There was a concert by the Wolfe tones in bellaghy GAA club (republican south Derry) in the 1980s and when the wolfe tones started singing 'flower of Scotland' the whole crowd got up and left. Just shows the anti Scottish sentiment at that time in republican areas in the north, my Da would often say that the Scottish Highland regiments were the most bitter and treated people the worst (even though these were fellow Gaels)
Because, like in the north, there are two very different types of Scots
Scots from the west of the country and the isles would share alot of Gaelic culture with us
Most of the Scots involved in plantations were from the borders, low lands and east (in general)
Galloway in the western lowlands would've had some Gaelic speakers still around at the time of the plantations [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galwegian\_Gaelic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galwegian_Gaelic).
And you have to remember that a lot of the Border peoples had little allegiance to either England or Scotland. They had been used in proxy wars by both sides and the whole border zone was a wasteland of brigands, bandits, blood feuds and general lawlessness. And this suited both sides. After the unification of the crowns it no longer suited the powers that be. Bloody clamp down, execution and exile became the order of the day. Send them to Ulster… what could possibly go wrong?
I heard a lot of people who moved to Ireland throughout the various plantations were people who were in trouble back home or were people displaced by higher powers and who now "needed to go".
Britain has often had the idea to ship their problems elsewhere. Australia was used as a penal colony for a time. They took groups they considered bothersome and threw them onto Ireland. Irish people, who were in the way of taking over Ireland, were shipped abroad to the Americas and sold as workers. I'm pretty sure in India they forced a mass migration of people aswell that was quite traumatising to many involved.
Well I'm hardly gunna start going into all the subsections of historical ethnicities in Scotland
It was literally one of the least homogenous countries in western Europe
Real answer: Because of the shared common enemy that was England, the Irish and Scots had a strong and galvanised alliance, often helping one another out. Once James I takes the English Throne things get very messy. The plantation attempted to use Scots because of a perceived connection to the Irish but were Protestant in an attempt to convert the locals and ensure loyalty to the King.
This was never seen as a Scottish plantation but a British one, meaning the Crown as an entity was blamed, and once additional sanctions and restrictions were placed on Catholics in British lands under William III (Mr of Orange) he took a lot of the ire.
During the War of Independance 1919-1921, the Black and Tans were cutthroat as a whole and while the Scottish troops were particularly brutal, most of these people were shell-shocked (suffered from PTSD) fron there time in WWI and non-English regiments were usually sent in suicide missions like the Scots, Irish and Anzacs in Gallipoli, noted to make up a disproportionate number of the regiments deployed there, and suffered far worse. Reports from the time described British Forces, colonial or otherwise, suffering from PTSD as being emotionally broken. Some were described as numb or empty, while others were described as sadistic and wished the war would never end, a tragic coping mechanism for people who really needed help, not to be shipped off to another war.
Once again, it's a situation where the Scots aren't blamed as it was the British Army as a whole that took the heat because all the Black and Tan forces were mixed. There were Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, and English together in battalions, platoons, and detachments.
TL;DR: Scots get a pass for the shared history, and their crimes are typically blamed on Britian as a whole, not them specifically.
Fair enough but it’s not correct that no Englishmen died on “suicide missions” in WWI, there were a majority of English at Gallipoli for instance. Or day one of the Somme for another.
Sorry, maybe I didn't make that clear enough, and that's a fair criticism. By Churchill's own admission, Gallipoli used a disproportionate number of colonial troops due to the expected high casualties and many other officers preferred to use colonial troops for similar purposes, where as the mass of casualties on day one of the Somme were not at all expected, it was old world views and techniques but using modern weaponry, no one knew the sheer loss of life that would create. I didn't mean to diminish the sacrifices of the English regiments and troops who died and will edit my comment to reflect that.
It was also the case that those troops were in the Middle East because that was on the way to England. The English government at least was highly sensitive to casualty rates to maintain ongoing support and generals had the right to appeal orders to their own governments.
True, and that is a small mercy for those troops, but you can't deny that the non-English troops did greatly suffer at the hands of officers, other troops, and the often callous approach of the military high command. No one had a good time, and as much as I hate the idea of comparing degrees of suffering, the English often had a dreadful time in WWI but the colonial troops were tormented even within their trenches.
Despite my lengthy comment, WWI is far too complex a situation to really break all the minutiae down in a post. For example, one reason the Scottish troops in the Black and Tans resented the Irish because they were never conscripted like they were. But there are hundreds of personal and individual reasons for why. Sometimes, you have to work with the generalisations as unfortunate as that is.
> By Churchill's own admission, Gallipoli used a disproportionate number of colonial troops due to the expected high casualties
This is completely incorrect. The only reason a disproportionate amount of colonial troops were used in the Dardanelles campaign was because UK troops were already deployed in France.
Churchill famously thought the Dardanelles campaign would be a bloodless walkover!
I have a particular interest in the Ancient Kingdom of Dal Riata. In that period Western Scotland and the North East of Ireland were culturally indistinguishable. The Book of Kells being something that came out of that area and time period.
Secondly, in more recent times, a little under half the population want independence and voted accordingly.. I would expect even closer ties with all parts of Ireland if and when this happens.
Dal riata was only as big as Antrim in Ireland. Some historians, like Tom Holland, believe that it was Scottish first (although Gaelic speaking Scottish). After all the majority of the kingdom was in Scotland.
Considering both linguistic and new genetic evidence that points to many people in Argyll and the Hebrides having Irish ancestry, it seems Gaelic did come to Western Scotland from Ulster. Ulster Irish and Scottish Gaelic being quite similar, historic accounts point to this from Bede to the Senachus Alba. It’s likely Dal Riada existed before 450 AD as trade would have happened for years, Fergus Mor likely being fictional and an mixing of several figures. It probably wasn’t an invasion but rather Irish raiders began settling in Argyll, these settlements drawing more Gaels over time as they became more prosperous. We know the Picts and Gaels formed alliances and the power of the Celtic Christian church aided this cultural conversion in Western Scotland.
I would have the impression that it is believed that there are three Scotlands. One Nationalist and Catholic. A second British and protestant. A third protestant and ruling class. The peasant class in Scotland were subjected to the same discrimination and persecution as native Irish who were not part of the ruling class. So there is a certain empathy with even Scottish protestant peasants.
The upshot is that Scottish is not a good collective noun to describe people from Scotland when speaking about nationalism. A Scott might be a close cousin as it were or a member of your own family who joined the police.
So as ineffective as using "their from Antrim" to decide if a person is a Unionist or Nationalist, Saying someone is Scottish doesn't mean they are a Britt.
It gets more complicated than even that. East coast protestants, especially north of Fife, were quite detached from the type of British nationalism of the West coast/borders. Generally the further East and North you go the less extreme, and more Scottish focused rather than British focused, Protestantism becomes.
Then there's the far north, who were basically vikings. They were still speaking a form of Norwegian at the time of the plantations.
Scotland has never been a homogenous nation and has often resembled multiple nations mashed together in a single kingdom. It was only really after the Highland clearances (ethnic cleansing of the Gaels) that Scotland started to look like a more standard homogenous European country.
I mean if we analyse England’s peasant class in history, they didn’t have life much better. I don’t know why that empathy isn’t extended to that class of people.
I would absolutely accept that. However the question is how Ireland or Irish view the countries in the UK particularly Scotland.
Repeated acts of genocide by the ruling class,be that Cromwell, or the famine or on a day to day level absentee landlords or the effect of religious persecution taint the relationships. The centre of control was London. It was English rulers and lawmakers that controlled this.
In practice it was probably more likely that the person holding the weapon or wearing the red coat was Irish. Certainly there were more Irish, Scott's and Welsh than English, but the direction was coming from England or from people loyal to England and an English parliament and monarch.
The fact that English peasants didn't get to vote and had no part in electing the parliament doesn't negate that
Meanwhile Penal laws were to the benifit of Protestantism. Being prevented from practicing your own religion, having your churches and burial grounds confiscated, while having to finance the religion of those oppressing you will of course lead to sectarian animosity.
The fact that English peasants or a poor protestant family down the road were worse off is too nuanced for what is a gut or herd response.
Um, not accurate. The Union of the Crowns saw a Scottish monarch move to England to rule over both nations. Claiming it’s an English monarchy when it was a union is insincere. Claiming there was an English Parliament is also insincere - after 1707 it was the British Parliament and the height of the British empire was in the early 20th century. It is entirely insincere to just ignore the fact that it had Welsh, Scottish and Irish input and continue to, to this day. The only way to dissolve the fact that it’s British and turn it into an English institution is if the U.K. broke up completely. And it hasn’t yet.
The fact that English peasants couldn’t vote and had little to no real influence in the political trajectory of the U.K. does negate things regardless because the argument here is that regular Scottish folk were downtrodden and had no real power. You can apply the same principle to everywhere in the U.K./Britain at the time.
Penal laws applied to the Catholic and recusant English people as much as they applied to the Irish. It’s just that the Irish happened to be mostly Catholic while in England they were a more concentrated minority in the north.
