Talk:Scottish people

There really seems to be a lot of estimates being made regarding population distribution. It is one thing to state information but please ensure it is supported with some documentation.

Proposed merge with Scottish people

merge with Scottish people? This is an orphan. Secretlondon 00:51, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 08:15 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving Scottish people to something like Scots people or Scots tribe or possibly merge to Scotti, as they seem to be a more accurate name for that group of people.

Then move Scottish ethnicity to Scottish people and expand in a simlar way to Welsh people etc. That article will include a History section, which would be a brief summary of History of Scotland, and possibly also some the current Scottish people article. -- Vclaw 01:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As they stand, the two articles are different, in that one deals with the peoples of Scotland as a whole the other deals with the Scots from Ireland, one of the several national groups which contributed to the first group. I think that having both would be valuable.

Since the same name is given to both classes of people (The Irish immigrants and the people of north Britain) it would add to people's understanding of the human structure of Britain as a whole as well as that of Scotland, if this were made clear. (RJP 11:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have had to change the 'related ethnic groups' section. Whereas I see this as a nonsensical article anyway as the issue of a 'Scottish ethnic group' is very contentious, as opposed to a 'cultural' group, Scots had been listed as being related to the 5 other Celtic nations. This was an uneducated and simplistic association. If one is to list related ethnic groups for Scots, naturally they should be the British peoples and those that have provided migration to Britain since the Roman period.

Include table?

Does anyone think that it would be a good idea to include a table in the article like in English people, Serbs, Bulgarians, Norwegians and Albanians? GrandfatherJoe 18:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup i think thats a good idea.

User:An Siarach

I could be wrong, but 40,000,000 Scots in the US seems like a helluva lot! I'm interested in seeing some evidence to back this up.

Nicholai 06:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but then i think dicussing ethnicity in terms of genetics/lineage is an utter nonsense anyway ; culture and language are not genetically inheritable. How can Scotland have 5,000,000 ethnic Scots when only approx. 50,000 can speak the Scottish language? To describe 40,000,000 Americans as ethnically Scottish because their great-great grandfather (or whatever ) came from Scotland - despite the fact they have no link culturally or linguistically with the race or country - is ludicrous and another example of the american obsession with phony-ethnicism.

An Siarach

Phony-ethnicism ? Thats a harsh accusation to the millions of Scottish descendants around the world. Just because one doesn't carry on all of the cultural traits or language doesn't mean he/she still isnt of that ethnic origin. Other items related to ethnicity such as religion, etymology, familial ties/links, social/behavioural characteristics as well as genetic/physical traits are passed on from your ancestors. Your ancestry is where you came from and part of who most people are to at least some degree. Also, what exactly is passed down genetically isn't fully documented yet and some geneticists have even proposed that past memories and experiences of ancestors could be stored in our DNA. And finally, the 50,000 speakers of Scottish Gaelic aren't the only Scottish in Scotland, lol. The Scots language (related to the Old English/Anglo-Saxon language) is spoken by the Scottish people as well, mainly in the Lowlands, and has several speakers. It should be said that just because the people speak English mainly doesn't mean that they don't have a distinct cultural and ethnic identity. Epf 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never before heard Scots Gaelic referred to as 'the Scottish language', despite living in the Ghaeltachd. The Anglo-Saxon east as far as I know never spoke Gaelic, which is a Scottish language, just like Scots and English. Gaelic is an important part of our culture and I am glad that it is finally getting some support, but this sort of statement won't help it. I bow to An Siarach's superior historical knowledge, but he can't be allowed to get away with that one. --Will peters 14:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

This whole article needs a thorough review and cleanup. Large parts of it are very amateurish and unprofessional. This article is just not up to Wikipedia standards. Some sources would be nice too.--Mais oui! 08:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that some of the article was in US spelling, which is obviously wrong for a Scottish subject. Leithp (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch is a drink

