The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Two Scotlands
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

With Scotland in the news, it’s worth recalling that while the political border between Scotland and England is very old and relatively stable, the Scottish nation itself was an odd amalgam of Gaelic-speaking Celtic Highlanders and English-speaking Saxon Lowlanders who were traditionally terrified of the barbaric marauders from the north. The ironies of this heritage were highly amusing to Victorian historian and imperialist Thomas Babington Macaulay, whose father was from the Highlands.

Below is the bravura portrait of the Highlands I’ve quoted before from Macaulay’s 1855 History of England.

It is not easy for a modern Englishman, who can pass in a day from his club in St. James’s Street to his shooting box among the Grampians, and who finds in his shooting box all the comforts and luxuries of his club, to believe that, in the time of his greatgrandfathers, St. James’s Street had as little connection with the Grampians as with the Andes. Yet so it was. In the south of our island scarcely any thing was known about the Celtic part of Scotland; and what was known excited no feeling but contempt and loathing. The crags and the glens, the woods and the waters, were indeed the same that now swarm every autumn with admiring gazers and stretchers. …

Gleneagles in the Highlands, site of next week’s Ryder Cup

Yet none of these sights had power, till a recent period, to attract a single poet or painter from more opulent and more tranquil regions. Indeed, law and police, trade and industry, have done far more than people of romantic dispositions will readily admit, to develope in our minds a sense of the wilder beauties of nature. A traveller must be freed from all apprehension of being murdered or starved before he can be charmed by the bold outlines and rich tints of the hills. He is not likely to be thrown into ecstasies by the abruptness of a precipice from which he is in imminent danger of falling two thousand feet perpendicular; by the boiling waves of a torrent which suddenly whirls away his baggage and forces him to run for his life; by the gloomy grandeur of a pass where he finds a corpse which marauders have just stripped and mangled; or by the screams of those eagles whose next meal may probably be on his own eyes. …



[The poet Oliver] Goldsmith was one of the very few Saxons who, more than a century ago, ventured to explore the Highlands. He was disgusted by the hideous wilderness, and declared that he greatly preferred the charming country round Leyden, the vast expanse of verdant meadow, and the villas with their statues and grottoes, trim flower beds, and rectilinear avenues. Yet it is difficult to believe that the author of the Traveller and of the Deserted Village was naturally inferior in taste and sensibility to the thousands of clerks and milliners who are now thrown into raptures by the sight of Loch Katrine and Loch Lomond.

His feelings may easily be explained. It was not till roads had been cut out of the rocks, till bridges had been flung over the courses of the rivulets, till inns had succeeded to dens of robbers, till there was as little danger of being slain or plundered in the wildest defile of Badenoch or Lochaber as in Cornhill, that strangers could be enchanted by the blue dimples of the lakes and by the rainbows which overhung the waterfalls, and could derive a solemn pleasure even from the clouds and tempests which lowered on the mountain tops.

The change in the feeling with which the Lowlanders regarded the highland scenery was closely connected with a change not less remarkable in the feeling with which they regarded the Highland race. It is not strange that the Wild Scotch, as they were sometimes called, should, in the seventeenth century, have been considered by the Saxons as mere savages. But it is surely strange that, considered as savages, they should not have been objects of interest and curiosity. The English were then abundantly inquisitive about the manners of rude nations separated from our island by great continents and oceans. Numerous books were printed describing the laws, the superstitions, the cabins, the repasts, the dresses, the marriages, the funerals of Laplanders and Hottentots, Mohawks and Malays. The plays and poems of that age are full of allusions to the usages of the black men of Africa and of the red men of America. The only barbarian about whom there was no wish to have any information was the Highlander. …

In the reign of George the First, a work was published which professed to give a most exact account of Scotland; and in this work, consisting of more than three hundred pages, two contemptuous paragraphs were thought sufficient for the Highlands and the Highlanders. We may well doubt whether, in 1689, one in twenty of the well read gentlemen who assembled at Will’s coffeehouse knew that, within the four seas, and at the distance of less than five hundred miles from London, were many miniature courts, in each of which a petty prince, attended by guards, by armour bearers, by musicians, by a hereditary orator, by a hereditary poet laureate, kept a rude state, dispensed a rude justice, waged wars, and concluded treaties. While the old Gaelic institutions were in full vigour, no account of them was given by any observer, qualified to judge of them fairly.

Had such an observer studied the character of the Highlanders, he would doubtless have found in it closely intermingled the good and the bad qualities of an uncivilised nation. He would have found that the people had no love for their country or for their king; that they had no attachment to any commonwealth larger than the clan, or to any magistrate superior to the chief. He would have found that life was governed by a code of morality and honour widely different from that which is established in peaceful and prosperous societies. He would have learned that a stab in the back, or a shot from behind a fragment of rock, were approved modes of taking satisfaction for insults. He would have heard men relate boastfully how they or their fathers had wreaked on hereditary enemies in a neighbouring valley such vengeance as would have made old soldiers of the Thirty Years’ War shudder. He would have found that robbery was held to be a calling, not merely innocent, but honourable. He would have seen, wherever he turned, that dislike of steady industry, and that disposition to throw on the weaker sex the heaviest part of manual labour, which are characteristic of savages. He would have been struck by the spectacle of athletic men basking in the sun, angling for salmon, or taking aim at grouse, while their aged mothers, their pregnant wives, their tender daughters, were reaping the scanty harvest of oats. Nor did the women repine at their hard lot. In their view it was quite fit that a man, especially if he assumed the aristocratic title of Duinhe Wassel and adorned his bonnet with the eagle’s feather, should take his ease, except when he was fighting, hunting, or marauding. To mention the name of such a man in connection with commerce or with any mechanical art was an insult. Agriculture was indeed less despised. Yet a highborn warrior was much more becomingly employed in plundering the land of others than in tilling his own.

The religion of the greater part of the Highlands was a rude mixture of Popery and Paganism. The symbol of redemption was associated with heathen sacrifices and incantations. Baptized men poured libations of ale to one Daemon, and set out drink offerings of milk for another. Seers wrapped themselves up in bulls’ hides, and awaited, in that vesture, the inspiration which was to reveal the future. Even among those minstrels and genealogists whose hereditary vocation was to preserve the memory of past events, an enquirer would have found very few who could read. In truth, he might easily have journeyed from sea to sea without discovering a page of Gaelic printed or written. The price which he would have had to pay for his knowledge of the country would have been heavy. He would have had to endure hardships as great as if he had sojourned among the Esquimaux or the Samoyeds. Here and there, indeed, at the castle of some great lord who had a seat in the Parliament and Privy Council, and who was accustomed to pass a large part of his life in the cities of the South, might have been found wigs and embroidered coats, plate and fine linen, lace and jewels, French dishes and French wines. But, in general, the traveller would have been forced to content himself with very different quarters. In many dwellings the furniture, the food, the clothing, nay the very hair and skin of his hosts, would have put his philosophy to the proof. His lodging would sometimes have been in a hut of which every nook would have swarmed with vermin. He would have inhaled an atmosphere thick with peat smoke, and foul with a hundred noisome exhalations. At supper grain fit only for horses would have been set before him, accompanied by a cake of blood drawn from living cows. Some of the company with which he would have feasted would have been covered with cutaneous eruptions, and others would have been smeared with tar like sheep. His couch would have been the bare earth, dry or wet as the weather might be; and from that couch he would have risen half poisoned with stench, half blind with the reek of turf, and half mad with the itch.

This is not an attractive picture. And yet an enlightened and dispassionate observer would have found in the character and manners of this rude people something which might well excite admiration and a good hope. Their courage was what great exploits achieved in all the four quarters of the globe have since proved it to be. Their intense attachment to their own tribe and to their own patriarch, though politically a great evil, partook of the nature of virtue. The sentiment was misdirected and ill regulated; but still it was heroic. There must be some elevation of soul in a man who loves the society of which he is a member and the leader whom he follows with a love stronger than the love of life. It was true that the Highlander had few scruples about shedding the blood of an enemy: but it was not less true that he had high notions of the duty of observing faith to allies and hospitality to guests. It was true that his predatory habits were most pernicious to the commonwealth. Yet those erred greatly who imagined that he bore any resemblance to villains who, in rich and well governed communities, live by stealing. When he drove before him the herds of Lowland farmers up the pass which led to his native glen, he no more considered himself as a thief than the Raleighs and Drakes considered themselves as thieves when they divided the cargoes of Spanish galleons. He was a warrior seizing lawful prize of war, of war never once intermitted during the thirty-five generations which had passed away since the Teutonic invaders had driven the children of the soil to the mountains. That, if he was caught robbing on such principles, he should, for the protection of peaceful industry, be punished with the utmost rigour of the law was perfectly just. But it was not just to class him morally with the pickpockets who infested Drury Lane Theatre, or the highwaymen who stopped coaches on Blackheath. His inordinate pride of birth and his contempt for labour and trade were indeed great weaknesses, and had done far more than the inclemency of the air and the sterility of the soil to keep his country poor and rude.