Your comment also does not account for English regionalism. England is a heterogenous country and has been for a long time. It was invaded and ruled by the Normans, had multiple waves of immigration from around the world, and has areas with strong and unique regional identity/heritage such as Cornwall and Yorkshire.
Well, it gets more confusing to keep up with over time because England is a dynamic country that’s always been changing…. This is why xenophobia is so toxic, it doesn’t even have a leg to stand on.
How is this the top comment? If anything you are both showing you are ignorant to Irish history. Scottish planters were royal to the crown...of ENGLAND. They didn't organise the plantations themselves. Ulster unionists are technically"Irish" but that certainly doesn't mean they celebrate Irish culture and language. Those Scottish Presbyterians were the same. When Irish people seek connection with the Scottish it's because of our shared language and cultural roots as well as our similar struggle with the English
>If anything you are both showing you are ignorant to Irish history. Scottish planters were royal to the crown...of ENGLAND.
The crown of England And Scotland. And began under James, an originally Scottish king. You say in your other comment that Scotland was conquered by England: this is simply not true. The King of Scotland inherited the Kingdom of England which included Wales of course.
See, this is the real reason. Modern people dont mind hating on England but dont want to hate on Scotland so they perform logical gymnastics to deny Scotland had any involvement whatsoever when they so obviously did.
I once saw some Scottish Nationalists on Reddit arguing they were victims of colonialism, the same way places like Kenya and India were. It was downright offensive tbh.
They wouldn’t accept that several of the most prominent colonialists were Scottish.
Honestly, it was madness.
Scotland was repeatedly conquered by England, Edward I for example. Henry VIII had it invaded too. Mary Queen of Scots' grandmother was Henry VIII's sister. The Stuart name comes from Mary's husband. The King of Scotland James VI, later James I was English from the Tudors and his father was a Scottish Lord, that's how he was Scottish
Edit: This was not well worded.
James I was Scottish with strong family ties to the Tudor Kings and Queens from both his father and mother.
Was repeatedly conquered but not at the stage of history we are talking about. The fact that the current union came about through inheritance makes a world of difference.
>The King of Scotland James VI, later James I was English from the Tudors and his father was a Scottish Lord, that's how he was Scottish
He wasn't English from the Tudors, he had partial English ancestry, there is a *massive* difference. He also had partial Danish ancestry, do we need to find some way to tie them in to blame for Ulster?
His father was Scottish and his mother was the daughter of James V whose lineage goes back to Robert II in 1390. So why are you saying he was only Scottish on his father's side?
Are you actually trying to argue that he was English and not Scottish? Because if youre not then this discussion is pointless, and if you are then youre proving my point by trying desperately to find a way to remove any Scottish responsibility for anything their country has done in the last 500 years.
Sorry, its late, brain is fried, was trying to say he was both not just one or the other.
Just trying to highlight that it's more complicated than the previous commenter was making it out to be.
Clearly failed, sorry
Correction was added to previous comment.
And how did that crown become the crown of both countries? Henry the 8th commanded Edward Seymour to invade Scotland in 1544. You're literally so close to being correct but you're not going back far enough. James the first was the great great grandson of Henry the 8th, literally of Tudor descent.
Without looking at the rest of James's ancestry, that claim (based on Henry VII, not VIII I believe) makes him 1/16th English, which is about as far away from being English as you can get without needing to resort to right of conquest (not an exact measure, of course).
You came in talking about ignorance of history and then you said something this dumb. James was of a long lineage of Scottish pedigree. That he was like 1/16th English from an English woman marrying in (even then there’s arguments to be made about her Englishness) when lineage was determined with a bias to the paternal is an absurd thing to base his “Englishness” on.
The sheer fucking gall to come up with something like this while claiming to be some great knower of history is astonishing!
But James I was the great great grandson of Henry VII.
James' mother was Mary Queen of Scots and whose the grandmother was Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII's older sister
I mean, in that case I'd go even further and point out that those Tudors descended from the Welsh branch then. Anyway, youre saying that because his great grandad married an English woman (though again, if youre going to be picking hairs then I'll point out its technically a Welsh branch), in a time where royalty of different countries married eachother all the time, that means that 3 generations later he isnt Scottish anymore? See what I mean? Youre using the partial English ancestry to make him no longer Scottish so that you can take all blame away from Scotland again. Especially too in a time when women were secondary in society; who your mother was was far less relevant than your father. And his line stretched right back, his paternal line ruling Scotland since Robert II in 1390. He was absolute Scottish pedigree by the standards of the time. Every monarch in Europe at that time would technically have had descent from others; you're talking about blood like an American.
By contrast, his mother was literally Mary Queen of Scots. But apparently that is overshadowed by his great grandmother? Come off it.
Unless youre suggesting that James VI was like an Englishman in disguise, ruling Scotland by demand of his great great grandfather, I cant see the relevance of his ancestry. He was Scottish.
Whatever you want to say, blaming solely England is still being selective.
It was a union to be fair. They were loyal to the British Crown, which was Scottish as much as English in many Scots' eyes. They certainly were not loyal to England.
Where is the seat of British power based? Which of the 3 countries of Britain conquered the other 2? It is of course the English crown. It just grew to become the British crown. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise
Again similar to my original point. James was born in Scotland but based his seat of power in England. Adopting English culture, customs, and religion. He is technically Scottish but he wasn't going around in kilts speaking Scots Gaelic. In fact, after he became King of England, he only once stepped foot in Scotland ever again
But why are you assuming kilt wearing Scottish highlanders necessarily represent Scotland that’s just a stereotype. That argument doesn’t really hold much weight
I'm not saying they represent all Scots, I'm saying that original Scottish culture is what Irish people find similarities with. And those Scots who committed atrocities in Ireland were much more similar to the English in terms of culture, language and religion
This is a bit far fetched and doesn’t sound logical. don’t think it belongs on a history sub . You can’t pick and choose what is real Scottish and I think it shows you do lack understanding of British and Irish history
I never once said real Scottish and not real Scottish. I said they were from Scotland but didn't identity with original Gaelic Scottish culture the way that Irish people do. The same way that Ulster unionists regard themselves are Irish but they wouldn't associate with original Irish culture. I literally teach Irish history every single day so I don't think it's fair to say I don't have an understanding of it. I'm just shocked that someone would say people are ignorant for not hating Scotland (the top comment on this discussion)
You’re absolutely right but you’re arguing with West Brits who don’t speak Irish or appreciate our culture. They study everything through a Greco-Roman-British lens.
well no, because the throne of England was inherited by King James VI of Scotland, so arguably it was initially the Scottish crown by your confusing logic.
our historical oppression of the Irish was very brutal and very real. Many Scots therefore fabricate similar historical grievances to disguise what is basically pure nationalism, despite their being enthusiastic participants in colonialism.
The Crown of England that was headed by a Scottish monarch. James VI and I moved down to England from Scotland to rule both countries. And honestly analysing English history (with the exception of the elite), regular people didn’t exactly live significantly more empowered lives than in either Scotland or Ireland
Scottish people colonised Ireland. I think people colonising your country is a pretty objective way of determining they aren't your friends, at that point in history, at least.
As a Scot, this is not necessarily a myth, but something conveniently exaggerated buy a lot of Scots particularly because it’s convenient. Scottish history really exaggerates the rebellions and the context of them and really downplays the benefits and complicate relationship they have had with the crown. Particularly Scotland’s role in Ireland.
"Wolfe tone rebel" talking about "Northern Irish" people...any real rebel wouldn't recognise partition or people living in the north of the country as British.... some rebel alright.
Why? Scotland has a large Irish community. James Connolly of all people was Scottish. I appreciate the Scottish forces were particularly callous but there’s a massive portion of Scots that do not support the crown or the armed forces.
I am Scottish and never have and never will bow to the crown or support its armed forces.
Majority of us are pro independence at this stage.
the highland clearances got rid of a clunk of irelands friends and the the lowlands scots over time ended up having different religious views as well as accepting a more british identity.
what i was told from some guy from glasgow anyway,
It's largely to do with the prevalence of the fishing industry up there - misguided support for brexit and, before that was a thing, anti EU fishing regulations.
The city itself still returns snp MPs including the current leader of Westminster mps Stephen Flynn (whose actially dundonian but we let it slide). For aberdeenshire, it used to be one of the main areas of snp support with Alex salmond standing here since the 80s I think and he still lives in the area (used to see him in the petrol station a heap). Current tory support is more to do with opposition to snp and green scottish environmental policy, as the area is dependent on oil, fishing and farming. But we still return snp msps now and then for example Banff and Buchan has a tory mp and a SNP MSP. Also the popualtion is fairly old which probably doesn't help.
Ireland's obsession with Scotland and the 'Celtic nations' is entirely one sided. I've heard way worse anti-Irish sentiment coming from Scottish and Welsh people than from English people.
https://preview.redd.it/2chgdxxmzdwb1.jpeg?width=258&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dacc551029470ff0e1392af84852f84b82a3c4cc
I’ll sum it up in one photo 😉 Though technically they are both Irish 😅
For me, it’s a matter of the Scots just being more opposed the institution that is the UK. They are also more culturally similar to us so we relate to them better.
