I was wondering if someone can recommend me a comprehensive book abut Scotland's history? Preferably from the 13th century onwards. I am mostly interested in the documentation of the normandization/englification of Scottish royalty and subsequently the shift from Gaelic being the majority spoken language of the people to English. Also the aspect of how this shift was being perceived by most of the intellectual class in later centuries.
If someone could help me with some authors that'd be swell!
top kek, meant this one
How come the jacobite's are a major influence in scottish identity when in fact they were the factor behind the highland clearances?
>From about 1725, in the aftermath of the first Jacobite Rising, Highlanders had begun emigrating to the Americas in increasing numbers. Under the Disarming Act of 1746 and the Clan Act of 1715, the Crown made ineffectual attempts to subdue the Scottish Highlands, and eventually sent in troops. Government garrisons were built or extended in the Great Glen at Fort William, Kiliwhimin (later renamed Fort Augustus) and Fort George, Inverness, as well as barracks at Ruthven, Bernera and Inversnaid, linked to the south by the "Wade roads" (constructed for Major-General George Wade). These had the effect of limiting organisational travel and choking off news ; and further isolated the clans. But, social conditions remained unsettled for the whole decade
I don't know much of it myself, hence the purpose of this thread
Exactly, that's my point, how come it's seen as a positive thing if it done damage to the scottish identity?
most people didn't even support them
To answer your question there was no single Scottish identity until the nineteenth century maybe. The highlands and lowlands considered themselves distinct peoples. The highlands, among other differences, was catholic and so supported the catholic jacobites.
Its also of interest to note that the highlands contained the majority of Scotland's population until the nineteenth century. It was only during this time that clearance really came into full swing and highland culture was destroyed entirely to make way for royal hunting grounds (balmoral).
H.T. Dickinson- A Companion to Eighteenth Century Britain
This is from the article on Jacobites, but besides this one and an article on "Scotland and the Union" it focuses on England mostly.
Definitely. You're better off reading about more recent history to understand the source of the Scottish question. You can start with the political union of 1706, or the post-Napoleonic settlement and Scotland's tremendous boost from industrialisation and empire.
Come on, there has to be a linear dimension for the scottish identity no matter the time frame of the country. It is SCOTTISH history after all, and that's intrinsically linked to it's national consciousness and identity
> there has to be a linear dimension for the scottish identity
I don't know what you mean by this. I'm saying that political union in 1706 and then Scotland's growing ties to England through Empire and industrialisation had more of an impact than anythign else on the form that Scottish nationalism takes today. If anything, your implying that scottish identity is nonlinear by impying that there's some ahistorical national consciousness that spans all historical periods. No, without popularisers like Walter Scott, for example, the Jacobites would not have been enshrined in Scottish memory as they were. Even so, Scottish identity was not a given, especially during the nineteenth century when a shockingly disproportionate amount of Scots participated in Empire building as soldiers, professionals, administrators. Scottish "consciousness" was also divided along class lines, with professional Scots in the lowland in the nineteenth century putting their address as "North Britain" instead of as Scotland
>industrialisation had more of an impact than anythign else on the form that Scottish nationalism takes today
Economics have an impact in the development of collective cultural identities but they don't represent a cultural factor in itself. Arguably this had an impact in every other european culture of the time, but you don't see everyone stress it's importance, because it's not detrimental in the national historical narrative.
>Even so, Scottish identity was not a given, especially during the nineteenth century when a shockingly disproportionate amount of Scots participated in Empire building as soldiers, professionals, administrators. Scottish "consciousness" was also divided along class lines, with professional Scots in the lowland in the nineteenth century putting their address as "North Britain" instead of as Scotland
And this is exactly why you don't brush off the celtic heritage the scottish identity is based on, since it represented the building block of what Scotland represents today and it's identity. Because if you simply ignore, or worse, interpret the time prior to the english take-over as "not detrimental" to the scottish identity, you're basically erasing half your history, in order to make room for a pro-english narrative in the history books.
