Why were Scotland and Ireland never fully integrated?

Why were Scotland and Ireland never fully integrated?

>King of the bog
>It's still just a bog

Techinically they are two different races.
Scots were pictish and irish were celts, however i think it has to do with religion too, scots are protestant and irish are catholic.

The British are also protestant

Which is my point.
Scotland lost a lot of their identity when they joined the UK.
Pretty sure a lot of them were catholic before they joined.

Becasue they are better than that English trash.

Im simple please spell out your point

They were both run by cryptojews for a thousand years, that's why.

Because the Scotts are shit, little English bugger toys.

/fit/'s yearly comic is about to come out soon enough. Can't wait.

Please define cryptojew and how that contributed

>I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about
The post

Briefly
>6000BC - Celto-Iberian's migrate along the Atlantic coast and settle Armorica (Brittany). Two further migrations follow - one group goes to Ireland, the other to Britain. The two groups are largely isolated from one another and the Celtic language splits into k-Celtic and p-Celtic
>600BC - Belgic tribes (e.g. Attrabates) migrate to southern Britain
>60BC - Caesar's campaign in southern Britain. Later campaigns establish Roman Britain. Most tribes in the south are "brought to peace", i.e. submit to Rome. Prior to Roman occupation, the Britons are called "Pretani", roughly meaning "painted ones"
>Tribes in the north, led by the Caledonii, hold fast, form "The Caledonian Confederation". The people's of the Confederation become known as "Picts", meaning...erm..."painted ones", again, apparently. The Pretani are now divided in two - Britons and Picts
Meanwhile, in 'Ireland'
>Refugees arrive by boat. The 'Irish' call them "Cruthin/Cruithne" and "Pritani". This is the same name the Irish give the Picts as well as an isolated group of people resisting Roman rule in a pocket of what is today northern England
In other words, "Picts" were the British resistance - groups who rejected Roman rule. Britons were those who submitted.
>the Pictish refugees settle in Antrim (as old maps attest). Antrim is ruled by the Carbri Riata, the "red kings"
Fast forward
>Fergus Mor, of the Dal Riata, lands in Argyll. He faces no resistance from the Picts. In fact, they fight under his banner against Old King Cole (Coel Hen) of the Hen Ogledd - the most significant figure of Welsh history - and rout the Britons

1/2

...

The Picts in Antrim likely fled the lands between Antonine' and Hadrian's walls. Those lands were granted to the submissive Damnoni and Votadini tribes.
'Scotti' from Antrim, as well as Picts from the north, raided those lands for centuries. The Roman's were forced to retreat to Hadrian's more than once. Once Rome pulled out of Britain completely, Fergus Mor invaded. Coel Hen tried to hang on to what the British tribes had gained under Rome, but failed.

All of these people were/are Celto-Iberian's. 90% of Irish today are descended from them, 80% of Scot's, and 70% of English.
"Scot" was literally the word for Irish used by foreigners. The Dal Riata were a Scoto-Picti 'family', sure, but everyone on these islands was (and still largely is) a single ethnic group.

2/2

Crypto-jew as in jewish merchant who ended up there and gained power and influence. Or a pagan clan that sided with crypto-jews against religious/political leaders. There are many battles and wars in highlands and irish history that are not what they seem because of the deep crypto-jewish currents that run so far back in these places. England, too. William the Conqueror was a big jew, of course. The Battle at Bannockburn/the first war of the Scottish Independence was won by jewish-backed leaders against Edward II. Hard to separate jews and scotland, unfortunately. There's a good book called "When Scotland was Jewish" about this.

THE IRISH ARE THE ATLANTEANS

Thanks for the education, Sir Bong. I knew the basics of British history, but I always had the impression the majority of the gene pool in England itself is Anglo-Saxon. Recently I had seen comments about the English/Irish etc being nearly genetically identical, which seemed dubious. Apparently what is actually dubious is referring to Anglo as Anglos, since apparently they're all Celts more than anything else.