Yet even here there was some compensation. It must in fairness be acknowledged that the patrician virtues were not less widely diffused among the population of the Highlands than the patrician vices. As there was no other part of the island where men, sordidly clothed, lodged, and fed, indulged themselves to such a degree in the idle sauntering habits of an aristocracy, so there was no other part of the island where such men had in such a degree the better qualities of an aristocracy, grace and dignity of manner, self respect, and that noble sensibility which makes dishonour more terrible than death. A gentleman of this sort, whose clothes were begrimed with the accumulated filth of years, and whose hovel smelt worse than an English hogstye, would often do the honours of that hovel with a lofty courtesy worthy of the splendid circle of Versailles.

Though he had as little booklearning as the most stupid ploughboys of England, it would have been a great error to put him in the same intellectual rank with such ploughboys. It is indeed only by reading that men can become profoundly acquainted with any science. But the arts of poetry and rhetoric may be carried near to absolute perfection, and may exercise a mighty influence on the public mind, in an age in which books are wholly or almost wholly unknown. …

There was therefore even then evidence sufficient to justify the belief that no natural inferiority had kept the Celt far behind the Saxon. It might safely have been predicted that, if ever an efficient police should make it impossible for the Highlander to avenge his wrongs by violence and to supply his wants by rapine, if ever his faculties should be developed by the civilising influence of the Protestant religion and of the English language, if ever he should transfer to his country and to her lawful magistrates the affection and respect with which he had been taught to regard his own petty community and his own petty prince, the kingdom would obtain an immense accession of strength for all the purposes both of peace and of war.

Such would doubtless have been the decision of a well informed and impartial judge. But no such judge was then to be found. The Saxons who dwelt far from the Gaelic provinces could not be well informed. The Saxons who dwelt near those provinces could not be impartial. National enmities have always been fiercest among borderers; and the enmity between the Highland borderer and the Lowland borderer along the whole frontier was the growth of ages, and was kept fresh by constant injuries. One day many square miles of pasture land were swept bare by armed plunderers from the hills. Another day a score of plaids dangled in a row on the gallows of Crieff or Stirling. Fairs were indeed held on the debatable land for the necessary interchange of commodities. But to those fairs both parties came prepared for battle; and the day often ended in bloodshed. Thus the Highlander was an object of hatred to his Saxon neighbours; and from his Saxon neighbours those Saxons who dwelt far from him learned the very little that they cared to know about his habits. When the English condescended to think of him at all,—and it was seldom that they did so,—they considered him as a filthy abject savage, a slave, a Papist, a cutthroat, and a thief.
This contemptuous loathing lasted till the year 1745 [when Bonnie Prince Charlie, Pretender to the throne lost by the Stuarts in 1688, led an invading Highland army to within 100 miles of London], and was then for a moment succeeded by intense fear and rage. England, thoroughly alarmed, put forth her whole strength. The Highlands were subjugated rapidly, completely, and for ever. During a short time the English nation, still heated by the recent conflict, breathed nothing but vengeance. The slaughter on the field of battle and on the scaffold was not sufficient to slake the public thirst for blood. The sight of the tartan inflamed the populace of London with hatred, which showed itself by unmanly outrages to defenceless captives. A political and social revolution took place through the whole Celtic region. The power of the chiefs was destroyed: the people were disarmed: the use of the old national garb was interdicted: the old predatory habits were effectually broken; and scarcely had this change been accomplished when a strange reflux of public feeling began.

Pity succeeded to aversion. The nation execrated the cruelties which had been committed on the Highlanders, and forgot that for those cruelties it was itself answerable. Those very Londoners, who, while the memory of the march to Derby was still fresh, had thronged to hoot and pelt the rebel prisoners, now fastened on the prince who had put down the rebellion the nickname of Butcher. Those barbarous institutions and usages, which, while they were in full force, no Saxon had thought worthy of serious examination, or had mentioned except with contempt, had no sooner ceased to exist than they became objects of curiosity, of interest, even of admiration. Scarcely had the chiefs been turned into mere landlords, when it became the fashion to draw invidious comparisons between the rapacity of the landlord and the indulgence of the chief. Men seemed to have forgotten that the ancient Gaelic polity had been found to be incompatible with the authority of law, had obstructed the progress of civilisation, had more than once brought on the empire the curse of civil war. As they had formerly seen only the odious side of that polity, they could now see only the pleasing side. The old tie, they said, had been parental: the new tie was purely commercial. What could be more lamentable than that the head of a tribe should eject, for a paltry arrear of rent, tenants who were his own flesh and blood, tenants whose forefathers had often with their bodies covered his forefathers on the field of battle?

As long as there were Gaelic marauders, they had been regarded by the Saxon population as hateful vermin who ought to be exterminated without mercy. As soon as the extermination had been accomplished, as soon as cattle were as safe in the Perthshire passes as in Smithfield market, the freebooter was exalted into a hero of romance. As long as the Gaelic dress was worn, the Saxons had pronounced it hideous, ridiculous, nay, grossly indecent. Soon after it had been prohibited, they discovered that it was the most graceful drapery in Europe. The Gaelic monuments, the Gaelic usages, the Gaelic superstitions, the Gaelic verses, disdainfully neglected during many ages, began to attract the attention of the learned from the moment at which the peculiarities of the Gaelic race began to disappear.
So strong was this impulse that, where the Highlands were concerned, men of sense gave ready credence to stories without evidence, and men of taste gave rapturous applause to compositions without merit. Epic poems, which any skilful and dispassionate critic would at a glance have perceived to be almost entirely modern, and which, if they had been published as modern, would have instantly found their proper place in company with Blackmore’s Alfred and Wilkie’s Epigoniad, were pronounced to be fifteen hundred years old, and were gravely classed with the Iliad [e.g., James MacPherson’s hoax epic Ossian, published around 1760]. Writers of a very different order from the impostor who fabricated these forgeries saw how striking an effect might be produced by skilful pictures of the old Highland life [e.g., Sir Walter Scott]. Whatever was repulsive was softened down: whatever was graceful and noble was brought prominently forward. Some of these works were executed with such admirable art that, like the historical plays of Shakspeare, they superseded history. The visions of the poet were realities to his readers. The places which he described became holy ground, and were visited by thousands of pilgrims.

Soon the vulgar imagination was so completely occupied by plaids, targets, and claymores, that, by most Englishmen, Scotchman and Highlander were regarded as synonymous words. Few people seemed to be aware that, at no remote period, a Macdonald or a Macgregor in his tartan was to a citizen of Edinburgh or Glasgow what an Indian hunter in his war paint is to an inhabitant of Philadelphia or Boston. Artists and actors represented Bruce and Douglas in striped petticoats. They might as well have represented Washington brandishing a tomahawk, and girt with a string of scalps. At length this fashion reached a point beyond which it was not easy to proceed. The last British King who held a court in Holyrood thought that he could not give a more striking proof of his respect for the usages which had prevailed in Scotland before the Union, than by disguising himself in what, before the Union, was considered by nine Scotchmen out of ten as the dress of a thief.

 
Hide 58 CommentsLeave a Comment
58 Comments to "The Two Scotlands"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. A resident of Edinburgh describing the city’s occupation by Bonnie Prince Charlie’s Highlanders in 1745:
    “I entered the town by the Bristo port, which I saw to my indignation in the keeping of these caterpillars. A boy stood with a rusty drawn sword, and two fellows with things licke guns of the 16 centurie sat on each side the entry to the poors howse, and these were catching the vermin from their lurking places abowt ther plaids and throwing them away. I said to Mr Jerdin, minister of Liberton, ‘Ar these the scownderalls [who] have surprised Edinburgh by treachery?’ He answered, ‘I had reither seen it in the hands of Frenchmen but the divell and the deep blue sea are both bad.’”

