The Scots as a Civilisation?

[dutchking]

^Geographically, Ireland is part of the British Isle too. They just hate each other.

 

[Winston Hughes]

^Geographically, Ireland is part of the British Isle too.

That's what I said.

They just hate each other.

Not really. The British and the Irish get on pretty well in my experience (I'm an English Brit with Irish ancestry - there are a hell of a lot of us in England). It's mostly the two groups in Northern Ireland who tend not to get on - those who consider themselves Irish (mostly Catholics) and those who consider themselves British-Irish or Ulstermen (mostly Protestants). Even then, 'hatred' is only endemic amongst some of the more deprived parts of society and hard-line religious types. Many on either side have long since stopped hating each other (if they ever did), despite having different ideas about which state they should live under.

Similarly, in Scotland, pro- and anti-British sentiments are often linked to religious background. Catholics (and descendents of Catholics) tend to be more likely to support independence, while Protestants are more likely to support the Union.

The division is often at its starkest in the rivalry between the 'Old Firm' football clubs in Glasgow - Rangers and Celtic. The former, who play in blue, are traditionally associated with the Union, and some of their fans actually claim to support the English national team. The latter, who play in green and white, have stronger links with Ireland, and their fans are more inclined to view England (and the UK govt.) with a degree of hostility. In 1989, Mo Johnston was the first Catholic player to sign for Rangers, causing a major controversy in the process (he was denounced by both sides, despite the fact that he was neither a strong religious believer nor particularly interested in politics).

 

[cthom]

But it was. The English were only caught in 45 because they had the bulk of their professionals fighting in Europe. They soon got them back and crushed the rebellion.

3 battalions of scottish soldiers fought against the jacobites at culloden.

The Scots resisted Cromwell and were crushed like little bugs, though of course both England and Scotland were partially divided at the time.

not quite...

http://www.scotwars.com/html/battle_of_dunbar.htm

'In late August, the badly weakened English retreated east to Musselburgh on the coast, shipping out sick and wounded soldiers from its port by the hundreds. Leslie’s brigades took up the chase, paralleling the English march and harrying the Roundheads with incessant guerrilla attacks as both armies headed Southeast. One disheartened English officer writing home described Cromwell’s forces at Musselburgh as "a poor, shattered, hungry, discouraged army."'
it took presbyterian ministers to throw certain victory away.

 

[Soneji]

Thanks for the link cthom!!

 

[Rusty Edge]

Similarly, in Scotland, pro- and anti-British sentiments are often linked to religious background. Catholics (and descendents of Catholics) tend to be more likely to support independence, while Protestants are more likely to support the Union.

The division is often at its starkest in the rivalry between the 'Old Firm' football clubs in Glasgow - Rangers and Celtic. The former, who play in blue, are traditionally associated with the Union, and some of their fans actually claim to support the English national team. The latter, who play in green and white, have stronger links with Ireland, and their fans are more inclined to view England (and the UK govt.) with a degree of hostility. In 1989, Mo Johnston was the first Catholic player to sign for Rangers, causing a major controversy in the process (he was denounced by both sides, despite the fact that he was neither a strong religious believer nor particularly interested in politics).

When I was in Glasgow the Pub on the first floor of my hotel had a sign on the door and at the bar banning the wearing of team colors. It wasn't the only place I saw such signs.

One evening we were on one of those streets that had been re-cobbled and converted into a pedestrian mall. It wasn't crowded. There were 4 or 5 girls and( maybe a guy for a time )sitting on and standing around a bench talking. They looked to be about 15 years old on average. Most of the girls were wearing blue warm-up suits with white trim.

Two ordinary-looking girls carrying bags came out of a store and were jumped by the blue girls and knocked to the pavement. One of the victims had hair hanging down her back , and one of the blues held it with both hands while walking backwards briskly, dragging her across the cobbles as others kicked her. All she could do was try to curl up. One of the blue girls was yelling at the victims to "Get out Of here! This is our place!"

While I'm normally foolish enough to intervene , this situation had me paralyzed with shock and confusion. Even after it's been explained it seems like one of the most senseless things I've ever seen.

 

[cthom]

gang mentality

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

the Scottish civilization, is fairly represented by England and the Celts. The Picts and first inhabitants were very similar, and had same bloodlines as the celts. The English Civilization is in reality the UK. Scottish civilization is also not important enough to be on a world scale. It would be good for a mod for a british sceanario though.

