|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 24, 2023 11:31:47 GMT
I suspect Scottish History is a bit like Black British History, a candidate for entry in the series 'The Thinnest Books in the World'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2023 13:51:33 GMT
I suspect Scottish History is a bit like Black British History, a candidate for entry in the series 'The Thinnest Books in the World'. It's so bad that they have to rely on a Hollywood work of fiction and Islamism.
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Sept 24, 2023 14:13:06 GMT
Indeed it is, you do well to keep out of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 24, 2023 15:21:08 GMT
My history was mainly at primary school and it was largely Scottish and mostly local as I said but of course 'local' was kind of mainly Scottish. The bias of course is 'English Aggression' as opposed to disputes amongst nations whereby Scots were largely good and English invariably bad. The point however is that it was mainly the Norman/Angevin elite that were involved in arguments over power. It is an interesting point that Wallace invaded England where 'freedom' of course was not an issue for Scots. I am afraid to me it is and always will be the civil war just the same as I was never taught as regards the Scottish wars of Independence. The significance of the paragraph is that the effects of the Scottish Kirk were blighting Scottish cities as late as the 70s and that Edinburgh recognised the Union as significant with its streets names in the new town, Rose Street, Hanover Street, George Street, Princes Street, St George's Squ. I am a Unionist because I like England and the English (not prefer, just like) and in general my time in England (25 years) was not a problem as regards being Scottish, not so for my wife in Scotland being English. Thanks for your post.
while provisding anecdotal evidence to back up our views , i was at school in west central scotland from the seventies till i left in the late eighties. In either primary school , or high school , i cant think of one single part of scottish pre union history that i was taught.
We were taught rubbish about the anglo saxons , who were an irrelevance in scotland , the romans , and stuff like the foreign battle of hastings which had nothing to do with scotland. Most of the relevant scottish history was ignored.
How did scotland come to be?
The great battles and celtic peoples who formed the kingdom.
Our native language , which as we know the original education act in the 19th century imposed by the british parliament ignored. So on and so forth.
ive never heard that. In fact , the opposite is often taught. Tam devine points this out that since the 18th century , the scottish and british educated class have largely mocked scotland and implied we were somehow backward savages , often engaging in evil acts against the poor english , who somehow spoke irish and at one point were religous zealots before the union somehow came to our rescue. All nonsense of course that an educated person can pick apart. Funnily enough we see the same regarding the welsh and irish.
it was. We all recognise that. its irrelevant though to the point that england had no right to constantly invade scotland and try and take us over. both the native anglo saxon kings , and the norman french all engaged in the same attempts to take us over , and failed repeatedly.
so did many other scottish kings and leaders right down to the 18th century. Again whats your point? that englands 1300 years of aggression to scotland is somehow annulled because scots dared to fight back and invade england?
from an english point of view ....certainly , but not from a scottish or irish hence why they thought calling it the war of the three kingdoms as more appropriate.
perhaps i misunderstand you . This is a bit garbled , but thats the point moray and i are both making that none of us were taught about the wars of independence. Are you agreeing with us now? one of the most important episodes in scottish hisotry werent taught , and ths isnt a normal situation in any civilised country , missing our important parts of our nations evolution.
i honestly have no idea what you are talking about?
the irish had the same problem with unionism , and many of their streets were named similarly. Didnt stop them leaving the uk .
there is good and bad in every nation on earth , and england is a lovely country with many decent people. So id France , and many other nations. That doesnt mean i want paris , dublin , oslo or elsehwere to run scotland. I have family who are english , irish , american , and a brother in law who lives in france. If family ties clouded countries sovereignty and independence , i doubt there would be many independent countires on earth.
The union is an irrelevance now to many folk across these islands , and that irrelevance is growing as the older baby boomers pass away. For them , the union once meant something , but you can see they are on the retreat in all the uk nations.
