Talk:Scottish people/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Ancestry map

Is there anyone out there able to copy the legend from this map to the one that was here previously? [1] It was removed from the article due to the lack of a legend/key. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps where the request has been moved to the map lab. Jack 1314 (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added the map with the key included. I'll now stop talking to myself. :) Jack 1314 (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Braw. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Scottish people and UK

Why did someone delete the part I wrote about us Scots being Citizens of the United Kingdom?? Is it not common sense to add something like that in the "Scottish People" page since Scottish People are British Citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Tamarin2010 (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is about Scottish people, including those of scottish ancestry elsewhere in the world. It is not simply about the UK. Please read the lede and you will see it defined there --Snowded ^TALK 20:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If the Article is about "Scottish People" then as we are "Scottish" we should also state we are British citizens of the United Kingdom. Weather people like it or not Scottish People are part of the UK and I myself being Scottish want to elaborate the fact we are Citizens of the United Kingdom and British, I'm happy with being British and Scottish so are the majority of Scots who vote Unionist parties.Tamarin2010 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDENT. The article is not confined to Scottish people in the UK (see my comment above and the lede). I am very happy that you are happy, but the happiness or otherwise of Scottish Unionists has little to do with this article. --Snowded ^TALK 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My point in mentioning Scottish people are Citizens of the United Kingdom is a very valid point, not only does the article never mention once about Scottish people being Citizens of the UK I find it to be more Nationalistic leaning and "Anti-Union". I want to see somewhere in this article about Scottish people being British citizens of the UK, This Article is about "Scottish people" in that case I would like to see Scottish people being recognised by the world as British citizens of the United Kingdom because that is what we are. This has nothing to do with Scottish Unionists themselves I feel its very important for people to realise what "Scottish people" actually are and that is British citizens of the United Kingdom.Tamarin2010 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One last attempt. A person of scottish ancestry who is a canadian citizen is as much the subject of this article as someone who was born and lives in Glasgow. Their citizenship is Canadian not British. The same applies to people of Scottish ancestry who are American citizens, Australian etc. etc. You a new editor so I suggest you read the guide to editing in the welcome message I left on your talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is about a people. Follow the link to Scotland in the very first sentence and you'll find the detail you are after in that article, starting with its first sentence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, If this article is about Scottish people then I would like the fact that we are British to be mentioned. On my Pass-Port my Nationality is British as a Scottish person I am a British citizen of the United Kingdom, this is a fact of all Scottish people, as this page is about Scottish people would it not be helpful to other people to know what we are a citizen of and our Nationality is? I think people want to know the real Facts instead of some misguided Nationalist point-of-view where the only thing we would be is "Scottish" which is not true because Scottish people are British and as this article is about Scottish people then it is only by rights that this page has an acknowledgement of a Scottish persons Nationality by Birth not some Pre-1707 dream that Nationalists want to hold on to. The same goes for Welsh people too who in a 2001 census when 96% of Welsh described themselves as "White-British" people around the world want to know facts and it is a fact that Scottish people themselves are British. I don't care about the "Scotland page", This page is the "Scottish peoples" and as Scottish people we are British citizens.Tamarin2010 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOAP --Snowded ^TALK 05:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He has a point though. The article should explain the situation with the UK / people being British. It is all very well saying people around the world are Scottish there for we can not mention Scotland or the UK in any detail, but the fact Scotland has been part of another sovereign state for 300 years and people have kept Scottish identity is notable. So it could say something like, "Despite the act of union in 1707 between England and Scotland which created the Kingdom of Great Britain and led to the emergence of a wider British identity, a distinctive Scottish identity has remained and today most people in Scotland consider themselves both British and Scottish." Or along those lines. Lets not forget the overwhelming majority of Scotlands diaspora is from people that left Scotland after 1707, not before. The fact this article makes no mention of "British", except for a brief mention of the empire is rather shocking and needs addressing BritishWatcher (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A comment; whether Tamarin2010 has a point or not, a head count of the Scottish diaspora pre- and post-Union is unlikely to resolve anything. There is a very considerable pre-Union diaspora, over many centuries, throughout these Isles, particularly Ireland, and across continental Europe and to state there is an overwhelmingly majority post-Union is moot. What's more, the very motivation for a significant portion of the post-Union diaspora will have been tension with the change from a Scottish to a British state. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to conduct one but i am sure the majority was post 1707 not prior to it. The fact remains Scottish people ties in with Scotland and the political status of Scotland radically changing 300 years ago is notable. The fact Scottish identity merged into a wider British identity is notable. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Three centuries post-1707 versus all of the centuries prior, with the additional time for descendants to multiply? Ireland, Poland, the Low Countries, France; Scottish mercenaries going left, right and centre, particularly in the Thirty Years War? Ties to Scotland may have loosened more and it may have assimilated more with host communities but I'd need more convincing that it is significantly smaller.

Scottish identity merged into a wider British identity a fact? An opinion, yes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not about a British Identity BW, its about a Scottish one and conforms with practice on the similar such articles. The phrase above is your own perspective--Snowded ^TALK 10:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

But Scottish identity is tied to Scotland and the fact Scotland joined with another state over 300 years ago and people continue to identify as Scottish is notable. This article should clearly state the situation of the UK. Not go out of its way to avoid mentioning British. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't go out of its way to avoid anything, it just deals with its subject matter. There are lots of notable aspects of Scottish History that are not relevant to this article --Snowded ^TALK 12:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we are going out of our way to avoid stating fact to me. Imagine the Cornish people article if it failed to mention anything about English or British people. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Weather you like it or not "Scottish Identity" is within the United Kingdom and the British Identity is now part of the Scottish people. I think we have to mention something about Scots being Citizens of the United Kingdom, when people research "Scottish people" they want to know what we actually are and we are British Citizens of the United Kingdom, it is just common-sense to add it in. I feel as if this page is biased towards Constituent country Nationalism when in-fact we must be factual and non-biased. Tamarin2010 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a people - a people who exist as a diaspora across the globe, from Aotearoa to Alberta. Not all Scottish people are British, just as not all people living in Glasgow are British (this last part directed at Snowded, and consider this a stern tutting from an exiled Kiwi, Snowded ;-) TFOWR 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you are a character in Taggart then, explains much, apologies. --Snowded ^TALK 13:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Been a while since I watched Taggart - not since Mark McManus died, I think. Is there a Kiwi character in it? Or am I missing something? TFOWR 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Last time I watched it too, I just indicated I was aware of which other articles you were monitoring and if there isn't a Kiwi in Taggart there should be, but ideally not a victim --Snowded ^TALK 13:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A small Minority of people in Scotland are not "Scottish" but they are British Citizens of the United Kingdom like all the rest of Scotland. Scottish people are British and this has to be mentioned in this page because this page is about "Scottish People" and Scottish people being British citizens I don't see why this would not be mentioned on a page about us Scots? The Article covers mostly about Scots living in the United Kingdom and it is key we mention the fact Scottish people are part of the United Kingdom and citizens of the UK. Tamarin2010 (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both sides of the coin here and do believe that all opinions should be mentioned: a) Scots who are born within the UK etc are British b) That the Scottish identify has managed to remain strong after 300 years of being merged, so to speak, with the English, Irish, and Welsh cultures in union (although lets face it the its alot longer since that i.e. Longshacks (is that the chaps name?) the Stuart moncarch and the Three Kingdsoms etc etc) c) That people of Scottish ancestry born outside of the UK are, of course, not British but again have managed to retain their ancestry/culture etc