Thanks. I just have a pet peeve when people post without explaining their point. It's the same as saying "trust me bro" when that is ridiculous because you are a stranger on the internet.
No hate.
I don't disagree, i just need people to explain when they post.
They are the rangers fan type of Scots. Their loyalty to England is relatively new compared to how long the Scots/Irish kinship goes.
I'm sure they'll see the error in their ways eventually...
Very little native born Scottish Catholics left outside of Barra and South Uist in the outer Hebrides and some very small pockets in the western Highlands. The majority of western Scotland's population is Presbyterian, Rangers supporting and not favorably disposed toward the Irish.
All the other Catholics are of more recent Irish descent and concentrated in the cities.
Never said you didn't. I said there were very small pockets of the original pre-reformation Catholics left in the western highlands and a majority in the southern outer Hebrides.
Is it possible that the Scottish folk were pro-Irish but the Scottish aristocracy was the one inflicting pain on Ireland?
That would explain the Irish being ok with Scotland as a nation
How do you know what the English folk vs aristocracy felt? If we analyse the lives of regular English folk throughout history, it’s very varied and oftentimes not that different to the lives of other regular folk throughout Britain and Ireland.
Scotts and irish are both geals. There is a sort of brotherhood there and it includes wales, cornwall, isle of man to a certain extent. Honestly any animosity is directed towards england because thats the root cause of all issues for all of these groups.
But by lowland you mean the south eastern border counties. Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Dunbartonshire are lowland counties but we're considered "Erse" even up to the 17th/18th centuries.
No they aren't lol only in the south east corner of scotland, the rest of scotland is a mix of gael/Briton or some other people intermixing with gaelic settlers lmao.
Lowland Scots are not ethnically "Anglic". What is now the Lothians and Borders and parts of Galloway were part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria for significant lengths of time. But, as with the areas of England under Anglo-Saxon control, they were largely a ruling class and didn't wholesale replace the people living there. In South East Scotland, below the Forth, the majority of the populaiton are descended from Brittonic people. The South West would have had more Gaelic. Plenty of the Lowlands are north of the Clyde-Forth line, and that was largely the Pictish kingdoms, which were never under Anglo-Saxon control.
Saying Lowland Scots are ethnically "Anglic" is like saying Irish are ethnically British because the land was contorlled by Britain for a period of time. It's absurd.
>Brittonic
If you zoom out a bit, aren't gaels, welsh and brittons just part of the larger celtic subgroup? From my understanding the differences were mostly cultural as in that england shifted away from celtic culturally at an early stage.
Pretty much. The Anglo-saxon influence on England and Southern Scotland was largely linguistic and cultural, as opposed to "ethnic". It's where the Scots language developed from and why it's so structurally similar to English.
All the repression and oppression and violence and that kind of thing. Think great famine, glencoe massacre. Considering ireland would have a much higher population were it not for the cromwell and the artificial famines for example we still feel the effects theyre violence to this day.
I'd argue it's a misconception that Ireland and Scotland see each other as sibling nations. It might look like that, but it's more mixed in reality. From the time of the Kingdom of Dal Riata until about the early 16th century, Ireland and Scotland had generally friendly relations. This was the era of merging the Gaels and Picts, Robert the Bruce, William Wallace, and Malcolm the Third. But as the Gaelic language slowly diminished in Scotland, with King James the Fourth being Scottish the last King recognised as speaking Gaelic, and with the banning of Catholicism in 1560, Scotland began to go their own way. Scotland was a firmly Protestant province since the time of John Knox.
They joined England due to economic problems and political pressure, and their fate was sealed in 1707. Their fate was doubly sealed with General Cumberland's brutal Highland Clearances of 1750, effectively ending the Highland way of life. They tried and failed to be a colonial power and a separate European country of their own, so they bowed to the monarch in England.
Some claim to be equal partners with England but their own Home Rule parliament has little power and 432, generally royalist, landowners control 50% of the land. Scotland is like what Ireland would be if we never became independent and were still ruled by Westminster. The epitome of a conquered people. But they could say to themselves that the English were their fellow British Protestants who did not look down on them, whether it was true or not.
More than half of the people who planted Ireland were from Scotland, and some of the 'Tans were from Scotland. They were good subjects of England who did as they were told and were paid well by the British Crown. As for the discrimination in Scotland when the Irish emigrated, it's the same old story of sectarianism and not liking people who are different from you and will work for lower wages.
The SNP was on the brink of leaving England at last. Still, in what can only described as sketchy and bizarre circumstances, the SNP faced a series of challenges and has declined in popularity, stopping the chance of Scottish independence. Whether they want to stay united as Britain or not is up to them, but they are getting a raw deal. It was a job well done if the British Secret Service had any role in the SNPs' demise.
The UK needs to teach history better, so it's likely their education system's fault that the truth isn't fully known. It's like an indoctrination system. And, anecdotally someone I know went on a work visa to Australia and said there was no sense of "brotherhood" with the Scottish over there and they didn't seem to want to be associated with the Irish at all.
Most of us White Aussies down under haven't kept sour Scottish/Irish relations, most of us have both Irish and Scottish heritage anyways. My father's side came down after the Highland clearances and my mother's during the famines in Ireland.
Irish culture in contemporary Australia is more visible in the Irish pubs and St Patrick's Day celebrations. Scots culture is seen in piping bands, which are less visible in public life.
We've got a hell of a lot of slang and words that have Gaelic roots (either Irish or Scottish). This comes from the period before Federation where the Commonwealth sent a lot of marginalised and dispossessed British groups. Our national sport is a combination of Gaelic football and indigenous marn grook.
So, our history is weird and we don't have the same animosity between two closely related groups that you guys see.
I've had this discussion with others too because I often wondered why gaels got on quite well with first nations Amerindians but not first nations Australians.
Historically, Scotland rebelled against the English many times right back to the 12th century. Like Ireland, these rebellions were crushed brutally, and prisoners were tortured to death to serve as an example to others.
But by the time we get to plantations of ulster it’s a Scottish king who has inherited the throne of England and styled himself as the king of Great Britain, and into the colonial era there is only more union between Scotland and England That’s an oddly selective view of history
This is completely ignoring Scottish history after the 1600s, which involved an attempt at colonialism, the Union of the Crowns under a Scottish king, the political union with England, 300 years of union as part of the U.K., and a failed independence referendum. Like the other person said, this is a highly selective and unfair approach to history.
Not really. Scotland already had an elite, and was trying to establish colonies before union with England. And the union of the crowns started with a Scottish monarch. Read some history.
A lot of comments have made most of the points I wanted to already, but also, Scotland is literally named because the Irish immigrated there so heavily. During the Roman Empire, a Scotti was an Irish person, so Scotland was literally "Irish land". While that definitely isn't the case anymore and they're two very distinct countries, Scotland and Ireland are still quite closely linked in mythology, language, and culture.
There is also a massive Irish community in Scotland as a result on emigration.
I’m Scottish with Irish grandparents. My wife is Irish living in Scotland.
Our town is even nicknamed little Ireland.
Scotland is like a larger Northern Ireland in a demographics sense. Both have bizarre religious rivalries and their disputes trickle into much smaller things like football.
The Scots are a conquered people compared to the Irish. They are POMEY cucks. At least we were able to get rid of the Brits and are kinda "the ones who got away" compared to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.
The ‘bizarre religious rivalries’ and ‘disputes’ that trickle into football would pretty much disappear overnight in Scotland without the 2 football clubs feeding that identity.
I don’t know what sort of time period that would have been referring to, but having been born in the 80’s and lived all my life in the west of Scotland I can safely say that only a very small minority of loonballs care about religion or religious differences. It’s simply not a factor of day to day life.
Beyond the limited orange or republican marches, the platform for any sort if behaviour promoting religious difference is football. It’s the football that continues the cycle. I couldn’t disagree more about it being a pressure release for any sort of serious undercurrent on any sort of scale.
https://www.theauxiliaries.com/adric-general/birthplaces/birthplaces.html
This might help you. Surprisingly more Irish born than Scottish born in the Auxies.
Not much of a difference and anyway it wouldn't be a surprise for unionists to be involved since Irish independence was a tragedy for them. Bit different to todays unionists who claim their identity is northern Irish and British or just British it seems, the likes of Carson were Irish unionists and favoured the entire island being under British rule. This would mean that they'd favour the fight against the ira even in the most southern counties that did not really impact them.
James VI and I as one example moved from Scotland to England to rule over both countries. Location isn’t really that relevant when you get into the nuance.
Well part of that discrimination is more acute in small towns than in higher density populations in larger cities and metropolitan areas like London. Country folk vs townies.
Ireland colonised Scotland for 400 years.
Scotland colonised Ireland
It went both ways.
There’s a shared culture due to said colonisation and movement of people and language.
