during the Pax Romana.
As does the Greco form 'Galatia'.
Even the 'Gall' part of the word means 'foreign'.
In fact it was the Roman - Tacitus himself who believed that the southern Britons (pre-Anglo-Saxon, proto-English in all but name) were partly related to the Gauls - it was from this view of his that modern historians came up with the idea that Britons started as a wave of Celts migrating from Gaul. Even though the word Gaul itself comes from Weidhala (proto Indo-European for 'forest people').
So its entry into common English in 1774: "of or pertaining to the Gaels" (meaning originally in English: the Scottish); 1775 as a noun, language of the Scottish; earlier Gathelik (1590s), from Gael (Scottish Gaidheal; see Gael) + -ic.
Even the Galloway district in southwestern Scotland (Medieval Latin: 'Gallovidia'), is equivalent to the Welsh form 'Gallwyddel', even to the Irish the term they used - 'Gallgaidhil' literally meant "foreign Gaels," and meaning there "a stranger, a foreigner," especially an Englishman. Related: Gallovidian, which is from the Latin form of the name. The adjective 'Galwegian' is also on analogy of 'Norwegian'.
Even the term 'Donegal' in Ulster in Northern Ireland, in the Irish form 'Dun na nⁿGall' literally means "fort of the foreigners".
The national name of 'Scottish' doesn't translate into 'Irish', and Scotti is just the Latinised form of Scottish, which applied to Scotland and Northern Ulster - or what is now called Northern Ireland. The word 'Hiberni' is the Latinised form of 'Irish' and 'Hibernia' is the Latinised form of 'Ireland'.
The Latin speakers saw Ireland as just a small offshore British isle, that's why they used terms like Britannia Major (Britain) and Britannia Minor (Ireland) to describe them geographically, so they saw Ireland then how we see the Isle of Man today (which also used to be a part of the Kingdom of Scotland prior to the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707 - 1801)).
Brian Boru was a Scotti, not a Hiberni, so I would agree on that being a title he was once proclaimed as, however he was only later retrospectively claimed to be 'Irish', long after 1542 when Ireland was officially formed as a legitimate nation state for the first time.
So while he would certainly constitute as Irish today, the problem with that is that he wasn't actually Hiberni in his time (the historic Irish), so he did not identify with it and would therefore not identify himself with the name of Irish, and that's what Irish ultimately means - it's just the Anglicised form of 'Hiberni' - which first started to be used only after Pope Leo X united the whole island under the name of Irish and Ireland regardless of whether they were Hiberni or not.
What this resultantly means is that the Scotti settlers of the North and the Anglo settlers of the South were then also considered 'Irish' from that point onward when historically they were not Hiberni (actual original Irish), the Anglo were allied with the Hiberni against the Scotti settlers of North Ulster and the Scottish from Scotland - which makes up the Northern side of Great Britain.
No one knows exactly where John Scotus was born, some now retrospectively claim he was born in Ireland, but again, this is 'retrospectively' - in the sense Ireland went through two phases of completely re-inventing itself, the 16th century and the 19th century, plus his actual full name was 'John Scotus Eriugena' - the 'Eriugena' name was used as a cognomen and relates to Ireland (as you can see by the etymology of the word), it does not relate to Scotland, so if 'Scot' meant 'Irish' then he would not also have the name of 'Eruigena' as a cognomen to indicate Irishness as seperate from Scottishness.
And he did have both because he would have been another historic figure who identified as a Scot who settled Ireland but would then retrospectively be later rubber stamped as 'Irish' by Irish nationalists who claimed him as one of their countrymen.
For example John Duns Scotus was born in Scotland, and he was named in the same fashion as John Scotus Eruigena, but he was clearly born in Scotland (this is never disputed) and he has no name that etymologically relates to anything Irish in any form, whether Hiberni, Erui or Ierne etc.
There's no etymological relation to the words of 'Scottish' and 'Irish' in any language. They both have their own characteristic exclusive letters and unique placements, for example;
Scottish - Scot - Y-Scot - Scyt - Scyth - Scyth - Scythae - Scythia. The word Scutten is an ancient Germanic form and the word Skotto is an ancient Greek form. The historic Asian based Scythian also referred to themselves by the word 'Scoloti'. The Scots largely are an Indo group of people.
While the Irish are Southern and the word etymology again indicates unrelated origins, i.e., Irish - Hiberni - Iverni - Ierne - Iberni - Iberia - Hyberia - Iber - Eber - Erui - Eruigena etc.
