Talk:Scottish people/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Other countries with diaspora

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

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

THE SCOTTISH FIGURE FOR 2001 NZ CENSUS IS A TYPO. It should read 10000. IN NZ CENSUSES THE "SCOTTISH" GENERALLY REFERS TO SCOTTISH BORN PEOPLE, MOST NEW ZEALANDERS INCLUDING MOST MAORI PEOPLE HAVE SOME SCOTTISH BLOOD. 25% OF NEW ZEALANDERS IDENTIFY THEIR ANCESTRY AS PRIMARILY SCOTTISH. THEY ARE PROBABLY THE LARGEST SINGLE "ETHNICITY" IN NZ ALTHOUGH THERE MAY BE A FEW MORE ENGLISH-NEW ZEALANDERS. NEW ZEALAND HAS A LONG HISTORY OF INTERMARRIAGES BETWEEN ALL ETHNICITIES, "PAKEHA" NEW ZEALANDERS ARE A MIX OF BRITISH (ENG,WELSH,SCOTTISH, IRISH), IRISH, SCANDINAVIAN, GERMAN, FRENCH, DUTCH AND/OR CROATIAN IN DIFFERENT DEGREES WITH SOME MAORI HERITAGE IN SOME FAMILIES. MAORI NEW ZEALANDERS ARE A MIX OF ALL THESE WITH THEIR MAORI ETHNICITY.SCOTTISH HERITAGE IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT UNDERCURRENTS IN NZ CULTURE. WE HAVE BAGPIPES AT ANZAC DAY &c. (I know this because I am a NZer). More than 3 million NZers have at least some Scottish ancestry, out of a population of just over 4 million. 203.211.78.19 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Breaking news about the Origins of the Scottish and the British.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This really is quite confusing statement for people - Indigenous Britains aren't Celts, there is evidence of a unique civilisation in the British Isles long before the migration of Celtic culture from Central Europe where the Celts originated, and the close proximity of France to England would facilitate the earlier movement of human races into the British Isles before a group of fishermen from northern Spain. Thats not to say people didnt migrate from northern Spain but they may have travelled along the French coasts and into England that way. In fact they may have settled in France before moving and settling in the British Isles. But what difference does that make to Britishness? None! Why? Well we're all descended from Africa in the end but that hasn't affected Britishness or Spainishness. If you think about it maybe the so-called Spainish ancestors of the Brits are the descendants of Africans who migrated over the Straits of Gibralter and into Europe, just over the millenia their skin colour lightened. Not a bad theory is it? Mabuska (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ireland

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

Scottland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

globe01

---

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

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

---

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

globe01

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

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

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

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

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

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

 globe01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

It is very simple:

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

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

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

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

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

Page 280.

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

Pages 281-82.

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

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

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

Page 283.

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts on the Scottish-Iberian connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here you have some other links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or this one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarifying the scope of this article

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

Next take a look at meaning two.

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

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

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

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

Anglicisation

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

Agree. The Etymology of many of these surnames is wrong. By which I mean, many of these "Scottish Surnames" are not Scottish at all but rather Angicisation of French, German, Irish, Norse and other names. For example Davis is Welsh/Brythonic, Bruce comes form De Bruce or De Brus and is french, Ballio or Balliol is also French origin. Plus as you state, many Scottish surnames have always been Anglic.

And also, the last line about 1603, what has that got to do with the price of bread? Rincewind42 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Scottish people have been anglicised, but it is taboo to actually say so. Their politics and laws certainly have been since union. --MacRusgail 15:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Scots in England

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

Ethnicity is learned. Do those with Scottish ancestry still heuchter and teuchter or are they indistinguishable from their English neibours?

84.135.245.188 10:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Clean up following Ethnic group project template.

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

The changes to this article adhere too strongly to the extremely broad view of 'Scottish people' that includes Americans, Canadians etc. Now there are Argentinians that count as 'Scottish people'? --Nydas 14:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has included Americans, Canadians and Argentinians for a very long time. Check the history. These elements are not new. Some of them may get deleted, some may stay. It depends on how verifiable the sources are and how significant the communities are.

Also, note the article isn't finished. There is allot more to be added shortly that may alter the balance of things, for example sections of litrature, sport, history and so on. If you think something is missing, please feel free to add it yourself. Especially the Sports section, that's just not my thing.Rincewind42 08:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there have been disputes on the talk page over this. See the complaints above. Your changes to this article don't really reflect this.--Nydas 08:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

Yeah, it is the same anon user that goes around deleting the same type of information in all articles where this information is relevant. Veritas et Severitas 15:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ukranian refuge

back to the genetics again for abit (sorry i know it can be very dull for some people but factual accuracy is important), in oppenheimers new book 'origins of the british' he mentions that there were migrations from a ukranian and a balkan refuge to england and scotland (aswell as scandinavia and germany), this is currently not mentioned in the article, we need to formulate a way of presenting or citing thie info in the article as it only mentions the iberian refuge to the british isles as a whole. If any users could make the time and take the effort to source out all the data concerning scottish genetics otherwise this article will be biased or not neutral. --Globe01 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetics is irrelevant for this article, particularly with such poor sources. People have tried time and time again to tell you what a reliable source is, why don't you listen?--Nydas^(Talk) 19:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources are more than reliable, from leading population geneticists and they are relevant becasue genetics is providing information for the first time about the origins of people and for the first time books are being published that deal with the origins of Scottish people taking into account genetic science. So, abstain from deleting massively important information. If you do not know anything about population genetics abstain from participating in this debate. Only someone ignorant in this field can claim that these authorities are not reliable sources. If Oxford professors and the most recognized authorities in genetic anthropology are not reliable sources, what are reliable sources?

Anyway, I agree with Globe. According to these population geneticists, the Iberian influence is the most important (according to these authors about 3/4) but that leaves 1/4 of other influences that can be elaborated on. Anyway, thanks to these authors and to the fact that the British Isles is probably the place that has been studied more intensely lately in the world from a genetic perspective (Sykes uses 10.000 new samples never published before)it is maybe necessary to open up a new section devoted to this aspect if we want to cover it in detail.