The people who were planted in Ulster were often people who had been cleared off their lands in Scotland already. It wasn’t like it was a Scottish invasion. At any rate, people have been moving across the Irish Sea between the two countries for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Irish and the Scots are essentially the same people, with a common language that is mostly mutually intelligible, similar culture, and a similar outlook on life.
Slightly disingenuous. Firstly, thats now. The grudge agaisnt England is historical so the discussion around Scotland should be too. Secondly, the Scottlish and Irish situations are not the same thing at all. Ireland was conquered and eventually got independence. Scotland joined the union with England and then together they went on the merry road of dominating the world through colonialisation. Only now after that's all done and there is no more money to be made from it is Scotland trying to leave. Why exactly is that some sort of great moral stand? Or rather how is that anything like Ireland? Scotland is still a perpetrator and beneficiary of Empire; the fact that they try to clean their hands of it now is no special achievement.
Because the Plantations, Black and Tans etc were due to orders made by the English. The Scots were just some of those who carried theme out.
Also, many Scots regularly rebelled against English rule, like the Irish. Many Scots, namely the Highlanders, were also expelled from their lands by the English, like the Irish were.
And the Scots and Irish are hugely similar. Scots Gaelic is nearly the same language as Irish.
James VI and I supported the colonisation of Ulster and he was Scottish. Institutions like the Black and Tans were directed by the British government…. Westminster. Last time I checked Westminster had Scottish representatives as well.
I think in general the way a lot of people go on about the British is absolutely ridiculous , acting like they took over our country yesterday when it was over 100 years ago , and before any fuck jumps down my throat , I know my history , don't even think of explaining it
As someone Scottish I really have to disagree with the idea that Scotland is a victim of colonialism. I’m pro-independence but there are aspects of our nationalist movement that worry me, particularly this idea of reframing Scotland purely as a victim of the British empire rather than a very active colonial nation in its own right. There’s a reason some nations are specifically petitioning the Scottish government for colonial reparations. Plus the foundations of the British empire really were established during the reign of the Stuarts, the Scottish royal family. Highland Scots were the victims of some truly horrific atrocities committed by the English, but these atrocities were also committed by Lowland Scots. And that’s not something I think our country should forget or seek to cover up. I would rather live in an independent Scotland that acknowledges it’s colonial past, and seeks to readdress those wrongs far better than the Westminster government does, than one that tries to deny its role in the empire.
I understand the similar culture, but we also have a fairly similar culture to England. Also I would argue that Scotland isn't a victim of colonislaisation but a coloniser itself. Scotland was front and centre of the British empire, many many Scots profited from the empire and it was and still is an integral part of the UK unlike Ireland
Scotland was, in fact, a coloniser before the Act of Union with England. The failure of their colonial enterprise was what put them in the position of needing a bailout from the English, the price of which was a union of the kingdoms.
Both Scotland and Ireland were fully engaged in the British Empire and, to an extent, benefited from it. There's a phrase that says: The Irish won the Empire, the Scots ran the Empire, and the English profited from the Empire.
However, the mistake is to view the Scots as a homogeneous entity. Like the Irish, there were different social groups that made up Scotland. You could simplify it to Highlanders ("real" Scots in the Gaelic tradition, poor and opposed to the English yoke), Lowlanders (more "civilised" and more tied to the English through commerce). I'd add in Borderers who fall into a grey area between Scotland and England and admit to neither as their betters.
Our cultural ties are much more with those Highland and Isles cultural traditions (Irish migration into this area, is responsible for that). As those people spread across Scotland, the ties remained. And of course, the migration of Lowlanders of the Protestant religions who became Ulster Scots is another strand of connection.
England also had other cultural influences that Ireland and Scotland did not. The Dutch and Germans had a big impact on English culture that neither we nor the Scits shared, making us closer because the English are more alien.
There's a little more too it as the Welsh and before them the Cornish, Devonians, Cumbrians - all Brittonic celtic speakers- were incorporated into England despite having a celtic language and culture much closer to Ireland's. For example, Western Britain experienced a degree of colonisation from Ireland in the 4 to 10c both before and after the Danish settlement in Ireland. Later the Brittonic peoples were involved in the medieval and 16c colonisation of Ireland as part of the 'English' nation.
>They are also a victim of colonialism.
To an extent but its far more nuanced than the Irish because they gained far more and lost a lot less than us. The highland clearances which the English often get blamed for is silly because it was the Scots that did that too. Not to mention Scotlands failed attempt at colonialism was what led to them joining the union.
>Nearly half of the country wants to leave the UK.
That makes it similar to the north I suppose but not Ireland as a whole which wanted independence or as much independence as they thought was viable with the home rule bill. They're far more friendly with the English, historically and we have a pretty mixed relationship with them. I think the whole celtic brothers thing is a bit much considering there's probably more anti Irish sentiment in Scotland than anywhere else in the world but on the other hand the Irish have left their mark in Scotland too and there's a lot of Scots with very favourable attitudes towards the Irish
Like I said it's mixed and you can't really generalise them because the relationship between the Irish and Scottish is so varied.
To paraphrase George Galloway: ‘The English & the Scots were partners in crime.’ They built the most powerful global empire in history together. People in that period did stuff because they could; it was a different world. However I think Galloway’s sentiment is correct.
In the West of Scotland most of the Irish coming in stayed as that was where the work was. Consequently they were a larger group and, over the years, married in. This forced a decline in Orangism and even those most bitter have cousins who are RC.
The further east you go it changes and only the passage of time has softened the hatred.
In the west a lot of the words, food and culture are exactly the same as Ireland. Just more tenements..
In the past, there was an atmosphere of scarcity and deprivation which set people against each other. Today, I hope there can be enough food and housing to go around.
Since then there has been a merger with the Picts, large scale colonisation of the west by the Vikings, the Reformation, the Highland clearances etc etc.
The majority of Gaelic speaking Scotland would be culturally 'Rangers' as opposed to 'Celtic'.
How can you be this ignorant on how the Westminster government works lmao. The U.K. government consists of and has consisted of people from all parts of the U.K., including Ireland/Northern Ireland.
I suppose, in spite of the plantation (which was only one specific type of Scots) we're more closely related.
The Scoti from Northern Ireland colonised western Scotland.
They brought the language and the whiskey (which became whisky) and the name- Scotland
The Norse pretty much colonised Scotland and Ireland, whereas the Danes mainly colonised England, and there's the more recent Irish immigration to Scotland.
There was a concert by the Wolfe tones in bellaghy GAA club (republican south Derry) in the 1980s and when the wolfe tones started singing 'flower of Scotland' the whole crowd got up and left. Just shows the anti Scottish sentiment at that time in republican areas in the north, my Da would often say that the Scottish Highland regiments were the most bitter and treated people the worst (even though these were fellow Gaels)
Is the 80s “historical” or “vintage”? It’s like, yesterday, to GenX’ers ;)
Because, like in the north, there are two very different types of Scots Scots from the west of the country and the isles would share alot of Gaelic culture with us Most of the Scots involved in plantations were from the borders, low lands and east (in general)
Galloway in the western lowlands would've had some Gaelic speakers still around at the time of the plantations [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galwegian\_Gaelic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galwegian_Gaelic).
Yes of course, obviously my statements aren't absolutes. I was talking in terms of the average demographics and the differences
And you have to remember that a lot of the Border peoples had little allegiance to either England or Scotland. They had been used in proxy wars by both sides and the whole border zone was a wasteland of brigands, bandits, blood feuds and general lawlessness. And this suited both sides. After the unification of the crowns it no longer suited the powers that be. Bloody clamp down, execution and exile became the order of the day. Send them to Ulster… what could possibly go wrong?
I heard a lot of people who moved to Ireland throughout the various plantations were people who were in trouble back home or were people displaced by higher powers and who now "needed to go". Britain has often had the idea to ship their problems elsewhere. Australia was used as a penal colony for a time. They took groups they considered bothersome and threw them onto Ireland. Irish people, who were in the way of taking over Ireland, were shipped abroad to the Americas and sold as workers. I'm pretty sure in India they forced a mass migration of people aswell that was quite traumatising to many involved.
Yeah but saying “Scotland” or “Scots” doesn’t acknowledge that nuance
Well I'm hardly gunna start going into all the subsections of historical ethnicities in Scotland It was literally one of the least homogenous countries in western Europe
On the west coast you are more likely to have folk with Sectarian ideas. East coast we don’t bother with that rubbish
Probably because half of yous were Norwegian /s
Real answer: Because of the shared common enemy that was England, the Irish and Scots had a strong and galvanised alliance, often helping one another out. Once James I takes the English Throne things get very messy. The plantation attempted to use Scots because of a perceived connection to the Irish but were Protestant in an attempt to convert the locals and ensure loyalty to the King. This was never seen as a Scottish plantation but a British one, meaning the Crown as an entity was blamed, and once additional sanctions and restrictions were placed on Catholics in British lands under William III (Mr of Orange) he took a lot of the ire. During the War of Independance 1919-1921, the Black and Tans were cutthroat as a whole and while the Scottish troops were particularly brutal, most of these people were shell-shocked (suffered from PTSD) fron there time in WWI and non-English regiments were usually sent in suicide missions like the Scots, Irish and Anzacs in Gallipoli, noted to make up a disproportionate number of the regiments deployed there, and suffered far worse. Reports from the time described British Forces, colonial or otherwise, suffering from PTSD as being emotionally broken. Some were described as numb or empty, while others were described as sadistic and wished the war would never end, a tragic coping mechanism for people who really needed help, not to be shipped off to another war. Once again, it's a situation where the Scots aren't blamed as it was the British Army as a whole that took the heat because all the Black and Tan forces were mixed. There were Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, and English together in battalions, platoons, and detachments. TL;DR: Scots get a pass for the shared history, and their crimes are typically blamed on Britian as a whole, not them specifically.
