Talk:Scottish national identity

Article

This is just clutter. No attempt at NPOV has been made. There are numerous other articles on en: wiki that cover this topic ad infinitum. Rambling. No focus or purpose to the article. Cliche. User:Mais oui!

Dear User:JW1805, much of your criticism is correct. This stub needs a dramatic overhaul, which I'll endeavour to give it. I've not come across these "numerous other articles", so links to them would be helpful. I note that Mais oui! has added a notice proposing to merge this with Scottish independence but has not had the courtesy to give any reasons on either talk page. As should become clear from revisions to this article, such a redirect would be wholly inappropriate....dave souza 21:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I didn't leave the above comment (Actually, Mais oui! did, but didn't sign it). All I did was add the stub tag to the article. --JW1805 01:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for mistakenly thinking that was your edit. Wee May having written it makes more sense...dave souza 16:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Dave, I do think a valid article can be written here, but it will need a different approach. It has to record the debate not have it. You'll need quote and cite sources on all sides. (I also wonder about the title 'national' does it begger the question of what type of identity Scots have - is it regional, national, or supressed.) Scots can feel both Scottish and British - but do they? how strong are both feelings? Anyway, good luck with it - I'd not know where to start. --Doc (?) 21:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

N.B. the encyclopediac definition is that Scotland is a nation but not a state; this is why Scotland possesses a National Assembly. However I feel the term 'Scottish Identity' would be more than sufficient. ~Cel 21/10/05

Doc, that's my best shot for now, hope it explains things better and gives a suitable framework for future work. Sources at present are minimal: there was a good article about Asian/Scots in last Sunday's Herald, but online their search doesn't seem to work (with Safari?). It's a national identity because all Scots will tend to feel a vague unity (sometimes including Geordies as honorary Scots) at the same time as identifying with regional and local areas. Hey, I identify a bit with Inverclyde and Glasgow, and I'm a Leither who emigrated here....dave souza 16:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Article

First thing to my mind when clicking the link was the Scotland football team and brave defeat. CalG 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Perspective

This looks like it has been written to give the viewpoint of some rabid nationalist idiot. No sensible person in Scotland really believe anyone oppresses their culture or what have you. And to suggest that British identity is somehow false or manufactured is nonsense. User:Breadandcheese

This article needs some whinging about the oppression and marginalisation of Gaelic culture by the English lowlanders.

84.135.242.170 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone here come across a very fine publication by Dr. William Ferguson? The Identity of the Scottish Nation: an historic quest. Edin. Uni. Press 1998. Deals with rather a lot of the issues raised and rather badly dealt with in this article, specifically the Scots/Inglis, Scots/Erse tribulations.Brendandh 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Forgot to sign in when making that big edit. Basically I've got some sources on the development of Scottish nationalism (and therefore identity) throughout the ages. I've done the pre- and early- Union parts, though the 19th century and onwards I am still yet to do. I'll try and get them done sometime soon, though it's like 5.30am here and I really ought to go sleep for now.

P.S. I also think it should be changed to "Scottish Identity" rather than "Scottish National Identity" - the first term is suitable, as well as politically neutral.

~jonesy1289 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesy1289 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Added Victorian Era section just now too.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Right now this article consists of nothing but. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a publisher of original thought. Remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "I'm from Scotland and I know this to be true" counts for nothing. If you can't back up your facts by citing reliable sources then they don't belong here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Depressing

This article is very, very depressing. Celebration of "Scotsness" is a good thing and national pride should be admired as much here as elsewhere in the world. Yet some people haven't got their head round the fact that one can have multi-identities. I'm a Catholic Lowland Scots Ulsterman living in Lothian in the Island of Great Britain and part of the European sphere in a small planet that rotates around a fairly insignificant ball of fire somewhere in the Milky-way. The Northern Islesmen can shout all they like about supposed cultural independence, but a FACT, the Nordreys were ceded to Scotland by Christian I of Norway in 1468 for non payment of Dowry, and have been Scots ever since. Regional identities are certainly important but in this article should be assigned to paragraphs rather than dodgy deleting wars. A'body wi' me? Brendandh 03:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This article has seen a long edit war over the inclusion of a statement that "[most/many] Orcadians and Shetlanders have a distinct national identity which is at odds with the idea of a Scottish national identity". --18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• This statement seems inconsistent with WP:NPOV and no verifiable, neutral references have been provided to support it. The websites of regional activist groups (1) do not meet the requirements of WP:V. Stating that a cited work is "wrong" (2) is not a reason include personal commentary or original research. --YFB ¿ 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The statement on [1]:"After considerable research we now believe that there need be no barrier to the achievement of a status similar to that of the Isle of Man or the Faroes. This would mean maintaining our relationship with the UK, but with considerable autonomy over our own affairs." would appear to be a clear enough statement that "[most/many] Orcadians and Shetlanders have a distinct national identity which is at odds with the idea of a Scottish national identity"! What else do you need in the way of evidence? (Does it take, for example, this source to be cited in PhD thesis before it is acceptable?) 81.156.63.64 23:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This website [2] does not meet WP:RS which says.

