Talk:Scottish people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.

	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic Groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

	Scottish people is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit Template:Scotland opentask

Calvinism Portal

Scottish people falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives /Archive 1

[edit] 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.

but then ultimately europeans are of asian origin who were in turn of african origin. I dont see why this is such a big deal when it has so litte to do with the Scots as an ethnic group.

these links aren't anything new and only refer to Y-chromosome and MTdna from a few samples from certain regoins. Don't believe or trust these reports (all from the same one or two main studies), especially with how early we are in population genetics. Rely on all studies available as well as anthropology and historical sources for now until this data is interpreted properly, and not by an random amateur like hcc.

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

As a Scot, I am happy to have "Big Tam" in the photo showing examples of well known Scots. Of course there could be others added to the picture but he has as much right to be there as anybody else. Benson85 18:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sean Connery has a right to be there if the photo was made to have eight men instaed of four. Otherwise, he should be replaced by James Watt, Alexander Fleming, or Adam Smith. These men are recognizable Scots that did a lot more for the world than an actor. Rshu 18:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be quite happy with Sean Connery in the montage, as he is a very well known Scot (who says they must be historical?). However, the picture of him being used is a fair-use copyrighted screenshot, and it isn't fair use as used here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I agree with putting him in because he is so well known, but the Scottish people have given the world some of its greatest philosophers and inventors. Why not add another row at the bottom with William Ramsay, Alexander Fleming, James Watt, and Adam Smith? I have seen a picture with eight people in the Czech people article. Why not edit it? Rshu 20:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just making the point that that Sean Connery picture should not be used (for legal reasons). I find these famous people montages always show people I would never recognise, and they are never labelled to show the significance of the people. So if I were to express a preference it would be for people I would recognise visually, rather than by name or significance. But I don't really have a preference. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now the pic must be removed. I think this would be the perfect time to either replace Connery, or add more Scots to the photo. Besides, this is not a tabloid's list of the most famous Scots, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not meant to appeal to people who are the most recognizable, not the most significant. I mean, I don't see any other ethnicity article with a celebrity in the main picture except for this one. Rshu 01:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How about a famous Scottish woman, just for a bit of gender balance? Of the top of my head, there's Saint Margaret of Scotland. Mildly controversial, I know. --Nydas 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a woman would be good. Just so the woman made a significant contribution to history. Rshu 13:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

...No-thing wrong with having a woman, but Margaret isn't Scottish. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mary Slessor is on banknotes, or how about Naomi Mitchison or Muriel Spark ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that Margaret is Scottish by marriage - see Sonia Gandhi. --Nydas 05:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Germanic peoples" category controvesial, but "Celts" is not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Genetics stuff

Is it just me or is this article getting worse? This, for example:

"New genetic research does show a strong similarity between the Y chromosome of Basque and people of the Iberian Peninsula to Scots males as well as their neighbors in Ireland and Wales. [1][2][3]"

Looking at the references, they completely fail to justify the sentence. Specifically, the Y chromosome claim is only made for Wales, whilst the only article that's actually about Scotland is much more vague. --Nydas 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the article getting worse, but you are right that the sentence you mention is not supported by the references. The first reference (scotsman.com), doesn't even mention Basque, the second (bbc) is about Irish and Welsh relations to Basque and the third is just a map of haplogroups with no interpretation or explanation of its meaning. I say alter or delete the sentence unless a better reference can be provided.--WilliamThweatt 00:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted.--Nydas 06:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The relationship is clear according to recent DNA analysis. It is not only in relation to Scotts, but in relation to all indigenous Britons. What happens is that the Scotts, the Irish and the Welsh are the closest to those indigenous Britons. In fact there is plenty of information available, this is just one example: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gallgaedhil/haplo_r1b_amh_13_29.htm

You can also try this:

http://indoeuro.bizland.com/archive/article7.html

That article is not about genetics, for a change. I have cut and pasted this.

-- Nobody knows the origin of Picts, a nation who lived since the beginning of the 1st millennium BC until the 9th century AD in Scotland. When Celts came to the British Isles in the 7th and 6th centuries BC, Picts already inhabited the lands north to modern Edinburgh, and when Romans invaded Britain in the 1st century BC and came to Scotland in the next one, they were still there occupying just the same lands. Different authors, from ancient times to our days, present different versions about where from the Picts came to Britain in prehistoric times. The archaeological sources suppose their arrival to Britain took place in about 1000 BC from the continent, and then in 200 BC from Scotland to Ireland. But the original homeland of the Picts in continental Europe is unknown, and that led to different explanations. Medieval authors supported a version that Picts were not Celts, and were a pre-Celtic race who came here from Scythia. A more realistic point of view was invented last century, when scientists tried to prove Pictish homeland is Spain, ancient Iberia from where British Iberians, supposedly Stonehenge creators, arrived here. The reason for this version was a Roman author who described Picts in the early 4th century AD as the people very much alike Iberians whom Rome fought in Hispania.

This version needs comment. It is obvious, that the British Isles and northern Spain had had some special contacts since very early times. First, Iberians in England mentioned above; then many Celtic legends, which call the Irish Celtic nation "Milesians" and trace it back to Milesius, a Celtic king of Iberia. Irish Ogham inscriptions, evidently written in a Celtic tongue, have something in common with Iberian and even especially Basque languages. We will get back to Ogham later below, and now we can only say that Iberia, or maybe South-Western France can be a possible source of Pictish migration to Britain.

The link of the earlier inhabitants of Scotland to their Iberian ancestors can be found in the many spiral pattern grooves cut into the rocks and boulders of this northern land and which can also be found in Spain, France and Ireland. The design of burial chambers located in the Orkney islands also provide an important link to the Iberian origin of their builders. Farming arrived in these islands around 4000 BC and as it replaced the nomadic way of life, the Orkneys became an island fortress with its many stone brochs. By the time Rome became a world empire, the Orcadians were recognized by Rome as a sea power. From recent excavations, it seems that these Orcadian people were a slim, dark Caucasian race, with long, narrow heads. The great stone circles such as Sunhoney were probably being built around 3300 BC, quite possibly around the same time as the arrival of another nation from Northern and Central Europe. These newcomers were of a different ethnic group from the Iberian stock in northern Britain, as their skulls were much broader and round. Evidence of contact between these new people and their continental ancestors have been discovered in several excavations, and seem to indicate a flourishing trade between ancient Scotland and Europe. And finally in 1000 BC Picts appear here from Europe and gradually mix with autochtonic tribes. It is thought by many scholars that the union of these three or even more peoples resulted in the creation of the pre-Celtic stock called the Picts.

In fact there is so much evidence, especially with recent genetic research, that we would need lots of space to cover it. R1b is a genetic marker of Iberian origins. Scottish people are more than 75% R1b. Spanish Basque people close to 90%. Non-Basque Spanish people about 70%. Within the R1b Haplogroup there is the Atlantic Modal Haplotype. Again it is most frequent in Spain and the British Isles. If you want more information about the Atlantic Modal Haplotype, just type it in in Google, you will get lots of results, Etc..

Those pages are not remotely reliable as a source of information. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Nydas 19:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You kidding me, aren´t you?

One of those articles is about the Picts, the other does not appear to be a reputable, peer-reviewed article. Anyone could have written it. The Scotsman and the BBC are both reputable sources - but they were being misused to create an original synthesis which neither article supported. Find reliable, peer-reviewed sources. And sign your posts. --Nydas 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

See the section above about The Scottish and Iberina origins. Add more and mroe references, do your own research (type in Google keywords like Atlantic Modal Haplotype, R1b, Haplogroups, etc) and you will fond more than enough reliable sources. About my signing my posts, a have no aspiration to fame.