  2. advancedatheist [AKA "RedneckCryonicist"] says:

    I suspect quite a few of the Highlanders mingled with the Lowlanders as part of the “Scots Irish” migration to the American colonies and became the ancestors of much of the South’s white population. My dad’s mother bore the maiden surname McKinley, and my mom’s father, a bona fide hillbilly in the Ozarks, bore the Scots Gaelic first name Ervin, several generations removed from our British roots.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    Scots Highlanders did not go straight to America as part of the Scots-Irish; in fact at the time of the American War of Independence the Highland Scot colonists in America were fierce Loyalists, while the Scots-Irish were strongly pro-independence. This was in large part a religious divide: Scots-Irish were typically low church Protestants, Highland Scots had stayed Catholic or become Episcopalian.

    However west-coast Scots were interchangeable with northern Irish, and thus formed a very major component of the Scots-Irish identity that emerged in Ulster before emigrating to America.

    Apart from religion there isn't necessarily a strong ethnic divide between Scots-Irish and Scots Highlander, the MacDonald Lords of the Isles had ruled both. Today you'll find MacDonalds in Northern Ireland as well as highland Scotland.
    , @Another Canadian
    Most of those Colonial-Americans considered today to be "rednecks" would not be Scottish Highlanders, or even Scotsmen at all, many were English colonists of Ulster. Just check the 1777 lists of those taking the oath of allegiance to Virginia in counties like Montgomery and Pittsylvania, names like: Blevins, Osborne, Thompson, Pennington, Parsons, Hutchinson, Cox, etc. These were also the guys who after the Revolution moved to Kentucky, Tennessee and later Missouri, Arkansas and East Texas. They may be called "Scots-Irish" but genealogically they should be "English-Irish."
  3. Ah, Bonnie Scotland! Scotland has always had a very peculiar history. The lowlands always had more “southern influence” which means Roman, Norman and English. Most of the lowlands was Welsh-speaking (Old Welsh/Brythonic/British) until the 10th century. It is not known if this language was closely related to Pictish or not. It seems that Pictish has, at least, from what fragments we can gather, some non-indoeuropean roots. Scottish Gaelic, originally a dialect of Irish Gaelic, was a relative newcomer to Caledonia arriving in the 6th and 7th AD’s. Then Gaelic became the language of Christianity and culture (along with Latin)and it spread virtually all over Scotland including most of the lowlands. A study of place names “baile” (town) and “achadh” (arable field) shows a Gaelic population thrived even in East Lothian. So Scotland was 90-95 Gaelic speaking circa 900-1150. The decisive change seems to have come after 1066 and the Anglo-Normans. French was seen more and more as the culture language (along with Latin) and the “Anglian” (English linguistic invasion gained ground significantly from the end of the 12th century. Due to intermarriage with Norman and English royalty and aristocrats English (Scots/”Inglis”) had supplanted Gaelic in the royal court. Flodden (1513) was a real death blow to the primacy of Gaelic as the cream of the Gaelic aristocracy fell as well as James IV the last Gaelic-speaking monarch of Scotland. Scotland was about 22-25% Gaelic speaking as late as 1750. Then came Culloden (1746) Then the Highland Clearances, Industrialization and immigration reduced the numbers further. Today only about 2% of Scotland’s population speak Gaelic as a native tongue. But the point is almost all “Macs” have Gaelic-speaking ancestors and Scotland has three living tongues (Scots, English and Gaelic). Most Scots -even if they are not fluent in Scots or Gaelic have a great fondness for the songs and poems and traditional sayings in these languages. When an English person says “England and Scotland are just the same with the same language, same culture and same history” he insults and infuriates most Scots. It is talk like that which has spurred the BU CHOIR (yes movement). It is interesting to note that the YES movement in multilingual using bilingual people to campaign in several languages while the NO movement (much older) is monolingual English. I believe Independence is inevitable if not now in 6-10 years.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "Scotland has three living tongues (Scots, English and Gaelic)."

    Confusingly, the original Scots were the Gaels (Dal Riata), Celts; but the "Scots" language is an Anglo-Germanic tongue, being a dialect of English.
    , @Richard K. Munro
    There is no question that the majority of Scots have voted for Union which means financial and national security. I remember what a shock it was with Il Sorpaso when Italy (briefly) surpassed Britain's GNP. There is still enough pride in Britain and what was the British Empire so as not to want to fall back behind Brazil. I believe most older (and moneyed Scots) believe Independence as too much of a risk. But have we seen the last of it? in 1890 or even 1910 Irish independence might have seemed impossible. Yet the disaster of 1914-1918 weakened Unionist sentiment in Ireland (never as strong as in Scotland). And by 1922 Ireland was independent and soon out of the Commonwealth. The people I know who supported YES are young and determined to try again. It is amazing to think Scotland's biggest city voted 53% for Independence. Certainly the near future will mean SNP will push for greater autonomy in Scotland itself and greater taxing authority.
  4. Gleneagles in the Highlands, site of next week’s Ryder Cup

    Also known as an example of “Sailer’s Regression toward the Visual Meme”.

  5. The greatest Scotsman of all time, ROWDY RODDY PIPER.

  6. Amazing passage, Steve. Thank you for posting it.

  7. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/the-israeli-exception-to-us-foreign-policy-advocating-gay-rights/

    Above the Law.

    America may not be an exceptional nation, but Israel certainly is.

    • Replies: @Rifleman
    America may not be an exceptional nation, but Israel certainly is.

    And where do you think America got that "exceptional" idea?
  8. Just a note that there were really many major components to Scotland. I’m not an expert (I expect some iSteve commenter can add/correct) but I have detected at least five:

    1. Picts, who were probably Celts but we still don’t know for sure. Remained important in the north-Central region around Inverness.
    2. Dal Riata Celt invaders from north-east Ireland; the dominant group in creating ‘Scotland’. The west coast of Scotland’s population became a single population with that of northern Ireland, much moreso than the Scottish population as a whole. This is still the case today.
    3. Semi-Romanised Brythonic Celts in the south-west Kingdom of Strathclyde. William Wallace = ‘Welsh’ – Saxon ‘foreigner’ was presumably descended from this group.
    4. Norse Viking invaders in the far north, probably mostly from Norway. Norse also settled in the north-west Irelands and west coast but don’t seem to have been numerically influential except in the far north.
    5. Saxons, the most important group, dominant all along the east coast of England and Scotland up past Aberdeen to the edge of the Grampians. You see names like Cruickshank (crooked-leg) in Aberdeenshire which are also common in Yorkshire. The area from Edinburgh south along the east coast seems to have become very heavily Saxon very early; which might connect to Edinburgh later being a major source of the Enlightenment and part of the small ‘core Europe’ area that created the modern world – along with eastern England, north-west France, the low countries and northwest Germany.

    The nobility eventually became heavily Anglo-Norman, but there were never a lot of Normans even in England.

    From what I can tell, 18th century Lowlanders (south & east) were primarily descended from a mix of Saxons (dominant in the east) and Brythonic Celts in the south-west. The Borderers who became a major component in the Scots-Irish would have had a good deal of Celtic ancestry; Cumbria to the south in north-west England means ‘Land of the Cymri’ (‘People’ – Celtic people).
    18th century Highlanders (north & west) were primarily descendants of Picts & Dal Riata Irish Celts; the northern Norse had also integrated into this group.

    I think it’s fair to say that the Lowlanders were more Saxon-Germanic and the Highlanders more Celtic, but Lowlanders had Brythonic (south-west) and Pictish (east) elements, and Highlanders had a Norse element (except in the sparsely-populated north-central mountains); so they were both pretty mixed.

    • Replies: @Richard K. Munro
    I would say what you have written is generally true. Remember, however, that there has been constant Highland and Irish immigration to the lowlands in the 18th, 19th and 20th century. And Glasgow was always a cosmopolitan hub. I remember my father (who grew up in Glasgow and visited in the 1960's) said there were about 50,000 Polish surnames in the Glasgow phone book. At the time most of these were descended of Free Poles many of whom married Scottish war widows.

