Talk:Scottish people/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Norse came to Scotland from Norway, Denmark and IRELAND ??

This statement is slightly ridiculous is it not ? Barely any Norseman even came to Scotland from Denmark, the vast majority of them (if not all) came from Norway. I've also never heard of any of the Norse settlers in Ireland moving from there to Scotland. And even if they did it's not as if they actually came from there orginally is it. When it's a generation or two (if it even was that if it even happened) between movements and there's been little cultural pollution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.249 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

James Maxwell

I can't believe that the picture in the box does not include James Maxwell. He is a far more important scientist than Alexander Bell or James Watt or even Fleming. As his entry says, he is only surpassed by Newton and Einstein. You guys should totally include him. Gpetrov (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't please everyone, but Gptrov is so right for this. Beyond right. Maxwell is far and away the most important Scott ever to live. On a world scale no one would argue with his position at number three in the pantheon of great scientists. Maxwell equations explained: electromagnetic forces between electric charges and currents; the behavior of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, microwaves, radio waves, visible, ultraviolet, infrared light; and electrical circuits which are an interconnection of electrical elements such as resistors, inductors, capacitors, transmission lines, voltage sources, current sources and switches, all with in a closed conducting loop.

The omission of Andrew Carnegie is deeply puzzling, particularly when Debra Kerr is included. She also spent most of her making movies in the United States. Her world wide importance is miniscule compared to Carnegie. Carnegie was responsible for creating the greatest industrial organization in the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century. His steel built the American industrial infrastructure.

Nick Beeson (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge Scotch into this one

The article Scotch (adjective) at this time is just a collection of anecdotes and etymological details about the term scotch. Having it as a separate article essentially violates WP:NAD. This information can easily be covered in this article.

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.1 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a disambiguation page, of which there are thousands in Wikipedia (and almost all the terms at Scotch have no direct relevance whatsoever to this article, the remainder only distantly so). Mutt Lunker (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse the typo. It is now corrected above.

--MC

It would have been better if you had just written a new sentence clarifying the matter rather than changing the discussion history, so for the sake of clarifying matters to someone new to the discussion, the proposal has been altered from a merger of Scotch to that of Scotch (adjective) into this one.

So merging an article about an adjective applied to numerous things and one about a people? Why on earth would this be a good idea? 07:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your question, in and of itself, demonstrates a violation of WP:NAD. If the Scotch (adjective) article really is just defining the term scotch then it does not belong in Wikpedia. As it stands it is not really an article and has no clear topic that is distinct from this one (nor is it really clear what that other topic would be based on the title).

As a general principle, it is bad practice to try to create new articles based soley on individual words. --MC

What a bizarre line of argument. My question has nothing to do with WP:NAD. I am not even passing comment on the content or quality of the Scotch (adjective) article (at the least it has room for improvement), appropriateness of its existence or any such thing. My point is that these two articles are on two entirely different subjects so a merger of them would be inappropriate and misleading, not to say daft. Yes, the two items are related to Scotland but no more so than scores of other articles.

If you, as you seem to, have issues with the content or existence with "Scotch (adjective)" article, focus on that and address it on the talk page there but the issue is not going to be solved by a redirect to an article on an entirely different topic. An article title should only be a redirect to another subject if it is clearly the primary target for a search for the former term. Someone searching for "Scotch (adjective)" or even just "Scotch" is making an oblique choice if they are looking for the article specifically on the Scottish people and a search on such vague grounds (if it was a wide search for anything Scottish) is as likely to be for Scottish cuisine, diaspora, egg, history, parliament, whisky etc.. If you happen to use the term "the Scotch" to refer to "the Scottish people" and for no other, or rarely for another, purpose, that's fine but far from conventional. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

New pictures

Am largely appreciative of the selection in the new gallery of Scots but, sucker for a riff though I am, is a 20% representation in the gallery by members of AC DC maybe a bit excessive? Do we have any nice shots containing all three perhaps, freeing up a couple of places for others? Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not an Ethnic Group

White Scottish is not an ethnic group, Scots don't have their own ethnicity. The word should be removed from the WikiArticle. The ethnic group of Scots is White British, not White Scottish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnxsmith (talk • contribs) 09:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "White Scottish" is not used in the article. Neither is skin colour a defining factor in ethnicity. "Ethnicity or ethnic group is a socially defined category based on common culture or nationality." Are you getting confused with categories listed in equality monitoring forms? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A difficult matter to pin down. The Wiki page on Ethnicity outlines the problems of definition. I particularly noted the following quote. Cassandra

"Ethnicity ... can be narrowed or broadened in boundary terms in relation to the specific needs of political mobilization.[32] This may be why descent is sometimes a marker of ethnicity, and sometimes not: which diacritic of ethnicity is salient depends on whether people are scaling ethnic boundaries up or down, and whether they are scaling them up or down depends generally on the political situation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.9.34 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic not Scots Gaelic

The proper term for the Gaelic language of Scotland is "Scottish Gaelic" not "Scots Gaelic". Scots on the other hand, is an language closely related to English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.219.31.221 (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Not so. Scots also being a synonym for Scottish, Scots Gaelic is a perfectly valid alternative, e.g. here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence "the Inglis-speaking, later to be called, Scots-speaking, and later still, English-speaking "Lowlanders". " seesm to mix its spellings up.

'Inglis' is an archaic spelling but 'Scots' is modern. So if one uses 'Inglis' one should use 'Scottis' as the equivalent archaic spelling.

However, since 'Inglis' is nothing more than an old way of spelling 'English', I wouldn't use 'Inglis' except when it is being used as a quote from an historic document. Cassandra

Scots Gaelic is perfectly correct usage. The adjective Scots or Scottish and their cognates referred to Gaeldom for a thousand years before Inglis.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 February 2014

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Everyday sexism and errors

Obviously Scottish people are all male, judging by the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacRusgail (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 February 2014

Mary, Queen of Scots was a man.. ?! But, yes, it's a serious point that should be addressed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Mary's secret is finally out. The problem is that most famous Scotswomen are not as famous the Scotsmen. Candidates might include Flora MacDonald, Annie Lennox, Lulu, Elsie Inglis and Mary Somerville. Oh I forgot St Margaret of Scotland.--SabreBD (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

There are dozens of famous Scottish women. (Besides the curiously overrated Mary) No excuses folks! --MacRùsgail (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we take out three men and substitute St Margaret, Elsie Inglis and Annie Lennox. The more difficult question is which three we remov. It does look a bit oversupplied with football figures and actors: what about Denis Law, James McAvoy and Kenny Dalglish? Any variations suggested are welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I'm pretty sure Peter Higgs is English, not Scottish. There seems to be a bit of confusion with his nationality as a number of news broadcasts have referred to him as Scottish. What say you fellow Wikipediers?

