Thanks Salim for replying and it is interesting to read that the villagers near Hadrians Wall can be traced as akin to Northern Syrians for there is another link between UK Celts and Syria/Scythia.
From what I understand the Saxons when invading Britain attempted to enter the area we call today the Lothians. This was the breadbasket of the Britons and from what I understand the Saxons were pushed out to Lindisfarne when the Picts, Scots and Britons united to defeat them in battle. This is supposed to be the birth of the Saltire as a national emblem and it also leads to the acceptance of Christianity by the Picts and the birth of Alba, which leads eventually to Scotland. The Saxons at this time were heathen and the Scots were the race to convert them.
The whole basis of the brigand/thief reference to "Scotti" resides in such wonderful and accurate historians as Bede who also put forward the Scots were the produce or bastards of the Irish and the Picts. The Scots women being given to Pictish men and based on the late Roman writers who refer to the Scots and the Picts as attacking and harassing their northern borders of the empire.
I believe that is a biased and untrue foundation of the Scots and earliest writings indicate that the Scots named themselves after a Queen or noblewoman. Indeed the lands were called Scota Major and Scota Minor and you would surely expect Scotti Major and Minor. The term Eriguena as indicating an Ireland stems from after the fall of Rome, (and the Germanisation of Europe in many ways), perhaps coming from Ire meaning North and all earlier references are to Scota.
The main problem with the Gaul argument when looking at the Scots falls apart as the Gauls had developed the use of P and the Scots had not. I believe that the Britons were the peoples who populated the areas we now call Northumbria, Lothians, Lanarkshire, Strathclyde and Cumbria and Welsh may be a remnant of this. Welsh was spoken in Edinburgh as recently as 120 years ago and more recent in outlying areas. Again we see the use of P which would tie welsh speakers in with the Gauls. Galashiels, one of the areas that spoke Welsh until the last century, is not far removed from Galatia and shows Gaullic roots granted. However, these peoples were only Scots from the time of MacAlpin and the eventual subjugation of Northumbria and Cumbria back into Scots hands only to be given to the Normans via suzerainty in the time of David I.
Columbanus wasn't the founder of monastery orders but he did introduce them to Germany, Austria, Northern Italy, Flanders etc so I stand corrected on that. He also was the first to establish their independence as he founded monasteries without diocese (Cardinal) or Papal permission. From what I understand the Norse attacks begin after the unification of the Britons, Picts and Scots and the beginning of "Scotland" which was known as Alba and I do not see where they come in when talking about Scots other than the raids and blackmail they introduced. The Scots had even resorted to paying the Norse to leave but they wouldn't until the battle of Troon where the Norwegians were defeated and the Scots repudiated Norwegian claims to our territory. The Norse were then confined to outlying areas such as Wick, Orkneys, etc but there was eventually intermarriage and in the time of Bruce, the Lord of the Isles returned the Isles back to the Scots and the Jarls of Orkney, Man and Shetlands did the same.
I really believe that the Anglo-Saxon myth must be put to rest. Where is this great Anglo-Saxon nation whilst all these developments took place? There isn't one.
The reality is the Norse raids in many ways affected the Angles and the Saxons more than the Scots for the Norse ruled these peoples in the period immediately before the Norman invasion and we only suffered this in outlying areas such as Hebrides, Orkneys etc.
As for the degeneration in the British Isles of Roman language and knowledge, I would suggest that that was never open to the Scots as such and yet we still managed to enlighten Western Europe. The reason behind that happened by keeping literature alive thanks to saint Padraig or in the Germanic sense Patrick and Columba, Columbanus, etc.
I would also say that when referring to Scots and Welsh we should admit in the case of the Welsh certainly that we are not referring to their name and are indeed using "Anglo-Norman" terms. What does Cymri mean? The degeneration of Britain begins with the onslaught of Germanic tribes and not "Norse" as it is the Germanics who take us into a dark age which reinforces my view that the Latin words in Welsh angle is not a valid point. The Germanic tribes had encountered Rome and Roman practices before the Britons had and if they had been Romanised then would the dark ages have occurred?
The tale of Arthur is interesting, as the only "historical" Arthur is Edinburgh based. He was a war chieftain of the Britons and he chased the Saxons from Dunedin. The extinct volcano in my bonnie city is named after him and has been as long as anyone knows. Dunedin was the capital of the Britons or Pruetani, I believe. Troyes museum has a letter from Dunedin telling the tale so I believe.