    Different clans have different strains. By tradition the Munroes were "Irish Gael Crusaders" who intermarried with the local Picts for whom they were (?) probably mercenaries to fight the pagan Vass (or Vikings). Certain septs and clans were associated with Norse populations such as the Vass (a sept of the Munroes) and the Sutherlands and the Andersons etc. I doubt there is a person in the Western Isles or Sutherland (of old family) who does not have Norse ancestry. Nonetheless, my people considered themselves Highlanders and Gaels and curiously always considered the Norse or Vikings to be the enemy. And my grandfather noted with pride that no one in his family ever married a "South O' the Dyke Lassie (an English woman) though he did not like to be reminded by my father that my father's aunt was technically English as she was born in London when my great-grandfather was working there. But my father's aunt protested vociferously that "Being born in a garidge (garage) does not make one a car." So yes, Lowlanders tended to me more Saxon-Germanic but even the English themselves are not really "Anglo-Saxons" but Angl0-Celtic. Certainly many people of Wales and Corwall consider themselves Celts and in England as well many (old families) have native British (Celtic) ancestry.
  9. @advancedatheist
    I suspect quite a few of the Highlanders mingled with the Lowlanders as part of the "Scots Irish" migration to the American colonies and became the ancestors of much of the South's white population. My dad's mother bore the maiden surname McKinley, and my mom's father, a bona fide hillbilly in the Ozarks, bore the Scots Gaelic first name Ervin, several generations removed from our British roots.

    Scots Highlanders did not go straight to America as part of the Scots-Irish; in fact at the time of the American War of Independence the Highland Scot colonists in America were fierce Loyalists, while the Scots-Irish were strongly pro-independence. This was in large part a religious divide: Scots-Irish were typically low church Protestants, Highland Scots had stayed Catholic or become Episcopalian.

    However west-coast Scots were interchangeable with northern Irish, and thus formed a very major component of the Scots-Irish identity that emerged in Ulster before emigrating to America.

    Apart from religion there isn’t necessarily a strong ethnic divide between Scots-Irish and Scots Highlander, the MacDonald Lords of the Isles had ruled both. Today you’ll find MacDonalds in Northern Ireland as well as highland Scotland.

  10. @Richard K. Munro
    Ah, Bonnie Scotland! Scotland has always had a very peculiar history. The lowlands always had more "southern influence" which means Roman, Norman and English. Most of the lowlands was Welsh-speaking (Old Welsh/Brythonic/British) until the 10th century. It is not known if this language was closely related to Pictish or not. It seems that Pictish has, at least, from what fragments we can gather, some non-indoeuropean roots. Scottish Gaelic, originally a dialect of Irish Gaelic, was a relative newcomer to Caledonia arriving in the 6th and 7th AD's. Then Gaelic became the language of Christianity and culture (along with Latin)and it spread virtually all over Scotland including most of the lowlands. A study of place names "baile" (town) and "achadh" (arable field) shows a Gaelic population thrived even in East Lothian. So Scotland was 90-95 Gaelic speaking circa 900-1150. The decisive change seems to have come after 1066 and the Anglo-Normans. French was seen more and more as the culture language (along with Latin) and the "Anglian" (English linguistic invasion gained ground significantly from the end of the 12th century. Due to intermarriage with Norman and English royalty and aristocrats English (Scots/"Inglis") had supplanted Gaelic in the royal court. Flodden (1513) was a real death blow to the primacy of Gaelic as the cream of the Gaelic aristocracy fell as well as James IV the last Gaelic-speaking monarch of Scotland. Scotland was about 22-25% Gaelic speaking as late as 1750. Then came Culloden (1746) Then the Highland Clearances, Industrialization and immigration reduced the numbers further. Today only about 2% of Scotland's population speak Gaelic as a native tongue. But the point is almost all "Macs" have Gaelic-speaking ancestors and Scotland has three living tongues (Scots, English and Gaelic). Most Scots -even if they are not fluent in Scots or Gaelic have a great fondness for the songs and poems and traditional sayings in these languages. When an English person says "England and Scotland are just the same with the same language, same culture and same history" he insults and infuriates most Scots. It is talk like that which has spurred the BU CHOIR (yes movement). It is interesting to note that the YES movement in multilingual using bilingual people to campaign in several languages while the NO movement (much older) is monolingual English. I believe Independence is inevitable if not now in 6-10 years.

    “Scotland has three living tongues (Scots, English and Gaelic).”

    Confusingly, the original Scots were the Gaels (Dal Riata), Celts; but the “Scots” language is an Anglo-Germanic tongue, being a dialect of English.

    • Replies: @Richard K. Munro
    Yes, Simon in London. In olden days they called Gaelic "Erse" (Irish) or Highland Scots and "Scots" was always to my grandfather "Lowland Scots or Lallans or sometimes 'braid Scots'". And yes, though Scots has more than its share of Gaelic words it (many more than standard English) it is much closer to Middle English and is of course a dialect of English though some would claim for it a "language status."
  11. @Priss Factor
    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2014/09/the-israeli-exception-to-us-foreign-policy-advocating-gay-rights/

    Above the Law.

    America may not be an exceptional nation, but Israel certainly is.

    America may not be an exceptional nation, but Israel certainly is.

    And where do you think America got that “exceptional” idea?

  12. P. M. Lawrence gave me an education on Scottish history and the highlander/lowlander divide here. I’ve noticed a backlash against internet comment sections in recent years, but I personally have benefited a lot from folks therein correcting my ignorance. Of course, I have an extremely low traffic blog.

  13. OT

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29204170

    “Islamic State extremism and the Rotherham abuse scandal are fuelling a far-right backlash in the UK, one of the Home Office’s most senior advisers on right-wing extremism has said.

    The anonymous worker claims the government has overlooked the problem amid its focus on tackling jihadists.”

    “A senior adviser of great advantage, but no one to know who he is.”

  14. The real question is whether a new separate Scotland would look after it’s people – that is White people – better than the UK did.

    It certainly couldn’t do any worse in betraying it’s own White citizens than the UK … or the US has done.

  15. The Highlanders were used by the Stewart kings as enforcers against the the Lowlands, especially the south east (Ayrshire and Galloway where so many rebellions in Scottish history came from) and that is why they were hated. Edinburgh is actually very close to the border with England if you look at a map. Don’t believe all that stuff about the Ulster scots coming from the Borders, they came from Ayrshire, if I walked a couple of hours I could see Ulster. I voted yes. Shake things up.

  16. I think it was Lord Kames who insisted the clans and their basis in the chiefs’ authority was actually a result of Norman-style feudal military landholding.

  17. The new cable series “Outlander,” while essentially a chic-flic captures exactly the English attitudes towards the Scots in the few years immediately prior to Culloden.

  18. You know…

    Why can’t England have a referendum to decide whether it wants to be part of the UK?

    I don’t know what public attitudes there are towards Northern Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall, but my impression is that these areas, like Scotland, are either headaches, money pits, or both.

    And as long as they are part of the UK, anti-immigration parties are going to have a tough time winning enough to make changes.

    So why can’t England decide whether it wants to leave the UK?

    The things Cameron promised the Scots as a bribe to stay in, well shouldn’t England get a say on these things? It’s only going to make the disproportionate spending the Scots get worse.

    Even if the Scots vote No, might it not be possible for England to say “Well you are Independent now, anyway.”

  19. Can’t think of Scotland without wanting to reread George MacDonald Fraser’s The Steel Bonnets, his history of the reivers back and forth along the border of Scotland and England. A great book.

  20. Big Bill [AKA "Jimmie"] says:

    A traveller must be freed from all apprehension of being murdered or starved before he can be charmed by the bold outlines and rich tints of the hills.

    This, I believe is a fundamental reason why blacks, Jews (to a lesser extent) and many born-and-bred urbanites have little or no interest in camping, national parks, wide open spaces and the like. They have a nagging fear of feral white goys lurking out there somewhere, away from any police call box. They rarely state this openly–indeed the nagging dread may be so visceral that they cannot rationally identify it–but the archetypal fear leaks out in horror films, “Deliverance” and (more recently) their reaction to the bearded patriarch of Duck Dynasty. Mexicans are different. They grew up in wide-open spaces–populated by their fellow Mexicans–and therefore lack that dark fear.

  21. A yes looks likely… if Scotland breaks away, it will cause the remaining UK to become more rightist by default. It will be very good for UKIP and the conservatives.

  22. For those interested, Jamie on the British History Podcast has done a bunch of fun episodes on the Scots. http://thebritishhistorypodcast.com/

    He has also done a whole bunch of episodes on early British history that are fun and add some nice color to the current ructions.

  23. English-speaking Saxon Lowlanders

    ??? There was a section of Northumbria (settled by Angles, not Saxons) which ran north of the latter-day border between Scotland and England but otherwise the territory was an amalgam of three celtic currents: the Picts in the far north, migrants from Ireland in between, and the old Briton element in Strathclyde.

  24. @advancedatheist
    I suspect quite a few of the Highlanders mingled with the Lowlanders as part of the "Scots Irish" migration to the American colonies and became the ancestors of much of the South's white population. My dad's mother bore the maiden surname McKinley, and my mom's father, a bona fide hillbilly in the Ozarks, bore the Scots Gaelic first name Ervin, several generations removed from our British roots.