I would say the Battle of Hastings eventually had much to do with Scotland as it effectively put Scotland under Norman control as regards the elite no matter how you describe them. Since the 18th century is not modern day history. I agree that broad Scots spoken, as many of the enlightenment did so speak was frowned on, but that is largely because it is incomprehensible to many. I spent a year in Northumberland and had several conversations with one of our drivers I could not understand at all, that accent is also frowned on, so it is not peculiar to Scotland. There are no historical 'rights' there is only what happened and Edward 1 was a pig to both Scots and Welsh, his own son, many of the Lords and much of his populace. Let us be clear, becasue England invaded Scotland at one time that places Scotland always on the right when invading England. Not much point in having peace treaties then. The war of the three kingdoms implies that each Kingdom was united in some way. The whole point was it was a dispute between parliamnet in England and the King in England, what happened elsewhere was realistically both peripheral and opportunistic. Perhaps you are too young to recall the desolation of Scotland on the Sabbath with certainly Edinburgh being largely closed for business. The Union exist for many folk as being travel and border free for most and going from Scotland to England and vice versa is just moving to a different part of the country. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 24, 2023 15:25:08 GMT
I suspect Scottish History is a bit like Black British History, a candidate for entry in the series 'The Thinnest Books in the World'. Not sure how serious that comment was but Scottish history and the history of the Scots is to many non-Scots historians largely the making of the modern world which is now being dismantled. Scottish names abound everywhere across the world and much arose from the Scottish enlightenment with all its flaws and inconsistencies. Although some say it was built on claret and not by Scots. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 24, 2023 16:19:13 GMT
I thought Scottish history as a stand-alone subject per se ended around 1707.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 24, 2023 18:49:50 GMT
I thought Scottish history as a stand-alone subject per se ended around 1707. No history is stand alone all histories have focal points with all the rest active around it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 24, 2023 20:54:31 GMT
You seem to be missing the the point. Scottish history as a stand-alone entity ceased to exist around 300 years ago when, like English history, it became subsumed within the greater whole of British history.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 25, 2023 6:10:25 GMT
Thanks for your post.
while provisding anecdotal evidence to back up our views , i was at school in west central scotland from the seventies till i left in the late eighties. In either primary school , or high school , i cant think of one single part of scottish pre union history that i was taught.
We were taught rubbish about the anglo saxons , who were an irrelevance in scotland , the romans , and stuff like the foreign battle of hastings which had nothing to do with scotland. Most of the relevant scottish history was ignored.
How did scotland come to be?
The great battles and celtic peoples who formed the kingdom.
Our native language , which as we know the original education act in the 19th century imposed by the british parliament ignored. So on and so forth.
ive never heard that. In fact , the opposite is often taught. Tam devine points this out that since the 18th century , the scottish and british educated class have largely mocked scotland and implied we were somehow backward savages , often engaging in evil acts against the poor english , who somehow spoke irish and at one point were religous zealots before the union somehow came to our rescue. All nonsense of course that an educated person can pick apart. Funnily enough we see the same regarding the welsh and irish.
it was. We all recognise that. its irrelevant though to the point that england had no right to constantly invade scotland and try and take us over. both the native anglo saxon kings , and the norman french all engaged in the same attempts to take us over , and failed repeatedly.
so did many other scottish kings and leaders right down to the 18th century. Again whats your point? that englands 1300 years of aggression to scotland is somehow annulled because scots dared to fight back and invade england?
from an english point of view ....certainly , but not from a scottish or irish hence why they thought calling it the war of the three kingdoms as more appropriate.
perhaps i misunderstand you . This is a bit garbled , but thats the point moray and i are both making that none of us were taught about the wars of independence. Are you agreeing with us now? one of the most important episodes in scottish hisotry werent taught , and ths isnt a normal situation in any civilised country , missing our important parts of our nations evolution.
i honestly have no idea what you are talking about?
the irish had the same problem with unionism , and many of their streets were named similarly. Didnt stop them leaving the uk .
there is good and bad in every nation on earth , and england is a lovely country with many decent people. So id France , and many other nations. That doesnt mean i want paris , dublin , oslo or elsehwere to run scotland. I have family who are english , irish , american , and a brother in law who lives in france. If family ties clouded countries sovereignty and independence , i doubt there would be many independent countires on earth.
The union is an irrelevance now to many folk across these islands , and that irrelevance is growing as the older baby boomers pass away. For them , the union once meant something , but you can see they are on the retreat in all the uk nations.