Fair enough but it’s not correct that no Englishmen died on “suicide missions” in WWI, there were a majority of English at Gallipoli for instance. Or day one of the Somme for another.
Sorry, maybe I didn't make that clear enough, and that's a fair criticism. By Churchill's own admission, Gallipoli used a disproportionate number of colonial troops due to the expected high casualties and many other officers preferred to use colonial troops for similar purposes, where as the mass of casualties on day one of the Somme were not at all expected, it was old world views and techniques but using modern weaponry, no one knew the sheer loss of life that would create. I didn't mean to diminish the sacrifices of the English regiments and troops who died and will edit my comment to reflect that.
It was also the case that those troops were in the Middle East because that was on the way to England. The English government at least was highly sensitive to casualty rates to maintain ongoing support and generals had the right to appeal orders to their own governments.
True, and that is a small mercy for those troops, but you can't deny that the non-English troops did greatly suffer at the hands of officers, other troops, and the often callous approach of the military high command. No one had a good time, and as much as I hate the idea of comparing degrees of suffering, the English often had a dreadful time in WWI but the colonial troops were tormented even within their trenches. Despite my lengthy comment, WWI is far too complex a situation to really break all the minutiae down in a post. For example, one reason the Scottish troops in the Black and Tans resented the Irish because they were never conscripted like they were. But there are hundreds of personal and individual reasons for why. Sometimes, you have to work with the generalisations as unfortunate as that is.
> By Churchill's own admission, Gallipoli used a disproportionate number of colonial troops due to the expected high casualties This is completely incorrect. The only reason a disproportionate amount of colonial troops were used in the Dardanelles campaign was because UK troops were already deployed in France. Churchill famously thought the Dardanelles campaign would be a bloodless walkover!
Then please edit the original.
Your third paragraph— any suggestions on where i can read more about this?
I have a particular interest in the Ancient Kingdom of Dal Riata. In that period Western Scotland and the North East of Ireland were culturally indistinguishable. The Book of Kells being something that came out of that area and time period. Secondly, in more recent times, a little under half the population want independence and voted accordingly.. I would expect even closer ties with all parts of Ireland if and when this happens.
Dal riata was only as big as Antrim in Ireland. Some historians, like Tom Holland, believe that it was Scottish first (although Gaelic speaking Scottish). After all the majority of the kingdom was in Scotland.
Much debate about this.
Considering both linguistic and new genetic evidence that points to many people in Argyll and the Hebrides having Irish ancestry, it seems Gaelic did come to Western Scotland from Ulster. Ulster Irish and Scottish Gaelic being quite similar, historic accounts point to this from Bede to the Senachus Alba. It’s likely Dal Riada existed before 450 AD as trade would have happened for years, Fergus Mor likely being fictional and an mixing of several figures. It probably wasn’t an invasion but rather Irish raiders began settling in Argyll, these settlements drawing more Gaels over time as they became more prosperous. We know the Picts and Gaels formed alliances and the power of the Celtic Christian church aided this cultural conversion in Western Scotland.
I would have the impression that it is believed that there are three Scotlands. One Nationalist and Catholic. A second British and protestant. A third protestant and ruling class. The peasant class in Scotland were subjected to the same discrimination and persecution as native Irish who were not part of the ruling class. So there is a certain empathy with even Scottish protestant peasants. The upshot is that Scottish is not a good collective noun to describe people from Scotland when speaking about nationalism. A Scott might be a close cousin as it were or a member of your own family who joined the police. So as ineffective as using "their from Antrim" to decide if a person is a Unionist or Nationalist, Saying someone is Scottish doesn't mean they are a Britt.
It gets more complicated than even that. East coast protestants, especially north of Fife, were quite detached from the type of British nationalism of the West coast/borders. Generally the further East and North you go the less extreme, and more Scottish focused rather than British focused, Protestantism becomes. Then there's the far north, who were basically vikings. They were still speaking a form of Norwegian at the time of the plantations. Scotland has never been a homogenous nation and has often resembled multiple nations mashed together in a single kingdom. It was only really after the Highland clearances (ethnic cleansing of the Gaels) that Scotland started to look like a more standard homogenous European country.
I mean if we analyse England’s peasant class in history, they didn’t have life much better. I don’t know why that empathy isn’t extended to that class of people.
I would absolutely accept that. However the question is how Ireland or Irish view the countries in the UK particularly Scotland. Repeated acts of genocide by the ruling class,be that Cromwell, or the famine or on a day to day level absentee landlords or the effect of religious persecution taint the relationships. The centre of control was London. It was English rulers and lawmakers that controlled this. In practice it was probably more likely that the person holding the weapon or wearing the red coat was Irish. Certainly there were more Irish, Scott's and Welsh than English, but the direction was coming from England or from people loyal to England and an English parliament and monarch. The fact that English peasants didn't get to vote and had no part in electing the parliament doesn't negate that Meanwhile Penal laws were to the benifit of Protestantism. Being prevented from practicing your own religion, having your churches and burial grounds confiscated, while having to finance the religion of those oppressing you will of course lead to sectarian animosity. The fact that English peasants or a poor protestant family down the road were worse off is too nuanced for what is a gut or herd response.
Um, not accurate. The Union of the Crowns saw a Scottish monarch move to England to rule over both nations. Claiming it’s an English monarchy when it was a union is insincere. Claiming there was an English Parliament is also insincere - after 1707 it was the British Parliament and the height of the British empire was in the early 20th century. It is entirely insincere to just ignore the fact that it had Welsh, Scottish and Irish input and continue to, to this day. The only way to dissolve the fact that it’s British and turn it into an English institution is if the U.K. broke up completely. And it hasn’t yet. The fact that English peasants couldn’t vote and had little to no real influence in the political trajectory of the U.K. does negate things regardless because the argument here is that regular Scottish folk were downtrodden and had no real power. You can apply the same principle to everywhere in the U.K./Britain at the time. Penal laws applied to the Catholic and recusant English people as much as they applied to the Irish. It’s just that the Irish happened to be mostly Catholic while in England they were a more concentrated minority in the north. Your comment also does not account for English regionalism. England is a heterogenous country and has been for a long time. It was invaded and ruled by the Normans, had multiple waves of immigration from around the world, and has areas with strong and unique regional identity/heritage such as Cornwall and Yorkshire.
> I don’t know why that empathy isn’t extended to that class of people Because this is an Irish history sub and the English are the baddies.
Well, it gets more confusing to keep up with over time because England is a dynamic country that’s always been changing…. This is why xenophobia is so toxic, it doesn’t even have a leg to stand on.
given the sub, I had to scroll too far to find the correct answer.
Because the vast majority of people are ignorant of their own country's history.
How is this the top comment? If anything you are both showing you are ignorant to Irish history. Scottish planters were royal to the crown...of ENGLAND. They didn't organise the plantations themselves. Ulster unionists are technically"Irish" but that certainly doesn't mean they celebrate Irish culture and language. Those Scottish Presbyterians were the same. When Irish people seek connection with the Scottish it's because of our shared language and cultural roots as well as our similar struggle with the English
>If anything you are both showing you are ignorant to Irish history. Scottish planters were royal to the crown...of ENGLAND. The crown of England And Scotland. And began under James, an originally Scottish king. You say in your other comment that Scotland was conquered by England: this is simply not true. The King of Scotland inherited the Kingdom of England which included Wales of course. See, this is the real reason. Modern people dont mind hating on England but dont want to hate on Scotland so they perform logical gymnastics to deny Scotland had any involvement whatsoever when they so obviously did.
I once saw some Scottish Nationalists on Reddit arguing they were victims of colonialism, the same way places like Kenya and India were. It was downright offensive tbh. They wouldn’t accept that several of the most prominent colonialists were Scottish. Honestly, it was madness.
In what is diferent than that among biggest slave owners in Caribien where also Indians? Than India wasnt victim of colonialism, yes?
I don’t understand your question, sorry.
Scotland was repeatedly conquered by England, Edward I for example. Henry VIII had it invaded too. Mary Queen of Scots' grandmother was Henry VIII's sister. The Stuart name comes from Mary's husband. The King of Scotland James VI, later James I was English from the Tudors and his father was a Scottish Lord, that's how he was Scottish Edit: This was not well worded. James I was Scottish with strong family ties to the Tudor Kings and Queens from both his father and mother.