I have also heard that a Spanish geneticist has also published a new book seemingly refuting some of these theories, that are now mainly sustained by British and American population geneticists, but I cannot say anything else about it (I just heard it in a comment by Globe). If someone knows about the book they could cite it here, so we could find out which book it is. If it is the case, it would be interesting to present all points of view by authorities in the field. But now these theories seem quite mainstream. Veritas et Severitas 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have opened up a new section as per discussion here. Veritas et Severitas 22:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, here we go again. I'm getting kinda tired of this coming up over and over again. As I have written here before (probably been archived by now), Poplation Genetics doesn't tell us "about the origins of people" as Veritas put it above and as Globe would have us believe. All it tells us is which people (or more precisely, which population groups) share a certain percentage of genetic markers. It doesn't tell us the "origin" of anything. At best it can tell us that certain populations, at some point in history, had a certain amount of contact with other populations, or could be descendant populations because of common traits. With written history as a guide, Population Genetics is a useful supplement, but without written history, everything else is just an educated guess. To say that there was a "migration from a Ukrainian and a Balkan refuge" is a purely hypothetical attempt to explain the observed data. There is absolutely no way to prove this. The study of genes can only tell us what's there it will never be able to tell us how it got there. Population genetics is a still a young "science" and there aren't very many (comparatively speaking) people writing on it. So anybody who produces a coherent paper is viewed as an "expert" with "the newest theory". If we allow this "science" in the article, it should be clearly presented, even emphasized, as controversial, hypothetical possibilities, not as proven fact.--WilliamThweatt 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

While what you say is true, scientists have always made assumptions and drawn inferences from these assumptions. They are usually called models or theories. If a reputable scientist has a theory then it's inclusion as a theory of a given, named, reputable scientist certainly falls into the realms of WP:RS and WP:V. Nydas's comment that these are not reliable sources seems a bit odd, he doesn't state why he thinks these sources are unreliable. The sources are from academics who are geneticists, and they are talking about genetics, as far as I can see they are perfectly reliable sources by any correct reading of the WP:RS guideline. One of the problems with these data is that many users don't like the conclusions of these scientists, and so critisise their results/conclusions on talk pages and make incorrect statements in articles regarding what these people are saying. What these users should be doing in looking for reputable sources that provide an opposing point of view, and citing those points of view, so we introduce the WP:NPOV policy. Having said all that I have come to the conclusion that these data are somewhat inapplicable to ethnic group articles anyway. These articles should concentrate on specific questions regarding ethnicity, such as language, culture, religion, society etc. The origins mentioned in books and articles about genetics go right back to the paleolithic, but it seems absurd to me to claim that the settlement of the British Isles in the paleolithic has any bearing on Scottish, Welsh, English or Irish ethnicity, which are, relatively speaking, of far more recent aetiology. I have suggested before that what we need is an article devoted to the various theories regarding the origins of the population(s) of the British Isles. I suggest that this article can cover all points of view, from theories about mass migration/genocide to the more recent work on Y chromosome and mtDNA. This article would also help to reduce much of the prehistoric sections of the Immigration to the United Kingdom (until 1922) article, which at present is incorrectly named, simply because there was no United Kingdom for much of the ccope of the article. Alun 13:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with you here Alun. If we are speaking of a people we also speak of the origins of a people. That was already in the articles before this type of information emerged. If what we know about a people goes back 200 hundred years, then we must speak of 200 years, but if there are scholars out there that are going further back in time, then they must also be cited. And it bears a lot on the subject on many occasions, especially when people are believed to descend from other places and experts claim the opposite. It should be kept as a small section though. There are many more important things to say in the case of ethnicity. What to ignore it completely is far from reasonable, in my opinion. and then we have a recently published book by one respected genetic anthropologist who makes use of history, linguistics, archaeology and gentics to come to his conclusions and calls his book so clearly as Origins of Britons, ans all the discusion in a British people page is about deleting him! Veritas et Severitas 14:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Some users here still do not get how Wiki (or anything else serious) works. We are not here to interpret things on our own (original research), but to provide information by authorities in the field. It does not matter what I think. If there is a published book about the origins of Scots, especially if it is recent and updated information, were are supposed to cite it and mention it. That is all. For god's sake, we are supposed to know something about the basics of what we are doing here, otherwise we will be engaging in senseless discussions. We already have enough with anon users who continue erasing cited and verifiable information for whatever reason. There are rules in Wiki that we all should know and follow. In short, we are not supposed to write in the articles: according to user A this is like this and according to user B this is like that. The genetics section only mentions published information and in a very rigorous way (although there are constant attempts at manipulation). If there are recent published materials about the same issue that has been published and which offers another perspective it is welcome. Please introduce it. I do not introduce it myself because I do not know it. Articles are supposed to present all points of view and be constructive not destructive of information, but attention, not the points of view of users, but of authorities in the field who have published verifiable information. On the other hand, deleting cited and verifiable information is destructive and can perfectly be considered vandalism. If I say that I delete some information by some authority in the field who has published it and my argument simply is that I do not agree with him, that is vandalism. So, for God's sake again, let us follow the simplest of Wiki rules, so we can make coherent contributions. Veritas et Severitas 03:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I've put this talk page on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. The problems are thus:

• Veritas et Severitas and Globe01 have no grasp whatsoever of our reliable sources guidelines, and persistently include references to geocities and freepages, which could be made by anyone.
• Both users spend virtually all their time on Wikipedia promoting their belief in the importance of the R1b hapgroup.
• The appropriateness of including information about a non-functional gene in articles about ethnic groups is highly questionable, particularly given the often grandiose conclusions being drawn about 'origins' etc.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

thats incorrect buddy, geneticists can locate where genetic markers originated and when through scientific processes (including haplogroup diversity which indicates age and origin). please read origin sof the british.

I'm not going to explain how geneticists know where a haplogroup originated or when as i dont have to persuade anyone,

many academics are coming to the same conclusion based on more info than just Fucking r1b OK!!!

theres much more evidnece than that (subclades, otherr halpogroups, mtDNA, data proving where a haplogroup originated and when, archeological evidence).

So for the final time, there is more evidence to support these geneticists claims than just one poxy genetic marker such as r1b which would be a pathetic way to deduce peoples origins and isnt the way any of the geneticists i mentioned interpret the origins of people. PLease read some of the new books (origins of the british) as none of you have any idea what your talking about and seem to think that users who cite these geneticists are biased when were not its just that we havea better understanding of genetics than you think,

there is nothing wrong in citing academic reliable sources, why you think these sources are unreliable i don't know.

Are you claiming to be an expert in population genetics Nydas? Are your veiws more valid than oppenheimers or Sykes or Wells? You have obviously not read any of theur books as your arguements do not refute the claims or the evidence that is in the books. --Globe01 13:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What users like Nydas and others are questioning is not people like us. They are questioning from the very beginning scholars like Oppenheimer, Sykes and Wells, all of them respected and leading population geneticists or anthropologists that make use of DNA to draw their conclusions, and they are questing them on a personal basis, aas if they were the experts in the field and the reputed scholars. This is incredible. These people seem to imply that it is us who have written those books. I wonder why they have such a keen interest in just hiding and deleting this kind of information that is now quite popular among people familiar with this subject, even knowing that this information is published in recent books that are cited, although I suspect that some of them have not even read them. Again, these authors do not only make use of R1b. they make use of many other genetic markers. But in any case what is the difference? They are the experts in the field, not us! The most incredible attempt is Nydas' at trying to say that these experts are not reliable sources. I find all this incredible.

And then we have recently published books by respected genetic anthropologists who make use of history, linguistics, archaeology and genetics to come to their conclusions and call his books so clearly as Origins of Britons, and all the discussion in a British people's page is about deleting him and others like Sykes and Wells who have come to the same conclusions recently!