I would say the Battle of Hastings eventually had much to do with Scotland as it effectively put Scotland under Norman control as regards the elite no matter how you describe them. Since the 18th century is not modern day history. I agree that broad Scots spoken, as many of the enlightenment did so speak was frowned on, but that is largely because it is incomprehensible to many. I spent a year in Northumberland and had several conversations with one of our drivers I could not understand at all, that accent is also frowned on, so it is not peculiar to Scotland. There are no historical 'rights' there is only what happened and Edward 1 was a pig to both Scots and Welsh, his own son, many of the Lords and much of his populace. Let us be clear, becasue England invaded Scotland at one time that places Scotland always on the right when invading England. Not much point in having peace treaties then. The war of the three kingdoms implies that each Kingdom was united in some way. The whole point was it was a dispute between parliamnet in England and the King in England, what happened elsewhere was realistically both peripheral and opportunistic. Perhaps you are too young to recall the desolation of Scotland on the Sabbath with certainly Edinburgh being largely closed for business. The Union exist for many folk as being travel and border free for most and going from Scotland to England and vice versa is just moving to a different part of the country. Eh?
i disagree. You caould argue any battle that had some indirect consequence for scotland should therefore be taught in scottish history , but once again only stuff about this union is singled out. We could argue obscure roman , celtic , scandinavian or battles anywhere i nthe world that could be in some how linked indirectly to scotland should be included but they arent. The battle of brunanburgh , which isnt taught in england never mind scotland , a key defining battle that basically shaped the nations of these islands is just as if not far more imprortant than hastings but no one is taught that.
what are you talking about sandy? Are you not aware gaelic is scotlands native language , not scots? Scots at best is a dialect of middle english , and there are many arguemnts as to wether its a language in its own right or not .
i havent said it is. The point is two fold. All the countires of the uk have their own native languages , but we are forced to speak one countires language. why arent we speaking british instead of english if bwitiain is a country?
Second thing regarding regional accents , barely 8 % of the modern uk speak a standardised english.The majority use regional accents. no one is saying its pecualiar to scotland , and of ocurse scotland like england has many regional accents.
sandy im not with you here. Sorry dont take this the wrong way , im far from being a grammar pednat , but the problem with your posts is you fail to multi quote and its hard to follow the conversation , and much of whayt you write comes across garbled.
scotland has a right to defend itself. England didnt invade scotland at one time , what are you talking about? Its been a constant stream for 1300 years. you are polishing turds , and arguing tit for tat makes englands behaviour fine.
they were. Three kingdoms one monarch.You know this?
sorry not with you again. The king in england was the king of scotland and ireland....the link....but the parliament of england ws seperate from the rest. have no idea what you mean peripheral. You could argue that aboutany country at any time surrounding your beloved england including france. As for opportunistic ,what do you mean?
eh? the whole of the christain world , and i would argue perhaps muslim , have at timec closed their nations businesses for religous reasons past and present. Germany and france currently still do so. Do you dislike your own country that much you are prespared too muck rake and imply scotland is uniquely shite at every turn? I mean this is ridiculous sandy.
rubbish. Ireland is independent of london , and is part of the common travel area. Further , the idea those who chose to leave freedom of movement with 27 other european nations , many of them friends and neighbours , now bleating about potentially a border is fucking laughable. You will have to do better than that sandy if you want to be taken serious regading your union.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 25, 2023 6:16:17 GMT
You seem to be missing the the point. Scottish history as a stand-alone entity ceased to exist around 300 years ago when, like English history, it became subsumed within the greater whole of British history. i think this is wishfull thinking. Are you unaware key foundations of your union meant that scotland retained its own education system legal system and church? The arguemtn is why isnt an independetn scottish education system teaching scottish history.
There is no british education system dan .do keep up mate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 7:59:32 GMT
That squeakling sound we hear is only Thommo moving the goalposts.
But back to Scottish History, I'm ready to be educated. What is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Sept 25, 2023 8:07:29 GMT
That squeakling sound we hear is only Thommo moving the goalposts. But back to Scottish History, I'm ready to be educated. What is it? in amongst all the bwitish wailing about goal posts , the point dan is stand alone scottish entities didnt cease to exist in 1707 , and scottish history is generall regarded as the history of the scottish nation from roughly 845 to 2023.
the famous scottish historian tam devine even wrote books on it , among many other historians. Are you telling me they wrote about somethig thats doesnt exist only in your own wee head?
One of his books is entitled for example the scottish nation 1700 - 2000 , whihc your brit politican and former pm gordo broon hailed as a masterpiece and the herald labelled as one of the scottish history books of the century.
