>Must admit it is funny telling my Scots mate that Celts didn't exist, bagpipes are from Iberia and the Plaid has no recorded existence in the C14th and Wallace was a Norman/Saxon Noble
And Haggis is an English dish 🙂
[i]And Haggis is an English dish[/i]
..not something I'd be bragging about. Unless you're proud of having inflicted it on us.
so I am afraid you are wrong - there are clear genetic marker and traits that allow the two to be separated.
Sorry about resurrecting this, but I've been away for a week, so I couldn't respond to this by TJ.
Please let me have the details of the extensive research in this area and I will by all means have a read. My suspicion is that what we are talking about here are comparisions between relatively closed island or wilderness based communities, as opposed to the greater Scottish Nation, as is spread out over the entire planet. I'm also pretty sure that if you go at the genetics of it you will find that there are as with all of us traces of pretty much every racial type there is pretty wildly spattered about in the Scottish gene pool.
However, what this once again does prove is that all this nationalistic nonsense is just so much tosh. We now have TJ talking about being able to determine someones race by their blood group, of which there are only 19 as far as I can find out, and how many races on the planet do we reckon there might be???? I suspect we'll be measuring noses and facial charactersitics next!
Face it TJ, there is no way in this day and age that it is possbile to seriously define or identify Scotish from English or Irish, other than todays post code.
G - not what I said at all. You said there was no genetic difference and clearly there is. You don't want to believe it then fine. The ratios of the various blood groups are different and other gene markers are different. Obviously this is across populations not a way of measuring individuals altho to some extent that can be done as well.
However in the best tradition of STW you have taken what I said and totally distorted it in order to rubbish it.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Oppenheimer ] An easily read wiki bit that shows what I am trying to explain[/url] Plenty of good acedemic references to follow.
You don't want to listen then no point in me replying further
Bigbutslimmerbloke -
The PEOPLE existed, but we really do not know how they referred to themselves. The word 'Celt' is derived from a Greek word 'Keltoi' used by the denizens of the City States to sneeringly refer to those who lived inland from the Ionian Sea (think 'barbarian'). The Word Celt in it's modern sense was first used (allegedly) by a man called Edward Llyudd, an ardent Welsh Nationalist and Scholar of the mid C18th. As was the fashion he looked to the classics for inspiration and came across the word and misapplied it to mean the peoples of Northwestern Europe.
Neither Caesar, his generals or the Historian Tacitus ever used the word when writing about the Britons - usually using the insult 'Britonculli' instead.
Simply put, the use of the word is a myth, promoted by a man who wished to create a pan-'Celtic' alliance to resist English oppression but the concept of a Pan-European People all speaking the same language and sharing the same culture is wrong according to what i have read.
We do not know how the early Britons referred to themselves, the Tuatha De Danaan & the Fir Bolg are legendary races said to populate Ireland before the coming of Finn & the Fenians - themselves a mythical construct - with no real basis in history.
The Romans, various waves of Angles/Saxons/Jutes/Danes and Norwegians put paid to any written texts (if any existed) and the names of the various tribal groupings that have come down to us are at best Roman bastardisations of names - or even made up ones.
Names such as Catavelaunii, Trinovantii, Scottii, Caledonii etc are all thought to be such.
We continue to use the term 'Celt' because we have no other readily identifiable term, but in reality the name is a myth promoted by a daft Welsh Nationalist who was a poor scholar.
Dr Robin McKie's book 'Face of Britain' explains all this far better than i can, it is about the Human Genome Project applied to the genetic history of Britain - a good read.
There are only three races -
Negroid
Caucasian
Asiatic
There are however many [i]ethnicities[/i] on the planet 😉
Muddydwarf - I am aware that there is argument over this but I thought there were more. Which would you put Australian aborigines in? south sea islanders? American Indians?
I thought it was mongoloid not Asiatic anyway - or am I out of date?
Native Americans (i thought) came under the Mongoloid/Asiatic banner as they originated from Asia and crossed the land bridge to the America's approx 10'000yrs ago?
Not sure about Pacific Islanders to be honest, all the Fijians i've met have had apparent African bloodlines (probably due to imported slaves during British colonisation/rule).
G - not what I said at all. You said there was no genetic difference and clearly there is
TJ : To quote you right back at yourself, "in the best tradition of STW you have taken what I said and totally distorted it in order to rubbish it." Below is in fact what I actually said. It is you sir who are distorting my words, not the other way around. I will however add, that I also do not agree that there is a simple genetic measure that can be used to define Scottishness either, but thats is not in fact what I said.
in fact it would be extremly difficult to seperate the Scots and English by [b]any reasonably quantifiable measure[/b].How about we do that here and now. Someone [b]try to establish what a Scot actually is[/b], go on I dare you!