    Most of those Colonial-Americans considered today to be “rednecks” would not be Scottish Highlanders, or even Scotsmen at all, many were English colonists of Ulster. Just check the 1777 lists of those taking the oath of allegiance to Virginia in counties like Montgomery and Pittsylvania, names like: Blevins, Osborne, Thompson, Pennington, Parsons, Hutchinson, Cox, etc. These were also the guys who after the Revolution moved to Kentucky, Tennessee and later Missouri, Arkansas and East Texas. They may be called “Scots-Irish” but genealogically they should be “English-Irish.”

  25. I want “No” to lose simply because I think “Yes” voters have deluded themselves into thinking that the Scots have been oppressed. Except for a brief period in the mid-eighteenth century, they have not been. The Irish were oppressed. I think even the Welsh have a better claim to oppression than the Scottish do. A win for “Yes” is a win for pseudo-victimization.

  26. Interesting to see Macaulay use the phrase “within the four seas.” This is very unusual in English, but an idiom in Chinese: 四海之內皆兄弟也 — “Within the Four Seas all men are brothers.” What had Macaulay been reading?

    The idiom comes from the Analects 12.5.4. The sage is responding to a disciple who grumbled that while other men had brothers, he had none. Legge translates the whole verse as:

    Let the superior man never fail reverentially to order his own conduct, and let him be respectful to others and observant of propriety: then all within the Four Seas will be his brothers. What has the superior man to do with being distressed because he has no brothers?

    The Four Seas were East, West, North, and South. The East and South seas are obvious. An educated Chinese friend tells me the North Sea was Lake Baikal. I don’t know what the West Sea was. I guess geographical knowledge was sketchy in Confucius’ day.

  27. This is the historical analysis regarding hot button current events one doesn’t get elsewhere. Thanks for quoting this excellent and timely history lesson at length, Steve.

    Looking at this historically, anyone with Scottish ancestry and an Anglo surname or anyone who notices the influence of the Scots in philosophy, economics, theology, etc. can tell you; there isn’t much distinction between English and what some think of as Scottish. Influential Scots such as Hume, Bell, Smith, Knox, etc. were from the Lowlands; their last names provide further proof of Anglo ethno-linguistic ancestry. It makes sense that men from such a society would be united with their Anglo-Saxon cousins south.

    Once the voting results are out, it should be interesting to see how each region of Scotland goes. In theory, Highlanders should be more pro-independence than their fellow Lowlander Scots.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    "In theory, Highlanders should be more pro-independence than their fellow Lowlander Scots."

    They're not though - the extreme, most pure-blood Gael parts of far north-west Scotland mostly vote Liberal Democrat as a protest against Labour & the SNP, both of which are much more Lowlander parties. The SNP gets its strength from lowlander ('Saxon' per Macauley) Protestants who are pissed off at Labour's corruption and pro-Catholic (pro-Irish-Catholic) bias, as much as anti-English. They want their own socialist country, they don't really want Highlander romantic feudalism. And the Highlanders, who are few in number, have potentially more to lose from being part of an Edinburgh-ruled nation. Currently they receive a *lot* of British subsidies, and their main economy is tourism. Both could suffer under Edinburgh rule.
  28. Priss Factor [AKA "pizza with hot pepper"] says:

    Politicization of pop culture

    http://youtu.be/q4uiLMjQBxs?t=14m3s

  29. An interesting article from 2007 by Nicholas Wade on how (some) geneticists tell a little bit different story than historians about the ethnic makeup of Britain and Ireland.

    But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles , Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

  30. Steve, you might care to watch the two-part BBC series, Border Country – The Story of Britain’s Lost Middleland:

    Part 1:

    Part 2:

    Needless to say, the Scottish Nationalists were none too pleased.

  31. Thw “two” (actually, many more than two) Scotlands are visible in this map of support for independence:

    Now, compare that with this from hbd* chick:

    mating patterns in medieval/early modern scotland | hbd chick

    And this map:

    As well, compare it against this map of Britain drawn by me here:

    Maps of the American Nations | JayMan’s Blog

  32. A traveller must be freed from all apprehension of being murdered or starved before he can be charmed by the bold outlines and rich tints of the hills. He is not likely to be thrown into ecstasies by the abruptness of a precipice from which he is in imminent danger of falling two thousand feet perpendicular; by the boiling waves of a torrent which suddenly whirls away his baggage and forces him to run for his life; by the gloomy grandeur of a pass where he finds a corpse which marauders have just stripped and mangled…

    And yet, ironically, one is more likely to be mangled, or beheaded as it may be, in civilized London than in Scotland today.

    Most of those Colonial-Americans considered today to be “rednecks” would not be Scottish Highlanders, or even Scotsmen at all, many were English colonists of Ulster.

    -Colonial-American

    The most Irish of my grandparents – my maternal grandmother – was also the most English by blood (about half). Her family was from Ulster, and they were CoI (Anglicans).

    Redneck, BTW, is an old political term denoting Presbyterian Covenanters in Scotland.

  33. What about the north sea oil??? Doesn’t England lose that if Scotland secedes.

  34. Wonderful quote, and quite new to me. Are there many other things as good in Macaulay?

    And on an unrelated note, there have been so many Scotchmen of genius over the past two-and-a-half centuries — famous names like Smith, Hume, and Maxwell of course but also countless others — I am curious what proportion of them roughly are descended from the Lowland Scots v. the Highlands? Anybody know?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Are there many other things as good in Macaulay?"

    Macaulay was a writer of genius: Tom Stoppard's three favorite writers of all time are Nabokov, Waugh, and Macaulay. That said, this passage leapt out at me when I read his History of England 20 years ago as exceptional even for Macaulay.
  35. >>Art Deco says: • Website
    September 18, 2014 at 1:59 pm GMT
    English-speaking Saxon Lowlanders

    ??? There was a section of Northumbria (settled by Angles, not Saxons) which ran north of the latter-day border between Scotland and England but otherwise the territory was an amalgam of three celtic currents: the Picts in the far north, migrants from Ireland in between, and the old Briton element in Strathclyde.<<

    That was true at one point, but the flat coastal plain of north-east Scotland (Aberdeenshire & part of Moray), the Scots-speaking heartland, is very much not-Gaelic until you get up into the mountains. I remember reading a local history which recounted a battle, how the stout men of Aberdeenshire stood firm in their shield-wall against the MacDonalds'* Highlander hordes pouring down from the hills – and sent them home, tae think again. 🙂 It was about as 'Saxon' a tale as you could possibly get.

    *My mother's family surname is that of a MacDonald sept (sub-clan); but a Northern Irish sept, not Scottish. Traditionally there was no difference.

    My impression is that the Angles/Saxons must have pushed north into Pictish territory, just as the Gaels were pushing east from north-east Ireland, until eventually there were no more Picts as a distinct people. There are a lot of Pictish artifacts in the area but I don’t think the people are the same. If anything, Aberdonians remind me most of Norwegians, with the same lean rangy build – so maybe there was more Norse settlement than commonly recognised, but they adopted Anglo-Saxon culture, it being pretty similar. I haven’t found any clear description of this stuff, or if anyone knows for sure.

  36. @GW
    This is the historical analysis regarding hot button current events one doesn't get elsewhere. Thanks for quoting this excellent and timely history lesson at length, Steve.

    Looking at this historically, anyone with Scottish ancestry and an Anglo surname or anyone who notices the influence of the Scots in philosophy, economics, theology, etc. can tell you; there isn't much distinction between English and what some think of as Scottish. Influential Scots such as Hume, Bell, Smith, Knox, etc. were from the Lowlands; their last names provide further proof of Anglo ethno-linguistic ancestry. It makes sense that men from such a society would be united with their Anglo-Saxon cousins south.

    Once the voting results are out, it should be interesting to see how each region of Scotland goes. In theory, Highlanders should be more pro-independence than their fellow Lowlander Scots.

    “In theory, Highlanders should be more pro-independence than their fellow Lowlander Scots.”

    They’re not though – the extreme, most pure-blood Gael parts of far north-west Scotland mostly vote Liberal Democrat as a protest against Labour & the SNP, both of which are much more Lowlander parties. The SNP gets its strength from lowlander (‘Saxon’ per Macauley) Protestants who are pissed off at Labour’s corruption and pro-Catholic (pro-Irish-Catholic) bias, as much as anti-English. They want their own socialist country, they don’t really want Highlander romantic feudalism. And the Highlanders, who are few in number, have potentially more to lose from being part of an Edinburgh-ruled nation. Currently they receive a *lot* of British subsidies, and their main economy is tourism. Both could suffer under Edinburgh rule.