 

[kristopherb]

It's our island. We just allow them to live on the bit we don't want.
(That would be slightly more convincing if it wasn't the exact opposite of the truth... )

Your welcome to live on the hills as long as you don't re-enact Brave heart. then there will be hell to pay

 

[Swedishguy]

I like the scots as a civilization! And Sweden! And Poland! And Polynesia! And the Papal State! And Hitler! And... well, you get the idea.

 

[kristopherb]

That's true- both the crowns of England and Scotland were abolished by the Act of Union, it was not the assimilation of Scotland into England. England + Scotland = Britain, not England + Scotland = Bigger England. England + Wales = BRITISH EMPIRE, but that's a different story...

Never! Trying to find some way of including the Scots and Welsh (and Irish?) is not important enough for such a distortion of history. Besides, the Scots would more likely get offended at Elizabeth of the British than by being left out or represented by the Celts.

whould the Emglish be offended if mary of scots ruled england

The Act of Union was a very sensible move. Instead of fighting each other which although good fun was futile, it freed up our combined resources to go reek havoc on the rest of the world. I think bye and large the Union still works well .Yes Scotland gets a very good deal but this is justified because of the disparity in size between the two countries and ensures that neither dominates the other. BTW the Scottish civs UU should be the Scots Greys to replace Cuirasser but since this is post Union probably not.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hom1ZWBGF8&mode=related&search=

You know how I love a YouTube clip

we need to that again to more countries

the Scottish civilization, is fairly represented by England and the Celts. The Picts and first inhabitants were very similar, and had same bloodlines as the celts. The English Civilization is in reality the UK. Scottish civilization is also not important enough to be on a world scale. It would be good for a mod for a british sceanario though.

what he said^^^^

 

[Winston Hughes]

When I was in Glasgow the Pub on the first floor of my hotel had a sign on the door and at the bar banning the wearing of team colors. It wasn't the only place I saw such signs.

One evening we were on one of those streets that had been re-cobbled and converted into a pedestrian mall. It wasn't crowded. There were 4 or 5 girls and( maybe a guy for a time )sitting on and standing around a bench talking. They looked to be about 15 years old on average. Most of the girls were wearing blue warm-up suits with white trim.

Two ordinary-looking girls carrying bags came out of a store and were jumped by the blue girls and knocked to the pavement. One of the victims had hair hanging down her back , and one of the blues held it with both hands while walking backwards briskly, dragging her across the cobbles as others kicked her. All she could do was try to curl up. One of the blue girls was yelling at the victims to "Get out Of here! This is our place!"

While I'm normally foolish enough to intervene , this situation had me paralyzed with shock and confusion. Even after it's been explained it seems like one of the most senseless things I've ever seen.

Sectarianism (of any kind) is very difficult to understand from the outside. All I can say is that group identities acquire a unique intensity when two groups spend hundreds of years defining themselves in opposition to one another.

For what it's worth, my experiences of Scotland have shown the people there to be some of the most generous, hospitable and friendly people in the world. For all the supposed moneygrabbingness of the Scots, Glasgow is the only place I've ever been where a taxi driver has given me a discount because heavy traffic made me late. And I've never met folks so willing to buy a pint for a desperate stranger as I met in Edinburgh.

 

[Traitorfish]

whould the Emglish be offended if mary of scots ruled england

Yes... What's your point?

 

[Rusty Edge]

Sectarianism (of any kind) is very difficult to understand from the outside. All I can say is that group identities acquire a unique intensity when two groups spend hundreds of years defining themselves in opposition to one another.

For what it's worth, my experiences of Scotland have shown the people there to be some of the most generous, hospitable and friendly people in the world. For all the supposed moneygrabbingness of the Scots, Glasgow is the only place I've ever been where a taxi driver has given me a discount because heavy traffic made me late. And I've never met folks so willing to buy a pint for a desperate stranger as I met in Edinburgh.

I loved Scotland and it's people.

As for the group oposition thing, did this exist between the some of the very same groups as clans before The Scottish Reformation? Or did it turn allies into enemies?

 

[Pangur Bán]

That's the first time I've heard someone claim that. Most sources state that the term was coined by King James VI/ I after he united the the crowns. Do you have any references?

Nah, you're confusing this with James VI's promotion of the concept.

The Scottish MPs didn't take their authority seriously??? If all you're saying is that the Scottish authorities were under severe pressure, from financial ruin and the potential for war with England then I agree with you.

No, the idea of these parliamentarians having sovereign authority over Scotland is a much later one. It was just convenient for both the crown and the parliament to treat it like that so long as it was possible they would be cooperative, which of course they were.