Many foreigners who try to identify with Ireland (sometimes the Irish call them “Plastic Paddies”) tend to think of Scotland as though it is like another Ireland, but it couldn't be any less like Ireland in reality and they just can't get their head around the idea that they are nothing alike, it really does mess with their heads to imagine it any other way (the OP thread here is just yet another example of it, making an entire loaded question based thread trying to come up with an explanation of how Scotland is not more like Ireland), but they are nothing alike, both nations have their own origins, histories, cultures, politics and weltanschauung, all of which have have a profound effect on their own peoples and have forged them very differently from the very beginning.
It's hard to believe for the average Pádraig (and even the less connected Plastic Paddie) nowadays, but Ireland and England actually historically used to have a lot more in common with each other, as Ireland was a Papal possession with the Kingdom of England for most of its recorded history, since the Laudabiliter between Pope Adrian IV and Henry II, which followed on from an earlier alliance between Dermod MacMurrough of Leinster and Henry II of England. While the Scots settlers occupied the North and were part of the Scotia alliance between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Scots settled in Northern Hibernia in Ulster, not since the days of Scáthach had this Scottish influence been felt after the 3rd century.
This rift between the English and the Irish only started to happen and change the shared culture they once had when Henry VIII tried to divorce Catherine of Aragon, he could not get the Pope's approval to do so, so instead he went one further, and divorced England from Rome, this was the beginning of the Anglican state kirk of England, though it wasn't as Protestant as Scotland's state kirk of Presbyterianism, it wasn't as Roman Catholic as Ireland either, it was more a sort of reformed Catholicism. Ireland in the 19th century also subsequently went through a process of completely reinventing itself as a new nation, many 19th century Irish writers such as W.H. Gratton Flood and Douglas Hynd etc used Scotland as a model example to base Ireland's new culture on, to give Ireland a more ‘distinct’ otherness from it's more historic Anglo centric culture, hence the perception today that Irish culture is (kind of) thought to be similar to Scottish culture by those unaware of this history.
But had this event with Henry VIII of England never have happened, then the Scoto-Anglo union between the two on and off rival British Kingdoms of Scotland and England likely would never have happened in 1707, as England would have remained as resolutely Catholic as Ireland and never reformed, and James VI of Scots who took the English throne in 1603 was a staunch Scottish Presbyterian Protestant, but even despite this, there were still many in England who were appalled at a Scottish Presbyterian King of England, such as the English catholic Guy Fawlks who plotted to blow up the houses of parliament (i.e., “remember remember, the 5th of November, gun powder treason and plot”), this is why Guy Fawlks bonfire is still a holiday in the British nations every 5th of November, or at least in Scotland still.
Furthermore, although, the Kingdom of Scots is often claimed to have started the English civil war of the period leading up to the Roundheads vs the Cavaliers, it is also true to state that it was also the Scots that ended the English civil war as well. This traditional English broadside ballad "The World Turned Upside Down" was first published in the mid-1640s (most notably in 1643 and 1646). It was written as a protest against Parliament and the Puritans, who had outlawed traditional Christmas celebrations ~ https://youtu.be/5PvmVGDJXOY?is=pXK7W9sIaxAOR8Vc
This would have been partly down to the New Model army also. There was a 1994 Weetabix advert featuring the 1645 Battle of Naseby here that the 1640s ballad above refers to here ~ https://youtu.be/I4WIcuQKZLQ?is=Z48j31C8QYCP5iwn
So in regards to the English Bill of Rights and their Magna Carta, and the English Civil war, which the Scots were fundamentally the catalysts of as well as the inhibitors. The age of politics between the Roundheads (whom believed in the supremacy of parliament rather than the crown, constitutional rule and puritan reform of church of England - Anglicanism - which would not have existed if Henry VIII of England hadn't tried to divorce Catherine of Aragon, thereby giving England a reformed type of fundamentally Catholic kirk - not as Catholic as Ireland anymore by then as it once was, though not as Protestant as Scotland either - Presbyterianism) vs the Cavaliers whom supported Charles I and the belief in the 'Divine Right of Kings'.
These political type of squabbles still exist today, in some form, particularly on constitutional reforms. But by the 1730s (1735 particularly) after the Roundheads vs Cavaliers, this song called the Vicar of Bray was written in print, although the melody is actually older and comes from a 17th century (1600s) English folk tune called 'Country Gardens'.
It is essentually about a vicar who repeatedly alters his religious and political principles to retain his job through successive, conflicting royal regimes. Over time, the phrase has evolved into a popular British idiom used to describe an unprincipled political turncoat who changes allegiances solely for personal advantage.
Because yes, the more you look at the history, there were some cross overs and divided loyalties which seem contradictory on the surface, but they are there because people were as much motivated by personal interests as well as by a common cause.