    • Replies: @GW
    Jay-Man's map regarding the Yes/No vote seems to confirm this as well, which does surprise me.
    , @BubbaJoe
    The SNP gets its strength from lowlander (‘Saxon’ per Macauley) Protestants who are pissed off at Labour’s corruption and pro-Catholic (pro-Irish-Catholic) bias, as much as anti-English.

    No.

    "But Catholics have become far more volatile. No less than 43 per cent of those who voted backed the SNP in the 2011 Holyrood election."

    Link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomgallagher/100257163/scottish-catholics-are-being-desperately-wooed-by-the-snp-they-could-swing-the-result/

    also...

    "In 1999's Social Attitudes survey, just 21% of Church of Scotland identifiers backed independence, compared to 34% of Catholics, and 31% of those of no religion. By 2012, 30% of Catholics supported independence, compared to 26% among those of no religion, and 17% among Church of Scotland ­identifiers."

    Link: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/catholics-are-most-pro-yes-religious-group-in-scotland.23704996
    George Galloway et al still try to peddle the SNP=anti-pro-Catholic line, but the voting shows otherwise. I'm kind of surprised you're doing the same.

    , @BubbaJoe
    The SNP gets its strength from lowlander (‘Saxon’ per Macauley) Protestants who are pissed off at Labour’s corruption and pro-Catholic (pro-Irish-Catholic) bias, as much as anti-English.

    No.

    “But Catholics have become far more volatile. No less than 43 per cent of those who voted backed the SNP in the 2011 Holyrood election.”

    Link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomgallagher/100257163/scottish-catholics-are-being-desperately-wooed-by-the-snp-they-could-swing-the-result/

    also…

    “In 1999′s Social Attitudes survey, just 21% of Church of Scotland identifiers backed independence, compared to 34% of Catholics, and 31% of those of no religion. By 2012, 30% of Catholics supported independence, compared to 26% among those of no religion, and 17% among Church of Scotland ­identifiers.”

    Link: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/catholics-are-most-pro-yes-religious-group-in-scotland.23704996
  37. Complaining about the great outdoors– isn’t that sort of a running theme in English comedies? (Withnail & I; Cold Comfort Farm; Lord of the Flies)

    They think life is just a #$%^% little salon to get their massage and get fed

  38. Ironically, it seems secession is not polling as strongly among the highlanders and islanders as you might expect. It is apparently popular among the working classes of Glasgow and not as much Edinburgh which is apparently in the most anglicized part of Scotland

    At least this is what I gleaned from the British pollster on the NPR.

    • Replies: @Coemgen

    Ironically, it seems secession is not polling as strongly among the highlanders and islanders as you might expect. It is apparently popular among the working classes of Glasgow and not as much Edinburgh which is apparently in the most anglicized part of Scotland

    At least this is what I gleaned from the British pollster on the NPR.

     

    Has anyone been listening to BBC Alba? I wonder if they've presented a case against separation to their Gaelic audience?
  39. @Simon in London
    "In theory, Highlanders should be more pro-independence than their fellow Lowlander Scots."

    They're not though - the extreme, most pure-blood Gael parts of far north-west Scotland mostly vote Liberal Democrat as a protest against Labour & the SNP, both of which are much more Lowlander parties. The SNP gets its strength from lowlander ('Saxon' per Macauley) Protestants who are pissed off at Labour's corruption and pro-Catholic (pro-Irish-Catholic) bias, as much as anti-English. They want their own socialist country, they don't really want Highlander romantic feudalism. And the Highlanders, who are few in number, have potentially more to lose from being part of an Edinburgh-ruled nation. Currently they receive a *lot* of British subsidies, and their main economy is tourism. Both could suffer under Edinburgh rule.

    Jay-Man’s map regarding the Yes/No vote seems to confirm this as well, which does surprise me.

  40. Scotland should seek independence because it is the only way it will free itself from the third world hordes that are currently flooding England itself and will eventually make the average white Englishman the political equivalent of the average white South African: a mere tourist in his country of birth. Totally ignorable and jail-able.

    I find it a hoot that Mr. Sailer opposes this feeble attempt at independence considering that he lives in California where the average white, male, gentile voter has lost all political relevancy and seems to spend his time walking around feeling dazed by his sudden dispossession. Notice that I said white gentile voter. At the same time the third world masses have invaded California, Jews have somehow risen to the top of these third world hordes. This is probably because they have virtually no competition in controlling the funding of elections in the the generally very poor third world neighborhoods. No Jewish approval mean no Jewish political funding which means little or no chance of election success.

    If you think this is an overstatement consider the fact that presently the two most powerful Democrats in the state legislature are the rabidly pro Israel Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and gay California state Senator Mark Leno who is not only also a proud supporter of Israel but is a graduate of an Israeli university and a ex yeshiva student to boot. Because of his access to virtually unlimited campaign funding I also have absolutely no hesitation in making the prediction that Leno will be made governor or US senator in the very near future.

    It seems like some minorities end up being uniquely privileged in this sort of multicultural hodgepodge of conflicting interests. Kevin MacDonald wasn’t exaggerating. Neither was Arthur Koestler when he made note of this phenomenon taking place in Vienna and Berlin (pre Hitler) eighty or ninety years ago.

    Darrell Steinberg proved his ecumenicalism almost immediately after his accession by booting out the old Christian senate chaplain and installing a feminist rabbi in his place. He obviously wanted to prove the 2% rules! Nothing like thumbing your nose in the face of the displaced gentile majority.

    I suggest that Mr. Sailer start collecting glass bottles. He will need them to install on the top of his ten foot high cement walls to keep the riffraff with an ever increasing grudge out. I hope shortly after that he suddenly come into possession of enough money to get entry to those well guarded and privately policed gated communities that are increasingly starting to appear in So Cal. just like they have in Mexico and virtually every other third world country.

    • Replies: @boomstick
    There seems to be good support for independence from the Islamic/Asian minorities in Scotland, which makes me think they think they'll be able to manipulate the reliably lefty political class.
    , @Simon in London
    UK membership has worked to shield Scotland from non-white immigration - most immigrants go to London. SNP policy is to get a lot more immigrants to do the jobs Scots won't do/pay the taxes Scots won't pay. Scots need saving from themselves far more than they need saving from the UK.
  41. @Luke Lea
    Wonderful quote, and quite new to me. Are there many other things as good in Macaulay?

    And on an unrelated note, there have been so many Scotchmen of genius over the past two-and-a-half centuries -- famous names like Smith, Hume, and Maxwell of course but also countless others -- I am curious what proportion of them roughly are descended from the Lowland Scots v. the Highlands? Anybody know?

    “Are there many other things as good in Macaulay?”

    Macaulay was a writer of genius: Tom Stoppard’s three favorite writers of all time are Nabokov, Waugh, and Macaulay. That said, this passage leapt out at me when I read his History of England 20 years ago as exceptional even for Macaulay.

  42. @rabbitbait
    Scotland should seek independence because it is the only way it will free itself from the third world hordes that are currently flooding England itself and will eventually make the average white Englishman the political equivalent of the average white South African: a mere tourist in his country of birth. Totally ignorable and jail-able.

    I find it a hoot that Mr. Sailer opposes this feeble attempt at independence considering that he lives in California where the average white, male, gentile voter has lost all political relevancy and seems to spend his time walking around feeling dazed by his sudden dispossession. Notice that I said white gentile voter. At the same time the third world masses have invaded California, Jews have somehow risen to the top of these third world hordes. This is probably because they have virtually no competition in controlling the funding of elections in the the generally very poor third world neighborhoods. No Jewish approval mean no Jewish political funding which means little or no chance of election success.

    If you think this is an overstatement consider the fact that presently the two most powerful Democrats in the state legislature are the rabidly pro Israel Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and gay California state Senator Mark Leno who is not only also a proud supporter of Israel but is a graduate of an Israeli university and a ex yeshiva student to boot. Because of his access to virtually unlimited campaign funding I also have absolutely no hesitation in making the prediction that Leno will be made governor or US senator in the very near future.

    It seems like some minorities end up being uniquely privileged in this sort of multicultural hodgepodge of conflicting interests. Kevin MacDonald wasn't exaggerating. Neither was Arthur Koestler when he made note of this phenomenon taking place in Vienna and Berlin (pre Hitler) eighty or ninety years ago.