Gentlemen, Genetics has its uses, but it is only one science. In answering these questions we need to look at all disciplines and not rely on just one. Genetics can only tell us "what's there", it can't tell us how it got there. Archeology and anthropology tell us the Basque were one of the first known peoples to settle Iberia. Likewise, the Celts (or more precisely various Celtic tribes) were one of the first known people to settle "Gaul". We only have written records of these people from Roman times (c1st century BC), long after they were already well-established. It is considered likely that the Basque and their (now extinct) related groups (Iberians) were once more widespread and were displaced and absorbed in the region of Gaul by the Celts. It is inevitable that through wars/slavery, alliances, and assimilation, the Celts and the Basque/Iberians interbred over centuries, if not millenia. This would result in the present-day genetic similarities and shared haplotypes. Not to mention that the Basque are a non-Indo-European group while the Celts are definately Indo-European. This fact alone indicates a very low probability of common ancestry as it is considered very rare for a people to remain unique yet wholly adopt a language from an unrelated language family. In the emerging field of genetic anthropology, it is quite common for a geneticist to publish his/her theories with out regard to the other, more definitive disciplines, in an effort to "be the first" to make the claim. All of the sources you cite are neither definitive nor complete and are contrary to known facts. The Iberians and the Celts may indeed share common genes but neither can look to the other for its "origins".--WilliamThweatt 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you make basic mistakes, confusing concepts like genetics (biological ancestry) and language (Indoeuropean). Indoeuropean is a linguistic family, it has nothing to do with genetics. Iberian has many meanings. We are using it here just to speak about the indigenous people of Iberia, who are believed to be the originators of the Genetic markers grouped together under Haplogroup R1b, and those genetic markers are the most frequent in Western Europe, but they happen to show the highest concentration in Iberia and in the British Isles. I think you already know what a Y-Chromose Haplogroup is, it is a set of genetic markers that is passed down from father to son all the way down. No one in the scientific community even questions this fact. The problem here is that I see a lot of people sticking to 19th and 20th century concepts that are already more than out of place. As you say, genetics says how things are, not why. Most Iberians and Britons belong to the same Y-haplogroup genetic race, that is a fact. Why is it like that?, well the mainstream theory is that Iberians migrated north once upon a time. A lot of history is going to be rewritten with recent genetic evidence: one famous case is the Puertorican one. Official history had it that the native Indians had been exterminated in the Island. Now genetic research has demonstrated that 67% of Puertoricans have native Taino Indian genes. An important part of their history is going to be rewritten. Still, history (recorded, written history) is very interesting, but just an extremenly thin crust on a very thick pie.

[edit] Other countries with diaspora

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

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

[edit] Diaspora

The term diaspora (Ancient Greek διασπορά, "a scattering or sowing of seeds") is used (without capitalization) to refer to any people or ethnic population forced or induced to leave their traditional ethnic homelands; being dispersed throughout other parts of the world, and the ensuing developments in their dispersal and culture. (Taken from Diaspora).

A great many Scots, from the Lowlands and (especially) the Highlands, were forced or induced to leave their traditional homeland by various factors. To claim they are not a diaspora is just simply unfounded.

The clearances did not oblige people to leave their homeland. Many emigrated. This is not a diaspora. It's not going to work. Enzedbrit 10:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if they were'nt forced they were quite definitely induced to leave. Many highlanders lost their land and had the simple choice of leave to places like New Zealand where they could get new land or stay in Scotland where they would have lost their unique culture. So i think its safe to say many people were not completely willing to move but were left with very little choice. Also many people in the Highlands would have seen the Highlands not Scotland as a whole as their homeland so in that case they actually were obliged to leave their homeland. And finally you may want to look at the clearances page the very first sentence states 'The Highland Clearances is a name given to the forced displacement of the population of the Scottish Highlands'.

It is not a diaspora. It was a small movement of Highland Scots to the colonies. I think it was about 20,000 people. That is such a small population of Scots. Let us not forget that they made up a large part of the Loyalist wing in the American Revolution. I don't think that a people whom were 'forced or induced' to leave their homeland would still be loyal to the monarchy whom supposedly 'forced them to move'. Rshu 12:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You "think" it was only 20,000 people ? Not only do you think incorrectly, but you have no fact to back up such a number. A great number emigrated from the "Highlands" to several places and their culture and language thrived in new lands, especially in Canada. Actually, a great deal of Scots, especially Ulster-Scots, helped form the backbone of troops during the American Revolution. In any case, the Scots do fit the definition of diaspora and the clearances did oblige people to leave their homeland. To say otherwise is historical ignorance. 69.157.126.241 22:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have some form of bias. To call the movement of Scottish settlers abroad is as ignorant as to call the movement of English settlers abroad a diaspora. Rshu 23:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I think your POV right there is ignorant. You are making a unilateral claim that massive induced and forced emigration of Scots to other parts of the world is not a diaspora, although it is in line with the definition. They fled for various reasons, and many were persecuted because they spoke Gaelic or because they professed a certain religion. Do not try to alter history. 69.157.126.241 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, you are calling me ignorant? Ask any Scot, the Scottish language is Scots not Scots Gaelic(of course, Scots are English speaking, but Scots is very similar, a form of Anglo-Norse, and was only changed somewhat). You have right now just tried to alter history. I don't care if 50-70% of Scots had Gaelic origins, they did not speak Gaelic, so get your facts straight. The English Puritans left England because they were being persecuted because they were not Anglican, yet that is not called a diaspora. Neither is a large movement over hundreds of years to the colonies. There were many different reasons for Scottish emigration, be it to make money in the colonies because they were poor, to flee because of the Jacobite Rebellions, etc. To call a small emigration over one hundred years a diaspora is insane. The Irish diaspora is completely different, since its motive was to keep from starving, and it was massed, I mean millions of people fleeing in the timespan of 30 years. Scotland's was not that large, or that small in timespan. The emigration was not forced, unlike the English emigration. Stop editing the article, until we all can actually agree on this. Rshu 12:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not delete verifiable sources.

In the genetic section someone deleted a part with verifiable sources. That is close to vandalism. Something that can be verified cannot be deleted.

If you want more sources here you have just a small sample:

International Society of Genetic Genealogy - 2006 tree of haplogroup R
Spread of R1b, from the Genographic Project, National Geographic
Summary Overview of Haplogroup R1b1c (M269) (Nov 2005) from Ethnoancestry. Retrieved Feb 2006.
World Haplogroup Maps Note especially the dominance of R1b in Western Europe.
Worldfamilies.net Page on Haplogroups
http://member.tripod.com/~midgley/dna.html
http://home.cfl.rr.com/wade3/Haplogroup%20R1b.htm
http://www.dnaheritage.com/ysnpmarkers.asp

If you want more I can flood this place.

HCC.

We've been through this before. Freepages and tripod sites are not reliable sources. Neither are 'one-name' genealogy sites. Or sites selling DNA tests. Your threat to 'flood this place' is noted. How about you just present infomation from peer-reviewed journals that tackle the topic at hand? See Wikipedia: Reliable Sources as well. --Nydas 14:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You think those sources are not reliable? Who are you? What kind of authority are you to negate maps like the 2005 Madonalds Hapmap, or all the genetic research that is being carried out by different companies in the US, or articles that have been done in this site like R1b or to negate the National Geographic Genographic project, headed by Cavalli Sforza. But if you want more sources just type in the google search bar key words like: Haplogroup R1b or "atlantic modal haplotype" and do your homework before coming here. Please be more serious and rigorous and less manipulative. HCC.