The famous ballad narrates the career of a fictionalised vicar of the parish of Bray in Berkshire - by Maidenhead just West of London past Slough.
The lyrics layout how he shifts his public theology to stay on the winning side of English history.
The age of the Anointed vs the Appointed you may say.
Though the difference is fundamental in this era also, in the spiritual/theological context, anointed refering to being divinely chosen, gifted or empowered by the Holy Spirit for a purpose. As opposed to the appointed, meaning being officially commissioned, positioned or placed into a specific role or assignment by God or authority ~ https://youtu.be/piUDIr97xcY?is=KxaVJG3FkDpUKkQj
Because Scotland was more than just a 'contributor', it was a core integral founding part of imperial ambitions, although Scotland had a hold of nobility via England since 1603, even before the political union of 1707 when Scotland was operating 100% entirely outside of unified British interests, Scotland had set up Russia's Navy in 1690, greatly modernising and establishing Russian fleets, that's why the Russian navy uses the Scottish National colours and flag design for the Russian Navy. Admiral Patrick Gordon of Scotland was an advisor to Peter the Great of Russia.
After the 1707 act of Union, it was said that Scotland's 'Scottish Enlightenement' then became the literal engine of the British Empire, as the core elements of Scottish imperialism were consolidated with the rest of Great Britain as a whole, becoming the integral ingredients as well as the antecendence of Great Britain as well, hence Scotland was not called "the workshop of empire" for nothing.
Absolute nonsense. Scottish nobility already had a hold on England as a front since the Scottish house take over of 1603, other than a perspective from the English part of Great Britain to describe the period of 1603 as the 'Union of the Crown' to differentiate it from the later more political 'Act of Union' in 1707 which unionised the parliaments of Scotland and England. But when the Scottish house took England's crown also in 1603, the Scottish crown jewels (also known as 'The honours of Scotland') are the oldest crown jewels in all of the British isles, but it did not 'merge' the crowns with the English one to make it the same after 1603, from then on, it was just one shared monarch of two distinct different crowns, because the two distinct crowns were both different institutions entirely, as well as the Scottish crown representing the Scottish people and the English crown representing England.
The crowns are just one thing, but how and why do they relate to everything else? That I will explain in deep detail, read on: Many English people aren't even aware of the reality of England's status as a fully dissolved nation within the constitution of Great Britain, so I'd hardly imagine an ethnic Yank (US American) native of the USA would be capable of understanding it. Currently, England is under no authority even of its own statehood nowadays, never mind influencing jurisdiction elsewhere like Ireland - which is now an EU ruled statelet.
Though the Scots conquered the English in two wars consisting of a series of on and off battles between the years of 1296 and 1547, which by the time of the 'Battle of Newburn' in the year of 1640, was more or less cemented, though following this battle, this left the North English region of Newcastle under Scottish occupation - England agreed to pay the ransom to the Scots to have it returned due to it being an important source of coal for the English treasury at the time in London, although the English region of Doncaster still technically is Scottish owned as it was never formally successfully handed back to England prior to the British-wide Act of Union in 1707 which resulted in the Kingdom of Great Britain, so that was the end of that for then and did solidify the sentiments of the time, until the British union came about, with it's dual constitutional set up.
However other than English common law (applicable to England and Wales only), what remains of England today is dissolved within Great Britain, which itself is in a union with Northern Ireland that is called the UK. As such, England is the least powerful home nation in terms of exclusive national governance. The English, unlike the Scots, are 'subjects' under their crown, with English sovereignty vested in the English parliament (a suspended non-entity since 1707) as the English principle of governance is 'Parliamentary Sovereignty', therefore England is governed more like a collection of nine small southerly British regions rather than a nation in its own right.
But the internal imbalance in terms of constitution is highlighted by the Scots by comparison being 'sovereign' with the crown, this is why the Scots could reconvene back the suspended unicameral Scottish parliament in 1997 and have it operational by 1999 - (subject to the 1989 Scottish Claim of Rights, which traces back to the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath), instead of leaving it to the Scottish Office to continue as it had done from 1707 to 1999, because the Scots themselves are the living embodiment of Scottish sovereignty, hence why the Scottish principle of governance is 'Popular Sovereignty'. This is also reflected in the difference in the model of Kingship between the Kingdom of Scots and the Kingdom of England, where the Scottish model of kingship is based on the older Pictish era of Scots kingship, English kingship derives from the Carolingian model.