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Therefore the statement and source should not be placed on the page until such a reliable source is found.--Zleitzen 23:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no verifiable sources anywhere to back up the comment that "Orcadians and Shetlanders have an identity at odds with a Scottish one. There are plenty of sources which suggest they have their own identity, which the article reflects, and is common knowledge. There has been similar abuse of Orkney and Shetland related articles before. In that instance, the user was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Globaltraveller 07:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The User who was permanently banned - User:Orkadian - is a sockpupper of User:Mallimak, as is User:81.156.63.64, commenting above. In fact every single disruptive edit to this article, and hundreds of other Orkney-related articles, is by Mallimak and his sockpuppets. Time for a permanent ban of the puppetmaster and all his blatant socks. --Mais oui! 09:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of verifiable sources to show a resentment in Orkney of the "annexation" to rather unpleasant Stuart rule, in the same way as there are Scots who still resent proud Edward and object to a British identity. I've not seen evidence of to what extent, if any, Orcadians reject Scottish identity. To meet this point, "generally" could be added, so that the sentence reads "a strong sense of regional identity, generally alongside the idea of a Scottish national identity".. dave souza, talk 09:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with YFB and Zleitzen. Unless you can cite reliable sources to back up your facts, don't add them. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The radical campaign website linked-to is most definitely not a reliable source, as Zleitzen has explained above. Dave souza, if you have plenty of verifiable sources please produce them. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comments so far. However, I'd go further than Dave. Google books will find quotes, like: "Muir was an Orkney man who never quite felt that he was Scottish" (Paul Henderson Scott, Towards Independence.). Cohen, Signifying Identities, has some interesting stuff. Waller & Cryon, Almanac of British Politics, p.621, is good. I could go on, and if I had the time I would. Even though Mallimak is an editor with a strong opinion, who fails to substantiate his additions, there's little doubt that even quick and dirty research could make the case that he wants to include here. Simply to revert his changes because he fails to provide sources, when any good faith effort to fact-check the additions would find that there are indeed sources supporting them, is not constructive editing. Your mileage may vary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V: "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor". Failing to cite reliable sources is a perfectly acceptable reason to revert a user's edits. We are not in the business of "making cases" using evidence. From WP:OR: "Articles may not contain ... any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position". Most people can back up their opinions with evidence, that does not make them any less opinions. See also WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#OR. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In another world we might commune with the Spirit of NPOV to determine the Right Thing. In this one, Mallimak wants to give more weight to the idea that Orkney/Shetland are semi-detached parts of Scotland; Mais oui! and others don't. Both are arguments for which good cases can be made, fully compliant with WP:V. If you can suggest a way of resolving content disputes which doesn't involve comparing the arguments, or cases, made on each side, I'd be interested to hear it. If we end up with undue weight being given to the case of Orkney and Shetland, the answer is to expand the rest of the article, rather than trying to cut the coverage of the northern isles. One thing's sure, edit warring is not the answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me clarify. There would be nothing wrong with: "Source-X states 'Orkney is a semi-detached part of Scotland', while Source-Y states 'most Orcadians consider themselves fully Scottish'". What would be wrong would be stating either opinion as truth and producing evidence to try to back up that opinion. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's roughly what I meant. I apologise for being as clear as mud. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me! This entire article cites but a single reference, barely any of it has been verified, so why pick on the Orkney and Shetland contributions? Without a doubt there is a lot of Scottish "spinning" going on in Wikipedia (perpetuated by User:Mais_oui! among others - who were determined to stifle any "dissent" from the Northern Isles - e.g. witness their wholesale destruction of the Portal:Orkney and Wikipedia:Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board). If we can't rely on these articles (which we clearly cannot), what message does this send out about the rest of the project? 81.158.167.130 17:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Quit the personal abuse Mallimak. Your campaign of vandalism has been stopped dead in its tracks by the Wikipedia community acting through consensus. You are a thoroughly unpleasant individual, who has subjected me to a ceaseless campaign of vitriolic personal abuse bordering on obsession, and your opinions carry zero weight with me. Grow up and stop using countless IP addresses. --Mais oui! 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can quite happily discount the above rantings. (I am not the first to bring his/her name into this discussion.) 81.158.167.130 18:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Has anyone considered finding a photograph for this article? Alan.ca 12:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? Please add one if you find something relevent. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 19:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Northern Isles indentity

I have added the following piece of factual information to the article (with ref.): "... Orkney and Shetland have their own distinct identity *[3], often at odds with a Scottish one." I know this somewhat spoils the slushy Scottish sentimentality being peddled by this article, but it is a fact nevertheless, and it needs to be stated if this is to be a truly NPOV encyclopaedic article. 81.129.16.228 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it because, as you've already been told plenty of times (for example, the discussion above), the site you're trying to use as a reference is not a valid source. If you can find a neutral, scholarly reference on this subject then you can add verifiable information. Otherwise, you will continue to have your changes reverted and will end up blocked, again. This isn't very constructive. --YFB ¿ 20:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

And what about the Shetlands? Don't they have a VERY distinct identity? (83.13.39.98 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

