Talk:Scottish people/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Germanic peoples" category controvesial, but "Celts" is not?

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

If languages dictate relatedness, are Jamaicans a Germanic people ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sometimes conventions don't make sense. What may make Scotland different is that it was never subjected to the intense Germanic settlement that was the fate of eastern Britain south of the Tyne, that the country itself is in origins a Celtic kingdom with a name that originally meant "Land of the Gaels" (a Celtic people), and that a Celtic language (Gaelic) was a majority language until about 500 or so years ago, and this language is still spoken today. There is good reason, I agree, to object to England being called a "Germanic" country, but that will be decided on that article, not this one. Anyways, modern Scots, Celtic speakers or not, are just like modern English-speaking Welsh and Irish, commonly called "Celts". Are you taking up this issue on those articles too? BTW, don't get too hung up on "highlands" and "lowlands"; excepting a few centuries in the early modern/later medieval period, the division makes no linguistic sense in Scottish history; 'tis rather a hang-up of 18th century political and literary dialogue. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I got to thinking, instead of putting the German people's category for Scots, why not make the English a related ethnic group? I mean you have Icelanders as a related ethnic group because of a few Scottish immigrants. The Anglo-Saxons and the Normans shaped Scotland, and since the English are made up of these two peoples, why should they not be considered related? Rshu 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The English are already there, they just come after Manx, Bretons and Cornish. Quite frankly, if it were up to me, I'd delete the entire 'related' section of all the ethnicity pages. Readers should be left to make up their own mind based on the article content. --Nydas 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed that then. Rshu 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought- Surely the Scottish people are no more 'celtic' than the English are 'anglo saxons' or 'Germanic'? There's been a high degree of social mobility over the last few hundred years! The Anglo saxons, who *were* Germanic both settled and influenced Scottish culture and language- 'Celtic' is a convenient term, granted but hardly useful in the modern age when pretty much everyone in Britain has at least one ancestor from Wales, England, Scotland, Ireland/NI. And what about those Scottish people from Afro-carribean backgrounds, or descendants from South Asian immigrants? It's perhaps more true at a much earlier period of time, but not now

"Some of the most famous Scots, Adam Smith, for example, had Anglo-Saxon surnames." - true, but some of these were not originally "Anglo-Saxon". Smith can translate "Gow" or "McGowan" which is "Mac a' Ghobhainn". Many Johnstons and Shearers were originally MacGregors who had to change their name when it was proscribed. --MacRusgail 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Scots had to anglicise their surnames after culloden, and also scots took their landlords names at the times of the normans so really whats in a name. You will find that Smith is the 5th most common name in Ireland, yet im sure they are celts if you ask them. It comes down to how people are taught their lands history, the English are taught that they are Anglo-Saxons, yet 30% of English can claim Scottish descent and who knows how many have Welsh or Irish in their families. Blood of the vikings found Scotland, Ireland, Wales and Cornwall to be majority native, Ireland being the highest amount, and Scotland being somewhere between Ireland and England. For England, they found that for every person with germanic/invader dna there was one with native and this was not isolated to any particular areas, I believe the figure they found for England was about 67% native, far from being Anglo Saxon. In relation to the vikings, names like MacDougal, popular in Scotland is actually norse origin meaning dark stranger hinting that the norse invaders werent entirely norse. There is the thought that people left these islands, and came back as norse invaders. A lot of attention is put on the celts, mainly by England which does not want us to see ourselves as different, but with the recent rise in English nationalism, they too are getting the dna focus to try and make them feel less English. Time will show, but I think they will start to wake up to their genetic make up being significantly different from what they have been taught for many centuries. As for the anglo saxons settling Scotland, one word rubbish. Scots/Picts/Norse I think should take the credit for that.

Some interesting points. A couple of comments. First, it's clear that the Angles did settle in southern Scotland long prior to 1066 etc., and appeared to have a dominant influence on what became the 'Scots language'. Second, the identification of 'native' dominance in DNA of the peoples of the British Isles cannot reasonably be equated with a 'Celtic' tag. Studies have shown that the dominant DNA has its roots long before the Celtic migrations are believed to have occurred, and is believed to be associated with migration from Iberia. This helps explain, for example, similarities with the DNA of the Basque people. --Nmcmurdo 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added Angles to the introductory paragraph. When I was editing it I noticed a note that "It is not intended to be a list of every tribe". That's a little too convenient. There seems to be enough room for the Picts, Brythons and Gaels, but no room for the Angles. I wonder why that could be?

If listing all 4 people is such a stretch then maybe we should delete one of the Celtic peoples, maybe delete the Gaels.

The Brythons occupied the South-West and the Angles occupied the South-East as far north as Forth. So why include the Brythons and not the Angles? Is it because they are Germanic and Germanic isn't as fashionable as Celtic?Æscing (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all let me just say the Pictish people were NOT celtic. They in fact originated in Scandinavia and settled in North East Scotland. These were the dominant people of Scotland. Although there were smaller numbers of Gaels and Brythons in the Western Isles and Southern Uplands the overwhelming majority were Scandinavian Picts. I don't know if any of you have checked a map recently but Scandinavians are North Germanic peoples. There case closed. The only "Celtic" people in Scotland reside in the Highlands and Islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.199.13 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the topic of Scots in Europe be expanded?

There is plenty of info out there for the Scots in Europe, I personally think that the topic of the Scots in France, Holland and Poland have the pontential to be their own articles. Scottish surnames are still common in these countries and many of the descendants are unaware of their Scottish ancestory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elitejcx (talk • contribs) 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[George Best should be added!!!!!] –– —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.79.172 (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone (more knowledgeable than me) could add something about Scots in Russia- mercenary officers in the 17th century and their descendants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.163.104 (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been a very good read, engaging and broad in prospect, however, there are some problems with the references. This is how the article, as of December 16, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Fail

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Overall, this was quite an excellent article, really gives the subject its merit. However, I am putting it on hold pending the insertion of a few more sources. Once that is completed within the 7 day period, I'll be happy to pass this. Rt. 13:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gave this article 6 days, but no attempt has been made to address the problems set out, so I am failing this nomination until normal activity resumes, in which case the nominator should seek to resubmit this for consideration. Thank you. Regards, Rt. 14:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglicisation of Scottish surnames

Having just read this line in the article...