The North-eastern Scottish sea side town of Arbroath itself is officially considered the birthplace of the Scottish nation on account of the Declaration of Arbroath under Robert I of Scots, however it is also considered the birthplace of Scotland's Pictish-era antecendent as well directing rooting the Scottish nation from there as the direct continuation. The council of Angus recognises it officially and uses the tagine of 'Scotland' birthplace'.
Incidentally, where does that leave the English lands like Doncaster, which is still technically owned by Scotland because it was never formally handed back to England successfully prior to the British-wide 1707 Act of Union, and is therefore still subject to the near 900 year old Treaty of Durham between David I of Scots and Stephen of England?
So the UK would never be inclined to allow the English their own suspended parliament to be reconvened, at least not by motive of incentive*, because it would at best turn Britain into a federal state, but at worst undermine the British state, and hence since 1999, the 'West Lothian Question' has been a common enough talking point in British politics in regards to the British devolution set up, and more recently, the 'EVEL' (English Votes for English Laws) legislation.
But if it did happen, it would allow England the ability to reconvene back its independent suspended parliament, which would mean you would have an English government for the first time since 1707, led by an English First minister representing local English only issues for English only interests independent of the UK government led by the Prime Minister of the UK. Though, given the state of England today, I think getting the English borders under control is an even more important priority if ever there was to be any future English appetite to re-secure English statehood.
But all that aside, Scottish scholars as early as the 14th century considered the concept of 'Great Britain' even back then to be an extension of the Kingdom of Scotland, and not just because Scotland's name in the old indigenous Albannach language of Scotland is 'Alba' from its ancient form - Albiyū, and that directly relates to the oldest and most ancient name of Great Britain itself - 'Albion', but from the medieval texts uncovered more recently that were highlighted recently by Professor Dauvit Broun.
Which ironically, is more or less closest to what would actually later happen by 1603 when a Scottish house assumed influence over England and Wales (and Ireland by extension as Ireland was still a Papal possession of the Kingdom of England since the Laudabiliter between Pope Adrian IV and Henry II, which followed on from an earlier alliance between Dermod MacMurrough of Leinster and Henry II of England), essentually establishing then a Scottified hegemonic influence across the British isles as a whole and the empire to come, which in the new world from 1607, was solidified with Jamestown - named after a Scot via the Virginia company which was granted a charter in 1606 by James VI of Scots.
*View the following for details ~ https://youtu.be/xFtxqYnyYXA?si=S6dWEoXzRREglw5G
Disgusting.
ReplyDeleteAnd Ireland is a total irrelevance to Scotland.
Scotland is the oldest nation of N.Europe with the oldest national sovereign flag in use in the world, the glorious Ivory White Saltire upon light Celestial Blue.
Leave Scotland and it's flag well alone.
That picture looks disgusting.
ok retard get a life its his/her art
DeleteA lot of what this mystic bond is based on is pure myth and Holywood Yank romance by the ethnic Yanks (US Americans) native of the USA whom state this even though the Irish actually used to be historic enemies of the Kindom of Scots at the time. it is also later myth that was added centuries later to gloss over this. However if you take myth as a basis, then you can take it back to Cú Chulainn of Ulster, long before the 3rd Scottish settlement into Ulster in 1607 which was facilitated by the magnate Sir Randal MacDonnell, 1st Marquess of Antrim.
DeleteCú Chulainn was trained by the ancient Scottish warrior Scáthach of the Fortress of Shadows in Scotland, again, another clear distinction and there was no mistake Scáthach was Scottish even as early as 200 BC, which was when the first of three major waves of Scots came to Ulster.
The next occured in the 3rd century AD, around the same period known as the Barbarian Conspiracy (which was also followed by a period known officially as 'The Groans of the Britons', an appeal from the Southern British for Roman help against the Scot/Picts of the North), where they appealled directly to the Roman general Flavius Autius (though Gildas called him "Agitius" in particular).
Gildas himself was born around 504 AD at Dumbarton on the Clyde, he himself described the Scots of being from the North to the West, not from the South of Britain, and certainly not from across a sea. He lamented the fall of the Romans in Britannia when he spoke about the ambitious general Magnus Maximus whom in 383 AD, raised an army in Britain to usurp the imperial throne, and after a series of campaigns, met his end in Aquileia within northern Italy.
Gildas essentually blamed Maximus for the troubles which then befell the old province of Britannia, he saw that as the catalyst for the decline of Romanised Britannia and he said:
Britain is left deprived of all her soldiery and armed bands, of her cruel governors, and of the flower of her youth, who went with Maximus, but never again returned; and utterly ignorant as she was of the art of war, groaned in amazement for many years under the cruelty of two foreign nations – the Scots from the northwest, and the Picts from the north.