I tried to remedy this by replacing Kenny Dalglish with Laura Kuenssberg but somebody (a militant Liverpool fan with the typical juvenile, self-obsessed persecution complex maybe?) insisted on reverting it and I'm not getting into a fight. But for the record, I definitely think we need to acknowledge the fact that some Scottish people are actually female and some Scottish people aren't old footballers. Call me 'the loony left' (it's happened many times before) but I think Scotland is a pluralistic society that isn't merely composed of ageing male footballers and we should represent that. Oystercatcher and Satyr (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It was a bot, which for some reason mistook something about your edit as being vandalous. Bots sometimes get it wrong but it may be have been imposing stricter criteria on you down to do your first three edits, earlier the same day, all being clearly vandalous. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

A better way to sort this would be to discuss candidates for inclusion here first and achieve consensus. It's tricky to achieve balance with things like this, particularly when women were historically barred or discouraged from the public eye and from most professions that would lead to fame.

I propose we have a list that includes maybe six leading figures (both genders) each from a number of fields... perhaps: science; philosophy & theology; business; politics & economics; entertainment; literature; and sport.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact let's try this... feel free to edit below Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC):

Science

• Mary Somerville
• Anne Glover (biologist)

Philosophy & theology

• suggestions

Business

• suggestions

Politics & economics

• suggestions

Entertainment

• Kelly Macdonald

Literature

• J.K. Rowling
• Carol Ann Duffy
• Muriel Spark

Sport

• Liz McColgan

Others

• Mary Slessor

No takers? List of Scots would be a good place to compile from. The categories there would also be useful. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw the infobox and realised they're all male; they're thousands of famous Scottish women with their own wiki articles, can't we include some of them? IJA (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a quick list I've composed of famous Scottish Women (from all walks of life and time periods) with pictures on their wiki articles which we could perhaps use (depending on licensing) on the infobox: Rose Leslie, Catherine Cranston, Nicola Sturgeon, Susan Boyle, Victoria Drummond, Mairi Chisholm, Ailsa McKay, Elsie Inglis, Flora MacDonald, Mary, Queen of Scots, Gail Porter, Isla Fisher ect. IJA (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this dropped of my radar for a bit and needs a bit of resuscitating. I have just replaced the deleted image of John Logie Baird with St. Margaret as a stopgap. On the suggestions above, lets not get distracted by recentism. The only figures with a lasting achievement or fame above are Flora MacDonald, Victoria Drummond, Mairi Chisholm, Elsie Inglis. Of the others mentioned there does not seem to be a free image of Liz McColgan, or I would push for that one to balance up all the footballers. Mary Somerville and Anne Glover (biologist) should be in the running. If we are going to do musicians then not Susan Boyle, but Lulu and Annie Lennox are much better candidates.--SabreBD (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just added a few to the list of suggestions above, off the top of my head - I think Carol Ann Duffy definitely deserves to be in there as the first female (and the first Scottish!) poet laureate. Kelly MacDonald seems quite notable too, she was in extremely well-known Scottish films Trainspotting and Brave among others. Alice (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Video clip on the origins of the British, including the Scots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEL7nCM5itg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFQiuGvxMd0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Crowds in the infobox

The number of people in the infobox is very large by now. I've noticed other ethnic group articles with just under 30, but even that seems fairly excessive. Please try to keep it at least under 20. Or remove the links altogether. Cramming infoboxes with famous examples of whatever is not appropriate or manageable in the long run.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Quite. Thirty images is way too many - 36 is getting preposterous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Just so. They don't serve the reader well at all and are nothing but a battleground for editors. We'd do well to remove them completely. There are clear summaries of the case for complete removal at Talk:Americans/Archive 3#Getting rid of the infobox mosaic for good, Talk:Americans/Archive 3#Infobox images and Talk:British people#Infobox images?. I've taken the liberty of fixing a typo in this section's heading - at least, I think it was a typo. NebY (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd support removing the images. They are a magnet for edit warring, on this and other articles, and really don't add anything of substantive encyclopedic value. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am also moving to the view that the only way to keep this stable is to remove the images.--SabreBD (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It would solve the stability issue, that's for sure. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"By invitation? Not really.

"This Davidian Revolution as many historians call it, brought a European style of Feudalism to Scotland along with an influx of people of Norman descent - unlike England where it was by conquest; by invitation."

I've seen this statement about the Normans merely being 'invited' into Scotland on several occasions. But the Wiki pages about King David and other material about his reign paint a very different picture. David, brought up in the Norman court, was clearly parachuted onto the throne as a figurehead king backed by an invading Norman army. The Scots didn't want him, still less the Normans at his back. Indeed the Normans had to fight to put him on the throne. The only person who 'invited' the Normans in was David - and one may reasonably infer that he didn't have much choice in the matter. Due however to the unexpected events of the later Norman civil war between Stephen and Matilda David seems to have more or less accidentally ended up with an independent kingdom in the north. I'd delete the words "unlike England where it was by conquest; by invitation." Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.188.53 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. TravisRade (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not an RfC and it doesn't follow the RfC process. It's just a collection of opinions and has no authority. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was opened correctly. please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. Dkfldlksdjaskd (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Scottish people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911232223/http://www.bord-na-gaidhlig.org.uk/about-gaelic/history.html to http://www.bord-na-gaidhlig.org.uk/about-gaelic/history.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060925185845/http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/library/geninfo/surnames.html to http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/library/geninfo/surnames.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Images

Following some discussion of this article in the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Proposed repeal of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES, I thought it a good idea to start a discussion here on the images used to illustrate the article. All of the individuals we have images of are male, and the first image that a reader sees is of John Wayne, who wouldn't be the person who first came to mind when I thought of Scottish people. Do editors have suggestions for who should be included amongst the article's images? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

