I never knew of this until today...

General WWII era German military discussion that doesn't fit someplace more specific.
User avatar
Jock
Associate
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:43 am
Location: Scotland

Post by Jock »

Hi Patrick,

I think you've hit the nail dead on there...Goring is actually an english surname, and also a town or village in England. Add to that the fever in the UK (In the two wars, and between) for changing names of anything that sounded Germanic, I think you are most likely right with that one.

Cheers,
Jock
Anti-lemming
New Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:56 pm

Post by Anti-lemming »

Jack, you just don't get it, do you? You think that if the fallacy British = English is beaten into people's heads over and over and over, and repeated ad nauseum, then it becomes true (this reminds me of something else that the media does, by the way). People equate the KINGDOM of England with the ISLAND of Britain because England is the largest and historically the most powerful kingdom on that island. DUH! Also, I never said that Scotland is not a kingdom. In fact, I said the opposite, making it quite clear that Scotland is also a kingdom (historically).

Do you not understand the elementary logic, particularly subsets? A set can have several subsets. Just because English people are a subset of the British does not mean that Welsh people and Scottish people are also not subsets of the British people.
User avatar
Jock
Associate
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:43 am
Location: Scotland

Post by Jock »

Lemming,

I'm assuming you are young, and American to make statements as simplistic as that when talking about nations. If you are, I'll back that statement up, If not, I wont have wasted any time.

The only way the term "British People" would be to refer to every person living on the island of Britain...Yeah, and so what? That does nothing to prove your original argument that all people in all nations in britain are therfor british.

Elementary logic? Subsets? I know what they are, but they have f**k all to do with what makes a nation and its people.
Jock
Anti-lemming
New Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:56 pm

Post by Anti-lemming »

Joke, do you care to actually present any facts or sources or ANY sort of argument that Scottish people are not British?
User avatar
Jock
Associate
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:43 am
Location: Scotland

Post by Jock »

All you needed to do was ask Lemming.

The 4 ancient peoples of Scotland were Scoti, Picts, Britons and Angles. Scoti and Picts were both Celtic races, and both rose to the fore between 500 - 900ad, with a Scoti king destroying the Picts, and uniting Scotland. The Celtic people are historically based in Ireland/North West France, with the Scoti coming over from Antrim, N. Ireland around 500ad.

The Scottish race today is mainly made up from Scoti and Picts, with some viking/briton mixed in. England however is made up from Anglo-Saxons with alot more viking and roman blood mixed in.

It was the Scoti and Picts dominance over the Angles and Britons that made Scotland a nation in its own rights. Their defeat of the Angles/Northumbrians (both still dominant races in england - angles = anglo-saxons) at Dunnichen in 685, destroying an (english) army, and assuring their power in Southern Scotland.

Beyond that we had over 1000 years of struggles with England, finally submitting to an Act of Union in 1707, which Scotland was an full and equal partner in, and not a beaten nation as many think.

(That last paragraph is very basic - however, as you dont seem to think the History of a nation defines it's people, Ill leave it all out for you just now.)

Scotland's people are a distinct race, decesnded from very different people than the english.

I have a feeling even this will not convince you. I cant say I'm all that bothered, because I have a feeling I'm talking to someone who has no concept of ancient nations, rivalries and patriotism.

I keep feeling drawn to say something which may be off the mark, but it might just illustrate my point. The shops and restaurants in the US that display stickers like 'We Support Irish Freedom' and things of that ilk? An uncountable number of people spend money in them, and a portion of that money goes to Sinn Fein/IRA, which, in the past (And no more than 5 years - IRA activity was huge for most of my life), went directly on guns to kill soldiers, and bombs to kill civilians, in all countries in the UK.

See how some of you dont quite get how messed up our past is, and how our history still lives with us? So do you see how you cant just use a blanket statement like 'Everyone on britain is british"?
Jock
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Jock,

I disagree. Today's Scots and English (and Irish and Welsh) have the same ethnic roots but in different proportions.

There was a considerable amount of Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon settlement in what is now modern Scotland and Scotland's aristocracy had strong Norman elements. The "Scotch" language (a variety of English) was widely spoken in Lowland Scotland long before the Stuarts came to the English throne, let alone the Act of Union. Recent DNA studies show that the populations of the Orkney's, Shetlands and Hebrides are predominantly or strongly of Viking origin.

The four main national states in the British Isles have much more in common with each other than with anyone else. For example, there are apparently more people bearing Irish, Scottish and Welsh names in England today than in Ireland, Scotland or Wales. There is a very real underlying "British" identity that is currently unfashionable.