In other words, they were both from the same land - Alba (Scotland).
This was also the reason the Angles, Jutes and Saxons were actually invited to proto-England, they did not come as invaders, they were actually invited, as hired mercenaries for protection, this is the reason they came to be in proto-England in the first place following Roman abandonment of the British isles altogether, before they stayed and took over and merged as one people and became the modern English - same people in all but name.
The term 'Pict' was merely just a word put on the early Scots by the Roman writer Eumenius in the year 297 when he wrote a congratulatory letter to Tacitus in reference to Agricola, it was recorded no earlier than this and was and gradually died out with the change of language and the collapse of the Roman empire.
The modern understanding of the term 'Gael' (as you understand it), which is nowadays used more as a 'collective' and 'inclusive' term rather than a 'singular' and 'interchangeable' term for just the Scots alone, didn't start to be widely used prior to 1774, prior to that it's definition used to be synonymous with the word 'Scottis' in medieval English, so not Irish. So all Gaels were Scots even if not all Scots were Gaels, and this understanding goes back to Ammianus Marcellinus's own oldest recorded mention of the Scots of Scotland in the year 360 AD - incidentally, at a time they still were not recorded as having settled land in Ulster. Dalriata was a Scottish maritime kingdom akin to a thalassocracy.
ReplyDeleteWhat you call Scots-Gàidhlig is 'Albannach' in its own tongue, effectively 'Scottish', as Albannach relates to the word Alba (Scotland), which itself relates to the island of Great Britain's oldest and most ancient name - 'Albion'.
Irish-Gaeilge is 'Èirennach' (Irish) in its own tongue, Èirennach is not as mutually intelligible with Albannach as some people pretend it is, it has no more similarity than the braid Scots leid does with English, the reason why is because Albannach is far more the conservative language of the two - having retained most of its ancient forms and changed very little over time, whereas Eirennach (Irish) has evolved and changed a lot over the past thousand years or so.
Either way though, the word 'Gael' has more to do with France than either Scotland or Ireland, despite what some writers believe, it does relate etymologically to 'Gaul' - which was the name of proto-France during the Pax Romana.
As does the Greco form 'Galatia'.
Even the 'Gall' part of the word means 'foreign'.
In fact it was the Roman - Tacitus himself who believed that the southern Britons (pre-Anglo-Saxon, proto-English in all but name) were partly related to the Gauls - it was from this view of his that modern historians came up with the idea that Britons started as a wave of Celts migrating from Gaul. Even though the word Gaul itself comes from Weidhala (proto Indo-European for 'forest people').
So its entry into common English in 1774: "of or pertaining to the Gaels" (meaning originally in English: the Scottish); 1775 as a noun, language of the Scottish; earlier Gathelik (1590s), from Gael (Scottish Gaidheal; see Gael) + -ic.
Even the Galloway district in southwestern Scotland (Medieval Latin: 'Gallovidia'), is equivalent to the Welsh form 'Gallwyddel', even to the Irish the term they used - 'Gallgaidhil' literally meant "foreign Gaels," and meaning there "a stranger, a foreigner," especially an Englishman. Related: Gallovidian, which is from the Latin form of the name. The adjective 'Galwegian' is also on analogy of 'Norwegian'.
Even the term 'Donegal' in Ulster in Northern Ireland, in the Irish form 'Dun na nⁿGall' literally means "fort of the foreigners".
The national name of 'Scottish' doesn't translate into 'Irish', and Scotti is just the Latinised form of Scottish, which applied to Scotland and Northern Ulster - or what is now called Northern Ireland.
ReplyDeleteThe word 'Hiberni' is the Latinised form of 'Irish' and 'Hibernia' is the Latinised form of 'Ireland'.
The Latin speakers saw Ireland as just a small offshore British isle, that's why they used terms like Britannia Major (Britain) and Britannia Minor (Ireland) to describe them geographically, so they saw Ireland then how we see the Isle of Man today (which also used to be a part of the Kingdom of Scotland prior to the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707 - 1801)).
Brian Boru was a Scotti, not a Hiberni, so I would agree on that being a title he was once proclaimed as, however he was only later retrospectively claimed to be 'Irish', long after 1542 when Ireland was officially formed as a legitimate nation state for the first time.
So while he would certainly constitute as Irish today, the problem with that is that he wasn't actually Hiberni in his time (the historic Irish), so he did not identify with it and would therefore not identify himself with the name of Irish, and that's what Irish ultimately means - it's just the Anglicised form of 'Hiberni' - which first started to be used only after Pope Leo X united the whole island under the name of Irish and Ireland regardless of whether they were Hiberni or not.