I have said it before, I have the feeling in many of these people´s articles that there is the hand of the Inquisition behind: If the information published and available does not suit our dogma, let us just delete and hide it and if we can, let us kill the messenger! Veritas et Severitas 14:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite all the name dropping you are doing here, there are no proper references in the article from the books of Oppenheimer, Wells and Sykes. Title, author, ISBN, page number, that sort of thing. If you spent a quarter of the time you spend composing long-winded replies on talk pages providing reasonable sourcing, we would not be having this discussion. As me, William and zzuuzz have said in the past, family name genealogy sites, freepages, geocities, etc are not reliable sources.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you speaking about? The books are cited my friend. Type Blood of the Isles in Google, for example, and you will know the book, or Origins of Britons. If you want more specific information you will have it. Origins of Britons also states interesting things like the fact that the author thinks that the Celtic languages arrived in Britain from Spain, etc. Which is not even here. I am sure that Globe or Wobble can tell you a couple of pages. They seem to have studied the book better.

As far as Blood of the Isles is concerned you could have read above. Here you have some citations again:

The maps and the data in the Scotland paper( See: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1393742006) have been taken from pages 290 and 292 in the book.

The book is full of interesting stuff. Just some revelant issues:

Page 280.

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

Note: In this case he is not talking of the famous R1b. He is talking of other genetic markers.

Pages 281-82.

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

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

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

Note: The European Mesolithic is also believed to have originated in Iberia. Sykes thinks that most Britons come from Neolithic migrations. Oppenheimer from Mesolithic ones. Both originating in Iberia.

Page 283.

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

Note: I think it is clear that Sykes is talking of:

1. Subgroups of R1b. (Atlantic modal haplotype)

2. Maternal DNA.

3. Other matches.

Oppenheimer is more specific about those other matches. He claims that also the E3b and J lineages arrived in Britain from Iberia and also some I lineages (subgroups) that are present mainly in Iberia, etc.

And for the one hundredth time. Apart form using previous published material, Sykes has used his own samples: More than 10.000 samples from all over the British Isles never published before: A ten-year long job. No other genetic study either in the British Isles or in any other country has been so extensive yet.

As far as The Origins of the British, by Oppenheimer is concerned.

1. Huge book: 534 pages. I have to read it in more detail. I know some users here have read it well. I would advise it before Blood of the Isles, because it goes into much more detail.

2. Main ideas.

Celts: He elaborates a lot on this using history, linguistics and, the big new approach, genetics.

Pages: Especially 19-91.

His conclusion: British Celts and British Celtic languages do not come from Central Europe. They come from Spain.

3. British population in general:

They are mainly of South-Western European origin. Exactly of Iberian origin.

He gives ample genetic evidence, along with historical and archaeological data. The genetic evidence is about different genetic markers, including maternal and paternal DNA.

An exact quotation:

Page 375.

By far the majority of male gene types in the British Isles derive from Iberia, 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.

In short, all these new books using genetics in conjunction with historical accounts, archaeology and linguistics, are much more important than most people here seem to think. They will inevitably have a huge impact (they are having it already) about the views on the origins and roots of all British people.

Both authors are from the University of Oxford and both books have just been published. Veritas et Severitas 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Scotland or Scottish people in any of those quotes. I am also at a total loss to understand your inability to add references to the article, not the talk page. You have added geocities and freepages in the past, and strenuously resist any attempt to remove them, why not put in proper references in the references section of the article? Wikipedia: Citing sources gives detailed instructions on how to do this.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

wow thanks veritas for all those cititations.

anyhow heres some contradictory evidence about the basque british link

British Basque Link Alternative theory

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/abs/5201482a.html

heres is a link from the european journal of genetics basically saying that at least the irish basque link is paleolithic and there may not hasve been re-expansions from the basque country, i have only read the abstract. --Globe01 12:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Nydas, but your arguments are beginning to sound like sophistry to me. Anyway, I think that Globe's article is good to show that there are geneticists with other views. I will introduce it. I will also add footnotes when I have time.Veritas et Severitas 14:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is, there are editors who think that the information is simply not relevant in this context. Nydas, me, Catchpole, probably others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not destroy cited information. Veritas et Severitas 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

nydas etc stop deleting the section on the genetics of scottish people, all the haplotype percentages are cited from scientific jounrals and books, the conclusions made by geneticists are also cited from books by proffesional geneticists and from scientific papers.

Seriously you guys are coming across as biased, there is lots of relevance of genetics to the article and from the sources , you have ignored veritas's material that he has cited from books and you continue to ignore conclusions made by leading population geneticists and deleting them frmo the article.

One can only think what motives one would have for doing such a thing. --Globe01 16:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added requests for feedback to the Scottish WikiProject and the ethnic groups WikiProject. I would once again implore LSLM/Globe01 to provide proper sourcing in the article itself, not the talk page.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

you obviously do not accept off-line sources as acceptable ok so here are some ONLINE sources:

from newspaper articles: oppenheimer's claims http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817 Sykes claims http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1621766.ece http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1393742006 http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2002919.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery.naturalworld http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060920/ai_n16731702

r1b percentages: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/T03 http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/F04

more conclusions made by scientists: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33166 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1256894.stm

--Globe01 17:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nydas, what is your problem?. You do not know English or you want to hear the word Scotland and not Britain. Your position has no logical explanation among adults. I think that you just do not like those books and studies that state that you, as a Scot, are genetically linked to the Spanish. Or maybe is it the link to the English? I try to be kind but your position is already far beyond the acceptable. If you want to hear the word "Scotland" you have plenty of sources above. Anyway, here you have another quote from Origins of the British:

Page 378.

75-95% of British Isles (genetic) matches derive from Iberia (Spain and Portugal)...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...

So, I recommend you that you get the books yourself if you want more information. Indeed they have lots of more information. But for the few lines in the body of the article that deal with this major issue, there is already here much more that sufficient verifiable evidence and if you are so interested in providing footnotes, do it yourself. Veritas et Severitas 04:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

LSLM/Globe01, are you people incapable of reading what Nydas is saying? He is simply asking for you to back up your statements by providing verifiable citations within the article and not in the talk page. Is this too much to ask? --Bill Reid | Talk 09:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

LSLM/Globe01 has added a few inline references. I have removed the geocities/freepages refs, but LSLM/Globe01 will probably put them back. The relevance of this entire topic remains questionable, however. How is Y-chromosome information that is more applicable to a Genetics of the British Isles article important here? What does it have to do with any definition of Scottishness? How many people think that having an R1b Y-chromosome is an important element of being Scottish?--Nydas^(Talk) 10:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nydas please read the newspaper articles i posted about british ancestry, i'm afraid i can't find any articles entirely about scots but that doesnt make it irrelevant to the article. If you read any of the books by sykes or oppenheimer you will see direct references and entire chapters about the scots genetics. Your being to nit picky im afraid, in other sections of this scottish peoples page there are not cititations and no one os making a fuss about that are they. --Globe01 11:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I must completely disagree with some comments here. To know about the origins of any people is always important to ethnicity. It is not the most important thing. Other issues are more important that that but to claim that adding information about the ancestry of a people is not relevant is is unheard of, especially if the information is absolutely updated.