To get us started, how about adding Carol Ann Duffy, who is the first Scottish Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom, or current Makar Jackie Kay? Annie Lennox or Sharleen Spiteri could be included, as well-known musicians. How about Nicola Sturgeon? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Since nobody objected, I have added images of Duffy and Kay. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Tobby72, can I ask what your rationale was for removing the only images of women from the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• It appears that he replaced them with more sensible choices. For example, Carol Ann Duffy is not very Scottish, having spent most of her life in England from an early age. Robert Burns, on the other hand, is commonly regarded as Scotland's national poet and is celebrated as a symbol of Scotland on Burns Night across the world. And, of course, it is ludicrous that the first image in the article is still John Wayne. The collages, which included several women, should be restored. Andrew D. (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Not living in Scotland doesn't seem to have been a barrier for Patrick Gordon, who was added in the same edit. There is a consensus against the use of galleries, as demonstrated most recently at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Proposed repeal of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. There also appears to be a consensus for the removal of the image of John Wayne. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree that this argument "pick representative A instead of representative B" sounds exactly like what WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES was intended to prevent, which is presumably what triggered the removal of the collages. --GRuban (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the lack of women goes against the advice at MOS:PERTINENCE to "strive for variety". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the NOETHNICGALLERIES argument itself is stupid. Yes, representatives should at least reflect the range of ethnicity. I see at the moment we have very few images at all. Montanabw^(talk) 23:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to think that it's stupid: that's your personal POV. You are not welcome to rail against community consensus on the matter because that's simply WP:REHASH in order to get your way. Could we please drop the stick? There isn't going to be a multiple choice option, and littering the article with multiple notables isn't going to assist readers in understanding what being Scottish means: it just means using the body of the article as a surrogate gallery. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Iryna Harpy. Do you have a view on Duffy and Kay, or are you arguing that there shouldn't be "multiple notables" spread through the article at all? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: No, that's certainly not what I wanted to imply. My apologies for not making this clear. I have no objections to the use of notable individuals in a corresponding section (as you noted earlier, per PERTINENCE), and this can certainly include multiple images (so long as it doesn't act as a surrogate gallery with an exhaustive number of notables). I'm also of the opinion that PERTINENCE suggests that a balance of representatives is essential.

Firstly, notable women are, by and large, a recent phenomenon in essentially patriarchal societies, therefore are under-represented in the majority of 'ethnic group' articles. Secondly, as we work on a premise of editorial discretion, the use of obvious representatives does not enhance the reader's understanding of 'ethnicity' which is far more complex than a DNA reading of the concept of self-identification. We are not creating an encyclopaedic resource bogged down in 19th century concepts of ethnicity. For me, this means that the inclusion of the obvious only is counterproductive, and why we have lists for the 'see also' section. I consider the inclusion of Jackie Kay and Carol Ann Duffy in the culture section to be desirable and edifying. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Iryna Harpy. Since Tobby72 has not responded, I propose that we reinstate the images of Kay and Duffy. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew Davidson. Robert Burns is widely regarded as Scotland's national poet and Walter Scott is one of Scotland's greatest novelists. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that I'm not proposing to remove them, Tobby72. I'm simply proposing that we keep the women you replaced them with. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with your proposal. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, one problem turned out to be fitting them all in, but Iryna seems to be doing a good job of reorganising things. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Many of the images are adequately clear without cluttering the page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wallace family Norman? No.

Nor sure about every one of the other 'Norman' family names quoted, but I'm quite sure that the name 'Wallace' wasn't Norman in origin. In fact it is a variant of 'Welsh' presumably a reference to the inhabitants of SW Scotland (prev northern Cumbria)being of Old British i.e. Welsh, stock. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Clan_Wallace#Origins_of_the_clan Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

unable to source this, removed

" Later the Norse arrived in the north and west in quite significant numbers, recently discovered to have left about thirty percent of men in the Outer Hebrides with a distinct, Norse marker in their DNA. I do, to be clear, see authoritative-looking sources for Norse ancestry, but not for the 30% nor the West Hebrides. I don't care if it stays deleted or gets sourced but since 2014 is long enough for an unanswered citation needed tag to hang out. Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

scotch is a whiskey - removed text

Let's start there:

The number of Americans of Scottish descent today is estimated to be 20 to 25 million (up to 8.3% of the total US population), and Scotch-Irish, 27 to 30 million (up to 10% of the total US population), the subgroups overlapping and not always distinguishable because of their shared ancestral surnames. The majority of Scotch-Irish originally came from Lowland Scotland and Northern England before migrating to the province of Ulster in Ireland (see Plantation of Ulster) and thence, beginning about five generations later, to North America in large numbers during the eighteenth century.

• Also where are these Scotch-Irish numbers coming from, because this is not a census choice I don't think? Unless it's a write-in? Your source again does not provide a page number. This may be true but you haven't really cited it
• Next, can we re-write the last sentence to avoid seeming to say that all Ayrshire and other lowland emigration was funneled throgh Belfast. Thanks so much 20:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ireland is not in the United Kingdom and they are pretty firm about that

Also, Ulster is not in Ireland. You're thinking about Northern Ireland, also known as Belfast. Similarly, though, Northern Ireland is also not in Ireland; ; that is its whole point. So this is why I removed the sentence in the article that said there were many Scottish people in other parts of the UK such as Ireland, especially Belfast. There are some historical technicalities about the borders of Ulster but as far as present-day governance is concerned, ya, there are different countries there, and some of the do or don't belong with the others. The Republic of Ireland found for more than 300 years to not be part of Great Britain, no?. I was also rather concerned by a statement that said almost everyone living in Scotland is a British citizen. Scottish citizens are British citizens, devolution or not, afaik, but there might be som exceptions I don't know about, but I think this sentence may be talking about immigration as in, presumably, counting everyone not born in Scotland (?) Totally unclear apart from the jusrisdiction errors mentioned earlier. Really should have a source no matter what. I am more inclined to expect Irish immigration to Scotland especially given the potato famine. Elinruby (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It is confusing, isn't it? I'd recommend you to read Terminology of the British Isles as this should clarify a few things for you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Some of what you write is correct, Elinruby, but the historical province of Ulster spans Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland isn't also known as Belfast - Belfast is a city in Northern Ireland. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

right. this would be the historical technicality with the borders of Ulster than I mentioned. But how does one get from there to "other places in the United Kingdom such as as Ireland", mmm? I don't think I am the one who is confused. But let's see. How is Ireland part of Britain? Explain this to me. It's *northern Ireland* surely, facepalm. Elinruby (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"other parts of the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland" not "such as as Ireland". Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Dude, read your sentence. Try "other parts of the United Kingdom such as Belfast, and also in Ireland." For example. Maybe. Once you provide a reference for this somewhat startling statement. Even the above sorted out it's still unsourced and probably wrong, imho. The migration was in the other direction afaik, but I'll refrain from rudely reverting you since you're answering here even if hasn't yet occurred to you that you might be wrong ;) I *will* if you don't source that, toute suite, though Elinruby (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to comprehend as to what you find startling about this pretty straightforward sentence or, in the main, what you are talking about overall. You do not seem well-versed on this subject so please do not edit in regard to it. And do not "dude" me, it just adds to the foolishness you are displaying.