British common identity is particularly denied by various Celtic "nationalists" for reasons of personal political advantage. In order to flourish, nationalism requires the strongest possible degree of distinctiveness in the self image of a population. It therefore latches onto all evidence of difference and seeks to obscure any evidence of commonality. The real historic record is a secondary factor in nationalist realpolitik.

Yup. Almost everyone in Britain is to some degree British, whether they care to own to it or not. The surnames of my grandparents were of English, Cornish, Irish and Norman origin. Amongst earlier generations there were Swedes, Dutch, French and Italians that I know of. I have no doubt there are Scots and Welsh in there as well. The British are all, whether they can trace their ancestry or not, almost certainly of as diverse origins as this. Even Gerry Adams, whose paternal ancestry is English.

Within the British Isles today, local nationalism is a state of mind, not an exclusive genetic inheritance.

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
Jock
Associate
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:43 am
Location: Scotland

Post by Jock »

Hi Sid,

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with most of what you said. However, your point about DNA found in Orkney, etc - thats perfectly true, as the Vikings had a strong hold up there until well into the millenium. Scottish people (in the majority) are Celtic in origin, with other blood mixed in, Ill admit, but not as much as the english.

England, as a country, was conquered by the Romans, and widely ravaged by the Vikings. We had problems with both, but managed to fight them, or make peace with them. We did not live side by side, interbreeding. (Except for some Royal intermarrige between Scottish and Norwegian families to secure peace)

As I said before, the forming of Scotland took place with the rising in power of the Scoti, the defeat of the Angles/Britons, and peacable existence with the vikings.

If we are so similar to the english, and full of viking blood, where are all the Scottish blondes? Scottish people are predominantly not blonde, but dark/brown/ginger. Not defining evidence I know, but another piece.

The statement that Scottish and Celtic identity is no more than a mouth piece to stir up the locals, somewhat offends me - You think I'm making things up to suit my trumped up, Hoot's mon, version of history?

Sorry to disagree so strongly Sid, but I beleive identity is something more real, something that has been passed down through the generations.

Cheers,
Jock
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Jock,

You have no reason to be offended, because you aren't actually taking on board what I wrote, but I haven't time to explain now.

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
Jock
Associate
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:43 am
Location: Scotland

Post by Jock »

Hi Sid,

Sorry you feel I havn't taken in what you said, I do value reading what you say. I will not deny that there are similarities between us (I am assuming you are english), we speak the same language, we enjoy many of the same foods. But we are from two seperate, historically different (not by a million miles, I'll admit, and certainly linked with one another) nations.

Personally, I am sure of my lineage, my name goes a long way back, and the clan to which we belong to being very prominent in early Scottish history, coming from very early Celtic roots in Dalriada (Glasgow area/Skye)

I'm sure that somewhere along my family line, people of non Celtic blood have married in, but I'm also equally sure that my stock is predominantly Celtic.

Anyway Sid, please dont take my arguments as offence - these are some of my deepest founded beliefs we are dealing with here :D

Cheers,
Jock
greenhorn
Contributor
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:13 am
Location: ENGLAND

Post by greenhorn »

So where does leave the Black British?

Did anyone see Professors genetic roadtrip around the UK...
Apparently there is a prevalance of Dutch genes in Pembrokeshire, cause the Earl in the 1300s...... import Flemish weavers.......

There's the Hugenots.... William3's Dutch crew, Jews and Commonwealth populations..... etc......
Banzai!
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Jock,

I would go back to my original point that today's English and Scots have the same ethnic roots, but in different proportions.

Apart from the islands, there is historically a strong presence of tall Scottish blondes on the East Coast, as I understand it. Moreover, not only are today's Scots people predominantly not blonde, but neither are today's English, who are also predominantly dark/brown. I think the DNA indicates that the English are largely descended from Germanic men and Celtic women.

I never said that "Scottish and Celtic identity is no more than a mouth piece to stir up the locals". My point was that political nationalism is only interested in emphasising differences, not commonalities. It may be out of fashion at present, but I think it is occasionally worth pointing out that we do have much in common. Edinburgh, for instance, is a mix of Celtic and English words. London was a Celtic city before it was English. The oldest building so far found in Dublin has Anglo-Saxon (not Viking) features.

Londonderry is a good example of baneful nationalist influence. The town name has both an English (London) and its original celtic (Derry) element. It has a mixed Catholic Irish and Protestant Scots-Irish population in need of reconciliation. You might think that the place name might be a good example that the the two cultural elements can co-exist. But no, along come some nationalists (they don't have to be Irish, the same holds true of all nationists to some degree) and try to cut out one element of it.