I said that in my opinion it was enough with some lines and the discussion page to proof the references, but since people insist here so much, I will insert exact quotes from one of the books in the body of the article. I will not use both books because I think that it not necessary to devote so much space.

And we have here again arguments that are clearly sophistry. The books deal in depth with the issue, with many genetic markers not just R1b, and on top of that with archaeology, linguistics, historical accounts, etc. Some users here think that we are supposed to repeat the same things over and over again.

And these books do not speak about genetics per se. In that case they would be irrelevant here. It uses genetics, along with other said disciplines, to come to conclusions about the ancestry and origins of the Scots, and that is what is of relevance here. Veritas et Severitas 13:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, none of the comments address the point: so what? All Scottish people are of African origin if you go back far enough. Should we include that useful information too? If not, why include the R1b stuff? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think there has been a great deal of misrepresenting Oppenheimer on this talk page. The main point Oppenheimer makes in his book has nothing to do with whether British people derive from the south western European Ice Age refuge. The main point that Oppenheimer makes, and it is directly applicable to Scottish people, is that the biggest division, biologically, linguistically, socially and culturally between the people of Great Britain has been an east-west division. He uses genetic, linguistic, archaeological and historical sources to build his case. It is not easy to summarise his ideas, but I'll give it a go. Firstly he claims that genetics support Barry Cunliffe's idea of ancient and long lasting (thousands of years) cultural contacts between the peoples of the Atlantic coast of Europe, this is nothing new and Cunliffe's ideas predate any genetic evidence, his ideas are based on archaeology, Oppenheimer simply states that genetics, and for that matter linguistics, support this idea. Oppenheimer's second idea may be more controversial, but essentially he argues for an equally long lasting relationship between the peoples and cultures of the North Sea coast, even suggesting that Germanic languages may be as ancient in Great Britain as Celtic languages (he suggests the neolithic, but does not rule out an earlier date). He thinks that genetics support a long term relationship between the eastern coast of Great Britain, from Shetland and Orkney right down to East Anglia and Scandinavia, particularly Norway and Denmark. He thinks that germanic languages in easatern Scotland may be very ancient, and that Pictish may have been Germanic, and the ancestral language of the Scots language. He builds a convincing case and points out that sea travel was far and away the quickest and easiest way to travel for the vast majority of time peope have inhabited these Islands. This seems perfectly applicable to Scottish people, Scottish people, like English people are the product of the unification of at least two ethnic groups, a lowland Germanic speaking group, and a highland Goidelic speaking group because Scotland and England both cut accross this east west divide. Wales and Ireland are different because they do not cut accross this east west divide. He claims that we can see the evidence for the difference in east and west coast British people in our genetics, where there is evidence of east coast people sharing a long genetic history with Scandinavians and coastal Germans, though one should not overstate the case, the founding poulations do appear to have been from the wester refuge, though this applies to a large proportion of Scandinavian and German peoples as well. What is not applicable to Scotland, but none the less interesting is that he draws a big distinction between Angles and Saxons. He clains that the Angles derive from Scandinavia, and represent a continuum with the earlier cultural contacts between the east coast and Scandinavia (and incidentally that the Vikings also simply represent a part of this ongoing contact),but that Saxons are more likely to be germanic people from the south coast of England who were culturally similar to the Belgae, who he thinks were Germanic Gauls. He claims that the Angle/Saxon divide is displayed in the archaeological record, but that this simply conforms to the later Danelaw areas, he thinks this confirms the distinction between the northern germanic peoples from Scandinavia and the southern germanic peoples from just across the channel. Oppenheimer uses plenty of evidence and does not restrict himself to genetics. It's a good book. Unfortunatelly LSLM has some sort of agenda here. He constantly makes the claim that British people have some sort of special relationship with Spanish people that has existed for millenia, neither book makes this claim, the Long Durée as Cunliffe calls it had nothing to do especially with Spain or Britain, though they were obviously involved, and may well have been culturally and linguistically similar, just as were other groups involved. Alun 07:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Alun, for god's sake, I have only provided exact quotes, not a single interpretation, like most people here want to do. If you do not want to quote those books, go ahead, delete them all and tell the story that best suit you. Change the language of Oppenheimer or Sykes or talk just about the minority influences and not the majority ones etc. Do as you please. I have had it. Those books are much more important than these articles that are full of prejudiced people who just want to tell the story that they want and who claim that exact quotes from books are interpretations. Veritas et Severitas 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. What has my post got to do with you? It doesn't even mention you. The world doesn't revolve arround you Veritas, and it is not only you who can descide what is relevant from this book and what is not. This article is about the ethnic group, it is not about the population of Scotland or it's origins. My post above is about ethnicity, it is not about origins, if you had read it you would perceive that I am not interested in the origins of the population of the British Isles in this post, so much as the cultural differences between the east and west coasts. These are not the same concept, you have ignored the more important part of Oppenheimer's work that is directly applicable to the ethnic groups of the British Isles in favour of promoting only the part of his book that deals with population founding events. I would argue that this information is, at best, marginal to ethnicity, after all we are all descended from Africa, it does not make us all ethnically African, any more than a majority descent from the western Ice Age refuge makes British people ethnically Iberian. It is incorrect to claim that Oppenheimer does not propose a significant social, cultural, biological and linguistic east-west split on the Island of Great Britain, indeed he claims in the introduction to the book that this is the point of the book. I find it odd that you take offence at the fact that I am pointing out this part of the book, it is far more relevant to this article than where populations may or may not come from. Ethnicity is not the same as origin or descent. Alun 08:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic identification encompasses many factors, but common descent is definitely one of them and is usually the basis for it in most groups. This of course does NOT necessarily mean certain Y-chromosome markers derving from 12,000 years ago, and more often it refers to a more historical context in which certain elements in populations mixed and unified to form distinct identities (eg. in Scotland the merging of the Picts and the Gaels to form the core of Scottish people and culture). Other parts of ethnic identification (religion/theology, culture, history, language, etc.) may result generally from different sources, either 1) the common descent, familial heritage and upbringing; 2) distinct ethnic enclaves/communities which exist both inside or outside the original homeland (eg. Little Italy, Chinatown and other ethnic neighbourhoods in Urban areas; the Scottish Gaelic community of Cape Breton Island) in Canada); 3)the nation, geographical region or political entity of residence; or 4) the combination of these. Ethnicity does not equal descent alone, just as it is not equivalent to culture alone (itself an ambiguous topic with, as stated above, various sources) Within descent however, traits are generally passed down to each genreation (biological, behavioural, cultural, linguistic, religious, etc.) which varies between each specific situation. Some people maintain much more of their ethnic identity by retaining most if not all traits, some may only retain little other than the biological and behavioural (upbringing) associated with the ancestry/descent from their original/indigenous "homeland" (the place where the majority of their ancestors have dwelt for most of recorded history and/or pre-history). Y-chromosome and MtDNA analysis and interpretation from a certain researcher(s) or a certain study does not automatically equal the common descent associated/identified within an ethnic group. Much has happened within the past 12,000 years in Britain that we currently know little about (in terms of population movements), and just because a part of some peoples genetics (eg. Y-chromosomes) traces to that time (eg. Paleolithic) does not mean they are as a whole the exact same as the original source population. No serious or respected population geneticist of any sort would make such a claim. Ethnicity is how a certain group identifies with each other and how outsiders perceive that group, based mainly on either: common descent (the awareness of itself alone as well as resultant traits such as the biological, behavioural, etc.), various aspects of culture, language, rituals, religion/theology etc. or a combination of these. Epf 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