You falsely claimed that the contended section had said "other places in the United Kingdom such as as Ireland" when it had in fact said in full "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.". So large numbers of Scottish people reside in other parts of the United Kingdom; large numbers of Scottish people reside in the Republic of Ireland. This is particularly so in Ulster, part of which is in the Republic, part in the UK. Not startling. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, having reviewed your behavior on several topic-related pages. You are not a dude; you appear to be more of a Bro. Where's your source? (Trying again) Northern Ireland is not Ireland. Yes, some Scots became planter stock some centuries ago, that is true, I believe, although it wasn't well-documented last I looked. That was a while ago though so let's, yes, say that the bit about the planters could also use a source. But what I am asking you -- it's becoming almost a heroic saga -- for is a source on your assertion that there is a population of Scottish ethnicity in Ireland. And I am also trying to get you to understand that your sentence is both more readable and more correct if you put Britain with Britain and Ireland with Ireland. Your suggestion that I am ill-informed on this topic is hilarious. If you want to WP:OWN this article you are welcome to it but I want it to at least be accurate. While we are at this, please explain your lede -- how do you get Scottish people in Scotland who are not British citizens? I don't think the SNP has gotten that far yet. :) Elinruby (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I am adding a reference for your Ulster planters, and will attempt as I do to fix your grammar problems, which you seem determined not to understand.Elinruby (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

See proposed edit. It is open to discussion; the one concern *I* have is that once you delete Ireland (which is still NOT part of the United Kingdom whether you revert-war or not) then Ireland is not mentioned in the article, and there probably is *some* Scottish ancestry in the Republic. However, I am just not the one who wants to say this, so I think @Mutt Lunker: should do his own research and write that up if he wants that in. Onus is on the person who wants to add the text. Right now, the article has bigger problems imho. Elinruby (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

rm citizenship text from lede, since no reference or discussion has been forthcoming

"and the majority of people living in Scotland are British citizens." -- there is nothing in the wikilinked article about Scottish people not having British citizenship. It's a complicated question, which is why I attempted to discuss. But to my knowledge all the nuance comes in when people are getting British citizenship through a parent that were born in some other country such as Nigeria or Australia; then it matters when the person was born and how the parent was a citizen and so on. But if you are born in Scotland you are a British citizen period as far as I know, and I do not see anything indicating otherwise. The text I removed is strictly speaking true but as far as I know only in the sense that there are people who live in Scotland who are Polish or Pakistani or some other nationality. In other words, immigration exists, sure but isn't it trite and potentially misleading to have this in the lede? Why would Scottish people NOT be British citizens? And since it does not seem that they ever aren't (although there may be some edge cases involving a French child raised by grandparents or whatever...) why confuse matters in the lede by saying that almost everyone is? Yeah? Who isn't?

On a related note, one of the problems with the article is a lack of definition. What are "Scottish people"? What, especially, are "Scotch-Irish?" -- I think attempting to use census data for this group risks conflating several Irish and Scottish peoples. The fact that people identify as "English" or "French" in Canada for instance does not usually indicate recent immigrant ancestors -- it's more of a tribal identity, and other things play into it like language, religion and the Montreal Canadiens. So beware of census data unless it is defined, is what I am saying, and this is just one example from a culture I know a bit about. I am not proposing that we use a blood quantum but I am wary of an article that seems to be inventing a heritage out of whole cloth.

I am still looking for any basis for the assertion that there is a Scottish population in Ireland -- I am sure Scottish ancestry is out there, but the King James plantation was in Ulster and while I had forgotten about Cromwell's efforts along these lines, is there any evidence that the people he sent over were Scottish as opposed to English? The whole article feels like a hastily written middle-school assignment. Elinruby (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I've resolved this to my own satisfaction, but to summarize, since there has been confusion: 1) Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom and should not be in that section, so 2) I have again deleted the reference to it. 3) This had the benefit of removing the tangled antecedents I was complaining about above; that sentence makes sense now. 4) The only question in my mind now is whether there should be a subsection about the Irish of Scottish ancestry. I am willing to believe that some do exist but I have not found a reference for this and am not really interested enough to keep trying. If someone wants to write a section about this I am all for it, except it does need to be correct, and maybe have a reference even. If that's ok with everybody we're done here Elinruby (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

um hello?

this part here: "the Norse settled many regions of Scotland from the 8th century onwards. " ... settled? Wasn't this more in the flavor of multiple invasions and Viking raids and such? They did conquer part of Britain at one point but they didn't just find empty land and move in Elinruby (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"I changed "settled" to "invaded and colonized", made some other copy edits. If nobody has any problems with the changes I consider the issue I was raising resolved. Elinruby (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

how about you discuss instead of reverting

@Mutt Lunker: Is this article intended to be about the Scottish planters in Northern Ireland? Or people who have a Scottish ancestor at whatever remove? Or what exactly? There does seem to have been some use of the term "Scotch" in Ontario, which I find astonishing, since I theoretically should have encountered it there in that case, due to family. But ok, Galbraith is a pretty authoritative source, but he apparently came from right up the road from Dutton, and therefore should not be all that culturally different than the people I know. I am not certain whether this was an instance of an out-group embracing the name they are called. This is an open question in my mind. Apart from that, I don't see the term being used outside Northern Ireland, and I can assure you that the term is extremely disliked in Scotland. Your sources don't use the term, at least not in their titles. If you have some sort of source for the widespread use of Scotch then please bring it. I'll take another look at your sources but they are mostly kinda pitiful in this article.... Please substantiate your use of the term "Scotch", which is what I am objecting to. Elinruby (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank goodness Wikipedia articles aren't written based on "what you know" or what you "theoretically should have encountered". The fact is while "Scotch" is currently out of favor in Scotland itself, it historically was the adjective of choice and still is quite common outside of Scotland. For starters, see the references at Scotch-Irish Americans (specifically the "Terminology" subsection) and Scotch (adjective) (not the best article, but may have some relevant sources). As for the scope of this particular article, I believe it is fairly well-defined in the lede.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 09:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't have put it better myself. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That bit about "I would have expected to encounter it" was a side comment. I actually *added* the bit about Galbraith, which had been in a refn, since it appears to be notable, even though I personally find it surprising. What I said about the title is speculation (we are on the talk page not the article), but is currently my opinion. But I haven't researched the matter to find a source for it so I am just mentioning the book right now and leaving it at that. So ok, apart from that, if this is about all Scottish people, which the lede seems to say, (I guess that is what your snide comment is supposed to mean) then there is significant Disney-fication to be dealt with. But let's start by fixing the stunning number of dead links in the article. Also, a lot of the more sweeping generalizations are unsourced or not supported by the purported references. Article does not cover its topic, imho, and I still do not see a reference for the use of Scotch. I don't care what the wikipedia page says -- it is not a reference. Elinruby (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Could you please use less generic edit summaries. With the high volume of edits you are making, it would seem you could afford to be a bit more specific, to allow other editors to follow what you are actually doing. For example, the addition of a single, undated "citation needed" template isn't really covered by "Adding/improving reference(s)" [1]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