What do they know though , in the face of your superior knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 25, 2023 9:05:08 GMT
I dare say one could just as easily turn up an obsessive who dedicated his life to Yorkshire History as well but it would no doubt turn out to be similarly miniature in scope and as parochial as Devine's efforts appear to be. But I couldn't resist a smile at your inclusion of McBroon amongst his admirers. Anyway, as stated, I am ready to be educated. Can you elaborate on some of the highlights of Scottish History from the last three centuries, taking care to avoid events that occured and prominent figures that arose as a consequence of Scotland's role as a minor player in the British Empire?
To give you a bit of starter how many foreign wars have been fought by a Scottish army during the period in question? How many successful naval engagements? How many colonies were created by Scottish explorers planting the Saltire on foreign ground? In what other countries were the Scottish legal and educational systems and the Presbyterian church installed? That sort of thing rather than Dundee becoming the jute and marmalade capital of the world (under its own steam of course)
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Sept 25, 2023 10:27:07 GMT
I thought Scottish history as a stand-alone subject per se ended around 1707. Good point. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 25, 2023 13:51:42 GMT
I would say the Battle of Hastings eventually had much to do with Scotland as it effectively put Scotland under Norman control as regards the elite no matter how you describe them. Since the 18th century is not modern day history. I agree that broad Scots spoken, as many of the enlightenment did so speak was frowned on, but that is largely because it is incomprehensible to many. I spent a year in Northumberland and had several conversations with one of our drivers I could not understand at all, that accent is also frowned on, so it is not peculiar to Scotland. There are no historical 'rights' there is only what happened and Edward 1 was a pig to both Scots and Welsh, his own son, many of the Lords and much of his populace. Let us be clear, becasue England invaded Scotland at one time that places Scotland always on the right when invading England. Not much point in having peace treaties then. The war of the three kingdoms implies that each Kingdom was united in some way. The whole point was it was a dispute between parliamnet in England and the King in England, what happened elsewhere was realistically both peripheral and opportunistic. Perhaps you are too young to recall the desolation of Scotland on the Sabbath with certainly Edinburgh being largely closed for business. The Union exist for many folk as being travel and border free for most and going from Scotland to England and vice versa is just moving to a different part of the country. Eh?
i disagree. You caould argue any battle that had some indirect consequence for scotland should therefore be taught in scottish history , but once again only stuff about this union is singled out. We could argue obscure roman , celtic , scandinavian or battles anywhere i nthe world that could be in some how linked indirectly to scotland should be included but they arent. The battle of brunanburgh , which isnt taught in england never mind scotland , a key defining battle that basically shaped the nations of these islands is just as if not far more imprortant than hastings but no one is taught that.
what are you talking about sandy? Are you not aware gaelic is scotlands native language , not scots? Scots at best is a dialect of middle english , and there are many arguemnts as to wether its a language in its own right or not .
i havent said it is. The point is two fold. All the countires of the uk have their own native languages , but we are forced to speak one countires language. why arent we speaking british instead of english if bwitiain is a country?
Second thing regarding regional accents , barely 8 % of the modern uk speak a standardised english.The majority use regional accents. no one is saying its pecualiar to scotland , and of ocurse scotland like england has many regional accents.
sandy im not with you here. Sorry dont take this the wrong way , im far from being a grammar pednat , but the problem with your posts is you fail to multi quote and its hard to follow the conversation , and much of whayt you write comes across garbled.
scotland has a right to defend itself. England didnt invade scotland at one time , what are you talking about? Its been a constant stream for 1300 years. you are polishing turds , and arguing tit for tat makes englands behaviour fine.
they were. Three kingdoms one monarch.You know this?
sorry not with you again. The king in england was the king of scotland and ireland....the link....but the parliament of england ws seperate from the rest. have no idea what you mean peripheral. You could argue that aboutany country at any time surrounding your beloved england including france. As for opportunistic ,what do you mean?
eh? the whole of the christain world , and i would argue perhaps muslim , have at timec closed their nations businesses for religous reasons past and present. Germany and france currently still do so. Do you dislike your own country that much you are prespared too muck rake and imply scotland is uniquely shite at every turn? I mean this is ridiculous sandy.
rubbish. Ireland is independent of london , and is part of the common travel area. Further , the idea those who chose to leave freedom of movement with 27 other european nations , many of them friends and neighbours , now bleating about potentially a border is fucking laughable. You will have to do better than that sandy if you want to be taken serious regading your union.
.
I cannot stand multiquoting, it becomes disjointed and hard to follow and reply when it is split up so. But then that is maybe just me. |
|