I don't want to get in the way of your heated debate but I will certainly add that the use of the word "Scotch" throughout this srticle is inaccurate and to a point offensive. Refer to this [[1]]. Candy 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Scotch can mean the same thing as Scottish or Scots or what have you. Scotch is also a type of Scottish Whiskey and I seem to recall them not calling it Scotch in Scotland. Highlandlord 13:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candy is right. For Scots (I am one, Edinburgh born and bred), Scotch only applies to products, not people. And the Scots don't make whiskey; Americans and Irish make whiskey, Scots and Canadians make whisky. Furthermore 'Scotch' isn't a type of Scottish Whisky, it is Scottish whisky. But as Highlandlord says, we usually order 'a whisky', not 'a Scotch'.--Will peters 10:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of respect of the Scottish people, I have changed the so called "Scotch-Irish" to Scots-Irish, as they are both used in the history books, and the latter is less offensive. Scotch is an old term, and the only two places it belongs in this article is the paragraph about its usage, and in www.scotchirish.net. Also, this is a subject pertaining to Scots, and it should not be somewhat offensive to the people that it is about, the Scottish people. If I missed any usages of the word Scotch-Irish, please tell me. Thank you. Rshu 11:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your general point, but the sources quoted are quite specific in calling this ancestry Scotch-Irish. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I must have edited the quote by mistake. Anyways, the other one, on the box of populations, needed to be changed. --Rshu 13:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was I misunderstood? The references say what people describe themselves as. It says they describe themselves as Scotch-Irish, not Scots-Irish, or Scots-Irish-American or anything else. Last time I looked we do not change verifiable facts out of respect for readers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not that part, I changed the section in the box "Regions with significant populations of". Most history books call them "Scots-Irish" not the term "Scotch-Irish". I must have changed the other part by mistake(I have now corrected it). Rshu 01:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Scottish people

"X people" is the standard Wikipedia naming convention for these articles.--Mais oui! 09:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support --Mais oui! 09:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Olessi 15:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Hottentot 23:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Marco79 17:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Big Adamsky 14:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Benson85 05:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Template removed, move carried out as requested..dave souza 13:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page has improved since I last saw it, good work.

Edit war over pictures

In order to stop the edit war, could we please discuss, and reach a consensus, on two issues:

How many pictures do we want in the infobox?

Personally, four seems fine to me, and pretty much the standard.--Mais oui! 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Scots do we put in there?

I was quite happy with the original William Wallace, Alexander Graham Bell, Sean Connery and Robert Burns, but I also like David Hume and Duns Scotus too: hell, I like (nearly) all Scots! (A personal favourite of mine is Adam Smith: you can hardly think of a Scot who has had such a fundamental effect on the modern world, but I realise that for political correctness reasons he may not be a popular candidate.)--Mais oui! 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Hume was recently voted the greatest Scotsman of all time by Scottish academics, but that doesn't matter, since this is a popular page, everything must go to the mass vote. Robert I was by far a greater historical figure than William Wallace, but the latter is more famous. However, I made a mistake wasting time on this article, so put in whoever you want. - Calgacus 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way. Your statement "since this is a popular page, everything must go to the mass vote" is not really accurate, see Wikipedia is not a democracy.--Mais oui! 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Adam Smith not be popular? Astrotrain 21:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just get the impression that most Scots are not too enamoured with the concepts of free trade and free market economics at the moment. Wasn't there a college in Fife where the students changed the name from Adam Smith to a socialist person? When all seven political parties in the Scottish Parliament support strongly interventionist economic (and social) policies, it kind of makes you think that we Scots have turned our backs on our great son :) --Mais oui! 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Adam Smith College in Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes (created by merger of Fife College and Glenrothes College). But the new students association refused to name itself after Smith because Smith represents what they regard as the world's greatest evils - namely, exploitation, greed, Thatcherism and Reaganite economics. [2]. Astrotrain 09:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Yes, that was what I was referring to. But it is not an isolated example of the Scots antipathy for Smith - you should see the pathetic state his grave is in in the Canongate Kirkyard, Royal Mile, Edinburgh.--Mais oui! 10:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of these pictures has anything to do with the subject of the article. (RJP 09:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree. It seems very self-evident indeed that in an article regarding Scottish people, it would be appropriate to apply images of Scottish people.--Mais oui! 10:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. Sorry. (RJP 14:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Mass deletions of statistics

There follows a contribution left on my Talk page, which belongs here.--Mais oui! 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish people changes