well it is *asking* for an improvement , but alright, if it's a problem I will try to accommodate. I did do exactly this just now, but I hadn't seen this request yet. Normally I would simply make the change but the changes keep getting reverted with little explanation. Sorry for any annoyance. Elinruby (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In fact I think I will go back over to West Africa for a bit; ping me if there's a question about something I did. Maybe look that Galbraith book up -- it doesn't seem to be available online. See you in a while Elinruby (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason Scotch is considered pejorative by modern Scots? I've asked and looked around but can't seem to find what exactly they find offensive about the term.

Doric

Is it not that Doric is another dialect of Scots which is spoken in North East region? Starting sentence of Scots subsection is a bit misleading... Mickysweetlips (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Often but far from always even these days and there wasn't really any such distinction in the past. See Doric_dialect_(Scotland)#Nomenclature and the intro of Lallans. Anecdotal I know but a friend from near Banff refers to what I speak as Doric as much as what she speaks, despite clear distinctions much of the time. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Scottish soldiers in Poland

The mentioned soldiers fought against Poland, they belonged rather to Sweden.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

ref mentions him overseeing building of some ships, not creating navy

Was there any other navy in Poland?Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic Group

The article doesn't really touch on what constitutes the people of Scotland as a distinct ethnic group. For example in the articles of most other ethnic groups (Dutch, Greeks, Germans etc.) it will touch on how they are a people united by speaking the language associated with them and to a lesser extent by some shared cultural features (although like most ethnic groups culture varies by region and is less of a binding force than language and perhaps blood).

Does anyone have any sources for what the people of Scotland consider to constitute as ethnic Scottish? Is it just being born in an area of land or what? If it is, isn't this just a regional identity or more of a civic national identity (which is a strange concept itself seeing as Scotland is currently a region of a highly centralized state) as opposed to an actual ethnic identity? It seems to be a problem afflicting the articles on 'ethnic groups' pertaining to the British Isles in general. Where groups traditionally based around the speaking of a language (be it Gaelic/Irish, Welsh/British or otherwise) are still trying to retain, or in some cases resurrect, a distinct ethnic identity without speaking that language. As opposed to what many objective outsiders might just see as a regional identity of a larger ethnic group they have been subsumed into over time.

It's a strange issue and maybe bears some mentioning on these articles. After all nobody talks about being Pictish today do they? Picts disappeared as an ethnic group when they began speaking Irish/Gaelic, even though their genetics lived on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the lead - March 2020

This edit: diff has an edsum that says see talk as to why the ref is removed. I am a little confused by the fact that an IP editor made the change here first, which JJNito197 (talk · contribs) reverted and then reapplied with the above edsum. Not sure if they are thereby claiming the IP edit or not. Yet I don't see a talk section so I created one. I usually prefer unnecessary citations in the lead to be removed, but it seems to me that this ref could be used somewhere on the page to establish that the Scottish People can be called Celtic. Also I am not sure that Celtic should be removed from the lead. Options are (1) leave it as it is (2) revert that edit (3) put something in the main instead and perhaps just put the word "Celtic" back in the lead.

I also reverted the removal of "nation" and the addition of the words "originating from Scotland" from the lead as the page is not just about an ethnic group indigenous to Scotland. Addition of "nation" was a good edit. It is about the Scottish People as a nation too. "Originating from" is not really quite right either as the page makes clear. Migration is always part of the human story. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The term "Celtic" keeps getting inserted here and usually gets weeded out fairly swiftly but it seems to have been slipped in again at some point; see Talk:Scottish_people#Celtic_Ethnicity above (FWIW, the other participant in that thread is now indefinitely blocked, in large part for trying to force the term "Germanic" at various articles). To say "celtic" is only part of the picture at best and is not particularly meaningful or helpful here for a number of reasons. "Nation" is correct and should be retained. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

...the latest addition of the term was here, on the 21st. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good thanks. In that case I appear to have reverted it to the status quo, which is good. Yes, "Celtic" is definitely not all of the story. Best to discuss it in the main rather than assert it in the lead. Thanks again. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Genetics

Would a genetics section be a welcome improvement to the article, as is fairly standard for Wikipedia articles pertaining to ethnic groups? Should I begin drafting and sourcing various studies of the genetics of the people living in Scotland. I feel like a lot of people coming to a page about Scottish people would be very curious to know the genetic history of the area and the people who inhabit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.40.71 (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Celtic Ethnicity

"The Scottish people (Scots: Scots Fowk; Scottish Gaelic: Albannaich) or Scots, are a nation and Celtic ethnic group"

In what sense are the Scottish people a Celtic ethnic group, exactly? This is a really, really strange opening line. The vast majority of Scots don't speak a Celtic language and haven't for centuries, in some areas by as much as 1500 years. So we're not linguistically or culturally Celtic. As for ethnically Celtic, what exactly is that? What is ethnically Celtic or Germanic or Slavic, exactly when these broad linguistic groups vary internally by genetics so drastically?

