Is Scotland really Nordic?

Is Scotland really Nordic?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik#Genetic_investigation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Scotland
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Aberdeen
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Aberdeen
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion#British_Isles
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Why would it be nordic? The vikings never went there

no

We consider ourselves nordic

More so than Finland.

>memeland isn't nordic!!!!!1! we wuzz russia and shit karjala takaisin suur suomi
1.. 2.. 3..

Scotland is English

Do not worry my friend, the Scandonordid Finno-Aryans shall rise, despite all the propaganda to the contrary. Hell seger, Svenska taalande allihuuppande!

>Scandonordid Finno-Aryan
is this some new name for down syndrome or what
vitun karjalalaiset

Maybe I'm color blind but I see more I1a in Finland than Scotland on that map of yours.

yes

no one cares about your mongoloid past. Finland has been under Nordic influence and rule for almost a millennium.

York (Jorvik) has Nordic roots

t. Crusader Kings pro

>and rule
I think you got that switched

t. ancient finn pro

I1 huntergatherers don't matter. Just look at the general distribution of the haplomemes in say Iceland and Denmark in comparison to Finland.

York, Liverpool, Dublin. Basically everywhere except Scotland

honestly this
he is just a mad russian living in karelia, ilja janitskin tire guy

I'm merely quoting your own sagas.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik#Genetic_investigation

Hurrin palkka on kuolema

I think Scots still use some Nordic words in their dialect, but only the Northern Isles really bear physical connection to Scandinavia.

They did, though.

...

The closest the vikings got to scotland were the islands around it. How fucking retarded are you?

Hämäläisen palkka on Pohjolan liittovaltio

thats denmark lol

And? I1 still only makes up 25% of the total population. The local Paleo-Europeans got cucked by Mongs.
>that quote
kek'd a bit

As you can tell on the map the Scots and Irish are a totally separate race of people. Scots are purely Nordic Germanic while Irish taigs are Celtic Iberian niggers. Scots are protestant, Germanic and are therefore masterrace, since their Germanic genes make them totally different, while Irish Catholic Hibernian scum has more in common with Spain and Moortugal

>Pohjolan liittovaltio
Nordic federalism is equivalent to treason.

Scandinavian haplogroups seem to make up a third in Ostrobothnia even if we subtract the Finnish I1.

but doesnt ireland have the most ginggers ??

No thats scotland

>what is Caithness and Sutherland
Vikings also went further down along the western coast, not only the islands. Besides, how are the islands in Scotland somehow not Scotland?

Who the fuck cares about Ostrobothnians? We're talking about the population as a whole here.

Either way, Indo-European and Paleo-European haplomemes are a minority, being less than 50% of the total.

To be more specific, scotland has the highest amount of gingers by percentage and england has the most by absoloute numbers

I think we Ostrobothnians should acknowledge our Viking roots.

You can larp all you want, as long as you don't try to mix it with actual Finnishness.

Aberdeen is basically Norway.

Do you understand how few people live in caithness and sutherland and how little the vikings touched it? The vikings had almost nothing to do with scotland, they mattered a lot more in english, irish and ulster history. In scottish and welsh history they are almost entirely absent, with the except of islands with very few people and small parts of the areas that you mentioned where pretty much no one lives at all.

I dont know where you are getting this all from but you are obsessed with a stupid idea that no one in their right mind would believe because they all know its bollocks.

>Besides, how are the islands in Scotland somehow not Scotland?

The Orkney and Shetland islands which contain most of the population of people who were subject to nordic rule in Scotland consider themselves more nordic than scottish.

looks like he touched a sensitive subject
didn't know scots had such a hard time dealing with the viking invasion in their history lessons

>It's not Scotland because few people live there
Do you realize how stupid you sound right now?
And please stop moving posts, lad. You said vikings never went there, when they obviously did.

the viking invasions arent brought up because they never happened in scotland

>It's not Scotland because few people live there

How stupid could you possibly be to actually think that? Either you completely misread what I said or made up some shit in your delusional mind.

>And please stop moving posts, lad. You said vikings never went there, when they obviously did.

These are what I said

>The vikings had almost nothing to do with scotland
>Why would it be nordic? The vikings never went there
>The Orkney and Shetland islands which contain most of the population of people who were subject to nordic rule in Scotland consider themselves more nordic than scottish.

This isnt moving the goalposts. Considering the very few places where they went dont consider themselves scottish I think you are desperately grasping at straws and now your only way of getting at me is trying to catch me out when I havent contradicted myself.

Youre pushing a theory with no evidence which is contradicted by what we know about scottish history and your only vaguely related argument is that they touched some places nearby. Abysmal and rather sad

>should acknowledge our Viking roots
not sure how to break this down to you but uh
you're not really vikings

>Of the 28% of I1 in Finland, 80% belong to the exclusively Finnish L287 and L300 subclades, while the rest (5%) generally resemble more closely Swedish I1. These are typically found on the west and south-west coast of Finland, where Swedes have settled in historical times and where Swedish is still spoken. This is also where most of the R1b (3.5%) and Scandinavian R1a-Z282 (3%) is to be found. The Scandinavian I1 in Finland is found at a similar proportion to R1b and R1a as in Sweden. In contrast, Finnish I1 is found in all the country, where hardly any Germanic Y-DNA is present. This is another confirmation that the I1 in Finland is pre-Germanic, pre-Bronze Age, and consequently of Mesolithic origin.

The name Scotland is of an Old Norse origin (skot means tribute). The Vikings also destroyed the Picts, pretty much.

And just to emphasise my point, Scotland has a population of 5.3M and the areas which you are talking about contain not even 50k people, in the modern age where all areas are more densely populated than they used to be. Compared to Yorkshire which has 5M, Merseyside with 1.4M, greater Dublin with 1.3M. I dont know how its physically possible for someone to be so stupid

1/3

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Scotland

Nothing about the name Scotland is in any way related to the vikings and you are incredibly stupid and gullible for believing that it does.

What's wrong? I'm sorry if I ruined your fantasies, but someone ought to shake you awake from your psychosis.

Also, Aberdeen was founded by Vikings.

It comes from "Scotti", slav(e)

1/3 Viking 1/3 Paleo-Nordic 1/3 Finnish

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Aberdeen

Vikings not mentioned once

And before you go full retard and talk about the name of Aberdeen

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology_of_Aberdeen

>1/3 Viking
sure you are per-göran

Not realy. You could make a case for the isle of Man and the Hebredies, but only in a loose sense that you could apply just as much to England/Wales. There's little evidence of mass colonisation as there is in the North of England or Iceland, though given there aren't many people in those areas anyway, the data's fairly small.

You could make a better case for Scots being Irish, tbqh.

Prove otherwise

Burden of proof is on you, not me. I already proved you wrong anyway.

That isn't about Ostrobothnians but all Finns. Ostrobothnians have 1/3 Viking haplogroups(R1b, R1a, I1 Scandi) while other Finns have much less.

I think you should read up on your own history instead of making dumb walls of text. It's true that mainland modern day Scotland has little influence from the vikings, but saying the vikings weren't active there is completely retarded. The name Sutherland in northern Scotland even comes from the vikings, and Norwegians ruled there until the 13th century. Also, modern settlement =/= historical settlements.

I honestly believe you're baiting me at this point.

Proof? Other than that mememap you posted already, I'd rather see some actual studies.

It's a well known fact.

You still haven't presented me with any proof.

Not just modern day scotland, but throughout all of its history scotland has little to no interaction with vikings or any part of the nordic countries at any time. The furthest you can go are the doric and kingdom of the isles areas; the isles being almost entirely uninhabited and the doric areas containing some actual amount of people but still not many, and they of course as I said dont associate with scotland. Your arguments are absymal and based off of nothing but your own nonsensicle rambling, for example what you have just written about an area which I have already mentioned:

>The name Sutherland in northern Scotland even comes from the vikings, and Norwegians ruled there until the 13th century

An area which I not only mentioned before but also told you was almost entirely uninhabited. Perhaps you are more talking about the animals living there? You seem to share their intelligence and comprehension. You are just arguing in my favour constantly by bringing up areas where no one lives and pretending they are relevent to scottish history or that people live there. I need to screencap these

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion#British_Isles

Here is some information so you can educate yourself. It also completely agrees with me

Karelians were the varangian guard, why dont pohojanmaanlaiset drown themselves in the nearest gulf of bothia sea they find?

>get proven wrong
>start to revise history while trying to make it seem like he's right and everyone else is wrong
Sup Forums in a nutshell

Well, I knew you were baiting all along. Good job getting this many (You)'s out of me

reminder that canada is nordic

This, Finnic bull from Karjala descended from Odin himself in pic related

>pretend scotland was invaded by vikings
>get told and shown that it was merely the islands and nearly uninhabited parts of the mainland
>cry and pretend that objective history is made up

Theres no need to be so mad my friend :^). You can always start educating yourself! Here is a resource to get you started en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_expansion#British_Isles (It completely agrees with me)

Why won't Britain leave Scotland alone?

Scotland is a part of Britain, you yank nonce

some scottish words are straight up scandinavian tbqh

greis, kirk, etc

FINLAND FINLAND FINLAND FINLAND FINLAND FINLAND FINLAND FINLAND

newfoundland is nordic, not canada lmao

>1/3 Viking 1/3 Paleo-Nordic 1/3 Finnish
This is autism, haplomeme retards hopped up on the dunning kruger effect need to be shot

He had Y-dna haplogroup N but it was not Finnish clade. The subclade had been in Sweden for over 2000 years and it's ancestral clade before that was found near the Lithuanian/Belorussian border in ancient samples from 2500BC. Rurik had nothing to do with Finland

An abysmally small amount compared to yorkshire, thats for sure

Since you're so obsessed with Wikipedia, click into the link that says "Scandinavian Scotland" and thoroughly read the whole thing and its sources.
You'll get imminent knowledge just from the "Geography" section!

Yes, and that also agrees with me if you look!

>Scandinavian-held territories included the Northern Isles of Orkney and Shetland, the Hebrides, the islands of the Firth of Clyde and associated mainland territories including Caithness and Sutherland.

Thank you for finally admitting that you are wrong

>He had Y-dna haplogroup N but it was not Finnish clade
Not with Finns, Finnic people.
>The subclade had been in Sweden for over 2000 years
This cannot be confirmed with absolute certainty, and even so this would attest to ancient Finnic presence in Sweden. At the time of Rurik's birth most of contemporary Sweden was inhabited by Finnic Kvens.
>and it's ancestral clade before that was found near the Lithuanian/Belorussian border
Yes, Gediminids too are descended from Karelian Odin. Hence their N1c1 as well.
>Rurik had nothing to do with Finland
With Finnics he did though, as attested by his genes.

This is pathetic. Not only are you making yourself look really stupid, but you legitimately don't even realize it.
I really wish this were a ruse, but then you've put an autistic amount of dedication into it, which is even more pathetic.

Shetland and Orkney yes, all else no

Finnic people do not own the N1c subclade, they are simply a small branch of it.

Rurik's ancestral subclade broke off before the Finnic people even existed and is related to the Baltic branch of N1c. His ancestral Y-dna clade was found in the baltics before the proto-finnic languages are estimated to even exist so you are completely misguided here

no

>Sections and articles on Scandinavian England
>An area which accounts for 20.7M people

>Scandinavian Ireland
>Areas which are at least 2M people

>section on Scandinavian Wales
>Area swhich account for 254k people

>Scandinavian Scotland article
>A list of areas which account for less than 50k people

>Scotland is Nordic and you are stupid

:^)

>Finnic people do not own the N1c subclade
No, but in Europe it's primarily associated with Uralic populations.
>Rurik's ancestral subclade broke off before the Finnic people even existed
Proof?
>is related to the Baltic branch of N1c
Balts are basically Finno-Uralic rapebabies, hence their N1c1.
>was found in the baltics before the proto-finnic languages are estimated to even exist
Estimates aren't valid evidence. Linguistics isn't an exact science that can be interpreted in many ways, just like history.

You're the guy who called me
a haploautist and now you start with your own haploautismo. You're pathetic.

>His ancestral Y-dna clade was found in the baltics before the proto-finnic languages are estimated to even exist so you are completely misguided here
Finns existed before Finnish language came here, we've been pretty isolated for thousands of years.

>Scotland is Nordic
Who are you quoting? Not once did I say this.
I'm merely advocating that vikings went to the mainland, something you seem to have strong disbelief in despite all facts being against you.

but yeah, your haplogroup doesn't mean shit, I'm a 100% pure Finn and R1a1a.
t.

So your whole counter argument is wishful thinking on your behalf? I already provided proof, Rurik's subclade is part of a branch that split right before Finnish subclades began to appear.

>Balts are basically Finno-Uralic rapebabies, hence their N1c1.
Again, no. The oldest subclades we have found are from Russia and the Baltic area, not Finland. The Balts also all have subclades of N1c not found in Finland and their ancestral branch split from them before N1c probably even entered Finland. N1c is indigenous to the baltics as far as we know, its the oldest haplogroup found there

>Estimates aren't valid evidence. Linguistics isn't an exact science that can be interpreted in many ways, just like history.
Ok so you diagree with the experts here because it doesnt fit your narrative. Even if by some chance the proto finnic language is older than modern scientists tells us it wouldnt matter because the Rurikid and baltic N1c branches are not related to the ones found in Finland. both of their ancestral clades point back to the Russian Belorussian border

>Who are you quoting? Not once did I say this.

I know, which should be apparent from the fact that it was a joke ridiculing you

>I'm merely advocating that vikings went to the mainland, something you seem to have strong disbelief in despite all facts being against you.

This is what you wrote:

>I think you should read up on your own history instead of making dumb walls of text. It's true that mainland modern day Scotland has little influence from the vikings, but saying the vikings weren't active there is completely retarded.

The presence that they had on the mainland was so abysmal that even calling it activity is misleading. The fact that you singled out scotland in the first place is pretty laughable and your damage control wont save you.

Ahaha, this whole theory of yours began because you noticed that Rurik had Y-dna N1c when you looked him up on Wikipedia one day. Haplo autists like you are the ones with thee dunning kruger effect, who know very little about it and go all over Sup Forums spouting retarded shit, I just like to shut them up by showing them how ignorant they are of what they think they know

Everything you said is pure sperg fantasy that contradicts your own image. and you have the nerve to call me a haploautist for pointing out something that's actually true. Kill yourself.

Stop projecting. Everything I've stated so far is factually correct, something you're having an awfully hard time coping with.

Awww are you upset that your WE WUZ tier delusions turned out to be false? Keep crying haplo autist

Genetic drift and bottlenecks exist. Life isn't as simple as how you're making it out to be, especially not a thousand years ago.

No seriously you're the haploautist with the emphasis on autist. I pointed out that Ostrobothnia region has 1/3 Scandinavian, 1/3 local I1 and 1/3 'Finnish'. This is a fact although I didn't bother proving it through sources to the other Finn.
Meanwhile you're sperging out so hard you're contradicting your own image which shows Finns having the ancestral haplogroup to the Balts and the two branches being the same at 2500bc.

You singled out scotland, I ridiculed you, you took it poorly and tried to single out what I said about it without succeeding and without stating anything so as to not embarass yourself further. The end result is you looking like an idiot for talking about scotland in this context and attempting to defend your action of doing so despite the clear evidence of the relevence being abysmal and especially so in the context of a thread discussing whether scotland is nordic or not and its geographical neighbours also clearly having more interaction as wikipedia shows. In essence, you are a poor arguer and an even poorer reasoner.

>Even if by some chance the proto finnic language is older than modern scientists tells us it wouldnt matter because the Rurikid and baltic N1c branches are not related to the ones found in Finland.
again, Finnish language =/= Finns

>Again, no. The oldest subclades we have found are from Russia and the Baltic area, not Finland
How the fuck does that prove anything? Finnic people came from Central Asia through Russia.
> The Balts also all have subclades of N1c not found in Finland and their ancestral branch split from them before N1c probably even entered Finland
I never said they're Finns, but Finnic.
>Even if by some chance the proto finnic language is older than modern scientists tells us it wouldnt matter because the Rurikid and baltic N1c branches are not related to the ones found in Finland
The Baltic branches aren't any younger than Finnish ones. Also the tree is only showing branches exclusive to Finns. It doesn't mean Rurikids have no relatives in Finland.

You're just proving my point further. Stop trying.

Someones upset :^)