This is an archive of past discussions about Scottish people. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
but then ultimately europeans are of asian origin who were in turn of african origin. I dont see why this is such a big deal when it has so litte to do with the Scots as an ethnic group.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.251.36 (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
these links aren't anything new and only refer to Y-chromosome and MTdna from a few samples from certain regoins. Don't believe or trust these reports (all from the same one or two main studies), especially with how early we are in population genetics. Rely on all studies available as well as anthropology and historical sources for now until this data is interpreted properly, and not by an random amateur like hcc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.91.10 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
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. Rshu23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Better yet, how about an example of all these millions and millions of 'Scots' who've never been to Scotland? --Nydas06:50, 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. Rshu18:26, 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. Benson8518:31, 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. Rshu18:40, 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? Rshu20:05, 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. Rshu01:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
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. --Nydas21:35, 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.--WilliamThweatt00:07, 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
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..
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. --Nydas18:02, 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".--WilliamThweatt23:37, 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.
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. Enzedbrit10:47, 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'. Rshu12:12, 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. 69.157.126.24122:33, 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. Rshu23:51, 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. 69.157.126.24100:45, 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. Rshu12:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean having all of your land taken, being beat, (in some cases your hut burned down(, your language outlawed, your traditional dress outlawed, many of your customs outlawed, your religion being banned (many of the highland Scots were still Roman Catholic in the early 18th century) is not an inducement, let alone a blatant forced removal? You have got to be joking me. No one here has ever heard of Culloden? (BTW, A) 20,000 was a sizable amount of the population 300 years ago, and B) it was a lot more than 20,000) And Rshu very nice to see you only consider the lowlands part of Scotland, Highlands constitute a part as well my friend, not alot of Scots speakers up there
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:
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. --Nydas14:23, 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.--WilliamThweatt17:39, 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
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.--WilliamThweatt19:21, 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:
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'. --Nydas19:39, 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.--WilliamThweatt20:09, 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
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.[4] 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.--Nydas13:18, 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.
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
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. 69.157.116.4216:49, 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.
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)
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.
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. 69.157.126.24102:26, 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. 69.157.109.17002:41, 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. 69.157.109.17002:50, 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.--WilliamThweatt03:37, 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. Eoganan04:29, 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:
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. Eoganan04:09, 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. 69.157.116.4216:49, 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.--WilliamThweatt04:39, 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. Eoganan04:50, 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.--WilliamThweatt05:07, 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. 69.157.116.4216:40, 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.--WilliamThweatt15:28, 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. 69.157.123.20217:11, 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. Eoganan05:29, 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.--WilliamThweatt06:14, 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. 69.157.116.4216:38, 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.--WilliamThweatt19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
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.--WilliamThweatt01:48, 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)
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. alphaChimplaudare02:56, 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. alphaChimplaudare11:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
Rcpaterson03:14, 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. 69.157.109.17003:22, 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.
Rcpaterson03:36, 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.--WilliamThweatt04:35, 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.Rcpaterson05:38, 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.--Nydas07:05, 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)
'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.--Nydas21:51, 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? --Nydas11:14, 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, talk16:23, 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, talk22:58, 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.--Nydas14:21, 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'. --Nydas14:44, 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. --Nydas15:06, 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)
"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. Epf20:47, 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, Epf21:03, 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, Epf21:56, 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. 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. Epf01:13, 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.--Nydas06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
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? --Nydas17:09, 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. Epf18:10, 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. Epf17:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