I do not see how that would be going off topic and would appear to add valuable information on who the Scottish people are.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, another "people" article. I second some of these concerns, and have others as well. I think - leaving aside self-identification and nationalism for a moment - that the suggestions that Scottish people are not British people, or that people of Scottish ancestry abroad, often going back generations, are definitively "Scottish", would appear a little odd to an objective, outside observer. But that is what the article seems to suggest at the moment. Scots in Scotland, or expats, are by definition British citizens. There's no opting out of that. Arguably, they are also by definition part of the group known as "British" people - both within and outside of the UK - in the more casual sense, although individual opt-outs are I guess possible, if people feel strongly enough about it either way. I don't see how an accurate account of what Scottish people are can exclude an observation that they are a constituent part of the wider "British" group, nor should it include the suggestion that all Americans of Scottish ancestry are necessarily "Scottish", as opposed to being, er, simply Americans of Scottish ancestry. N-HH talk/edits 15:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the text suggests that Scottish people are not British? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll say it - Scottish people who emigrated to, say, Nova Scotia, during the Highland Clearances are Canadian, not British. Scottish people who emigrated to, say, Dunedin with the New Zealand Company are New Zealanders, not British. There's a case to be made here - a case that BW and N-HH mention - but the constant "Scottish people = People in Scotland = British" argument is (a) wrong, and (b) tiresome. (Sorry, Matt, this isn't directed at you, though you seem to be falling into the same trap). TFOWR 16:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if the brevity of my question and its paraphrase of the previous comment made it unclear. Perhaps I should have said Which part of the text addresses whether Scottish people are or are not (ever) British?. It was the claim that something is suggested with no apparent basis that I was addressing. (...and you're not the first so maybe I should change my handle to Mutt-(not Matt)-Lunker). Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops! If I had spelled out "your" username in full I'd have written it "Matt Lanker" (well, I'd probably have copied-and-pasted it, saving myself some embarrassment...) No, fair point, the article doesn't address that, and you're correct to state that. My annoyance wasn't directed at you, more at the perennial idea that "Scottish people" is restricted to Scots in Britain, failing to take into account the diaspora, which to my mind is equally as important (and much larger). You're not responsible for that tired old saw, however, so I should have replied elsewhere. TFOWR 17:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nae a problem. Per Kiwi pron. e.g. fush and chups, should I spell it Mitt Linker for ye? Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yir aa richt: ma Scots is no guid, but ah ken whit "fish an chips" is. ;-) "Mutt Lunker" ah dinnae ken, but ah'll try an spell it richt. TFOWR 19:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As noted by others, it's a sin of omission really. The fact that many Scots see themselves as more Scottish than British, or that many want Scotland to be independent of the UK, does not mean that a neutral and objective third party classification would not generally place Scottish people - as with English and Welsh - as being a subset of British people. To clarify my second point (unprompted, I know), the main body of the article is clearer, but the infobox - where it lists, subject to the smallprint, 10m "Scottish people" in the US - and the lead - where it says "Scottish people" or "Scots" is used to refer to ... anyone [my emphasis] who has genetic links to, or family origins in Scotland - can be read as being a little confusing. As for the simple three way equation, TFWOR, that's not what I'm saying (if you were suggesting that I was), since as we can all agree, there are quite a few holes, at separate points in that. N-HH talk/edits 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, my comment about you and BW was that you make the positive argument that Scottish people in Scotland might be better understood within the context of Britain. It's the ceaseless new threads here which make the negative argument appearing to confuse Scottish people (in Scotland and the diaspora) with "people in Scotland". TFOWR 16:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec):::The article is not especially about how Scotts in the UK perceive themselves, any more that it is particularly about whether Scots in Canada see themselves as Canadian. There is an article about British People which does use the UK. This one is about Scottish people of many many nationalities. --Snowded ^TALK 16:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

But is every person with Scottish ancestry somewhere in their distant family history a "Scottish person"? As noted in previous sections, I don't think that's the way term is normally used or usually understood. Yet, in places, this is exactly what the article suggests. "Scottish people" indeed covers more than just people in Scotland - it includes expats and others living outside the UK who might have taken on citizenship in that new country, or even those whose parents might have a generation ago. But does it include a fourth generation American with a great-great-grandfather who was born in Aberdeen in 1895? They might be Scottish-American (or even British American), but it would be very odd to call them a Scot. N-HH talk/edits 18:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the way we currently do it, yes - and not just for Scottish people, but French people, etc. Check the infobox - twice as many "Scottish people" in the US than in Scotland: "Scottish people" includes "Scottish Americans, Scottish New Zealanders, etc, just as French people includes French Canadians, French Americans, etc. I'm not personally sure it's necessarily the correct thing to do: "Macdonald" is apparently one of the most common Māori names, and I'd doubt most Māori would claim to be anything other than Māori, but the answer to your question is: yes, that's the way Wikipedia currently does things. TFOWR 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would say that very definitely needs to change - in multiple articles, if it affects others as well. I mean it's just wrong if we look at it compared with normal usage, which, after all, is what WP purports to reflect, surely? N-HH talk/edits 18:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

All the various X- people articles are about ethnic groups so there really is not a problem not nations or nationalities. Not everyone of Scottish ancestry necessarily counts, but the article makes no such claim. Go to Dunedin and you will find an entire city which sees itself as scottish in ethnical terms, but Kiwis in terms of their nationalities. Ditto in many other parts of the world. It is normal usage overseas as well as in the UK and the Wikipedia reflects it. --Snowded ^TALK 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Off topic: I've been in an Auckland pub (speaking in a braid Glesga accent) and been told that the folk I were drinking with (speaking in broad Kiwi accents) were Scottish but I was a Kiwi, because I came from Auckland, and they came from Otago... TFOWR 18:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well no, as has been pointed out, the page says there are 40m Scottish people in the world. It also says Scot *is* used to refer to *anyone* with Scottish ancestry, which is open to interpretation as meaning "everyone". I'm sorry, but this is not the way the terms are usually used in the real world, regardless of whether we are talking about "ethnic groups" or "nations" or anything else. I've never been to Dunedin and know little about it, but I did of course acknowledge - just above - that there will be people overseas who maintain their identity as Scottish people, even as non-British citizens, and through the generations. But that's not everyone. I thought it was an issue of lack of clarity or sloppy writing when this first came up, now it seems it's outright and deliberate error. N-HH talk/edits 18:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, taking Scottish Americans as an example (and the figure in the infobox here apparently includes Scots-Irish as well as Scots) the figures come from the US census bureau, so while it could be open to interpretation as meaning everyone, in practice different people in the US identify with different cultural and ethnic groups - there are large groups of Swedish Americans, for example. The census bureau groups accordingly. So it's not "everyone", purely those who identify as belonging to a particular group. TFOWR 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but "Scottish American" is different from "Scottish". Arguably the former falls within the latter at its broadest, but, again, I really don't think that's the way these things are usually understood. For clarity, the infobox here (and elsewhere, if needed) should specify, explicitly, that the numbers refer to Scottish people and people of Scottish descent. And the intro should say Scottish can be used to refer to people of Scottish descent, not that it does, to "anyone". And the last line of the "Scottish ancestry abroad" section needs changing too, or else it reads that there are lots of expats there. At least I have Roy Keane on my side on this one. N-HH talk/edits 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but this isn't about "Scottish" - it's "Scottish people". I'd argue that "Scottish American" does not fall within "Scottish", but it does fall within "Scottish people" (and "American people", obviously). The infobox figures are cited, so I'm not convinced we need to do anything more than that - the reader can assess for themselves whether an American describing themselves as "Scottish American" is valid or not. TFOWR 19:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not convinced by the distinction between describing certain "people" as "Scottish", and describing them as "Scottish people". And yes, the infobox stats are cited, and I don't dispute that they might accurately represent the numbers of people in certain places who are of Scottish origin, descent or ancestry - although I would point out that two cites are to other WP pages, and also there is no evidence that the figures for each country are based on the same underlying principles. For example, looking at the numbers and percentages, the US options and classifications would seem to be about ancestry/family origin, while the NZ ones would appear to be more about expat citizenship or recent immigration, with "European" - an option seemingly not included for US classification - instead being used as the primary, blanket term to cover broader and more historical non-indigenous ancestry, on top of more specific ones where the respondents chose to use that as well. I just think we need to be clear when this page presents the information as to the range of what it is purporting to represent, and the terminology being used. N-HH talk/edits 21:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is the article talks about Scotland because that is where "Scottish people" come from or where they originated from. The fact Scotland has been part of another country for 300 years and has gone on to help form a British identity is notable. Lets look at the introduction of the Scotland article for a second..