I find it appauling that you would revert my work. First of all, the statistics that are being shown are not accurate for the most part. The only ones that have any merit are the figures for the US indicating 9.2 million US citizens of Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry. Second, I find it somewhat insulting to make grand assumption regarding those of Irish descent may in fact have some of Scotch-Irish in that figure. If you are using Scotchnet.com as a source to back that up, complete and utter rubbish. Have you looked at that site, it is nothing more that a anti-Catholic, Irish site full of loyalist and unionist propoganda. When it comes to statistics the census results speak for themselves. As I have said many times, there is nothing to indicate that those under the Irish category have any Scotch-Irish in them. Was a survey completed asking each of the over 30 million American's of Irish ancestry is they were of Scotch-Irish ancestry. Just because a person is Irish but non-Catholic, does not remotely suggest that they are in fact of Scotch-Irish Presbyterian background. Let me explain how the census works. Citizens were allowed to select 2 ancestries. For example, one person could have an Irish Catholic mother and German Protestant father but declare themselves to be both Irish and German but Protestant. Does this mean that they are Scotch-Irish? NOOO...they are counted under the Irish category as well as German population but follow the Protestant branch of Christianity...further...these estimates about 5 million Scots in Australia is grossly over estimated...the Australia Census bureau actually states under Ancestry that there are slightly over 500, 000 Australians of Scottish descent and no where does it show or mention 5 million...show proof to back up rediculous assertions of Scots in Poland, Netherland...i look forward to another response from you70.30.71.252 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually seen on several programs,websites and a DUTCH uncle (Scottish Middlename) that Scottish people have indeed immigrated to Poland (www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immigration look up Aberdeenshire)and Holland (www.bbc.co.uk/ Scottish History both Open University). Scottish surnames are still common in Holland heck they even have a regiment called the Scots Guard. So trust me my facts are right. I looked up several articles even the Scottish goverment website has a article which is about Poles coming to Scotland to inform them that the Scots once went the opposite way! Also on Scotland's people it says that anything up to 12million people in the UK can claim some Scots descent. Ian Hislop on who do you think you are also mentioned a similar fact!

The numbers should not be deleted - they should be verified. That is why I added ^{[citation needed]} tags to some of the more ridiculous ones. Antidote 00:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This anon has violated the Three Revert Rule way too many times. --Khoikhoi 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish people - Scotch Irish edits

I fail to see the points being made in Scotchirish.net. They come up with the idea that 60 percent of those who claimed Irish as their ancestry on the US Census are infact Scotch Irish. Prior to heavy Catholic Irish immigration to America, Scotch Irish immigration numbered about 250,000 compared to later Irish Catholic immigration of approximately 4.4 million between 1820 - 1920 according to US statistics on the INS page. I fail to see how a majority of those who state Irish to be of Scotch Irish ancestry. A major over estimation. Futhermore, just because someone today is Irish and non-Catholic does not mean that they are Scotch Irish. Over the generations, people who descended from Irish Catholics changed religion or moved away from any religious attachment whatsoever. The website is pro Scotch Irish to say the least but I believe it is going a bit overboard. Statistics speak for themselves. They are relevant and free of biases. People picked what ethnic group they descended from or identify with when filling out the census. People were allowed multiple responses. To say that many Irish maybe of Scotch descent is a bold statement. I guess we could then say that many Scotch are truly Irish as they descend from the Scots that crossed over from Ireland during the 5th century etc. There has also been more recent mass Irish immigration to Scotland. You want examples? Billy Connolly, Sean Connery . For the state of professionalism, I believe we should just stick to the statistics that have been collected in least biased or influenced manner and that would be census reports. If we fail to neglect these results and make up assumptions or statistics from thin air without actual proof, they we may as well close up shop.

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/immig/irish2.html

It seems to me that you have not read over Scotch-irish.net or other Ulster Scots sites in enough detail. The largest numbers of Scotch-Irish that immigrated to the Americas predated the Irish Catholic immigration by over a century. That is quite a significant difference if you consider how the whole human population was beginning to rapidly increase by the time of the mass Irish Catholic migration in the 19th century with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Anywhere between 250,000-450,000 Scotch-Irish came to the Americas between the end of the 17th century and the mid 18th century alone. If you consider they and their descendants were already long settled in the Americas by the time of the great Irish Catholic migration of the 1840's (again during the Industrial Revolution), their numbers would easily have swelled to around at least 2 million by that point. If you want a simpler way of describing why such a large portion of the 40 million or so Americans who claim Irish ancestry would in fact have Scotch-Irish ancestry: Of those 40 million or so in the 1990 census, almost half or more were in southern states and areas which were historically heavily populated by Scotch-Irish. In turn, it is well documented that very few numbers of Irish Catholics (and any 19th century immigrant group for that matter)settled in these same areas and most Irish Catholics settled in the northern states and major urban centres like New York, Boston and Chicago. Irish Catholics did settle in other areas of the US obviously, but not in significant numbers in the areas traditionally settled by Scotch-Irish. The informatoin on Scotchirish.net is a combination of historical sources as well as census data and is a legitimate source that is on several other Wikipedia articles and has the backing of the admin. With regards to the US census, as I and numerous sources have stated, large nubmers with Scotch-irish ancestry simply chose "Irish" for a lack of a better term (Ulster-Scots or Ulsterman). Many felt that Scottish didn't accurately describe their ancestry but chose rather Irish because of their origins in Ulster. Scotch-Irish is a confusing term to many who thought it meant those who claim ancestry of Irish Catholics who immigrated to Scotland around the same period as those who were migrating to the Americas (19th cent.) It should also be noted that of the millions of Irish protestants in the US, the largest portion of those would be of the presbyterian denomination which has most of its origins in Scotland. Just to give an example of just how large a proportion of the old-stock American population was Scotch-Irish or of Scotch-Irish descent, look at the number of US presidents which claimed such ancestry. This can be seen on Scotchirish.net and other sites (parents of Andrew Jackson for example were Scotch-Irish from Ulster). Epf 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the people of Scotland who you claim are descended from the Scots, that is only partially true. The majority of the population of Scotland is also descended from the Picts, Norwegian vikings, as well as the Anglo-Saxons which heavily settled the lowlands(main ancestors of the Ulster-Scots). The Irish Scots came to heavily influence the land culturally but the total numbers which settled in Scotland is quite disputed. Gaelic culture and language only now survives in the western fringes of the highlands while the Scots language and English as well as Anglo-Saxon culture dominated the lowlands and northern and eastern Scotland (while still including a degree of Gaelic culture such as the Clan system and Gaelic loanwords in language).

