A Scottish dominated England:

A language is a dialect with an army. Scots (which is not English spoken today in even the broadest of Scottish accents, but rather the language of Burns, except when he wrote in English, obviously) is every bit as distinct as Belarusian and Slovak. And while indeed there have historically been English (and German) dialects of similar distinctiveness, none have ever been considered languages by anyone (well, except Dutch). Whereas Scots was distinguished from English by Burns and Smith in their own works.
I'm sure there are lots of writings in other dialects too. I'm no expert on medieval German but I'm rather sure they would have used terms like "Its written in Saxon" and the like too.
Scots formerly being more different...yeah, but then so were English dialects. I recall a tale of when George Stephenson went down to London, I think he met the king- it may have just been some other important person though- and they said "What? Who is this man? Is he speaking German?"


No, it's an incorrect wording of Anglo-Saxon. Do you call Australians and Americans "English" to their faces? That would be a silly thing to do. Besides causing offense, it would be wrong, since they don't live in England or feel any affinity with English national identity. Anglo-Saxon (in the modern Anglospheric sense) they undeniably are, as are the Scots. So say that.
Of course I wouldn't as that would be silly.
When we're talking about cultures though and speaking in a broad historical sense then its valid to say they are English (though British would be better there given when Australia was colonised).

How about "historical sense"? Or just call them the Dalriadans to simplify things. In any case the historical Scots in no way make the modern Scots any less Scottish.
Yes they do if we're looking at the broad scope of history. Just as the British aren't technically British the Scots aren't technically Scots.
Purely looking at things from today then of course Scotland is Scotland. When we're on about 1000+ years ago though then you have to talk about the Scots as being purely the Gaels and the Northumbrians as being English.

I know all this perfectly well, but they (the Northumbrians) didn't "steal" anything. They by a very gradual process changed a meaning, but Scotland was a continuous entity and its Germanification remains incomplete as far as the Western Isles are concerned.
Ditto too for Prussia.

Of course, although they obviously overlap considerably, but that's no reason to go around calling Scottish people "fake" or "English".
I didn't call them fake.

I think what the problem is here is you're looking at it from a modern perspective and taking English to mean purely of modern England whilst I'm speaking more about the distant past, including the times when England was not even solidified as a nation and instead you just had English people spread all across the island- including in Scotland. I'm using English in a 'Anglo-Saxon' sense. Sorry for the confusion.
 

Thande

Donor
I recall a tale of when George Stephenson went down to London, I think he met the king- it may have just been some other important person though- and they said "What? Who is this man? Is he speaking German?"

But that's because he was, given that it was George III ;)

A better comparison would be Chaucer's story about the Londoners shipwrecked on the Kentish coast and the Kentishmen thought they must be French, as their version of English was completely mutually incomprehensible.
 
I'm sure there are lots of writings in other dialects too.

I'm sure the greatest Northumbrian poet published his works "In Northumbrian and English". Because Burns did.

Of course I wouldn't as that would be silly.

Then why are you calling Scottish people English to their faces?

When we're talking about cultures though and speaking in a broad historical sense then its valid to say they are English (though British would be better there given when Australia was colonised).

If we're talking about identity, they're Australian and have been since 1931 at least. If we're talking about descent, which we really shouldn't be, many are Croatian. What of it?

Yes they do if we're looking at the broad scope of history. Just as the British aren't technically British the Scots aren't technically Scots.

The British are British and the Scottish are Scots. Words change their meanings over time, and to deny this is absurd purism. Are the French not French because they don't speak Frankish? The Russians not Russian because they don't hail from Roslagen (and yeah, I know that's disputed)? Either words can change their meanings and the British and Scots are real, or no-one is anything.

Purely looking at things from today then of course Scotland is Scotland. When we're on about 1000+ years ago though then you have to talk about the Scots as being purely the Gaels and the Northumbrians as being English.