"The continued existence of legal, educational and religious institutions distinct from those in the remainder of the UK have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and national identity since the Union"

That is in the introduction of the Scotland article. If that is notable there, why is it not notable here to at least mention despite the union and the emergence British identity and British citizenship, Scottish identity has remained. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly if you go to Dunedin you will find in the first University in New Zealand aspects of both education and religious institutions that are distinctly scottish in nature. The Scotland article is about SCOTLAND, this article is about scottish ethnicity --Snowded ^TALK 18:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And the reason there is strong Scottish identity in New Zealand? the British Empire. The introduction mentions this, although it fails at any point to explain the fact Scotland joined with England to form Great Britain and establish that Empire which helped spread Scottish diaspora around the world. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Catalonian people badly written but it covers matters in the article relating to their identity and status within Spain.
• Irish people - talks in detail about Ireland, mentions things like the formation of the Irish free state.
• Welsh people - talks about Welsh people in Wales today and their identity.
• Cornish people - rightly talks about their status as part of England, and identity within the United Kingdom.
• English people - In the introduction " Following the Act of Union in 1707, in which the Kingdom of England became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, English customs and identity became closely aligned with British customs and identity."
• French people - Makes a distinction about people legally French and French ancestory etc along with a lot of deatails about French history.
• Germans - Again has plenty of talk about German history. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Scottish people, in that case it is a must we add something about British Identity in here after all this page is about "Scottish People". It is a bit odd that it's not even mentioned once in the whole entire article.Tamarin2010 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you check you will find there is a reference to the British Empire which sets the context of expansion of Scottish influence well. --Snowded ^TALK 20:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It mentions the British Empire in the introduction, but it should say before that England and Wales joined together to form the UK, then as part of the British Empire Scottish diaspora spread around the world. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It also says in the article "Today, Scotland has a population of just over five million people,[28] the majority of whom consider themselves Scottish". Now why is there not justification for also stating most in Scotland also consider themselves British as well as Scottish. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The British Empire is pipelinked, we don't need to recite the history of Britain on all articles which have any connection. As to the other statement there are two questions (i) is it true and (ii) is it relevant

This article is about people from Scotland. We need to explain that over 300 years ago Scotland joined with England to form another country, despite that, Scottish identity has remained and thanks to Scots role in the Empire, Scottish culture and identity has been spread to many former parts of the Empire. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Its true in polls done by Yougov i think, cant quite remember when the most recent one was though. I am sure ive mentioned it before sometime so i will have a hunt around. And yes its relevant because Scottish people helped form a wider British identity. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You've said that a few times and I think the article already has a concise statement about the spread of Scottish Culture and the Empire which is more than enough for this article. There is also an article on British People which handles that particular identity--Snowded ^TALK 21:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No we do not explain the situation properly. Scotland formed part of another state, this is a pretty big deal which gets a brief mention once in the Anglicisation section but it does not explain the situation. We need to say clearly in the introduction that Despite Scotland forming part of another country over 300 years ago, Scottish culture and identity has continued and that Scottish people spread throughout the United Kingdom, (especially Ireland) and in part because of the British Empire to certain parts of the world. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's being overly political or British nationalist to suggest that an article about thing A should explain its relationship to thing B in something more than passing detail. I don't wish to compare us all to dogs, but it seems for example that an article about Labradors would be missing quite a bit of context if it did not explain where they fit in with the world of Retrievers. For three centuries, Scots have been part of the relatively recent invention known as the (modern) British people. And they have actually contributed to that identity, it's not simply the English swallowing them up and emasculating them. Saying this is irrelevant because we are talking about the diaspora/ancestry doesn't really wash either, since people who are "Scottish Americans" for example are by one definition at least also "British Americans". N-HH talk/edits 22:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Emasculation? Dog Breeds? If your're a Scottish American then you are a British American? Got a citation for any of that or is it just late at night? --Snowded ^TALK 22:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there is a whole article on European Americans. That includes Scottish and Irish people i do not see why they could not also be considered British Americans. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not exactly what sort of citation you want. But a quick search found this book on British American Jews, which basically covers English American Jews and Scottish American Jews by the sounds of it. [2] BritishWatcher (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for trying to think laterally or by example in order to expand on a point, or for writing in a non-literal sense in respect of one word. And the only error I made in what I said was to talk about three centuries of British people, when arguably one could push it to as much as five. Do I really need a cite for the suggestion that Scottish Americans are by one definition really also British Americans? Cheers. N-HH talk/edits 22:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a book on British Americans, it certainly includes Scottish people so yes.. Scottish Americans = British Americans although some may not identify as British as is the case here, but it does not stop them being British. [3] BritishWatcher (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Go to page 56 on that last link, it talks in detail about Scottish immigrants and it even has a picture of a British event BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The link you gave says (Lance) "Armstrong is of Scottish decent." not British. As for the rest, it all seems to be synthesis. Your picture of a 'British event' (p 56) is you own interpretation, it is described as the Highland Games. I wouldn't accept that as a reliable source. A scholarly work it isn't. Daicaregos (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Its a book about British Americans. Right underneath that picture it talks for British events. It is not WP:SYN to say that Scottish people are British just like it is not WP:SYN to say they are all Europeans. If you have a problem with that go and request European Americans be deleted. Back to this issue at hand, many other articles as shown above include details about the country or area of origin. This article is about Scottish people and there for partly about Scotland itself, a major political event that took place over 300 years ago which led to Scotland forming a new country, and that new countrys position in the world helping to lead to the spread of Scottish culture and identity is notable. Why must we avoid mentioning this at all costs? Yet another example of an article with neutrality issues as so many do on wikipedia thanks to an anti-British bias that sadly exists throughout wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be mentioned because, as you express it, its not notable for this article. It is notable for other articles where it is included. You really need to stop slumping back to accusations of Anti-British bias ever ytime you don't get agreement--Snowded ^TALK 10:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there is a bias throughout wikipedia in the way certain issues are handled, its not hard to notice it. I do not see how the status of Scotland is not notable when it is partly responsible for the spread of Scottish culture around the world. The other articles i listed above note political aspects of the country the people article is about. Why should we try to avoid mentioning it on here? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a British context to Scots identity but this post-1707 focus may be missing the point. I have a copy of The Times Guide to the Peoples of Europe, a 1994 book edited by Felipe Fernández-Armesto.[4] This has an interesting approach to the Scots: they are split across two articles, one on lowlanders and one on highlanders & islanders. The author of the article on 'English and Lowland Scots' (yes, they are lumped together!) says that "the most conspicuous cultural division in British history has not been between the English and Scots but between the English and Lowland Scots on one hand and their Celtic neighbours on the other... the [English and Lowland Scots] share a common origin... yet the Lowland Scots have wavered between the English and the Highland Scots".--Pondle (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point and was a significant factor in the clearances and a lot of the stories that arise. The role of Scott in romanticising Highland culture was also a major factor in the spread of Scottish culture. That is well referenced. I think you have the heart of it Pondle when you talk about the English-Lowland link, its much more that than an abstract concept of British Citizenship which is a later construct. --Snowded ^TALK 10:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the citizenship question, I think the article could usefully mention the evolving trends in identity and the whole 'British or Scottish' question. This is a live issue for politicians, social researchers, cultural commentators and historians, and there's plenty of evidence from the British and Scottish Social Attitudes Surveys. This issue is also relevant at English people and Welsh people.--Pondle (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that belongs more on the Scotland and Wales pages given the international nature of the people pages --Snowded ^TALK 14:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The English people article discusses the relationship between Englishness and Britishness and I see questions of competing (or complementary) identities as highly relevant for ethnic group articles. On the 'international' nature of the article, I come back to the discussion we were having here. I'm worried about how a lot of these ethnic group articles mix up present day populations in their countries of origin with old ancestry groups elsewhere in the world. European emigrant communities - in the United States especially - are usually long-standing, highly assimilated, and very mixed. So talking about 9 million plus "Scottish people" in the US is a bit dodgy really. We need to make clearer distinctions between 'homeland' populations, contemporary expats and ancestry groups abroad.--Pondle (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%, as per my comments above - eg here - and the previous discussion in the section noted. I think there's a broad consensus for someone to be a bit bold and add some clarity to these pages by tweaking some of the wording, so that we are clear about the range of what is being covered within these large numbers? N-HH talk/edits 16:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to clarification on issues of ethnicity and identity - very different from citizenship. --Snowded ^TALK 16:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is disputing that, or how they could, not least because there's no such thing as Scottish citizenship. It's fairly obvious also that you can be "Scottish" without being a British citizen, and I certainly keep saying it - eg here and then here - but nonetheless get responses as if I haven't quite got it yet. The point is more that ancestry and identity are also different things. There are probably four broad categories here - Scots in Scotland; Scottish expats; overseas nationals (most likely recent emigrants to that country) who would also describe themselves as Scottish as well as, say, Canadian; and those who would simply claim some distant Scottish roots (along quite possibly other ethnic/national origins as well). N-HH talk/edits 14:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