The only Celtic Scots would be the ones that speak Gaelic, which is around 1% of them. The remainder would obviously be Germanic. I am aware the Scottish people like to often refer to themselves as Celtic, but if they started commonly referring to themselves as a Slavic ethnic group would they be one? Of course they wouldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Slipped in in this edit. It isn't meaningful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree it's not really a huge deal, but I think we should stay away from... folk traditions? On an encyclopedia. It's fine to mention in the article for example somewhere that the Scots identify with their Celtic past, as they clearly do, and that they retain aspects and elements of this in their modern culture and identity, Austrians and Galicians do this with their Celtic past too for example, but to make a sort of objective statement like this in the opening line as if it is grounded in any kind of fact or academic classification, I just think it always sets a very bad precedent.

You know what is quite hilarious is that Austria and Galicia were denied acceptance into the Celtic League on the grounds that they were "not Celtic enough", despite Austria containing the original homeland of the Celtic peoples/languages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Celticism is an ethnolinguistic group, not a purely cultural classification as is stated on the opening area of the Celts article. Losing a language does not make you any ethnically different, with that logic Native Americans are no longer Natives as the majority cannot speak their indigenous language. Not to mention this entire article is listed under the Celtic Peoples topic, so I'd say it's fairly safe to use the term "Celtic" 86.21.244.26 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Scottish People

"In modern usage, "Scottish people" or "Scots" is used to...." - what exactly is modern usage? This "modern usage" seems to me to mean "American usage" and I'm not too sure there is anything modern about it. Should this term not be phrased to more accurately reflect what is intended by "modern usage"? In the majority of counties, including Scotland, there is no distinction between how it is used "in modern usage" vs it's usage in any other time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clydesailor (talk • contribs) 22:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Read the next sentence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"The Latin word Scoti[16] originally referred to the Gaels, but came to describe all inhabitants of Scotland." - all this does is state that it describes "all inhabitants of Scotland" - it does not deal with the incorrect term "modern usage". Are you suggesting that historically it used to mean "all inhabitants of Scotland" but now, in modern times it does not? This definition is not outdated and has not been superseded. Even today, which is inarguably modern, we use "Scottish people" or "Scots" to describe "all inhabitants of Scotland". I assume what is meant by "modern usage" is "in areas with significant Scottish diaspora". It should maybe also come after the "The Latin word Scoti" sentence so that the descriptions read somewhat chronologically. 79.71.42.169 (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The meaning seems perfectly clear to me but if swapping the two sentences rounds helps, I see no objection. The word originally referred to X but came to describe Y...in modern usage it refers to (essentially) Y+Z. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk & Opinions

There have been many new entries, edits, removals of wiki wordings by an individual in the last few days.

Factually taught history should be included that is relevant to the title (Scottish People) with factual references/ sources.

Opinion placement and name dropping, book naming should not be added (vandalism) unless it is factually proven with a reliable source.

Multiple references towards American & Canadian studies contradictory to history taught within Scottish/ British educational establishments.

Note: Many individuals who study history worldwide have "opinions", this does not make their opinion fact, and modern opinions do not invalidate factual & recorded history that has been written & accepted for 500+ years.

To avoid further vandalism & pollution with opinion-based additions, I suggest the admins/ editors seeks to protect this late from unnecessary and irrelevant edits.

All thoughts, opinions go to Talk

2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:9402:A34A:22C7:8DB4 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)CD

I also have some concerns about the recent edits and have posted at WikiProject Scotland requesting further scrutiny. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

King David - invasion not invitation

The section mentioning King David perpetuates the myth that the Normans were 'invited' into Scotland rather than that they invaded and conquered it. The Wiki pages on King David and his sponsor Henry I tell a very different and far more accurate account. David did not simply 'return from exile' but invaded at the head of a Norman army and rather than 'assume' Kingship took it by force in the face of Scots armed opposition. The ultimate consequence was that a new and now Lowland-based 'Kingdom of Scotland' became in reality Britain's second Anglo-Norman kingdom. Cassandra.

Whether it's by invasion or invitation not really relevant, but should be consistent among articles, but yes absolutely post-Davidian Revolution Scotland undeniably becomes an Anglo-Norman kingdom along more feudal, continental lines. David I occupies a vaguely similar role in the line of Scottish kings as William the Conqueror does in the line of English kings.

etymology

I study the ancient phonetics for more than 15 years... the Latin authors named the Scottish people: Scoti (in Ammianus 20-1) OR Attacotti (in Ammianus 27-8-5). The reason is the former Celtic phonem /tt/ which became later and in the Latin phonology /s/. Is it interesting ? --Ppb1 (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Misleading

This entire article is fairly misleading, is it not? The idea that the Scottish were some defined ethnic group with a language who then absorbed others isn't quite the case. The Scottish historically were exclusively Gaels, speakers of the Gaelic tongue and they conquered territories with Norse and English peoples. They managed to Gaelicize the Norse over centuries (and before this the Picts) but the English were never Gaelicized and instead ended up becoming the majority ethnic group in Scotland over centuries.

For most of its recent historical period, about the 1100s onwards, Scotland was bitterly divided around 50/50 between English Lowlanders (who had existed as a powerful minority in southeast Scotland since around the 500s and grown from there) and Irish Highlander people (who ironically followed a very similar path as the English beginning as a powerful minority in western Scotland and spreading out from there), who were only really held together by a Norman/French elite ruling class.

Around the 1400s the English in Scotland just decided to adopt the term Scottish for themselves and their language, basically, thenceforth referring to the Scottish as Irish or Gaelic exclusively. To paint this image of some all embracing Scottish ethnic identity is inaccurate, Medieval Scotland would have been more akin to Belgium or Switzerland with a political state/identity containing 2 distinct ethnic groups, and later a third minority group with the Norse from Shetland and Orkney while they still spoke it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"The idea" you attribute appears to be your own. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Gaels and English within Scotland did see each other as kinsman? As one people and ethnic group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to disappear again now you've been rebuked? What's that the 4th discussion you've left hanging open failing to come up with any response or defense for your stance on the issue? Do you want to tell me why James VI of Scotland, who was ethnically English, wished to eradicate Gaelic culture/language in Scotland and even entertained ideas of genocide to achieve it if they were all truly one harmonious ethnic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I am suggesting that you are reading things into the article that are not there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, Mutt, you are totally right as well the article does actually go into the ethnic divides within historical Scotland quite a deal. I just find the article in general misleading as the idea that all these groups are equally "Scottish" is confusing. They're all geographically Scottish, sure, they were all politically Scottish when Scotland existed as a sovereign state. But to be ethnically Scottish was always the Gaelic ethnolinguistic group, which of course nowadays only accounts for 1% of the population at best.

