I don't know, but there is an indication in the Preface of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:

"Then it happened that the Picts came from the south, from Scythia... and landed at first in northern Ireland, and there asked the Scots if they might live there. But they would not let them...And then the Scots said We can give you good advice. We know another island to the east from here where you can live if you wish... Then the Picts went and took possession of the northern part of this land; and the Britons had the southern part. And the Picts obtained wives from the Scots, on condition that they always chose their royal family from the female side...

The ASC then goes on to tell how, much later, "the Scots went from Ireland into Britain and conquered some part of that land; and their war-leader was called Reoda, from which they are named Dal Riada."

So it's not entirely fanciful and you can make what you will of it...

I haven't read all of the Tain, just snippets of it. a lot of what you mention depends on how much you believe the original foundation myths - I'm still undecided either way. but one thing is certain, and that is the people of western Scotland and north-eastern Ireland have been moving backwards and forwards for thousands of years

an interesting thing to look at is the distribution of similarly-styled neolithic and bronze age monuments across Ireland and Scotland - there's a definite correlation running from south-west Ireland up through Perthshire to north-east Scotland (the stronghold of the Picts). later on in Pictish times it's along this same route that christianity spread into Scotland. Perthshire is full of ancient names recalling the "Irish" influence

if you're interested I can try and dig up some references from my books, but I'm going to be away for a week from Thursday so it'll need to wait 'til I get back

Cheers
Andy S (andy at stravaiging.com)

The following extract from Wikipedia argues against PeterH's, politically suspect, and simplistic views....

>This is somewhat misleading, however, since the Romans and Greeks did describe the Atlantic and continental Celts as being related to each other, having military alliances (and rivalries) with one another, sharing similar languages and traditions, as well as having a common religion and priest class. Additionally, archeological evidence shows quite clearly that the Atlantic and continental Celts were engaged in commerce with each other via regular trade routes. No one on either side of the debate argues that Celtic people have ever been a single homogenous political or social unit, but to argue that the Atlantic Celts were not Celts at all simply because hostile Romans never described them as such betrays a rather unscholarly bias<

.... hope that this evens up the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_people

;0

ftc

Never heard of any reference to Picts being in Ireland, certainly not in the historical/archaeological record.