Many Scottish surnames have become "Anglicised" (made to sound English) over the centuries. Davidson, Bruce (originally Brus), Campbell, Salmond, Marshall, Christie and Joy are just a few of many examples

Where do i start? Marshall and Brus/Bruce are both Anglo-Norman (yep Robert the Bruce was of paternal Norman ancestry) names so you can't call them Scottish surnames. Salmond is a Scottish AND English variant of the Hebrew Solomon. Christie originates from medieval England and is a diminutive of the forename Christian. Davidson also originates from England, as Germanic style patronymic names (son) aren't a Scots-Gaelic thing, they have the prefix Mac for that. Joy is also an Anglo-Norman name. Very well researched this section isn't it? The only Scottish surname mentioned is Campbell (Caimbeul)

Now names like Magill (Mac an Ghoill), MacIntyre (Mac an tSaoir) and MacDonald (Mac Dhomhnuill) are appropriate examples of Anglicisation of actual Scottish surnames. Mabuska (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how you define 'Scottish surname'.--Celtus (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Mac" does not mean "son of", it means "son" the of is implied by a change in the case of the name. Someone should probably change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.87.166 (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It could perhaps mean that names such as MacDonald, became Donaldson, which is seen around now and then. Duncanson is another one which takes a Gaelic name with an anglic suffix. There was also a tendency to anglicise people's names in records etc, and even in everyday use. There are numbers of people walking around pronouncing their own last name in ways which would horrify their ancestors! MacKenzie being the prime culprit. Oh, and I believe Brus to be french. Normandy, but French none the less. If it ended up in England then it was from Normandy aswell. It all depends on what you class as Scottish. We're back to the old 'Goth versus the Gael'. Noth everything considered Scottish is Gaelic. Names like Duguid and Fairbairn are Scottish without being Gaelic. In many ways its amazing that Scotland has been able to form such a cohesive national identity with such a language split. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.254.63 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Scottish and British

I know this is going to touch a nerve with some people but i feel it must be said and i see a couple of comments were made on it last year. Im rather shocked there is not a single mention of the fact some Scottish people consider themselves British as well. There should atleast be a couple of sentences talking about the unification of England and Scotland and the development of a British identity which some Scottish people identify with too. Welsh people , English people and Irish people all atleast mention it. This article completly ignores it and i do not think thats right. What do others feel about this? User:BritishWatcher

Sure, it should be mentioned. siarach (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How should it be put. Do we have any evidence that points to the number of Scots who consider themselves British? Jack forbes (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how it would be worded but im sure we can find some sources to show a % consider themseleves Scottish and British and ofcourse we can say this is declining. I see theres a sentence about the union of the crowns, but i didnt see anything about the formation of the united kingdom and then the British identity that grew even if its in decline now. Especially as we have the wikipedia policy of describing people as English / Scottish on their articles so there should be some mention of British identity too that plenty of Scottish people do feel strongly about. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to a mention of this. Jack forbes (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I firmly object to anyone being called British. English Welsh and Irish included. In my view it is nothing more than a legal term to strengthen the union, not a true national identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.249.101 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Scots people abroad

This statement, "In addition, there are many more Scots abroad than in Scotland. In the 2000 Census, 4.8 million Americans reported Scottish ancestry" is surely wrong. There is no evidence to say those 4.8 million people consider themselves Scots. Having Scottish ancestry and being Scots are two different things. I have plenty of Irish ancestry but don't consider myself Irish, and would not be pleased to be called an Irishman living in Scotland. Jack forbes (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What about something like.. "In addition, there are many more people abroad who consider themselves of Scottish ancestory, including 4.8 million Americans" BritishWatcher (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What about "In addition, there are many more people with Scots ancestry living abroad than the total population of Scotland, including 4.8 million in the US". I suppose either one would do. Jack forbes (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that one sounds more clearer. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jack forbes (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of large USA Scottish descent presence?

This statement makes no sense. "Large populations of Scottish people settled the new-world lands of North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, with a large Scottish presence being particularly noticeable in Canada. They took with them their Scottish languages and culture.[16]"

It states that there is a large Scottish presence noticeable in Canada, yet there are more people of Scottish descent in the USA than there is in Canada. 9,209,813 in the USA and 4,719,840 in Canada. So why is Canada mentioned has having a large presence, yet the USA barely gets a mention in the opening paragraph? The only thing I can think of is that someone simply has a presence for Canadians who are of Scottish descent over Americans who are of the same descent, most likely because of politics. Why are we using politics over facts to edit articles? Aurora30 (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where the politics come in. As a Scot I'm quite happy if you come up with something better. Why don't you edit and see if people agree with you? Go on, be bold. Jack forbes (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably not politics, just that proportionate to population the Scots were more noticable in Canada and Neq Zealand than in a giant melting point of the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.254.63 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: hot on the trail...

Hot on the trail of British people and English people, I would like to propose an "upgrade" to the infobox image. I have collated 21 images of famous Scots to produce this. It has already recieved support in a private exchange, but thought it only right that I propose such a bold change first here. I hope we can all agree this is quite a move forwards :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already agreed on my own talk page that it's a good idea, but I'll just confirm my opinion here. Jack forbes (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Irish People of Scottish ethnicity

Should a statistic for Irish citizens of Scottish ethnicity be listed in the Scottish Ethnicity box at the top of the page. If so, would the Irish-Scots group (About 800,000 to 1,000,000) be representative the theoretical group I'm talking about? I just feel that the Scots in Ireland should somehow be acknowledged since even the Scots in New Zealand are mentioned and there are far fewer of them.
Andrewsthistle (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in principle, however it's not Irish Scots we should be considering (they're "people who emigrated from Ireland to Scotland, mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries, and their descendants") but Scots Irish, or Ulster Scots people. There aren't population figures (as far as I can see) for this latter group (but I suspect your figures are broadly correct, based on the hugely unscientific method of dividing the population of Northern Ireland by two, then adding "some" for the diaspora.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What is all this?

"Large numbers of Scottish people reside in other parts of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland, particularly Ulster where they form the Ulster-Scots community."

It then goes on to say :

"The number of people of Scottish descent in England and Wales is impossible to quantify due to the ancient and complex pattern of migration within Great Britain."

Why is the Scottish presence in Ulster impossible to quanitify due to the ancient and complex pattern of migration between Scotland and Ireland before the plantations? An Irish group (the Scotti) colonized Scotland and Scots moved back and forth to Ireland during the Dal Riata. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.174.114 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Scottish citizenship?

Shouldn't the article refer to the fact that there is no separate Scottish citizenship or nationality in law? Irvine22 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no need for it as the article already informs the reader that Scotland is part of the UK with this sentence, Large numbers of Scottish people reside in other parts of the United Kingdom....". Also, this article is about the Scottish people, in Scotland and elsewhere. Citizenship has no relevance to this article. Jack forbes (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there is no such thing as Scottish citizenship has clear relevance to an article on the Scottish people. Irvine22 (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It has no relevance when Scotland has already been stated as being part of the United Kingdom. For everyones information, Irvine has asked the same question at English people and Welsh people. Jack forbes (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Our goal should always be to be as informative as possible to the casual reader. It follows from the fact that Scotland is part of the U.K. that there is no Scottish citizenship and Scottish people are British citizens in law and fact. Irvine22 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why stop at British Irvine22, in law and in fact, the law concerned being Article 20 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (which states that "Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship"), Scottish people are indeed in law and in fact both British and EU citizens. We should also include that in law, the Scottish people as a race are legally distinct form other races including, for example, the English, as demonstrated by the judgement handed down by the Court of Session in the case of the BBC v Souster [2001] IRLR 150. Next!... Endrick Shellycoat 23:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Endrick Shellycoat, I totally agree that we should specify that Scottish people are British citizens, and hence also EU citizens, and make clear that there is no separate Scottish citizenship. I'd need to see more on the question of them being a legally distinct race. It's clear that the large majority of them are Caucasian, as are the large majority of English people. Irvine22 (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A "legally distinct race"..........???!!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Scottish Court of Sessions found that Scots and English are "racial groups" within the meaning of the Race Relations Act. [1] Jack forbes (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Obviously (to me), "race" means something quite different to "'racial groups' within the meaning of the Race Relations Act - as indeed the text below provided by Endrick shows (i.e. that the finding rested on the interpretation of the words "national origins"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as per Welsh People --Snowded ^TALK 01:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of Race,BBC v Souster [2001] IRLR 150:

Mr Souster, an English television presenter, claimed that he had lost his job as a presenter for "Rugby Special" for BBC Scotland because he was English and BBC Scotland wanted a Scottish person in post. He lodged a Tribunal claim for race discrimination. As a preliminary point the Tribunal had to decide whether the Race Relations Act covered discrimination between the Scots and English. The Tribunal, and also the Employment Appeal Tribunal, held that it did, following the previous Employment Appeal Tribunal authority of Northern Joint Police Board v Power [1997] IRLR 610. The BBC appealed, and the matter was heard by the Scottish Court of Session (the equivalent of the English Court of Appeal). The issue before the Court of Session was the meaning of the words "on racial grounds" in section 1 (1) (a) of the Act ("...a person discriminates against anothe...if on racial grounds he treats that other less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons..."). "On racial grounds" is defined in section 3(1) of the Act as meaning colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins. Mr Souster argued that being English was a matter of national origins. The BBC's response was that nationality and national origins should be defined by reference to citizenship and nationality in the legal sense. Given that both the Scots and English share a British passport, according to the BBC they belonged to the same nation and therefore there could be no unlawful discrimination between sub-groups of the one nation. In these days of devolution and complex analyses of racial identity, such simplistic arguments were unlikely to succeed, and indeed they did not succeed. The Court of Session decided that national origins should be given a broader and more flexible interpretation than just a reference to a passport: "What has to be ascertained are identifiable elements, both historically and geographically, which at least at some point in time reveals the existence of a nation." Given that England and Scotland were once separate nations, the Court held that the test was satisfied. Source: Thompsons Solicitors

Therefore in Scots Law, as has been demonstrated for the purpose of discrimination upon racial grounds, Scottish people are a distinct racial group, irrespective of Passport. Endrick Shellycoat 08:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the source you supplied says. It says the Couirt found discriminatoon based on "national origin"". The source also confirms that both Scots and English people share British passports. It further confirms that Scotland and England "were once separate nations" (my emphases). I think that's all good to go into the article. Thanks, Endrick! Irvine22 (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Say what? My words: "Therefore in Scots Law, as has been demonstrated for the purpose of discrimination upon racial grounds, Scottish people are a distinct racial group, irrespective of Passport." Read the source again and you might find the following:

• '"On racial grounds" is defined in section 3(1) of the Act as meaning colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.

The Court of Session upheld previous decisions whereby the Scottish, and in this particular legal case the English, people could be regarded as a separate racial group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act. Don't quite see where your assertion about "That's not what the source you supplied says" fits in. Explain..."

The grounds for the finding, based upon the source, was "national origin" discrimination. The source also says that that finding was based upon the fact that Scotland and England "were once separate nations". I have no problem with that language going in the article, using the ref. you have provided. Irvine22 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, how long have you been away, exactly? Can I take it when you left this country you travelled on a British Passport? Well it should come as no surprise that they're still issued to those born in Scotland who want one. This is not the holy grail of identity. As I've said elsewhere, nationality is merely an accident of birth, and the same can be applied to citizenship; my Passport states "British", but I'm happy to confess that it is the only thing about me which is. I assume you traded yours for a blue one or are you still going by the style "Registered Alien"? If you have 'jumped ship', what do you say when someone hits you with the standard "gee I just love your accent, what country are you from", do you say California and that despite the weirdness of your Scotch lilt your actually a Yank, or do you admit to being a newby and opt instead for an apologetic Brit or Jock? Your answer, whatever it may be, is probably determined not so much by what a particular piece of paper states, but by a number of other, often less tangible factors.Endrick Shellycoat 14:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that questions of national identity are complex and multi-faceted and that the question of citizenship is only one piece of the puzzle. But it's a piece that's presently missing from the article. Irvine22 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a piece that through consensus won't be included. Jack forbes (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a consensus to include the sourced information Endrick so helpfully provided.Irvine22 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine, there should come a time when it dawns on you that you won't get what you want. This is one of those times. Jack forbes (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Och, jack. I've already got what I want. Anything else will be gravy. Irvine22 (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I take no view as to whether the British/European citizenship issue or the Scottish people being defined in law as a distinct racial group on the grounds of national origin makes it into the article, therefore I'll be content to perch on this particular fence. I actually find it quite an achievement that despite three centuries of being co-opted into a super-state which continues to dominate these islands that we are still having discussions re. the Scottish people, and not simply chewing the fat over who is or is not a North Briton. There are dozens of former European states which in similar circumstances have disappeared completely over the past three or four centuries and can only be found for the most part in history books, yet Scotland and her people endure. Perhaps next time I'm in London and have a half-hour to kill, I'll swing by the Palace of Westminster, paint my face blue, and whilst waving that little red book in the direction of the Victoria Tower yell at the top of my voice "I will take your passport, but you will never take my nationality. Alba gu brath!" Wonder how long I'd last before being carted off to Paddington Green... ;) Endrick Shellycoat 00:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Doubt they'd look twice at you. In another life I worked for a (Scottish Tory - remember them?) MP. That sort of behavior wasn't at all uncommon around Westminster. Irvine22 (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Tory MPs, eh? Those were the days! I think we've still got one around, somewhere... Endrick Shellycoat 19:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Scottish descent only"?

I notice the infobox gives the figure of 4,459,071 for the population of Scotland "of Scottish descent only". What about the other 500,000 or so people who live in Scotland? Are they not "Scottish people" for the purposes of this article? Irvine22 (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Think my English wife might have something to say on that. I'd wager she wouldn't class herself as such for a wiki article or for anything else for that matter. A resident of Scotland she may be, but anything else and you'd get a flea in your ear. I'd refrain from making assumptions on that score if I were you. Endrick Shellycoat 23:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some immigrants who go on to consider themselves Scots and others who don't. I don't believe any census has asked that question. Jack forbes (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You might have to wait a few months to find out who may have been born outside Scotland but now consider themselves Scottish as the 2011 Census will enable such people to be identified as a %. Endrick Shellycoat 08:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Would a person, say, of Pakistani descent, born in Scotland and self-identifying as a Scot, be counted in that figure of 4,459,071? Irvine22 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they would; they were born in Scotland and therefore irrespective of whether they are a "self-identifying Scot" or self-identifying Pakistani, their place of birth would place them among the 4,459,071. Endrick Shellycoat 09:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so the 4.459m figure is for people born in Scotland? Irvine22 (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to know the criteria used to arrive at that figure, but I'd say it was likely that it comprises those born in Scotland, and possibly others, for example those born outside Scotland to Scottish parents, but who now reside in Scotland. You'd have to check the criteria used for identifying individuals as being of "Scottish descent only" as I don't know myself. It may be based upon the population figures shown in the country article info-box under "Ethnic Groups", with Scots shown as 89% of the total population. There is a ref for that figure so perhaps therein lies the answer. Endrick Shellycoat 08:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Should Jamaica, Brazil and Uruguay be in the infobox when there are no figures on those of Scottish descent living in those countries, and the references are only links to other articles? Jack forbes (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Irvine22 (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed. Jack forbes (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

As a New Zealander of partly Scottish descent, I am curious at your statistics claiming to show only 12,792 people of Scottish descent in New Zealand. That cannot be right. The city of Dunedin (pop. 120,000) was founded by Scottish immigrants and MOST names in the Dunedin telephone directory are common Scottish names. When I was young, the Presbyterian Church claimed about 20 percent of New Zealand's population and still has well over 10 percent; there are exceptions, but the majority of Presbyterians in NZ are of Scottish descent. Almost everyone I know whose family has been in NZ for at least 100 years has at least 25 percent Scottish ancestry.