What this resultantly means is that the Scotti settlers of the North and the Anglo settlers of the South were then also considered 'Irish' from that point onward when historically they were not Hiberni (actual original Irish), the Anglo were allied with the Hiberni against the Scotti settlers of North Ulster and the Scottish from Scotland - which makes up the Northern side of Great Britain.
No one knows exactly where John Scotus was born, some now retrospectively claim he was born in Ireland, but again, this is 'retrospectively' - in the sense Ireland went through two phases of completely re-inventing itself, the 16th century and the 19th century, plus his actual full name was 'John Scotus Eriugena' - the 'Eriugena' name was used as a cognomen and relates to Ireland (as you can see by the etymology of the word), it does not relate to Scotland, so if 'Scot' meant 'Irish' then he would not also have the name of 'Eruigena' as a cognomen to indicate Irishness as seperate from Scottishness.
ReplyDeleteAnd he did have both because he would have been another historic figure who identified as a Scot who settled Ireland but would then retrospectively be later rubber stamped as 'Irish' by Irish nationalists who claimed him as one of their countrymen.
For example John Duns Scotus was born in Scotland, and he was named in the same fashion as John Scotus Eruigena, but he was clearly born in Scotland (this is never disputed) and he has no name that etymologically relates to anything Irish in any form, whether Hiberni, Erui or Ierne etc.
There's no etymological relation to the words of 'Scottish' and 'Irish' in any language. They both have their own characteristic exclusive letters and unique placements, for example;
Scottish - Scot - Y-Scot - Scyt - Scyth - Scyth - Scythae - Scythia.
The word Scutten is an ancient Germanic form and the word Skotto is an ancient Greek form. The historic Asian based Scythian also referred to themselves by the word 'Scoloti'. The Scots largely are an Indo group of people.
While the Irish are Southern and the word etymology again indicates unrelated origins, i.e., Irish - Hiberni - Iverni - Ierne - Iberni - Iberia - Hyberia - Iber - Eber - Erui - Eruigena etc.
Many foreigners who try to identify with Ireland (sometimes the Irish call them “Plastic Paddies”) tend to think of Scotland as though it is like another Ireland, but it couldn't be any less like Ireland in reality and they just can't get their head around the idea that they are nothing alike, it really does mess with their heads to imagine it any other way (the OP thread here is just yet another example of it, making an entire loaded question based thread trying to come up with an explanation of how Scotland is not more like Ireland), but they are nothing alike, both nations have their own origins, histories, cultures, politics and weltanschauung, all of which have have a profound effect on their own peoples and have forged them very differently from the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to believe for the average Pádraig (and even the less connected Plastic Paddie) nowadays, but Ireland and England actually historically used to have a lot more in common with each other, as Ireland was a Papal possession with the Kingdom of England for most of its recorded history, since the Laudabiliter between Pope Adrian IV and Henry II, which followed on from an earlier alliance between Dermod MacMurrough of Leinster and Henry II of England. While the Scots settlers occupied the North and were part of the Scotia alliance between the Kingdom of Scotland and the Scots settled in Northern Hibernia in Ulster, not since the days of Scáthach had this Scottish influence been felt after the 3rd century.
This rift between the English and the Irish only started to happen and change the shared culture they once had when Henry VIII tried to divorce Catherine of Aragon, he could not get the Pope's approval to do so, so instead he went one further, and divorced England from Rome, this was the beginning of the Anglican state kirk of England, though it wasn't as Protestant as Scotland's state kirk of Presbyterianism, it wasn't as Roman Catholic as Ireland either, it was more a sort of reformed Catholicism. Ireland in the 19th century also subsequently went through a process of completely reinventing itself as a new nation, many 19th century Irish writers such as W.H. Gratton Flood and Douglas Hynd etc used Scotland as a model example to base Ireland's new culture on, to give Ireland a more ‘distinct’ otherness from it's more historic Anglo centric culture, hence the perception today that Irish culture is (kind of) thought to be similar to Scottish culture by those unaware of this history.
But had this event with Henry VIII of England never have happened, then the Scoto-Anglo union between the two on and off rival British Kingdoms of Scotland and England likely would never have happened in 1707, as England would have remained as resolutely Catholic as Ireland and never reformed, and James VI of Scots who took the English throne in 1603 was a staunch Scottish Presbyterian Protestant, but even despite this, there were still many in England who were appalled at a Scottish Presbyterian King of England, such as the English catholic Guy Fawlks who plotted to blow up the houses of parliament (i.e., “remember remember, the 5th of November, gun powder treason and plot”), this is why Guy Fawlks bonfire is still a holiday in the British nations every 5th of November, or at least in Scotland still.