I grew up in Scotland ask me anything
Most of the modern Scottish identity comes from around the start of the 1800s thanks people like Walter Scott, I could type out something long but it was basically a by-product of people romanticising the pre-industrial era when things were more 'natural' (same reason the Jacobites got romanticised) + a deliberate attempt to fight radicalism which was becoming more popular in Scotland at the time by pushing for an image of Scotland where the aristocracy/clan leaders were benevolent leaders.
Whilst Scots do mostly do consider themselves ''celtic'' it doesn't form as fundaemtnal a part of the identity as in say Ireland, many Scots actually actively reject the idea of them being a 'celtic nation'
Also whether you like it or not, Scotland has been a part of the UK for 300 years now, and at that point it had been in a personal union with England for 100 years. The Scottish question and the Scottish identity were heavily influenced by the union and events/changes which occured as a result, at one point unionism was a major part of the Scottish identity (for many Scots it still is and will probably continue to be so).
You're assuming that a solid Scottish identity has always existed and always been the same, but the last time Scotland was independent a concept of national identity didn't even exist
>Most of the modern Scottish identity comes from around the start of the 1800s
So just about the time when capitalism and the industrial revolution began, how convenient for the english narrative....
>many Scots actually actively reject the idea of them being a 'celtic nation'
That's because celticism is seen as an old and backwarded culture, thanks to the english brainwash in schools, and yet Scots also reject the fact that they're english people, what a dilemma!
>The Scottish question and the Scottish identity were heavily influenced by the union and events/changes which occured as a result, at one point unionism was a major part of the Scottish identity (for many Scots it still is and will probably continue to be so)
That is an arbitrary dating which scottish historians push for, in accordance with english historians, as to not damage the current form of the UK. Every country does that.
>You're assuming that a solid Scottish identity has always existed and always been the same, but the last time Scotland was independent a concept of national identity didn't even exist
I can tell you it existed by the time Scots started to murder their kings which they deemed as english intruders or traitors
>So just about the time when capitalism and the industrial revolution began, how convenient for the english narrative....
that's the same for all countries, modern scottish history doesn't become irrelevant just because Scotland became a part of the union. Obviously industrialisation and the huge population shift that occured as a result would have an impact on Scotland and how Scots thought of themselves.
Why wouldnt' they identify more with the modern era? It's more relatable to how they live now and most Scottish achievements occured during this time
>That's because celticism is seen as an old and backwarded culture, thanks to the english brainwash in schools, and yet Scots also reject the fact that they're english people, what a dilemma!
not, really? Scots can be their own distinct thing, they don't have to hoose between 'celtic' and 'English'
>Obviously industrialisation and the huge population shift that occured as a result would have an impact on Scotland and how Scots thought of themselves.
Yes, it was because of the english take over and the englification of Scottish society combined with the economical morphs they caused to the country is what made them starting to think of themselves not as Scottish, but as english.
>Why wouldnt' they identify more with the modern era? It's more relatable to how they live now and most Scottish achievements occured during this time
Again, the narrative the english want you to think, because that coincides with their socio-economic take over, and of course they need to have you obedient, by giving you the honorable moral of being "His majesty's warrior race that helps him and the building of the empire."
They fill your heads with this bullcrap false feeling of belonging so they can keep you as nothing more than northern english folk with a funny accent.
>Scots can be their own distinct thing, they don't have to hoose between 'celtic' and 'English'
Yes, and ironic thing that happens in result is the Scots trying to play as if they're totally not english, when in fact they speak a bastardized version of it, and then to seem autochthonous they claim it's actually "Scottish" language, ergo the language of the people. Le we're totally not english and we're something unique, while we still latch onto the period when we were under the boot of the english face.jpeg.