My view is that properly sourced, contextualised population genetics should be discussed in this article. It's an important new development that improves our understanding of human origins. --Nmcmurdo 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for the "Population Genetics" Section

I have a novel idea regarding this section. I think all interests would be better served if the information in this section was spun off into its own article. As currently written, the section is very technical and scientific, interupting the nice flow of a decent social science article. In its own article (perhaps a daughter article with a short summary and [mainarticle] link fit in here), the topic could be further elaborated upon, given more detail and discussion, and it would have its own dedicated talk page. I'm having trouble coming up with an article name that isn't too clunky...maybe Population Genetics of the People of Scotland? Comments or suggestions...--WilliamThweatt 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We should have a breif paragraph on the genetics and ancestry according to popuation geneticists on the scots with a link to a detailed full article on the subject for users with more interest.

Everyone needs to know the summary of the genetics of all nations as it is knowledge that is highly relevant to knowing about a nation, for those more interested they will click onto Population Genetics of the People of Scotland and read more in depth. --Globe01 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your article needs some serious work. It fails nearly all wikipedia guidelines and policies. It certainly needs a proper lead section. I think it would make more sense to have an article about the origins of the population of the British Isles, with a similar one about the origins of the European population. It makes little semnse to ahve an article about Scotland, this is a recent entity and has no relevance regarding the distribution of people in the British Isles. I ahave several times suggested that we have an article where we can consolidate all of the various genetic data on the British Isles. These data are interesting and usefull, but they have no relevance to ethnicity, ethnicity is an ephemeral idea, as is that of the nation, but they are important for perceived identity. Biological origins are the opposite, they show a great deal about our real origins, but they can never make us socially and culturally what we are not. British people may well be genetically most similar to Iberian people, but that does not make us at all "ethnically related" to these people. Alun 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• biological origins do significantly affect ethnic identity and the formation of ethnic groups and cultures of course, but the conccepts of nation and ethnicity are generally distinct from one another. Therefore, genetic data does have a relevance to ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.91.10 (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

All excellent points that should be well-heeded, which is why I suggested a separate article to begin with. Immediately after I wrote the suggestion, I, too, thought it would have been better to propose an article dealing with the genetics of people of the British Isles as a whole with subsections for the different geological/geographical regions, such as Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Southern England, Northeastern England, etc. Having such an article will also provide plenty of latitude for presenting opposing (well-sourced) theories and interpretations of the "evidence". As for the point about ethnicity, I'm sure the genetics are different even within Scotland itself from Shetland, Orkney and the outer isles to the interior Highlands to the lowlands yet we're all Scots (except maybe the Lowlanders l/k). --WilliamThweatt 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also concur that a Population genetics of the British Isles article is the best option.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok great, get editing on this new article then please people, alun you have suggested if before so i suggest you get editing on the article right away , you have my support along with others, i was only trying to please others with the genetics on the scottish people but like you say a genetics of the british isles is much better. So someone start editing it and i will contribute to if needs be but im not starting this one off only to be told it doesnt meet wiki criteria. --Globe01 16:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, for what it's worth, I moved the article to the new title (not because of your "right away" suggestion, but rather besause I am bored today), wrote an albeit perfunctory intro paragraph, and subsectioned and categorized according to the MoS. Please add more info regarding the broader context of the people in the whole of the British Isles.--WilliamThweatt 23:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments by 70.82.221.96

References seem appropriate, but much of the content contains limited references. Specifically, the changes I made were to the statement of Angles and Saxons coming to Scotland in the 4th century. This is not supported by any references, and I think one would be hardpressed to find anything since it is well-established (Romans left us substantial amounts of administrative documents) that the Romans did not leave present day England until 407(officially in 410)--the 5th century. In fact, the genereal inconsistencies of most Wikipedia articles with obscure references to unverifiable sources (i.e. Websites on geocities) make me reluctant to justify attempting to do it better. But, to eliminate my contribution on the basis of it not having references would seem to make it necessary to eliminate the original passage since it too was written without references. However, this has not been done. Nevertheless, to find a broad academic discussion on Britian's different populations of the time, including the potential migrations of Teutonic (Geramanic or Germano-Celtic tribes to the northeast of Roman Gaul), read "Chadwick, Nora. The Celts. Penguin 1970." If not inclined to do significant reading, further references include "Grun, Bernard. The Timetables of History. Simon & Schuster 1991." where you only have to read a few lines in the periods of 401 to 450 to establish the first presence of Saxons, Angles, and Jutes in southern Britain. Naturally, it took several more decades for the Angles to establish a presence in what is today southern Scotland. A more vulgarized book, "Neward, Tim. Celtic Warriors. New York. Blanford Press 1986." makes reference to the first arrival of Saxons as the result of an invitation by the overlord Vortigern, of Southern Britain, to help in their defense against the invading Scots and Picts. A google search will show multiple references to some existence of a hiring of these Germanic warriors to come to help the Roman-less Britons. So, if the Scots and Picts are invading southern Britain in the 5th century...how can we state that Angles and Saxons were in Scotland previous to this? Moreover, Chadwick, in addition to others i have read, establishes that only Angles ever came to southern Scotland in their Anglian/Northumbrian kingdoms. The Saxons were strictly in the south. But anyway... [Copied from User talk:70.82.221.96. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)]

New Zealand Scots

I was just on the NZ goverments stastistical site and saw that in 1996 the Scottish population was 107,007 in 1996 and dropped to 12,792 by the 2001 census. [1]. Deff a stastistical error in the sample. Put both figures as the next census will clear up the matter. Also why is their no New Zealand scots, or Australian Scots wiki pages could we get them set up as we do for the Scottish American and Canadian Scots.