This is certainly a valid argument against a British civ. My take is that British history is of far more significance than pre-union English history, and that turns are much more frequent in late history civ. Also, a British civ could still represent a collection of related peoples in the same way that the Indian, Greek, Maya etc represent their civs during their long periods of disunity.

Not really, because there is one state, England, which is in continuous existence from the early middle ages until the present time, ignoring legal fictions such as 1707 and 1801.

The linguistic history of England is not comparable to that of Scotland. Scots has been a very significant part of Scottish culture since well before Scotland was even edging towards nationhood. There is no equivalent in England's history.

Doesn't matter; I'm talking about the names of the countries. You think England wasn't diverse either? Ever heard of the British or Norman French languages?

When I used the word 'true' I was only clumsily attempting to paraphrase your assertion that Gaelic is to Scotland what English is to England, and your implied dismissal of the importance of the Scots language to Scottish history.

"Scots language" was a creation of 18th century Teutonist supremacists and Lowland nationalists. The language you call "Scots" was virtually always called English, and until the 16th century "Scots" was just the Scottish English word for Gaelic. I think that tells its own story.

 

[Pangur Bán]

it took presbyterian ministers to throw certain victory away.

Sure.

 

[DrJambo]

Nah, you're confusing this with James VI's promotion of the concept. :

James' promotion of the concept or James' coined phrase (lumpthing) - The difference hardly warrants the demeaning attitude.

Not really, because there is one state, England, which is in continuous existence from the early middle ages until the present time, ignoring legal fictions such as 1707 and 1801.

I hardly think a joining of parliaments is a trivial matter and constitutes 'legal fictions'. For England it was as much about finally achieving closure with a country that had proved to be a thorn in their side for a number of centuries. The joining of the parliaments was beneficial to both. It gave Scotland some much needed financial security and allowed England to concentrate efforts elsewhere. You seem to believe that this 'big army' was just waiting outside the gates as they were signing the documents.

As a unified nation Britain went on to become the foremost power in the early 20th century. It's unlikely that would have happened to the same degree without the union, since much of Britain's military efforts round the globe consisted of Scots.

Today, there are now more than 5 times as many Scots living outside of Scotland than live in Scotland.

 

[DrJambo]

It's also worth noting that the majority of the lowland Scots, who very different from the Highland Scots, were against the Jacobite rebellion of 1745 and in fact were disdainful of the 'barbaric' and 'uncivilised' Highlanders. The Jacobites actually took Edinbugh by force on their march south.

 

[cthom]

Sure.

yes, i'm sure.

leslie only had to stay put and cromwells army would have died of disease and starvation. he was ordered to move by the accompanying ministers. (why they had supremacy over him, i don't know).
all advantage was lost, and the ball put back in cromwell's court.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not really, because there is one state, England, which is in continuous existence from the early middle ages until the present time, ignoring legal fictions such as 1707 and 1801.

Well, surely, if the Act of Union is a "legal fiction", so was the formation of England. What you really mean is that Wessex has been in existence since the early middle ages. "England", as it is called, is simply a term made up by Northerners so that the don't have to admit that they were annexed by Wessex. No other explanation can possibly be true.

Put it this way- in your own corner of the world, the former state of Yugoslavia was dominated by Serbia, yes? But does mean Yugoslavia was just Serbia with a name change? Equally, is Germany just Prussia, is Spain just Castille?
Look, it's obvious than in the Act of Union, Scotland was the junior partner. England was bigger, richer and more powerful, no-one but the most fanatical nationalist would try to claim that the two nations were equals. But there is a difference between the Act of Union- the abolishment of two nations and the formation of a new one- and the annexation of Scotland. This is not a mere "legal fiction", no more than the examples I gave. Is it not true that what was once the Kingdom of Wessex dominates England, that Prussia dominates Germany, that Castille dominates Spain? Does that make those states a "legal fiction"?

As a unified nation Britain went on to become the foremost power in the early 20th century. It's unlikely that would have happened to the same degree without the union, since much of Britain's military efforts round the globe consisted of Scots.

QFT
Scotland, while not a particularly major nation in itself, formed an integral part of unified Britain. The Scots made up a disproportionately large part of the armed forces- including many of the most successful regiments in the army, such as the 93rd Regiment of Foot (the Argyle Highlanders) who made up the Thin Red Line at Balaclava- and a key part of Britain's industrial power, most significantly it's ship building industry.

 

[Soneji]

Well said Tratorfish, exactly as how I would like to have eloquented that point about the Act of Union.

It certainly is not legal fiction.