I have heard much of the terms Scottish yet the correct term is Scots. I am Scots is correct. I am Scottish is not. I am guilty of this, too, from time to time, but it is incorrect to say Scottish.
The argument for England being called Anglo-Keltic is weak, as K is a modern addition to Scots and Celtic would be more correct unless we are all Greeks! I would say that England is a Saxon-Celtic nation as most of the Angles settled in what is now called lowland Scotland, Edinburgh, East Lothian etc contributing mostly to what we call lowland Scots. With the very use of "Keltic" your "learned" friend has shown a fatal flaw in his perception of Scots and Quisling was what sprung to mind when I read the Scotti one as the idiot obviously fails to see that Scotti cannot possibly be a Scots or Irish Gaelic word. Despite numerous searches of the little Latin available in my memory I cannot find the term Scotti meaning thief. Perhaps Quisling is strong but who needs UK historians when ignorance like that is peddled!
Unfortunately after the history we have received from the UK we are all confused as to who we are but perhaps the best line to take is we are all human and God's own!
I also understand that Saxon villages and Roman villas sat side by side but again this has nothing to do with the Dalriada/Scots nor the make up of these islands. A look at the telephone directory of any city north of Derby will show as many macs as Glasgow or Edinburgh and the names of towns such as Caerlyle or Carlisle will show again the make-up of these people. Add to that the massive emigration of Scots/Irish to "England" and we see that the concept of "Anglo-Saxon" is a myth. In Birmingham and London the two main cities south of Manchester we have Scots/Irish as the largest ethnic groups and considering 250 years of this emigration to England has taken place I really doubt that England is Anglo-Saxon and Britain or the UK is most certainly not.
To say 10 years ago that South Africa was an "Aryan" nation would have brought considerable outrage and I fail to see how "Anglo-Saxon" Britain is treated differently.
It fails to accept that this is not some "Aryan" nation whose roots lie in Germany...
The truth is a person in deepest Berkshire is more "Keltic" than any "Celt" and should be looked as more than Anglo-Saxon which is a total denial of their roots. The Scots and those now called Irish bear little if any resemblance to these Gaullic Belgae of Southern England and certainly not the Germanics in terms of religion, language and cultural flags such as music. Again what the UK fails to explain is how the Scots play music in a pentatonic scale. Again showing links with Egypt and India the only two other cultures to play in this scale. The Scots/Irish refused to accept European music and similar to the Egyptians refused to change this approach. How does this tie in with the "Kelti" and the Germanic tribes of Europe? The truth is that UK history will not seek to address these points, as it no doubt feels that it will encourage nationalism in the so-called Celtic fringe. I think it is too late for that and their very politic in history will be the motivation behind a drive for independence. Scots do already smell a rat and the "Anglophiles" who like to imagine that Britain is an entity and UK history is authentic and politic free will really is known as Quislings to their culture.
I find it amazing that the Scots are constantly derided. Padraig was Scots, Columba was Scots, Johannus Scotus was Scots. Are we seriously suggesting the men who did more to keep the progress started by the Phoenicians amongst others alive were all thieves? Johannus the thief? Padraig the thief? The Anglophiles will not stop and see that all they are doing is constantly stating their case for Scots ignorance for they do not want to accept the inevitable truth of history. There is no great Anglo-Saxon Germanic Britain and there never will be. Jim Davidson their archetypal Cockney, the epitome of Englishness has a Scots mother and father. The mayor of London Ken Livingstone is the same. Michael Portillo has a Scottish mother/Spanish father and he is supposed to be the face of English nationalism! The list is endless and has been for a long time for the Anglo-Saxons have never been successful at ruling themselves!
Seriously there are a lot of questions to be answered regarding the Scots and the use of Irish and Irish monks is part of this denial of Scots contribution. The interesting thing for me was the lack of P in the Semitic/Phoenician alphabet and the use of laryngeal vowels or glottal stops another feature of Gaelic and Scots pronunciation certainly amongst the working class.
You have to remember that the Scots rebelled against the usage of QE II or Queen Elizabeth the Second as her royal title for she was our first Queen Elizabeth and the insignias had to be changed in Scotland due to a bombing campaign. Scots consider this family as theirs for the British had to go outside these isles when crowning William of Orange and the Hanover kings and the reason this could go ahead was because both kings were married to Stuarts. They come into the British Royal Family when a Stuart marries a daughter of Robert the Bruce who could claim the crown because his mother was Lennox and she in turn was related to Appin and back it goes to the Dalriada kings and beyond.