When you have some time N-HH perhaps you could try and suggest some changes to address this, your proposal on the Cornish people page seemed to help get consensus.It seems to have all gone quiet here on this now. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity and identity of Scottish people abroad do need to be clarified on this article. Citizenship has nothing to do with either. Scottish people were settling all over the world long before the United Kingdom came into existence. Jack1297 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority of it happened after 1707 not before it. I am sorry that it is seen as so unacceptable to even mention the fact Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and Scottish identity went on to help form a wider British identity. Such matters should be mentioned clearly in the way many other articles cover political matters of the nation in question. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, this is not the place to mention citizenship. The article Scotland covers that well enough. This article is not about the country, it's about the people and those who have been moving around the world for centuries. We are talking of Scottish identity, not British or European for that matter. Jack1297 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about BW, Jack, but I was talking about Britishness (and how it relates to Scottishness) rather than British citizenship. Overlapping or competing identities, and changes in them over time, are an interesting theme to explore in an "ethnic group" article.--Pondle (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC) People articles cover major political developments of the state "the people" were originally from. The Scottish diaspora being dominant in certain countries linked with the British Empire (which is mentioned in the intro) is valid, and yet we fail to point out more clearly the union and the fact Scottish identity helps form part of British identity. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

@Pondle. I don't disagree with you entirely Pondle. The problem we have is that we do have sources which detail the percentage of Scottish ancestry for many countries, such as the USA map in the article. There are I'm sure sources which detail percentages of British ancestry, but who is to know who is also Scottish, Welsh, English or Irish in that group. I believe the article British people could go in to more detail on that if sources can be found to differentiate between the British abroad. Also, don't forget. Scottish as an ethnicity is a main part of this article. British as any kind of ethnicity (is there such a thing?) belongs on the British people article. I have though agreed with you above that we should explain in more detail the Scottish and Scottish ancestry aspects in this article. By that I mean someone of Scottish ancestry should not be automatically thought of as Scottish. I know this from experience as my brother and his wife raised their children in Australia and their kids, though proud of their Scottish roots, most certainly consider themselves as good Aussies. Jack1297 (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We're on the same page re: expat populations and ancestry groups, Jack. My other point was about:(a) the numbers/proportions of people in Scotland who feel themselves to be Scottish not British, equally Scottish and British, more British than Scottish etc etc. and (b) something about how Scots shaped, embraced, or rejected Britishness after 1707. Sadly, it's been a long time since I read Linda Colley's book Britons, a very interesting source. I wouldn't want to go into too much detail here but English people does have a section on "Englishness and Britishness", and I think it's relevant.--Pondle (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Pondle, this is not an article on Scottish people since 1707 or for that matter Scottish people today. To have a section on "Scottishness and Britishness" is massive overkill when we are talking of the hundreds of years of Scottish people before the UK came about. In my opinion it is not relevant to include a section on Britishness. Jack1297 (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily a section, but surely a mention. At the moment there's just one line:

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

IMO the article should discuss whether/how the sense of Scottish identity has changed over time, and where it fits within the wider constitutional and historical context. Not something I would "die in a ditch" for, it just seems like a strange omission, that's all.--Pondle (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We could always add to the sentence from the source used: 84% regard themselves as Scottish, which indicates an increase in perceived Scottishness over time. At the same time, there has been a decrease in perceived Britishness, with 22% regarding themselves as British. I think something along those lines would cover it. Going into more detail on the why's and how's would be unnecessary and as I said would would be overkill on an article that covers many centuries of Scottish people. Jack1297 (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

lmao @ Scottish Social Attitudes Survey. First time i have taken a look at that article, i see it goes into detail about the 2010 findings showing Scottish people want more devolution. Whats rather amusing is it fails to mention what the reference there says was the core finding. "However, in a blow to Salmond's longer-term goals, the Scottish social attitudes survey's core finding was that only 28% of voters support his aim of independence – a lower level than two recent social attitude studies.". Its such a shame when these little bits of information get accidently left out isnt it? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We'd be interested in questions of national identity rather than Scottish independence on this article, BW.--Pondle (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is that article that is problematic, i will be making some changes there, but i couldnt help but mention it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try. Daicaregos (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

are you sure the figure for New Zealand Scots ancestry is correct? 12 000? I'm sure that is well wrong as I heard 40% of white population are Scots ancestry? that would be about 1.5 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.35.93 (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Diaspora is a Separate Topic

It is true that the vast majority of the Scottish People are part of the Disapora, but not all Scottish People are part of the Diaspora. The Disaspora and it's history is a large enough topic to warrant it's own page.