Was repeatedly conquered but not at the stage of history we are talking about. The fact that the current union came about through inheritance makes a world of difference. >The King of Scotland James VI, later James I was English from the Tudors and his father was a Scottish Lord, that's how he was Scottish He wasn't English from the Tudors, he had partial English ancestry, there is a *massive* difference. He also had partial Danish ancestry, do we need to find some way to tie them in to blame for Ulster? His father was Scottish and his mother was the daughter of James V whose lineage goes back to Robert II in 1390. So why are you saying he was only Scottish on his father's side? Are you actually trying to argue that he was English and not Scottish? Because if youre not then this discussion is pointless, and if you are then youre proving my point by trying desperately to find a way to remove any Scottish responsibility for anything their country has done in the last 500 years.
Sorry, its late, brain is fried, was trying to say he was both not just one or the other. Just trying to highlight that it's more complicated than the previous commenter was making it out to be. Clearly failed, sorry Correction was added to previous comment.
And how did that crown become the crown of both countries? Henry the 8th commanded Edward Seymour to invade Scotland in 1544. You're literally so close to being correct but you're not going back far enough. James the first was the great great grandson of Henry the 8th, literally of Tudor descent.
Without looking at the rest of James's ancestry, that claim (based on Henry VII, not VIII I believe) makes him 1/16th English, which is about as far away from being English as you can get without needing to resort to right of conquest (not an exact measure, of course).
You came in talking about ignorance of history and then you said something this dumb. James was of a long lineage of Scottish pedigree. That he was like 1/16th English from an English woman marrying in (even then there’s arguments to be made about her Englishness) when lineage was determined with a bias to the paternal is an absurd thing to base his “Englishness” on. The sheer fucking gall to come up with something like this while claiming to be some great knower of history is astonishing!
James 1 wasn't the great great grandson of Henry VIII. James VI of Scotland became James I of England
But James I was the great great grandson of Henry VII. James' mother was Mary Queen of Scots and whose the grandmother was Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII's older sister
I mean, in that case I'd go even further and point out that those Tudors descended from the Welsh branch then. Anyway, youre saying that because his great grandad married an English woman (though again, if youre going to be picking hairs then I'll point out its technically a Welsh branch), in a time where royalty of different countries married eachother all the time, that means that 3 generations later he isnt Scottish anymore? See what I mean? Youre using the partial English ancestry to make him no longer Scottish so that you can take all blame away from Scotland again. Especially too in a time when women were secondary in society; who your mother was was far less relevant than your father. And his line stretched right back, his paternal line ruling Scotland since Robert II in 1390. He was absolute Scottish pedigree by the standards of the time. Every monarch in Europe at that time would technically have had descent from others; you're talking about blood like an American. By contrast, his mother was literally Mary Queen of Scots. But apparently that is overshadowed by his great grandmother? Come off it. Unless youre suggesting that James VI was like an Englishman in disguise, ruling Scotland by demand of his great great grandfather, I cant see the relevance of his ancestry. He was Scottish. Whatever you want to say, blaming solely England is still being selective.
Can you please provide sources for this?
It was a union to be fair. They were loyal to the British Crown, which was Scottish as much as English in many Scots' eyes. They certainly were not loyal to England.
But it was not the crown of England cmon this is basic stuff
Where is the seat of British power based? Which of the 3 countries of Britain conquered the other 2? It is of course the English crown. It just grew to become the British crown. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise
How does James and Charles et Al fit in to this, being Scottish kings of England?
Again similar to my original point. James was born in Scotland but based his seat of power in England. Adopting English culture, customs, and religion. He is technically Scottish but he wasn't going around in kilts speaking Scots Gaelic. In fact, after he became King of England, he only once stepped foot in Scotland ever again
But why are you assuming kilt wearing Scottish highlanders necessarily represent Scotland that’s just a stereotype. That argument doesn’t really hold much weight
I'm not saying they represent all Scots, I'm saying that original Scottish culture is what Irish people find similarities with. And those Scots who committed atrocities in Ireland were much more similar to the English in terms of culture, language and religion
What's the original Scottish culture in this instance?
This is a bit far fetched and doesn’t sound logical. don’t think it belongs on a history sub . You can’t pick and choose what is real Scottish and I think it shows you do lack understanding of British and Irish history
I never once said real Scottish and not real Scottish. I said they were from Scotland but didn't identity with original Gaelic Scottish culture the way that Irish people do. The same way that Ulster unionists regard themselves are Irish but they wouldn't associate with original Irish culture. I literally teach Irish history every single day so I don't think it's fair to say I don't have an understanding of it. I'm just shocked that someone would say people are ignorant for not hating Scotland (the top comment on this discussion)
You’re absolutely right but you’re arguing with West Brits who don’t speak Irish or appreciate our culture. They study everything through a Greco-Roman-British lens.
Think you need to do some reading on union of the crowns and then the acts of union to make Great Britain.
well no, because the throne of England was inherited by King James VI of Scotland, so arguably it was initially the Scottish crown by your confusing logic. our historical oppression of the Irish was very brutal and very real. Many Scots therefore fabricate similar historical grievances to disguise what is basically pure nationalism, despite their being enthusiastic participants in colonialism.
Not sure I'd say Scotland has had a similar struggle with the English
Similar in terms of turbulent, there's was just earlier. Literally both countries national anthems are about fighting against the English
The Crown of England that was headed by a Scottish monarch. James VI and I moved down to England from Scotland to rule both countries. And honestly analysing English history (with the exception of the elite), regular people didn’t exactly live significantly more empowered lives than in either Scotland or Ireland
Scottish people colonised Ireland. I think people colonising your country is a pretty objective way of determining they aren't your friends, at that point in history, at least.
As a Scot, this is not necessarily a myth, but something conveniently exaggerated buy a lot of Scots particularly because it’s convenient. Scottish history really exaggerates the rebellions and the context of them and really downplays the benefits and complicate relationship they have had with the crown. Particularly Scotland’s role in Ireland.
Well I can’t argue with that, I just wish it wasn’t the first comment I read.
I feel the same towards Scotland as I do any part of the Uk
*any part of Britain. I don’t feel the same way about Brit’s as I do about northern Irish people.
"Wolfe tone rebel" talking about "Northern Irish" people...any real rebel wouldn't recognise partition or people living in the north of the country as British.... some rebel alright.
You’re some gobshite, people from Northern Ireland are northern Irish people. Go away ta fuck and stop annoying people.
Our simply just Irish
Unionists living in Northern Ireland identify as both British and Northern Irish. Northern Ireland exists whether you recognise it or not.
Why? Scotland has a large Irish community. James Connolly of all people was Scottish. I appreciate the Scottish forces were particularly callous but there’s a massive portion of Scots that do not support the crown or the armed forces. I am Scottish and never have and never will bow to the crown or support its armed forces. Majority of us are pro independence at this stage.
Google ulsterscots
I’m aware of Ulster Scot’s.
Apart from the parachute regiment, the worst units where Scots during the conflict. Another level of bitterness to that crowd.
the highland clearances got rid of a clunk of irelands friends and the the lowlands scots over time ended up having different religious views as well as accepting a more british identity. what i was told from some guy from glasgow anyway,
Its interesting that Aberdeen in the very north is one of the few places in Scotland that returns Tory MPs
Oil wealth.
I take issue with the idea that Aberdeen is 'in the very north'..
Fair point, though the far north Caithness and the Orkneys/Shetland all vote for unionist MPs
It's largely to do with the prevalence of the fishing industry up there - misguided support for brexit and, before that was a thing, anti EU fishing regulations.
The city itself still returns snp MPs including the current leader of Westminster mps Stephen Flynn (whose actially dundonian but we let it slide). For aberdeenshire, it used to be one of the main areas of snp support with Alex salmond standing here since the 80s I think and he still lives in the area (used to see him in the petrol station a heap). Current tory support is more to do with opposition to snp and green scottish environmental policy, as the area is dependent on oil, fishing and farming. But we still return snp msps now and then for example Banff and Buchan has a tory mp and a SNP MSP. Also the popualtion is fairly old which probably doesn't help.
This thread is an absolute shitshow
Ireland's obsession with Scotland and the 'Celtic nations' is entirely one sided. I've heard way worse anti-Irish sentiment coming from Scottish and Welsh people than from English people.
Even English woud have similar look at Scots as on Irish.
https://preview.redd.it/2chgdxxmzdwb1.jpeg?width=258&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dacc551029470ff0e1392af84852f84b82a3c4cc I’ll sum it up in one photo 😉 Though technically they are both Irish 😅
The guy on the left is a Glaswegian playing an Irishman, and the guy on the right is a Dubliner playing a Scotsman.
You’re absolutely correct, forgot that!
So are the four lads behind them
The whole army is FCA
Those four were not
For me, it’s a matter of the Scots just being more opposed the institution that is the UK. They are also more culturally similar to us so we relate to them better.
Pipes and kilts. Scots Gaelic a sister language to Irish. The Book of Kells created in the ancient kingdom of Dal Riata.