Cheers,

Sid.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Greenhorn,

Where does that leave the Black British? As British.

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
Jock
Associate
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:43 am
Location: Scotland

Post by Jock »

sid guttridge wrote:Hi Jock,

1) I would go back to my original point that today's English and Scots have the same ethnic roots, but in different proportions.

2) My point was that political nationalism is only interested in emphasising differences, not commonalities.

Cheers,

Sid.
Hi Sid,

I'd be alot more willing to lean towards your first statement right enough, I still stand by my point that people in Scotland are decesnded from Celts with other blood mixed in, whereas England is Anglo-Saxon with other blood mixed in. Two different starting points, but much the same outcome (DNA asides :D )

Apologies for misunderstanding your 2nd point...That is a good point, and I accept that, but isn't it a part of human nature to try and find differences in ourselves, therfor making us different and unique? In saying that, that is just the end to your means...Thats why they do it...Sneaky :D

About the tall blondes on the East Coast though Sid...I live on the east coast, and the only tall blondes are the leggy peroxide ones mate :wink:

Cheers,
Jock
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Jock,

I agree fully that the bedrock of Scottish identity is Celtic and English identity is Germanic. But almost from the very start both contained significant elements of the other. The period when there was no significant Celtic element in the Anglo-Saxons may have been as little as a single generation 1,500 years ago. (i.e. only amongst the first boatloads of men from the continent). In the area of Scotland between Hadrian's and the Antonine walls the first Anglo-Saxon presence was almost contemporaneous with the period when the Picts and Scots were coalescing into the proto-Scottish state north of the Antonine wall.

My surname is English, but until my grandfather all my paternal blood line were Cornish born since records began, and even my father served in the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infanty in WWII, so I am not at all anti-Celt.

I feel that whether Scotland wants to be part of the UK or not is entirely up to Scots, because they entered the Act of Union voluntarily and can leave it voluntarily. I would only say that I would regret their passing as they are an integral part of the past and present of the rest of the British Isles (and v.v.) and it would be an amputation that would certainly be keenly felt by others.

Cheers,

Sid.
User avatar
Jock
Associate
Posts: 725
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 9:43 am
Location: Scotland

Post by Jock »

Hi Sid,

There, we agree at last :D

I am surprised that you will be disapointed when Scotland gains Independance, but I think that will only cement relationships between the two countries. It seems to me that only London/Home Counties seem to have much of a problem with the 'rebelious Scots', and Scotland's only problem with England is that you occupy our country :wink:

We are both powerful, influential nations. We just want to be that on our own two feet, instead of on your shoulders :D

Cheers,
Jock
sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge »

Hi Jock,

Alas, I do not agree. Scotland is certainly not a "powerful and influential nation" today and England is hardly that either.

Indeed, both countries have only made any impact on the wider world when jointly under the banner of the UK. Before that, their constant bickering was a major factor in their limited influence in the world at large. (Remember the Darien Expedition? This was hardly a great advert for Scotland's ability to go it alone on the world stage.) Once they no longer had to keep looking over their shoulders at each other, the two countries created the largest empire the world had yet seen, and Scots had at least a proportional share in it. A century ago Glasgow gloried in the title of "Second City of the Empire".

I don't think even London and the Home counties have much of a problem with the Scots, who I have never heard referred to as "rebellious". The recent Labour cabinets have been packed with Scots (Blair, Brown, Cook, etc.) and there hasn't been the slightest reaction against it in the South East.

England doesn't occupy Scotland and never has (despite several ultimately failed attempts long before the Act of Union). Even at Culloden there were more Scots in Cumberland's forces than in those of Bonnie Prince Charlie (who, incidentally, was after the British throne, not merely that of Scotland). Indeed, Scottish regiments are still disproportionately represented in the British Army. I remember that the late HLI were garrisoned in Colchester, where I was a student. Are English regiments ever garrisoned in Scotland?

Without doubt, as England's population has always been several times larger than Scotland's, the former has tended to dominate the Union. However, Scotland has arguably had a proportionate share in the dealings of the UK. It is the Welsh who were particularly short changed, even more than the Irish.

If Scotland became independent, it would presumably seek to do so within the EU. I wonder what more powers Scotland would have under the EU Constitution than under the Act of Union? An independent foreign policy? Nope. Its own currency? Nope. A disproportionate number of seats in the European Parliament? Nope. A more independent judicial system? Nope. What exactly would Scotland gain by way of independence within the EU?

Cheers,

Sid.
Post Reply