Tell me, how many years Scotland was under the english yoke, 300-400? Now you compare this to the time when Scotland was independent. And in those 900 years of being independent, you were proud celts who weren't ashamed of being labelled as "highlander yokels from a mythical past" by the english, people you used to see as invaders and conquerors, but who today you are trying to see as sibling rivalry
Why are you doing thiss? we could have had a nice discussion
No Scottish people have never thought of themselves as ''english''. Nobody considers ''Scottish'' a separate language from English, just a dialect.
the rest of your post is just ''literally what are you talking about'' tier. Most Scots don't hate the English, it doesn't make sense to hate a group of people who we have to share a small island with
Not a Brit myself, but I think what the other anons are trying to say is that Scotland appeared for the first time as a clusterfuck of peoples and cultures and remained pretty much that forever. Before the Modern era, Scotland was a disperse collection of clans and cows and local nobles in thw butthole of Europe, only showing up occasionally in history books when they were buttfucked by the English and then proceeded to remove English in order to go back to their cows and sheeps and etc as usual.
Then one day union with England happened (through major cucking, but that's another story) and, not as much as a result of the merge but as a result of the socio-economical and ideological dynamics and changes that occurred notjust in Scotland but pretty much eeverywhere during the XVIII and XIX centuries, events happened, the development of society and economy particularly in Glasgow area happened, migrations and redistribution of population happened because muh industry, national ideas were a thing wheras previously there be cows and clans, notable participation in the Empire and Imperial enterprises to a great cuck degree due to higher level intertwining with the rest of Britain because better infrastructures, communication, ideas and etc.
It's easy. You can do this pretty much with any other country in Europe. But you seem to keen to take a certain moment in history, put a label on the whatever nation/people you are taking, and from then on, let's play them linearly Civ V style, because fuggme :-DDDD structures, identity, society, etc are all essentially consolidated since Turn 1 right? :-DDD
>No Scottish people have never thought of themselves as ''english''
Yes ironically the alleged national language of the Scots is a broken version of english. And no matter how much present day Scots try to distance themselves from this walking stereotype, by sheer virtue of their willingness to be part of the english world and it's historic past, they will continue to be nothing more than northern english yokels with a funny accent, but with a huge pride in being the movers of the empire.
>Nobody considers ''Scottish'' a separate language from English, just a dialect
Or more like the anglo lapdogs who can't see behind the narrative that the academic and political elites are trying to push.
It's every time like this. When someone dares speak out the truth that Scottish identity is far older than what the englified elites want you to think, and that celticism is the bedrock of the Scottish nation, you're labelled as a retarded nationalist who "ignores aspects of scottish history he doesn't like"
But when it comes to discussions of the relation Scotland has to Westminster? MUUUH SCOTLUND WE'RE TOTALLY NOT ENGLISH THEY CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVES MUH PROUD WARRIOR RACE REMEMBER 1016
>Scotland appeared for the first time as a clusterfuck of peoples and cultures and remained pretty much that forever. Before the Modern era, Scotland was a disperse collection of clans and cows and local nobles in thw butthole of Europe, only showing up occasionally in history books when they were buttfucked by the English and then proceeded to remove English in order to go back to their cows and sheeps and etc as usual.
So basically you're describing half of Europe of the time. Including England.
It's just really hard to pinpoint how to call you, since your definition of what constitutes a Scot, Scottish nationhood and identity differs from mine in opposite.
''Celticism'' is a pretty modern idea too anon, are you are aware that most English are celts too? the idea of a consistent celtic identity only came about in the modern era, it deffo didn't exist when celts all lived in sparsely popultated kingdoms buttfucking eachother
The current Scottish nationality is a made-up invention by the english who took over in centuries of systematic oppression. You cannot identify as a Scot if you do not speak gaelic.
> most English are celts too
They do not speak any celtic language. They are not celts, but anglo-saxons
>To answer your question there was no single Scottish identity until the nineteenth century maybe
Actually, the lowlanders considering themselves to be a separate people to the highlanders only really comes in during the 15th cent.