In a three minute Amazon.com search, I discovered no less than 7 scholarly Books and 1 scholarly article devoted specifically to the Scottish Diaspora or Diaspora Studies. These books include Scottish World: A Journey into the Sottish Diaspora, Homecomings: Genealogy and Heritage Tourism in the Scottish Diaspora, Caledonian culture: a legacy of the Scottish diaspora. (Beyond the Canon).: An article from: Journal of Australian Studies and Geographies: Old Cultures, New Times (Critical Geographies) and those were just a few of the ones that mentioned the phrase "Scottish Diaspora" in the title and description.

There is now a doctoral program out of the University of Edinburgh that is a Doctorate in Scottish Diaspora Studies.

There really should be a separate page for the Scottish Diaspora. The problem? I'm a history student who was assigned a paper specifically on the Scottish Diaspora's affect on the American Colonies, and the relationship between the American branch of the Scottish Diaspora and Scotland. I'm not educated enough on the subject to even begin starting a page. That's what I came looking for today. And I'm frustrated that such an undeniably important topic is nothing but a redirect page. -Anonymous Graduate Student 68.47.212.228 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As you note, it's only partly covered here. You may find Scottish American useful (and possibly Scottish Canadian as well?) The diaspora is what interests me with this article, though more from a Scottish New Zealander and Scottish Australian perspective - I'm a Kiwi, though I mostly live in Scotland. (I assume like most Kiwis I have some Scottish ancestry, but I've never had the time to investigate in any detail - best I can find out is that I'm mostly a pom ;-) ). TFOWR 08:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Your the most complicated person I think I've ever come across. A kiwi with mostly Pom heritage living in Scotland with a Fife accent. Anything else you want to tell us? A wee bit of martian in there somewhere perhaps?  ;) Jack1297 (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm - currently - aware of ;-) I don't think I'm that unusual - a Kiwi living in Scotland can't be that out of the ordinary, though I'll acknowledge the accent thing is odd. Ahm workin oan it: the Western accent suits me better than the Kingdom of Fife, eh?! TFOWR 13:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You write it better than I do. I can talk the talk but can't write the write. I do know a lot of old dirty Glaswegian words but that's not for here. ;) Jack1297 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Change is due for "Scottish ancestry abroad".

"Today, Scotland has a population of just over five million people,[28] the majority of whom consider themselves Scottish." I want to see up to date information to back up the fact that the "Majority" of Scots call themselves Scottish".

I also think we should note that Colin Powell should be changed to someone like Tony Blair, As Tony Blair played a huge role in Devolution and to Scotland's future. We need someone that made an impact to Scotland, if you have any more suggestions then everyone is more than welcome to join in. OneTrueBrit (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For your first point, there's a thread above where this is discussed. The latest data we have is a Scottish Executive survey from 2005/2006:

When asked which ethnic group they belonged to, a number of respondents selected more than one option, usually both Scottish and British, hence percentages adding to more than 100%. At the latest wave (Wave 7), 84% regarded themselves as Scottish, which indicates an increase in perceived Scottishness over time. At the same time, there has been a decrease in perceived Britishness, with 22% regarding themselves as British at the latest wave. This indicates a continued erosion of perceived Britishness among respondents, which has fallen significantly from 39% at Wave 3.

("Wave 7" refers to this survey).

For your second point, Blair was born in Scotland so wouldn't be a good choice for a section that discusses Scottish ancestry abroad. TFOWR 21:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A survey from 2005/6 is not up to date, I don't think we should base a survey on what the majority of Scots consider themselves as. I would want to see more information on this and for change to be put in place, We cant say that the majority of Scots just consider themselves Scottish on the fact of a out dated survey. I seen a poll awhile back that put a fair amount of Scots call themselves British and Scottish and just "British". So its not fair to say that the majority do on the base of a survey or a poll for the matter of fact. It should be deleted asap.

When I said we should change the person from Powell to someone else etc "Tony Blair", I mean someone that has done something for Scotland in the past 10 years and made an Influence.OneTrueBrit (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can find a more recent survey that would be great. Next year's census will obviously be the ideal choice, once we've got the results, but until then there may well be other, more recent, surveys we could use.

Who would you suggest as an alternative for Colin Powell? Obviously they'd need to be foreign, but of Scottish ancestry. I'm not sure I'd agree that they'd have to have done something "for Scotland": we only need someone notable who illustrates Scottish ancestry, but that at least should make it easier to find someone appropriate. TFOWR 10:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blairs history is pretty complex although he does have Scottish roots. David Cameron might be a safer bet whos Scottish ancestry is more detailed, but im not sure how that would go down with the locals. lol. Although i must say looking at that section title i think it is a problem. Is "Scottish ancestry abroad" really an appropriate title for a section that covers Scottish people or ancestry in the rest of the United Kingdom. Whilst some in Scotland may look at England as a completely separate country "abroad" does not really seem a good way of defining it. Would it not be better for the rest of the UK to have its own section, thats where it could include and image of someone like Cameron for his ancestry or a former British prime minister that was Scottish, (not necessarily Brown). Such a section would be a good place to cover details on peoples identity, i e being Scottish and British and a mention of Scottish culture continuing and contributing to a wider British identity. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but England is actually comparatively lowly in terms of the diaspora. The US comes top, followed by Canada, then Australia. Maybe make "the rest of the UK" a sub-section of the "rest of the world" section? I guess, despite the numbers, it's significant in terms of being part of the same country. Back to Powell, the more I think about it the more I think he's a pretty good example from an "interest" perspective - he's much more "interesting" than Blair or Cameron, who are both a bit "obvious". I actually think Cameron's better than Blair, because Blair was born in Scotland - so he's not so much an example of "Scottish ancestry" as he is of "being born in Scotland". Still prefer Powell, though ;-) TFOWR 20:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ive no problem with the Powell picture. Something like "Scottish diaspora" with subsections "rest of the United Kingdom", "rest of the world" etc. Also looking at the wording for the very very very short paragraph on the UK, im not sure the "800,000 born in Scotland emigrated to England, Wales and NI" is really suitable. The source is talking about Scottish people resident somewhere else in the country at the time of the census. That is not really people who have "emigrated" which implies moving to a far away country and living there for the rest of their lives, rather than simply living in another part of the country. If you live in Glasgow and moved to Edinburgh for a few years, you have not "emigrated". BritishWatcher (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Exeter might be a better example than Edinburgh, but I take your point. It's correct, but odd wording. "Have moved to" or "now reside in" would be better than "have emigrated to", in my opinion. I don't think the paragraph is "very very very short", by the way - the UK gets as much as the US, and slightly less than Canada, and more than Australia (which shares a para with the mighty New Zealand). If anything, I'd say the US and Australia paras need expansion. (And that's a grudging admission from a Kiwi...) TFOWR 21:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Celtic, Germanic and Norse origins.

There has been a number of attempts, mostly by anonymous IP editors, to remove material mentioning the Germanic (Anglo-Saxon) and Norse origins of the modern-day Scots, in favour of the celtic components (the Picts, Gaels and Strathclyde Britons). Whatever the reasons for these deletions, it does the history of the Scots a major injustice to deny their origins. For an accessible introduction to this topic, the Historic Scotland/Birlinn Making of Scotland series is hard to beat. They're cheap and widely available in bookshops or in most Scottish local libraries:

• Lowe, Chris (1999), Angels, Fools and Tyrants, Birlinn, ISBN 0862418755 covers the Anglo Saxons and Britons

• Owen, Olwyn (1999), The Sea Road, Birlinn, ISBN 0862418739 covers the Vikings/Norse.