70.50.20.186 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

scotch irish continued

You can not say that a large proportion of those who ticked Irish are indeed of Scotch Irish descent. I just dont buy the entire argument. Irish Catholics had been immigrating to America for years before the famine, granted not in the massive numbers during and after the famine. Many also arrived as indentured servants during the 1600/1700s to the Carolinas etc. Many Irish during the famine and after also settled in Texas and entered by way of Louisiana. Irish were major settlers in Colorado and California (gold rush of 1849). The Irish were also very important for the coal mines in Montana and settled by the thousands. Let's face it. There is no fair way of telling how many Irish are descended from Scotch-Irish immigrants. There may have been some who were either too lazy, or ignorant of their Scotch Irish ancestry and just simply chose to put Irish but you can not just state that a large amount of the 34 million Irish figure are of Scotch Irish descent. Yes, a majority of the Irish settled in the Northeast but they and their descendents have also had 150 years to muliply and settle in other areas of America. I have spent a lot of time in Texas and Georgia and the number of irish Americans with names like Callaghan, Kelly, Carroll, Murphy, McCarthy and Mullins is unbelievable. Keep in mind that the Irish also worked on the railroad through the 1800s and they spread wherever the railroad went. The fact of the matter is, Irish Catholics immigrated in far larger numbers, spread throughout their new land and had large families. I just think that article makes too many assumptions and I question the sources it uses. How accurate are they? Who is writing them? Keeping in mind that the source I believe to be very intolerant, and anti-Irish in tone.

Secondly, as far as the Scottish population in Scotland. I was not only talking about the old Scoti who settled in Dalriada but more so about the thousands who settled in Scotland during the 19th and 20th century from Ireland. A large percentage of Scotland can trace it origins to this more recent immigrants. One just has to look at footballs teams such as Hibernian or Celtic to see the influence of the Irish or even look at the buildup of the Catholic church in the last century or simply look at the Glasgow phone book.

I agree there is a large minority of Scots in Scotland who are of Irish descent(espcially in the urban areas of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee), but I am not talking of these people. All I am saying, and I am sure you agree, is that the majority native (mainly presbyterian) Scots are as much of Pict/Norse/Anglo-Saxon descent as of Irish Scotti descent. Anyways, the Irish who migrated to Scotland during the 19th century aren't related at all to the Scotch-Irish/Ulster Scots which fled to the US as the the large migration of 250,000-450,000 Scotch-Irish/Ulster Scots occurred a century and more before the 19th century large Irish Catholic migration.

As for the numbers of Scotch-Irish in America, I do believe that something on both the Irish and Scottish people articles needs to mention that the numbers of "Irish" does in fact include at least a significant number of people of Ulster Scots descent. It isnt "impossible" to find the true numbers of Scotch-irish if the people traced their ancestry but the fact is the very small numbers of catholics and any 19th/20th cent. immigrant group for that matter in states traditionally settled by Scotch-Irish (mainly the southern states, especially in the Appalachia) as well as the massive numbers of presbyterians in these states shows how strong the Scotch-Irish influence is. You also include small examples of Irish Catholics settling in Georgia and other southern states but the fact is there is no historical records of a large Irish Catholic settlement in these areas to the same degree of the 17th/18th century Scotch-Irish settlements. I am not saying no Catohlic Irish settled in these areas at all but it was very light for obvious reasons (religious, cultural persecution) as they were persecuted even in the areas they largely settled in the north and west. Also, names such as Kelly, Carroll and McCarthy do not necessarily indicate someone is native Catholic Irish rather than an Ulster-Scot as many Ulster Scots families adopted Irish names or inter-mixed to a small degree with the native Irish before the flight to the Americas. My last point and the one I hope you consider most is the fact again, that the large Scotch-Irish migration took place 100 years before the advent of the industrial revolution which was a time of massive population growth in both the Americas and in Europe. Considering the Scotch-Irish were the largest ethnic group in the US after the English (though the difference was slight) at the time of the American Revolution, by the time of the main Irish Catholic migrations of the 1840's (their numbers before this were minimal), the numbers of those with Scotch-Irish descent would have swelled to almost 2 millon in accordance with the large population growth/birth rate seen in the whole US and in Europe that would last well into the 20th century. Basically, one must remember that the numbers of Irish in southern and "appalachian" states, according to the census, outnumbers that of the Scotch-Irish and it is indicative that the majority of these would be Scotch-Irish again due to 1)no historical record of large Irish catholic settlement in these states anywhere near the scale seen with the settlement of Ulster-Scots, 2) the very small numbers of catholics in these areas compared to massive numbers of protestants, especially presbyterians (main origins in Scotland) and considering the catholic Irish have largely maintained their catholic roots throughout the US 3) the prevalence of Scottish surnames just as much as "Irish" ones in these areas, and finally 4) well documented very heavy Ulster Scots/Scotch-Irish settlement and cultural influence in these areas. Again, the impact the Ulster Scots had on American culture and history is undeniable from the role they played in the revolution to the numerous presidents of whole (Andrew Jackson) or partial (Woodrow Wilson) Scotch-Irish descent.

To summarize, I believe something needs to be said on the Irish/Scottish people pages that the 30-40 million census numbers of "Irish" may also include a significant number of people who are Scotch-Irish. Scotchirish.net is not the only site where this information can be found, see links on the Ulster Scots article for more info. I admit ScotchIrish.net may be a tad "anti-catholic Irish" but I would classify it more as "pro-Scotch-Irish" to raise awareness of the Ulster Scots/Scotch-Irish culture in NI and abroad. Regardless, the numerous historical records on the site are unrefutable and I (as well as the admin.) believe this deserves a mention of some sort that the numbers of "Irish" in the US includes a number of those who are indeed Scotch-Irish. You must be willing to compromise here. I'm not claiming the numbers Scotchirish.net or other sites claim but I'm just saying something needs to be mentioned saying that the number of "Irish" does not mean all those are claiming native/Catholic Irish descent. Believe me, I am a pro-Irish Republican and support unification of Ireland, but from a neutral historical POV, the massive impact of the Scotch-Irish in the US is undeniable and the numbers of "Irish" does not indicate all those people are claiming native Irish ancestry. Sorry for the long post, but I hope you read it all.

http://www.scotchirish.net/US%20Presidency.php4 Epf 18:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US Census 2000 numbers speak for themselves, whatever they might say. It is simply not reasonable to question the Census numbers in this article on the basis of a randomly selected website. It is possible to argue that all of the figures are flawed. How can we provide figures for the US, Canada, &c, when there are none for Scotland ? We can't just make up a figure for Scotland and there are none produced from the UK Census as the question was never asked. We could take the Census figures and apply the percentages of Scots/British from the Social Attitudes Survey nearest in time to the Census, but this seems rather like original research, and it could only produce a number for Scotland, not for the UK as a whole. The idea of attaching numbers to a non-exclusive ethnic group like the Scots appears to me to be fundamentally flawed. Angus McLellan 19:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angus, you call yourself a Scot ? lol, first of all, this isnt original research, and if you read the info on the site and other Ulster-Scots sites, the challenge to the Census data is based on many well documented historical sources. As for Scots being a non-exclusive ethnic group ? You really need to learn more about Scottish history and anthropology. I've " peoples being considered a "non-exclusive ethnic group" and I'm specializing in anthrolopology. That term is reserved for a few known "ethnic groups" such as the Jews or some tribal groups seen in a few new world societies. There is a difference in being a citizen/national of Scotland and being of Scottish ethnicity/origins.Epf 21:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the question was asked in the UK Census to which group under "white" you belonged to but I can't find that data online as only certain categories are available on the UK statistics site. Epf 21:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't challenge US Census figures without very good reason, and so far you haven't given any. But doesn't French ring any bells as another European non-exclusive ethnic group, at least according to many contributors to French people with whom you've been disagreeing for weeks ? The OSI study on British Muslims is here (pdf); if you read page 25, you may find it illuminating. This page gives a summary of findings in an Institute of Governance study; again, there is not much sign of exclusiveness. The 1997 National Election Survey asked about "being truly Scottish", the results are reported here. Other pages report this, but it is important to note how ancestry was presented to those questioned, and this is elsewhere omitted. To quote David McCrone: There is no powerful set of religious and/or linguistic cultural markers which define what it means to be a Scot which means that identity can be much more open and inclusive. If that sounds rather well-meaning, you may wish to consider what the Siol nan Gaidheal have to say, at least when they aren't saying this.

The English & Welsh census questionnaire is here (pdf) and the question is on page 6. The Scottish one is here (pdf) and the question (not the same one) is on page 7. The NI one is here (pdf) and the question (different again) is on page 6. The only UK-wide statistics are on place of birth and residence. Nobody in England or NI was asked if they were Scottish, and even if the SCROL site made the data for Scotland alone available, which it does not, it would not be usable with other (US, Canada, Australia) data, which in turn each used different methodologies and are doubtfully commensurable. Angus

McLellan 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, French government policy has seemed to ignore existence of indigenous ethnic French and encourage an assimilationist perspective and this has caused significant debate on the subject of who constitutes to be "French". France has taken a very unique assimilatoinist policy compared to other European states which have opted (and rightly so) for multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicity. As for the Scots, David McCrone is only one person and Scottish culture and ethnicity is distinct in several cases. Yes it is very much related to English culture but it also has aspects of Pictish, Gaelic and Norse influence not seen with the English. The most imporant fact with regards to ethnicity is descent and the Scots are quite distinct in this sense. To say they don't exist or are "open" to anyone just becoming an ethnic Scot once becoming a citizen of Scotland is ridiculous. No matter what people choose to define as "Scottish", there are numerous aspects to Scottish (Gaelic-Pict/Norse-Anglo) ethnicity in terms of cultural/family traditions, religion, language (Scots, Gaelic, Scottish English), social/behavioural characteristics, shared origins/history and obviously the physical/genetic, even if many Scots don't spend the time to dwell on it. In the nation of Scotland there has been much immgration from Ireland and former British colonies in the past 100 years or more which may have changed what "unifies" current Scottish nationality/citizenship, but this should not be confused with Scottish ehtnicity/descent. Epf 00:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify again that most of your links deal with the identity of all citizens of Scotland rather than those of Scottish ethnicity and background. You can't take away someones ethnic origins and identity and the comments by McCrone deal more with nationality/citizenship, not ethnicity/heritage. There will always be a distinction between those who are the indigenous ethnic people along with their descendants elsewhere around the world and those who have origins elsewhere. You can't lose all of your roots and that is why most immigrants and their descendants in Scotland maintain ties with their origins, whether they be Irish, Chinese or Indian peoples. This is also why their is a preservation of the Scottish people and culture and Scotland and the problems seen in France have been avoided. The US found this out during the earlier part of this century and they altered their policy from complete assimilation to embrace most aspects of multiculturalism. If the Scots were a "non-exclusive" group like the Jews, the people would not be considered indigenous to anywhere (as is highly debated with the Jews and Israel) and the the people/culture would be widely varied to include countless numbers of cultures/peoples. This seems to be happening with the French in France, but the rise of the far-right there and the sudden awareness and need for ethnic distinctions (used with all other countries) may counter this. Epf 00:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the problems with Scotch-Irish and the US Census numbers, I have provided good reasons but look for yourself here [3] where, as I said, well documented historical records are used to challenge the numbers in the census. Epf 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided to "Siol nan Gaidheal" is pointless. I read the entire thing and it has very little basis for ethnic/indigenous Scottish for the following reasons: 1) it clearly has a pro-Gaelic, pro-"Highlander" and anti-"Germanic" agenda. 2) its informaton on the unifying physical/genetic characteristics of the indigenous Scots and on ethnic groups in general is very much incorrect (lol, especially with the ludicrous claim of the Scots being broadly "Nordic-Alpine") and I wonder if the author ever took a course in anthropology in his/her life. MOST importantly 3) the author completely disregards and downplays the equal importance of the Picts, Norse and Angles to Scottich ethnicity/culture compared to the Scotti. There is no historical facts in the authors POV and to say Scottish culture has "always been largely Gaelic" is completely disregarding the importance of the native Picts and especially the Northumbrian Angles who settled in Scotland during the same time as the Scotti did. Even if you do somehow agree with this article, it however disagrees with the ludicrous notion of Scottish ethnicity being "non-exclusive" and in fact shows them to be more "exclusive" since it believes only the Gaels and their descendants are the "true Scots". This has been the most pointless web site I've ever read on the Scottish people. One thing should be noted however in that practically every ethnic group in the world has been "non-exclusive" to some degree when forming respective ethnicities/cultures but generally the term is reserved for very non-exclusive and heterogenous groups such as Jewish and Arab peoples (where basically if you adopt the faith and language you're set). Epf 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what a discussion