    Darrell Steinberg proved his ecumenicalism almost immediately after his accession by booting out the old Christian senate chaplain and installing a feminist rabbi in his place. He obviously wanted to prove the 2% rules! Nothing like thumbing your nose in the face of the displaced gentile majority.

    I suggest that Mr. Sailer start collecting glass bottles. He will need them to install on the top of his ten foot high cement walls to keep the riffraff with an ever increasing grudge out. I hope shortly after that he suddenly come into possession of enough money to get entry to those well guarded and privately policed gated communities that are increasingly starting to appear in So Cal. just like they have in Mexico and virtually every other third world country.

    There seems to be good support for independence from the Islamic/Asian minorities in Scotland, which makes me think they think they’ll be able to manipulate the reliably lefty political class.

  43. @granesperanzablanco
    Ironically, it seems secession is not polling as strongly among the highlanders and islanders as you might expect. It is apparently popular among the working classes of Glasgow and not as much Edinburgh which is apparently in the most anglicized part of Scotland

    At least this is what I gleaned from the British pollster on the NPR.

    Ironically, it seems secession is not polling as strongly among the highlanders and islanders as you might expect. It is apparently popular among the working classes of Glasgow and not as much Edinburgh which is apparently in the most anglicized part of Scotland

    At least this is what I gleaned from the British pollster on the NPR.

    Has anyone been listening to BBC Alba? I wonder if they’ve presented a case against separation to their Gaelic audience?

  44. @Simon in London
    "In theory, Highlanders should be more pro-independence than their fellow Lowlander Scots."

    They're not though - the extreme, most pure-blood Gael parts of far north-west Scotland mostly vote Liberal Democrat as a protest against Labour & the SNP, both of which are much more Lowlander parties. The SNP gets its strength from lowlander ('Saxon' per Macauley) Protestants who are pissed off at Labour's corruption and pro-Catholic (pro-Irish-Catholic) bias, as much as anti-English. They want their own socialist country, they don't really want Highlander romantic feudalism. And the Highlanders, who are few in number, have potentially more to lose from being part of an Edinburgh-ruled nation. Currently they receive a *lot* of British subsidies, and their main economy is tourism. Both could suffer under Edinburgh rule.

    The SNP gets its strength from lowlander (‘Saxon’ per Macauley) Protestants who are pissed off at Labour’s corruption and pro-Catholic (pro-Irish-Catholic) bias, as much as anti-English.

    No.

    “But Catholics have become far more volatile. No less than 43 per cent of those who voted backed the SNP in the 2011 Holyrood election.”

    Link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomgallagher/100257163/scottish-catholics-are-being-desperately-wooed-by-the-snp-they-could-swing-the-result/

    also…

    “In 1999’s Social Attitudes survey, just 21% of Church of Scotland identifiers backed independence, compared to 34% of Catholics, and 31% of those of no religion. By 2012, 30% of Catholics supported independence, compared to 26% among those of no religion, and 17% among Church of Scotland ­identifiers.”

    Link: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/catholics-are-most-pro-yes-religious-group-in-scotland.23704996
    George Galloway et al still try to peddle the SNP=anti-pro-Catholic line, but the voting shows otherwise. I’m kind of surprised you’re doing the same.

    • Replies: @Simon in London
    I think the referendum break down does show high Catholic support for independence, as you say. Apart from Dundee the *only* area with a pro-independence was Glasgow and its suburbs.

    I guess Mr Galloway (who had lunch at the next table to me at a cafe in Berwick recently) and myself both had out of date information. Although NB I did not say that the SNP itself was sectarian. Rather: Labour in Scotland is sectarian, and this drove Protestant socialists over to the SNP even if they weren't that crazy for independence. Catholics supporting independence & the SNP does not necessarily mean that some Protestants don't support the SNP because they see it as non-sectarian; it just means the Catholics don't mind that the SNP is non-sectarian.

    Protestants vote SNP for non-sectarian socialism.
    Catholics vote SNP for independence from England.
    Seems plausible?

  45. @Simon in London
    "In theory, Highlanders should be more pro-independence than their fellow Lowlander Scots."

    They're not though - the extreme, most pure-blood Gael parts of far north-west Scotland mostly vote Liberal Democrat as a protest against Labour & the SNP, both of which are much more Lowlander parties. The SNP gets its strength from lowlander ('Saxon' per Macauley) Protestants who are pissed off at Labour's corruption and pro-Catholic (pro-Irish-Catholic) bias, as much as anti-English. They want their own socialist country, they don't really want Highlander romantic feudalism. And the Highlanders, who are few in number, have potentially more to lose from being part of an Edinburgh-ruled nation. Currently they receive a *lot* of British subsidies, and their main economy is tourism. Both could suffer under Edinburgh rule.

    The SNP gets its strength from lowlander (‘Saxon’ per Macauley) Protestants who are pissed off at Labour’s corruption and pro-Catholic (pro-Irish-Catholic) bias, as much as anti-English.

    No.

    “But Catholics have become far more volatile. No less than 43 per cent of those who voted backed the SNP in the 2011 Holyrood election.”

    Link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomgallagher/100257163/scottish-catholics-are-being-desperately-wooed-by-the-snp-they-could-swing-the-result/

    also…

    “In 1999′s Social Attitudes survey, just 21% of Church of Scotland identifiers backed independence, compared to 34% of Catholics, and 31% of those of no religion. By 2012, 30% of Catholics supported independence, compared to 26% among those of no religion, and 17% among Church of Scotland ­identifiers.”

    Link: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/catholics-are-most-pro-yes-religious-group-in-scotland.23704996

  46. @rabbitbait
    Scotland should seek independence because it is the only way it will free itself from the third world hordes that are currently flooding England itself and will eventually make the average white Englishman the political equivalent of the average white South African: a mere tourist in his country of birth. Totally ignorable and jail-able.

    I find it a hoot that Mr. Sailer opposes this feeble attempt at independence considering that he lives in California where the average white, male, gentile voter has lost all political relevancy and seems to spend his time walking around feeling dazed by his sudden dispossession. Notice that I said white gentile voter. At the same time the third world masses have invaded California, Jews have somehow risen to the top of these third world hordes. This is probably because they have virtually no competition in controlling the funding of elections in the the generally very poor third world neighborhoods. No Jewish approval mean no Jewish political funding which means little or no chance of election success.

    If you think this is an overstatement consider the fact that presently the two most powerful Democrats in the state legislature are the rabidly pro Israel Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and gay California state Senator Mark Leno who is not only also a proud supporter of Israel but is a graduate of an Israeli university and a ex yeshiva student to boot. Because of his access to virtually unlimited campaign funding I also have absolutely no hesitation in making the prediction that Leno will be made governor or US senator in the very near future.

    It seems like some minorities end up being uniquely privileged in this sort of multicultural hodgepodge of conflicting interests. Kevin MacDonald wasn't exaggerating. Neither was Arthur Koestler when he made note of this phenomenon taking place in Vienna and Berlin (pre Hitler) eighty or ninety years ago.

    Darrell Steinberg proved his ecumenicalism almost immediately after his accession by booting out the old Christian senate chaplain and installing a feminist rabbi in his place. He obviously wanted to prove the 2% rules! Nothing like thumbing your nose in the face of the displaced gentile majority.

    I suggest that Mr. Sailer start collecting glass bottles. He will need them to install on the top of his ten foot high cement walls to keep the riffraff with an ever increasing grudge out. I hope shortly after that he suddenly come into possession of enough money to get entry to those well guarded and privately policed gated communities that are increasingly starting to appear in So Cal. just like they have in Mexico and virtually every other third world country.

    UK membership has worked to shield Scotland from non-white immigration – most immigrants go to London. SNP policy is to get a lot more immigrants to do the jobs Scots won’t do/pay the taxes Scots won’t pay. Scots need saving from themselves far more than they need saving from the UK.

  47. @BubbaJoe
    The SNP gets its strength from lowlander (‘Saxon’ per Macauley) Protestants who are pissed off at Labour’s corruption and pro-Catholic (pro-Irish-Catholic) bias, as much as anti-English.

    No.

    "But Catholics have become far more volatile. No less than 43 per cent of those who voted backed the SNP in the 2011 Holyrood election."

    Link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomgallagher/100257163/scottish-catholics-are-being-desperately-wooed-by-the-snp-they-could-swing-the-result/

    also...