It would probably also do to mention here the contribution made by the Normans to Scots origins. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

And the Portugese! ;-) More significantly, it wasn't just Strathclyde Britons, Hen Ogledd included Gododdin and many more. As for "Celts", they seem to have been continental, with the peoples of these islands being called Pretani, Britto etc. until the 17th century linguistic connection with those continentals. Looking at the section, it seems a bit optimistic to say that "almost every adult throughout Scotland is fluent in the English language", does that include Nedspeak? Anyway, looks like a good series, must try to read them. Thanks, dave souza, talk 15:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Shhh!!! Don't mention the Portuguese! You'll upset the Gauls... They're nice little books, intended perhaps for the more interested high school history student. They're written by the likes of Stephen Driscoll et al, so they're academically sound (if a little out of date in places, eg. the recent repositioning of Fortriu), but they're easy to read. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Facts, stop stupid propaganda.

Since the advent of modern genetic research every serious geneticist knows that the Scots come mainly from Spain (well over 70% of the present population). The fact that people here go to all lengths to hide their own past, their own ancestors and their own blood (DNA)is pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQHX_MwhN80

Boo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is far outside the scope of Scottish people and is covered by Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA). Of course, the topic is nowhere near as simple as the Youtube clip claims. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 07:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure. "The video Clip". You mean Spencer Wells, The National Geographic, Brian Sykes, Stephen Oppenheimer, Cunliffe, etc. But sure "the video clip". Sorry but I find it all so pathetic. Boo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the current literature? Here's one to start you off with. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Who do you want to manipulate? That is the only single article with that opinion, from 2009. All the above authors support the same theory and have written several books about it, not just one article. It is people like you that go around showing this single article and ignoring the majority of authors, books and studies. (By the way an article that fails to explain why R1b is most concentrated in Spain, the British Isles and France while it is almost non-existent in the Near East or outside of "Atlantic Europe", and I write "Atlantic Europe" like that because in Spain, with the exception of the Basque country, it is densest in the Mediterranean). What is more you ignore all the others and brandish this single article as the Bible. Even that article recognizes the female ancestry as coming from Iberia, or Spain and Portugal. But of course do not mention it¡. All the people with big agendas, that dominate these articles, use the same only article to write most articles now in Wiki relating to this matter. But, of course, Spencer Wells did not read this article when the clip was recorded a few months ago. You have now almost half a dozen books published in the 21st century dealing with the same issue and coming to the same conclusion and people like you always come up with the single, only article that comes only partly with the Neolithic theory (on the male side, not on the female). I do not believe that you people are that ignorant. I know that you have big agendas. Time will eventually judge you. Even in Wiki. Boo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.185.140 (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Um... sure. Not quite sure what agenda you're seeing there.WP:AGF and all that. The article was published in January 2010 by the way.Catfish Jim & the soapdish 00:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You've posted almost identical topics to Talk:Nordic race, Talk:Scottish people, Talk:Hispanic and Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles. As per WP:MULTI, please limit the thread to one talk page (I suggest Talk:Genetic history of the British Isles as it is the most relevant) to avoid fragmentation of the discussion. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If the IP thinks there is an argument that is in the academic literature and ought to be represented in Wikipedia, they should come up with a useful source. If they can't find one then there is no point discussing this any further. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In Origins of the British (2006), Stephen Oppenheimer states (pages 375 and 378):

"By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal), ranging from a low of 59% in Fakenham, Norfolk to highs of 96% in Llangefni, north Wales and 93% Castlerea, Ireland. On average only 30% of gene types in England derive from north-west Europe. Even without dating the earlier waves of north-west European immigration, this invalidates the Anglo-Saxon wipeout theory..."

"...75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia... Ireland, coastal Wales, and central and west-coast Scotland are almost entirely made up from Iberian founders, while the rest of the non-English parts of the British Isles have similarly high rates. England has rather lower rates of Iberian types with marked heterogeneity, but no English sample has less than 58% of Iberian samples..."

In page 367 Oppenheimer states in relation to Zoë H Rosser's pan-European genetic distance map:

"In Rosser's work, the closest population to the Basques is in Cornwall, followed closely by Wales, Ireland, Scotland, England, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and then northern France."

In his 2006 book Blood of the Isles (published in the United States and Canada as Saxons, Vikings and Celts: The Genetic Roots of Britain and Ireland), Sykes examines British genetic "clans". He presents evidence from mitochondrial DNA, inherited by both sexes from their mothers, and the Y chromosome, inherited by men from their fathers, for the following points:

• The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line, i.e. those people, who in time would become identified as British Celts (culturally speaking), but who (genetically speaking) should more properly be called Cro-Magnon. In continental Europe, this same Cro-Magnon genetic legacy gave rise to the Basques. But both "Basque" and "Celt" are cultural designations not genetic ones and therefore to call a Celt "Basque" or a Basque "Celtic", is a fallacy.

• The contribution of the Celts of central Europe to the genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland was minimal; most of the genetic contribution to the British Isles of those we think of as Celtic, came from western continental Europe, I.E. the Atlantic seaboard.

• The Picts were not a separate people: the genetic makeup of the formerly Pictish areas of Scotland shows no significant differences from the general profile of the rest of Britain. The two "Pictland" regions are Tayside and Grampian.

• The Anglo-Saxons are supposed, by some, to have made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, but in Sykes's opinion it was under 20 percent of the total, even in southern England.

• The Vikings (Danes and Norwegians) also made a substantial contribution, which is concentrated in central, northern, and eastern England - the territories of the ancient Danelaw. There is a very heavy Viking contribution in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, in the vicinity of 40 percent. Women as well as men contributed substantially in all these areas, showing that the Vikings engaged in large-scale settlement.

• The Norman contribution was extremely small, on the order of 2 percent.

• There are only sparse traces of the Roman occupation, almost all in southern England.

• In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic: a mixture of the first Mesolithic inhabitants with Neolithic settlers who came by sea from Iberia and ultimately from the eastern Mediterranean.

• There is a difference between the genetic histories of men and women in Britain and Ireland. The matrilineages show a mixture of original Mesolithic inhabitants and later Neolithic arrivals from Iberia, whereas the patrilineages are much more strongly correlated with Iberia. This suggests (though Sykes does not emphasize this point) replacement of much of the original male population by new arrivals with a more powerful social organization.

• There is evidence for a "Genghis Khan effect", whereby some male lineages in ancient times were much more successful than others in leaving large numbers of descendants; e.g. Niall of the Nine Hostages in 4th and 5th century Ireland and Somerled in 12th century Scotland.

Some quotations from the book follow. (Note that Sykes uses the terms "Celts" and "Picts" to designate the pre-Roman inhabitants of the Isles who spoke Celtic and does not mean the people known as Celts in central Europe.) “

[T]he presence of large numbers of Jasmine’s Oceanic clan … says to me that there was a very large-scale movement along the Atlantic seaboard north from Iberia, beginning as far back as the early Neolithic and perhaps even before that. …The mere presence of Oceanic Jasmines indicates that this was most definitely a family based settlement rather that the sort of male-led invasions of later millennia.[4] ” “

The Celts of Ireland and the Western Isles are not, as far as I can see from the genetic evidence, related to the Celts who spread south and east to Italy, Greece and Turkey from the heartlands of Hallstadt and La Tene...during the first millennium BC…The genetic evidence shows that a large proportion of Irish Celts, on both the male and female side, did arrive from Iberia at or about 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. (…)

They [the Picts] are from the same mixture of Iberian and European Mesolithic ancestry that forms the Pictish/Celtic substructure of the Isles.[5] ” “

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 Atlantis 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…I can find no evidence at all of a large-scale arrival from the heartland of the Celts of central Europe amongst the paternic genetic ancestry of the Isles… can[6] (Something smells rotten in the sate of Wikipedia: Nordicists?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.42.143 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for removal of referenced material?