I suspect the issue is the different ways the question was asked or interpreted between the 1991, 1996 and 2001 censii. In the 1996 census I understand the ethnicity question asked which ethnic group(s) New Zealanders identified that they had originated from. In the 2001 and 2006 censii they were asked which ethnic group that they now identified with. Both figures are possibly correct. For the 2001 census, Table 7A in this document [2] indicates that of 13,785 people identifying themselves as Scot, only 6,681 were born in UK [or] Ireland, this is out of a total of 224,520 people identifying themselves as born in UK [or] Ireland as reported in Table 7B. The 2006 census results [3] show that 29,016 people were born in Scotland, up from 28,680 in 2001. This suggests the responses to the census question about erhnicity is very variable, while birthplace is not. However, none of this actually answers the real question about how many New Zealanders can identify their Scottish ancestry and heritage. New Zealand has a notable Scottish heritage, with major settlement starting in Dunedin and Otago. However, most of their decendents are now classified within the about two-thirds of the population (2,609,592 people) that are identified as NZ Europeans in statistics.[4] -- Cameron Dewe 06:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Celts are an Altaic People

The Celts were most likely an Altaic People. Because of the fact that the average Scot ethnically is about 70% Celtic, it should be mentioned that Turkic, Tungusic and Mongolian People are related to Scots. For example the Tatar. Evidence has shown the the Celts were a Pre-Indo European People, most likely a Western Branch of the Altaic Peoples.

I've removed this pending actual evidence for these supposed facts. Please note that Wikipedia does not cater for extremely fringe theories.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

...and I've removed the latest re-introduction of this theory. The removal of more conventionally regarded lesser related groups and their replacement with these highly unconventional ones does not constitute evidence of the theory's worth (unless we list half the planet's ethnic groups alongside these as similarly distantly related).Mutt Lunker 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This theory is absolutely preposterous and ive NEVER seen it even hinted at in any reputable journal or academic publication. siarach 16:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there are quite some theories which suggest Celts are originally an Altaic People. Therefore related to Manchurians, Mongols, Kazak, Uzbek, Kirgiz, Tatar, Turkmen, Tajik, etc. Abu Musab al-Suri 13:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide some reliable sources for these theories.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

== I have placed the neutrality tag. why? ==

British immigrants are swamping Spain. Spain is the sencond country in the the world with the greatest number of British immigrants, yet, the information and the links have been erased (it happened several times). It also happened in the English people article. Now it seems that Britons are strange creatures that have nothing to do with the Scots or the English. Or is it British arrogance that wants to hide the fact that the British are one of the most important minority and immigrant communities in Spain?. I am not putting it back again (what for?), but this is just an example of the kind of rubbish that these articles are and the kind of people behind them.

Here you have a few links that were erased. Spain is the second place of British emigration after Australia as can be seen in several articles. I have cut and pasted this from one of the articles, but it can be seen in others:

"Where do we think these people are?

Some 41 nations each have at least 10,000 British residents, according to the IPPR's research.

Australia and Spain, as most people would guess, count for the most expats. The big English-speaking economies follow along with some of our European neighbours.

http://www.byebyeblighty.com/1/british-immigrants-swamping-spanish-villages/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1588156,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,1830838,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6210358.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5237236.stm

And here you have a country list:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6161705.stm

From here I have cut and pasted this:

Country Full-time Full & part-time Pensioners

Australia 1,300,000 1,310,000 45,311

Spain 761,000 990,000 74,636

United States 678,000 685,000 132,083

Canada 603,000 609,000 157,435

Ireland 291,000 320,000 104,650

You can also look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/brits_abroad/html/europe.stm

and click on the Spain map for more information.

So, continue erasing information and go on living in your world of fantasies (great for Wiki). But, as said, maybe the Scots have nothing to do with the British. 65.10.133.118 19:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ive removed the neutrality tag as i dont see anything in what youve said above which seems either to justify it or to be generally relevant to this article. siarach 22:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And Siarach just beat me to it. If there's a NPOV issue, the tag should be placed much more specifically. There is nothing about the reasoning for its placement that suggests which section or language is objectionable as a clear POV conflict. 67.101.243.74 23:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure. And the regions with significant population is not a fairy tale? do not bother. You are not worth my time. 65.10.133.118 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You might have a legitimate claim, but your inability to actually refer to language in the article and suggest what part of the article demonstrates a lack of NPOV makes it impossible to address it. You make yourself not worth anyone's time by lunatic ranting that doesn't address your point. 67.101.243.74 06:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The lunatic ranting is the result of seeing how people erase information over and over again, and no one cares. This information was erased several times from the "areas with significant populations", and it is the most updated information and deals with real British people, with a British passport and accounts for an important diaspora that is taking place right now. So, as said, I do not care to put it back, but here is the information and I am just drawing the attention to the conduct of users here in relation to good information. Anyway, I am not the one putting it back, I already did enough times. and this is not about claims, it is about the reliability of these types of articles in Wiki when one sees what can be seen. For God's sake, anyone knows this in the UK!. 65.11.163.158 13:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Im still not clear what youre trying to get at or what relevance anything youve said bears to this article. siarach 16:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is like talking to a wall (I thought there was a section about "regions with significant populations"). Right now it looks ridiculous enough to call an American a Scot or to talk about people who are not Britons and ignore where the real Scots and Britons are. You know, discussing the obvious is for me too dumb, so forget about it. 65.11.163.158 16:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Feel free to come back when youve structured a semi-cogent thesis explaining what exactly your point is and how it is connected to this article. siarach 17:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you feel free to ignore the real world. Goodbye. 65.11.163.158 17:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To Whom it may concern. I stumbled upon this page by accident. I am Scottish born (Forres, Moray) and lived in Elgin also Morayshire for 20years thereafter. I have been in the U.S. for 30years. I married an Americam Lass and am American by adoption.I will however always be Scottish with British coming in a distant 3rd. My ancestry is 50% Scot 25% Irish 25%Welsh. I have always considered myself 100% Celtic. It must be obvious to anyone who has travelled these here States, that ethnicity is a major part of the lives of the inhabitants. I had never seen so many hyphenated people running around. There are wonderful festivals to be experienced all year 'round in all states, celebrating ethnic diversity. My wife's home town Manning, Iowa is a hotbed of Germans, a few miles south are Danes, a few north Dutch (and I don't mean Pennsylvania).In that sense there is no more a case for an American race than there is for a British race,as much as we may wish that there was. As to the seemingly interminable debate amongst the "Experts".Perhaps they should lock themselves away in a tower, seat thenselves at a round table and have their lively and heated discussions leading to nowhere until the crack of doom. The last time I was privy to such a dialogue was in a particlarly funny episode of "Monty Python's Flying Cicus". Meanwhile, all of us untold millions of Celts and would-be Celts can go merrily on our way, oblivious to our true or possible or likely or unlikely points of origin not forgetting all the right or wrong or compromised R1b floating around in our gene pools.