    "In 1999's Social Attitudes survey, just 21% of Church of Scotland identifiers backed independence, compared to 34% of Catholics, and 31% of those of no religion. By 2012, 30% of Catholics supported independence, compared to 26% among those of no religion, and 17% among Church of Scotland ­identifiers."

    Link: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/catholics-are-most-pro-yes-religious-group-in-scotland.23704996
    George Galloway et al still try to peddle the SNP=anti-pro-Catholic line, but the voting shows otherwise. I'm kind of surprised you're doing the same.

    I think the referendum break down does show high Catholic support for independence, as you say. Apart from Dundee the *only* area with a pro-independence was Glasgow and its suburbs.

    I guess Mr Galloway (who had lunch at the next table to me at a cafe in Berwick recently) and myself both had out of date information. Although NB I did not say that the SNP itself was sectarian. Rather: Labour in Scotland is sectarian, and this drove Protestant socialists over to the SNP even if they weren’t that crazy for independence. Catholics supporting independence & the SNP does not necessarily mean that some Protestants don’t support the SNP because they see it as non-sectarian; it just means the Catholics don’t mind that the SNP is non-sectarian.

    Protestants vote SNP for non-sectarian socialism.
    Catholics vote SNP for independence from England.
    Seems plausible?

  48. @Simon in London
    "Scotland has three living tongues (Scots, English and Gaelic)."

    Confusingly, the original Scots were the Gaels (Dal Riata), Celts; but the "Scots" language is an Anglo-Germanic tongue, being a dialect of English.

    Yes, Simon in London. In olden days they called Gaelic “Erse” (Irish) or Highland Scots and “Scots” was always to my grandfather “Lowland Scots or Lallans or sometimes ‘braid Scots’”. And yes, though Scots has more than its share of Gaelic words it (many more than standard English) it is much closer to Middle English and is of course a dialect of English though some would claim for it a “language status.”

  49. @Simon in London
    Just a note that there were really many major components to Scotland. I'm not an expert (I expect some iSteve commenter can add/correct) but I have detected at least five:

    1. Picts, who were probably Celts but we still don't know for sure. Remained important in the north-Central region around Inverness.
    2. Dal Riata Celt invaders from north-east Ireland; the dominant group in creating 'Scotland'. The west coast of Scotland's population became a single population with that of northern Ireland, much moreso than the Scottish population as a whole. This is still the case today.
    3. Semi-Romanised Brythonic Celts in the south-west Kingdom of Strathclyde. William Wallace = 'Welsh' - Saxon 'foreigner' was presumably descended from this group.
    4. Norse Viking invaders in the far north, probably mostly from Norway. Norse also settled in the north-west Irelands and west coast but don't seem to have been numerically influential except in the far north.
    5. Saxons, the most important group, dominant all along the east coast of England and Scotland up past Aberdeen to the edge of the Grampians. You see names like Cruickshank (crooked-leg) in Aberdeenshire which are also common in Yorkshire. The area from Edinburgh south along the east coast seems to have become very heavily Saxon very early; which might connect to Edinburgh later being a major source of the Enlightenment and part of the small 'core Europe' area that created the modern world - along with eastern England, north-west France, the low countries and northwest Germany.

    The nobility eventually became heavily Anglo-Norman, but there were never a lot of Normans even in England.

    From what I can tell, 18th century Lowlanders (south & east) were primarily descended from a mix of Saxons (dominant in the east) and Brythonic Celts in the south-west. The Borderers who became a major component in the Scots-Irish would have had a good deal of Celtic ancestry; Cumbria to the south in north-west England means 'Land of the Cymri' ('People' - Celtic people).
    18th century Highlanders (north & west) were primarily descendants of Picts & Dal Riata Irish Celts; the northern Norse had also integrated into this group.

    I think it's fair to say that the Lowlanders were more Saxon-Germanic and the Highlanders more Celtic, but Lowlanders had Brythonic (south-west) and Pictish (east) elements, and Highlanders had a Norse element (except in the sparsely-populated north-central mountains); so they were both pretty mixed.

    I would say what you have written is generally true. Remember, however, that there has been constant Highland and Irish immigration to the lowlands in the 18th, 19th and 20th century. And Glasgow was always a cosmopolitan hub. I remember my father (who grew up in Glasgow and visited in the 1960’s) said there were about 50,000 Polish surnames in the Glasgow phone book. At the time most of these were descended of Free Poles many of whom married Scottish war widows.

    Different clans have different strains. By tradition the Munroes were “Irish Gael Crusaders” who intermarried with the local Picts for whom they were (?) probably mercenaries to fight the pagan Vass (or Vikings). Certain septs and clans were associated with Norse populations such as the Vass (a sept of the Munroes) and the Sutherlands and the Andersons etc. I doubt there is a person in the Western Isles or Sutherland (of old family) who does not have Norse ancestry. Nonetheless, my people considered themselves Highlanders and Gaels and curiously always considered the Norse or Vikings to be the enemy. And my grandfather noted with pride that no one in his family ever married a “South O’ the Dyke Lassie (an English woman) though he did not like to be reminded by my father that my father’s aunt was technically English as she was born in London when my great-grandfather was working there. But my father’s aunt protested vociferously that “Being born in a garidge (garage) does not make one a car.” So yes, Lowlanders tended to me more Saxon-Germanic but even the English themselves are not really “Anglo-Saxons” but Angl0-Celtic. Certainly many people of Wales and Corwall consider themselves Celts and in England as well many (old families) have native British (Celtic) ancestry.

  50. @Richard K. Munro
    Ah, Bonnie Scotland! Scotland has always had a very peculiar history. The lowlands always had more "southern influence" which means Roman, Norman and English. Most of the lowlands was Welsh-speaking (Old Welsh/Brythonic/British) until the 10th century. It is not known if this language was closely related to Pictish or not. It seems that Pictish has, at least, from what fragments we can gather, some non-indoeuropean roots. Scottish Gaelic, originally a dialect of Irish Gaelic, was a relative newcomer to Caledonia arriving in the 6th and 7th AD's. Then Gaelic became the language of Christianity and culture (along with Latin)and it spread virtually all over Scotland including most of the lowlands. A study of place names "baile" (town) and "achadh" (arable field) shows a Gaelic population thrived even in East Lothian. So Scotland was 90-95 Gaelic speaking circa 900-1150. The decisive change seems to have come after 1066 and the Anglo-Normans. French was seen more and more as the culture language (along with Latin) and the "Anglian" (English linguistic invasion gained ground significantly from the end of the 12th century. Due to intermarriage with Norman and English royalty and aristocrats English (Scots/"Inglis") had supplanted Gaelic in the royal court. Flodden (1513) was a real death blow to the primacy of Gaelic as the cream of the Gaelic aristocracy fell as well as James IV the last Gaelic-speaking monarch of Scotland. Scotland was about 22-25% Gaelic speaking as late as 1750. Then came Culloden (1746) Then the Highland Clearances, Industrialization and immigration reduced the numbers further. Today only about 2% of Scotland's population speak Gaelic as a native tongue. But the point is almost all "Macs" have Gaelic-speaking ancestors and Scotland has three living tongues (Scots, English and Gaelic). Most Scots -even if they are not fluent in Scots or Gaelic have a great fondness for the songs and poems and traditional sayings in these languages. When an English person says "England and Scotland are just the same with the same language, same culture and same history" he insults and infuriates most Scots. It is talk like that which has spurred the BU CHOIR (yes movement). It is interesting to note that the YES movement in multilingual using bilingual people to campaign in several languages while the NO movement (much older) is monolingual English. I believe Independence is inevitable if not now in 6-10 years.

    There is no question that the majority of Scots have voted for Union which means financial and national security. I remember what a shock it was with Il Sorpaso when Italy (briefly) surpassed Britain’s GNP. There is still enough pride in Britain and what was the British Empire so as not to want to fall back behind Brazil. I believe most older (and moneyed Scots) believe Independence as too much of a risk. But have we seen the last of it? in 1890 or even 1910 Irish independence might have seemed impossible. Yet the disaster of 1914-1918 weakened Unionist sentiment in Ireland (never as strong as in Scotland). And by 1922 Ireland was independent and soon out of the Commonwealth. The people I know who supported YES are young and determined to try again. It is amazing to think Scotland’s biggest city voted 53% for Independence. Certainly the near future will mean SNP will push for greater autonomy in Scotland itself and greater taxing authority.

  51. Somewhat relevant. Interesting stats on the racial and other breakdown of NFL players:

    http://www.besttickets.com/blog/nfl-player-census-2014/

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS