Genocide on Shetland

How the names on Fair Isle provide a glimpse of the island's history. But what happened to the indig

Scandinavians visiting Shetland often find something strangely familiar about the islands – something they can’t quite put their finger on at first. And then they realise: it’s the place names.

Reading maps and road signs they see words they recognise and understand – names that are the same as places back home. Lerwick, Sandwick, Tingwall: they are all so very Nordic. And with good reason.

The Vikings arrived in Shetland in the late 8th century, travelling from Western Norway in search of new places to live and farm. They would have found Shetland populated, though to what extent is not entirely clear. An indigenous population was certainly here, and had existed in the isles since around 5000 years before.

No-one is entirely sure what happened when the Vikings turned up. Peaceful integration is perhaps the least likely of the many suggestions put forward. But at the other end of the spectrum of theories is that of genocide: total genocide.

Certainly, the culture that existed here before the Norsemen came has completely disappeared. Archaeological evidence for two different communities living in parallel is also non-existent. And the language that was spoken (and beginning to be written) before the Vikings arrived has likewise vanished – the place names entirely replaced.

Over the following centuries, another language developed in the isles: Norn, a variant of Old Norse. From the same roots, the Icelandic and Faroese languages also grew. Norn remained the native language of Shetland and Orkney until ownership was transferred to the Scottish Crown in the 15th century, when things gradually began to change.

By the 18th century, Norn was all but dead and English had become the common language. Amongst themselves, however, Shetlanders spoke a dialect of Scots that retained thousands of Norn words. Still today, the dialect remains strong, and is the standard mode of speech between local people.

Where these words have remained most prevalent is in the intimate connection between people and their world: agricultural words, those relating to fishing and boats, words to describe the weather. But as lifestyles change, these words too begin to fall out of use.

It is perhaps in place names then that the original influence of Norn remains strongest. The fixing of words to maps has ensured the survival of these names, and a glimpse at any map of Shetland is enough to confirm that English has had very little to do with the naming of the landscape.

A booklet has just been published – The Coastal Names of Fair Isle – which offers a fascinating circumnavigation of this island and its names. The booklet was written by the late Jerry Eunson around 50 years ago, with the help of other islanders at the time.

For an island of just three miles by one mile, it is incredible to note that there are around 300 names in the book. Every significant rock or skerry is named – every distinguishable piece of land. It shows an astonishing intimacy with the coastline that is now fast disappearing.

Mysterious words like Klumpin, Skinners Glig, the Nizz and Scrovelskin are explained – their linguistic origins illuminated – and stories from their past are told, particularly of the many ships to have wrecked around the Fair Isle coast.

The days when these names were an integral part of everyday speech are gone. Nobody here fishes for a living any more. Nobody spends a part of each day collecting wood from the beaches. Nobody needs to know the best places to collect gulls eggs. But though some of them may not be often used, a book like this can serve to ensure that these names are not forgotten, and to connect us to a past that is truly not so far away.

Malachy Tallack is 26 and lives in Fair Isle. He is a singer-songwriter, journalist, and editor of the magazine Shetland Life.
Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May’s Brexit speech is Angela Merkel’s victory – here’s why

The Germans coined the word “merkeln to describe their Chancellor’s approach to negotiations. 

It is a measure of Britain’s weak position that Theresa May accepts Angela Merkel’s ultimatum even before the Brexit negotiations have formally started

The British Prime Minister blinked first when she presented her plan for Brexit Tuesday morning. After months of repeating the tautological mantra that “Brexit means Brexit”, she finally specified her position when she essentially proposed that Britain should leave the internal market for goods, services and people, which had been so championed by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. 

By accepting that the “UK will be outside” and that there can be “no half-way house”, Theresa May has essentially caved in before the negotiations have begun.

At her meeting with May in July last year, the German Chancellor stated her ultimatum that there could be no “Rosinenpickerei” – the German equivalent of cherry picking. Merkel stated that Britain was not free to choose. That is still her position.

Back then, May was still battling for access to the internal market. It is a measure of how much her position has weakened that the Prime Minister has been forced to accept that Britain will have to leave the single market.

For those who have followed Merkel in her eleven years as German Kanzlerin there is sense of déjà vu about all this.  In negotiations over the Greek debt in 2011 and in 2015, as well as in her negotiations with German banks, in the wake of the global clash in 2008, Merkel played a waiting game; she let others reveal their hands first. The Germans even coined the word "merkeln", to describe the Chancellor’s favoured approach to negotiations.

Unlike other politicians, Frau Merkel is known for her careful analysis, behind-the-scene diplomacy and her determination to pursue German interests. All these are evident in the Brexit negotiations even before they have started.

Much has been made of US President-Elect Donald Trump’s offer to do a trade deal with Britain “very quickly” (as well as bad-mouthing Merkel). In the greater scheme of things, such a deal – should it come – will amount to very little. The UK’s exports to the EU were valued at £223.3bn in 2015 – roughly five times as much as our exports to the United States. 

But more importantly, Britain’s main export is services. It constitutes 79 per cent of the economy, according to the Office of National Statistics. Without access to the single market for services, and without free movement of skilled workers, the financial sector will have a strong incentive to move to the European mainland.

This is Germany’s gain. There is a general consensus that many banks are ready to move if Britain quits the single market, and Frankfurt is an obvious destination.

In an election year, this is welcome news for Merkel. That the British Prime Minister voluntarily gives up the access to the internal market is a boon for the German Chancellor and solves several of her problems. 

May’s acceptance that Britain will not be in the single market shows that no country is able to secure a better deal outside the EU. This will deter other countries from following the UK’s example. 

Moreover, securing a deal that will make Frankfurt the financial centre in Europe will give Merkel a political boost, and will take focus away from other issues such as immigration.

Despite the rise of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland party, the largely proportional electoral system in Germany will all but guarantee that the current coalition government continues after the elections to the Bundestag in September.

Before the referendum in June last year, Brexiteers published a poster with the mildly xenophobic message "Halt ze German advance". By essentially caving in to Merkel’s demands before these have been expressly stated, Mrs May will strengthen Germany at Britain’s expense. 

Perhaps, the German word schadenfreude comes to mind?

Matthew Qvortrup is author of the book Angela Merkel: Europe’s Most Influential Leader published by Duckworth, and professor of applied political science at Coventry University.