Good day to ye all! somewhat confused and greatly amused, Tom MacDonald-Williams ...teeness@iowatelecom.net

Remove the related groups box

I suggest that this section of the infobox be removed, as it contains nothing of any encyclopedic value. Ethnic 'relatedness' is a fuzzy concept, and the binary of related/non-related is a crass oversimplification. It would seem obvious that there are groups who have had far more influence than the Cornish on Scotland, but then again, is influence a part of 'relatedness'? Nobody knows. For a larger discussion on the infobox, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Scrap the infobox.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the related section. It was never going to be anything other than OR.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Famous Scottish women for the picture header

As with most ethnic groups, there are two types of Scottish people: 'men' and 'women', each of whom make up 50%. Yet this article illustrates Scots with a picture of four men. I suggest the illustration needs a couple of women. If you had to choose two women to represent Scots, who would you choose? And which two men would you boot off - Robert the Bruce, Connery, Burns, or Bell? My personal choice would be Mary Queen of Scots and Muriel Gray, and I would boot off Connery and Bell for no real reason. I realize any selection will be totally arbitrary, but it's something that needs doing and it's an interesting thing to discuss. This list of Scottish people may be useful. Cop 633 21:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also see The Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Women Published by Edinbugh University Press, which contains several downloadable lists which could be used as the basis of a to do list within Wikipedia. I nominate Naomi Mitchison for inclusion in the pictures. Lumos3 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should have 50% women. One of the things we'll have to do is check the licensing on all the proposed images, because some of them are only licensed for use on an article about that person. I haven't checked the linked lists yet, but of the individuals suggested so far, only this image, of Mary I, seems usable. But I'll look more thoroughly, I may have missed some. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT boot of sean connery, he is todays most famous scot around the world and he deserves to stay for that reason alone. He is far more famous than muriel gray or any of the other scots mentioned.

I suggest we keep all 4 men and add 4 women to make 8 people just like the Irish peoples section (4 women, 4 men). Just having 2 women and 2 men wouldnt be enough famous people.

So, c'mon people, name some famous Scottish women. We've got Mary Queen of Scots and Naomi Mitchison so far. We need two more. Now, I'm not Scottish, I'm English, and let me tell you: I can't think of any famous Scottish women. I even looked through List of Scottish people, and there are hardly any women there at all. Maybe it's a cultural thing - maybe Scottish women are inherently boring and talentless? Maybe Scots are more sexist and bigoted than the English? If anyone feels like proving me wrong, go for it! Prove me an ignorant English git! Cop 663 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Scott to, i'm Russian, but the only ethnic group article that has a more ugly image then the English people are the French people. I mean, the trick is not to put 50% 50% man and women, the trick is to put the most recognizable and respectful people of the nation, so when someone sees the image he says: "Ou, he is Scottish? and he to?? Nice!!! Now i know that those famous people are Scotts! Respect!". This gender-balance things makes ethnic group images look ugly and fake with all this polit-correctness. Most of the editor-groups of the ethnic-groups articles already left the idea because it's just redicilous. No normal editor will want to see something like they have in the English or French people. M.V.E.i. 15:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

QinetiQ employees

This contribution added the observation that:

Many of them work for QinetiQ at their site in Farnborough.

However, since it follows the observation that:

Other United Kingdom and European countries have had their share of Scots immigrants. Wales and England are estimated to have 700,000 people of Scottish decent.

it suggests that QinetiQ's workforce is rather larger than the 11,400 claimed in the Wikipedia article. I hope this is merely an ambiguously worded observation rather than the more sinister possibility of a subtle attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. -- Cameron Dewe 06:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to lack of response to the above, I have now removed Many of them work for QinetiQ at their site in Farnborough. from the article because it is an unsupported, unreferenced and ambiguous statement, that is open to misinterpretation. If someone can obtain and quote the source of statistics about the ethnic breakdown of this and other companies then feel free to put those statistics in the artticle. However, unsubstantiated anecdotes like the above are of poor quality and not encyclopaedic. -- Cameron Dewe 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Total population

From where 40-50 mil.? Numbers don't match if add all mentiontioned populations, max 20 mil.? Maybe source is fake or incorrect. --Pontiakas 10:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you follow the citation for that figure, you see it says 30 million. It would appear that that figure was added to the other totals below it to come up with this number. --Bill Reid | Talk 09:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

who lives in Scotland

Not everyone "who lives in Scotland" is Scottish just as not everyone who lives in any country is of that nation. To pick just two people notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia Paul McCartney is an Englishman who lives in Scotland and Sean Connery is a Scotsman who lives abroad. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but your point is? --Bill Reid | Talk 08:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

His point is that the introductory statement of the article states: "This article is about the Scottish people as an ethnic group. For residents or nationals of Scotland, see Demographics of Scotland." However, that being the case, I find it interesting that the individuals Phillip chose as examples are both men with Irish surnames. - Denis Dooley 10 May 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.107.72 (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

New image made

Since we reached a messy situation on the previous image that the written names of those who are suppose to be on the image, and those who are on the image itself are different, i made a new bigger image. As you could see on the image page, there are no license problems with it. M.V.E.i. 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A good start. I would suggest using someone other than Mel Gibson. 1) He's American born of primarily Irish ancestry and, 2) that's a mugshot. Sicilianmandolin 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong is not described as 'Scottish' in his article (even in the American sense).--Nydas^(Talk) 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He's partly Ulster-Scott (Scoto-Irish, which is Scotish people who lived in Ireland) and partly Scottish. M.V.E.i. 18:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But the article is about Scotish ethnicity, and he is Scotish ethnicity. It's a mugshot but it's free (i looked for a better image but they all were). He's really famous thats why i used him. Anyway, fell free to offer new people and we could have a discussion here. M.V.E.i. 18:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. According to the article infobox there are more Scottish people in USA then in Scottland. M.V.E.i. 18:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Infact if i haven't made a mistake in calculating, there are more Scottish people in the USA then in the UK. M.V.E.i. 18:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Only for non-standard definitions of Scottish. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain. M.V.E.i. 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The obvious definition of "Scottish people" involves people who live in Scotland. Perhaps not all of them - some self-identify as English, French, German, Irish... - but most. It would include some people who don't live in Scotland (me for example), but who lived there for some period of time and self-identify as Scottish. Whether it should include people, one or more of whose ancestors once, allegedly, lived in Scotland, is less clear. So, the reasonable definition of Scottish people excludes most self-styled Scottish-somethings, be it Americans, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, Poles, Russians, or South Africans. Therefore most Scottish people live in Scotland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the article is about Scottish ethnicity we can include only those who are Scottish ethnicity. Nevermind if it's a Scott in America or wherever. Aslong as he's an etnic Scott, the article is about him. M.V.E.i. 17:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer Sean Connery for Mel Gibson, but that is just my personal opinion.--Staberinde 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