Thesouthernhistorian45 has twice attempted to remove a section of text from the Scottish ancestry abroad subheading. The removed text is as follows:

It is estimated that there are more than 27 million descendants of the Scots-Irish migration now living in the U.S.

"Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America". Powells.com. 12 August 2009. Retrieved 30 April 2010.

The rationale for this removal is that the editor gave is: That may be true but Jim Webb's book is at best a fringe-source at worse profoundly unscholarly, revisionist and packed full of racialist psuedo-science.

I've reverted this for the moment as it seems a little POV. The book accompanies a major STV/UTV television documentary series on the Ulster Scots and for the purposes of Wikipedia, would seem to be a reliable source. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Robertson

As the Robertson family, as well as a long line of Scottish kings, had their origin in Athol, we shall give a description of Athol.

The Robertson family, or rather the ancestors of that family, before the surname of Robertson was assumed, was the Royal Family of Scotland for three hundred years, from Duncan I. to Alexander III. on the male line, and down to James VI. on the female line.

As the Robertson family, as well as a long line of Scottish kings, had their origin in Athol, we shall give a description of Athol.

The Robertson family, or rather the ancestors of that family, before the surname of Robertson was assumed, was the Royal Family of Scotland for three hundred years, from Duncan I. to Alexander III. on the male line, and down to James VI. on the female line.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.207.38.134 (talk) 02:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Outwith

Resolved

I am writing this because a revert to my edit on this page invited me to engage in discussion to resolve the conflict. Here is my case: while the word 'outwith' may indeed be a Scottish dialect word, this encyclopaedia does not use Scottish dialect words in any of its other articles, so why this one? According to the Wikipedia Manual Of Style, Plain English is what this encyclopaedia is to be written in. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 18:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say that 'outwith' is a dialect word? As far as I am aware, it is regarded as a standard English word in Scotland. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, why not ask on the language reference desk? I'm pretty sure we'll arrive at some sort of consensus there. By the way, Googling 'outwith' gives me pages and pages of definitions of the word, rather than the word in actual use, showing how rare it is in standard English (or even any English). Also, every one of those definitions says 'in Scotland'. A dialect is defined as "A particular form of a language that is peculiar to a specific region or social group." If this word is only used in Scotland, then it is dialect. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Outwith" is a solitary word, not "a form of language", and one which is perfectly standard and widespread in Scottish Standard English, formal or otherwise. Regarding dialects/national varieties in use in Wikipedia, the case for the Scottish variety is no different to that of American English, British English, Australian English. Also see WP:ENGVAR.

It may not surprise you that has arisen before, e.g. here. Hope you're sitting comfortably... Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hence, "dialect word", used above. And yes, I see now that the discussion has been raised before. In fact, I've seen similar discussions all over the internet since I've been in this discussion here with you guys. It does indeed seem to be a Scottish dialect word (see post below for more info). It's a new one to me. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If one takes a look at the top of this Talk page one can see a notice which reads: "This article uses Scottish English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used in British, American or other dialects of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." Links are duly provided. For the record, I found KageTora's edit summary inflammatory. Keeping it professional avoids run-ins with Admins, who generally consider abusive Edit summaries as the lowest of the low.--Mais oui! (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not see the big box at the top explaining that the article uses Scottish English - my oversight, but I generally delve in to get the info I am looking for from pages, rather than reading things about the pages themselves. I'll pay more attention to them in future. The dialect word can stay in, then, without further discussion. As for the edit summary, there is nothing whatsoever inflammatory about "(replaced nonsensical or dialect word 'outwith' with 'outside' - Reason: not a quote.) from someone who does not speak Scottish dialect and has never heard or seen this word before, and therefore thought it to be a nonsensical word (maybe a result of a poor edit or even vandalism - but I didn't check the reams of edit history pages for the article - maybe I should have). I gave an edit summary, and even gave a reason. I then engaged you all in discussion as per the invitation in the revert. You have presented your case, and I have accepted it and backed down. I don't see what is unprofessional about that. For the record, Mais Oui, maybe you are just being oversensitive. As you say, let's keep it professional. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

[EDIT- I am adding a 'resolved' box, as I think we have reached agreement]. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see the issue is resolved and I accept your edit summary was in good faith, though nonetheless ill-advised. No worries but I hope you now realise how inflammatory such a comment may appear and may lead other editors to dismiss any merits of your argument in the face of the belittling of a particular form of English by, effectively, equating dialect with nonsense. Wikipedia in its entirety is written in one English dialect or another and the fact that the Scottish and Northern English ones are comparatively small doesn't diminish their validity. Your willingness to engage and your openness to the responses in the aftermath is commendable though. All the best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that reply - I accept your acceptance. Just to further clarify the matter of the supposedly inflammatory edit summary - I did, in fact, write 'nonsensical or dialect word'. I did not equate the dialect with nonsense. My summary was clear that the word must be either dialect (hence 'dialect word') or not English (hence 'nonsense'). It was thence concluded upon further investigation by us all that the word in question was in fact dialect and not nonsense. It is difficult to make it any clearer than this. Also, I do understand how people may misread what they read on the internet - this kind of thing happens to many of us on a daily basis, which is why we should assume good faith. Anyway, thanks a lot and happy editing. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, please re-read my post above and assume others also AGF. I was talking about how "inflammatory (your) comment may appear", with no judgement on the intent, and as friendly advice for the future rather than to have a go. Your listing of two possible designations for the word, "nonsense" or "dialect", implies that each reason would make the word equally unsuitable - thus equating them as reasons for amendment. Nonsense, clearly ought to be corrected. You were previously of the opinion that dialect should be "corrected". You are now, following the debate, of the opinion that differing varieties of English are, or may be, in fact valid for inclusion so you are thus no longer equating these as reasons for amendment. And I think everybody is happy. Hope that clarifies it. Best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Section 3 'The Scots and Continental Europe'

seems to be copy-pasted from the sources instead of paraphrased. 31.6.141.51 (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Descendants of the Irish

Are not the Scots descended from the Irish? There is a theory that they are ultimately descended from an Egyptian called Scotia, although this is a rather far-fetched theory that would only need at most very cursory mention in the article! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How could the Scottish be descended from the Irish if Scotland was permanently habitated by humans several thousand years before a permanent human settlement even existed in Ireland. I think you'll find if anything it would be the complete opposite of what you are saying. Of course most Irish Americans seem to think the Irish sprang up out of the ground in Ireland don't they ? It was actually around 2000 years later that Ireland was inhabited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