There were some Saxon women who married Scots kings such as Margaret the wife of Malcolm Canmore who was an extremely popular woman in her time but there are no other links for her line and with it the last of the real Aethelings is dead. There were other marriages from this line that produced and it is through these that the Queen can claim relation to Aethrelred but if she was honest she would confess she would find it easier to get to Lennox, Appin and other "Celtic" nobles.
I think that perhaps we see too much Anglicising and Romanising and not enough realising in the UK.
PS. I was not serious when I suggested you remove the anglophiliac stuff. I wouldn't dare to impose myself on a friend like this but I hope you let your English friends know that this Jock ain't buying it!
PPS. Does your friends know the Scots/Irish brought the Harp to Britain. I never knew that the Gauls played the harp and I am sure they were not pentatonic in Europe. Where do the pentatonic, lack of P, and the lack of Romanisation come from?
PPPS. The UK monarchy has a long tradition of seeking New Jerusalem and this contrasted with the European thought, which was along the Athens/Rome line. This Semitic/Phoenician link is best exemplified by the UK aping the Spartan model and it is only in the last 60 years that Athens has become popular in both the British and American intelligentsia. The British aped the Phoenicians in using a large navy and establishing coastal bases where there was trade opportunities and using only a small professional army to back this up. The ideology was if an inferior society required cutlery and pottery for example we would offer these and in return take their gold or other assets. Does it sound familiar Salim? Remember England until Elizabeth I was a pirate state. There was no church recognition of England and therefore it was an early "criminal state". It is only after the union that England thrives as a state and traders for we brought the Baltic trade and some of the most fertile land in the whole of Europe not to mention a sound basis in Presbyterianism and with it the recognition of universal progress. The most magnificent ships at the time of Elizabeth are not English, Spanish or Portuguese. No they are recognised as the Scots and perhaps the Templar fleet coming here had something to do with this. The largest ships in terms of cannon, sails and size were Scots and in this period that was the mark of strength.
The type of excuses we hear to maintain this Anglo-Saxon history of Britain fails to amaze me. They have suggested Romans left Egyptian faience beads found in burial cairns in Scotland. The lack of P is because we were a truly barbarian tribe. So that make the Phoenicians barbaric then... The pentatonic scale is because this shows we were a primitive people yet this ignores that pentatonic societies do it for a specific reason. The lists go on. Phoenician and Egyptian designed gold displaying jaguars and elephants found buried in old kings burial tombs are put down as Roman gifts (which must be a first!) and this is said from a culture than insists that we were barbarians.
I still await a good answer on these questions and the fact we were the greatest mathematicians of the last 1600 years. In addition, the Phoenician type writing and the use of Phoenician like names such as Tyre and Barra and the laryngeal vowels lack of P. The fact that the declaration of independence or declaration of Arbroath -- the foundation of the modern independent state according to American historians, I believe -- stresses our links with Egypt and Scythia akin to Johannus Scotus and earlier Roman writers with it's references to Moses and Methuselah and insistence on leaving Egypt and settling in Scythia for a long time and then founding a kingdom in Spain and finally coming to Scotland.
I know that it is too much to say they were Phoenician or Egyptian for that matter but I do not think we originate in these isles. The Milesians from whom the Scots claim descent and which most historians accept signified a real historical series of events namely the Scots invading Ireland as it is known today were supposed to have came from the land of the dead which is associated with Spain and this is again asserted in the Arbroath letter. Have I already told you that we claim to have had a kingdom surrounded by savages and the Catalans who still call a ship Barca are our kin? The only peoples I know that had a kingdom surrounded by savages was the Carthaginians and what separates the Scots from the Celts who invaded Spain is again the lack of P and the lack of spears in burial. Thanks for reading my latest epic and if you want to put anything up run it past me as I am known to get excited on this matter and sometimes heart rules head! I hope everything is going well for you and that life is looking after you.
...son...he is fascinated by the Phoenicians as I relay the tale of Hannibal to him. Thanks for this Salim, as I want him to embrace the roots of his culture, which, I believe, should steer him away from the Romano-Greco ignorance. There is far more to life than Athens and Rome and they seem to forget Hellenism was in many ways the peak of the Phoenician influence on Greece as you have so well shown. Write back soon and let me know what you wish to use and as long as it is not a rant from me I am proud you feel that my thoughts are of value.