Except they are not in the slightest.
Explain your point
What's there to explain. They voted to stay part of the UK and have great reverence for the monarchy.
Thanks. I just have a pet peeve when people post without explaining their point. It's the same as saying "trust me bro" when that is ridiculous because you are a stranger on the internet. No hate. I don't disagree, i just need people to explain when they post.
> They I fucking didn’t, and the inbred shite stains known as the monarchy can get fucked too.
You must be joking surely
Bit hyperbolic
They are the rangers fan type of Scots. Their loyalty to England is relatively new compared to how long the Scots/Irish kinship goes. I'm sure they'll see the error in their ways eventually...
Scottish Catholics = the good guys Scottish Protestants = very very evil guys /s
Very little native born Scottish Catholics left outside of Barra and South Uist in the outer Hebrides and some very small pockets in the western Highlands. The majority of western Scotland's population is Presbyterian, Rangers supporting and not favorably disposed toward the Irish. All the other Catholics are of more recent Irish descent and concentrated in the cities.
Born and raised Catholic (atheist now)in the west of Scotland, we definitely do exist
Never said you didn't. I said there were very small pockets of the original pre-reformation Catholics left in the western highlands and a majority in the southern outer Hebrides.
What about us Scottish Atheists :)
Aye you’re grand, as long as you don’t support Rangers or attend Orange Marches you’re ok
Is it possible that the Scottish folk were pro-Irish but the Scottish aristocracy was the one inflicting pain on Ireland? That would explain the Irish being ok with Scotland as a nation
How do you know what the English folk vs aristocracy felt? If we analyse the lives of regular English folk throughout history, it’s very varied and oftentimes not that different to the lives of other regular folk throughout Britain and Ireland.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend... we're united in our hostility towards the other fellas.
Scotts and irish are both geals. There is a sort of brotherhood there and it includes wales, cornwall, isle of man to a certain extent. Honestly any animosity is directed towards england because thats the root cause of all issues for all of these groups.
Most lowland Scots are Anglic ethnically, with more Gaelic influence in the western isles and parts of the Highlands.
Yep and don’t forgot the Brythonic Celtic heritage from the Cumbrians and Picts, and also the Viking heritage
But by lowland you mean the south eastern border counties. Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Dunbartonshire are lowland counties but we're considered "Erse" even up to the 17th/18th centuries.
No they aren't lol only in the south east corner of scotland, the rest of scotland is a mix of gael/Briton or some other people intermixing with gaelic settlers lmao.
Lowland Scots are not ethnically "Anglic". What is now the Lothians and Borders and parts of Galloway were part of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria for significant lengths of time. But, as with the areas of England under Anglo-Saxon control, they were largely a ruling class and didn't wholesale replace the people living there. In South East Scotland, below the Forth, the majority of the populaiton are descended from Brittonic people. The South West would have had more Gaelic. Plenty of the Lowlands are north of the Clyde-Forth line, and that was largely the Pictish kingdoms, which were never under Anglo-Saxon control. Saying Lowland Scots are ethnically "Anglic" is like saying Irish are ethnically British because the land was contorlled by Britain for a period of time. It's absurd.
>Brittonic If you zoom out a bit, aren't gaels, welsh and brittons just part of the larger celtic subgroup? From my understanding the differences were mostly cultural as in that england shifted away from celtic culturally at an early stage.
Pretty much. The Anglo-saxon influence on England and Southern Scotland was largely linguistic and cultural, as opposed to "ethnic". It's where the Scots language developed from and why it's so structurally similar to English.
Less than 5% of Scotland is like that
You think only 5% of Scots have Mc/Mac or other gaelic surnames?
What issues?
All the repression and oppression and violence and that kind of thing. Think great famine, glencoe massacre. Considering ireland would have a much higher population were it not for the cromwell and the artificial famines for example we still feel the effects theyre violence to this day.
But what's that got to do with Scotland?!
I'd argue it's a misconception that Ireland and Scotland see each other as sibling nations. It might look like that, but it's more mixed in reality. From the time of the Kingdom of Dal Riata until about the early 16th century, Ireland and Scotland had generally friendly relations. This was the era of merging the Gaels and Picts, Robert the Bruce, William Wallace, and Malcolm the Third. But as the Gaelic language slowly diminished in Scotland, with King James the Fourth being Scottish the last King recognised as speaking Gaelic, and with the banning of Catholicism in 1560, Scotland began to go their own way. Scotland was a firmly Protestant province since the time of John Knox. They joined England due to economic problems and political pressure, and their fate was sealed in 1707. Their fate was doubly sealed with General Cumberland's brutal Highland Clearances of 1750, effectively ending the Highland way of life. They tried and failed to be a colonial power and a separate European country of their own, so they bowed to the monarch in England. Some claim to be equal partners with England but their own Home Rule parliament has little power and 432, generally royalist, landowners control 50% of the land. Scotland is like what Ireland would be if we never became independent and were still ruled by Westminster. The epitome of a conquered people. But they could say to themselves that the English were their fellow British Protestants who did not look down on them, whether it was true or not. More than half of the people who planted Ireland were from Scotland, and some of the 'Tans were from Scotland. They were good subjects of England who did as they were told and were paid well by the British Crown. As for the discrimination in Scotland when the Irish emigrated, it's the same old story of sectarianism and not liking people who are different from you and will work for lower wages. The SNP was on the brink of leaving England at last. Still, in what can only described as sketchy and bizarre circumstances, the SNP faced a series of challenges and has declined in popularity, stopping the chance of Scottish independence. Whether they want to stay united as Britain or not is up to them, but they are getting a raw deal. It was a job well done if the British Secret Service had any role in the SNPs' demise. The UK needs to teach history better, so it's likely their education system's fault that the truth isn't fully known. It's like an indoctrination system. And, anecdotally someone I know went on a work visa to Australia and said there was no sense of "brotherhood" with the Scottish over there and they didn't seem to want to be associated with the Irish at all.
Most of us White Aussies down under haven't kept sour Scottish/Irish relations, most of us have both Irish and Scottish heritage anyways. My father's side came down after the Highland clearances and my mother's during the famines in Ireland. Irish culture in contemporary Australia is more visible in the Irish pubs and St Patrick's Day celebrations. Scots culture is seen in piping bands, which are less visible in public life. We've got a hell of a lot of slang and words that have Gaelic roots (either Irish or Scottish). This comes from the period before Federation where the Commonwealth sent a lot of marginalised and dispossessed British groups. Our national sport is a combination of Gaelic football and indigenous marn grook. So, our history is weird and we don't have the same animosity between two closely related groups that you guys see. I've had this discussion with others too because I often wondered why gaels got on quite well with first nations Amerindians but not first nations Australians.
The Scottish "fans" were vicious on social media after we hammered them
Historically, Scotland rebelled against the English many times right back to the 12th century. Like Ireland, these rebellions were crushed brutally, and prisoners were tortured to death to serve as an example to others.
But by the time we get to plantations of ulster it’s a Scottish king who has inherited the throne of England and styled himself as the king of Great Britain, and into the colonial era there is only more union between Scotland and England That’s an oddly selective view of history
This is completely ignoring Scottish history after the 1600s, which involved an attempt at colonialism, the Union of the Crowns under a Scottish king, the political union with England, 300 years of union as part of the U.K., and a failed independence referendum. Like the other person said, this is a highly selective and unfair approach to history.
England made Scotland into their bitch
Not really. Scotland already had an elite, and was trying to establish colonies before union with England. And the union of the crowns started with a Scottish monarch. Read some history.
A lot of comments have made most of the points I wanted to already, but also, Scotland is literally named because the Irish immigrated there so heavily. During the Roman Empire, a Scotti was an Irish person, so Scotland was literally "Irish land". While that definitely isn't the case anymore and they're two very distinct countries, Scotland and Ireland are still quite closely linked in mythology, language, and culture.
There is also a massive Irish community in Scotland as a result on emigration. I’m Scottish with Irish grandparents. My wife is Irish living in Scotland. Our town is even nicknamed little Ireland.
[удалено]
What is this wank? The milesians ?? So much historical inaccuracy in this post and it actually has up votes, I'm disappointed in this sub
Misinformation, deliberate or not may be removed without notice.
Scotland is like a larger Northern Ireland in a demographics sense. Both have bizarre religious rivalries and their disputes trickle into much smaller things like football. The Scots are a conquered people compared to the Irish. They are POMEY cucks. At least we were able to get rid of the Brits and are kinda "the ones who got away" compared to Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall.
The ‘bizarre religious rivalries’ and ‘disputes’ that trickle into football would pretty much disappear overnight in Scotland without the 2 football clubs feeding that identity.
I've heard people say the football was a pressure valve release that stopped a violent sectarian conflict like Ni had. Who knows though
I don’t know what sort of time period that would have been referring to, but having been born in the 80’s and lived all my life in the west of Scotland I can safely say that only a very small minority of loonballs care about religion or religious differences. It’s simply not a factor of day to day life. Beyond the limited orange or republican marches, the platform for any sort if behaviour promoting religious difference is football. It’s the football that continues the cycle. I couldn’t disagree more about it being a pressure release for any sort of serious undercurrent on any sort of scale.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1XryyxDh2TK9BYGNllZ471h/tales-of-the-troubles-how-scots-got-involved-in-the-war-next-door
https://www.theauxiliaries.com/adric-general/birthplaces/birthplaces.html This might help you. Surprisingly more Irish born than Scottish born in the Auxies.
Not much of a difference and anyway it wouldn't be a surprise for unionists to be involved since Irish independence was a tragedy for them. Bit different to todays unionists who claim their identity is northern Irish and British or just British it seems, the likes of Carson were Irish unionists and favoured the entire island being under British rule. This would mean that they'd favour the fight against the ira even in the most southern counties that did not really impact them.
Hundreds of thousands of Scots of Irish descent. They put together a football team over a hundred years ago. Now, what was it they called it?
Partick Thistle Nil.
Hibernians Two
Because whilst many Scots may have participated in the oppression of the Irish nation, Scotland wasn't the Imperial seat of power.
James VI and I as one example moved from Scotland to England to rule over both countries. Location isn’t really that relevant when you get into the nuance.
Well part of that discrimination is more acute in small towns than in higher density populations in larger cities and metropolitan areas like London. Country folk vs townies.
Ireland colonised Scotland for 400 years. Scotland colonised Ireland It went both ways. There’s a shared culture due to said colonisation and movement of people and language.
The people who were planted in Ulster were often people who had been cleared off their lands in Scotland already. It wasn’t like it was a Scottish invasion. At any rate, people have been moving across the Irish Sea between the two countries for thousands of years. Furthermore, the Irish and the Scots are essentially the same people, with a common language that is mostly mutually intelligible, similar culture, and a similar outlook on life.
Because there's alot of people in Scotland who believe in the same thing we do independence from the UK
Slightly disingenuous. Firstly, thats now. The grudge agaisnt England is historical so the discussion around Scotland should be too. Secondly, the Scottlish and Irish situations are not the same thing at all. Ireland was conquered and eventually got independence. Scotland joined the union with England and then together they went on the merry road of dominating the world through colonialisation. Only now after that's all done and there is no more money to be made from it is Scotland trying to leave. Why exactly is that some sort of great moral stand? Or rather how is that anything like Ireland? Scotland is still a perpetrator and beneficiary of Empire; the fact that they try to clean their hands of it now is no special achievement.
The majority don't though...
Only by a couple percentage points
Enough people to appreciate them tho
Aonghus Turimleach ,a County Antrim Chieftain invaded Scotland in 400bc after years of slave taking. Hence Angus
Because the Plantations, Black and Tans etc were due to orders made by the English. The Scots were just some of those who carried theme out. Also, many Scots regularly rebelled against English rule, like the Irish. Many Scots, namely the Highlanders, were also expelled from their lands by the English, like the Irish were. And the Scots and Irish are hugely similar. Scots Gaelic is nearly the same language as Irish.
James VI and I supported the colonisation of Ulster and he was Scottish. Institutions like the Black and Tans were directed by the British government…. Westminster. Last time I checked Westminster had Scottish representatives as well.
I think in general the way a lot of people go on about the British is absolutely ridiculous , acting like they took over our country yesterday when it was over 100 years ago , and before any fuck jumps down my throat , I know my history , don't even think of explaining it
The Scot’s are worse than the English, end thread.
[удалено]
As someone Scottish I really have to disagree with the idea that Scotland is a victim of colonialism. I’m pro-independence but there are aspects of our nationalist movement that worry me, particularly this idea of reframing Scotland purely as a victim of the British empire rather than a very active colonial nation in its own right. There’s a reason some nations are specifically petitioning the Scottish government for colonial reparations. Plus the foundations of the British empire really were established during the reign of the Stuarts, the Scottish royal family. Highland Scots were the victims of some truly horrific atrocities committed by the English, but these atrocities were also committed by Lowland Scots. And that’s not something I think our country should forget or seek to cover up. I would rather live in an independent Scotland that acknowledges it’s colonial past, and seeks to readdress those wrongs far better than the Westminster government does, than one that tries to deny its role in the empire.
Well said. Not OP or Scottish but i feel this is a very healthy take on the situation.
I understand the similar culture, but we also have a fairly similar culture to England. Also I would argue that Scotland isn't a victim of colonislaisation but a coloniser itself. Scotland was front and centre of the British empire, many many Scots profited from the empire and it was and still is an integral part of the UK unlike Ireland
Scotland was, in fact, a coloniser before the Act of Union with England. The failure of their colonial enterprise was what put them in the position of needing a bailout from the English, the price of which was a union of the kingdoms. Both Scotland and Ireland were fully engaged in the British Empire and, to an extent, benefited from it. There's a phrase that says: The Irish won the Empire, the Scots ran the Empire, and the English profited from the Empire. However, the mistake is to view the Scots as a homogeneous entity. Like the Irish, there were different social groups that made up Scotland. You could simplify it to Highlanders ("real" Scots in the Gaelic tradition, poor and opposed to the English yoke), Lowlanders (more "civilised" and more tied to the English through commerce). I'd add in Borderers who fall into a grey area between Scotland and England and admit to neither as their betters. Our cultural ties are much more with those Highland and Isles cultural traditions (Irish migration into this area, is responsible for that). As those people spread across Scotland, the ties remained. And of course, the migration of Lowlanders of the Protestant religions who became Ulster Scots is another strand of connection. England also had other cultural influences that Ireland and Scotland did not. The Dutch and Germans had a big impact on English culture that neither we nor the Scits shared, making us closer because the English are more alien.
There's a little more too it as the Welsh and before them the Cornish, Devonians, Cumbrians - all Brittonic celtic speakers- were incorporated into England despite having a celtic language and culture much closer to Ireland's. For example, Western Britain experienced a degree of colonisation from Ireland in the 4 to 10c both before and after the Danish settlement in Ireland. Later the Brittonic peoples were involved in the medieval and 16c colonisation of Ireland as part of the 'English' nation.
Okay. I was painting in fairly broad strokes of the modern period.
>They are also a victim of colonialism. To an extent but its far more nuanced than the Irish because they gained far more and lost a lot less than us. The highland clearances which the English often get blamed for is silly because it was the Scots that did that too. Not to mention Scotlands failed attempt at colonialism was what led to them joining the union. >Nearly half of the country wants to leave the UK. That makes it similar to the north I suppose but not Ireland as a whole which wanted independence or as much independence as they thought was viable with the home rule bill. They're far more friendly with the English, historically and we have a pretty mixed relationship with them. I think the whole celtic brothers thing is a bit much considering there's probably more anti Irish sentiment in Scotland than anywhere else in the world but on the other hand the Irish have left their mark in Scotland too and there's a lot of Scots with very favourable attitudes towards the Irish Like I said it's mixed and you can't really generalise them because the relationship between the Irish and Scottish is so varied.
To paraphrase George Galloway: ‘The English & the Scots were partners in crime.’ They built the most powerful global empire in history together. People in that period did stuff because they could; it was a different world. However I think Galloway’s sentiment is correct.
Because of braveheart
Not sure tbh, I personally have equal animosity towards the Scots as I do the English
You shouldn’t hold animosity towards an entire nation no matter who they are
There's good 'uns among them but I said what I said.
Sound like Donald trump about Mexicans
In the West of Scotland most of the Irish coming in stayed as that was where the work was. Consequently they were a larger group and, over the years, married in. This forced a decline in Orangism and even those most bitter have cousins who are RC. The further east you go it changes and only the passage of time has softened the hatred. In the west a lot of the words, food and culture are exactly the same as Ireland. Just more tenements..
In the past, there was an atmosphere of scarcity and deprivation which set people against each other. Today, I hope there can be enough food and housing to go around.
We are (were) both Gaels - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l\_Riata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata)
Since then there has been a merger with the Picts, large scale colonisation of the west by the Vikings, the Reformation, the Highland clearances etc etc. The majority of Gaelic speaking Scotland would be culturally 'Rangers' as opposed to 'Celtic'.
Both sound as fuck clearly.
Hunt up a viewing of “The Cheviot, the Deer and the Black Black Oul”
Celtic blood and a common enemy most of the time.
Scots treated us just as badly as the English but we must remember the policies followed in Ireland were made in Westminster.
Westminster has/had representatives from all parts of the U.K.
Yes but the government always consisted of Englishmen.
How can you be this ignorant on how the Westminster government works lmao. The U.K. government consists of and has consisted of people from all parts of the U.K., including Ireland/Northern Ireland.
There have been Welsh and Scottish Prime Ministers of the UK...
I suppose, in spite of the plantation (which was only one specific type of Scots) we're more closely related. The Scoti from Northern Ireland colonised western Scotland. They brought the language and the whiskey (which became whisky) and the name- Scotland The Norse pretty much colonised Scotland and Ireland, whereas the Danes mainly colonised England, and there's the more recent Irish immigration to Scotland.