You jest, but they were members of the "Atlantic European" civilisation - a proto-Celtic civilisation that arose out of the amber and tin trading routes. This has sometimes been conflated with an 'Atlantean' civilisation. It likely had contact with north Africa. It definitely included western Iberia, all the way up the Atlantic coast of northern France. It's from theses places that groups migrated to Ireland and Britain (at least one migration is thought to have been direct from Iberia to Ireland), and the language diverged into k and p-Celtic in those places.
It wasn't a technologically advanced civilisation, but it produced a common culture and language across a vast area.
'Celtic' has been empirically estimated to date to at least 4000BC. It employs an Indo-European lexicon, but it's underlying grammar is *not* Indo-European. The consensus is that the proto-Celto-Iberian's were likely in Europe thousands of years before Indo-Europeans.
'English' employs Germanic words, but it's grammar is Brythonic, i.e. 'Celtic'.
Imagine you go on holiday to France. You speak no French, but you have a French dictionary. To translate, you simply replace English words with French, maintaining English grammatical rules.

The La Tene culture (dated to 1300BC) adopted that language and aspects of the culture, before embarking on its great expansion.
Atlantic Europe wasn't a "great civilisation" by modern standards, but it was still a hugely significant civilisation for its time.

It's been clear for decades that the "Anglo-Saxon Invasion" is a myth. The archaeological evidence supports this, as does linguistic evidence (English is pidgin Germanic - it's underlying grammar is Celtic, implying the majority were native Celts learning a new language).
The phylogenetic evidence settles it though. We have sample going back to before the neolithic. We can tie those to structures dating to as early as 6000BC (sites on Orkney and elsewhere). What we find is that the vast majority of the modern inhabitants of Britain and Ireland are descended from those people.

There was an Anglo-Saxon *migration*. Archaeological evidence suggests 20k at the low-end, 100k at highest estimates. The low end estimate for the population of southern Britain at the time is 800k, high goes as much as 2m (if I recall correctly).
The Germanic's were invited in as mercenaries, to defend against Scotti (Irish) raiders amongst other things, then granted right to settle.
They settled *among* native Britons. We see *gradual* transition in villages, where grave goods and structural evidence suggests concurrent practise of both cultures.
Now, here's the crux. Anglo-Saxon culture grew stronger. The people in the east began to call themselves "Anglecynn" - Anglicised. They called the other people, the Romano-Britons, "Welsh" ("strangers").
Basically, this was an internal culture war, and the Anglecynn won. Welsh culture was isolated to what's now Wales and Strathclyde (eventually absorbed by Scotland).
But there was no significant ethnic cleansing, anywhere...the Welsh in Strathclyde became Scots (like Wallace - "Welsh"), or Anglecynn Northumbrian's.

Even of the 30% of 'English' who aren't Celto-Iberian's, we can barely identify traces of Anglo-Saxon. We can find Dane's, Frisian, modern groups, but few Germanic's outside of sparsely populated parts of the southeast.

The Anglo-Saxon 'invasion' is better thought of as a cultural revolution - like the reformation.

And, yeah, a lot of the misconception was deliberate. Celtic Christianity was eastern influenced. It's monks studied under the guidance of Antioch and Alexandria.
During the dark ages, Irish monks propped up the education of British nobles. The rise of Anglecynn culture led to competition with the Roman church, which threw up it's own missionaries.
It really starts with Augustine of Canterbury. Then his student, Bede, writes a puff piece about the superiority of Anglecynn culture.
They essentially pretended that the Celtic church didn't exist and that the Anglecynn culture had brought the faith to the land. It's an absurd claim. We have abundant evidence of a thriving and sophisticated Celtic church. It was essentially a book burning.

Bede's history forms the basis of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle but, bear in mind, Alfred the Great (who wrote the Chronicle) had a family tree filled with Celtic names (Romano British).

Based britposter. Learned a lot from that thank you.

will you just drink your soy and donate your foreskins to jews instead of asking dumb questions

That's what your women look like; potato nigger.

bumping for wise poster. how did you learn about all of this?

thats right, hide behind the meme flag mr.56%