Actually, the Northumbrians were Angles. English national identity and unity began to emerge out of a tangle of Germanic tribes mostly thanks to a common enemy in the Danes. It wa sthe Danes who cut off the Northumbrians so that they ended up in Scotland and soon became Scots by the "modern" definition, which goes bac to the Wars of Independence at least.

Ditto too for Prussia.

Uh, no. A state in Prussia which continued to consider itself Prussian and had a small balt minority would be comparable, but Prussia ended up touching the Rhine, which rather breaks continuity.

I didn't call them fake.

If the modern Scots are not "Scots in the true sense" the implication is balatant, especially since you did call us English.

I think what the problem is here is you're looking at it from a modern perspective and taking English to mean purely of modern England whilst I'm speaking more about the distant past, including the times when England was not even solidified as a nation and instead you just had English people spread all across the island- including in Scotland. I'm using English in a 'Anglo-Saxon' sense.

Then why don't you save everybody a great deal of offense, confusion, and debate over whether Anglo-Saxons from before the English nation were meaningfully English (which in my opinion they weren't) by saying "Anglo-Saxon"?

But that's because he was, given that it was George III ;)

A better comparison would be Chaucer's story about the Londoners shipwrecked on the Kentish coast and the Kentishmen thought they must be French, as their version of English was completely mutually incomprehensible.

I've heard that one. True, of course. Before the railway most "languages" turned mutually incomprehensible at the edges, but as I said it's all about identity. Slovak is a language because Slovakia is a country even though there are varieties of German more distinct from Berlin speech than Slovak is from that of Prague.
 
Last edited:
The British are British and the Scottish are Scots. Words change their meanings over time, and to deny this is absurd purism. Are the French not French because they don't speak Frankish? The Russians not Russian because they don't hail from Roslagen (and yeah, I know that's disputed)? Either words can change their meanings and the British and Scots are real, or no-one is anything.
Of course words change their meaning, that's not the point here. Its just the original meanings that are being used.
And yes, you're right the French aren't technically French, etc...

Actually, the Northumbrians were Angles. English national identity and unity began to emerge out of a tangle of Germanic tribes mostly thanks to a common enemy in the Danes. It wa sthe Danes who cut off the Northumbrians so that they ended up in Scotland and soon became Scots by the "modern" definition, which goes bac to the Wars of Independence at least.
Uncertain, many sources from the time show there was an idea of 'Englishness' pre unification even if it was just one of "OK, we're all Germans on this bit of the island and the others aren't"
And yeah, I'd agree the modern definition of Scots goes back to the Wars of Independence.

Then why don't you save everybody a great deal of offense, confusion, and debate over whether Anglo-Saxons from before the English nation were meaningfully English (which in my opinion they weren't) by saying "Anglo-Saxon"?
I don't like that term. Its too exclusive (only Angles and Saxons) and too genetic. Though the etymology of English is even more exclusive it carries a broader feel with it (not that that's too relevant...The English in Scotland were Angles after all) and feels less racial.
Anglo-Saxon also feels a bit early, its more suited to the period of the initial invasions. By the time Scotland began to take on a Anglo-Saxon/English identity though this was long in the past, we'd had vikings thrown into the mix and were beginning to have some French added in too.
English is also what the English speakers in Scotland called themselves up until a certain point when the separate nations of England and Scotland began to really solidify.


But that's because he was, given that it was George III ;)

Nahh, they were referring to Stephenson when they said this of course ;)
 
Of course words change their meaning, that's not the point here. Its just the original meanings that are being used.
And yes, you're right the French aren't technically French, etc...

Well that's just a load of unhelpful purism. if the French aren't French, the distinctions are useless anyway. And what we're discussing is whether the historical sense is the "true" one.

Uncertain, many sources from the time show there was an idea of 'Englishness' pre unification even if it was just one of "OK, we're all Germans on this bit of the island and the others aren't"

But they weren't! Germanism was emarging at about the same time as Englishism in, well, Germany. See Susano for further information. Before that, both "nations" were a lot of Germanic tribes with no particular common identity and nutually incomprehensible languages.

