Talk:Scotland/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Is Scotland a country or not?

Scotland fails the definition of country on many counts: it doesn't produce its own money, regulate its trade, etc. At the very least, there should be a section discussing the countryness of Scotland. — the previous unsigned comments by User:207.81.169.16

Your question, interesting as it is, isn't so much about the "countryness of Scotland" as about the countryness of the word "country." That is to say, there's no doubt that Scotland is not a sovereign state; but there is disagreement among various people as to whether the word "country" is synonomous with "sovereign state." Most of us don't think so, which is why the article calls Scotland a "country." I'm sure if you look through this talk page's archives (see the link at the top of the page) you'll see past discussions about this very question. Cheers, Doops | talk 09:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Scotland produces its own money (there is a Scottish pound). Marco Neves 09:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed this from the intro:

• "Despite that, Scotland is still considered to be a country in its own right since many key national institutions were retained and have remained constitutionally entrenched ever since."

Although this is true, it is not why Scotland (and England, and Wales, and other non-sovereign entities) is referred to as a country. The reason is that the word country is primarily a geographical descriptor, not a political one. Although nation, country and state are often used as synonyms, they do in fact all have different meanings: nation is a cultural designation; country is geographical; and state is political (and not necessarily a fully sovereign entity either, eg Idaho or Baden-Württemberg).

To be crystal clear, as we must be in an encyclopedia, you must refer to a fully independent state by the designation sovereign state or independent state. Nowhere does Wikipedia refer to Scotland as either of those things after 1 May 1707.--Mais oui! 09:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's actually debatable that Scotland was a fully independent state between the Union of the Crowns and the Act of Union given that parliamentary legislation needed royal assent from a London based monarch who pre-1688 had "Divine Right of Kings" notions of absolute authority. Is the Kingdom of Ireland regarded as having been a fully independent state prior to the Union of 1801 in wikipedia terms? The siuation there was in many ways analogous to that of Scotland between 1603 and 1707. Benarty 10:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

See article: Personal union. Wikipedia articles used to be a bit vague, or downright inconsistent, on this topic, but the consensus in the last year or two appears to have firmly settled: members states of personal unions are treated as sovereign states.--Mais oui! 16:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Benarty's Shepherd's map

A dated map is more useful because it helps readers who do not have any prior knowledge of Scottish history in the Dark Ages to understand where the various warring kingdoms were located. Benarty 11:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That explains why this misleading map it is slightly useful, but not why it is more useful. I would find the inclusion of your map, Benarty, more convincing if it pertained to the period after the 9th century. - Calgacus 11:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What is supposed to be misleading about the map? The choice of date is ideal for illustrating the four component regions that subsequently fused together i.e. Dalriada, Pictavia, Strathclyde and Lothian. Benarty 12:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The map is a great deal misleading. Galloway was not part of Strathclyde, and neither was it totally or even mostly Brythonic in 800. The "Picts" and "Scots" were not united for the first time in 843, and neither was Pictland a unitary state. Moreover, the ethnic boundaries portrayed on the map are not correct for 800. And, it's a small point, but "Scotland" didn't exist then either. Where's the note on the map explaining all this? Besides, 800 is very early given the on top in the text. - Calgacus 12:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the map on higher scale you will find that there is reference to the date 843 AD where the use of Scotland is concerned. Are you are arguing that Galloway existed in 802 as it did later as a Gaelic sub-kingdom? That's not the conventional interpretation AFAIA. Benarty 12:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Scotland still didn't exist in 843 either, although you could accuse me fairly enough of being overly pedantic on this particular point. I'm not saying Galloway existed in 800 (or 802); but I am saying it was not part of "Strathclyde," which it clearly wasn't, and that it was not totally Brythonic. The west, like the entire west coast of Scotland, was, if you believe placename evidence, using the Old Irish language. Whithorn and lowland east Galloway were under Anglian control, and the uplands were probably semi-independent Celtic chieftains more likely to be paying tribute to Northumbria than the Kingdom of the Cumbrians. - Calgacus 12:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there was some Anglian and Gaelic settlement does not preclude Brythonic overlordship. Placename evidence can be a highly dubious approach. I am going to amend the caption to include the "one interpretation" approach used in the caption for the Scottis-Inglis map which is also problematic if people decided to be pedantic given that for example a Norn speaking Norwegian area is clearly not shown correctly. Benarty 12:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't preclude Brythonic overlordship, but hardly makes up for the fact that there is no evidence for Brythonic overlordship of Galloway, which is extremely unlikely in any case, and probably impossible for the period 800. And actually, the map which that Scottis-Inglis map is based on has no Norn speaking areas. ;) - Calgacus 12:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Orkney is depicted which did not become part of Scotland until 1468 and which is known to have remained partially Norn speaking for at least a couple of centuries after that To this day Orkney retains a vast number of Norse placenames. The history of Orkney demonstrates how political control and language usage do not always neatly coincide and cannot possibly be deduced in the Dark Ages from a study of placename distribution. Benarty 12:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Benarty, Orkney was part of the Pictish political system, on which a native Celtic (probably Pictish) language was spoken (although there are also numerous Gaelic ogham inscriptions). Ah, here I am defending your map! If you're refering to the other map, unless I'm blind, Orkney is not depicted at all. Placenames are more reliable than you make out, because placenames are descriptive and do not become fixed until organized literacy comes about; which is why Lowland Scotland (outside Lothian), almost totally English speaking since the later Middle Ages, has mostly Celtic names; because these names were recorded in the Gaelic period, and became fixed then. In the far north, the Viking invasions created sharp cultural disconinuity, testifying to the violence of Viking settlement; and one of the tragedies of Scottish historiography is that the Vikings eliminated virtually all earlier placenames where they settled. - Calgacus 13:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