Furthermore, although, the Kingdom of Scots is often claimed to have started the English civil war of the period leading up to the Roundheads vs the Cavaliers, it is also true to state that it was also the Scots that ended the English civil war as well. This traditional English broadside ballad "The World Turned Upside Down" was first published in the mid-1640s (most notably in 1643 and 1646). It was written as a protest against Parliament and the Puritans, who had outlawed traditional Christmas celebrations ~ https://youtu.be/5PvmVGDJXOY?is=pXK7W9sIaxAOR8Vc
ReplyDeleteThis would have been partly down to the New Model army also. There was a 1994 Weetabix advert featuring the 1645 Battle of Naseby here that the 1640s ballad above refers to here ~ https://youtu.be/I4WIcuQKZLQ?is=Z48j31C8QYCP5iwn
So in regards to the English Bill of Rights and their Magna Carta, and the English Civil war, which the Scots were fundamentally the catalysts of as well as the inhibitors. The age of politics between the Roundheads (whom believed in the supremacy of parliament rather than the crown, constitutional rule and puritan reform of church of England - Anglicanism - which would not have existed if Henry VIII of England hadn't tried to divorce Catherine of Aragon, thereby giving England a reformed type of fundamentally Catholic kirk - not as Catholic as Ireland anymore by then as it once was, though not as Protestant as Scotland either - Presbyterianism) vs the Cavaliers whom supported Charles I and the belief in the 'Divine Right of Kings'.
These political type of squabbles still exist today, in some form, particularly on constitutional reforms. But by the 1730s (1735 particularly) after the Roundheads vs Cavaliers, this song called the Vicar of Bray was written in print, although the melody is actually older and comes from a 17th century (1600s) English folk tune called 'Country Gardens'.
It is essentually about a vicar who repeatedly alters his religious and political principles to retain his job through successive, conflicting royal regimes. Over time, the phrase has evolved into a popular British idiom used to describe an unprincipled political turncoat who changes allegiances solely for personal advantage.
Because yes, the more you look at the history, there were some cross overs and divided loyalties which seem contradictory on the surface, but they are there because people were as much motivated by personal interests as well as by a common cause.
The famous ballad narrates the career of a fictionalised vicar of the parish of Bray in Berkshire - by Maidenhead just West of London past Slough.
The lyrics layout how he shifts his public theology to stay on the winning side of English history.
The age of the Anointed vs the Appointed you may say.
Though the difference is fundamental in this era also, in the spiritual/theological context, anointed refering to being divinely chosen, gifted or empowered by the Holy Spirit for a purpose.
As opposed to the appointed, meaning being officially commissioned, positioned or placed into a specific role or assignment by God or authority ~ https://youtu.be/piUDIr97xcY?is=KxaVJG3FkDpUKkQj
Because Scotland was more than just a 'contributor', it was a core integral founding part of imperial ambitions, although Scotland had a hold of nobility via England since 1603, even before the political union of 1707 when Scotland was operating 100% entirely outside of unified British interests, Scotland had set up Russia's Navy in 1690, greatly modernising and establishing Russian fleets, that's why the Russian navy uses the Scottish National colours and flag design for the Russian Navy. Admiral Patrick Gordon of Scotland was an advisor to Peter the Great of Russia.
ReplyDeleteAfter the 1707 act of Union, it was said that Scotland's 'Scottish Enlightenement' then became the literal engine of the British Empire, as the core elements of Scottish imperialism were consolidated with the rest of Great Britain as a whole, becoming the integral ingredients as well as the antecendence of Great Britain as well, hence Scotland was not called "the workshop of empire" for nothing.
Absolute nonsense. Scottish nobility already had a hold on England as a front since the Scottish house take over of 1603, other than a perspective from the English part of Great Britain to describe the period of 1603 as the 'Union of the Crown' to differentiate it from the later more political 'Act of Union' in 1707 which unionised the parliaments of Scotland and England. But when the Scottish house took England's crown also in 1603, the Scottish crown jewels (also known as 'The honours of Scotland') are the oldest crown jewels in all of the British isles, but it did not 'merge' the crowns with the English one to make it the same after 1603, from then on, it was just one shared monarch of two distinct different crowns, because the two distinct crowns were both different institutions entirely, as well as the Scottish crown representing the Scottish people and the English crown representing England.