HCC, let's keep this civil. Before you ask somebody "Who are you?" maybe you should take a while to find out what Wikipedia is all about. All editors have equal "authority" to interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As Nydas says, we have indeed been through this very issue before. There are a number of things to consider. First of all, Nydas was merely pointing out that Wikipedia:Reliable sources, freepages and tripod sites where anybody can post literally anything are not reliable sources to cite in an encyclopedia. Likewise, commercial sites selling DNA "tests" are not acceptable as references. (In fact a recent university study/consumer investigation revealed that most of those sites are crap. Four samples were taken from the same person and sent in under different IDs and all came back with different results and different haplotypes). But, putting the reliablity of certain sites aside for the moment, we also have to consider the issue of Wikipedia:No original research. A Haplotype map is just that...a map. It tells us where certain haplotypes seem to be concentrated and in what percentages. As editors, we can not draw conclusions from such information and say that "this ethnicity is related to that ethnicity". All we can say is something like "A study by [Insert reputable organization here] shows that haplotype [insert type here] is shared by [insert percentage here] of population A and [insert percentage here] of population B in the people who volunteered for the study." and provide the citation. We can not draw inferences as to what this means. Genetic Anthropology is a very new science and not even the different researchers agree on what exactly haplotype distrubution indicates or its meaning in the larger history of human events. If you would like to include certain researcher's opinions or interpretations, they must be cited from legitimate, peer-reviewed journals. Otherwise, speculation, original research and POV agenda-pushing from free websites can and should continue to be deleted.--WilliamThweatt 17:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but if you think that National Geographic or Cavalli Sforza, the 205 Macdonalds hapmap, etc.. are not reliable sources, the only thing that it tells me is that YOU ARE NOT RELIABLE. I am not going to engage in infantile discussions. Here you have yet another source, this time from Oxford: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361

Or this genetic map by Cavalli-Sforza: http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Cavalli.htm

The fact that they all come to the same conclusions seems to be irrelevant to you? Wow. And you say that it is my POV.

If you know Wiki rules, you should know that verifiable information cannot be deleted. If you claim again that what is being done by National Geographic, etc adn etc, is my original research, I am going to report you for violating Wiki rules.

HCC.

And the fact that you seem not to be able to understand my posts or to be civil tells me that you must either be high, a small child or purposefully an a$$. You are the one that is being infantile here. I said absolutely nothing about National Geographic not being a reliable source. I (and Nydas for that matter) were referring specifically to freepages, tripod pages, commerical sites selling "test kits" and geneology forums. That is so plain and simple anybody should be able to understand that. The other point is that a map, in and of itself, doesn't "come to a conclusion", it merely shows data. Any conclusion that you come to by looking at the map is, by definition, Original Research. A list (or map) of data can not be cited to support your claims. You must cite the interpretation of a researcher in a peer-reviewed journal and then it has to be written so as to make sure the reader is aware that this is the interpretation of this particular researcher, not to be taken as a fact given by Wikipedia. This is a logical argument I hope you are capable of following.--WilliamThweatt 19:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly want to be civil, but not infantile. If you had taken the effort of reading one of my latest sources you would have seen this:

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

Sorry again, but when I have to explain basic things over and over again things look infantile to me. HCC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.157.222 (talk • contribs) .

That article does not mention Scotland, or Scottish people, or ethnicity. Indeed the article spends much time discussing how virtually everyone everywhere came from the Near East. I'm not sure the information adds anything at all. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A proper journal article - which doesn't mention Scotland once. Putting that aside, it's mostly about the extent of mixing between Near Eastern farmers and European hunter-gatherers. All this was happening long, long before Scotland existed, and I have no idea why you think it's so important for the article. We don't have info on eye colour or hair structure. Why should we include info on the structure of the Y-chromosome? It doesn't even do anything. In any case, it's a heck of a stretch to spin this into 'Scots are closely related to Basques'. --Nydas 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Here you have more interesting stuff: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/7/1361/F04

I hope you can read a map. HCC.

What is an Atlantic population? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Nydas and Zzuuzz; this sentence is not only problematic but adds nothing to the article anyway. Also, I looked at every source you provided, most don't even mention Scotland or the Scottish ethnic group and therefore do not support the sentence. And again, maps aren't valid sources to support a claim; a map is simply a graphical representation of data, not an interpretation of what that data means. One source even contradicted the sentence, saying that "the R1b Haplotype results are very difficult to interpret". Also "Atlantic population" is not defined. This would be better handled in a seperate article on the R1b haplotype or on European genetics.--WilliamThweatt 20:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The comments stay because they are verifiable and relevant about the origins of a people. About the atlantic population, the term is being used because the Atlantic facade of Europe shares the same haplogroup called R1b (or basque haplogroup) and because the Atlantic Modal haplotype, a subgroup within the R1b Haplogroup, is also most prevalent in that area. HCC.

You appear to have just invented the term Atlantic population to include the Scottish people, and as a classification which appears to include some other European groups. Where is the verifiability in that? Where is the source which says that the Scottish people are an Atlantic population? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the energy to argue about the term "Atlantic". If you want to put it another way go ahead. In any case here you have cases in which the term "Atlantic is used":

I have just copied and pasted this part.

Atlantic R1b: This variant is found on the Atlantic coast, in Iberia, France and in the more remote parts of Ireland and Scotland. In order to obtain more accurate data on the aboriginal/indigenous Scots/Irish, data was extracted from Capelli et al, (5) for Pitlochry and Oban in the Scots Highlands, and from Castlereigh in Central Ireland

The rest you can see yourselves:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/9/5078

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

http://www.dnaheritage.com/masterclass2.asp

http://www.dnaheritage.com/tutorial3.asp

http://www.familytreedna.com/MatchWAMH.html

http://www.clanlindsay.com/genetic_haplogroups.htm

And I could go on and on, but I think this is enough.

HCC.

Your quote comes from 'worldfamilies.net', yet another site selling genetic testing. The original creator of the quote seems to be an A.A Foster, a non-notable person writing for a non-notable genealogy site.[4] A site that's not been updated for over a year. A site with a picture of Odin on their homepage. Please, this is becoming ridiculous.--Nydas 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, forget about him. Just take into account National Geographic, Oxford Journals or Cavalli Sforza. (This discussion is going from infantile to puerile) HCC.

[edit] related non-Insular groups

Just some quick points of non-insular groups I think should be kept under related groups box (from most related to least):

Frisians: shared language (Scots/English and Frisian), shared ancestry (Anglo-Saxons settling south-east Scotland) smaller elements of shared culture and religion (eg. Calvinism)

Norwegians: shared ancestry (Norwegian settlment throughout Scotland, particularly in the NOrth-east and in the Western Highlands and Islands), significant shared history with Scotland, significant impact of Norse language on both Gaelic and Scots languages, minor other shared cultural elements

Faroese: shared language (at one time when the old Norn was spoken on the Orkneys and Shetlands), significant shared history and culture between the Faroes and Scotland (especially Caithness, Orkneys and Shetlands), shared ancestry (descent from the Norse as well as older settlements), other minor shared elements

Icelanders: shared ancestry (Scots and Irish who settled Iceland with the Norse and both groups trace signifcant ancestry to Norse Vikings)

Dutch: minor elements of shared history, culture and religion

69.157.126.241 01:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

- Frisians The Anglo-Saxons who "settled" south-eastern Scotland, about 5% of the Scottish landmass, came from northern England, not Frisia; therefore English counts, anything beyond English, such as Frisian in this case, opens it up to all peoples who inhabit northern Germany-Holland and southern Scandinavia.
- Norwegians, again settlement only on the fringes of Scotland; high medieval settlement of French, Bretons, Flemings, Dutch and Germans would count also on this basis, as would modern settlement from Pakistan. Although I'll admit this Norwegians have more to do with the Scottish people than Frisians, again it is slight.
- Faroese shared language? Well, the ethnic language of the Scots is Gaelic; but if you mean people within modern Scotland, then this would only refer to people in a tiny fringe of Scotland. See above note on Norwegians.
- Icelanders, again, see above. Scots have settled extensively in dozens of countries, more extensively for instance in Poland, Russia, Germany, Norway, Sweden, USA, Canade, Australia, etc.
Dutch not relevantly more so than with any other westerners.
- Best to keep it to Irish, Manx and English with Welsh; Welsh is the native language of Britain, and Ireland and Mann have almost identical history of language and language mixture to Scotland. Scottish people are intimately related to these four peoples, anything after that is slight and open to too many inclusions. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Frisians: The Anglo-Saxons came into South-east Scotland from Northern England only shortly after they themselves first arrived from the German Bight. The Anglo-Saxons were most related to the modern Frisian peoples in terms of culture, language and ancestry and more-so than the peoples of Holland and northern Germany (so you can exclude them). In any case, you forgot about the closely shared linguistic (Anglo-Frisian) and religious elements (Calvinism).
- Yeah, still not buying it. They came via England,and were already substantially Celticized by the time they settled a tiny proportion of the "Scottish" land. At any rate, Frisian is no more relevant than any other northern German or southern Scandinavian people. And language similarity alone is not enough, since modern Scottish people speak a language which has more in common with the elite language of Singapore, India and much of Africa, and common language of north America and Australasia.