No point pursuing this further. Orkney is depicted on the Scottis-Inglis map despite your assertion above that "And actually, the map which that Scottis-Inglis map is based on has no Norn speaking areas. ;)". The 802 AD map is not my map it is Shepperd's.

Well, the harp issue is still in the air, and for me so is your map, especially since you just went ahead without discussion (with no reason that I can see) and moved it as an aid to understanding Scotland in the Norman period. LOL BTW, I looked again at the map, and I still don't see Orkney. Am I becoming blind? - Calgacus 13:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of Orkney (a Norn speaking part of Norway rather than Scotland in 1400) is clearly visible on the Scottis-Inglis map off the coast off Caithness. At no point have I suggested that Shepperd's map is an aid to understanding Scotland in the Norman period. Benarty 16:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

well, a tiny bit of it is. So what? Oh yeah, and the Orkney earls were joint Scoto-Norwegian vassals, not just Norwegian vassals, and Orkney itself had a few Gaelic rulers. But you're correct that Orkney was legally part of Norway. I don't know what you expect me to conclude from that though. - Calgacus 16:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Scottis-Inglis map is alleged to be based on some sort of analysis of placename evidence. Even in modern times almost 550 years after the Scottish takeover, Norn rather than Scots based placenames predominate in Orkney. Worth noting that if placenames are the main citerion that also holds true for the coastal regions of Caithness. Benarty 16:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh Benarty, the map isn't saying that English was spoken in Orkney (=coastal Caithness) any more than Scottish was spoken in Ireland; it merely has the Germanic color. You got yourself into a big misunderstanding - Calgacus 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is clear from the use of "English" and "Scottish" rather than "Scots" and "Gaelic" that Calgacus is trying to promote a particular viewpoint. Benarty 16:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what viewpoint that would be Benarty. I used those terms in that way because they are literal translations of the terms in the map. :p - Calgacus 16:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Norman French was the language of the English aristocratic elite at this point in history. Totally different environment from the modern day situation because the modern nation had not emerged yet. Benarty 17:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, by 1400 that was not so much the case as before, but you're roughly correct on French as the main language of the English elite. I already know this though, what difference does it make? - Calgacus 17:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Anglian is the literal translation of "Inglis" into modern terminology. Benarty 17:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Anglian is a Latinate derivative (usually meaning exactly the same thing). English is the literal translation. If you called an Englishman an Anglian-man, you probably wouldn't be understood as referring to anything but an episcopalian churchman. - Calgacus 17:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Modern notions of nationhood are being projected back to the feudal era when people did not have that sort of identity yet and multilingualism was normal. Ireland was Scotia major while Scotland was Scotia minor. It wasn't just "Inglis" that could apply in more than one kingdom. Scottis translating literally in modern terms as Gaelic could as well. Benarty 17:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also a modern myth that medieval people had no ethnic identity. In Scotland's case, the Middle Ages was the only time when the Scots had one ethnic identity. Inglis was the ethnic term for an English speaker, an inhabitant of England (in a political context) or language of the English, while Scottis was likewise the ethnic term for a Gaelic speaker, an inhabitant of Scotland (politically) or the Gaelic language. "Scottish" writers of English-speaking background, like the chroniclers of the Melrose Chronicle or Andrew Wyntoun, frequently use the word "Scot" for in derogarory or outlandising way, but then refer to themselves with the same word. Lothian was frequently called England by both the Scottismen and the Inglismen, while Scotland could refer to both Britain north of the forth and north of the Tweed, or indeed northern Britain and Ireland collectively. Blah blah, etc, etc. Is this convo going anywhere? - Calgacus 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

National identity (or in reality which dude with a crown was at the top of the pile in feudal terms) and ethnocultural identity were not necessarily one and the same as they later became with the devlopment of the 19th century nation state. In England the dude with a crown was Norman French in ethnocultural terms and still held lands in what is now modern France as well. Benarty 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course not, but ethnic and various other forms of communal identity (including "political" identity) existed then as now. The extent of Scottish identity (as opposed to pan-Gaelic identity) before 1286, though, is highly debatable. The one thing the Gaels and English had in common in the period after 1124 was being ruled by a French-speaker. - Calgacus 17:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

One of the quirks of history is that "Inglis" speech which I would translate as being "Anglian" in an ethnocultural rather than a rigidly national sense arguably had a higher status in Scotland than it did in England in that era. The change in terminology to a more rigidly national from an ethnocultural sort of basis came when Norman French ceased to be the elite language in the Kingdom of England. Over and out for me for now. Benarty 17:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)