He means the modern scots. The scotti tribe where irishmen and women who conquered have of scotland and drove out most of the the native picts or interbred with them creating the modern scots along with later viking and norse breeding creating the modern scottish people so yes the scots are 3/4 irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.5.130 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Completely incorrect. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to suggest the Dalriadans (aka Scots) invaded or colonised Western Scotland from Ireland. None whatsoever other than the spread of Goidelic languages to that particular area. However by that reasoning a native African who natively spoke English or French would be of English or French descent. It was no more than cultural conversion. It's incredibly common throughout history. Ancient Irish annals even stated that the Dalriadans had NO kin in Ireland. Which would be impossible surely if they had actually originated there. On a final note it was tribes from Scotland who first began to inhabit Ireland. So technically by that reasoning the Dalriadans would originally be of Scottish ancestry even if they had invaded from Ireland, which evidence would suggest they didn't. Also you'll find the Pictish kigdom was by far the dominant one in Scotland. It had reduced Dal Riata and Strathclyde to vassalage before the Norse arrived. Allowing them to keep their own cultures and ways. When the Norse invaded they conquered pretty much all of Dal Riata's territory. Many refugess fled east to Pictland. Eventually Dalriadan culture began to gain a serious foothold within the Pictish kingdom. And in the end it overtook the Pictish way of life. Many of their ways undoutebdly survived though and created a Pictish/Dalriadan hybrid culture within that particular region of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.192.170 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"The Picts lived mainly in eastern Scotland, north of modern Edinburgh. We know their homeland both from the distributions of Pictish place-names (which typically begin with "Pett" or "Pit") and the distribution of Pictish symbol stones, which were Pictish equivalents of a medieval coat of arms, each typically bearing the crest of a petty king and that of his father. The rugged west coast was only lightly occupied by Picts or some other Celtic-speaking people. Settlers from Dál Riata apparently established themselves along the west coast without much opposition. By A.D. 490 the population of Scotti was large enough that the head of the little kingdom moved the family seat across from Ireland. The Scotti alternately cooperated with and fought against the Picts for the next few centuries until the two were unified into a single kingdom under Cináed (Kenneth) mac Ailp’n in A.D. 844. After that the Pictish language disappeared, along with the symbol stones and other archaeological traits that had distinguished them from the Scotti.

What the Scottish case and others like it tells us is that migrations by relatively small dominant societies are much more common in human history than many archaeologists have been willing to admit .... We should be assuming population movement as a first principle rather than denying it.

A.D. 400. Settlers from the Irish petty kingdom of Dál Riata were beginning to establishing themselves in what would later be called Scotland. Picts were well established north of other Celtic speakers except perhaps on the west coast and in the Hebrides. A.D. 500. Departure of Roman legions in A.D. 407 left Britain to Picts, other Celtic speakers, and growing numbers of Irish settlers. Enough Scotti were in place by A.D. 490 to allow them to move the seat of Dál Riata from across the Irish Sea. A.D. 600. Colum Cille left Ireland and established a monastery on Iona in 563. From this time on expansion of the Irish Scotti was assisted in part by the spread of Christianity. A.D. 700. As the Scottish presence in Britain grew, so did that of the Angles and Saxons, many the descendants of Roman mercenaries. Angle settlements expanded south and east of Scottish territory. A.D. 800. As both Angle and Scottish communities grew, small Norse settlements began to appear in the islands of Orkney and the Outer Hebrides. A.D. 900. Competition from the Norse and Angles probably contributed to the unification of Scots and Picts into a single kingdom in 844. Pictish language and culture disappeared. Norse raids forced the abandonment of Iona by 878. A.D. 1000. By 1,000 years ago the Picts were a memory and the united kingdom of Scotland was caught between Germanic Norse and Angle settlers.

Dean R. Snow, a professor of anthropology at the Pennsylvania State University, has studied Iroquoian archaeology since 1969. His work in Northern Ireland and Scotland was supported by the British Council." So, YEAH, there is. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There is NO evidence of an invasion or migration at this time. There's merely the spread of the language. This is quite easily a case of cultural conversion given the complete lack of evidence to suggest otherwise. Building styles remained the same, no archaeological evidence remains. The Norse came in what would probably have been even smaller numbers than this hypothetical invasion but they left plenty of evidence in their wake. This "Irish invasion/migration" did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.249 (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's completely ludicrous to suggest they were. Firstly there is a complete lack of archaeological evidence. This hypothetical invasion or colonisation would have had to be considerably larger in scale than that of the Norse. Yet there is no evidence of an Irish one. There is plenty of evidence of a Norse invasion, such as viking boat burials and remains of ancient Norse houses and weapons and such. There's even historical documents from the time proving the Norse invaded.

Secondly there is a huge lack of actual historical documents claiming such an event took place. Ancient Irish annals stated the Dalriadans had NO kin in Ireland. That would be surely impossible if they came from there a few centuries before would it not ???

Finally it was tribes from Scotland who settled Ireland in the first place. So technically they would ultimately have originated in Scotland in the first place if the bizarre logic of ancestry is taken into account. It would also imply that nearly all Irish tribes were originally from Scotland, England and Wales. After all people didn't just spring up out of the ground in Ireland did they... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.192.170 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

To summarise Dal Riata was a kingdom in Scotland with some territory in Ireland perhaps obtained through inheritance or marriage. It's seat of power was in Scotland along with the vast majority of it's territory. It would of been far easier for the people of Western Scotland to trade with Irish tribes just 30 miles across the sea, than navigate the Cairngorm mountain passes to deal with the hostile and expansionist Picts. SO naturally over the centuries and millenia they began to adopt the cultural practices of the Irish. The most logical explanation available.

However I understand how ridiculously hibernophilic and xenophilic the Scottish people are in general. I wonder sometimes why I was born in a country whose society and people I detest so greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.249 (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Which Scotland?

Needs to be some care here to distinguish 'Scotland' at different times in history. Long ago Scotland was just one small kingdom (the land of the Scots)amongst several in today's Scotland. Similary 'England' was just the area of 'Angleland' AKA the Kingdom of Wessex, only part of modern England. In fact Southern Scotland today was once part of another British kingdom, Northumbria, which was itself an 'Anglish' kingdon. Scottish nationalists will hate the idea, but millions of Scots must be ethnically more 'English' than many people in England who live in those large parts of today's England which were never 'Anglish'. The Scots just incorporated other kingdoms into their own - as did the English - until the present boundaries were reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.22.62 (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Already covered under The ethnic groups of Scotland section. The Anglic heritage in Scotland is uncontroversial, whether nationalist or not (unless you're really digging for fringe nutters). Don't get confused betwen Angles and English: in England areas that were formerly Saxon or Jutic are just as much English as those that were Anglic. What's more, the article is Scottish People, not Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Scotland is a modern geographic area. We're not saying the Picts and stuff were Scottish (even though they were one of the two peoples responsible for the creation of the Scottish kingdom), however they resided in Scotland. It's also not incorrect to refer to the Picts, Dalriadans and Strathclydemen as Scottish tribes. Giving that they actually inhatibed Scotland. Or what we know today as Scotland. By your reasoning a person born and raised in England to English parents would be Irish or Pakistani due to their genealogy having spent a short period of it's entire history within those regions of the world.. It's just ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.192.170 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ad: Scottish clan map.png

The Orkneys & at least some parts of Caithness should not be included in the Highlands. 31.6.141.51 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Caithness certainly should be considering it is a part of the Highland region. Orkney is not part of the Highland region though so that shouldn't be included in that particular grouping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.192.170 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Table containing so called ethnic Scottish

This table has England with a tiny population of Scots origins. England has by far the largest number of ethnic Scots in the world.

If statistics are going to be used, then they should be accurate. These are inaccurate, and should be deleted.

Also, there is a reference to statistics of the makeup of the origins of the Scottish people - those that live in the country, that implies that it is the source of the information that follows - this needs to be corrected.

The only people that are Scottish are those that were born there, lived there, or, are resident there. The rest is the demographics of migration. If these were important then why are there not historical estimates of the numbers of Scots derived from the Saxons, Angles and Celtic tribes - where they came from? MMaciocia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.174.225 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)