It goes into a much wider issue with Wikipedia when labeling people like Henry Morton Stanley as Welsh, I guess. Or Thomas the Rhymer as Scottish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Minus the Northern Isles and borders (which even still don't have an overwhelmingly significant difference) the ethnic mixture of Scots is shown to be near identical according to modern studies, with only 10% increases in certain groups here and there. Calling Lowlanders "English" in any way other than in a cultural sense is purely false. 86.21.244.26 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually not even close to being true, Lowlander Y-DNA shows extensive, pervasive admixture by Germanic groups historically (Highland Y-DNA does too, but it's much less as in Ireland and Wales). Somewhere between 55-60% of Lowlander Y-DNA actually comes from Germanic sources (represented by various Germanic subclades of I, R1b-U106 and R1a), these are simply not found in Scotland, or the British Isles, before the periods of Germanic migrations.

You also have fairly significant minorities of R1b-U152 and R1b-DF27, the subclades of which and their dispersal would suggest they came from Roman and/or Norman movements of people into Scotland, that amounts for around 15% of the Lowland population.

When you actually look at the Y-DNA, Lowlanders are staggeringly low in the Insular Celtic subclade, R1b-L21, it only amounting for around 20% of the Y-DNA of the Lowlands. Bear in mind this is only including people with long unbroken ancestries in the regions, as all these DNA studies do (which I think is quite disingenuous personally).

It's not including the vast swathes of people who have migrated into Scotland over the past 100 years, let alone the past 30 years. Add them into the mix, and Scotland's genetic profile looks unrecognizable.

(Well, there have been some very sparse R1b-U106 finds, but these are from gladiators in the Roman period, and it can quite reasonably be deduced that they were Germanic imports, likely Batavians and related groups who we know are on record as having been stationed in Britannia during the Roman period.) Sock of indef blocked User:92.14.216.40 88.110.96.131 (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Genetics

The Scottish people (without a recent immigrant background) appear to be, on average, around 70% R1b (mostly split between R1b-U106 and R1b-L21 with huge variations in ratios between Lowlands/Shetland/Orkney and Highlands, as well as minorities of R1b-DF27 and R1b-U152), 10% R1a, 15% I and then the remaining 5% is things such as E or J. Of course this does not take into account the huge percentages of modern Scotland's population with partial or full immigrant ancestry, nor foreign-born peoples themselves living in Scotland. There is also significant variations in Y-DNA between regions of Scotland, with some regions seeing R1b dip into the 50% range, with I being almost 30% in Scotland south of the Firth of Forth, R1a sees highs of almost 25% in places like Orkney, and 15% in Shetland. R1b-L21 is almost 70% of total Y-DNA in parts of the Highlands but dips as low as 10-30% in most of Scotland south of the Firth of Forth.

>https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml#frequency Here is the regional breakdown of Y-DNA for regions of the British Isles, and the actual sources are here: -https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287948/ -https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/publications/articles/2003/capelli-CB-03.pdf -https://www.nature.com/articles/6800661 -https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2011127 -https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/scottishdna/about/background — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.142.216 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC) WP:BE sock of User:92.14.216.40 Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dr. James Naismith.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm removing the entry of '790,000' Scottish people living in England from the infobox as, as I'm sure you'll thoroughly agree, Mr Mutt Lunker, it would be ridiculous OR to assume that simply because people are born in Scotland they are 'Scottish', seeing as you just used that very same logic to block the addition of the English-born population in Scotland from the English people article. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not really OR when the table that's the source for the figure is captioned "Geographical distribution of Scotland's diaspora". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Well it is OR to assume that simply because those people were born in Scotland they are 'Scottish'. If you actually read the source, they're merely listing people who state they were born in Scotland, that tells us nothing about their ethnic identity.

I tried to add the same figure for English-born people in Scotland to the English people infobox and encountered this roadblock from a group of editors, particularly Mutt Lunker.

Why the constant double standards on these articles? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Per the reponse to your whataboutery diversion at English people, in what way does objection to your (characteristic) OR or novel interpretations in one article indicate comment upon, let alone approval of, the use of all other sources in all other articles? Not that there necessarily are here but "There may be things that are wrong elsewhwere in Wikipedia".

Might I suggest you summon the guts to get an account, rather than haunting these pages with a succession of IP socks. Guess that would just lead to another indef though... Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I merely tried to add the figure for English-born people in Scotland to the infobox of the English people article citing the Scottish Census itself finding that this percentage of the population of Scotland was English-born in 2011 (they'll probably find a significantly higher percentage of English-born people in Scotland for the 2022 census). Considering the Scottish people article has the figure for Scottish-born people in England in its infobox, I'm not sure why one is okay while the other is treyf.

Neither source is particularly unreliable, and if anything my source for the English-born in Scotland figure is far more reliable considering it's citing census data.

Maybe you should go back and actually read my comments on the English people talk page. I never suggested including data about the number of people in Scotland of partial or full English descent (which under some interpretations could be close to 100% of the population of Scotland), I merely asked why the huge population of English-born people in Scotland was not included in the infobox when far smaller English-born populations in other countries were already included i said infobox. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Stop attributing to me viewpoints that I have not expressed. Again. That's part of what got your sockmaster indeffed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, how about you try explaining to me why you have no issue with the Scottish-born population of England appearing in the Scottish people infobox, but you do seem to have a problem with the English-born population of Scotland appearing in the English people infobox.

Pointing out double standards is not whataboutery.

You clearly went out of your way to inject yourself into a discussion about including that statistic in the infobox on the latter's talk page, but you obviously patrol these articles and block and edit them frequently so why aren't you removing the Scottish-born population of England figure from the infobox on the Scottish people article, hm? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You're like my neighbour who, when asked not to throw spaghetti and chicken bones on the path (for the birds, apparently) would respond with "but (another neighbour)'s dog craps on the green". Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

A fairly poor analogy, but I'll bite. I'm more like the neighbor pointing out, when you attack this, that you have an identical pile of spaghetti and chicken bones on your path from your other neighbor that you don't seem to have a problem with and haven't mentioned anything about it to them despite it sitting there rotting on your path for far longer and you seeing it everyday when you leave your house. Maybe because it has a mini Scottish flag stuck atop it or something? I don't know why... you've never actually bothered to explain why this one pile of spaghetti and chicken bones on your path doesn't bother you and you've never removed it, but my addition of another pile of spaghetti and chicken bones to a different part of your path does, in fact, bother you.