His lest famous. M.V.E.i. 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, the Gibson photo has got to go. First off, it's his infamous mugshot, which is awful. Second off, he's American-born, and most Americans (e.g., myself) have some Scottish blood; this distinguishes no one (by this logic, one could include GWB under the British people photo). The Armstrong photo should go for the same reasons. What was wrong with the old one? I specifically changed it, and uploaded it to commons. The Evil Spartan 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First, Mel Gibson is the most famous Scott today. If you find a better free image feel free to give a link to it. Second, he is of Scottish ethnicity, which already means he fits. The aryicle is about Scottish ethnicity, so anyone of Scotish ethnicity fits. Where he is born doesnt change his ethnicity. The old one havent included many famous Scotts. M.V.E.i. 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more people of Scottish ethnicity in the USA then in Scottland, they cant not be represented in the article about Scottish ethnicity. And again, ethnicity and if a man was born in Scottland or not are two different things. The article is about ethnicity, what you talk about is the Demography section in the Scotland article. M.V.E.i. 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

M.V.E.i., this is a contentious issue. Now would be an appropriate time to call a vote. I think Sean Connery is an extremely reasonable alternative. I vote for him. Also, I propose James Watt as a deserving candidate to replace Lance. Sicilianmandolin 19:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the idea of a vote. If a majority supports your suggestion, i will make those changes in the image. M.V.E.i. 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Will a vote make Mel Gibson Scottish? Surely not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

He is Scottish ethnicity, and that's what the article is about. M.V.E.i. 19:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of begging the question? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To tell you the truth no :-) But alright he will be removed. M.V.E.i. 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, my "vote" is to go with Connery, who is nearly as famous, and, well, we have a good picture of him that's not a mugshot which will make people think "anti-semitism" every time they look at it. No offense, MVEi, I just don't think it's appropriate, especially considering he's American born. As for Armstrong, I still stand by the assertion that it's best to go with natively-born Scottish people; it's no like there aren't enough in history. It's almost an insult to the Scottish identity to have to leech off Americans with Scottish ancestory (maybe you don't understand what it's like here in America; just about everybody has mixed foreign ancestory). I hope this is clear. The Evil Spartan 19:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well ok Connery is in instead of Gibson. What about the second idea James Watt instead of Armstrong? This thing i actually really like (actually i haven't known he is Scottish before). M.V.E.i. 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, i'm half Jewish (mother side), live in Israel, and i can tell you, Mel Gibson is not an Anti-Semite. I ussually dont drink Alcohol but one time i drank to much at a birthday party, and belive me, those who say that when a man is drunk he says what he really thinks is not true! The opposite is true. A drunk man says something he heard, but mostly dont agree with. Or something he thinks is funny. M.V.E.i. 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually couldn't agree more - alcohol makes people say stupid things. Unfortunately, I haven't an ounce of Jewish blood in me, and happened to like Gibson beforehand, so my credibility on this assertion is ridiculously low. The Evil Spartan 23:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The best prove is his character. He's a man who always stated his opinions, whatever they are. If he really would be an Antisemite he would state it when he's not drunk. M.V.E.i. 14:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So, it's settled? Watt instead of Armstrong, Connery instead of Gibson? Great. Sicilianmandolin 20:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The new image was uploaded :-) Looks good. M.V.E.i. 20:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I'm glad we could work this out in such a friendly manner. The Evil Spartan 23:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Foreign?

Elements of modern culture such as fish suppers may be foreign in origin. What the heck is that all about? For those who don't know a fish supper is fish and chips(french fries).Please tell me from what foreign shores it comes from.--Sandbagger 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, chips come from potatoes, which come from South America. That might be what was meant. --86.155.161.26 (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Time for a Scottish diaspora article?

I was just reading The Herald's piece today regarding the Scottish Centre for Diaspora Studies, and noted that while we have a well-referenced article on the Irish diaspora, Scottish diaspora is a redirect to this article. While we do have a wee section here on Scots worldwide, I feel that it could be greatly expanded and properly referenced, and realistically probably best dealt with under a new sub-article. Mais oui! 08:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

There are a number of statements in the article which are at best disputable and at worst misleading:

• origin myths - the Picts should be removed as we don't actually know what the Picts believed about their origins
• arrival of the Anglians and Norse - probably should not be so precisely dated, could be earlier for the Anglians and later for the Norse
• Saint Ninian - all very debatable and far too detailed in any case
• Saint Palladius - again debatable, burial claims need weasel words attached "according to tradition", "it is said", or the like
• Saint Patrick - according to current thinking born in Roman Britain so not "Scotland"
• Margaret - had no impact on the church herself, may have done through her children, and we are left wondering why "Scottish" clerics and kings went to Rome if they needed to be "moved closer"
• Lutheran ideas - this leaves the reader with the impression that the Kirk was Lutheran when it was and is Calvinist

I confess that I've never been happy with the form of this article, and am undoubtedly biased against it becoming a good article in its current state. Mais oui! mentioned the Scottish diaspora: much of this article belongs there and not here. Other parts belong in Scottish national identity or a historical section of Demographics of Scotland. And if, after that were done, nothing remained here but a dab page, oh! how happy I would be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The infobox... needs work. I'm not comfortable with completely different types of information rubbing shoulders in the population segment, in particular.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Some confusion over point of this article

Some people seem to be confusing this article with the related but not identical Demographics of Scotland. This article is about the ethnic group "Scottish people", not the entirety of the modern population of Scotland. It starts with the disambiguation: "This article is about the Scottish people as an ethnic group", It is in the ethnic groups in the UK and Europe categories, has an ethnic groups infobox, is in the series "ethnic groups in the United Kingdom",is part of the ethnic groups wikiproject... If you dispute that there is such a thing as ethnicity, then fair enough, that is a valid viewpoint, but then you're disputing not just this page but also a whole series of articles all over the project devoted to particular ethnic groups. The Scottish people are as much an ethnic group as say... the Hmong people, or Xhosa, or the Basque people (to pick three random examples). The concept of the Scottish as an ethnicity is a totally seperate idea from the question of "who lives in the nation of Scotland?". --86.135.182.174 (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"And be the nation again" If Scotland is a nation then it is the people of Scotland make up that nation. If the people are a nation then one has to address the issue of those who consider the Scottish nation to consist of people born and bred in Scotland to be Scottish. For example this article (Young Asian Scots are torn between the tradition of arranged, published in the The Sunday Herald, August 15, 2004), and this government publication contradicts your position. As an English woman wrote "English. Born and bred, as the saying goes. (As far as I can remember, it is born and bred and not born-and-bred-with-a-very-long-line-of-white-ancestors-directly-descended-from-Anglo-Saxons. [5])" how many generations does one have to go back to be Scottish? 86.135.182.174 I think your point of view is one of a person who does not agree that the Scots are any more than a people who originate from North Britain (as Scotland was often described after the Act of Union), and not the people of a nation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• This article is about the Scots as both a nation and an ethnic group as it says in the article quite plainly. Additionally Philip, there are many different definitions and types of nations, just as there are different describing factors for an ethnic group. Those examples you mention about people of non-Scottish heritage in Scotland for example would not be part of a Scottish nation from an ethnic nationalism viewpoint but would be so from that of civic nationalism. Epf (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)