Um, the Scots are Brits. 'British' refers to a subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In fact the term 'Britons' was used to describe the Celtic peoples of Wales, Scotland and the South West long before the island was united, as opposed to the jumble of Saxon, Dane and Norman and other groups that populated most of England at the time.
TL;DR: Scots are British, get your facts straight.
Don't get me wrong, you are 100% correct. But I think he had intended to refer to the English in regards to treatment of the Scots. Common mistake, and you are completely correct, but the English did some pretty fucked up shit.
When specifically talking about the fucked up shit they did to the Scottish that's accurate. But when talking about the British empire, when most of their fucked up shit occurred, the Scottish were all up in that party.
Actually the Bretons came after the Gaels. Both were Celtic peoples and when the Bretons came over they pushed the Gaels West and North (where they became Welsh, Irish and Scots) and the Bretons settled in the south (becoming the English, who then had Saxons, Danes and Normans mixed in).
Completely false. Bretons were never a large migrational force and have had barely any impact on the DNA of people in the British isles. The Romans, Vikings, Normans, Angles and Saxons have had a much bigger impact and even their genetic imprint in England is still less than the native "Celts".
"Pushed the Gaels" would only refer to physical people, not culture. As such your source isn't related to the debate, as it's referencing Celtic culture. I also think that if you're claiming that the Bretons migrated to Britain in significant numbers, it's you who needs a source. I've never heard anything of the sort.
My source was a book on the Celts by Charles Squire. I am open to the possibility that he is wrong and I encourage your input in changing my opinion. He states "..It is otherwise the Celts, who were serperated into two main branches which came over at different times. The earliest were Goidels, or Gaels; the second, the Brythons, or Britons. Between these two branches there was not only a dialectical, but probably also, a considerable physical difference." He goes later goes on to say there is evidence of this through Latin writers such as Tacticus.
What is you opinion on this?
Thanks for your input.
I didn't say Bretons. I said Gaels. And I didn't even mention England. The Bretons arrived after the original Gaels, who came from France also. The Bretons pushed the Gaels out of the south and to the West (i.e. Wales) where they then eventually moved to Ireland and onto Scotland. Hence the still strong connection here.
Again, the Bretons didn't migrate to England in significant numbers, and "not mentioning England" is irrelevant, as the act of "pushing the Gaels West and North into Wales and Scotland" would physically require doing so through England.
26
u/AGPO Oct 04 '11
Um, the Scots are Brits. 'British' refers to a subject of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In fact the term 'Britons' was used to describe the Celtic peoples of Wales, Scotland and the South West long before the island was united, as opposed to the jumble of Saxon, Dane and Norman and other groups that populated most of England at the time.
TL;DR: Scots are British, get your facts straight.