And yeah, I'd agree the modern definition of Scots goes back to the Wars of Independence.

I'd put it at least a bit before.

I don't like that term. Its too exclusive (only Angles and Saxons) and too genetic. Though the etymology of English is even more exclusive it carries a broader feel with it and feels less racial.

Erm, you may think it does, but the populations of Scotland, America, Anglo-Canada, the Anglo-Caribbean, Australia and New Zealand disagree. English does not carry a "broader feel", it carries a feel of referring to two thirs of Great Britain and not a world-spanning culture which I call English-speaking civilisation or the Anglosphere but which I don't object to calling Anglo-Saxon, as this has no possibility for confusion and offense.

And what's "only Angles and Saxons" supposed to mean? The Jutes feel left out? What about the millions in the Anglo-Sphere of altogether differant descen? The population of Jamaica, for example?

Anglo-Saxon also feels a bit early, its more suited to the period of the initial invasions. By the time Scotland began to take on a Anglo-Saxon/English identity though this was long in the past, we'd had vikings thrown into the mix and were beginning to have some French added in too.

By the time Scotland was Scotland, England was England, and I don't think Vikings and Normans really change that equation.

English is also what the English speakers in Scotland called themselves up until a certain point when the separate nations of England and Scotland began to really solidify.

I'd imagine they called themselves Aenglethruthlethriffens or whatever it was, in fact. Languages and words change both change.

Nahh, they were referring to Stephenson when they said this of course ;)

Doesn't change my response.
 
@ Leej & IBC: would Ingvaeonicisation be a more acceptable term? ;) :rolleyes:

@ Grey Wolf: I can surely see a Kingdom of the Scots, Cumbrians, & Angles slowing reaching down through Britain taking up Anglo-danish and Welsh states :cool:
 
@ Leej & IBC: would Ingvaeonicisation be a more acceptable term? ;) :rolleyes:

Yes, if an overly cumbersome one. I know this can look pretty silly to an outsider, but we Scots are emphatically not English and people insisting we are is a sort of nationa Berserk Button.

@ Grey Wolf: I can surely see a Kingdom of the Scots, Cumbrians, & Angles slowing reaching down through Britain taking up Anglo-danish and Welsh states :cool:

GW's scenario is quite similar to mine, really. I'm sorry I missed his post earlier.
 
Last edited:
I know this can look pretty silly to an outsider, but we Scots are emphatically not English and people insisting we are is a sort of nationa Berserk Button.

As an Englishman myself I quite understand :D. I think Anglian is more what Leej is trying to say. Our language unfortunately lacks the distinction between English (eg language, descent etc) and "Englandish" (eg relating to the state, nationality, etc).

That said I always consider myself British first and English second. Try explaining that to someone who considers British to mean Old Welsh or Brythonic *sigh*.
 
As an Englishman myself I quite understand :D. I think Anglian is more what Leej is trying to say. Our language unfortunately lacks the distinction between English (eg language, descent etc) and "Englandish" (eg relating to the state, nationality, etc).

That said I always consider myself British first and English second. Try explaining that to someone who considers British to mean Old Welsh or Brythonic *sigh*.

Oh, I know. I'm British first too. I actually once used this to mock a chap who is an American with this bizarre, Anglophobic, and very ignorant view of British history when in a DBWI we referred to the "British Commonwealth" committing "ethnic cleansing" in Scotland. Since that would be stupid with our post-1707 Britishness, I turned the British Commonwealth into a Brythonic *fascist state determined to drive Gaels and Saxons into the sea!
 
But they weren't! Germanism was emarging at about the same time as Englishism in, well, Germany. See Susano for further information. Before that, both "nations" were a lot of Germanic tribes with no particular common identity and nutually incomprehensible languages.
They did have a common identity. Bede often talked of England.

Erm, you may think it does, but the populations of Scotland, America, Anglo-Canada, the Anglo-Caribbean, Australia and New Zealand disagree. English does not carry a "broader feel", it carries a feel of referring to two thirs of Great Britain and not a world-spanning culture which I call English-speaking civilisation or the Anglosphere but which I don't object to calling Anglo-Saxon, as this has no possibility for confusion and offense.
I prefer Anglo-Celtic in a modern sense. Brings the whole of the isles into the fold too. Still I'd prefer it if there was some other term, even that carries too many racial connotations.

And what's "only Angles and Saxons" supposed to mean? The Jutes feel left out? What about the millions in the Anglo-Sphere of altogether differant descen? The population of Jamaica, for example?
Thats the main jist of my not liking anglo-saxon.
Its too tied in with the original tribes and latter terms like WASP. Too exclusive.
By the time Scotland was Scotland, England was England, and I don't think Vikings and Normans really change that equation.
They changed a lot.
As you said the vikings were quite responsible for there even being a united England and Scotland as we know them.
For the Normans half of the words we use today are derived from French. That the south gained more French influence than northern Britain is quite a major distinguishing factor between the two in fact.


Lets drop this now, its a argument over nothing.


As an Englishman myself I quite understand . I think Anglian is more what Leej is trying to say. Our language unfortunately lacks the distinction between English (eg language, descent etc) and "Englandish" (eg relating to the state, nationality, etc).
Aye.
 
Well, you could always go with having the Scots inherit the English throne, except that already happened in 1603. Of course, thanks to England having far more wealth and population than Scotland it didn't take very long for the Stuarts to become fairly Anglicized, and in all likelihood that the eventual fate for any Scottish regime that manages a takeover.

How and how fast is another matter.

James VI got England basically as a gift from treacherous courtiers of Elizabeth. Scottish people got nothing from England. James promptly moved to England with a few courtiers, and stayed.

But suppose that England were forcibly conquered by an army of Scots paid for by Parliament of Scotland and effectively answerable to those Estates, not a King.

If England continues to be run by Estates elected by constituencies of Scotland, those Estates are not so easy to move to England.

So, imagine that a Scottish occupation army is in London and elsewhere in England, answerable to the Tables back in Scotland, the Estates of Scotland (and not English parliament) is voting for taxation to be levied in England and forfeitures of land for Popish, Episcopal or otherwise rebel English landholders, Solemn League and Covenant is enforced at the point of bayonet and the said Estates taking the example from Ulster commands plantations of godly Scots to be founded on confiscated English lands.

I suspect that in 1640-s, this might not be quite ASB.

What next?
 
But suppose that England were forcibly conquered by an army of Scots paid for by Parliament of Scotland and effectively answerable to those Estates, not a King.
Err.. Say what!? How is a nation that is only, what, 1/5 or less the size of her neighbor AND poorer per capita too boot, going to conquer the bigger neighbor?!?!?
 
You would need Scotland to have more good farmland, the only way I can see that happening is for the scots to grabs some of Northern England, giving them a larger population.

How to do this though?

What about during the Norman invasion, Scotland joins in on the Norman side, in exchange for Yorkshire? Maybe they just grab Northern England, and claim they were backing the Normans. The Normans might not like it, but they claimed they were invading England due to a broken oath as much as anything, so it might be a little difficult to claim it all easily. It still seems difficult since the Normans would want all of the country, and eventually they'd probably get it...

So just having a scottish nation form earlier, and conquering the small kingdoms before wessex managed to do it seems easier.

Maybe the scots could stick togethor, a unified Irish-Scottish nation might have a large enough population to compete. Possibly they could add Wales in....

It would be very difficult to see this happen, not that I'm against it of course.............
 
It happened in real life: James VI moved down to England, and begat a "Scottish" house ruling an English realm.