Why am I not at all surprised you have problems with your neighbors though... I imagine you cite a lot of obscure council regulations to them and spew wordsalad as well about the pile of food instead of just telling them to stop leaving garbage on your path or tossing it back over the fence.

How close am I? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In expressing, as your own, the very missing of the point of my neighbour that I was highlighting? In that sense, absolutely nailed it! Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not missing any point, your point is just invalid. Pointing out legitimate examples of double standards is not whataboutery. The figure for Scottish-born people in England is literally STILL in the infobox of this very article. And we've been discussing this for days now.

You patrol these articles, Mutt. You are responsible for keeping them in order. Why have you STILL not removed the figure from the infobox if, as you say, 'things may be amiss elsewhere on Wikipedia'. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree that this is OR, but it's not us doing the assuming here but rather than source. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

So it's an unreliable source using OR then, and needs to be removed. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR is a restriction that applies to Wikipedia articles, not sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay so hypothetically, if I find a 'source' from, say, Stormfront that suggests "black people are inferior to white people" filled with a bunch of OR... that's okay then? Is it? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

No, that would be a fringe source, whereas the Scottish government isn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay so the Scottish Census isn't a 'fringe source' either, surely, so what's the problem with including its figure for English-born people in Scotland in the English people article's infobox? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with that as long as it's clearly labelled as country of birth data. We could also look for the English national identity figure from the census. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sadly I don't think the census allows that option or something? If you can find such data, I agree it would be a more accurate figure and I'd be fairly interested to see that myself just out of curiosity.

The Scottish Census did allow people to choose 'other British identity' and some other options. Since the idea of 'Scottishness' as an ethnic identity itself is rather tenuous and people often tend to use it in more of a geographic/regional sense in practice, these results can often be very nebulous.

But it's better than nothing, or just assuming people are X, Y or Z just because they happened to be born somewhere.

18% identified themselves as either 'British only' or 'Other national/ethnic identity only', so I would assume a decent chunk of those are English people, but again totally OR on my part to assume.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Scotland#National_identity 2.99.93.88 (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

You can find the national identity data here. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty, thank you. That gives us an 'English identity only' figure of 120,000. Which seems like a serious underrepresentation, but I suppose we can only go with the data. It offers no 'English and British identity' figure unlike the UK census.

The 'British only' figure is around 440,000. A significant percentage of which are most likely English, but since they're choosing that option we must just go with the data. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

But it's better than nothing. No. No it is not. Let us be perfectly clear that nothing is better than something if that something is wrong. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not really wrong, that's how people have chosen to identify as. The options for identity are not great in the Scottish Census, I suppose, as few English people would identify as 'English only', especially when living and working in other regions of the UK.

It is, undoubtedly, a massive underrepresentation though. I mean I don't really see the problem with just including the figure for English-born people in Scotland and the Scottish-born people in England in the infobox of each respective article.

Ask Mr Mutt Lunker, he's the one that seems to have the vendetta against acknowledging that hundreds of thousands of English-born people currently live in Scotland according to their own census data. Or at least he as a severe issue with including it in the infobox of the English people article. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not really wrong,and It is, undoubtedly, a massive underrepresentation though. Those statements cannot co-exist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of figures cited in articles all over Wikipedia which are, undoubtedly, massive underrepresentations though. For example the recorded Coronavirus deaths are a MASSIVE undercount, and most articles acknowledge they are a massive undercount and include figures for estimated deaths.

It doesn't stop articles using the 'recorded deaths' statistic and clearly labeling it as 'recorded deaths'.

If you include that figure for English people in Scotland and clearly label it 'identified as English nationality only', it is not an inaccurate figure.

Because that is how many people identified as 'English nationality only' in the 2011 Scottish Census, even though the true figure for people professing some kind of English identity is undoubtedly far higher. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Also what's the issue with trying to add the figure of English-born people in Scotland to the English people articles infobox? It's the exact same issue of a reliable source using OR to assuming the English-born people in Scotland consider themselves English.

So why is it fine to use a source with OR for the Scottish people article but not for the English people article? Again, why the constant double standards on these articles?

Surely, you'd agree, there is nothing wrong with adding the figure for English-born people in Scotland to the English people article's infobox? 2.99.93.88 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

If your sources are citing OR, you are filling the article with OR. You are quoting data from the OR sources and putting that in the article. I have no idea how cognitively dissonant you need to be to try and argue that OR is fine on Wikipedia as long as the OR is in the source you're citing and quoting the OR from.

But only on the Scottish people article apparently. This exception to the rule regarding OR does not apply to the English people article, or presumably most other ethnic group articles. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are the rules. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish original claims, whereas others are free to do that in sources, and if those sources are judged to be reliable, we can cite them. I'm not making an exception for this article - I just saw this discussion and offered my opinion. If you have a source with a figure for the English diaspora in Scotland, I'm sure that could be used. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I do have a source, funnily enough, it's the Scottish Census which is widely cited throughout the Demography of Scotland article among others.

Funnily enough, when trying to present that on the English people article, I was blocked and told that was not a suitable source because it was 'OR'. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

{edit conflict} - *Comment without prejudice. Not saying that anyone is right or wrong, but this one is near impossible to resolve with dialogue because of the way ethnicity manifests itself in the United Kingdom, and yes I live in the UK. The country from which I originate, Ukraine (actually Soviet Union, but Ukraine now) is one where you know who is who (ie. Ukrainian v Russian ethnically) based on how they declare their ethnicity. There is an offset between ethnic Russians and Russian speakers, there being more of the latter (including some Jews from Ukraine). In the UK, you don't get this simplicity because you all like to conflate skin tone with wider geographical region (eg. White European? Black African?) or sometimes two for the price of one (British Asian? British Indian?). Had it been realised that if you gravitate for the end of the list prepared by the authorities, you get "Other: specify" to which you can write what you choose: White, English, Welsh, Black, French-Canadian, American, Red Indian, Kurd, Basque, South African, White Kenyan, Punjabi, whatever fits the bill. Ergo, as long as you have people who did not declare Scottish ethnicity but have some connection with Scotland per declaration, you'll be going round in circles for ever. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

What about including the relevant figures from this source? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it they reflect the results of the national survey, then they should 100% form the basis of the infobox. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that (419-500,000) is a far smaller number than the number of Scottish-born people in England currently cited (795,000). Which would seemingly confirm the idea that many of the Scottish-born people living in England do not, in fact, identify as Scottish in an ethnic/national sense. 2.99.93.88 (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)