There were certainly percieved differences before then, but before the reigns of the Jameses highlanders were regarded as being Scots, just like the lowlanders.
The nationality of them may be Scottish, but they are not ethnic Scots.
Authentic Scots are almost extinct.
I'd recommend looking at the New Edinburgh History of Scotland series and would also point out that, at the time period we're talking about that it's more accurate to talk about Scotland becoming more Normanised then Englified. There was still a pretty big gap between the English nobility and the English themselves, and the fact that Medieval Scotland was influenced by France as much as it was by England, if not more than.
Cultural-Ritualistic sense. The entire norman royal way of life opened up to the Scottish elites a new and innovative world they brought from the mainland, so after the english and scottish royals sort of homogenized and were aspiring towards the same civilizational ideals for their own countries, the scottish started to implement the same english culture into Scotland, in consequence, because they saw them as innovators. It was around this time that burgs started to sprung and the english with their agriculture started to take over the lowlands
I'd disagree, and say that the burgh system was brought over from the low countries as much as England, and that no such "English take over" of the lowlands happened.
If anything we see the reverse, the monk of Melrose go from being "English" living in an area which isn't exactly "England" but also certainly isn't "Scotland" to "English living within the Kingdom of Scotland" to "Scottish".
Jacobites and highland clearances are unrelated. Jacobites caused the suppression of Gaelic culture to prevent them from rebelling again but the highland clearances occurred nearly a century later and was mostly due to rich, mostly Scottish landlords realizing that owning sheep in their land was more profitable than having crofters farm for them.
Nobles and burghers were certainly invited into Scotland, but they were primarily Norman and Flemish, not English.
Furthermore, at this time none of the English aristocracy actuallu spoke English, they preferred Norman French.
Actually, it probably would have been the 13th/14th centuries more, possibly.
It's theorised that, because of the end of Medieval warm period in the 1250s that agriculture in the Highlands became basically untenable, and the region became really rather lawless.
And by the time of the later Jameses the king's were massive French/Spanishaboos and Gaelic culture was seen as fairly barbarous, although James IV still spoke Gaelic, apparently.
No, there a lord who in charge of the Highlands who tried to rebel.
To argue he had significant popular support, or that his rebellion was proof of the yearning of the highlanders for their own nation state is incorrect.
And I don't what the lowland peasants speak has to do with it.
Can't remember a time when there wasn't a thread about Scotland on this board. What's the fascination lads?
Anyway, ama and I'll see what I can do. This thread is full of disinformation. People in Scotland have very different ideas about Scottish History depending on their religious/ethnic background.
First thing you need to know about Scottish History:
Scots and Gaels are not the same thing. Scots (their endonym) are a group of anglo-saxons from the East and South of the country. Their language is a purer form of anglic than the language spoken in England, because they weren't conquered by the Normans. Many words in common usage in Scotland today are discernibly closer to their Danish/Swedish counterparts than their counterparts in standard English.
Scottish Gaels are essentially Irish colonists (use that word very loosely). They never referred to themselves as "Scots", and the Scots never regarded them as ethnic Scots, referring to their ethnicity as "Erse" (Irish) and themselves as "Inglis" (Angles). The Kingdom of Scotland (or Alba as the Gaels called it) was a civic construct rather than an ethnic one.
Problems arose with the reformation as most of the Scots became zealous Calvinists while the Gaels remained resolutely Catholic. This resulted in a schism between the two groups, and ultimately the suppression of Gaelic culture by the Scots.
They were there long before any coherent English identity existed, and the land they inhabited was never Gaelic, rather Brythonic. These peasants were the first to use Scots as an endonym in their own language. They're actually more anglic than the English if youu consider language the best measure of ethnicity.
>muh they were there first
Yes, as invaders. And through invasions and manipulations they made their way further into the lowlands effectively taking over by force of their already anglified rules.
If you use an exonym for your endonym, you are pretty much an invented culture. A form without substance. It is known.