I wonder how the statistics were compiled. The NZ figures are close (by my estimates) to the number of Scottish-BORN New Zealanders, whereas those for other countries like Canada and Australia are more likely based on ancestry. Having a nonuniform criteria for population estimates is bizarre, to say the least. David Cannon (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Just a quick one on this, but the evidence supplied doesnt really support this statement when considering the options and the title of the document - "Analysis of Ethnicity in the 2001 Census - Summary Report".

Here in England on similar forms we have options such as "White British", "Other white British", "Black British" etc etc to establish our ethnic backgrounds. It would seem on the form provided "White British" has just been replaced with "White Scottish" that doesnt suggest that Scots consider themselves Scottish before British or vice versa.

It would seem the 373,685 people who have ticked the "other white British" box would basically match up with the roughly 7%, the Scotland article states, come from elsewhere within the United Kingdom.

Surely more approbirate evidence should be found to support said statement.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. White British has not just been replaced by white Scottish. The option 'other white British' is included in the census questions. Jack forbes (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But the point is, it is a census; that census does not prove that people consider themselves Scottish over British.

'Other white British' covers a huge range of things and the report does not state this was an option for 'White Scottish' people to choose from if they considered themselves British first and Scottish second. Nor does the website state the opposite in regards to 'White Scottish'. Additionally there is the issue that on the Scotland article it states that 7% of the Scottish population are ethnically English, Irish or Welsh; that is a figure that near enough matches up with the figure presented next to the 'other white British' option on the census.

This really does need better supporting material and at the moment it does indeed appear to be dubious evidence supporting the statement. The statement could very well be true, it just needs to be supported better.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotal (hoping to clarify options for Scots/other British): we were (in the 2001 census) instructed to select one option (White Scottish, Other White British, White Irish, Other White). I don't recall any guidance on how to decide between Scottish and British, but a lot of the census tends to be by self-definition (and it didn't apply to me, anyway - I selected "Other White"). TFOWR^propaganda 19:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, that does seem to highlight the issue that the census cannot entirely be a reliable source when it comes down to self-identification.

However a casual glance around the net brought on to this: [2] It states that in '97 a poll was conducted in which "63% indicated that they felt that they were Scottish or more Scottish than British", 2% had no thoughts on the issue, 6% thought they were British first Scottish second and 29% thought they were both equally. Am not to sure if that website would be considered a reliable source so do we know were we can find the poll itself; that would seem a more reilable source that the one currently used per the above comments. Do we also know if an up todate poll has been carried out?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be a lot happier with the 2001 UK Census, than with a 1997 poll, no matter how reliable the poll was. All we need to do is say what the census says, provide a ref, and let the reader judge the ref on its merits. TFOWR^propaganda 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Am still concerned that, that appraoch could be considered one reading into the source and coming to their own conclusions contary to the source.

Scanning the net further i found the poll, the information on who carried it out and it being used in a study by the University of Edinburgh: [3].EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Provided we don't try and interpret the census, simply report what it says, I don't believe there's any danger of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. TFOWR^propaganda 19:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Completly agreed!

Additionally, Scottish government publication: One Scotland Many Cultures 2005/06, would appear to completly support the statement.[4] (may need to read a bit more than i did ... i just looked at the table lol)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why Nothing about the Claymore?

This is like failing to mention bagpipes or kilts.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Bagpipes aren't mentioned in the article. I guess because the article is about people, not "history", or "culture". To be honest, I don't tend to see many Scottish people carrying claymores as I stroll down Buchanan Street... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You should try walking down Argyll street on a Saturday night then! It's like the 45 all over again. :) Jack forbes (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

:-) I got swept up in Operation Rose over Christmas - metal detectors at Queen Street station (mostly for the tourists, I suspect - the polis seemed mostly interested in reassuring us all that Glasgow's a safe place) - and was quite disappointed that the only blades they'd found were tiny. Dammit, people, if you're going to carry a weapon at least carry one you can justify on historical grounds! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Saint Margaret of Scotland?!

Saint Margaret was an Anglo-Saxon, not a Scot. Being married to a Scot doesn't make you one. How did anyone even come to that conclusion? --John of Lancaster (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No idea! But Saint Margaret of Scotland would probably be the best place to raise this... TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, if we could only ask her how she self identified. I can see Johns point here. Should her image be replaced? Jack forbes (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I can too, but I'm not convinced it's pertinent - we need to go with what the sources say, and it seems that they describe her as "...of Scotland". (Without prejudice to locating alternative sources, naturally!) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Helen of Troy Spartan? I know that was Homer but you get my drift. No big deal though. Jack forbes (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite right! I've just re-read the article (paying more attention to the bit that's unreadable: the montage), and while I think there's justification in keeping the text, I certainly wouldn't be averse to removing the image (my rationale being that the text describes her importance to Scotland and the people, at least in terms of their religious beliefs, but that her inclusion in the photo-montage without immediate explanation is contentious). TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Off topic, but if this face launched a thousand ships, this face surely launched many more ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Aye, I would have launched a few if I had any. I wonder about Helen though (if she existed). Was she as beautiful as Homer says. Cleopatra was always said to be a beauty but recent finds of coins with her profile on them certainly blew that image apart. All in the eyes of the beholder I guess. I agree the text on Saint Margaret should remain but the image should be replaced. Jack forbes (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The current image lists an alternative: commons:File:FamousScotts2.jpg, but as it only has six people, I feel it's so far from the current consensus here that I probably shouldn't boldly replace. The current image was created by Jza84; I'll ping them and see whether they'd be up to removing poor old Margaret...! TFOWR^propaganda 14:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're making me feel bad about replacing poor old Margaret now.:( If there is a more appropriate image then I think she should be replaced. If not, then as I said, no big deal. Jack forbes (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Good - someone needs to defend the honour of dead saints ;-)

I pinged Jza84 - I guess it's their call.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Salmond

That the choice for the only moderately large photograph in the article of an example of the Scottish people was Alex Salmond may be worthy of discussion, I suppose. To say that this "makes no sense at all" and that "(the section) is talking about the history of Scottish ethnicity. He is totally irrelevant for there" is clearly not the case. If however a picture encapsulating the history of Scottish ethnicity (rather a restrictive description of the scope of the section) can somehow be produced, rather than an example of an individual who, pertinently, bears that ethnicity, put that in instead by all means. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Given that there are 21 images of Scottish people in the infobox, I don't understand why there is a need for an additional photo in the main article. In the Scotland article, where there is discussion of political matters, yes, but not in this article, which is not about the country itself but rather a group of people, many of whom live in other parts of the world. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think the editor who removed the image did so because he thought there were no need for the image, or because he doesn't like Salmonds politics? As Matt Lunker says, the reason given for the removal is wrong. Jack forbes (talk) 10:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not relevant in the slightest - and in any case it works both ways. What is the reason for having a photo of Salmond here? Is his physiognomy sufficiently typical of Scottish people that it needs to be shown in detail? Or might its inclusion, perchance, reflect the political views of those seeking to include it? This article is not about the country, so a picture of its political leader is not relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why has it no relevance? He is a high profile person who's ethnicity is Scottish. Why would anyone want to remove it? Perhaps we should remove the image of Donald Dewer then, as you say this is not about political leaders. We could also remove the sportsmen from this article as it's not about sport. Jack forbes (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

They are in the infobox image, which is not the point. Include Salmond there by all means. The question - unanswered so far - is why this article (which I repeat is not about the country, but about a group of people many of whom live in other parts of the world) benefits from having a prominent picture of the political leader of the country. Why? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have answered you. Alex Salmond is a high profile member of that "group of people". Let's turn the question round. Why is the removal of the image an improvement to this article? Jack forbes (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Because having an image of Alex Salmond in that section talking about history of ethnic groups makes no sense. I would feel that way if any single person was there, unionist or separatist.

I think an image of one of the ancient ethnic groups its talking about or perhaps a map [5] which shows the highlands / lowlands that actually get mentioned in the section makes more sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Because a picture of him (outside the infobox) is barely relevant to this article. The country for which he has responsibility has only 11-15% of the total population of Scottish people, according to the infobox. The article on Jews doesn't have a picture of Benjamin Netanyahu. The article on Welsh people doesn't have a picture of Carwyn Jones. Etc. etc. You still haven't answered the question of why Salmond is a good example of Scottish people. He's certainly not typical because he's a political leader - as you say, he's "high profile". He's highly relevant to articles about Scotland, but this is not about the country, it's about the people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Images on other articles have absolutely no relevance to this article. Tell me, what is a typical Scotsman? There is no such thing, unless you have a shortbread tin image of a Scotsman with bagpipes and a kilt. He is as typical a Scotsman as I am or anyone with Scottish ethnicity. If you think he is a bad example of someone with Scottish ethnicity then you have me stumped, because there would then be no-one who is a good example. Jack forbes (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You have 21 representative photos of prominent, possibly "typical", Scottish people in the infobox. He's neither a "bad" nor a "good" example. But he is an additional, unnecessary example. You already have 21 - why is that not enough? Why do you need an additional, larger, photo, of a Scottish political leader separately? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is indeed about the people, not the country. Salmond is an example of one of those people. The infobox shows a nice variety with its 21 images but they are tiny. I see no harm in having one, or a few, larger ones in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've re-instated the image into the article. Mutt, if you think another one or two could be in the article, do you have any suggestions? Perhaps one for the Scottish ancestry abroad section? Jack forbes (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with images of people being in the article, but it seems strange to have Alex Salmond in a section about history of ethnic groups, an image of one of the groups it was talking about would have been more appropriate. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not like Salmond or his politics, we all know that. If the image was in a section like "politics" on this article then i would not have removed it but i honestly can not see why an image of him (or any single person) was needed in a section on ethnic groups which is only talking about history. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The point as to a picture of Salmond being relevant to the article on the country but not that of the people escapes me; Salmond is a specimen of the Scottish people and therefore relevant. The typicality or otherwise of his phsyiognomy is neither here nor there. "might its inclusion, perchance, reflect the political views of those seeking to include it". If you're directing that at me, firstly I am not seeking to include it, I am questioning it's exclusion. If anyone, such as BritishWatcher wishes to declare their political views, that's fair enough, but it's not for me to cast aspersions as to their motives. Ghmyrtle, do not presume as to my views, particularly as your question could just as easily be faced the other way, which may be equally irrelevant. The point would be the same if it was Gordon Brown, Annabel Goldie or Jimmy Krankie. It seems perfectly relevant to have pictures of Scottish people in this section and throughout the article, in addition to the little ones in the infobox.

Fairly randomly, Ginger Rogers, Colin Powell or Juan Perón in the ancestry abroad section? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You learn something new every day. I like the idea of using the Colin Powell image. Perhaps this one? Jack forbes (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good one to me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why stop there? Why not fill the whole article with pictures of prominent people with Scottish ancestry? Seriously, I'm disappointed that experienced editors can't see that including a photo of a current political figure in an article like this is, in my view, self-evidently and obviously inappropriate. I didn't express any views about any particular editor's politics, simply because I didn't bother to check who had included the Salmond photo in the first place - it's (probably) not relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has suggested filling the whole article with pictures of people with Scottish ancestry. I'm also quite sure that you have now checked on who included the Salmond photo. Whether you think it's (probably) not relevant or not is entirely up to you. The photo was included because it was relevant to the article and has been there for a number of months without you or anyone else bringing up the opinion that it's "obviously inappropriate". I disagree with you and believe that it is appropriate, which is why we are having this discussion. I don't see any consensus to remove the image. Jack forbes (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I still haven't checked who included the Salmond photo. Yes, a freestanding photo of Gordon Brown (as opposed to one in the infobox) was or would have been equally inappropriate. I come across odd things and errors in articles all the time, but don't always express an opinion - I did so in this case because I was interested to find out why there was a mini edit war going on. Obviously we disagree, and obviously there's no consensus to change what's there now. But I still think that including that photo in this article is unjustified, unnecessary, unhelpful and wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of Scottish people (of which salmond is one) in the article yes, but i am sorry you two can not see it is strange to place a picture of alex salmond in a section talking about ethnic groups, with almost all of the text about 100s of years ago. A picture in that section should be relevant to that section. How does showing Salmond contribute anything to that section? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A historical map showing the presumed distribution of tribes/groups from some point in the period being discussed would surely be more relevant and appropriate to illustrate that section? A photo of a current political or cultural figure - whether Salmond or anyone else - seems, as noted, not to add much really. N-HH talk/edits 14:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I was unaware of a policy that any picture included in an article had to be directly relevant to the section it is in or nearest to, rather than to the article as a whole, which this photo is. If that is the case, there's a lot of work to be done in Wikipedia removing pictures which are highly relevant to the article as a whole but not of direct relevance to any individual section, unless such pictures are only allowed to crowd the intro. That said, if such (a) historical demographic map(s) can be sourced they would evidently be of direct relevance to this section so would be worthy of addition. And shift Salmond's gob elsewhere in the article if you like. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, leaving aside in this instance who the photo is of, why are one or a few additional, non-tiny pictures, in the body of the article something to be avoided. Surely they can enhance it?

Why is "including a photo of a current political figure in an article like this is...self-evidently and obviously inappropriate". Having looked into the history of the article, the previous and long-term incumbent photo in this slot was of Gordon Brown, apparently uncontroversially. Does the current inclusion imply approval of Salmond to you (Ghmyrtle)? It's not something which entered my head on earlier readings of the article. It ought to be superfluous to say this but perhaps I ought to clarify my suggestion of including photos of Perón and Powell were down to notability, not because of my views on their politics. You may not have not directly "express(ed) any views about any particular editor's politics" but "might its inclusion, perchance, reflect the political views of those seeking (present tense) to include it?" would seem to be a strong implication regarding the motives of those currently taking part in the debate who are of a different opinion to your own. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

See also my response above to Jack Forbes. If you think I was wrong to make any inferences as to the political views of those seeking to include a photo of Salmond here, I apologise - a photo of Gordon Brown would have been equally inappropriate. Personally, I really don't have any views on Scottish politics - it's not relevant to me. All I'm trying to do is to improve an article which, in its use of that photo, seems to give undue weight to the current political situation in Scotland, rather than actually illustrating the text of the article itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Still disagree but fair enough. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ghmyrtle. Perhaps it was my comment on British Watcher which started the whole, are politics influencing the removal or not of the image concerned. If so, I apologise for bringing you into that particular debate. I've had a number of disagreements with BW over a long time on political articles (even somewhere else on wiki today) and should probably have kept my thoughts away from the talk page. Anyway, we obviously disagree here, and there is certainly no harm in that. Also, I too believe I am trying to improve the article. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway its been a couple of days with no other comments. I still can not understand why there is a picture of alex salmond in a section on "ethnic groups of Scotland", its questionable if that is the right sort of title for a section considering this is about Scottish people, maybe that should just be history of "Scottish people"? I still feel a image showing one of the ethnic groups talked about in the section or a map would be more useful than an image of someone today. I have no problem with images of Scottish people appearing throughout the article (and yes that could include Salmond whilst he is first minister), but it should be related to the section in question. In fairness i see that before salmond got added there was a picture of Gordon Brown. I do not think either belong there though. Its an unrelated image to the section in question. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Per above: "I was unaware of a policy that any picture included in an article had to be directly relevant to the section it is in or nearest to..." etc.. Is there such a policy? I do not think pertinent pictures (if the pertinence of the picture to the article as a whole is no longer in question) should be excluded from an article purely on the basis that they don't have an especial pertinence to any particular individual section therein. Also as per above, if one more directly pertinent to the section in question can be found, go for your life, put it in and shift Salmond elsewhere. What picture(s) do you have? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images

"Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading)"

There may be a better image, i am unsure. I think a map of Scotland would be more helpful in that section than an image of a single person. No picture at all would be better than an image that is irrelevant to the section though. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As per Mutt. If you can find a more suitable image or map for that section, then fine. If you can, then Salmonds photo can be moved elsewhere. Jack forbes (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well how would you feel about this image [6] of a Pict, considering the section is all about history of ethnic groups and the first paragraph of that section mentions picts twice. Cant find anything else that would fit into that section except possibly the basic map linked before.

As for Alex Salmond, its hard to see where he would fit into any of the sections in this article at the moment, perhaps others will be added in future where it could be used. There is a section (empty of text) on Clans so I did take a look to see if there was an image of Salmond with the clan gathering, i understand he has been involved in that in recent years, but theres no image on wikipedia of that. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the image of a Pict, not bad but although it is incorporated into the Pict article I'm a bit dubious that a 16th century Low countries representation may be a bit fantastic; an equivalent of a modern shortbread tin highlander. I'm not sure. Perhaps if we can get a shot of Salmond in a similar mode of attire that would be the best solution all round. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it has been a couple of days, i have looked through the image files on wikipedia and with the exception of that naked Pict i really can not see anything that is suitable for that section or useful to the reader. In truth i think that section needs renaming and perhaps the focus changed but that is for a much longer debate. No image there is better than an unrelated image.

In line with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images which clearly states: Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading), i am going to remove the picture again. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice there's a picture in Wikimedia Commons of Salmond, glass in hand, opening a distillery. That would cover two bases: a prominent Scot and suitable for the Culture section, more specifically the cuisine sub-section. Still haven't tracked one down of him holding a severed head and with his tackle on show though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Scottish ancestry abroad map

The map of the USA at the Scottish ancestry abroad section purports to show "Areas with greatest proportion of reported Scottish ancestry" but, unless I'm missing something, as there is no key it is unclear what exactly it is showing. Can anyone shed light? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm presuming the darker areas have more Scottish ancestry than the lighter, but as you say, there is no key. Jack forbes (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also my assumption but who knows? Does it indicate proportion, absolute numbers, er, something else? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A similar map on the English people article states that dark red and brown have a larger density of English ancestry, as you can see here. The Scottish map will be the same. Not very accurate in their figures but I guess that's all they have. Jack forbes (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no way of knowing whether the colours represent the same numbers or proportions on each of the maps in the series and if the darkest red represents 5% or 95%. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. When I said it wasn't very accurate in terms of figures, I of course meant there were no figures. :) I would also have liked to have seen some references to back the map up. Jack forbes (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is no reply, should we have the map there at all? It doesn't really tell us much and there's no refs to back anything up. Jack forbes (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For information, the map derives from this page, and on the article talk page the map designer, User:Stevey7788, says "These maps are self-generated by me at the U.S. Census Bureau's American Factfinder site ([7])." So, it appears that, although they are self-generated, a reliable source does exist for the info they contain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but there is no key to indicate what is represented on the map and an indication that data have been sourced at a particular site is not sufficient as a ref without a more precise indication as to the exact data in question and how they have been represented. They may well be there but I couldn't find them on a cursory search. It's a shame because it's potentially interesting and enlightening but currently questionable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete the map and find a new one with a key ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoBrit (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As we're unsure exactly what the current one represents, because of the lack of a key, we don't know what we're trying to replace. If you do know of a suitable map which is pertinent to the section, whether in regard to Scottish Americans or not, by all means add it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it is possible to locate a key to the existing map via the US Factfinder site, but it's not that obvious to do, and it may be that we should call on Stevey 7788, or (better?) leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps asking for help and advice. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No reply on the matter of a key for the map. It isn't clear what it reperesents so I'll remove it unless and until that essential information becomes apparent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've now raised the same question at Talk:Maps of American ancestries and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. I suggest you hold off for a few days to see if a response comes from there. User:Stevey7788 doesn't seem to respond much to questions on his talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Here from WikiProject Maps, I'm not sure why he didn't copy it over but the map on the Census website does have a legend, the categories are: 0-.9%, 1-1.7%, 1.8-2.7%, 2.8-4.2%, and 4.3-9.1% [8] Kmusser (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Whos who

Happy to be told I am wrong, but by understanding of these pages is that they deal with people of descent from the nation concerned. Hence my restoring the old text. --Snowded ^TALK 11:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the text you restored. "...with a large Scottish presence particularly in Canada, which has the second highest population of Scots, after the United States, (Scotland itself is in third place).. Are there any references that state that Canada has the largest population of Scots? They are of Scots descent, not Scots. 86.181.188.234 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Different argument - I just spotted a change which was differentiating between people in and those outside of Scotland. If there is an unsupported claim then fact tag it. --Snowded ^TALK 12:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Different argument? I'm arguing over the sentence which doesn't make any sense. Who would have thought it. Differentiating between those of Scots ancestry and Scots. Have a look at the section header further down. Jack 1314 (talk) 12:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well checking there is citation support later in the article, and the lede is meant to summarise that --Snowded ^TALK 12:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with jack. There is a difference between being of Scottish ancestry and being Scottish or (a Scot) and that should be made clear. This is something that applies to all these people articles, which i often think seem to try and "claim ownership" over as many people as possible in the world. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well lets see what other editors say - it has implications for several articles. --Snowded ^TALK 12:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

here is the map that was previously on this article which was removed to the lack of a key and refs (though I notice from the thread above that there is a key and refs). Note that it says Americans of Scots ancestry. Jack 1314 (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is the source of the map.--Pondle (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. That's the one Pondle. It states that it is the percentage of people with Scots ancestry. I think this should be reflected in the text of the article. Jack 1314 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hung up on this one, but we need to clarify the meaning over a range of articles with these general titles. So lets just let a few more people comment--Snowded ^TALK 12:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on! Did BW just agree with me there? What's going on. Your turning my world upside down here. Don't know if I can cope with this.  ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its more that he is disagreeing with me, but it should worry you. --Snowded ^TALK 13:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just calling it the way I see it, Snowded. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to say there are 50 million or so Scots throughout the world. It just isn't the case though. Jack 1314 (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