English is a worldwide language, but it is not the traditonal language of those other peoples. Frisians would be more relevant than the other groups would they not since they share the closest descent and culture with the original Anglo-Saxons and remain speaking the closest language. Those other Germanic groups do not. 69.157.116.42 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Norwegians: not only settlement on the fringes since significant numbers settled in the western highlands and isles (Norse-Gaels), galloway and south-west Scotland, Orkney/shetlands and much of north-east scotland from especially caithness even down to fife. There wasnt any "high medieval settlement" on a similar scale and only very limited numbers of French, Dutch, Flemish,etc. ever settled. In this case, it does not open it up to less related groups of peoples.
- I would dispute that; it was from Flanders and France that Scotland got it's first towndwellers. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Those towndwellers really did come in very small numbers. 69.157.116.42 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Faroese: share a great deal in common with the people of Caithness, Orkney and Shetland in terms of culture, ancestry, history and langauge. They in turn share ancestry and history with the rest of Scotland as well, but to a lesser degree.
- Nah, too many peoples have that much in common with Scottish people. But the Scottish people as a whole share very little common heritage with the Faroe Islands. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the people, the history and population genetics would seem to say otherwise. 69.157.116.42 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Icelanders: can not be compared with those places where Scots have maintained a distinct identity (Scottish-Americans, Scottish Canadians, etc.) or where they settled in such small numbers that they left no demographic impact. In Iceland, which has a small and very homogenous gene pool, the descent from the original Norse and Irish/Scottish celts remains as the backbone for the population to this very day.
- Let's not be getting into race. Bad territory. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity and race are related concepts. 69.157.116.42 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Dutch: agreed they share much less in common.

Therefore, I strongly recommend keeping Frisians, Norwegians, Icelanders and Faroese, but agree about excluding Dutch. 69.157.126.241 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

- If you have these, you must have Dutch, Germans, Bretons, Swedes, Danes, Italians (the Romans occupied and interacted with much of southern Scotland for centuries), French people, Pakistanis, Indians, Punjabis, Chinese, Canadians, Americans, Australians, as well as Poles, Luxemburgers, Russians, Lithuanians, Finns, Greenlanders, etc, etc. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no ethnic "Canadians", "Americans" or "Australians" unless you are referring to Native Americans or Australian Aborigines. Secondly, you don't have to include those groups since they don't share as much in common with Scots as do Frisians, Icelanders, Norwegians and Faroese. In terms of language, culture, history and ancestry, they share much more with ethnic Scots than those peoples. The Romans had a very limited impact and the very small numbers who settled were easily absorbed. The other groups do not or have not made such similar impacts on the ethnic Scottish gene-pool, language, culture or history. 69.157.126.241 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- And your arguments for this are what? Merely asserting something does not make it correct. Being an anonymous revert warrior may give you some powers, but not this. ;) Of course Americans and Canadians are peoples, why wouldn't they be? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course American and Canadians are "peoples", why wouldn't they be ?

We are speaking in terms of ethnic groups and ethnicity, not nationality. Canadians and Americans are not peoples in terms of ethnic groups. They are massive global and heterogenous societies with a multi-ethnic population, including many Scots. The only "ethnic Americans" and "Canadians" are native Algonquin, Metis, Iroquois, Cree, Inuit, Navajo, etc. 69.157.109.170 02:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Get with the times, anon, this is not the 18th or 19th century; Americans can easily claim to be an ethnic group, and certainly have more claim to ethnic distictiveness than, say, Austrians. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

hahha, WOW. Get with the times ? I am with the times and what does the 18th or 19th century have to do with what I'm saying today ? Well, much of who we are is about where we come from, but even so, I am speaking from a modern perspective. Ethnicity and culture last centuries and even longer. There is no unified American ethnic group and Austrians are more of an ethnic group easily than the non-existent "Americans" group. Austrians have a shared ancestry, shared language, shared culture anda re indigenous to Austria, although they are considered by many to be a sub-group of Germans. Have you ever been to the USA ? Many people here keep and identify with much of their roots and its more like a continent than a country or nation. It is more multi-ethnic and global than ever and there is no indigenous or unified "American" ethnic group, obviously. 69.157.109.170 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen expressed here on Wikipedia. How old are you? My family has been in America since the 1600s and fought in every U.S. war since the Revolutionary War. To say "there is no unified American ethnic group" is beyond comprehension to me. We understand that 4 centuries ago, our ancestors came here from Scotland, England, Ireland, France, etc. but we no more consider ourselves to be "ethnically" Scottish or English than Bantu or Chinese. We don't go around sporting kilts, tossing cabers, drinking wiskey, eating haggis or yearning to frollick in the heather by the loch. We eat hot dogs, watch football (that's the NFL, not soccer), play baseball, fly the stars and stripes, spell "labor" without a "u", wear jeans, chew Skoal, listen to Kenny Chesney, Willie Nelson and Bruce Springsteen, drive big (American) cars, shun public transportation, embrace capitalism, defeat communism and socialism, cherish our 2nd ammendment right to bear firearms, raise our children to work hard, celebrate Christmas with a Christmas tree and Santa Claus, celebrate Easter in church and with the Easter Bunny at home, and watch NASCAR after church on Sundays. We are Americans. You're right, "much of who we are is about where we come from" and I come from Stockton, California, USA; my father came from Stockton, California, USA; my grandfather came from Broken Bow, Oklahoma, USA; my great grandfather came from Cove, Arkansas, USA; my great-great grandfather came from Tupelo, Mississippi, USA. That is who I am. I am an American, ethnically and nationality. I suggest that, before you make comments like that, you grow up a little, turn off your TV and get outside of the insulated big-city and see the "real" America.--WilliamThweatt 03:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Americans have diverse origins like every other people in the world, but modern Americans and Canadians share a de facto ethnicity and cultural identity which every foreigner to that country recognizes. North Americans are far more distinct as an ethnic group than Austrians, who are no more a distinct sub-group of Germans than Bavarians or Saxons. Americans are certainly not English though. Yes, this is not the 19th century. The USA has been an independent state since the 18th century. Ethnicities don't come from the tower of babble, they are produced by political, social and other circumstances over time. And yes I have lived in the USA; I went to college there. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

How old am I? How old are you ? The fact you claim there is a unified American ethnic group IS the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. First of all, can you trace most of your recent ancestry to the US ? Can you trace ALL your ancestry to the 1600's ? OF COURSE NOT, because those people who lived here then were so limited in number that they didn't form the basis for much of the population. The majority of the 300 million people here trace their ancestors to the past two centuries (20th cent. in particular) and most of us retain a closer connection with our heritage than you and your southern cousins (you said your g'pa was from Arkansas). You trace your ancestry to mainly protestant English and Scotch-Irish Americans from the south and it is your group who are practically the only ones here who say they are "ethnically American". The rest of us take pride in our heritage whether we be African-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans (mainly native Irish from the republic) more recent British-Americans (eg. especially in New England), etc. The fact is you are of British-American descent and you do differentiate as a distinct group of Americans because you do not consider yourself the same as African-Americans or Chinese-Americans or Korean-Americans or Italian-Americans who are different in terms of their origins and culture. Just because your family has a much more diluted and lost connection with its ethnic origins, does not mean others or most Americans are the same way. In any case, you stil retain the genetic, physical and personal/traditional attributes associated with your family's ethnic origins. Your family's mainly English ancestry and long presence in America resulted in it being considered "American" yet you still share much in common with other British-Americans and even ethnic British in the UK, even if you are unaware of many of the traits (i.e. you do not take a specific interest in culture or anthropology). You still have many differnces in culture, langauge and ancestry from the ACTUAL and indigenous ethnic Americans, the Native Americans (Indigenous peoples of the Americas). I've only heard arguments like yours from southerners or "red-necks" who have lost much of their culture. I'd seriously like to see you go to downtown LA, or Boston, or New York or even Washington DC and not get laughed at for what you just said, claiming your are "ethnically American" of "American ethnic origins". Hilarious. Eoganan 04:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You really do not understand what an ethnic group is or the concept of ethnicity and ethnic origins. They originate from common culture, language and most imporatantly, kinship and descent (shared ancestry/familial heritage). Ethnic groups cross national and political borders, obviously. Americans and Canadians are not unified ethnic groups or peoples and have very diverse origins, more-so than other countries (except other new-world nations, like Australia, Brazil, etc.) North Americans are NOT an ethnic group and are not even a distinct or unified culture. You really know nothing about this country. Ethnic groups are those who are indigenous to a geographic region and share a common ancestry resulting in common culture, language, traditions, phenotypic/genotypic traits, etc. Austrians (a regional group of Germans, like Swabians or Bavarians) are very distinct. They speak the same traditional language, share a common ancestry and have a distinct culture and history indigenous to their region. These are items which us Americans do not have and we are comprised of peoples from around the globe with their respective languages, cultures and ancestry. We are not a unified ethnic group in any shape or form. We certainly are not all English, but there are millions of English-Americans who are here (somewhere between 28 million or more). There are no "American-Americans", unless you are speaking about the true Americans, the native American tribes and peoples who maintain their distinct culture and ethnic origins. Do you have no idea of where we come from ? Do you have no concept of family ? Here is a classic quote for you from a historical figure I admire:

"A man can be born in a stable, and yet not be an animal." - Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington 69.157.109.170 03:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

On a real personal assault there, aren't you. I'm afraid to tell you that you have a problem. The main one is that you have a rather naive "tower of babel" mentality. Ethnic groups do not derive from the tower of babel. In reality, all ethnic groups have diverse origins, and Americans (r perhaps "Anglo-Americans", not to be confused with Americans of English descent) are no different. You probably don't see this because you yourself have been brought up defining yourself against an ultimate origin, taking for granted your North American ethnicity. I'm familiar enough with this aspect of North American society; yet it's the insularity of American society that leads North Americans to lose context in this way. Common North American ethnicity is soon realized when Americans and Canadians travel outside their civilization. It is to this ethnicity that immigrants to America are assimilated, abandoning Polish, Russian, Gaelic, or what not for American English, celebrating thanksgiving, etc, etc. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This proves exactly how little you may know about peoples and culture. I do not have some "tower of babel" mentality, I'm only stating the facts about what people define ethnic groups and ethnicty as both here and around the world, based primarily on shared ancestry/kinship and descent. In reality, yes ethnic groups have some varied origins, but there is a limit to the diversity in the groups origins, otherwise it wouldnt be able to form a distinct culture from others. The combination of certain original elements helps form the distinctivenss of that group. The ethnic traits result from a shared genealogy and community which already manifests itself in genetic or apparent physical traits. Americans are not an ethnic group and the fact you insist on this is ridiculous and rarely heard of. I don't see your simply incorrect view on this because its unfounded. How am I taking for granted a "North American ethnicity" when it does not exist ? This country is massive and so diverse comprised of peoples and groups from all around the world and we have very differing origins and cultures. What do you mean by the "Insularity of American society" ? There is no common American or Canadian ethnicity that is realized when we travel abroad and in fact we connect with much of that which we have in common with our relatives and fellow peoples in the homeland. Its funny you bring up thanksgiving because so many people here celebrate it differently (my family has meat pies and haggis along with the turkey) and the holiday itself is from the native americans (who themselves celebrate it in their own distinct way today). Yes when people come here they adapt certain aspects of other cultures (I don't say American because American culture is basically all global cultures speaking the English language), but we also maintain aspects of our cultures and traditions passed down through our family and many of us maintain our links with the home nation. We maintain differing traits with many of those who retain a very strong connection with their homeland (eg. especially Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, Hispanics or Spanish-Americans, African-Americans, Jewish-Americans etc.) including all ethnic traits, while some of us only retain only that which is primarily inherited (behavioural traits, family traditions, genetics and physical appearance). With ethnicity being primarily based on shared ancestry and traits associated with such, Americans are by no means an ethnic group and are barely considered such by anyone. Clearly you konw little about our country and society with much of this non-sense your spitting out (no offence). There are people in my town who I have little in common with in many ways yet we are born here and our parents were born here. Alot of people here (Rochester, NY) have Polish heritage and have customs my family knows nothing about and mainly older family members who speak a language I couldn't barely begin to understand. I mean, there are so many things I don't have in common with African-Americans or HIspanics or Spanish-AMericans. I went to New York this summer and more people spoke Spanish, Italian or Cantonese in places than English. Even here in Rochester there are Irish, Polish and German neighbourhoods and communities and areas (more suburban or rural) where there are alot of people of originally English and Scottish descent (usually marked by pubs). I now have a user page if that makes things a bit better for you. Eoganan 04:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah Eoganan. Trying to insult me won't do you any good. The idea that there is no American ethnicity just because you say there isn't hardly works. You need to grow up intellectually and do more reading. Only you can help yourself with that. Try Benedict Anderson's Imagined communities, for instance. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold in turn actually supported the existence of races so I don't see how is views would come to contradict much here. Also, his view on Imaginary communities is only one side of the coin, speaking mostly in term of political or geographic nations and cultures, rathern than the ethnic group. It seems to me that everyone in this debate was insulting, but I've seen far worse on Wikipedia. 69.157.116.42 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the arrogance of youth. Your many words do not hide the flaws in your logic. Simply because some people (more specifically, the people around you) are not (or do not consider themselves to be) ethnically American, doesn't mean that there is no American ethnicity. Turn off your TV, get outside the insulated big-city and see the real America that makes up the majority of the population here. Read my comments above.--WilliamThweatt 04:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the arrogance of the uneducated and ignorant. These personal attacks never cease do they. My many words support my logic and only reveal the lack of it in your discourse. I like to watch TV, but I like to read more and I like the urban area (well, sub-urban really) where I live and the majority of the population lives. The fact that you claim the majority of our population is rural sums up the quantity of your knowledge in this matter. Eoganan 04:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll wager my two Masters Degrees (Political Science & Linguistics) and my position as a professor at a major university against whatever you have any day. Don't play with the semantics of "Urban", "Sub-urban" and "rural". As I recall, about 40% of the US population lives in "the big city", the rest (a majority) do not. Travel a little, get out and see America before you make sweeping generalizations.--WilliamThweatt 05:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

William, you don't need to prove yourself to this person. He will just go on and on, BSing, until he learns to think and listen. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats kinda harsh on the guy isn't it? I mean from reading this debate, it looks like you didn't listen to much of what that person said either. 69.157.116.42 16:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, Calgacus, thanks. I usually don't allow myself to get sucked into such foolishness, but something about this guy just irritated the fire out of me (I think it was his aire of arrogance...that usually does it). Anyway, in my profession in the "real world", I deal with young people like him all the time. I wasn't seriously "agruing" with him, just trying to provoke him into "thinking and listening" (as you put it). Sometimes it works and sometimes, as you pointed out in this case, it becomes obvious that nothing will work, except maybe time and life-experience.--WilliamThweatt 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you got a little more than sucked in by this user and it looks like you got a little provoked by him into keeping on with the discussion. Also, if you claim he wasnt "thinking and listening", I disagree from the extent and quantity of his resonses and your equal refusal of everything he discussed in his analysis. I think its a form of ageism to discriminate against younger users and claim you are more knowledgable just because you are older. Younger users may be mrre konwledgable than you on various issues which you do not regularly study or have an equal interest in. Also if you deal with young people like him all the time, I do hope you deal with them in a more professional manner. I can tell you from my own experience that many , if not most academics I know, disagree with much of your views on this matter. Perhaps all of us interested in ethnic group articles need to do a little more reading into this subject area. 69.157.123.202 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Political Science, that must really give you a significant background in this subject area. 40%, what are you kidding me ? According to Census 2000, about 79% of the population lives in urban areas (Taken from Demographics of the United States). It must not be a quality university if they hire professors with only a Masters Degree. Most Profs at my school have a Phd. I have travelled and seen America and been to many major cities where most of us live. I think you need to get out of Stockton and see more of whats out there. Eoganan 05:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does give me a "significant background", and the article you reference says 75% right in the lead sentence, not 79%. The fact that you can't even get something simple like that right isn't helping your credibility. Also, you are arguing a point I wasn't even making. I made it clear I wasn't talking about "Urban" vs "Rural". I'm talking about big city vs the rest of America (ie, homogenous populations not in the "big city"). The terms "urban" and "rural" are misleading as the census considers Provo, Utah just as "urban" as New York City, while the two are completely different environments, and I'll wager that the majority of people in Provo will consider themselves Americans and totally disagree with your sweeping generalizations. And, FYI, I have only recently returned to the Central Valley here after living in various places throughout the US, both big and small. And, also FYI, most of the professors at my school also have PhDs, the fact that my employers offered me the position that is traditionally held by a PhD speaks to their opinion of my qualifications and abilities.--WilliamThweatt 06:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much on this personally but I really think someone in anthropology or history would have a better background than political science. Also, it seems that edit warrior got the figure from the United States page, under the subheading Demographics. I also dont think the user was trying to say people didnt think of themselves as Americans, just that they didnt think of themselves as ethnic Americans or indigenous Americans, and also retained their ethnic elements passed down from their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents etc. The personal attacks in this debate really got too heated but being offered a professors job with MAsters Degree doen't necessarily mean you have higher or better qualifications, since you would of been able to get a Phd if you had such "abililities". Personally, I am from Seattle and I see myself as American but also realize my Irish and Scotch-Irish heritage, and am proud of such. I would say i am part of those groups in ethnic terms. 69.157.116.42 16:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

- James, this is the last time I'm going to deal with you on anything other than article content, but we can add computers to the long list of things you need to learn more about. The IP addresses you are using now are way too similar to the one you used yesterday for anybody to believe you are in Seattle, while the others were in Rochester. We know it's you, you're not fooling anybody.--WilliamThweatt 19:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thank you for labelling me a "warrior" earlier. I think its rather fitting. 69.157.109.170 02:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

James ?? Huh ??? And I am originally from Seattle. Perhaps it is you who needs to learn more about IP addresses. 70.48.30.91 20:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Diaspora"

It appears as if we are going to require mediation or an RfC if the anonymous user keeps changing "migration" to "Diaspora". In addition to its "dictionary meaning" the term "diaspora" has a very politically loaded connotation. It is clear that the anonymous user is agenda-pushing and soapboxing here. There is no sense in using this term when "migration" will suffice.--WilliamThweatt 01:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The chapter on emigration in Jenny Wormald's Scotland: A History is David Armitage's "The Scottish Diaspora", so perhaps the word is not so very controversial in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

I've semi-protected the page, based on the pattern of anonymous vandalism over the last 24 hours. Let me know if this causes any significant issues. alphaChimp ^laudare 02:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

per my comment above, and due to the slowing of activity on this article, I am removing protection from it. Please discuss major changes on this page before putting them into effect. alphaChimp ^laudare 11:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why citation request?

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

I'm puzzled. Why has a citation request been put on the above statement, which seems to me to be blindingly obvious?! What else would they consider themselves to be? British, yes; but that will always be placed second to Scottishness, just as it is placed second to Englishness. Quite frankly, I would have finished this sentence short of the unecessary final clause, and then reworded what follows. Rcpaterson 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Because there are many people in Scotland who would not consider themselves Scottish because 1)they are not born there, 2)are not of ethnic Scottish descent or 3)consider themselves Scottish only second to something else which they identify with primarily. 69.157.109.170 03:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's all perfectly reasonable; but it still does not take away from the essential truth that the 'vast majority' of people consider themselves to be Scottish, including some, I suspect who were neither born in Scotland nor of ethnic Scottish descent. What form would an acceptable citation take? Asking people one by one? It might take a day or two. Rcpaterson 03:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To be more precise, any statement of fact, especially those giving specific numbers should be supported with a reference. Also, "vast majority" is very No weasel words|weaselyand can be interpreted in different ways. A source must be cited to support this as well. Yes, it would take a day or two and would also be considered Original Research, which is why one must cite a source that has already done the survey. It it was included, the fact must have come from somewhere, just cite the source.--WilliamThweatt 04:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered to raise this in the first place; we are now entering into the realms of the intellectually absurd. As I said at the outset I would not have used the expression in the first place simply because it is so blindingly obvious, along the lines of the 'vast majority of American people consider themselves to be American.'; or the 'vast majority of black people consider themselves to be black.' Where would you get a source for those statements? There are some propositions which cannot be proved one way or the other, and my irony has seemingly passed over without effect. Anyway, we are now getting into the country of Gulliver's Travels, and I personally have done with the matter.Rcpaterson 05:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There are probably census figures which demonstrate the fact. Your comment about 'British always second' is not blindingly obvious - it's true, yes, but not beyond question.--Nydas 07:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I added the citation request, and I have provided a citation. The sentence "vast majority of people resident in America consider themselves to be American" is not self-evident. It should be noted that the citation I provided (the UK census ethnicity question) presumes that all Scottish people are British. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Scots Census had different questions than the English one. Note 2 refers to the census data, the published summary showing that some 88% of respondants answered "White Scottish" to the "What is your ethnic origin ?" question. ICM and System Three polls featuring the "Moreno question" show 85-90% of respondants giving Scottish-not-British, more-Scottish-than-British or Scottish-and-British responses in the period 1991-2001. It would be nice if someone could find a way to link to the ESDS site for the social attitudes surveys from which these numbers come. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'The extreme south-east'

Lothian and the Borders were described as the 'far south-east' in the indigenous section. I removed the 'far' as being an unusual and frankly weird description. It would be odd to describe New York or Shanghai as being in the 'far east' of the USA or China. Now it's been turned into the 'extreme' south-east on 'technical' grounds by Calgacus. If one were being extremely technical, one could make a case for the centre of Scotland to lie somewhere in the Moray Firth.--Nydas 21:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know what you're objecting to, Nydas. What's the far east of the USA and China got to do with anything? The center of mainland Scotland lies in Argyll-Perthshire-Angus, not the Moray Firth. It's not a matter of being technical, but geographical accuracy. Not everyone is intimate with the geography of Scotland you know. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Countries aren't geometric shapes. It is palpably absurd to refer to Lothian (containing the capital) as the 'extreme south-east'. Is Toronto in the 'extreme south' of Canada? Is Turin in the 'extreme north' of Italy? --Nydas 11:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Edinburgh wasn't the capital until relatively recently. Not sure why you want to make a big deal of such a thing, the phrase is entirely logical. And I don't see the parallel with Canada at all. Are you saying Scotland north of the Forth is the equivalent to Manitoba and the Canadian artic tundra? Don't be fooled by modern population trends; Scotland's population concentration in the area of Glasgow and Edinburgh is purely post-industrial, the arbitrary spots where large industrialized cities grew. I doubt if Lothian had even 5% of Scotland's population in the early middle ages. Certainly, its population was not large enough to support any powerful lordship, unlike Gowrie, Atholl, Moray, Argyll, Strathclyde, etc. Extreme south-east is geographically accurate, and hardly "palpably absurd". If Lothian is just the south-east, where on earth is Fife? Also, the precise area in question was not the entire Lothian zone; areas like Peebleshire do not seem to have been eavily anglicized, and Edinburgh, which you imply was at the center of English Lothian, was actually on the north-western extremity. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends where you start from, but from my perspective Coldstream and Duns are in the extreme south east, and central Scotland includes (surprisingly enough) the central belt including Glasgow and the Lothians (modern definition) as well as Fife and Stirling. The paragraph relates territories to modern Scotland, and "south-east" as it says now looks fine. However the statement that "the concept of "Highlander" and "Lowlander" is rather a meaningless anachronism applied only to historical topics" seems odd when Highland games are live and kicking up a din on a regular basis. They do seem to be a source of dodgy history, as exemplified by this anecdote, but the anachronism is applied as much to fancy dress and tourism as historical topics. ..dave souza, talk 16:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dave, I don't think "Highland Games" is a good example. Proves precisely the point. i.e. highland and lowland being anachronistic terms. Highland Games in fact take place all over Scotland, and amongst Scottish descendents (whether of Highlanders or Lowlanders doesn't seem to matter) all over the world. I'd defy anyone to define the modern Lowlands and modern Highlands. In actual fact the whole idea is a xenophobic Anglo-Scottish construct, implying that native Scots had no arable land and hence no civilization. Contrary to what many people, even scholars think, it didn't define a bounded region as it did in the 18th century; e.g. people from Carrick could be called "highland". Among the native Scots, they continued to call themselves Scots (Gaidheal) and Anglo-Scots foreigners (Gall). How many modern Scots are farmers, how many pastoralists? How many cattle thiefs does modern Scotland have, and how many burgesses? How many people speak Lowland Scots (actually speak Lowland Scots, rather than some Hiberno-Scottish hybrid dialect of English like they speak in Glasgow) and how many Gaelic? Where is the frontier? There isn't one! You're more likely to find a Gaelic speaker in Partick than Badenoch. How many people inhabiting the geographical zone which corresponds with the 1600-1800 Lowland cultural zone actually descend from 1600-1800 lowland Scots, rather than "highlanders", Galwegians, Irish, Italians, etc? If Lowlanders and Highlanders exist today, then it is only as characters in film adaptations of Walter Scott and R.L. Stevenson novels. It has no more relevance today than Anglo-Irish and Irish does in Ireland, because like Ireland Scotland is again pretty much one country. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As is the UK or Britain, in various contexts. Doesn't stop there being regional accents and identities, as well as people adopting "heritage" identities. Interesting news about the Gaelic secondary school - in Glasgow if my memory's correct. It must be said that I grew up as a lowlander, living next to the venue for the Leith Highland games which tended to be enlivened by Newhaven Fishwifes in traditional garb. ..dave souza, talk 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Leith has highland games? Didn't know that. Perhaps the town should now return to its original medieval (Gaelic) name of Inverleith, and open a secondary school. ;) Anyways, if I ever move to Edinburgh and have children there, I shall make sure my children feel more Votadinian than Scottish. Out of curiosity, what exactly was "Lowland" about your upbringing? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Replaced the 'far south east' which Calgacus tried to sneak back in with the anon's sensible edit. At least comment when you're reversing changes being discussed on the talk page.--Nydas 14:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try to "sneak" anything back in. I notice you're not continuing your ridiculous line of argument btw. Come on, give me some more laughs. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's common courtesy to leave comments when making contentious edits. And please don't start making 'bring it on' comments here and on my talk page. As per my ridiculous argument, you'll notice that dave agreed that Lothian is not normally considered the 'far south east'. --Nydas 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no I didn't notice. I merely noticed that Dave added his own south-eastern perspective. I'm still waiting on a response from you to my previous comments. Not that it'd matter, but I don't recall Dave drawing parallels between Perthshire and Manitoba. I'll put it down to your historical and geographical ignorance. As for "bring it on" comments, as you call them, just marking the fact that you are one of these users who think being rude will do them some good. I'm not surprised, as the Scottish people article tends to attract people like yourself, which is why it has had a cleanup tag for most of its life. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not compare Perthshire and Manitoba. The Canada example was one of several, illustrating how odd it is to describe countries with no regard for their human geography or population density. As for your estimate of the historical population, it would be good in the article itself, if properly sourced. --Nydas 15:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid an article like this isn't going to be getting details as scholarly as that; that is, unless some Aryan nationalist crank puts a website up about it. However, it's easy enough to find details about that 1755 Scottish census, which showed most Scottish people still lived north of the river Tay, i.e. in the northern half of Scotland, for which, see for instance the passing note in Murray G.H. Pittock, Celtic Identity and the British Image, p. 99. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "the fringes"

Scotland is obviously a small country in terms of geography and I don't think the areas settled by the Anglo-Saxons and especially the Norse can be called simply "the fringes" (implying only limited coastal settlement). Most of the west saw Norse settlement, from the western isles all the way down to Galloway, and there was also significant settlement in Sutherland, Caithness, Orkneys, Shetlands and Moray (modern Inverness, Nairn, Elgin, etc.). I haven't been on Wikipedia much lately, but I will provide some links next time for history of Norse settlement in Scotland if your unhappy with my current edit. Epf 20:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Epf, I'm familiar enough with Norse settlement in Scotland not to need the help of trashy links. The Norse only settled coast lands, or areas within very short distance of the sea. So fringes is quite appropriate in a geographical context; anglo-saxon settlement was even less significant than Norse settlement; and so in both cases, saying that these peoples "settled" Scotland gives the misleading impression than the ethnic makeup of Scotland was altered, whereas in reality little less than about 90% of the country was untouched. A good discussion of Norse settlement in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross can be found in Earl and Mormaer: Norse-Pictish Relationships in Northern Scotland by Barbara Crawford, which shows how weak Norse settlement actually was in the area of mainland Scotland supposedly settled most by these Germanic invaders. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to provide "Trashy links", but I am also quite familiar with the level of settlement of the Norse in Scotland and its disputed by many. One thing for certain is that Norse settlement was higher in Scotland than anywhere else in Britain, although it still was much smaller than the level of Danish settlement in northern and eastern England. I will look in to your suggested readings, but the 90% figure is way off, especially when you consider Scotland in a geographical context. I will provide equal readings and links (useful ones) soon. Ciao, Epf 21:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think 90% is way off. I'd say that was an optimistic figures; the most densely populated areas of Scotland, Moray, Aberdeenshire, Gowrie, Strathtay, Strathearn and Strathclyde were virtually untouched by Norse settlement. Why wouldn't I have already considered "Scotland in a geographical context"? That is most puzzling. BTW, you can waste your time providing links if you want, but I have dozens of full bibliographies on the subject within a hand's reach, so you'd be wasting your time. Especially when you consider the actual issue. Alba (Scotland-Pictland) was there before the Viking age, and was still there after it. Hence "fringes" is appropriate, whereas "settled Scotland" is entirely misleading, since by definition the areas they settled didn't belong to Scotland until they were reconquered. BTW, "Norse" can include "Danish", and does not mean the same as "Norwegian", although I admit you are not the only one to make this mistake. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that "Norse" does not necessarily mean "Norwegian", but the vast majority of Norse to settle in Scotland were Norwegians from overpopulated (at that time) Western Norway. I am really interested in these full bibliographies dedicated fully to information on Norse settlement in Scotland (if you dont mind listing them for my own reference), especially since I've found information on this area scanty at best. I've been reading into some of Crwaford's work that has been available on the net and most of her work is dedicated to Norse settlements and archaeological findings from such. She can only hypothesize the extent of settlement from her findings and does not use any analyisis of the actual living populations in areas thought to have been extensively settled. I do see your point though, considering where the heartladnd of the Kingdom of Alba was at the time, how you could consider the settlements on the fringes. It was however still widespread and covered vast areas of the country, even if largely restricted to the west and north. In any case, although settlement was most intense in the Western and Norhtern Isles, Caithness, Sutherland, Galloway, etc., there were costal raids all over Scotland. I just felt "fringes" was so misleading considering Scotland's size. I mean you consider the south-east on the "fringe", yet Edinburgh would become the capital and centre of Medieval Scotland and this city was settled by Anglo-Saxons. Even if going by what you consider the core populated area of Scotland, it was still quite small and close in size to the areas settled by anglo-saxons and norwegian vikings. Also, I thought Strathclyde (if you mean modern) was settled significantly by the Norse, especially in Argyll. Your right though about this subject not being worth the time and I do agree that forthe most part, the settlement was at the time in the fringes. Perhaps a more pressing concern is the related ethnic group box, what happened there ? Wheres the continental groups ? I'll deal with that later. Thanks for the suggested readings. Ciao, Epf 21:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Scotland is not all that small, and the areas not settled by Norse or English make the areas settled by these peoples look small. Ignoring politics, by which these Germanic settlements were definitely on the fringes, in simple geographical terms these settlements were fringe in relation to the territory of modern Scotland - they were on the edge, nowhere near the center.

Germanic languages in the 10th century.

For bibliographies, just check the back of any broader textbook, e.g. Scandinavian Scotland by Barbara Crawford or Anne Richie's (less good) Viking Scotland. Edinburgh, btw, was not the "capital and center of medieval Scotland" in any sense. Ignoring the fact that Edinburgh lies in the lowest quarter of Scottish territory, hence physically far from the center, Scone was the actual capital ("chief seat" as it is frequently called), and more charters were issued at Scone-Perth (the two locations are but a short walk from each other) than any other location in Scotland. Technically in fact, as "Scotland" for most of the middle ages referred only to the territory north of the Forth (even after the Scottish kings had expanded beyond that), Edinburgh wasn't even in Scotland. Edinburgh was just one of half a dozen or so royal centers popular with Scotland's itinerant monarchs in the high and later middle ages. Of course, the idea that medieval Scotland had a capital in anything approaching the modern sense is just silly. The Scottish monarch was itinerant. I'm afraid you've been caught by anachronism, the first and easiest sign to spot that a person does not know what they are talking about when discussing history. No offense btw, you are an intelligent guy, you just need to do somemore reading in this subject. PS, by Strathclyde I meant the valley of the clyde. The modern Strathclyde is just an arbitrary set of boundaries invented by a bunch of historically insensitive pen pushers, just like most other official boundaries in modern Scotland. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I really dont think I used an anachronism since I was speaking more in a geographic context rather than on a historical timeline. Also, the map above although useful, is inaccurate and unreferenced in where it gets its information. Since I'm sort of getting off topic with this, I'll just post on your user page. Epf 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again, some indepth sourcing for Calgacus's views re population figures would be nice, rather than suggestions to find them ourselves.--Nydas 06:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Simplified relief map.

The map gives a fair idea of where farming is theoretically possible on ground of elevation (green), although it understates the poor situation of the far north and north-west coastal zone. Look where all the farmland is: where the Scandinavians weren't. Anyway, there aren't figures before 1755. The ones from 1755 came up with a total population of about a million and quarter, of whom the vast majority lived in areas where intrusive place-names (other than Gaelic ones) are not found, or are not common. Coming up with an exact percentage is impossible, but something over half of the 1755 population lived in Alba/Scotia/proto-Scotland, between the Forth and the Beauly, east of Drumalban. Most of the rest lived in Strathclyde/Cumbria, or in areas which might have been under Germanic hegemony but didn't see many Germanic place-names formed. The areas where Germanic place names are relatively frequent had a 1755 population of around a hundred thousand for the Anglian south-east and somewhat more for the Scandinavian north and north-west. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is really the place to make estimates based on arable land, placenames, concentrations of power, etc. Is the 90% figure the general consensus amongst historians? --Nydas 17:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Any reference for those population figures Angus ? The map is partially useful but the best farmland in the country has always been from the central Lowlands to the southern uplands (including the anglian south-east). If the 1755 population of the Anglian south was only 100,000, it was probably due to the fact that so many numbers had recently been emigrating to Ulster and onto the Americas from this region. Also, drawing from the map and geographic knowledge of Caithness, the Orkneys, the Shetlands and the Western Isles, there was arable farmland where the Norse most intensively settled. Epf 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Scottish History, p. 489, which uses unhelpful subtotals in the main. County-level figures are all over the place, hardly unexpected. Some here, some on the individual county pages here and others in the Statistical Accounts here. Those last are particularly badly organised, not all counties have the numbers (they are more commonly in the 2nd account than the Old one) and the chapter which contains the county-level info varies in name, and in layout, across the volume. The Anglian south means the south-east, the former Borders region, plus the County of Haddington and bits of Midlothian, not the south-west. As for all that farmland, Caithness in 1840-odd had 46,000 acres of cultivated land of 395,000 in all (about average for the "Highlands" zone), Argyll 308,000 of 2,900,000. The Counties of Perth, Forfar, Fife and Kincardine together (core-proto-Scotland I suppose) covered less area than Argyll (around 2.5 million-odd acres) and contained about a million acres of cultivated land. The geography had not changed significantly, so the proportions would be similar in earlier times. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not find those links you provided too useful in terms of information on farmland in those regions, except for the Statistical Accounts of Scotland site. I also do not know from which source you gathered your numbers, but I can tell you from simply the topography and even pictures of Caithness that it has much farmland and is very flat compared to the other areas of the Highlands region, which is why the Norse were so particularly attracted to it in the first place. I took this from "Account of 1834-45 vol.15 p.179 : General Observations, County of Caithness" on The Statistical Accounts of Scotland site: "its area is 618 square miles, or 395,680 acres, of which about 100,000 are cultivated and in pasture...". . This would make a little over 25% of the land of Caithness as cultivated compared to 30% in Perth (500,000 acres out of 1,656,320 total, taken from same 1834-45 account) and merely 13% in Argyll (308,000 acres out of 2,432,000 total). Therefore, it is obvious that Caithness clearly had very arable farmland and was the most fertile area north-west of the central belt. Also, I never said in my previous statement "Anglian south" and in fact said "Anglian south-east" which btw included more than just "bits" of Lothian and originally included all of it. Epf 17:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Breaking news about the Origins of the Scottish and the British.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ireland

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

Scottland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

globe01

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

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

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

globe01

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

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

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

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

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

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

 globe01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is very simple:

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

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

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

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

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

Page 280.

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

Pages 281-82.

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

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

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

Page 283.

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Some thoughts on the Scottish-Iberian connection

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

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

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

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

And that's about it. For now, anyway. Canæn 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here you have some other links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or this one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Clarifying the scope of this article

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

Next take a look at meaning two.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Anglicisation

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

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

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

[edit] Scots in England

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

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

84.135.245.188 10:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up following Ethnic group project template.

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Vandalism

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

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

[edit] Ukranian refuge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Request for comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 280.

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

Pages 281-82.

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

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

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

Page 283.

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

1. Subgroups of R1b. (Atlantic modal haplotype)

2. Maternal DNA.

3. Other matches.

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

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

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

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

2. Main ideas.

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

Pages: Especially 19-91.

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

3. British population in general:

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

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

An exact quotation:

Page 375.

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

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

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

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

wow thanks veritas for all those cititations.

anyhow heres some contradictory evidence about the basque british link

British Basque Link Alternative theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 378.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Suggestion for the "Population Genetics" Section

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

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

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

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

biological origins do significantly affect ethnic identity and the formation of ethnic groups and cultures of course, but the conccepts of nation and ethnicity are generally distinct from one another. Therefore, genetic data does have a relevance to ethnicity.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Comments by 70.82.221.96

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

[edit] New Zealand Scots

I was just on the NZ goverments stastistical site and saw that in 1996 the Scottish population was 107,007 in 1996 and dropped to 12,792 by the 2001 census. [5]. Deff a stastistical error in the sample. Put both figures as the next census will clear up the matter. Also why is their no New Zealand scots, or Australian Scots wiki pages could we get them set up as we do for the Scottish American and Canadian Scots.

[edit] Celts are an Altaic People

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/o/Talk%7EScottish_people_5023.html"

Talk:Scottish people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

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

[edit] Sean Connery?

[edit] "Germanic peoples" category controvesial, but "Celts" is not?

[edit] Genetics stuff

[edit] Other countries with diaspora

[edit] Diaspora

[edit] Do not delete verifiable sources.

[edit] related non-Insular groups

[edit] "Diaspora"

[edit] Semi-Protection

[edit] Why citation request?

[edit] 'The extreme south-east'

[edit] "the fringes"

[edit] Breaking news about the Origins of the Scottish and the British.

[edit] Some thoughts on the Scottish-Iberian connection

[edit] Clarifying the scope of this article

[edit] Anglicisation

[edit] Scots in England

[edit] Clean up following Ethnic group project template.

[edit] Vandalism

[edit] Ukranian refuge

[edit] Request for comment

[edit] Suggestion for the "Population Genetics" Section

[edit] Comments by 70.82.221.96

[edit] New Zealand Scots

[edit] Celts are an Altaic People

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search