ReplyDeleteThe crowns are just one thing, but how and why do they relate to everything else? That I will explain in deep detail, read on: Many English people aren't even aware of the reality of England's status as a fully dissolved nation within the constitution of Great Britain, so I'd hardly imagine an ethnic Yank (US American) native of the USA would be capable of understanding it. Currently, England is under no authority even of its own statehood nowadays, never mind influencing jurisdiction elsewhere like Ireland - which is now an EU ruled statelet.
Though the Scots conquered the English in two wars consisting of a series of on and off battles between the years of 1296 and 1547, which by the time of the 'Battle of Newburn' in the year of 1640, was more or less cemented, though following this battle, this left the North English region of Newcastle under Scottish occupation - England agreed to pay the ransom to the Scots to have it returned due to it being an important source of coal for the English treasury at the time in London, although the English region of Doncaster still technically is Scottish owned as it was never formally successfully handed back to England prior to the British-wide Act of Union in 1707 which resulted in the Kingdom of Great Britain, so that was the end of that for then and did solidify the sentiments of the time, until the British union came about, with it's dual constitutional set up.
However other than English common law (applicable to England and Wales only), what remains of England today is dissolved within Great Britain, which itself is in a union with Northern Ireland that is called the UK. As such, England is the least powerful home nation in terms of exclusive national governance. The English, unlike the Scots, are 'subjects' under their crown, with English sovereignty vested in the English parliament (a suspended non-entity since 1707) as the English principle of governance is 'Parliamentary Sovereignty', therefore England is governed more like a collection of nine small southerly British regions rather than a nation in its own right.
But the internal imbalance in terms of constitution is highlighted by the Scots by comparison being 'sovereign' with the crown, this is why the Scots could reconvene back the suspended unicameral Scottish parliament in 1997 and have it operational by 1999 - (subject to the 1989 Scottish Claim of Rights, which traces back to the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath), instead of leaving it to the Scottish Office to continue as it had done from 1707 to 1999, because the Scots themselves are the living embodiment of Scottish sovereignty, hence why the Scottish principle of governance is 'Popular Sovereignty'. This is also reflected in the difference in the model of Kingship between the Kingdom of Scots and the Kingdom of England, where the Scottish model of kingship is based on the older Pictish era of Scots kingship, English kingship derives from the Carolingian model.
ReplyDeleteThe North-eastern Scottish sea side town of Arbroath itself is officially considered the birthplace of the Scottish nation on account of the Declaration of Arbroath under Robert I of Scots, however it is also considered the birthplace of Scotland's Pictish-era antecendent as well directing rooting the Scottish nation from there as the direct continuation. The council of Angus recognises it officially and uses the tagine of 'Scotland' birthplace'.
Incidentally, where does that leave the English lands like Doncaster, which is still technically owned by Scotland because it was never formally handed back to England successfully prior to the British-wide 1707 Act of Union, and is therefore still subject to the near 900 year old Treaty of Durham between David I of Scots and Stephen of England?
So the UK would never be inclined to allow the English their own suspended parliament to be reconvened, at least not by motive of incentive*, because it would at best turn Britain into a federal state, but at worst undermine the British state, and hence since 1999, the 'West Lothian Question' has been a common enough talking point in British politics in regards to the British devolution set up, and more recently, the 'EVEL' (English Votes for English Laws) legislation.
But if it did happen, it would allow England the ability to reconvene back its independent suspended parliament, which would mean you would have an English government for the first time since 1707, led by an English First minister representing local English only issues for English only interests independent of the UK government led by the Prime Minister of the UK.
Though, given the state of England today, I think getting the English borders under control is an even more important priority if ever there was to be any future English appetite to re-secure English statehood.
But all that aside, Scottish scholars as early as the 14th century considered the concept of 'Great Britain' even back then to be an extension of the Kingdom of Scotland, and not just because Scotland's name in the old indigenous Albannach language of Scotland is 'Alba' from its ancient form - Albiyū, and that directly relates to the oldest and most ancient name of Great Britain itself - 'Albion', but from the medieval texts uncovered more recently that were highlighted recently by Professor Dauvit Broun.
ReplyDeleteWhich ironically, is more or less closest to what would actually later happen by 1603 when a Scottish house assumed influence over England and Wales (and Ireland by extension as Ireland was still a Papal possession of the Kingdom of England since the Laudabiliter between Pope Adrian IV and Henry II, which followed on from an earlier alliance between Dermod MacMurrough of Leinster and Henry II of England), essentually establishing then a Scottified hegemonic influence across the British isles as a whole and the empire to come, which in the new world from 1607, was solidified with Jamestown - named after a Scot via the Virginia company which was granted a charter in 1606 by James VI of Scots.
*View the following for details ~ https://youtu.be/xFtxqYnyYXA?si=S6dWEoXzRREglw5G