Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: Bizarre Scottish Regions | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 16:17:07 11/05/04 Fri In reply to: Ed Harris (Venezia) 's message, "And..." on 15:54:27 11/05/04 Fri I agree with Ed here. Regional boundaries are more than just lines on a map. They are a part of our identity. I understand why people from Australia or Canada might be puzzled by this, as their boundaries are just arbitrary straight lines in many instances. We have so many historical boundaries in this country such as the constituent countries of the UK, the ancient provinces of Anglo-Saxon times, and the present day county shires, which Britain would be a much poorer place without. It’s funny that you should mention Scotland Ed, as this is exactly what happened during the seventies, when the last iconoclastic Labour Government were in power. They abolished our historic shires and ancient kingdoms, and replaced them with meaningless monolithic regions such as Strathclyde, Highlands and Islands, Grampian, Border, Central and so forth. Strathclyde was probably the worst, and lumped in people from the Argyll peninsular, Isle of Arran, Ayrshire and Metropolitan Glasgow in the same Authority. Thankfully, the Conservatives ended this madness, and restored the county system. Although I got my county back, it was split into three (North, South and East Ayrshire), but for political reasons, this is no bad thing. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Provinces | |
|
Author: Deira Bernicia [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:57:01 11/05/04 Fri "We have so many historical boundaries in this country such as the constituent countries of the UK, the ancient provinces of Anglo-Saxon times" The only Anglo-Saxon province in Scotland was Northumbria. Try Norse, Pictish etc [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ? | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:03:46 11/05/04 Fri Genetically, the whole of the East coast of Scotland up to and including Dundee has been populated by Anglo-Saxons since they arrived here in the dark ages. It is referred to as the "Anglo-Saxon coast" historically. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Wrong!!! Very wrong! | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:10:04 11/05/04 Fri The Anglo-Saxons reached the Forth. They did NOT reach the Tay. Hence you find medieval English names in Fife, but not true Anglo-Saxon ones. You will however find plenty of Pictish and Gaelic names in Fife and Dundee from around a thousand years ago. The main boundary of the Anglian kingdom was the Forth to the north, and the Esk in the west, although this boundary was unstable, and once reached into West Lothian. Genes don't come into it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I suggest you find out what you are talking about... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:06:26 11/06/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Actually he/she is right - the Anglo-Saxons didn't reach the Tay, they reached the Forth, a big difference. They didn't reach Glasgow either nt | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:12:23 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:26:17 11/07/04 Sun And don't the Highlanders traditionally refer to Lowlanders as 'Sassenachs', which, I can only presume from my limited knowledge of Gaelic, means 'Saxon'? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Generally no | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:01:39 11/08/04 Mon The Highlanders tended to refer to the Lowlanders as "Gall". Incidentally this same element is found in the name of the Hebrides (na h-Innse Gall), DoneGAL, GALLoway (Gaidhlig speaking until the 19th century see Lorimer et al in "Scottish Gaelic Studies", "Carn" and other sources), and GALway. The Lowlands are known as "Galldachd" (Gall-dom), NOT "Sasainn". Sasunnach does indeed mean Saxon, but what Wattie Scott got wrong, is that it was more used for proper English, than anglicised Lowlanders. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I see... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:20:25 11/09/04 Tue Thanks for the correction. I see I must brush up on my Gaelic. I have a copy of Mog an Cat somewhere which may help. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Anglo Saxon Scotland | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:40:05 11/06/04 Sat Deira, whether there were Anglo-Saxon provinces in Scotland or not is irrelevant. I imagine you were trying to correct something I said with your comments? If you look at my quote that you so helpfully included in your post, you will see that I made no such reference to Anglo-Saxon Scotland. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |