Talk:Scottish people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities.If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
WikiProject Scotland
 Scottish people is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do:

There really seems to be a lot of estimates being made regarding population distribution. It is one thing to state information but please ensure it is supported with some documentation.

Contents

[edit] Proposed merge with Scottish people

merge with Scottish people? This is an orphan. Secretlondon 00:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)
I'd suggest moving Scottish people to something like Scots people or Scots tribe or possibly merge to Scotti, as they seem to be a more accurate name for that group of people.
Then move Scottish ethnicity to Scottish people and expand in a simlar way to Welsh people etc. That article will include a History section, which would be a brief summary of History of Scotland, and possibly also some the current Scottish people article. -- Vclaw 01:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
As they stand, the two articles are different, in that one deals with the peoples of Scotland as a whole the other deals with the Scots from Ireland, one of the several national groups which contributed to the first group. I think that having both would be valuable.
Since the same name is given to both classes of people (The Irish immigrants and the people of north Britain) it would add to people's understanding of the human structure of Britain as a whole as well as that of Scotland, if this were made clear. (RJP 11:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC))
I have had to change the 'related ethnic groups' section. Whereas I see this as a nonsensical article anyway as the issue of a 'Scottish ethnic group' is very contentious, as opposed to a 'cultural' group, Scots had been listed as being related to the 5 other Celtic nations. This was an uneducated and simplistic association. If one is to list related ethnic groups for Scots, naturally they should be the British peoples and those that have provided migration to Britain since the Roman period.

[edit] Include table?

Does anyone think that it would be a good idea to include a table in the article like in English people, Serbs, Bulgarians, Norwegians and Albanians? GrandfatherJoe 18:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup i think thats a good idea.

User:An Siarach

I could be wrong, but 40,000,000 Scots in the US seems like a helluva lot! I'm interested in seeing some evidence to back this up.

Nicholai 06:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree but then i think dicussing ethnicity in terms of genetics/lineage is an utter nonsense anyway ; culture and language are not genetically inheritable. How can Scotland have 5,000,000 ethnic Scots when only approx. 50,000 can speak the Scottish language? To describe 40,000,000 Americans as ethnically Scottish because their great-great grandfather (or whatever ) came from Scotland - despite the fact they have no link culturally or linguistically with the race or country - is ludicrous and another example of the american obsession with phony-ethnicism.

An Siarach

Phony-ethnicism ? Thats a harsh accusation to the millions of Scottish descendants around the world. Just because one doesn't carry on all of the cultural traits or language doesn't mean he/she still isnt of that ethnic origin. Other items related to ethnicity such as religion, etymology, familial ties/links, social/behavioural characteristics as well as genetic/physical traits are passed on from your ancestors. Your ancestry is where you came from and part of who most people are to at least some degree. Also, what exactly is passed down genetically isn't fully documented yet and some geneticists have even proposed that past memories and experiences of ancestors could be stored in our DNA. And finally, the 50,000 speakers of Scottish Gaelic aren't the only Scottish in Scotland, lol. The Scots language (related to the Old English/Anglo-Saxon language) is spoken by the Scottish people as well, mainly in the Lowlands, and has several speakers. It should be said that just because the people speak English mainly doesn't mean that they don't have a distinct cultural and ethnic identity. Epf 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


I have never before heard Scots Gaelic referred to as 'the Scottish language', despite living in the Ghaeltachd. The Anglo-Saxon east as far as I know never spoke Gaelic, which is a Scottish language, just like Scots and English. Gaelic is an important part of our culture and I am glad that it is finally getting some support, but this sort of statement won't help it. I bow to An Siarach's superior historical knowledge, but he can't be allowed to get away with that one. --Will peters 14:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This whole article needs a thorough review and cleanup. Large parts of it are very amateurish and unprofessional. This article is just not up to Wikipedia standards. Some sources would be nice too.--Mais oui! 08:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I also noticed that some of the article was in US spelling, which is obviously wrong for a Scottish subject. Leithp (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scotch is a drink

Scotch is indeed a valid English word to describe Scottish people according to, among others, the (highly respected) journal The Economist in their Style Guide [[1]] (under Scotch). Whether or not Scottish people do or do not refer to themselves as Scotch does not alter this simple fact.

I don't want to get in the way of your heated debate but I will certainly add that the use of the word "Scotch" throughout this srticle is inaccurate and to a point offensive. Refer to this [[2]]. Candy 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Scotch can mean the same thing as Scottish or Scots or what have you. Scotch is also a type of Scottish Whiskey and I seem to recall them not calling it Scotch in Scotland. Highlandlord 13:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Candy is right. For Scots (I am one, Edinburgh born and bred), Scotch only applies to products, not people. And the Scots don't make whiskey; Americans and Irish make whiskey, Scots and Canadians make whisky. Furthermore 'Scotch' isn't a type of Scottish Whisky, it is Scottish whisky. But as Highlandlord says, we usually order 'a whisky', not 'a Scotch'.--Will peters 10:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of respect of the Scottish people, I have changed the so called "Scotch-Irish" to Scots-Irish, as they are both used in the history books, and the latter is less offensive. Scotch is an old term, and the only two places it belongs in this article is the paragraph about its usage, and in www.scotchirish.net. Also, this is a subject pertaining to Scots, and it should not be somewhat offensive to the people that it is about, the Scottish people. If I missed any usages of the word Scotch-Irish, please tell me. Thank you. Rshu 11:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your general point, but the sources quoted are quite specific in calling this ancestry Scotch-Irish. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I must have edited the quote by mistake. Anyways, the other one, on the box of populations, needed to be changed. --Rshu 13:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Was I misunderstood? The references say what people describe themselves as. It says they describe themselves as Scotch-Irish, not Scots-Irish, or Scots-Irish-American or anything else. Last time I looked we do not change verifiable facts out of respect for readers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No, not that part, I changed the section in the box "Regions with significant populations of". Most history books call them "Scots-Irish" not the term "Scotch-Irish". I must have changed the other part by mistake(I have now corrected it). Rshu 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move to Scottish people

"X people" is the standard Wikipedia naming convention for these articles.--Mais oui! 09:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support --Mais oui! 09:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Olessi 15:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --Hottentot 23:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Marco79 17:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. --Big Adamsky 14:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support -- Benson85 05:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

Template removed, move carried out as requested..dave souza 13:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This page has improved since I last saw it, good work.

[edit] Edit war over pictures

In order to stop the edit war, could we please discuss, and reach a consensus, on two issues:

[edit] How many pictures do we want in the infobox?

  • Personally, four seems fine to me, and pretty much the standard.--Mais oui! 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which Scots do we put in there?

David Hume was recently voted the greatest Scotsman of all time by Scottish academics, but that doesn't matter, since this is a popular page, everything must go to the mass vote. Robert I was by far a greater historical figure than William Wallace, but the latter is more famous. However, I made a mistake wasting time on this article, so put in whoever you want. - Calgacus 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry you feel that way. Your statement "since this is a popular page, everything must go to the mass vote" is not really accurate, see Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Mais oui! 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Why would Adam Smith not be popular? Astrotrain 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I just get the impression that most Scots are not too enamoured with the concepts of free trade and free market economics at the moment. Wasn't there a college in Fife where the students changed the name from Adam Smith to a socialist person? When all seven political parties in the Scottish Parliament support strongly interventionist economic (and social) policies, it kind of makes you think that we Scots have turned our backs on our great son :) --Mais oui! 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a Adam Smith College in Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes (created by merger of Fife College and Glenrothes College). But the new students association refused to name itself after Smith because Smith represents what they regard as the world's greatest evils - namely, exploitation, greed, Thatcherism and Reaganite economics. [3]. Astrotrain 09:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Ta. Yes, that was what I was referring to. But it is not an isolated example of the Scots antipathy for Smith - you should see the pathetic state his grave is in in the Canongate Kirkyard, Royal Mile, Edinburgh.--Mais oui! 10:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It seems very self-evident indeed that in an article regarding Scottish people, it would be appropriate to apply images of Scottish people.--Mais oui! 10:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I was wrong. Sorry. (RJP 14:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Mass deletions of statistics

There follows a contribution left on my Talk page, which belongs here.--Mais oui! 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Scottish people changes

I find it appauling that you would revert my work. First of all, the statistics that are being shown are not accurate for the most part. The only ones that have any merit are the figures for the US indicating 9.2 million US citizens of Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry. Second, I find it somewhat insulting to make grand assumption regarding those of Irish descent may in fact have some of Scotch-Irish in that figure. If you are using Scotchnet.com as a source to back that up, complete and utter rubbish. Have you looked at that site, it is nothing more that a anti-Catholic, Irish site full of loyalist and unionist propoganda. When it comes to statistics the census results speak for themselves. As I have said many times, there is nothing to indicate that those under the Irish category have any Scotch-Irish in them. Was a survey completed asking each of the over 30 million American's of Irish ancestry is they were of Scotch-Irish ancestry. Just because a person is Irish but non-Catholic, does not remotely suggest that they are in fact of Scotch-Irish Presbyterian background. Let me explain how the census works. Citizens were allowed to select 2 ancestries. For example, one person could have an Irish Catholic mother and German Protestant father but declare themselves to be both Irish and German but Protestant. Does this mean that they are Scotch-Irish? NOOO...they are counted under the Irish category as well as German population but follow the Protestant branch of Christianity...further...these estimates about 5 million Scots in Australia is grossly over estimated...the Australia Census bureau actually states under Ancestry that there are slightly over 500, 000 Australians of Scottish descent and no where does it show or mention 5 million...show proof to back up rediculous assertions of Scots in Poland, Netherland...i look forward to another response from you70.30.71.252 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually seen on several programs,websites and a DUTCH uncle (Scottish Middlename) that Scottish people have indeed immigrated to Poland (www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immigration look up Aberdeenshire)and Holland (www.bbc.co.uk/ Scottish History both Open University). Scottish surnames are still common in Holland heck they even have a regiment called the Scots Guard. So trust me my facts are right. I looked up several articles even the Scottish goverment website has a article which is about Poles coming to Scotland to inform them that the Scots once went the opposite way! Also on Scotland's people it says that anything up to 12million people in the UK can claim some Scots descent. Ian Hislop on who do you think you are also mentioned a similar fact!

The numbers should not be deleted - they should be verified. That is why I added [citation needed] tags to some of the more ridiculous ones. Antidote 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This anon has violated the Three Revert Rule way too many times. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish people - Scotch Irish edits

I fail to see the points being made in Scotchirish.net. They come up with the idea that 60 percent of those who claimed Irish as their ancestry on the US Census are infact Scotch Irish. Prior to heavy Catholic Irish immigration to America, Scotch Irish immigration numbered about 250,000 compared to later Irish Catholic immigration of approximately 4.4 million between 1820 - 1920 according to US statistics on the INS page. I fail to see how a majority of those who state Irish to be of Scotch Irish ancestry. A major over estimation. Futhermore, just because someone today is Irish and non-Catholic does not mean that they are Scotch Irish. Over the generations, people who descended from Irish Catholics changed religion or moved away from any religious attachment whatsoever. The website is pro Scotch Irish to say the least but I believe it is going a bit overboard. Statistics speak for themselves. They are relevant and free of biases. People picked what ethnic group they descended from or identify with when filling out the census. People were allowed multiple responses. To say that many Irish maybe of Scotch descent is a bold statement. I guess we could then say that many Scotch are truly Irish as they descend from the Scots that crossed over from Ireland during the 5th century etc. There has also been more recent mass Irish immigration to Scotland. You want examples? Billy Connolly, Sean Connery . For the state of professionalism, I believe we should just stick to the statistics that have been collected in least biased or influenced manner and that would be census reports. If we fail to neglect these results and make up assumptions or statistics from thin air without actual proof, they we may as well close up shop.

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/immig/irish2.html

It seems to me that you have not read over Scotch-irish.net or other Ulster Scots sites in enough detail. The largest numbers of Scotch-Irish that immigrated to the Americas predated the Irish Catholic immigration by over a century. That is quite a significant difference if you consider how the whole human population was beginning to rapidly increase by the time of the mass Irish Catholic migration in the 19th century with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Anywhere between 250,000-450,000 Scotch-Irish came to the Americas between the end of the 17th century and the mid 18th century alone. If you consider they and their descendants were already long settled in the Americas by the time of the great Irish Catholic migration of the 1840's (again during the Industrial Revolution), their numbers would easily have swelled to around at least 2 million by that point. If you want a simpler way of describing why such a large portion of the 40 million or so Americans who claim Irish ancestry would in fact have Scotch-Irish ancestry: Of those 40 million or so in the 1990 census, almost half or more were in southern states and areas which were historically heavily populated by Scotch-Irish. In turn, it is well documented that very few numbers of Irish Catholics (and any 19th century immigrant group for that matter)settled in these same areas and most Irish Catholics settled in the northern states and major urban centres like New York, Boston and Chicago. Irish Catholics did settle in other areas of the US obviously, but not in significant numbers in the areas traditionally settled by Scotch-Irish. The informatoin on Scotchirish.net is a combination of historical sources as well as census data and is a legitimate source that is on several other Wikipedia articles and has the backing of the admin. With regards to the US census, as I and numerous sources have stated, large nubmers with Scotch-irish ancestry simply chose "Irish" for a lack of a better term (Ulster-Scots or Ulsterman). Many felt that Scottish didn't accurately describe their ancestry but chose rather Irish because of their origins in Ulster. Scotch-Irish is a confusing term to many who thought it meant those who claim ancestry of Irish Catholics who immigrated to Scotland around the same period as those who were migrating to the Americas (19th cent.) It should also be noted that of the millions of Irish protestants in the US, the largest portion of those would be of the presbyterian denomination which has most of its origins in Scotland. Just to give an example of just how large a proportion of the old-stock American population was Scotch-Irish or of Scotch-Irish descent, look at the number of US presidents which claimed such ancestry. This can be seen on Scotchirish.net and other sites (parents of Andrew Jackson for example were Scotch-Irish from Ulster). Epf 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • As for the people of Scotland who you claim are descended from the Scots, that is only partially true. The majority of the population of Scotland is also descended from the Picts, Norwegian vikings, as well as the Anglo-Saxons which heavily settled the lowlands(main ancestors of the Ulster-Scots). The Irish Scots came to heavily influence the land culturally but the total numbers which settled in Scotland is quite disputed. Gaelic culture and language only now survives in the western fringes of the highlands while the Scots language and English as well as Anglo-Saxon culture dominated the lowlands and northern and eastern Scotland (while still including a degree of Gaelic culture such as the Clan system and Gaelic loanwords in language).

70.50.20.186 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scotch irish continued

You can not say that a large proportion of those who ticked Irish are indeed of Scotch Irish descent. I just dont buy the entire argument. Irish Catholics had been immigrating to America for years before the famine, granted not in the massive numbers during and after the famine. Many also arrived as indentured servants during the 1600/1700s to the Carolinas etc. Many Irish during the famine and after also settled in Texas and entered by way of Louisiana. Irish were major settlers in Colorado and California (gold rush of 1849). The Irish were also very important for the coal mines in Montana and settled by the thousands. Let's face it. There is no fair way of telling how many Irish are descended from Scotch-Irish immigrants. There may have been some who were either too lazy, or ignorant of their Scotch Irish ancestry and just simply chose to put Irish but you can not just state that a large amount of the 34 million Irish figure are of Scotch Irish descent. Yes, a majority of the Irish settled in the Northeast but they and their descendents have also had 150 years to muliply and settle in other areas of America. I have spent a lot of time in Texas and Georgia and the number of irish Americans with names like Callaghan, Kelly, Carroll, Murphy, McCarthy and Mullins is unbelievable. Keep in mind that the Irish also worked on the railroad through the 1800s and they spread wherever the railroad went. The fact of the matter is, Irish Catholics immigrated in far larger numbers, spread throughout their new land and had large families. I just think that article makes too many assumptions and I question the sources it uses. How accurate are they? Who is writing them? Keeping in mind that the source I believe to be very intolerant, and anti-Irish in tone.

Secondly, as far as the Scottish population in Scotland. I was not only talking about the old Scoti who settled in Dalriada but more so about the thousands who settled in Scotland during the 19th and 20th century from Ireland. A large percentage of Scotland can trace it origins to this more recent immigrants. One just has to look at footballs teams such as Hibernian or Celtic to see the influence of the Irish or even look at the buildup of the Catholic church in the last century or simply look at the Glasgow phone book.

  • I agree there is a large minority of Scots in Scotland who are of Irish descent(espcially in the urban areas of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee), but I am not talking of these people. All I am saying, and I am sure you agree, is that the majority native (mainly presbyterian) Scots are as much of Pict/Norse/Anglo-Saxon descent as of Irish Scotti descent. Anyways, the Irish who migrated to Scotland during the 19th century aren't related at all to the Scotch-Irish/Ulster Scots which fled to the US as the the large migration of 250,000-450,000 Scotch-Irish/Ulster Scots occurred a century and more before the 19th century large Irish Catholic migration.
  • As for the numbers of Scotch-Irish in America, I do believe that something on both the Irish and Scottish people articles needs to mention that the numbers of "Irish" does in fact include at least a significant number of people of Ulster Scots descent. It isnt "impossible" to find the true numbers of Scotch-irish if the people traced their ancestry but the fact is the very small numbers of catholics and any 19th/20th cent. immigrant group for that matter in states traditionally settled by Scotch-Irish (mainly the southern states, especially in the Appalachia) as well as the massive numbers of presbyterians in these states shows how strong the Scotch-Irish influence is. You also include small examples of Irish Catholics settling in Georgia and other southern states but the fact is there is no historical records of a large Irish Catholic settlement in these areas to the same degree of the 17th/18th century Scotch-Irish settlements. I am not saying no Catohlic Irish settled in these areas at all but it was very light for obvious reasons (religious, cultural persecution) as they were persecuted even in the areas they largely settled in the north and west. Also, names such as Kelly, Carroll and McCarthy do not necessarily indicate someone is native Catholic Irish rather than an Ulster-Scot as many Ulster Scots families adopted Irish names or inter-mixed to a small degree with the native Irish before the flight to the Americas. My last point and the one I hope you consider most is the fact again, that the large Scotch-Irish migration took place 100 years before the advent of the industrial revolution which was a time of massive population growth in both the Americas and in Europe. Considering the Scotch-Irish were the largest ethnic group in the US after the English (though the difference was slight) at the time of the American Revolution, by the time of the main Irish Catholic migrations of the 1840's (their numbers before this were minimal), the numbers of those with Scotch-Irish descent would have swelled to almost 2 millon in accordance with the large population growth/birth rate seen in the whole US and in Europe that would last well into the 20th century. Basically, one must remember that the numbers of Irish in southern and "appalachian" states, according to the census, outnumbers that of the Scotch-Irish and it is indicative that the majority of these would be Scotch-Irish again due to 1)no historical record of large Irish catholic settlement in these states anywhere near the scale seen with the settlement of Ulster-Scots, 2) the very small numbers of catholics in these areas compared to massive numbers of protestants, especially presbyterians (main origins in Scotland) and considering the catholic Irish have largely maintained their catholic roots throughout the US 3) the prevalence of Scottish surnames just as much as "Irish" ones in these areas, and finally 4) well documented very heavy Ulster Scots/Scotch-Irish settlement and cultural influence in these areas. Again, the impact the Ulster Scots had on American culture and history is undeniable from the role they played in the revolution to the numerous presidents of whole (Andrew Jackson) or partial (Woodrow Wilson) Scotch-Irish descent.
  • To summarize, I believe something needs to be said on the Irish/Scottish people pages that the 30-40 million census numbers of "Irish" may also include a significant number of people who are Scotch-Irish. Scotchirish.net is not the only site where this information can be found, see links on the Ulster Scots article for more info. I admit ScotchIrish.net may be a tad "anti-catholic Irish" but I would classify it more as "pro-Scotch-Irish" to raise awareness of the Ulster Scots/Scotch-Irish culture in NI and abroad. Regardless, the numerous historical records on the site are unrefutable and I (as well as the admin.) believe this deserves a mention of some sort that the numbers of "Irish" in the US includes a number of those who are indeed Scotch-Irish. You must be willing to compromise here. I'm not claiming the numbers Scotchirish.net or other sites claim but I'm just saying something needs to be mentioned saying that the number of "Irish" does not mean all those are claiming native/Catholic Irish descent. Believe me, I am a pro-Irish Republican and support unification of Ireland, but from a neutral historical POV, the massive impact of the Scotch-Irish in the US is undeniable and the numbers of "Irish" does not indicate all those people are claiming native Irish ancestry. Sorry for the long post, but I hope you read it all.

http://www.scotchirish.net/US%20Presidency.php4 Epf 18:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The US Census 2000 numbers speak for themselves, whatever they might say. It is simply not reasonable to question the Census numbers in this article on the basis of a randomly selected website. It is possible to argue that all of the figures are flawed. How can we provide figures for the US, Canada, &c, when there are none for Scotland ? We can't just make up a figure for Scotland and there are none produced from the UK Census as the question was never asked. We could take the Census figures and apply the percentages of Scots/British from the Social Attitudes Survey nearest in time to the Census, but this seems rather like original research, and it could only produce a number for Scotland, not for the UK as a whole. The idea of attaching numbers to a non-exclusive ethnic group like the Scots appears to me to be fundamentally flawed. Angus McLellan 19:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Angus, you call yourself a Scot ? lol, first of all, this isnt original research, and if you read the info on the site and other Ulster-Scots sites, the challenge to the Census data is based on many well documented historical sources. As for Scots being a non-exclusive ethnic group ? You really need to learn more about Scottish history and anthropology. I've " peoples being considered a "non-exclusive ethnic group" and I'm specializing in anthrolopology. That term is reserved for a few known "ethnic groups" such as the Jews or some tribal groups seen in a few new world societies. There is a difference in being a citizen/national of Scotland and being of Scottish ethnicity/origins.Epf 21:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, the question was asked in the UK Census to which group under "white" you belonged to but I can't find that data online as only certain categories are available on the UK statistics site. Epf 21:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't challenge US Census figures without very good reason, and so far you haven't given any. But doesn't French ring any bells as another European non-exclusive ethnic group, at least according to many contributors to French people with whom you've been disagreeing for weeks ? The OSI study on British Muslims is here (pdf); if you read page 25, you may find it illuminating. This page gives a summary of findings in an Institute of Governance study; again, there is not much sign of exclusiveness. The 1997 National Election Survey asked about "being truly Scottish", the results are reported here. Other pages report this, but it is important to note how ancestry was presented to those questioned, and this is elsewhere omitted. To quote David McCrone: There is no powerful set of religious and/or linguistic cultural markers which define what it means to be a Scot which means that identity can be much more open and inclusive. If that sounds rather well-meaning, you may wish to consider what the Siol nan Gaidheal have to say, at least when they aren't saying this.
The English & Welsh census questionnaire is here (pdf) and the question is on page 6. The Scottish one is here (pdf) and the question (not the same one) is on page 7. The NI one is here (pdf) and the question (different again) is on page 6. The only UK-wide statistics are on place of birth and residence. Nobody in England or NI was asked if they were Scottish, and even if the SCROL site made the data for Scotland alone available, which it does not, it would not be usable with other (US, Canada, Australia) data, which in turn each used different methodologies and are doubtfully commensurable. Angus McLellan 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, indeed, French government policy has seemed to ignore existence of indigenous ethnic French and encourage an assimilationist perspective and this has caused significant debate on the subject of who constitutes to be "French". France has taken a very unique assimilatoinist policy compared to other European states which have opted (and rightly so) for multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicity. As for the Scots, David McCrone is only one person and Scottish culture and ethnicity is distinct in several cases. Yes it is very much related to English culture but it also has aspects of Pictish, Gaelic and Norse influence not seen with the English. The most imporant fact with regards to ethnicity is descent and the Scots are quite distinct in this sense. To say they don't exist or are "open" to anyone just becoming an ethnic Scot once becoming a citizen of Scotland is ridiculous. No matter what people choose to define as "Scottish", there are numerous aspects to Scottish (Gaelic-Pict/Norse-Anglo) ethnicity in terms of cultural/family traditions, religion, language (Scots, Gaelic, Scottish English), social/behavioural characteristics, shared origins/history and obviously the physical/genetic, even if many Scots don't spend the time to dwell on it. In the nation of Scotland there has been much immgration from Ireland and former British colonies in the past 100 years or more which may have changed what "unifies" current Scottish nationality/citizenship, but this should not be confused with Scottish ehtnicity/descent. Epf 00:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I just want to clarify again that most of your links deal with the identity of all citizens of Scotland rather than those of Scottish ethnicity and background. You can't take away someones ethnic origins and identity and the comments by McCrone deal more with nationality/citizenship, not ethnicity/heritage. There will always be a distinction between those who are the indigenous ethnic people along with their descendants elsewhere around the world and those who have origins elsewhere. You can't lose all of your roots and that is why most immigrants and their descendants in Scotland maintain ties with their origins, whether they be Irish, Chinese or Indian peoples. This is also why their is a preservation of the Scottish people and culture and Scotland and the problems seen in France have been avoided. The US found this out during the earlier part of this century and they altered their policy from complete assimilation to embrace most aspects of multiculturalism. If the Scots were a "non-exclusive" group like the Jews, the people would not be considered indigenous to anywhere (as is highly debated with the Jews and Israel) and the the people/culture would be widely varied to include countless numbers of cultures/peoples. This seems to be happening with the French in France, but the rise of the far-right there and the sudden awareness and need for ethnic distinctions (used with all other countries) may counter this. Epf 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the problems with Scotch-Irish and the US Census numbers, I have provided good reasons but look for yourself here [4] where, as I said, well documented historical records are used to challenge the numbers in the census. Epf 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The link you provided to "Siol nan Gaidheal" is pointless. I read the entire thing and it has very little basis for ethnic/indigenous Scottish for the following reasons: 1) it clearly has a pro-Gaelic, pro-"Highlander" and anti-"Germanic" agenda. 2) its informaton on the unifying physical/genetic characteristics of the indigenous Scots and on ethnic groups in general is very much incorrect (lol, especially with the ludicrous claim of the Scots being broadly "Nordic-Alpine") and I wonder if the author ever took a course in anthropology in his/her life. MOST importantly 3) the author completely disregards and downplays the equal importance of the Picts, Norse and Angles to Scottich ethnicity/culture compared to the Scotti. There is no historical facts in the authors POV and to say Scottish culture has "always been largely Gaelic" is completely disregarding the importance of the native Picts and especially the Northumbrian Angles who settled in Scotland during the same time as the Scotti did. Even if you do somehow agree with this article, it however disagrees with the ludicrous notion of Scottish ethnicity being "non-exclusive" and in fact shows them to be more "exclusive" since it believes only the Gaels and their descendants are the "true Scots". This has been the most pointless web site I've ever read on the Scottish people. One thing should be noted however in that practically every ethnic group in the world has been "non-exclusive" to some degree when forming respective ethnicities/cultures but generally the term is reserved for very non-exclusive and heterogenous groups such as Jewish and Arab peoples (where basically if you adopt the faith and language you're set). Epf 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what a discussion

I have to agree with Angus on the results of the US Census for Irish and Scotch Irish. The results should speak for themselves. Who are we to question what people put? We are making to many assumptions here and unless we questions each respondent and look at their ancestral records...we should just let it be for now. The website scotchirish.net may use historical sources as you mentioned EPf but those really don't matter considering that we have figures based on what people put as their ethnicity on the census. I think the website is a bit too pro-scotch and as you said anti-catholic irish...when a website or source crosses that line...i begin to question their ideas and agenda....i just feel that they would like to really downplay the role of the catholic irish in america....i agree with you that the scotch irish were fundamentally important in contributing america but that could be easily matched by the later waves of millions from not only Ireland but Germany, England, Italy, Poland and Russia...the fact of the matter....there seems to be a trend in the census results....the germans are the largest ancestral group...they were also the largest immigrant group from 1820 onwards ....the second largest ancestral group are the irish and funny enough they were also the second largest immigrant group from 1820s onwards...due to the fact of heavy irish catholic immigration from the famine onwards....totaling rougly 4.4 million from 1820's onwards....so i don't know...we could analyse these numbers til the cows come home but i just feel that it is inappropriate to be trying to give reasoning behind the census results...especially when we are trying to downplay results that were chosen by the people...there is just no real study completed on the census results from 2000 or 2004....

  • Agreed, I won't challenge the census data anymore until I can get more historicl and census sources to challenge the Irish census data. I also agree with you about the views of the site, but I don't think its intent is to disregard the native Irish/Irish Catholic contribution which is obviously also well established and known in the US. The Irish, Italians, Germans, Polish ,etc, retained their culture and ethnic idenetities much better than the Scottish and Scotch-Irish did obviously because of the closeness and shared history of the Ulster-Scots and Scottish with England and Anglo-Saxon culture. One thing I do know for a fact is that the 4-5 million number is not the true number of those who are of whole/partialScotch-Irish ancestry and you will here from me when I have a list of sources/references for this other than just Scotchirish.net. Ciao,Epf 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That's certainly not the explanation, presuming that your thought is true (which it probably isn't, as Scottish Americans have strong identities); the Irish share more history with England than the Scots do (although, for political reasons, they may not see it this way). The important difference was probably that the Scots, ethnic-Scots or Anglophones, were almost 100% protestant. Other large protestant populations, peoples such as the (predominantly northern) Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, similarly were little discriminated against in American history. - Calgacus 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree that the Irish have more to do with English....the Irish have a strong separate identity, just like the Scots....I would say the Irish and Scots are closer cousins with respect to ethnicity than the English....they share a similar branch of Gaelic, even music, last names etc are similar....the english are anglo-saxon, have a different culture and language...if you are going to make a comment CALGACUS....don't make an ignorant one... hey epf - i have enjoyed our somewhat heated debates over the last while....you keep me on my toes LOL...we should get together for a coffee one day and discuss things...i believe you live in Toronto...as do i..70.30.71.252 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey hey, well that's me put right. ;D - Calgacus 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your in Toronto ? Im currently studying anthropology at U of T and live just off campus. Get a User/Talk page so I can message you more there or just post on my own talk page. Ciao,

Epf 19:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification Please

Ulster was originally part of the Dalriada Kingdom of Scotland: The Red Kings. There are a lot of people who say they are Scots-Irish to reflect this geographical fact. A person from Strathclyde could refer to themselves as a Strathclyde Briton because the Romans recorded the Britanni/Pretani/Pict as living there and those are all Latin names referring to the same people. Naming it North Britain again is just confusing as there is a North Britain geographic area in France and it begs the question of where Southern Britain is which everybody knows is England. Southern Britain is in France too. I'm thinking if you named it North England you would confuse it with Cumbria and get a lot of confused roadside travellors. Greater England would definitely not work because then you have Lesser England and history just has not been following that recently. Plus the religion is totally confusing. You have some islands that are Catholic, some that are Presbyterian, and in Ulster you have the Church of Ireland, which when I last checked was Anglican. Orkney: It it Norwegian Lutheran? Up-Helly-Ah. The North Sea is stormy. Someone already e-mailed me recently about my website and told me my ignorance of Scotland really shows. I'm sad to say I agree. Whoever these Scotti were archeologically would be a great article and maybe someday I will get better. (Unsigned comment by User:Cokeeffe 08:47 UTC, 6 March 2006)

I dont think ive ever read such a confusing request for clarification. An Siarach

Please clarify! - River run 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, there scottish...Moneal04 22:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic affinities

I came across these two links and I think they may be of interest. One of them belongs to Coon, an anthropologist who worked on his theories before DNA testing was available. Now, the other link to DNA research seems to go in the same direction.

The Mediterranean Reemergence in Great Britain

http://med1nuc11.dfc.unifi.it/linnets/troe/texts/p25.htm

Celtic nations have more in common with the Portuguese and Spanish than with "Celts"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955701/

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Irish_people"

[edit] POV versus Verifiability

I consider this edit to have been extremely poor. The material removed, namely

Scots have been emigrating for centuries, mainly they emigrated to mainland Europe (France, Italy, Holland, Scandinavia and Poland) as merchants and soldiers.{{ref|Armitage}}

is supported by the source cited

{{note|Armitage}}See David Armitage, "The Scottish Diaspora", particularly pp. 272–278, in Jenny Wormald (ed.), Scotland: A History. Oxford UP, Oxford, 2005. ISBN 0-19-820615-1

Verifiable material should not simply deleted because it does not suit a particular editor's worldview. Angus McLellan 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Return to Ireland

The name of this section is misleading. The majority of those planted in Ulster from Scotland would have been of quite firm English/Anglo-Saxon stock given their ancestral region and would have had no historical links with Ulster or Ireland at all - unlike the Scots of the Western Coast and other regions. The border families came from the only part of Scotland to have been impervious to Scotticization/Gaelicization and to describe their plantation as a 'return' is at best misleading and at worst simply wrong and arguably an example of pseudo-history as propagated by Northern Irish loyalists. An Siarach

[edit] Related Ethnic Groups

After all the weeks of debate, someone has now gone and recategorised this section placing people not into what are related ethnic groups, but rather separated into linguistic groupings. EPF, you are aiding this. I must admit that I thought better of you than that.

I didn't aid it, I just dont have time to discuss with this person about this rv of the format for "related ethnic groups". Who really cares about such a small section anyway, as long as it says which groups are related. Epf 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You make two points thiere. First point - agreed, second point - it's the principle of the thing. Enzedbrit 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

EPF, why Faroese? I don't know of much history of migration. Both Scotland and the Faroe Islands saw migration from Denmark and Norway but that alone won't like both Scotland and the Faroese. I think you need to justify on the discussion first before you add it and I would be interested to see the history between the two. Enzedbrit 00:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Historically and culturally, the Faroe Islands share much culture and ancestry with the Orkneys, Shetlands and to a lesser extent the Outer Hebrides. The people of these islands as well as a great deal of mainland Scotland trace signicant amounts of ancestry to the Norse who originated from Western Norway. Obviously there has been much recent migration of Danes to the Faroes and the impact of such I really dont know or whether or not they were just assimlated into the local population. I do know however that Scotland has not seen signifcant migration from Denmark and historically experienced much more Norwegian settlement. Epf 04:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

What exactly is disputed? Other than the fact that the article requires a major expansion, it seems pretty good and informative.--Eupator 20:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, lots. Some Scots don't believe in a Scots "ethnicity", many or most would have trouble articulating what it was exactly even if they did believe in it. This makes a Scottish people article rather bizarre, if not (and this is my opinion) downright creepy, the sort of thing that peculiar foreigners believe about themselves. Or perhaps the suspicion that the idea is being imposed on us by weird foreigners who want to formulate explicit rules of Scottishness which confirm their Scots self-identity (but exclude many new- or not-so-new-comers to Scotland who would be accepted as Scottish by many Scots).
Some people think X and Y and Z are markers of Scottishness, others think A and B and C, some think any one or two of A, B, forexamplC, X, Y or Z, and so on. Some people think Scots need to live in Scotland or be born there, or have their (a ?) grandparent(s) born there. Some believe in magic Scottish indirenblood that transmits Scottishness through umpteen generations. User:Epf and User:Enzedbrit disagree about everything, all the time, but why not. The early history is a nonsense. The history of emigration is US/Canada/Australia-centric and limited to the last couple of hundred years. Far more people with magic Scots blood, if it exists, live in Poland, Sweden, France, Norway and the Low Countries, never mind England.
Just about everything to do with the article, including the fact of its existence, could be questioned. Would that do for starters ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

lol, "magic scottish blood", c'mon Angus. Tracing most of your family origins and genetics to Scotland I dont think merits such a statement or comparison. Also, "Scottishness" as you claim it obviously wouldn't just be passed down through the family "genetically" and I really disagree "far more people" with Scots roots live in other European countries than in the New World, especially the Americas where easily over 2 million emigrated over the past centuries. Epf 06:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Angus. The article has a North American outlook on Scottishness, which many, um, Scottish Scots may not agree with.--Nydas 06:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how its "North American" in any sense and whats found in the article many ethnic Scots in Scotland would also agree with. Epf 07:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, many 'ethnic Scots' would not agree with it. Hence the tags. --Nydas 08:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Nydas, which parts they don't agree with? As in some view themselves as distinct from other Scots? The ethnogenesis of Scots isn't any less complicated than that of other peoples, it just happens to be a more recent one. As for the North American argument, it's the same thing with any other people. Italians in the US and Canada generally do not discrimante within their communities but back in the Old Country some people do care about Lombard or Norman heritage for example. That doesn't mean Italians don't exist.--Eupator 15:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not that, it's the idea that there are Americans and Canadians who count as 'Scottish people'. North Americans appear to think so, many Scottish Scots would not agree. --Nydas 16:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I see. So allegedly some Scots in Scotland do not recognize a Scottish diaspora? What is the reasoning behind that though? Is that the main problem here? Why not just mention that in the article with a proper citation? Care must be taken to differentiate between a resident/citizen of Scotland and a descendant of the aforementioned historic people of Scotland (ie: the ethnic Scots). --Eupator 16:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I know of no research done on this particular topic, although this sociology paper [5] shows that birth, not ancestry, is the most important indicator of Scottishness to Scottish Scots. --Nydas 11:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Angus had some statistics on his page (or was it Calgacus) ? which showed what Scottish nationals thought defined Scottish ethnicity or "Scottishness" and a significant percentage cited ancestry. One of them had a proposed "Scottish people" article with references, I dont think its there anymore though. Epf 12:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
It was me, here. The original data is buried somewhere that I can't get at it on the ESDS website. Residence and birth are self-explanatory, the ancestry question asked about [one or some or all] grandparent(s), but I haven't seen the questions. For the McCrone et al Sociology Review paper that Nydas referred to, there's a briefing paper at the IoG website that references it (see here pdf)). There are others, with less detail, on the site. There is, somewhere, but I couldn't find it just now, an academic-political blog/newssheet that gave more details of the survey questions, without actually reproducing them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


As a Scot (someone who was born and bred in Scotland, but that's not meant to be an exclusive definition) I have to add my voice to those of Angus McLellan and Nydas. Sorry to be cruel, but for me a third or fourth generation or more Scottish-American (or Canadian, Australian etc.,) is not really a Scot, but an American, albeit a Scottish-American. That's where they've hung their hat, so to speak. A child of Pakistani or Polish parents growing up in Glasgow or Edinburgh, on the other hand is most definitely entitled to call themselves a Scot (if they want, and I hope they do), because this is their country, their home. And I believe that in modern Scotland, that's basically what it boils down to, Scots are simply the people of Scotland, (the term used by the SNP for example [6]),ethnicity has little to do with it, see Scottish national identity. But living in Scotland does have a lot to do with it (as does accent, as I know to my cost). And how do you define "ethnic Scot" anyway? From it's beginnings Scotland has been a mixture of peoples, and has experienced succeeding waves of immigrants. At the time of the Risings (1715 and 1745) Scotland consisted of two mutually distrustful cultures. Was one more 'Scottish' than the other? Do we discount something like a third of Glasgow's population because they are of Irish descent? Of course not. Or the later waves of Jews, Italians, Poles (and whisper it quietly - English) and most recently Asians, or is it Poles again? Same answer. This is not to deny that those of 'the Scottish diaspora' feel a strong measure of Scottish identity, just as that child will continue to have a strong feeling of Pakistani or Polish identity. But that's something you work out for yourself, and identity isn't necessarily the same thing as nationality. --212.76.37.142 13:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most Scottish, Britons and Western Europeans are of Iberian Origin.

Take your time and read well.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF

World Haplogroups Maps (As recent as 2005)

Origins of haplogroup R1b. (Very interesting too)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29

http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Maps.htm

HCC

  • See my views on this on Talk:English people. The Y-chrom. Haplogroup this user is referring to isnt "Iberian" in a historical sense and dates back over ten thousand years ago.

[edit] Sean Connery?

Sean Connery as an example of a historical Scot? Sure, the man is a good actor, but a way greater man is desrving of this. That man's name is Alexander Fleming, the man who made one of the world's most important antibiotics, penicillin. Even Adam Smith would do. I strongly urge an edit of the photo. Rshu 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, how about an example of all these millions and millions of 'Scots' who've never been to Scotland? --Nydas 06:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that these people should be included, because look at all of the other articles on national peoples. They all have people that have never been to those countries. Still, I do not understand why Connery is in this photo ahead of the man who invented capitalism or the man who invented penicillin. The debate for supporting Connery's appearance in this photo is practically useless. Rshu 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As a Scot, I am happy to have "Big Tam" in the photo showing examples of well known Scots. Of course there could be others added to the picture but he has as much right to be there as anybody else. Benson85 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Sean Connery has a right to be there if the photo was made to have eight men instaed of four. Otherwise, he should be replaced by James Watt, Alexander Fleming, or Adam Smith. These men are recognizable Scots that did a lot more for the world than an actor. Rshu 18:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be quite happy with Sean Connery in the montage, as he is a very well known Scot (who says they must be historical?). However, the picture of him being used is a fair-use copyrighted screenshot, and it isn't fair use as used here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with putting him in because he is so well known, but the Scottish people have given the world some of its greatest philosophers and inventors. Why not add another row at the bottom with William Ramsay, Alexander Fleming, James Watt, and Adam Smith? I have seen a picture with eight people in the Czech people article. Why not edit it? Rshu 20:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just making the point that that Sean Connery picture should not be used (for legal reasons). I find these famous people montages always show people I would never recognise, and they are never labelled to show the significance of the people. So if I were to express a preference it would be for people I would recognise visually, rather than by name or significance. But I don't really have a preference. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, now the pic must be removed. I think this would be the perfect time to either replace Connery, or add more Scots to the photo. Besides, this is not a tabloid's list of the most famous Scots, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not meant to appeal to people who are the most recognizable, not the most significant. I mean, I don't see any other ethnicity article with a celebrity in the main picture except for this one. Rshu 01:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
How about a famous Scottish woman, just for a bit of gender balance? Of the top of my head, there's Saint Margaret of Scotland. Mildly controversial, I know. --Nydas 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a woman would be good. Just so the woman made a significant contribution to history. Rshu 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
...No-thing wrong with having a woman, but Margaret isn't Scottish. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Mary Slessor is on banknotes, or how about Naomi Mitchison or Muriel Spark ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that Margaret is Scottish by marriage - see Sonia Gandhi. --Nydas 05:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Germanic peoples" category controvesial, but "Celts" is not?

How can you not categorize the Scots as a Germanic people? The English people fit the cateogry. Is it not known that Scots are heavily Anglo-Norman, way more than they are Celtic? I think the Celts category should be removed for the Scots, because if a person cannot even put a category that they fit WAY more in than Celts, what is next? The actual language of the Scottish people, Scots is heavily influenced by Anglo-Saxon. To call them Celts, whom are aa minority, instead of a Germanic people, is pretty bad. Some of the most famous Scots, Adam Smith, for example, had Anglo-Saxon surnames. I would just like to ask why Celt is acceptable, and Germanic people is not? Is Celt not even been given more controversy than any ethnic term after the Irish nationalism movement? Rshu 13:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If languages dictate relatedness, are Jamaicans a Germanic people ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's partly about perception; Scots are rountinely called "Celts", both amongst the populace and as a convenient term in scholarly articles. There is absolutely no controversy about that term; when you start bringing race and language directly into it, you're on shakey grounds. The vast majority of Scots are the living descendents of the Iron Age Celts who lived in northern Britain (we do not know anything about the language or culture or population of the people before that) and Ireland, i.e. Picts, Britons and Scots/Gaels, and I'd venture a safe guess that the modern Punjab has contributed more to the gene pool of modern Scotland than Saxony ever has. Race, besides, is irrelevant; there is no such thing as either a Germanic or Celtic race; if language is the criterion, then places like Kenya, Singapore, Jamaica and Fiji (not to mention Ireland) become largely Germanic countries. In short, it's about identity. Contemporary Scots are not thought of as "Germanic" by anyone except a few Teutonists who've read too many old books. "Germanic" is largely a linguistic term, used for languages and not peoples; used sometimes as a historical term for a group of peoples who made no immediate impact on Scotland, it is otherwise a defunct racial concept; "Celt" remains a historical term relevant to Scotland, a linguistic term obviously, but has also been transformed into convenient way of designating the inhabitants of the British Isles not regarded as English. If language is your argument, then the category "Speakers of Germanic languages" would be more appropriate. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My main reason for putting Germanic people was that the English are in that category. And if both English and Scots share the Anglo-Saxon link, then, by logic, they would both be Germanic. Saying that the Picts make the Scots Celtic is about as relevant as saying that the Britons make the English Celtic. You are forgetting the reason why they are called Celts, the Gaels. I am not against defining them as Celts, but they are more Germanic, especially in the Lowlands, and thus, should either be defined as a "Germanic people", or that category itself should be removed from the English people page. Rshu 15:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


This is a terribly old fashioned view: it reminds me of the artificial-and racist-taxonomy used by some ninteenth century historians, with bogus maps delineating the 'Teutonic' Lowlands from the 'Erse' Highlands. To describe Scots as 'Germanic' in any shape or form risks being treated with derision, both in a popular and an academic context. I also believe it to be completely wrong to describe the English as 'Germanic'. The old view was that the Anglo-Saxon invasions somehow led to the extermination of the indigenous Celtic people of Roman Britain. The truth, of course, is far more subtle, with a long process of assimilation and blending, as well as killing. The modern British 'race' has a whole variety of tributaries, but is in the main a mixture of Celt, Saxon, Norse and French, some parts more one and other parts more the other. If we are talking purely about the English language-which the repellant Richard Wagner thought was a 'dialect' of German-its influences are wide and varied, owing as much to French and Latin as to any northern European toungue. All Scottish people are happy to be called Celt, whether they are or not. I urge you not to try to call them German. You would risk more than your self-esteem! Incidentally, I speak German and admire (some) aspects of German culture; so there is no residual prejudice, I assure you, on my part. Rcpaterson 02:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting my main reason for putting the category on Scottish people. First, I have no prejudice against the Celts(I also admire their culture), but I find it stupid that the English people article is under the category Germanic people, yet Scottish people is not. As I said earlier, the Scots do have much Anglo-Saxon in them. Sure, they had the Gaels in the Highlands and the Picts in the Lowlands(though they were assimilated by both the Gaels, and then the Lowland Gaels by the Anglo-Normans), but other than that, the Lowlands were practically assimilated into the Anglo-Norman culture. I am an American, and I don't know to many Englishmen, but would Englishmen like to be called German? I doubt it. Otherwise, I think the category's usefullness in any article about a people of the British people is practically useless. Though by calling them Germanic you are not techincally calling them German, I see the point. Sine there is no real reason now to put them down as a Germanic people, I know actually agree with keeping it out unless the category changes to "Germanic speaking peoples". Rshu 02:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes conventions don't make sense. What may make Scotland different is that it was never subjected to the intense Germanic settlement that was the fate of eastern Britain south of the Tyne, that the country itself is in origins a Celtic kingdom with a name that originally meant "Land of the Gaels" (a Celtic people), and that a Celtic language (Gaelic) was a majority language until about 500 or so years ago, and this language is still spoken today. There is good reason, I agree, to object to England being called a "Germanic" country, but that will be decided on that article, not this one. Anyways, modern Scots, Celtic speakers or not, are just like modern English-speaking Welsh and Irish, commonly called "Celts". Are you taking up this issue on those articles too? BTW, don't get too hung up on "highlands" and "lowlands"; excepting a few centuries in the early modern/later medieval period, the division makes no linguistic sense in Scottish history; 'tis rather a hang-up of 18th century political and literary dialogue. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I got to thinking, instead of putting the German people's category for Scots, why not make the English a related ethnic group? I mean you have Icelanders as a related ethnic group because of a few Scottish immigrants. The Anglo-Saxons and the Normans shaped Scotland, and since the English are made up of these two peoples, why should they not be considered related? Rshu 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The English are already there, they just come after Manx, Bretons and Cornish. Quite frankly, if it were up to me, I'd delete the entire 'related' section of all the ethnicity pages. Readers should be left to make up their own mind based on the article content. --Nydas 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I must have missed that then. Rshu 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics stuff

Is it just me or is this article getting worse? This, for example:

"New genetic research does show a strong similarity between the Y chromosome of Basque and people of the Iberian Peninsula to Scots males as well as their neighbors in Ireland and Wales. [7][8][9]"

Looking at the references, they completely fail to justify the sentence. Specifically, the Y chromosome claim is only made for Wales, whilst the only article that's actually about Scotland is much more vague. --Nydas 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the article getting worse, but you are right that the sentence you mention is not supported by the references. The first reference (scotsman.com), doesn't even mention Basque, the second (bbc) is about Irish and Welsh relations to Basque and the third is just a map of haplogroups with no interpretation or explanation of its meaning. I say alter or delete the sentence unless a better reference can be provided.--WilliamThweatt 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted.--Nydas 06:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The relationship is clear according to recent DNA analysis. It is not only in relation to Scotts, but in relation to all indigenous Britons. What happens is that the Scotts, the Irish and the Welsh are the closest to those indigenous Britons. In fact there is plenty of information available, this is just one example: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

You can also try this:

http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/article7.html

That article is not about genetics, for a change. I have cut and pasted this.

-- Nobody knows the origin of Picts, a nation who lived since the beginning of the 1st millennium BC until the 9th century AD in Scotland. When Celts came to the British Isles in the 7th and 6th centuries BC, Picts already inhabited the lands north to modern Edinburgh, and when Romans invaded Britain in the 1st century BC and came to Scotland in the next one, they were still there occupying just the same lands. Different authors, from ancient times to our days, present different versions about where from the Picts came to Britain in prehistoric times. The archaeological sources suppose their arrival to Britain took place in about 1000 BC from the continent, and then in 200 BC from Scotland to Ireland. But the original homeland of the Picts in continental Europe is unknown, and that led to different explanations. Medieval authors supported a version that Picts were not Celts, and were a pre-Celtic race who came here from Scythia. A more realistic point of view was invented last century, when scientists tried to prove Pictish homeland is Spain, ancient Iberia from where British Iberians, supposedly Stonehenge creators, arrived here. The reason for this version was a Roman author who described Picts in the early 4th century AD as the people very much alike Iberians whom Rome fought in Hispania.

This version needs comment. It is obvious, that the British Isles and northern Spain had had some special contacts since very early times. First, Iberians in England mentioned above; then many Celtic legends, which call the Irish Celtic nation "Milesians" and trace it back to Milesius, a Celtic king of Iberia. Irish Ogham inscriptions, evidently written in a Celtic tongue, have something in common with Iberian and even especially Basque languages. We will get back to Ogham later below, and now we can only say that Iberia, or maybe South-Western France can be a possible source of Pictish migration to Britain.

The link of the earlier inhabitants of Scotland to their Iberian ancestors can be found in the many spiral pattern grooves cut into the rocks and boulders of this northern land and which can also be found in Spain, France and Ireland. The design of burial chambers located in the Orkney islands also provide an important link to the Iberian origin of their builders. Farming arrived in these islands around 4000 BC and as it replaced the nomadic way of life, the Orkneys became an island fortress with its many stone brochs. By the time Rome became a world empire, the Orcadians were recognized by Rome as a sea power. From recent excavations, it seems that these Orcadian people were a slim, dark Caucasian race, with long, narrow heads. The great stone circles such as Sunhoney were probably being built around 3300 BC, quite possibly around the same time as the arrival of another nation from Northern and Central Europe. These newcomers were of a different ethnic group from the Iberian stock in northern Britain, as their skulls were much broader and round. Evidence of contact between these new people and their continental ancestors have been discovered in several excavations, and seem to indicate a flourishing trade between ancient Scotland and Europe. And finally in 1000 BC Picts appear here from Europe and gradually mix with autochtonic tribes. It is thought by many scholars that the union of these three or even more peoples resulted in the creation of the pre-Celtic stock called the Picts.


In fact there is so much evidence, especially with recent genetic research, that we would need lots of space to cover it. R1b is a genetic marker of Iberian origins. Scottish people are more than 75% R1b. Spanish Basque people close to 90%. Non-Basque Spanish people about 70%. Within the R1b Haplogroup there is the Atlantic Modal Haplotype. Again it is most frequent in Spain and the British Isles. If you want more information about the Atlantic Modal Haplotype, just type it in in Google, you will get lots of results, Etc..


Those pages are not remotely reliable as a source of information. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Nydas 19:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You kidding me, aren´t you?

One of those articles is about the Picts, the other does not appear to be a reputable, peer-reviewed article. Anyone could have written it. The Scotsman and the BBC are both reputable sources - but they were being misused to create an original synthesis which neither article supported. Find reliable, peer-reviewed sources. And sign your posts. --Nydas 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See the section above about The Scottish and Iberina origins. Add more and mroe references, do your own research (type in Google keywords like Atlantic Modal Haplotype, R1b, Haplogroups, etc) and you will fond more than enough reliable sources. About my signing my posts, a have no aspiration to fame.

Gentlemen, Genetics has its uses, but it is only one science. In answering these questions we need to look at all disciplines and not rely on just one. Genetics can only tell us "what's there", it can't tell us how it got there. Archeology and anthropology tell us the Basque were one of the first known peoples to settle Iberia. Likewise, the Celts (or more precisely various Celtic tribes) were one of the first known people to settle "Gaul". We only have written records of these people from Roman times (c1st century BC), long after they were already well-established. It is considered likely that the Basque and their (now extinct) related groups (Iberians) were once more widespread and were displaced and absorbed in the region of Gaul by the Celts. It is inevitable that through wars/slavery, alliances, and assimilation, the Celts and the Basque/Iberians interbred over centuries, if not millenia. This would result in the present-day genetic similarities and shared haplotypes. Not to mention that the Basque are a non-Indo-European group while the Celts are definately Indo-European. This fact alone indicates a very low probability of common ancestry as it is considered very rare for a people to remain unique yet wholly adopt a language from an unrelated language family. In the emerging field of genetic anthropology, it is quite common for a geneticist to publish his/her theories with out regard to the other, more definitive disciplines, in an effort to "be the first" to make the claim. All of the sources you cite are neither definitive nor complete and are contrary to known facts. The Iberians and the Celts may indeed share common genes but neither can look to the other for its "origins".--WilliamThweatt 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you make basic mistakes, confusing concepts like genetics (biological ancestry) and language (Indoeuropean). Indoeuropean is a linguistic family, it has nothing to do with genetics. Iberian has many meanings. We are using it here just to speak about the indigenous people of Iberia, who are believed to be the originators of the Genetic markers grouped together under Haplogroup R1b, and those genetic markers are the most frequent in Western Europe, but they happen to show the highest concentration in Iberia and in the British Isles. I think you already know what a Y-Chromose Haplogroup is, it is a set of genetic markers that is passed down from father to son all the way down. No one in the scientific community even questions this fact. The problem here is that I see a lot of people sticking to 19th and 20th century concepts that are already more than out of place. As you say, genetics says how things are, not why. Most Iberians and Britons belong to the same Y-haplogroup genetic race, that is a fact. Why is it like that?, well the mainstream theory is that Iberians migrated north once upon a time. A lot of history is going to be rewritten with recent genetic evidence: one famous case is the Puertorican one. Official history had it that the native Indians had been exterminated in the Island. Now genetic research has demonstrated that 67% of Puertoricans have native Taino Indian genes. An important part of their history is going to be rewritten. Still, history (recorded, written history) is very interesting, but just an extremenly thin crust on a very thick pie.

[edit] Other countries with diaspora

What about New Zealand Scottish statistics - the country has many towns and cities named after Scots and places in Scotland so therefore there must be a sizeable diaspora there?

This is about semantics. The term 'diaspora' is not the correct term for this phenomena. The Wikipedia article, if we are to use this service as a guide in influencing its articles, gives a very good description of diaspora. Diaspora would serve a simple purpose in describing what one is trying to say, but if no simple 'one word' exists, then the phenomena should be described in context. Enzedbrit 21:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diaspora

The term diaspora (Ancient Greek διασπορά, "a scattering or sowing of seeds") is used (without capitalization) to refer to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands; being dispersed throughout other parts of the world, and the ensuing developments in their dispersal and culture. (Taken from Diaspora).

A great many Scots, from the Lowlands and (especially) the Highlands, were forced or induced to leave their traditional homeland by various factors. To claim they are not a diaspora is just simply unfounded.

The clearances did not oblige people to leave their homeland. Many emigrated. This is not a diaspora. It's not going to work. Enzedbrit 10:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if they were'nt forced they were quite definitely induced to leave. Many highlanders lost their land and had the simple choice of leave to places like New Zealand where they could get new land or stay in Scotland where they would have lost their unique culture. So i think its safe to say many people were not completely willing to move but were left with very little choice. Also many people in the Highlands would have seen the Highlands not Scotland as a whole as their homeland so in that case they actually were obliged to leave their homeland. And finally you may want to look at the clearances page the very first sentence states 'The Highland Clearances is a name given to the forced displacement of the population of the Scottish Highlands'.

It is not a diaspora. It was a small movement of Highland Scots to the colonies. I think it was about 20,000 people. That is such a small population of Scots. Let us not forget that they made up a large part of the Loyalist wing in the American Revolution. I don't think that a people whom were 'forced or induced' to leave their homeland would still be loyal to the monarchy whom supposedly 'forced them to move'. Rshu 12:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You "think" it was only 20,000 people ? Not only do you think incorrectly, but you have no fact to back up such a number. A great number emigrated from the "Highlands" to several places and their culture and language thrived in new lands, especially in Canada. Actually, a great deal of Scots, especially Ulster-Scots, helped form the backbone of troops during the American Revolution. In any case, the Scots do fit the definition of diaspora and the clearances did oblige people to leave their homeland. To say otherwise is historical ignorance. 69.157.126.241 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have some form of bias. To call the movement of Scottish settlers abroad is as ignorant as to call the movement of English settlers abroad a diaspora. Rshu 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I think your POV right there is ignorant. You are making a unilateral claim that massive induced and forced emigration of Scots to other parts of the world is not a diaspora, although it is in line with the definition. They fled for various reasons, and many were persecuted because they spoke Gaelic or because they professed a certain religion. Do not try to alter history. 69.157.126.241 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you are calling me ignorant? Ask any Scot, the Scottish language is Scots not Scots Gaelic(of course, Scots are English speaking, but Scots is very similar, a form of Anglo-Norse, and was only changed somewhat). You have right now just tried to alter history. I don't care if 50-70% of Scots had Gaelic origins, they did not speak Gaelic, so get your facts straight. The English Puritans left England because they were being persecuted because they were not Anglican, yet that is not called a diaspora. Neither is a large movement over hundreds of years to the colonies. There were many different reasons for Scottish emigration, be it to make money in the colonies because they were poor, to flee because of the Jacobite Rebellions, etc. To call a small emigration over one hundred years a diaspora is insane. The Irish diaspora is completely different, since its motive was to keep from starving, and it was massed, I mean millions of people fleeing in the timespan of 30 years. Scotland's was not that large, or that small in timespan. The emigration was not forced, unlike the English emigration. Stop editing the article, until we all can actually agree on this. Rshu 12:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not delete verifiable sources.

In the genetic section someone deleted a part with verifiable sources. That is close to vandalism. Something that can be verified cannot be deleted.

If you want more sources here you have just a small sample:

If you want more I can flood this place.

HCC.

We've been through this before. Freepages and tripod sites are not reliable sources. Neither are 'one-name' genealogy sites. Or sites selling DNA tests. Your threat to 'flood this place' is noted. How about you just present infomation from peer-reviewed journals that tackle the topic at hand? See Wikipedia: Reliable Sources as well. --Nydas 14:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You think those sources are not reliable? Who are you? What kind of authority are you to negate maps like the 2005 Madonalds Hapmap, or all the genetic research that is being carried out by different companies in the US, or articles that have been done in this site like R1b or to negate the National Geographic Genographic project, headed by Cavalli Sforza. But if you want more sources just type in the google search bar key words like: Haplogroup R1b or "atlantic modal haplotype" and do your homework before coming here. Please be more serious and rigorous and less manipulative. HCC.

HCC, let's keep this civil. Before you ask somebody "Who are you?" maybe you should take a while to find out what Wikipedia is all about. All editors have equal "authority" to interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As Nydas says, we have indeed been through this very issue before. There are a number of things to consider. First of all, Nydas was merely pointing out that Wikipedia:Reliable sources, freepages and tripod sites where anybody can post literally anything are not reliable sources to cite in an encyclopedia. Likewise, commercial sites selling DNA "tests" are not acceptable as references. (In fact a recent university study/consumer investigation revealed that most of those sites are crap. Four samples were taken from the same person and sent in under different IDs and all came back with different results and different haplotypes). But, putting the reliablity of certain sites aside for the moment, we also have to consider the issue of Wikipedia:No original research. A Haplotype map is just that...a map. It tells us where certain haplotypes seem to be concentrated and in what percentages. As editors, we can not draw conclusions from such information and say that "this ethnicity is related to that ethnicity". All we can say is something like "A study by [Insert reputable organization here] shows that haplotype [insert type here] is shared by [insert percentage here] of population A and [insert percentage here] of population B in the people who volunteered for the study." and provide the citation. We can not draw inferences as to what this means. Genetic Anthropology is a very new science and not even the different researchers agree on what exactly haplotype distrubution indicates or its meaning in the larger history of human events. If you would like to include certain researcher's opinions or interpretations, they must be cited from legitimate, peer-reviewed journals. Otherwise, speculation, original research and POV agenda-pushing from free websites can and should continue to be deleted.--WilliamThweatt 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if you think that National Geographic or Cavalli Sforza, the 205 Macdonalds hapmap, etc.. are not reliable sources, the only thing that it tells me is that YOU ARE NOT RELIABLE. I am not going to engage in infantile discussions. Here you have yet another source, this time from Oxford: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361

Or this genetic map by Cavalli-Sforza: http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

The fact that they all come to the same conclusions seems to be irrelevant to you? Wow. And you say that it is my POV.

If you know Wiki rules, you should know that verifiable information cannot be deleted. If you claim again that what is being done by National Geographic, etc adn etc, is my original research, I am going to report you for violating Wiki rules.

HCC.

And the fact that you seem not to be able to understand my posts or to be civil tells me that you must either be high, a small child or purposefully an a$$. You are the one that is being infantile here. I said absolutely nothing about National Geographic not being a reliable source. I (and Nydas for that matter) were referring specifically to freepages, tripod pages, commerical sites selling "test kits" and geneology forums. That is so plain and simple anybody should be able to understand that. The other point is that a map, in and of itself, doesn't "come to a conclusion", it merely shows data. Any conclusion that you come to by looking at the map is, by definition, Original Research. A list (or map) of data can not be cited to support your claims. You must cite the interpretation of a researcher in a peer-reviewed journal and then it has to be written so as to make sure the reader is aware that this is the interpretation of this particular researcher, not to be taken as a fact given by Wikipedia. This is a logical argument I hope you are capable of following.--WilliamThweatt 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly want to be civil, but not infantile. If you had taken the effort of reading one of my latest sources you would have seen this:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

Sorry again, but when I have to explain basic things over and over again things look infantile to me. HCC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.157.222 (talk • contribs) .

That article does not mention Scotland, or Scottish people, or ethnicity. Indeed the article spends much time discussing how virtually everyone everywhere came from the Near East. I'm not sure the information adds anything at all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
A proper journal article - which doesn't mention Scotland once. Putting that aside, it's mostly about the extent of mixing between Near Eastern farmers and European hunter-gatherers. All this was happening long, long before Scotland existed, and I have no idea why you think it's so important for the article. We don't have info on eye colour or hair structure. Why should we include info on the structure of the Y-chromosome? It doesn't even do anything. In any case, it's a heck of a stretch to spin this into 'Scots are closely related to Basques'. --Nydas 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Here you have more interesting stuff: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/F04

I hope you can read a map. HCC.

What is an Atlantic population? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Nydas and Zzuuzz; this sentence is not only problematic but adds nothing to the article anyway. Also, I looked at every source you provided, most don't even mention Scotland or the Scottish ethnic group and therefore do not support the sentence. And again, maps aren't valid sources to support a claim; a map is simply a graphical representation of data, not an interpretation of what that data means. One source even contradicted the sentence, saying that "the R1b Haplotype results are very difficult to interpret". Also "Atlantic population" is not defined. This would be better handled in a seperate article on the R1b haplotype or on European genetics.--WilliamThweatt 20:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The comments stay because they are verifiable and relevant about the origins of a people. About the atlantic population, the term is being used because the Atlantic facade of Europe shares the same haplogroup called R1b (or basque haplogroup) and because the Atlantic Modal haplotype, a subgroup within the R1b Haplogroup, is also most prevalent in that area. HCC.

You appear to have just invented the term Atlantic population to include the Scottish people, and as a classification which appears to include some other European groups. Where is the verifiability in that? Where is the source which says that the Scottish people are an Atlantic population? -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the energy to argue about the term "Atlantic". If you want to put it another way go ahead. In any case here you have cases in which the term "Atlantic is used":

I have just copied and pasted this part.

Atlantic R1b: This variant is found on the Atlantic coast, in Iberia, France and in the more remote parts of Ireland and Scotland. In order to obtain more accurate data on the aboriginal/indigenous Scots/Irish, data was extracted from Capelli et al, (5) for Pitlochry and Oban in the Scots Highlands, and from Castlereigh in Central Ireland

The rest you can see yourselves:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/9/5078

http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm

http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp

http://www.dnaheritage.com/tutorial3.asp

http://www.familytreedna.com/MatchWAMH.html

http://www.clanlindsay.com/genetic_haplogroups.htm


And I could go on and on, but I think this is enough.

HCC.

Your quote comes from 'worldfamilies.net', yet another site selling genetic testing. The original creator of the quote seems to be an A.A Foster, a non-notable person writing for a non-notable genealogy site.[10] A site that's not been updated for over a year. A site with a picture of Odin on their homepage. Please, this is becoming ridiculous.--Nydas 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, forget about him. Just take into account National Geographic, Oxford Journals or Cavalli Sforza. (This discussion is going from infantile to puerile) HCC.

[edit] related non-Insular groups

Just some quick points of non-insular groups I think should be kept under related groups box (from most related to least):

  • Frisians: shared language (Scots/English and Frisian), shared ancestry (Anglo-Saxons settling south-east Scotland) smaller elements of shared culture and religion (eg. Calvinism)
  • Norwegians: shared ancestry (Norwegian settlment throughout Scotland, particularly in the NOrth-east and in the Western Highlands and Islands), significant shared history with Scotland, significant impact of Norse language on both Gaelic and Scots languages, minor other shared cultural elements
  • Faroese: shared language (at one time when the old Norn was spoken on the Orkneys and Shetlands), significant shared history and culture between the Faroes and Scotland (especially Caithness, Orkneys and Shetlands), shared ancestry (descent from the Norse as well as older settlements), other minor shared elements
  • Icelanders: shared ancestry (Scots and Irish who settled Iceland with the Norse and both groups trace signifcant ancestry to Norse Vikings)
  • Dutch: minor elements of shared history, culture and religion

69.157.126.241 01:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Frisians The Anglo-Saxons who "settled" south-eastern Scotland, about 5% of the Scottish landmass, came from northern England, not Frisia; therefore English counts, anything beyond English, such as Frisian in this case, opens it up to all peoples who inhabit northern Germany-Holland and southern Scandinavia.
    • Norwegians, again settlement only on the fringes of Scotland; high medieval settlement of French, Bretons, Flemings, Dutch and Germans would count also on this basis, as would modern settlement from Pakistan. Although I'll admit this Norwegians have more to do with the Scottish people than Frisians, again it is slight.
    • Faroese shared language? Well, the ethnic language of the Scots is Gaelic; but if you mean people within modern Scotland, then this would only refer to people in a tiny fringe of Scotland. See above note on Norwegians.
    • Icelanders, again, see above. Scots have settled extensively in dozens of countries, more extensively for instance in Poland, Russia, Germany, Norway, Sweden, USA, Canade, Australia, etc.
  • Dutch not relevantly more so than with any other westerners.
    • Best to keep it to Irish, Manx and English with Welsh; Welsh is the native language of Britain, and Ireland and Mann have almost identical history of language and language mixture to Scotland. Scottish people are intimately related to these four peoples, anything after that is slight and open to too many inclusions. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Frisians: The Anglo-Saxons came into South-east Scotland from Northern England only shortly after they themselves first arrived from the German Bight. The Anglo-Saxons were most related to the modern Frisian peoples in terms of culture, language and ancestry and more-so than the peoples of Holland and northern Germany (so you can exclude them). In any case, you forgot about the closely shared linguistic (Anglo-Frisian) and religious elements (Calvinism).
    • Yeah, still not buying it. They came via England,and were already substantially Celticized by the time they settled a tiny proportion of the "Scottish" land. At any rate, Frisian is no more relevant than any other northern German or southern Scandinavian people. And language similarity alone is not enough, since modern Scottish people speak a language which has more in common with the elite language of Singapore, India and much of Africa, and common language of north America and Australasia.
  • English is a worldwide language, but it is not the traditonal language of those other peoples. Frisians would be more relevant than the other groups would they not since they share the closest descent and culture with the original Anglo-Saxons and remain speaking the closest language. Those other Germanic groups do not. 69.157.116.42 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Norwegians: not only settlement on the fringes since significant numbers settled in the western highlands and isles (Norse-Gaels), galloway and south-west Scotland, Orkney/shetlands and much of north-east scotland from especially caithness even down to fife. There wasnt any "high medieval settlement" on a similar scale and only very limited numbers of French, Dutch, Flemish,etc. ever settled. In this case, it does not open it up to less related groups of peoples.
    • I would dispute that; it was from Flanders and France that Scotland got it's first towndwellers. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Those towndwellers really did come in very small numbers. 69.157.116.42 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Faroese: share a great deal in common with the people of Caithness, Orkney and Shetland in terms of culture, ancestry, history and langauge. They in turn share ancestry and history with the rest of Scotland as well, but to a lesser degree.
    • Nah, too many peoples have that much in common with Scottish people. But the Scottish people as a whole share very little common heritage with the Faroe Islands. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the people, the history and population genetics would seem to say otherwise. 69.157.116.42 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Icelanders: can not be compared with those places where Scots have maintained a distinct identity (Scottish-Americans, Scottish Canadians, etc.) or where they settled in such small numbers that they left no demographic impact. In Iceland, which has a small and very homogenous gene pool, the descent from the original Norse and Irish/Scottish celts remains as the backbone for the population to this very day.
  • Ethnicity and race are related concepts. 69.157.116.42 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Dutch: agreed they share much less in common.

Therefore, I strongly recommend keeping Frisians, Norwegians, Icelanders and Faroese, but agree about excluding Dutch. 69.157.126.241 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

    • If you have these, you must have Dutch, Germans, Bretons, Swedes, Danes, Italians (the Romans occupied and interacted with much of southern Scotland for centuries), French people, Pakistanis, Indians, Punjabis, Chinese, Canadians, Americans, Australians, as well as Poles, Luxemburgers, Russians, Lithuanians, Finns, Greenlanders, etc, etc. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no ethnic "Canadians", "Americans" or "Australians" unless you are referring to Native Americans or Australian Aborigines. Secondly, you don't have to include those groups since they don't share as much in common with Scots as do Frisians, Icelanders, Norwegians and Faroese. In terms of language, culture, history and ancestry, they share much more with ethnic Scots than those peoples. The Romans had a very limited impact and the very small numbers who settled were easily absorbed. The other groups do not or have not made such similar impacts on the ethnic Scottish gene-pool, language, culture or history. 69.157.126.241 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And your arguments for this are what? Merely asserting something does not make it correct. Being an anonymous revert warrior may give you some powers, but not this. ;) Of course Americans and Canadians are peoples, why wouldn't they be? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course American and Canadians are "peoples", why wouldn't they be ?

We are speaking in terms of ethnic groups and ethnicity, not nationality. Canadians and Americans are not peoples in terms of ethnic groups. They are massive global and heterogenous societies with a multi-ethnic population, including many Scots. The only "ethnic Americans" and "Canadians" are native Algonquin, Metis, Iroquois, Cree, Inuit, Navajo, etc. 69.157.109.170 02:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Get with the times, anon, this is not the 18th or 19th century; Americans can easily claim to be an ethnic group, and certainly have more claim to ethnic distictiveness than, say, Austrians. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
hahha, WOW. Get with the times ? I am with the times and what does the 18th or 19th century have to do with what I'm saying today ? Well, much of who we are is about where we come from, but even so, I am speaking from a modern perspective. Ethnicity and culture last centuries and even longer. There is no unified American ethnic group and Austrians are more of an ethnic group easily than the non-existent "Americans" group. Austrians have a shared ancestry, shared language, shared culture anda re indigenous to Austria, although they are considered by many to be a sub-group of Germans. Have you ever been to the USA ? Many people here keep and identify with much of their roots and its more like a continent than a country or nation. It is more multi-ethnic and global than ever and there is no indigenous or unified "American" ethnic group, obviously. 69.157.109.170 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen expressed here on Wikipedia. How old are you? My family has been in America since the 1600s and fought in every U.S. war since the Revolutionary War. To say "there is no unified American ethnic group" is beyond comprehension to me. We understand that 4 centuries ago, our ancestors came here from Scotland, England, Ireland, France, etc. but we no more consider ourselves to be "ethnically" Scottish or English than Bantu or Chinese. We don't go around sporting kilts, tossing cabers, drinking wiskey, eating haggis or yearning to frollick in the heather by the loch. We eat hot dogs, watch football (that's the NFL, not soccer), play baseball, fly the stars and stripes, spell "labor" without a "u", wear jeans, chew Skoal, listen to Kenny Chesney, Willie Nelson and Bruce Springsteen, drive big (American) cars, shun public transportation, embrace capitalism, defeat communism and socialism, cherish our 2nd ammendment right to bear firearms, raise our children to work hard, celebrate Christmas with a Christmas tree and Santa Claus, celebrate Easter in church and with the Easter Bunny at home, and watch NASCAR after church on Sundays. We are Americans. You're right, "much of who we are is about where we come from" and I come from Stockton, California, USA; my father came from Stockton, California, USA; my grandfather came from Broken Bow, Oklahoma, USA; my great grandfather came from Cove, Arkansas, USA; my great-great grandfather came from Tupelo, Mississippi, USA. That is who I am. I am an American, ethnically and nationality. I suggest that, before you make comments like that, you grow up a little, turn off your TV and get outside of the insulated big-city and see the "real" America.--WilliamThweatt 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Americans have diverse origins like every other people in the world, but modern Americans and Canadians share a de facto ethnicity and cultural identity which every foreigner to that country recognizes. North Americans are far more distinct as an ethnic group than Austrians, who are no more a distinct sub-group of Germans than Bavarians or Saxons. Americans are certainly not English though. Yes, this is not the 19th century. The USA has been an independent state since the 18th century. Ethnicities don't come from the tower of babble, they are produced by political, social and other circumstances over time. And yes I have lived in the USA; I went to college there. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How old am I? How old are you ? The fact you claim there is a unified American ethnic group IS the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. First of all, can you trace most of your recent ancestry to the US ? Can you trace ALL your ancestry to the 1600's ? OF COURSE NOT, because those people who lived here then were so limited in number that they didn't form the basis for much of the population. The majority of the 300 million people here trace their ancestors to the past two centuries (20th cent. in particular) and most of us retain a closer connection with our heritage than you and your southern cousins (you said your g'pa was from Arkansas). You trace your ancestry to mainly protestant English and Scotch-Irish Americans from the south and it is your group who are practically the only ones here who say they are "ethnically American". The rest of us take pride in our heritage whether we be African-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans (mainly native Irish from the republic) more recent British-Americans (eg. especially in New England), etc. The fact is you are of British-American descent and you do differentiate as a distinct group of Americans because you do not consider yourself the same as African-Americans or Chinese-Americans or Korean-Americans or Italian-Americans who are different in terms of their origins and culture. Just because your family has a much more diluted and lost connection with its ethnic origins, does not mean others or most Americans are the same way. In any case, you stil retain the genetic, physical and personal/traditional attributes associated with your family's ethnic origins. Your family's mainly English ancestry and long presence in America resulted in it being considered "American" yet you still share much in common with other British-Americans and even ethnic British in the UK, even if you are unaware of many of the traits (i.e. you do not take a specific interest in culture or anthropology). You still have many differnces in culture, langauge and ancestry from the ACTUAL and indigenous ethnic Americans, the Native Americans (Indigenous peoples of the Americas). I've only heard arguments like yours from southerners or "red-necks" who have lost much of their culture. I'd seriously like to see you go to downtown LA, or Boston, or New York or even Washington DC and not get laughed at for what you just said, claiming your are "ethnically American" of "American ethnic origins". Hilarious. Eoganan 04:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You really do not understand what an ethnic group is or the concept of ethnicity and ethnic origins. They originate from common culture, language and most imporatantly, kinship and descent (shared ancestry/familial heritage). Ethnic groups cross national and political borders, obviously. Americans and Canadians are not unified ethnic groups or peoples and have very diverse origins, more-so than other countries (except other new-world nations, like Australia, Brazil, etc.) North Americans are NOT an ethnic group and are not even a distinct or unified culture. You really know nothing about this country. Ethnic groups are those who are indigenous to a geographic region and share a common ancestry resulting in common culture, language, traditions, phenotypic/genotypic traits, etc. Austrians (a regional group of Germans, like Swabians or Bavarians) are very distinct. They speak the same traditional language, share a common ancestry and have a distinct culture and history indigenous to their region. These are items which us Americans do not have and we are comprised of peoples from around the globe with their respective languages, cultures and ancestry. We are not a unified ethnic group in any shape or form. We certainly are not all English, but there are millions of English-Americans who are here (somewhere between 28 million or more). There are no "American-Americans", unless you are speaking about the true Americans, the native American tribes and peoples who maintain their distinct culture and ethnic origins. Do you have no idea of where we come from ? Do you have no concept of family ? Here is a classic quote for you from a historical figure I admire:

"A man can be born in a stable, and yet not be an animal." - Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington 69.157.109.170 03:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

On a real personal assault there, aren't you. I'm afraid to tell you that you have a problem. The main one is that you have a rather naive "tower of babel" mentality. Ethnic groups do not derive from the tower of babel. In reality, all ethnic groups have diverse origins, and Americans (r perhaps "Anglo-Americans", not to be confused with Americans of English descent) are no different. You probably don't see this because you yourself have been brought up defining yourself against an ultimate origin, taking for granted your North American ethnicity. I'm familiar enough with this aspect of North American society; yet it's the insularity of American society that leads North Americans to lose context in this way. Common North American ethnicity is soon realized when Americans and Canadians travel outside their civilization. It is to this ethnicity that immigrants to America are assimilated, abandoning Polish, Russian, Gaelic, or what not for American English, celebrating thanksgiving, etc, etc. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This proves exactly how little you may know about peoples and culture. I do not have some "tower of babel" mentality, I'm only stating the facts about what people define ethnic groups and ethnicty as both here and around the world, based primarily on shared ancestry/kinship and descent. In reality, yes ethnic groups have some varied origins, but there is a limit to the diversity in the groups origins, otherwise it wouldnt be able to form a distinct culture from others. The combination of certain original elements helps form the distinctivenss of that group. The ethnic traits result from a shared genealogy and community which already manifests itself in genetic or apparent physical traits. Americans are not an ethnic group and the fact you insist on this is ridiculous and rarely heard of. I don't see your simply incorrect view on this because its unfounded. How am I taking for granted a "North American ethnicity" when it does not exist ? This country is massive and so diverse comprised of peoples and groups from all around the world and we have very differing origins and cultures. What do you mean by the "Insularity of American society" ? There is no common American or Canadian ethnicity that is realized when we travel abroad and in fact we connect with much of that which we have in common with our relatives and fellow peoples in the homeland. Its funny you bring up thanksgiving because so many people here celebrate it differently (my family has meat pies and haggis along with the turkey) and the holiday itself is from the native americans (who themselves celebrate it in their own distinct way today). Yes when people come here they adapt certain aspects of other cultures (I don't say American because American culture is basically all global cultures speaking the English language), but we also maintain aspects of our cultures and traditions passed down through our family and many of us maintain our links with the home nation. We maintain differing traits with many of those who retain a very strong connection with their homeland (eg. especially Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, Hispanics or Spanish-Americans, African-Americans, Jewish-Americans etc.) including all ethnic traits, while some of us only retain only that which is primarily inherited (behavioural traits, family traditions, genetics and physical appearance). With ethnicity being primarily based on shared ancestry and traits associated with such, Americans are by no means an ethnic group and are barely considered such by anyone. Clearly you konw little about our country and society with much of this non-sense your spitting out (no offence). There are people in my town who I have little in common with in many ways yet we are born here and our parents were born here. Alot of people here (Rochester, NY) have Polish heritage and have customs my family knows nothing about and mainly older family members who speak a language I couldn't barely begin to understand. I mean, there are so many things I don't have in common with African-Americans or HIspanics or Spanish-AMericans. I went to New York this summer and more people spoke Spanish, Italian or Cantonese in places than English. Even here in Rochester there are Irish, Polish and German neighbourhoods and communities and areas (more suburban or rural) where there are alot of people of originally English and Scottish descent (usually marked by pubs). I now have a user page if that makes things a bit better for you. Eoganan 04:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah Eoganan. Trying to insult me won't do you any good. The idea that there is no American ethnicity just because you say there isn't hardly works. You need to grow up intellectually and do more reading. Only you can help yourself with that. Try Benedict Anderson's Imagined communities, for instance. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold in turn actually supported the existence of races so I don't see how is views would come to contradict much here. Also, his view on Imaginary communities is only one side of the coin, speaking mostly in term of political or geographic nations and cultures, rathern than the ethnic group. It seems to me that everyone in this debate was insulting, but I've seen far worse on Wikipedia. 69.157.116.42 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the arrogance of youth. Your many words do not hide the flaws in your logic. Simply because some people (more specifically, the people around you) are not (or do not consider themselves to be) ethnically American, doesn't mean that there is no American ethnicity. Turn off your TV, get outside the insulated big-city and see the real America that makes up the majority of the population here. Read my comments above.--WilliamThweatt 04:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the arrogance of the uneducated and ignorant. These personal attacks never cease do they. My many words support my logic and only reveal the lack of it in your discourse. I like to watch TV, but I like to read more and I like the urban area (well, sub-urban really) where I live and the majority of the population lives. The fact that you claim the majority of our population is rural sums up the quantity of your knowledge in this matter. Eoganan 04:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll wager my two Masters Degrees (Political Science & Linguistics) and my position as a professor at a major university against whatever you have any day. Don't play with the semantics of "Urban", "Sub-urban" and "rural". As I recall, about 40% of the US population lives in "the big city", the rest (a majority) do not. Travel a little, get out and see America before you make sweeping generalizations.--WilliamThweatt 05:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
William, you don't need to prove yourself to this person. He will just go on and on, BSing, until he learns to think and listen. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thats kinda harsh on the guy isn't it? I mean from reading this debate, it looks like you didn't listen to much of what that person said either. 69.157.116.42 16:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, Calgacus, thanks. I usually don't allow myself to get sucked into such foolishness, but something about this guy just irritated the fire out of me (I think it was his aire of arrogance...that usually does it). Anyway, in my profession in the "real world", I deal with young people like him all the time. I wasn't seriously "agruing" with him, just trying to provoke him into "thinking and listening" (as you put it). Sometimes it works and sometimes, as you pointed out in this case, it becomes obvious that nothing will work, except maybe time and life-experience.--WilliamThweatt 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems to me you got a little more than sucked in by this user and it looks like you got a little provoked by him into keeping on with the discussion. Also, if you claim he wasnt "thinking and listening", I disagree from the extent and quantity of his resonses and your equal refusal of everything he discussed in his analysis. I think its a form of ageism to discriminate against younger users and claim you are more knowledgable just because you are older. Younger users may be mrre konwledgable than you on various issues which you do not regularly study or have an equal interest in. Also if you deal with young people like him all the time, I do hope you deal with them in a more professional manner. I can tell you from my own experience that many , if not most academics I know, disagree with much of your views on this matter. Perhaps all of us interested in ethnic group articles need to do a little more reading into this subject area. 69.157.123.202 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Political Science, that must really give you a significant background in this subject area. 40%, what are you kidding me ? According to Census 2000, about 79% of the population lives in urban areas (Taken from Demographics of the United States). It must not be a quality university if they hire professors with only a Masters Degree. Most Profs at my school have a Phd. I have travelled and seen America and been to many major cities where most of us live. I think you need to get out of Stockton and see more of whats out there. Eoganan 05:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does give me a "significant background", and the article you reference says 75% right in the lead sentence, not 79%. The fact that you can't even get something simple like that right isn't helping your credibility. Also, you are arguing a point I wasn't even making. I made it clear I wasn't talking about "Urban" vs "Rural". I'm talking about big city vs the rest of America (ie, homogenous populations not in the "big city"). The terms "urban" and "rural" are misleading as the census considers Provo, Utah just as "urban" as New York City, while the two are completely different environments, and I'll wager that the majority of people in Provo will consider themselves Americans and totally disagree with your sweeping generalizations. And, FYI, I have only recently returned to the Central Valley here after living in various places throughout the US, both big and small. And, also FYI, most of the professors at my school also have PhDs, the fact that my employers offered me the position that is traditionally held by a PhD speaks to their opinion of my qualifications and abilities.--WilliamThweatt 06:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know much on this personally but I really think someone in anthropology or history would have a better background than political science. Also, it seems that edit warrior got the figure from the United States page, under the subheading Demographics. I also dont think the user was trying to say people didnt think of themselves as Americans, just that they didnt think of themselves as ethnic Americans or indigenous Americans, and also retained their ethnic elements passed down from their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc. The personal attacks in this debate really got too heated but being offered a professors job with MAsters Degree doen't necessarily mean you have higher or better qualifications, since you would of been able to get a Phd if you had such "abililities". Personally, I am from Seattle and I see myself as American but also realize my Irish and Scotch-Irish heritage, and am proud of such. I would say i am part of those groups in ethnic terms. 69.157.116.42 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • James, this is the last time I'm going to deal with you on anything other than article content, but we can add computers to the long list of things you need to learn more about. The IP addresses you are using now are way too similar to the one you used yesterday for anybody to believe you are in Seattle, while the others were in Rochester. We know it's you, you're not fooling anybody.--WilliamThweatt 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thank you for labelling me a "warrior" earlier. I think its rather fitting. 69.157.109.170 02:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

James ?? Huh ??? And I am originally from Seattle. Perhaps it is you who needs to learn more about IP addresses. 70.48.30.91 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Diaspora"

It appears as if we are going to require mediation or an RfC if the anonymous user keeps changing "migration" to "Diaspora". In addition to its "dictionary meaning" the term "diaspora" has a very politically loaded connotation. It is clear that the anonymous user is agenda-pushing and soapboxing here. There is no sense in using this term when "migration" will suffice.--WilliamThweatt 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The chapter on emigration in Jenny Wormald's Scotland: A History is David Armitage's "The Scottish Diaspora", so perhaps the word is not so very controversial in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

I've semi-protected the page, based on the pattern of anonymous vandalism over the last 24 hours. Let me know if this causes any significant issues. alphaChimp laudare 02:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

per my comment above, and due to the slowing of activity on this article, I am removing protection from it. Please discuss major changes on this page before putting them into effect. alphaChimp laudare 11:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why citation request?

"Today, Scotland has a population of just under five million people, the vast majority of whom consider themselves Scottish."

I'm puzzled. Why has a citation request been put on the above statement, which seems to me to be blindingly obvious?! What else would they consider themselves to be? British, yes; but that will always be placed second to Scottishness, just as it is placed second to Englishness. Quite frankly, I would have finished this sentence short of the unecessary final clause, and then reworded what follows. Rcpaterson 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Because there are many people in Scotland who would not consider themselves Scottish because 1)they are not born there, 2)are not of ethnic Scottish descent or 3)consider themselves Scottish only second to something else which they identify with primarily. 69.157.109.170 03:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's all perfectly reasonable; but it still does not take away from the essential truth that the 'vast majority' of people consider themselves to be Scottish, including some, I suspect who were neither born in Scotland nor of ethnic Scottish descent. What form would an acceptable citation take? Asking people one by one? It might take a day or two. Rcpaterson 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To be more precise, any statement of fact, especially those giving specific numbers should be supported with a reference. Also, "vast majority" is very No weasel words|weaselyand can be interpreted in different ways. A source must be cited to support this as well. Yes, it would take a day or two and would also be considered Original Research, which is why one must cite a source that has already done the survey. It it was included, the fact must have come from somewhere, just cite the source.--WilliamThweatt 04:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered to raise this in the first place; we are now entering into the realms of the intellectually absurd. As I said at the outset I would not have used the expression in the first place simply because it is so blindingly obvious, along the lines of the 'vast majority of American people consider themselves to be American.'; or the 'vast majority of black people consider themselves to be black.' Where would you get a source for those statements? There are some propositions which cannot be proved one way or the other, and my irony has seemingly passed over without effect. Anyway, we are now getting into the country of Gulliver's Travels, and I personally have done with the matter.Rcpaterson 05:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There are probably census figures which demonstrate the fact. Your comment about 'British always second' is not blindingly obvious - it's true, yes, but not beyond question.--Nydas 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I added the citation request, and I have provided a citation. The sentence "vast majority of people resident in America consider themselves to be American" is not self-evident. It should be noted that the citation I provided (the UK census ethnicity question) presumes that all Scottish people are British. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The Scots Census had different questions than the English one. Note 2 refers to the census data, the published summary showing that some 88% of respondants answered "White Scottish" to the "What is your ethnic origin ?" question. ICM and System Three polls featuring the "Moreno question" show 85-90% of respondants giving Scottish-not-British, more-Scottish-than-British or Scottish-and-British responses in the period 1991-2001. It would be nice if someone could find a way to link to the ESDS site for the social attitudes surveys from which these numbers come. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'The extreme south-east'

Lothian and the Borders were described as the 'far south-east' in the indigenous section. I removed the 'far' as being an unusual and frankly weird description. It would be odd to describe New York or Shanghai as being in the 'far east' of the USA or China. Now it's been turned into the 'extreme' south-east on 'technical' grounds by Calgacus. If one were being extremely technical, one could make a case for the centre of Scotland to lie somewhere in the Moray Firth.--Nydas 21:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what you're objecting to, Nydas. What's the far east of the USA and China got to do with anything? The center of mainland Scotland lies in Argyll-Perthshire-Angus, not the Moray Firth. It's not a matter of being technical, but geographical accuracy. Not everyone is intimate with the geography of Scotland you know. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Countries aren't geometric shapes. It is palpably absurd to refer to Lothian (containing the capital) as the 'extreme south-east'. Is Toronto in the 'extreme south' of Canada? Is Turin in the 'extreme north' of Italy? --Nydas 11:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Edinburgh wasn't the capital until relatively recently. Not sure why you want to make a big deal of such a thing, the phrase is entirely logical. And I don't see the parallel with Canada at all. Are you saying Scotland north of the Forth is the equivalent to Manitoba and the Canadian artic tundra? Don't be fooled by modern population trends; Scotland's population concentration in the area of Glasgow and Edinburgh is purely post-industrial, the arbitrary spots where large industrialized cities grew. I doubt if Lothian had even 5% of Scotland's population in the early middle ages. Certainly, its population was not large enough to support any powerful lordship, unlike Gowrie, Atholl, Moray, Argyll, Strathclyde, etc. Extreme south-east is geographically accurate, and hardly "palpably absurd". If Lothian is just the south-east, where on earth is Fife? Also, the precise area in question was not the entire Lothian zone; areas like Peebleshire do not seem to have been eavily anglicized, and Edinburgh, which you imply was at the center of English Lothian, was actually on the north-western extremity. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Depends where you start from, but from my perspective Coldstream and Duns are in the extreme south east, and central Scotland includes (surprisingly enough) the central belt including Glasgow and the Lothians (modern definition) as well as Fife and Stirling. The paragraph relates territories to modern Scotland, and "south-east" as it says now looks fine. However the statement that "the concept of "Highlander" and "Lowlander" is rather a meaningless anachronism applied only to historical topics" seems odd when Highland games are live and kicking up a din on a regular basis. They do seem to be a source of dodgy history, as exemplified by this anecdote, but the anachronism is applied as much to fancy dress and tourism as historical topics. ..dave souza, talk 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey Dave, I don't think "Highland Games" is a good example. Proves precisely the point. i.e. highland and lowland being anachronistic terms. Highland Games in fact take place all over Scotland, and amongst Scottish descendents (whether of Highlanders or Lowlanders doesn't seem to matter) all over the world. I'd defy anyone to define the modern Lowlands and modern Highlands. In actual fact the whole idea is a xenophobic Anglo-Scottish construct, implying that native Scots had no arable land and hence no civilization. Contrary to what many people, even scholars think, it didn't define a bounded region as it did in the 18th century; e.g. people from Carrick could be called "highland". Among the native Scots, they continued to call themselves Scots (Gaidheal) and Anglo-Scots foreigners (Gall). How many modern Scots are farmers, how many pastoralists? How many cattle thiefs does modern Scotland have, and how many burgesses? How many people speak Lowland Scots (actually speak Lowland Scots, rather than some Hiberno-Scottish hybrid dialect of English like they speak in Glasgow) and how many Gaelic? Where is the frontier? There isn't one! You're more likely to find a Gaelic speaker in Partick than Badenoch. How many people inhabiting the geographical zone which corresponds with the 1600-1800 Lowland cultural zone actually descend from 1600-1800 lowland Scots, rather than "highlanders", Galwegians, Irish, Italians, etc? If Lowlanders and Highlanders exist today, then it is only as characters in film adaptations of Walter Scott and R.L. Stevenson novels. It has no more relevance today than Anglo-Irish and Irish does in Ireland, because like Ireland Scotland is again pretty much one country. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
As is the UK or Britain, in various contexts. Doesn't stop there being regional accents and identities, as well as people adopting "heritage" identities. Interesting news about the Gaelic secondary school - in Glasgow if my memory's correct. It must be said that I grew up as a lowlander, living next to the venue for the Leith Highland games which tended to be enlivened by Newhaven Fishwifes in traditional garb. ..dave souza, talk 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Leith has highland games? Didn't know that. Perhaps the town should now return to its original medieval (Gaelic) name of Inverleith, and open a secondary school. ;) Anyways, if I ever move to Edinburgh and have children there, I shall make sure my children feel more Votadinian than Scottish. Out of curiosity, what exactly was "Lowland" about your upbringing? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Replaced the 'far south east' which Calgacus tried to sneak back in with the anon's sensible edit. At least comment when you're reversing changes being discussed on the talk page.--Nydas 14:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't try to "sneak" anything back in. I notice you're not continuing your ridiculous line of argument btw. Come on, give me some more laughs. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's common courtesy to leave comments when making contentious edits. And please don't start making 'bring it on' comments here and on my talk page. As per my ridiculous argument, you'll notice that dave agreed that Lothian is not normally considered the 'far south east'. --Nydas 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, no I didn't notice. I merely noticed that Dave added his own south-eastern perspective. I'm still waiting on a response from you to my previous comments. Not that it'd matter, but I don't recall Dave drawing parallels between Perthshire and Manitoba. I'll put it down to your historical and geographical ignorance. As for "bring it on" comments, as you call them, just marking the fact that you are one of these users who think being rude will do them some good. I'm not surprised, as the Scottish people article tends to attract people like yourself, which is why it has had a cleanup tag for most of its life. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not compare Perthshire and Manitoba. The Canada example was one of several, illustrating how odd it is to describe countries with no regard for their human geography or population density. As for your estimate of the historical population, it would be good in the article itself, if properly sourced. --Nydas 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid an article like this isn't going to be getting details as scholarly as that; that is, unless some Aryan nationalist crank puts a website up about it. However, it's easy enough to find details about that 1755 Scottish census, which showed most Scottish people still lived north of the river Tay, i.e. in the northern half of Scotland, for which, see for instance the passing note in Murray G.H. Pittock, Celtic Identity and the British Image, p. 99. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the fringes"

Scotland is obviously a small country in terms of geography and I don't think the areas settled by the Anglo-Saxons and especially the Norse can be called simply "the fringes" (implying only limited coastal settlement). Most of the west saw Norse settlement, from the western isles all the way down to Galloway, and there was also significant settlement in Sutherland, Caithness, Orkneys, Shetlands and Moray (modern Inverness, Nairn, Elgin, etc.). I haven't been on Wikipedia much lately, but I will provide some links next time for history of Norse settlement in Scotland if your unhappy with my current edit. Epf 20:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Epf, I'm familiar enough with Norse settlement in Scotland not to need the help of trashy links. The Norse only settled coast lands, or areas within very short distance of the sea. So fringes is quite appropriate in a geographical context; anglo-saxon settlement was even less significant than Norse settlement; and so in both cases, saying that these peoples "settled" Scotland gives the misleading impression than the ethnic makeup of Scotland was altered, whereas in reality little less than about 90% of the country was untouched. A good discussion of Norse settlement in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross can be found in Earl and Mormaer: Norse-Pictish Relationships in Northern Scotland by Barbara Crawford, which shows how weak Norse settlement actually was in the area of mainland Scotland supposedly settled most by these Germanic invaders. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to provide "Trashy links", but I am also quite familiar with the level of settlement of the Norse in Scotland and its disputed by many. One thing for certain is that Norse settlement was higher in Scotland than anywhere else in Britain, although it still was much smaller than the level of Danish settlement in northern and eastern England. I will look in to your suggested readings, but the 90% figure is way off, especially when you consider Scotland in a geographical context. I will provide equal readings and links (useful ones) soon. Ciao, Epf 21:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think 90% is way off. I'd say that was an optimistic figures; the most densely populated areas of Scotland, Moray, Aberdeenshire, Gowrie, Strathtay, Strathearn and Strathclyde were virtually untouched by Norse settlement. Why wouldn't I have already considered "Scotland in a geographical context"? That is most puzzling. BTW, you can waste your time providing links if you want, but I have dozens of full bibliographies on the subject within a hand's reach, so you'd be wasting your time. Especially when you consider the actual issue. Alba (Scotland-Pictland) was there before the Viking age, and was still there after it. Hence "fringes" is appropriate, whereas "settled Scotland" is entirely misleading, since by definition the areas they settled didn't belong to Scotland until they were reconquered. BTW, "Norse" can include "Danish", and does not mean the same as "Norwegian", although I admit you are not the only one to make this mistake. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that "Norse" does not necessarily mean "Norwegian", but the vast majority of Norse to settle in Scotland were Norwegians from overpopulated (at that time) Western Norway. I am really interested in these full bibliographies dedicated fully to information on Norse settlement in Scotland (if you dont mind listing them for my own reference), especially since I've found information on this area scanty at best. I've been reading into some of Crwaford's work that has been available on the net and most of her work is dedicated to Norse settlements and archaeological findings from such. She can only hypothesize the extent of settlement from her findings and does not use any analyisis of the actual living populations in areas thought to have been extensively settled. I do see your point though, considering where the heartladnd of the Kingdom of Alba was at the time, how you could consider the settlements on the fringes. It was however still widespread and covered vast areas of the country, even if largely restricted to the west and north. In any case, although settlement was most intense in the Western and Norhtern Isles, Caithness, Sutherland, Galloway, etc., there were costal raids all over Scotland. I just felt "fringes" was so misleading considering Scotland's size. I mean you consider the south-east on the "fringe", yet Edinburgh would become the capital and centre of Medieval Scotland and this city was settled by Anglo-Saxons. Even if going by what you consider the core populated area of Scotland, it was still quite small and close in size to the areas settled by anglo-saxons and norwegian vikings. Also, I thought Strathclyde (if you mean modern) was settled significantly by the Norse, especially in Argyll. Your right though about this subject not being worth the time and I do agree that forthe most part, the settlement was at the time in the fringes. Perhaps a more pressing concern is the related ethnic group box, what happened there ? Wheres the continental groups ? I'll deal with that later. Thanks for the suggested readings. Ciao, Epf 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Scotland is not all that small, and the areas not settled by Norse or English make the areas settled by these peoples look small. Ignoring politics, by which these Germanic settlements were definitely on the fringes, in simple geographical terms these settlements were fringe in relation to the territory of modern Scotland - they were on the edge, nowhere near the center.
Germanic languages in the 10th century.
Enlarge
Germanic languages in the 10th century.
For bibliographies, just check the back of any broader textbook, e.g. Scandinavian Scotland by Barbara Crawford or Anne Richie's (less good) Viking Scotland. Edinburgh, btw, was not the "capital and center of medieval Scotland" in any sense. Ignoring the fact that Edinburgh lies in the lowest quarter of Scottish territory, hence physically far from the center, Scone was the actual capital ("chief seat" as it is frequently called), and more charters were issued at Scone-Perth (the two locations are but a short walk from each other) than any other location in Scotland. Technically in fact, as "Scotland" for most of the middle ages referred only to the territory north of the Forth (even after the Scottish kings had expanded beyond that), Edinburgh wasn't even in Scotland. Edinburgh was just one of half a dozen or so royal centers popular with Scotland's itinerant monarchs in the high and later middle ages. Of course, the idea that medieval Scotland had a capital in anything approaching the modern sense is just silly. The Scottish monarch was itinerant. I'm afraid you've been caught by anachronism, the first and easiest sign to spot that a person does not know what they are talking about when discussing history. No offense btw, you are an intelligent guy, you just need to do somemore reading in this subject. PS, by Strathclyde I meant the valley of the clyde. The modern Strathclyde is just an arbitrary set of boundaries invented by a bunch of historically insensitive pen pushers, just like most other official boundaries in modern Scotland. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I really dont think I used an anachronism since I was speaking more in a geographic context rather than on a historical timeline. Also, the map above although useful, is inaccurate and unreferenced in where it gets its information. Since I'm sort of getting off topic with this, I'll just post on your user page. Epf 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, some indepth sourcing for Calgacus's views re population figures would be nice, rather than suggestions to find them ourselves.--Nydas 06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Simplified relief map.
Enlarge
Simplified relief map.

The map gives a fair idea of where farming is theoretically possible on ground of elevation (green), although it understates the poor situation of the far north and north-west coastal zone. Look where all the farmland is: where the Scandinavians weren't. Anyway, there aren't figures before 1755. The ones from 1755 came up with a total population of about a million and quarter, of whom the vast majority lived in areas where intrusive place-names (other than Gaelic ones) are not found, or are not common. Coming up with an exact percentage is impossible, but something over half of the 1755 population lived in Alba/Scotia/proto-Scotland, between the Forth and the Beauly, east of Drumalban. Most of the rest lived in Strathclyde/Cumbria, or in areas which might have been under Germanic hegemony but didn't see many Germanic place-names formed. The areas where Germanic place names are relatively frequent had a 1755 population of around a hundred thousand for the Anglian south-east and somewhat more for the Scandinavian north and north-west. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is really the place to make estimates based on arable land, placenames, concentrations of power, etc. Is the 90% figure the general consensus amongst historians? --Nydas 17:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Any reference for those population figures Angus ? The map is partially useful but the best farmland in the country has always been from the central Lowlands to the southern uplands (including the anglian south-east). If the 1755 population of the Anglian south was only 100,000, it was probably due to the fact that so many numbers had recently been emigrating to Ulster and onto the Americas from this region. Also, drawing from the map and geographic knowledge of Caithness, the Orkneys, the Shetlands and the Western Isles, there was arable farmland where the Norse most intensively settled. Epf 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The Oxford Companion to Scottish History, p. 489, which uses unhelpful subtotals in the main. County-level figures are all over the place, hardly unexpected. Some here, some on the individual county pages here and others in the Statistical Accounts here. Those last are particularly badly organised, not all counties have the numbers (they are more commonly in the 2nd account than the Old one) and the chapter which contains the county-level info varies in name, and in layout, across the volume. The Anglian south means the south-east, the former Borders region, plus the County of Haddington and bits of Midlothian, not the south-west. As for all that farmland, Caithness in 1840-odd had 46,000 acres of cultivated land of 395,000 in all (about average for the "Highlands" zone), Argyll 308,000 of 2,900,000. The Counties of Perth, Forfar, Fife and Kincardine together (core-proto-Scotland I suppose) covered less area than Argyll (around 2.5 million-odd acres) and contained about a million acres of cultivated land. The geography had not changed significantly, so the proportions would be similar in earlier times. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not find those links you provided too useful in terms of information on farmland in those regions, except for the Statistical Accounts of Scotland site. I also do not know from which source you gathered your numbers, but I can tell you from simply the topography and even pictures of Caithness that it has much farmland and is very flat compared to the other areas of the Highlands region, which is why the Norse were so particularly attracted to it in the first place. I took this from "Account of 1834-45 vol.15 p.179 : General Observations, County of Caithness" on The Statistical Accounts of Scotland site: "its area is 618 square miles, or 395,680 acres, of which about 100,000 are cultivated and in pasture...". . This would make a little over 25% of the land of Caithness as cultivated compared to 30% in Perth (500,000 acres out of 1,656,320 total, taken from same 1834-45 account) and merely 13% in Argyll (308,000 acres out of 2,432,000 total). Therefore, it is obvious that Caithness clearly had very arable farmland and was the most fertile area north-west of the central belt. Also, I never said in my previous statement "Anglian south" and in fact said "Anglian south-east" which btw included more than just "bits" of Lothian and originally included all of it. Epf 17:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking news about the Origins of the Scottish and the British.

In addition to the many studies that have been previously done pointing in the same direction, like the following one published by Oxford University Press, in which surprising genetic similarities can be seen between Britons and Spaniards (Spain is IberiaS) , in a genetic piece of research that takes into account up to 8 genetic loci, including mitocondrial, autosomal and Y-Chromosome DNA. See:


http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03


Now we have another Oxford study whose reference has been just published two days ago in which the origins of most Britons seem to be getting clearer and clearer and astonishingly very different from what it was previously thought (really, who would have thought that they come from the Spanish!.

It is also interesting in relation to the similarities between the Celtic areas of Britain and England.


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece

I cannot open the entire article from here, but it continues like this:

A team from Oxford University has discovered that the Celts, Britain's indigenous people, are descended from a tribe of Iberian fishermen who crossed the Bay of Biscay 6,000 years ago. DNA analysis reveals they have an almost identical genetic "fingerprint" to the inhabitants of coastal regions of Spain, whose own ancestors migrated north between 4,000 and 5,000BC.

The discovery, by Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University, will herald a change in scientific understanding of Britishness.

People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,00o ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel. Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish."

Professor Sykes spent five years taking DNA samples from 10,000 volunteers in Britain and Ireland, in an effort to produce a map of our genetic roots.

Research on their "Y" chromosome, which subjects inherit from their fathers, revealed that all but a tiny percentage of the volunteers were originally descended from one of six clans who arrived in the UK in several waves of immigration prior to the Norman conquest.

The most common genetic fingerprint belongs to the Celtic clan, which Professor Sykes has called "Oisin". After that, the next most widespread originally belonged to tribes of Danish and Norse Vikings. Small numbers of today's Britons are also descended from north African, Middle Eastern and Roman clans.

These DNA "fingerprints" have enabled Professor Sykes to create the first genetic maps of the British Isles, which are analysed in Blood of the Isles, a book published this week. The maps show that Celts are most dominant in areas of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. But, contrary to popular myth, the Celtic clan is also strongly represented elsewhere in the British Isles. "Although Celtic countries have previously thought of themselves as being genetically different from the English, this is emphatically not the case," Professor Sykes said.


See also this: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006



It seems that here we have very interesting new information for the article.

Veritas et Severitas 02:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing at all new in Sykes' book, it's just the existing studies rehash and turned into pop science. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there is nothing new. This is already well known in Genetic Anthropology. But it seems that some people here do not know it, because none of this is even mentioned in the article. Veritas et Severitas 22:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Nothing really new or conclusive here. Population genetics is still very early in development and there are only a few studies from one or two small sections of DNA. No testing can currently be carried out on X chromosome markers for example and Autosomal analysis is questionable, especially since markers for all the autsomes arent nowhere near to being mapped out yet. Detailed MtDNA studies in the British Isles have also been very lacking compared to Y-chromosome analysis. Useful links though if your interested in genetic genealogy. Ciao, Epf 03:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The genetic evidence is there. A lot of the genetic work points always in the same direction. Then there are other issues:

Only in the British Isles do we find legends that may be a residue in the colletive memory of these migrations:

Ireland

One legend states that the Irish were descended from Míl Espáine, a king from Spain. The character is almost certainly a mere personification of a supposed migration by a group or groups from Hispania to Ireland, but it is supported by the fact that the Celtiberian language is more closely related to insular Celtic than to any other language.

Scottland

The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, following the War of Independence against England, tells how the Scots arrived in Scotland after they had "dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes".


Or comments by the Roman Historian Tacitus, dated less than 2000 years ago, describing the Britons in just a few words: “They are like Spaniards”.

Of course, those legends and comments were traditionally disregarded or almost ignored, probably because of the success of the Nordic Myth in Great Britain during the 19th and 20th centuries (still lingering, by the way), but now genetics seems to give new vigour and light to those legends and comments.

Of course it does not mean that we are going to jump to conclusions because of legends, but when we put everything together we have:

1. The fact that in relation to the Celtiberian language and Celtic Languages in the British Isles (Irish, Scottish and Manx), linguists agree that they are more closely related than any other Celtic languages:

Celtiberian (also Hispano-Celtic) is an extinct Celtic language spoken by the Celtiberians in central Spain before and during the Roman Empire.

Enough has been preserved to show that the Celtiberian language was Q-Celtic (like Goidelic: Scottish, Irish and Manx)), and not P-Celtic like Gaulish (spoken in France and parts of Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and Germany).]]

Celtiberian exhibits a fully inflected relative pronoun ios, not preserved in other Celtic dialects, and the particles kue "and", nekue "nor", ve "or". Like in Welsh, there is an s-subjunctive, gabiseti "he shall take" (Old Irish gabid), robiseti, auseti. Compare Umbrian ferest "he shall make".

2. Legends that survive as a Myth in the colletive memories of Britons and that speak of their origins in Spain.

3. A Roman historian called Tacitus who described the Britons less thatn 2000 years ago just in a few words: "They are like Spaniards".

4. The fact that in the North of Spain they play the weird bagpipe and consider it their traditional instrument par excellence. See Spanish bagpipers:

http://www.protesis.pasadizo.com/Gaiteros.jpg

http://www.laraitana.com/Fotos/gaiteros.jpg

http://scoutpleyades.webcindario.com/fotos/viana/gaiteros.jpg

http://members.buckeye-express.com/barbiesa/Images/spain/bagpipe3.jpg

http://www.e-muziq.com/copertine/label_38/p01-5019396153523.jpg

http://homepages.tesco.net/~john.kearney/gaiteros.jpg


5. The fact that the set of genetic markers known as R1b predominate in Western Europe, but occur with the highest frequencies in both Spain and the British Isles.

6. The fact that the Atlantic Modal Haplotype, a subgroup withing Hg R1b is again most frequent in Spain, Portugal and the British Isles.

7. And now an Oxford professor and his team that state both, that Britons come from Spain, and also that the genetic fingerprint of modern-day Spaniards and Britons is almost identical in the populations discussed.

It seems that the situation is beginning to look pretty convincing, to say the least. Veritas et Severitas 16:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What situtation is pretty convincing ? There has only been a few unreliable and inconclusive studies dealing with one or two small parts of DNA that apparently those with an agenda are putting far too much emphasis on. I already explained earlier the wide gaps in population genetics analysis and any researcher that wishes to be taken seriously would not be sharing in any of the claims your making. None of these studies say that "Britons come from Spain" and this evidence does not support this whatsoever. People came into Europe in different waves and there is more to ones paternal ancestry than simply the Y-chromosomal marker. Neolithic invaders came to Britain from Iberia, but originally from other regions farther east. Paleolithic people may have come into Britain from Iberia but also from other areas of Europe and many more may have remained in Britain longer than they did in Spain (with possible exclusion of the Basque region). These tests are too often misunderstood and over-emphasized by people and this seems to be a classic example. These studies also tend to ignore the wealth of historical, archaeological and physical anthropolgical data which may complement or disagree with it. The fact is that these studies are too early in development for such conclusions to be made so rashly. Epf 09:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude in this conversation, but Epf, I agree with Veritas. Tell Dr. Brian Sykes, tell the linguists, tell them all. Maybe they can take your opinion into account, but the evidence right now is more than reasonable for many people. Blood of the Isles, by Brian Sykes, is going to become a best seller, and we all know that. So, maybe he, who is considered among the leading population geneticists in the world, is just a charlatan, but a lot of people are taking him very seriously.

Well this proves what little you know about this since Dr. Sykes himself would not make such conclusions and acknolwedges how early in development population genetics is. Whether or not it becomes a best seller doesn't mean that the evidence is properly analyzed or representative of fact. Also much of what Veridas said above is incorrect, especially his so-called quote from Tacitus which in fact was never uttered by him. Tacitus mentioned that the Silures tribe of Wales may have had an affinity with the peoples of the Iberian peninsula due to their swarthy Sykes is considered a fairly important figure in the study of populatoin genetics but again, he is not making the claims that the user above has made or obviously anything as rash as "Britons come from Spain". Epf 05:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Epf 05:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Epf, something in your contributions that is not fair is that you try to manipulate things. I do not say it, I am just a humble messenger. If you do not agree with Sykes say so. If you do not agree with the newspaper articles, say so, but do not say that it is me who says things like "Britons come from Spain" or "most Britons have Spanish descendants" or "the majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended from the Spanish." . Those things are being said by others, and I am sure that you can read. Apart from the two newspaper articles that I have provided here you have another:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=406108&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

So, now say again that it is me who says so. Some people believe that by repeating a lie over and over again it ends up becoming true. So, go on, maybe that way people will end up thinking that it is me who has brought up this issue and who is stating those things.

I have the feeling that when you do not like a message, you would like to kill the messenger. Veritas et Severitas 16:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


There is anthropological evidence to say that most people from the british isles are of iberian origin. In the regions where haplotype R1b is most common (wales, ireland, scottish highlands, cornwall) the people of those areas are typically much darker than most brits. many welsh have swarthy complexions, dark hair and brown eyes, as do many cornish, irish and scottish highlanders. where r1b is lowest in east anglia blonde hair and blue eyes is much more common. r1b is common amongst the basques and they have swarthy complexions, dark hair and brown eyes. people have made claims that both the irish and basques have cro magnon shaped skulls too. so there is anthropological evidence that is consistent with the genetic evidence to say that the indigenous britons were of iberian origin or related closely to the ancient iberians.

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

globe01

Just one note: This population group is not only common among Basques. It is the majority population group in Spain from North to South and from East to West, the same as it is in the British Isles. This population group peaks in Spain in the Basque country, in the same way that this population group peaks in Britain in Wales. The average for both Spain and the British Isles is about 70%, being maybe just a couple of points higher in Spain.

I think that there is more than enough evidence to introduce it in the article. It is difficult to understand that with the current evidence nothing is said about the origins of a people, in a article that deals with them. Still, I am not going to make it myself. But I support an addition that introduces all this information in this article and in all the British people's articles. If there are people who do not agree with these theories they can also introduce alternative theories, if they are well sourced. Just like Wiki pillar number five states, in case of controversy all points of view should be mentioned if they represent reputable and verifable assertions. By the way, it is better that people sign their comments, so we can follow the discussion better. Veritas et Severitas 01:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


I should add small numbers of todays brits are descended from people who came from North Africa thousands of years ago and are genetically similar to the North African Berbers and Tuareg people. Some of todays Brits are also descended from middle eastern farmers who arrived in the mseolithic era. some brits are descended from a tribe of almost all red heads who wandered over from the norway via mudflats thousands of years ago. Some of todays brits are descended from vikings and anglo saxons. You dont have to be descended from iberian huntergatheres or any of the above groups to be British or Irish so maybe some information about historical migrations could go into the British peoples section, i.e large west indian and asian communities in britain and jewish communities exist amongst others.


globe01

Of course, there is no reason whatsoever why all that information is not included. Properly, of course, not just making arbitrary claims. Just using verifiable sources.

On the other hand we should avoid highly subjective judgedments and simplifications. I doubt very much that we can apply the adjective ¨swarthy¨ to 70% of Britons or that we can state simplistic things like those with red hair belong to this group, those with dark hair to this, or those with blond hair to this. That is not serious methodology. We should be highly objective and rigorous whith these judgements and not slide into highly subjective, slippery and arbitrary territory. Veritas et Severitas 14:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, here you have a proposal to introduce in the article:

A research team at Oxford University has found that the majority of Britons are Celts descended from Spanish tribes who began arriving about 6,000/7,000 years ago, making the journey by boat from an area that is located in present-day Northern Spain. The proportion of this population group is 73 per cent in Scottland, being also 64 percent in England and 83 per cent in Wales. Previously it was thought that ancient Britons were Celts who came from central Europe, but the genetic connection to populations in Spain provides a scientific basis for part of the ancient Scots' origin myth. The Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, following the War of Independence against England, tells how the Scots arrived in Scotland after they had "dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes". This study also identifies other areas of origins for the present Scottish population, like areas in present-day Germany or Scandinavia, with part of the population also having their origins in Ancient Rome, The Middle East and North Africa. 1 2 Veritas et Severitas 17:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Thats very proffessional, scientific, accurate and politically correct in the way you have put togather the paragraph on scottish descent which is backed up by scientific and historical and anthropological evidence. well done.

I've noticed the scottish people article has now been updated. You need to now add this information about British descent to the Welsh people article, the english people article, the irish people article, the northern irish people article, and the cornish people article, you have my full support to do these things.

 globe01

Thank you. Of course I also think that this information should also be added in the other people's articles. I will begin with the English. Keep an eye on it. Thanks. Veritas et Severitas 21:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • This information is ridiculous and much of the sourced information has been reworded or interpreted with a certain, incorrect manner from these two users. This info is nothing new, all the links being traced to the original one or two limited population genetics studies. None of the data comes to me as evidence that that Britons came from Spain. This is based on Y-chromosomes mainly which is only a small part of our paternal inheritance, let alone our total genetic genealogy. Just because the "R1b" markers is more common in Wales, Scotland, Cornwall and Ireland doesn't mean they came from Spain or Iberia. The marker is present across Europe, does that mean all these peoples have dark Spanish-like complexions ? Of course not. In fact, the areas with the highest R1b marker were in Ireland and an area with the majority of the people having incredibly pale and fair complexions. Do not confuse the high occurence of the R1b Y-chrom. marker in these areas with the minority darker phenotype in the British populations which, as in Iberia, is long attirbuted more to Neolithic and Mesolthic seafarering migrations originally from further east in the Mediterranean. I could talk about this all day and all night and explain the disparancies in the interpretatoins of this data. I mean, the R1b marker could also be found in alot of the populations of eastern England where their is a high degree of Germanic (Viking and Anglo-Saxon) descent. I mean the idea and myth that the Gaelic Celtic tribes came from Spain is referring to a period during the Iron Age, not 7,000 years ago when Celtic culture did not even exist. The marker itself is not uniform across Spain and is less common in the east (Catalonia and Valencia) than its is in the West or especially the Basque country. The biggest point I can make here is that false and incorrect connections are being made here between some studies of Y.chroms and MtDNA and the origins/descent and even phenotypes of these populations. Don't make conclusions from this information based on your own ridiculous POV. I don't want these pages to turn into some edit war on the "race" or "genetics" of this population and that one. None of the data appears to me or any serious anthropologist as evidence that Britons came from Iberia and especially not from North Africa or some other similar place. The only thing that these studies can conclusively say is that the people can ultimately trace their origins to the Paelolithic and Neolithic populatoins of Europe, as can any indigenous European. Epf 09:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


See here also Oppenheimer: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/stephen-oppenheimer.html

You can find this: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stephenoppenheimer/origins_of_the_british.html

Read also this well: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817

So we have some people here using the terms Spanish, Basque or Iberian to refer to the origins of the British.

But, please, let me understand you. Who do you not agree with, with Dr. Sykes or with Dr. Oppenheimer? Or just both? You do not agree with Dr. Sykes's book, Blood of the Isles, or with Dr. Oppenheimer's Origins of the British? If you not agree with them, that is OK. But what else do you mean? You mean that your opinions are better than theirs?. Please explain yourself. Veritas et Severitas 18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not claiming my opinion is "better than theirs", only that their opinions are exactly that, and not factual conclusions. They both make similar arguments in many cases, but I will have to read their books more extensively (i've only read the summaries available on the internet). They're opinions are not even in accordance with the researchers of the studies that they so often cite and put so much reliability with. They both claim to make conclusions on the origins of the peoples they are discussing yet the vast majoirty, if not all, of the researchers of the few studies mentioned in these books claim many more studies (only limited tests, samples and sections of DNA have been analyzed) are needed to accurately understand the origins of these populations. I'm not too interested in either book in any case since I've read into all the studies they refer to and I prefer to make my own conclusions, in accordance with the views of many other academics (across disciplines), from the primary data, not some secondary source with an ideological viewpoint. Epf 07:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


OK, that is your opinion. We can have 100 thousand different opinions, but you know Wiki rules:

It is very simple:

1. We are supposed to include the views of authorities in the field, not our own views.

2. In case of different views of authorities in the field, we are supposed to show them all, not delete them, or delete some and leave others.


Anyway, I have read the book (Brian Sykes'), here you have some quotations:

The maps and the data in the Scotland paper have been taken from pages 290 and 292 in the book.

The book is full of interesting stuff, I will start just posting some revelant issues:

Page 280.

...the presence of large numbers of Jasmines’s Oceanic clan, says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic see board north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. The number of exact and close matches between the maternal clans of western and northern Iberia and the western half of the Isles is very impressive, much more so than the much poorer matches with continental Europe.


Pages 281-82.

The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or the same time as farming reached the Isles.

The connection to Spain is also there in the myth of Brutus………. This too may be the faint echo of the same origin myth as the Milesian Irish and the connection to Iberia is almost as strong in the British regions as it is in Ireland.


Picts….. They are from the same mixture of Iberian and Euroepean Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.


Page 283.


Here again, the strongest signal is a Celtic one, in the form of the clan of Oisin, which dominates the scene all over the Isles. The predominance in every part of the Isles of the Atlantic chromosome (the most frequent in the Oisin clan), with its strong affinities to Iberia, along with other matches and the evidence from the maternal side convinces me that it is from this direction that we must look for the origin of Oisin and the great majority of our Y-chromosomes. The sea routes of the atlantic fringe conveyed both men and women to the Isles.


And this is just from the end section of the book, after brief browsing.


Beleive me, what you think about the book is not relevant for Wiki. If you know of an authority in the field that says that Bryan Sykes book and conlusions are not valid, cite them, otherwise, you should refrain from posting more personal opinions.

In any case, this is my last contribution here and in Wiki. Sorry but this place is not serious enough for me. Goodbye.


Veritas et Severitas 21:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts on the Scottish-Iberian connection

I'd like to make a note here; I've got a few thoughts. No, I'm not going to use any references. I'd just like to be heard.

First: The Gaels have been saying this for years. We've known that we came from Iberia, because our ancestors told us so. Not that complicated, nor news-breaking to me. It's still nice to have the scientific backing, though.

Next up: The Celitberians were/are a Celtic people. Galicia is another Celtic Nation, and Asturias has a claim. Many Celts still live in Spain today. However, that does not make their ancestors Spanish. Spain only existed after many Arabs/Berbers/Muslims/Moors had invaded and been driven out (their kings, anyway). The Celtic people who may have made up the majority of the Iberian population were, by-and-large, mixed with Moors in that time. That's why many Portugese and Spanish folks are darker than Basques or even French. So it's not fair to say that they are entirely Celts. Many share much more of a mixed cutlure, a descendent from both the Celts and Arabs, not to mention the Germanic Visigoths (Theodoric's people) who established the Kingdom over there in the late Roman period. That mix is Spain.

So saying that the Celts of Britain & Ireland came from Spain is not really accurate. Saying they came from the Iberian Peninsula, however, is much more accurate. Spain is a nation/country/state, whereas Iberia, or the Iberian Peninsula, is a geographical place.

And that's about it. For now, anyway. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


I agree with you about the terminology. Now people are using Basque, Spanish and Iberian. I think Iberian is the best option, for the same reason that you said. Still, terminology does not change the bottom line. The scientific basis for this theory lies in the genetic similarities between the present-day populations of Iberia (not only Spain, also Portugal) and the British Isles, which is impressive. In other words, if the present-day populations of both areas did not have these genetic connections, there would be no theory.

In fact the theory of Spain being of substantial North African/Arab origins is as flawed as many others. Actually, Spain has one of the highest percentages of European Paleolithic origins in its population, if not the highest in Europe, peaking in the Basque country. The name Spain comes from the Phoenicians, who founded Cadiz, the oldest city in Spain more that 3000 years ago. The Romans called the Peninsula Hispania and romanized it fully and provided it with the basic cultural elements that define it now: Language, religion, law, etc. The Visigoths were the first who envisaged the concept of the present Spanish state. When the Moors were expelled from Spain, this Romano-Christian-Visigothic concept is the one that predominated and the one that drove the constant war against the Muslims for centuries. Nevertheless, the cultural contribution of Arabs and Berbers to both Spain and Europe was impressive: They reintroduced Greek philosophy and introduced crucial scientific contributions like algebra (the number and the concept 0 was introduced by them), advanced medicine etc. Still, the majority of Spaniards do not come from Romans, Visigoths, Moors, etc, although they all contributed to the Iberian genetic pool. One of the common features shared by both the British Isles and Iberia is that the vast majority of the people continue to come from the earliest inhabitants in both places. In the case of Iberia, people who arrived about 40.000 years ago. In the case of The British isles, we have different time-frames according to the authors: 10.000, 9.000/6000, 5000 years, or even more recently. In any case, according to the latest theories that we are discussing, most coming from Iberia in different waves.

On the other hand, in my opinion Portugal is a bit neglected, while it presents one of the highest percentages of the Atlantic Modal Haplotype. We should not confuse it with R1b. The Atlantic Haplotype is a subgroup of R1b, and very common in Iberia and the British Isles, but, as said, some studies suggest that one of the highest concentrations occurs in Portugal. Read this:

http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass4.asp

Here you have some other links:

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:wS6DZf6b-RUJ:www.roperld.com/HomoSapienEvents.htm+r1b+europe+map&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=6&client=firefox-a

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964/FIG6

Or this one:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03

See the legend: CEE = Central Europe East. CEW = Central Europe West. EE = Eastern Europe. IberiaS = Spain. IberiaP = Portugal. ItalyN = North of Italy. ItalyS = South of Italy. In the places where no South/North or East/West divide appears, it is because there were no significant differences among areas in the country or region.

See also this legend: Molecular (first row) = Different molecular DNA loci and frequency (second row) = Haplogroups. Av. = Average.

This study is from 2004 and has used up to 8 different genetic loci.

Of special interest are the similarities between the British Isles and Spain (IberiaS) and Portugal (IberiaP). Thousands of samples were taken from all over Spain and the British Isles, and also from the rest of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, especially the areas in Anatolia (Turkey) and Irak.

In any case let us not forget the two latest books published bout the origins of Britons: Blood of the Isles, by Brian Sykes, and Origins of Britons, by Stephen Oppenheimer. As I have said, it is close to inquisitorial censorship that their positions on the subject are being not only ignored in the British people's articles, but deleted constantly, especially since they are the only two books about the origins of Britons that have been published since the emergence of population genetics. Veritas et Severitas 13:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifying the scope of this article

The section entitled "Clarifying the scope of this article" is rather ambiguous. In the frist sentance we have links to Scot and Scots. Both of these link to disambiguation pages and only logical route from the disambiguation page is to return to this page. So the links don't really help explain the scope of the article. Also the word "Scottish" is ambiguose. Hense why this article is "Scottish People" not Scottish.

Next take a look at meaning two.

"The second is that group of people who came themselves or whose ancestors came into that territory from Ireland: the Scoti or Scotti of Scotia or Alba."

Scoti and Scotti are names of people, but Scotia and Alba are names of places, lands, not names of people. Scotia and Alba are synomins of Scotland; but they are not synomins of Scottish People.

In short, this section is a verbous and inaccurate disambiguation page for alternative words for Scottish and Scotland. Not Scottish People. Those other names already have their own pages or disambiguation pages. The section does not clarify the scope of the article. Instead it only seems to blur things further.

Finally, when I read the article, it seems to be about meaning 2 not meaning 1. So the "Scope" and the real scope don't match. Rincewind42 08:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicisation

This section is de facto about the Anglicisation of Gaellic surnames, not Anglicisation of Scottish People per se. The latter may not even be a sensible topic, given the historical presence of the Angles in Scotland! --Nmcmurdo 13:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The Etymology of many of these surnames is wrong. By which I mean, many of these "Scottish Surnames" are not Scottish at all but rather Angicisation of French, German, Irish, Norse and other names. For example Davis is Welsh/Brythonic, Bruce comes form De Bruce or De Brus and is french, Ballio or Balliol is also French origin. Plus as you state, many Scottish surnames have always been Anglic.
And also, the last line about 1603, what has that got to do with the price of bread? Rincewind42 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scots in England

The reference has fewer than 800,000 Scottish people in England. What is this? Scottish born people in England? That sounds about right. People with Scottish ethnicity? That would be millions of people in England. The difference needs to be noted, I think, in the information box.

Ethnicity is learned. Do those with Scottish ancestry still heuchter and teuchter or are they indistinguishable from their English neibours?
84.135.245.188 10:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up following Ethnic group project template.

This article is currently of incredibly low quality. When we consider how good the Scotland page is, this page looks poor in comparison. As stated in the above conversations, there are factual errors, lack of citations and a distinct anti-English bias. I am now working on restructuring this article to follow the template of WikiProject Ethnic groups. In particlular, I am trying to model the page after the FA rated articles on Ethnic groups such as Azerbaijani people, Dayuan, Franks, Iranian peoples, Pashtun people andTamil people.

The changes to this article adhere too strongly to the extremely broad view of 'Scottish people' that includes Americans, Canadians etc. Now there are Argentinians that count as 'Scottish people'? --Nydas 14:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This article has included Americans, Canadians and Argentinians for a very long time. Check the history. These elements are not new. Some of them may get deleted, some may stay. It depends on how verifiable the sources are and how significant the communities are.
Also, note the article isn't finished. There is allot more to be added shortly that may alter the balance of things, for example sections of litrature, sport, history and so on. If you think something is missing, please feel free to add it yourself. Especially the Sports section, that's just not my thing.Rincewind42 08:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but there have been disputes on the talk page over this. See the complaints above. Your changes to this article don't really reflect this.--Nydas 08:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalism

An anonymous ip as removed the information about the iberian connection which is qouted from two authors on genetic research without discussion, i've readded it. There is nothing wrong in citing proffessionals and this user had no right to remove them. --Globe01 10:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/o/Talk%7EScottish_people_5023.html"