The problem is that the Stuarts were England's answer to China's Manchus: invaders from a poorer, smaller realm who rapidly assimilated into the mainstream English culture. So much so that Queen Anne, only three generations removed from a Scots king, considered herself "wholly English".

The later Stuarts viewed Scotland as something of a nuisance best kept at arms length through a series of loyal managers. Any connection they had with their ancestral homeland was minimal and pragmatic. The same thing has been happening for generations ever since. A Scotsman becomes successful, moves to London, and has kids who think of themselves as English. It happened in my own family.

The latest point at which I could see a Scottish dominated England is during the civil war. With the right diplomacy, aimed at dividing England in the long term or even permanently, Scotland could have become a lynchpin in any diplomacy between the two halves.

Even this wouldn't be a political dominance, more a strategic (and possibly religious) one. With time, it could consolidate into something more permanent - a Presbyterian, monarchist Scotland and northern English/Welsh client state, ruled be a reluctant Stuart king from Edinburgh versus a Republican, Puritan south ruled by Cromwell's military government in London.

The problem with this question is that Scotland can't officially dominate England without it's leadership becoming English. That's just the way the populations are.
 
Err.. Say what!? How is a nation that is only, what, 1/5 or less the size of her neighbor AND poorer per capita too boot, going to conquer the bigger neighbor?!?!?

By being the biggest united force in the field.

England was conquered by Duchy of Normandy (smaller and less populous). England conquered a far more populous India.

During the Bishops´ Wars, the Scots were more mobilized than the English. And the English were less united than Scots. Then there was the second English civil war... Imagine that the Scots were to succeed in crushing the New Model Army - in alliance with royalists but in a manner that leaves the Scots as the stronger ally. After all, in 1660, England was conquered by an army that came from Scotland (that of Monck).

As I mentioned, Scottish court and king could easily move to England and be assimilated, like James VI did. However, if England is conquered by an army in the name of Charles II that is effectively commanded by generals answerable to Tables and parliament in Scotland elected by Scottish constituencies, with Scottish voters voting taxes to be imposed on English taxpayers and disbursed to Scottish soldiers, then this kind of set up will be a bit more complicated to move.
 
By being the biggest united force in the field.

England was conquered by Duchy of Normandy (smaller and less populous). England conquered a far more populous India.

The Norman invasion: I don't have the numbers but Normandy wasn't that far behind England i'd think. France was far richer than England. Also that wasn't a war of conquest, it was a battle for succession. A very different thing to what a Scottish invasion would involve.

India: England (nor Britain) never conquered it.
 
By being the biggest united force in the field.

England was conquered by Duchy of Normandy (smaller and less populous). England conquered a far more populous India.

During the Bishops´ Wars, the Scots were more mobilized than the English. And the English were less united than Scots. Then there was the second English civil war... Imagine that the Scots were to succeed in crushing the New Model Army - in alliance with royalists but in a manner that leaves the Scots as the stronger ally. After all, in 1660, England was conquered by an army that came from Scotland (that of Monck).

As I mentioned, Scottish court and king could easily move to England and be assimilated, like James VI did. However, if England is conquered by an army in the name of Charles II that is effectively commanded by generals answerable to Tables and parliament in Scotland elected by Scottish constituencies, with Scottish voters voting taxes to be imposed on English taxpayers and disbursed to Scottish soldiers, then this kind of set up will be a bit more complicated to move.

Ya, but if it's Scots forces aid one side in a civil war, which is what you're basically talking about, that's not 'Scots conquering England'. And, no, I don't really see this ending in a Scots dominated England.
 
In 1707, the population of Scotland was approx one million, as opposed to Englands five million, the disparity in population has not always been as great as it is today, although Scotland was in the direst state since Edward decided to act like a total bastard.

All it would take would be a seriously divided England, an aggresive Scotland and a lucky military campaign which institutes Government from Edinburgh through a Governor by proxy. Its hardly asb, I mean look at the Spanish Netherlands(although gained by different means)....

Why would anyone want this though?
 
Top