I have to agree with Angus on the results of the US Census for Irish and Scotch Irish. The results should speak for themselves. Who are we to question what people put? We are making to many assumptions here and unless we questions each respondent and look at their ancestral records...we should just let it be for now. The website scotchirish.net may use historical sources as you mentioned EPf but those really don't matter considering that we have figures based on what people put as their ethnicity on the census. I think the website is a bit too pro-scotch and as you said anti-catholic irish...when a website or source crosses that line...i begin to question their ideas and agenda....i just feel that they would like to really downplay the role of the catholic irish in america....i agree with you that the scotch irish were fundamentally important in contributing america but that could be easily matched by the later waves of millions from not only Ireland but Germany, England, Italy, Poland and Russia...the fact of the matter....there seems to be a trend in the census results....the germans are the largest ancestral group...they were also the largest immigrant group from 1820 onwards ....the second largest ancestral group are the irish and funny enough they were also the second largest immigrant group from 1820s onwards...due to the fact of heavy irish catholic immigration from the famine onwards....totaling rougly 4.4 million from 1820's onwards....so i don't know...we could analyse these numbers til the cows come home but i just feel that it is inappropriate to be trying to give reasoning behind the census results...especially when we are trying to downplay results that were chosen by the people...there is just no real study completed on the census results from 2000 or 2004....

Agreed, I won't challenge the census data anymore until I can get more historicl and census sources to challenge the Irish census data. I also agree with you about the views of the site, but I don't think its intent is to disregard the native Irish/Irish Catholic contribution which is obviously also well established and known in the US. The Irish, Italians, Germans, Polish ,etc, retained their culture and ethnic idenetities much better than the Scottish and Scotch-Irish did obviously because of the closeness and shared history of the Ulster-Scots and Scottish with England and Anglo-Saxon culture. One thing I do know for a fact is that the 4-5 million number is not the true number of those who are of whole/partialScotch-Irish ancestry and you will here from me when I have a list of sources/references for this other than just Scotchirish.net. Ciao,Epf 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly not the explanation, presuming that your thought is true (which it probably isn't, as Scottish Americans have strong identities); the Irish share more history with England than the Scots do (although, for political reasons, they may not see it this way). The important difference was probably that the Scots, ethnic-Scots or Anglophones, were almost 100% protestant. Other large protestant populations, peoples such as the (predominantly northern) Germans, Scandinavians, Dutch, similarly were little discriminated against in American history. - Calgacus 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree that the Irish have more to do with English....the Irish have a strong separate identity, just like the Scots....I would say the Irish and Scots are closer cousins with respect to ethnicity than the English....they share a similar branch of Gaelic, even music, last names etc are similar....the english are anglo-saxon, have a different culture and language...if you are going to make a comment CALGACUS....don't make an ignorant one... hey epf - i have enjoyed our somewhat heated debates over the last while....you keep me on my toes LOL...we should get together for a coffee one day and discuss things...i believe you live in Toronto...as do i..70.30.71.252 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey, well that's me put right. ;D - Calgacus 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your in Toronto ? Im currently studying anthropology at U of T and live just off campus. Get a User/Talk page so I can message you more there or just post on my own talk page. Ciao,

Epf 19:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Please

Ulster was originally part of the Dalriada Kingdom of Scotland: The Red Kings. There are a lot of people who say they are Scots-Irish to reflect this geographical fact. A person from Strathclyde could refer to themselves as a Strathclyde Briton because the Romans recorded the Britanni/Pretani/Pict as living there and those are all Latin names referring to the same people. Naming it North Britain again is just confusing as there is a North Britain geographic area in France and it begs the question of where Southern Britain is which everybody knows is England. Southern Britain is in France too. I'm thinking if you named it North England you would confuse it with Cumbria and get a lot of confused roadside travellors. Greater England would definitely not work because then you have Lesser England and history just has not been following that recently. Plus the religion is totally confusing. You have some islands that are Catholic, some that are Presbyterian, and in Ulster you have the Church of Ireland, which when I last checked was Anglican. Orkney: It it Norwegian Lutheran? Up-Helly-Ah. The North Sea is stormy. Someone already e-mailed me recently about my website and told me my ignorance of Scotland really shows. I'm sad to say I agree. Whoever these Scotti were archeologically would be a great article and maybe someday I will get better. (Unsigned comment by User:Cokeeffe 08:47 UTC, 6 March 2006)

I dont think ive ever read such a confusing request for clarification. An Siarach

Please clarify! - River run 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic affinities

I came across these two links and I think they may be of interest. One of them belongs to Coon, an anthropologist who worked on his theories before DNA testing was available. Now, the other link to DNA research seems to go in the same direction.

The Mediterranean Reemergence in Great Britain

http://med1nuc11.dfc.unifi.it/linnets/troe/texts/p25.htm

Celtic nations have more in common with the Portuguese and Spanish than with "Celts"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955701/

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Irish_people"

POV versus Verifiability

I consider this edit to have been extremely poor. The material removed, namely

Scots have been emigrating for centuries, mainly they emigrated to mainland Europe (France, Italy, Holland, Scandinavia and Poland) as merchants and soldiers.{{ref|Armitage}}

is supported by the source cited

{{note|Armitage}}See David Armitage, "The Scottish Diaspora", particularly pp. 272–278, in Jenny Wormald (ed.), Scotland: A History. Oxford UP, Oxford, 2005. ISBN 0-19-820615-1

Verifiable material should not simply deleted because it does not suit a particular editor's worldview. Angus McLellan 22:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Ireland

The name of this section is misleading. The majority of those planted in Ulster from Scotland would have been of quite firm English/Anglo-Saxon stock given their ancestral region and would have had no historical links with Ulster or Ireland at all - unlike the Scots of the Western Coast and other regions. The border families came from the only part of Scotland to have been impervious to Scotticization/Gaelicization and to describe their plantation as a 'return' is at best misleading and at worst simply wrong and arguably an example of pseudo-history as propagated by Northern Irish loyalists. An Siarach

Related Ethnic Groups

After all the weeks of debate, someone has now gone and recategorised this section placing people not into what are related ethnic groups, but rather separated into linguistic groupings. EPF, you are aiding this. I must admit that I thought better of you than that.

I didn't aid it, I just dont have time to discuss with this person about this rv of the format for "related ethnic groups". Who really cares about such a small section anyway, as long as it says which groups are related. Epf 16:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make two points thiere. First point - agreed, second point - it's the principle of the thing. Enzedbrit 21:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPF, why Faroese? I don't know of much history of migration. Both Scotland and the Faroe Islands saw migration from Denmark and Norway but that alone won't like both Scotland and the Faroese. I think you need to justify on the discussion first before you add it and I would be interested to see the history between the two. Enzedbrit 00:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically and culturally, the Faroe Islands share much culture and ancestry with the Orkneys, Shetlands and to a lesser extent the Outer Hebrides. The people of these islands as well as a great deal of mainland Scotland trace signicant amounts of ancestry to the Norse who originated from Western Norway. Obviously there has been much recent migration of Danes to the Faroes and the impact of such I really dont know or whether or not they were just assimlated into the local population. I do know however that Scotland has not seen signifcant migration from Denmark and historically experienced much more Norwegian settlement. Epf 04:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Scottish, Britons and Western Europeans are of Iberian Origin.

Take your time and read well.

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

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

http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF

World Haplogroups Maps (As recent as 2005)

Origins of haplogroup R1b. (Very interesting too)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29

http://www.worldfamilies.net/Tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe.htm

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

HCC

See my views on this on Talk:English people. The Y-chrom. Haplogroup this user is referring to isnt "Iberian" in a historical sense and dates back over ten thousand years ago.

Sean Connery?

Sean Connery as an example of a historical Scot? Sure, the man is a good actor, but a way greater man is desrving of this. That man's name is Alexander Fleming, the man who made one of the world's most important antibiotics, penicillin. Even Adam Smith would do. I strongly urge an edit of the photo. Rshu 23:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, how about an example of all these millions and millions of 'Scots' who've never been to Scotland? --Nydas 06:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that these people should be included, because look at all of the other articles on national peoples. They all have people that have never been to those countries. Still, I do not understand why Connery is in this photo ahead of the man who invented capitalism or the man who invented penicillin. The debate for supporting Connery's appearance in this photo is practically useless. Rshu 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]