lol, that was just a bonus :). But i also do agree with you about the need to clarify the meaning over many of these people articles. There should be a clear distinction between present day people and those with ancestry, this probably isnt isolated to this one article BritishWatcher (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Scottish ancestry section still belongs here of course. Obviously there are Scots living abroad though I doubt there are any sources for the numbers. Another problem is that there are no sourced numbers for those who are descended from Scottish ex-patriots and who self identify as Scottish. ( or are there!) Jack 1314 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Pondle, you have a better feel for convention than I do - what is the norm on these type of articles? --Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not Pondle I'm afraid, but I take the view that these articles primarily cover those descended from the inhabitants of an area, wherever they live, which some would describe as an ethnic group. Detailed discussion of the current population of the area is in "Demography of Scotland". However, this usually requires some explanation in the lede, as the term "Scottish people" in common use can also have the meaning of "all people currently living in Scotland, regardless of their ethnicity or cultural background". By the way, I think Jack means "expatriates". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Ghmyrtle. We wouldn't want to restrict the numbers to those who were only descended from patriotic Scots. :) Jack 1314 (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ghmyrtle - that was my understanding too hence the revert. --Snowded ^TALK 13:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I may have this wrong, but I think Ghmyrtle is saying that there should be some explanation in the lede. I take that to mean it should be explained that they are of Scottish ancestry, which the text explained before you reverted. If I'm wrong I'm sure Ghmyrtle will tell me soon enough. Jack 1314 (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful when talking about long-established ethnic populations abroad as opposed to expatriates. The US census (not sure about others) allows respondents to tick multiple ancestries, so someone counted here as a 'Scottish person' could also be, say, a Norwegian-American... by the 1950s intermarriage between white ethnicities in the US was the dominant trend. Ethnic ancestral identity has become very tenuous and symbolic for most US whites - a sign of this is how responses to the census question on ancestry have become so unstable). Anyway, this is a long-winded way of me saying that I think we need further explanation in the lead.--Pondle (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How would you further explain it Pondle? I feel it should be explained that they are of Scottish ancestry (rather than just stating that they are Scottish). What do you feel would work? Jack 1314 (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I would favour that and doing the same on every other ethnicity article as well. Things are horribly mixed up at present with X-landish expatriates and people of (often partial) X-landish ancestry all counted together as lumpen, undifferentiated masses.--Pondle (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait until tomorrow before changing anything. Jack 1314 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pondle - what is needed is clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

UK

A note about Great Britain, the United Kingdom, and Britishness, even if just a sentence, wouldn't do any harm. I looks like the whole issue is hidden!... which I'm sure it's not been. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

These people articles aren't worth the effort! They're just dumping grounds for trash. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be something in there about Britishness after all we are in Great Britain! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoBrit (talk • contribs) 20:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Now,I'm new to wiki,but it seems there are people out there with only one agenda,and that's to distrupt any article on Scotland.Surely we can describe the Scots withought constantly referring to Britishness and the united kingdom?--Jack forbes (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the Article claims that the Scottish Jacobites had some link with Catholicism. This is true of English Jacobites, but the Scots were mainly Presbyterian by 1715, including the Highlanders. Jacobitism was about access to power and economics, not religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.225.86 (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Majority Of Scots consider to call themselves "Scottish"

I think that this needs to change additionally we need to come up with something that shows a fair amount of Scots consider to be "British" and Scottish. There is also a poll in the edit section from the 90's to back the sentence up, I think we can all agree that we cannot take a poll from 90's to back up that sentence that is already there. In my view there is no need for a sentence like that because there is not enough confirmation to say that for the "Majority" of scots.ScoBrit (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If our most recent reference says that the majority of Scots call themselves Scots then that's what will be in the article. Jack forbes (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the first comment above since both the references (from 1997/8 and 2005/6) clearly do "come up with something that shows a fair amount of Scots consider to be "British" and Scottish", while clearly confirming that the majority...consider themselves Scottish. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your comments, As I say I am a new member and just trying to help out across Wikipedia. I came across this page and seen that it said "Today, Scotland has a population of just over five million people, the majority of whom consider themselves Scottish". I do not have a problem, that the polls in the 90's and in 05/06 say that most Scot's consider to be Scottish, My problem is the fact that the sentence makes out that we the (scots) just consider ourselves as "Scottish" when we do not. Like you say Matt "fair amount of Scots consider to be "British" and Scottish. So why cant we expand more on that sentence ? It's right to have as much information as possible on the subject and I do not see what harm it would cause.ScoBrit (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about citizenship, it's about Scottish people. Things pertaining to Scotland and being Scottish is what is relevant, not what they believe their citizenship to be. Jack forbes (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Being British has everything to do with also being Scottish, It is ridiculous for you to act like being "British" has nothing to do with "Scottish People". It has everything to do with the culture of Scotland and in our History. Not to add that a "Fair" amount of Scots like to be called "British" just as much as Scottish. You are not a fair editor and in my view you do not make much sense at all. You cannot come on this article and pretend that being British is nothing to do with the "Scottish People" Article, You also cant come on here and edit articles portraying like Scotland was never in the United Kingdom. ScoBrit (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If Jack forbes ever portrayed Scotland as not being in the United Kingdom I'd be the first to step in. I sincerely doubt that that's ever happened, however.

The sentence in question discusses Scotland's 5 million population and how most of them consider themselves Scottish. As part of that population who does not consider myself Scottish (I'm a New Zealander) I have no problem with that sentence: it's accurate.

The wider issue is: should the article also discuss how many Scottish people consider themselves British? To which I'd ask: why is that relevant at an article about a people? I can see it being relevant at other articles, but not necessarily this one - which covers a people who existed long before the Kingdom of Great Britain, and who exist in a diaspora across the globe. Why do you feel it's relevant here?

TFOWR 14:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes the sentence says that the "Majority" say that they call themselves "Scottish". If you look on the edit page it comes up with a link and then a poll from the 90's. For one reason to have a poll from the 90's making a stand for that sentence is beyond a joke, there has been recent poll out that show a clear amount of Scots that call themselves British just as much as Scottish, The fact is that sentence makes out that we call ourselves just Scottish when in matter of fact a fair amount of Scots are just as British as Scottish. Why is it relevant you ask ? When we have atleast 30-35% Scots saying they are British then why is it not relevant to say that a "Fair" amount of Scots are Scottish just as much as British ?ScoBrit (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Remember, there's also a source from 2006. And the sentence doesn't say you "just" call yourselves Scottish - it simply says that you do call yourselves Scottish. Honestly, I think you're reading too much into all this: Britishness is dealt with at the article on Britishness. TFOWR 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. If you ever hear me say that Scotland is not one of the countries of the United Kingdom then you have my permission to slap me with a trout. I can only repeat what TFOWR said. This is about Scottish people and their relationship to being Scottish. Jack forbes (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying the article does just say that we "just" call ourselves "Scottish" but I am saying a fair amount of Scots call themselves Scottish and "British". We need to highlight that there is a high amount of Scots that say they are Scottish and British. If any of you have took time to see any polls you will see a high percentage of Scots say they are just as Scottish as "British". I do not want people who read this article to some how thinks the people of Scotland are all against being "British". If it says "Majority" then we will have to expand more into it, rather than having one sentence explaining that the majority says they are just "Scottish" when in fact like I said before there is a high percent that says they are both Scottish and British.ScoBrit (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I took the time to direct you towards the 2006 poll. You can bet I took the time to read them.

This article is about "Scottish people" - an ethnic group. Scottish people exist outwith Scotland and the UK. Scottish people existed long before Britain existed as a state. How members of this ethnic group identify in terms of national identity is indeed interesting, but it is no more relevant here than how members of this ethnic group identify politically, or what members of this ethnic group think about economics. I repeat: this is not about "Scottish", "Scottish national identity" or "Scottish nationalism". It is about a group of people.

I am doing my best to assume the best, but this is beginning to get repetitive. TFOWR 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are saying that this article is just about Scotland and the Scottish people then why does this article bring up that most of Scots feel that they are more Scottish than British ? That is what the Hidden link says in the edit section. I for one do not think polls are an accurate source of information and we should use a census that has accurate information. If this page was for Scotland then I do not know why it brings up "British" politics. Also Scotland has shaped modern-day Britain, I do not think you should say for a second that when talking about Scotland it should just be about none other than "Scotland". Scotland has done so much for the United Kingdom, Scottish Culture shows that and just some of the intelligent people from Scotland have helped shape not only Britain but the world, No matter what you say you cannot just say that this page will be purely about "Scotland". ScoBrit (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is not about Scotland: we have an article about Scotland already. The article does not say "most of Scots feel that they are more Scottish than British". It says "Today, Scotland has a population of just over five million people,[27] the majority of whom consider themselves Scottish". It doesn't bring in any politics. There are numerous other articles that go into detail about precisely the issues you describe: you can find some of them here. Again: this article is about an ethnic group. It is not about politics. TFOWR 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The text in the main body of the article provides a/the major finding of the cited and reputable study of polls and the cited and reputable government survey. The expanded detail accompanying the refs appears to provide all the data that ScoBrit claims are missing, regarding statistics on all the various responses given about national identity, including the "fair amount of Scots (who) call themselves Scottish and "British"". That an individual editor casts doubt on data gathered by reputable polling organisations is neither here nor there, unless reliable evidence of this can be cited. Otherwise this assertion is original research. What's more, a census is just another poll, no more or less reputable than the cited ones. If there are census data regarding these very same matters, they would of course be pertinent, in addition to but not in place of those already cited.

"Scotland (having) done so much for the United Kingdom" etc. is simply not being addressed let alone called into question by the bald statement of data on perceptions of national identity. Unrelated conspiracies seem to be being sought where there are none. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

“What's more, a census is just another poll, no more or less reputable than the cited one”

I am sorry but the two things do not even compare. Whilst a poll may be by a valid source which helps show trends in peoples opinion it can never be put on the same level as a legal census that every single household is Scotland is duty bound to respond to. The 2001 census had data on the number of people who stated they were Scottish. As this is not about “how people feel”, and rather just an attempt to highlight the fact more Scottish people live in the rest of the world than Scotland today there is no reason why an opinion poll on how people feel is needed. The Census data should be used there, especially as it goes on to use census data from the United States and then Canada.

On the wider point of if this article should mention something about people also being British, it most certainly should. I do not think it is appropriate for that section which should be about those with Scottish roots around the world. But it is most certainly the case this article should highlight the fact that Scottish identity in Scotland has continued despite Scotland now being part of the United Kingdom and people there being British citizens. It should point out that Scottish culture has helped form the larger British identity and the fact British identity or England has had an impact on Scottish culture. The article does partly go into this with the "Anglicisation” section but it only briefly touches on it and then simply states a long list of names.

Also the introduction does mention the fact that there are Scottish communities in many countries, and it states the British Empire as one of the many factors that has caused this, which is certainly the case. Yet for some reason I can not see that covered in more detail in the article itself in the ancestry abroad section.

The paragraph on the fact Scottish people have emigrated to other parts of the United Kingdom is useful but again that could possibly be expanded to point out the fact that many within the United Kingdom now have mixed roots and are able to identify as British which brings together the English, Scottish, Welsh and in some cases Irish. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It says the "Majority" of Scots call themselves "Scottish". Remember they are taking this information from a poll that is hidden when you go to edit the sentence, anyone who has not seen it and would like to then go have a look now, They are not highlighting in that sentence that people call themselves Scottish and British. The poll says that the majority just call themselves "Scottish" and they have used that in the sentence. Does this mean that the people that call themselves British and Scottish do not come under the "majority" of just being called "Scottish" ? That is my reason for the sentence to be changed. People who consider to be British and Scottish are just as Scottish as the Majority who just call themselves "Scottish". ScoBrit (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the hidden text that is being referred to (is it so hidden that I maybe haven't seen it)? Please clarify. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

HIDDEN TEXT """"During 1997-1998 two polls were undertaken. During the first when asked about their national identity 59 percent of the people polled stated they were Scottish or more Scottish than British, 30 percent stated they were equally Scottish and British, while 10 percent stated they were British or more British than Scottish. In the second poll 59 percent of the people polled stated they were Scottish or more Scottish than British, 26 percent stated they were equally Scottish and British, while 12 percent stated they were British or more British than Scottish.""""ScoBrit (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not hidden text, it's part of the earlier of the two references (the 1998 one). The second reference (the 2006 one) has similar text: When asked what ethnic group they belonged over five surveys, in the 2005/2006 period, people reporting that they were Scottish rose from 75 percent to 84 percent, while those reporting that they were British dropped from 39 percent to 22 percent. "a number of respondents selected more than one option, usually both Scottish and British, hence percentages adding to more than 100% ... This indicates a continued erosion of perceived Britishness among respondents..." So... most people living in Scotland consider themselves Scottish. Editorialising about whether that figure is increasing, or drawing in commentary about Britishness is still not appropriate for an article about an ethnic group. Again: this is not about Scotland. It is not about Britain, nor about British nation identity. Articles already exist for these topics. TFOWR 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why that sentence requires two sources which are basically just polls on peoples attitudes towards being British / Scottish by the looks of it. Surely it makes more sense to use census data to say there are ****** Scottish people in Scotland. Then it goes on to talk about there being more scottish people around the world. Surely a document completed by every household in Scotland is more reliable than a poll? and is more fitting with that section as it talks about the census in USA and Canada? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the second poll was undertaken for the Scottish Government, and is more recent than the (2001) census. However, since the two current sources straddle the census I'd be just as happy with census data. TFOWR 13:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

...though I suspect we'll end up at the same point - most people living in Scotland consider themselves Scottish. I seem to be one of the few who don't ;-) TFOWR 13:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, looking back on the situation it looks like I may have misinterpret what was attempting to be originally said in the article that has resulted in the above discussion. The previous reference consulted the ‘Analysis of Ethnicity in the 2001 Census - Summary Report’ in which it stated, and was used in the ref: “One choice, only, was permitted from among the supplied responses and it should be noted that the numbers do not accurately reflect ethnic origin since "White Scottish" may mean anyone who is merely "White" and considers themselves Scottish.”.

One must apologise if I have cocked this up although my view did seem supported from the discussion that did take place (see further up the page). Perhaps some rewording of the article i.e. “… consider themselves to be part of the Scottish ethnic group” (or whatever) and using the old ref which did show that. The official and unofficial polls would therefore be exclusively for a debate on the whole British thing – if that is required.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)