Maybe, I can be of some help here. I am Adam Grydehøj, of the University of Aberdeen's Elphinstone Institute. I've never edited anything on Wikipedia before, and for a number of reasons, I'm not inclined to start doing so now, but there's no need for the debate I've seen on this talk page to go on as it has been. Obviously, it will always be debatable whether or not any region has a distinct identity. Nevertheless, there are sufficient published sources on the Orkney and Shetland front to establish that some qualified individuals believe that a large proprotion of the populations of Orkney and Shetland feel they have a distinctive identity and that they, more over, place this identity vis a vis a stereotyped Scottish identity. Here are a number of them:

1. Lange, Michael A. The Norwegian Scots: An Anthropological Interpretation of Viking-Scottish Identity in the Orkney Islands. Lewiston, et al.: Edwin Mellen, 2007. pp. 159-160: "For many people in the islands, heritage is at the heart of what constitutes Orkney’s identity. The Orcadian identity presented in this manner does not easily fall into any of the categories of identity generally discussed by scholars; it is not [p. 160] strictly an ethnic or a national identity in the usual sense. Yet Orcadian identity shares aspects of both of these. Ethnicity and nationality, in the form of Scandinavian versus Scottish and Norway versus Scotland, often play a role in the expression of Orcadian identity within Orkney. Perhaps the best understanding of what type of identity Orcadian-ness is can be found in the old German idea of the volk, straight from the Romantic Nationalism of Johann Gottfried Herder."

2. Grydehøj, Adam. Grydehøj, Adam. “Trows at Home and Abroad”, Shetland Life, no. 319, May 2007, pp. 34-35. (The article can also be found here: http://www.shetlandtoday.co.uk/shetlandlife/content_details.asp?ContentID=22190). Also, Grydehøj, Adam. The Orpheus of the North, The New Shetlander, no. 240, Simmer 2007, pp. 23-27. Both of these periodical articles are written from the perspective of attempting to debunk some elements of the popular Shetland conception that Shetland's culture is primarily Scandinavian and specifically non-Scottish. As I am the one who wrote them, I can vouch for that.

3. Nihtinen, Atina Laura K. Language, symbols and local identity in Shetland (1970 to present), Shetland Life, no. 321, July 2007, p. 31: "The remote geographical location of the islands and their Norse heritage have been often seen as both creating and expressing the 'otherness' of Shetland. However, it was not until the late twentieth century that Shetlanders consciously embraced difference as a key element of identity."

I cite the above four sources only because they are so recent and all are written by university academics studying Northern Isles identity. There are no lack of these sources however. I should know since Shetland (and to a lesser extend, Orkney) nationalism is the subject of my own PhD (which at the moment still counts as original research). So long, however, as the issue is couched in terms of "many Shetlanders and Orcadians feel that Shetland and Orkney each possess identities that are distinct from that of Scotland," I see no difficulty in placing this in the article. One need not actually agree with Stuart Hill's S.O.U.L. organization in order to accept the existence of feelings of Shetland and Orkney nationalism, whether or not these feelings are founded in historical fact. Frunco1 (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Politics of identity

I find some of the content in this section very objectionable. It needs citation. I've been kind and tagged it as compromised and needing citation, and unless this can be addressed I intend to remove the offending material outright. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I may try to improve this article when I get a chance but I see no reason not to just delete the section for now. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted this as biased

Scottish national identity is shared by a considerable majority of the people of Scotland. This sense of identity usually includes pride in the nation, its history and the achievements fellow Scots including those who have emigrated and their descendants.

The Scottish national identity (see citizenship) is largely free from ethnic distinction, and it has been noted (Sunday Herald 4 September 2005) that many of "immigrant" descent see themselves (and are seen as), for example, Pakistani and Scottish: Asian-Scots. This contrasts with a tendency in England for such families to be called "British" but not "English". Identification of others as Scottish is generally a matter of accent, and though the various dialects of the Scots language and Scottish English (or the accents of Gaelic speakers) are distinctive, people associate them all together as Scottish with a shared identity, as well as a regional or local identity. Some parts of Scotland, like Glasgow, the Outer Hebrides and the north east of Scotland retain a strong sense of regional identity, alongside the idea of a Scottish national identity.<ref name="Regional">{{cite book —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromean (talk • contribs) 16:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the revert?

Hi Jza84. I don't understand your revert of the material I added from the Britishness article. It appeared to me that the material was directly relevent to this article, so I can't see the point you're complaining about. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishiehelper2 (talk • contribs) (2008-05-10)

Image

Is it really necessary to have a kilt as the picture. The reason that I ask is if you ask most Scots people about their identity, then not many of them would be quick to say kilt. It is worn occasionally at celidhs and formal ceremonies etc, but it's not like we all go around wearing them day to day. I feel that this image that the picture paints only further strengthens some nations views (America) as Scotland being full of haggis eating Mel Gibson's, like Groundskeeper Willie out of the Simpsons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexcooldude (talk • contribs) 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a not-very good pic of the Tartan Army, which is bit more contemporary and less specifically Highland/elistist. Ideally I'd like a free version of something more like this pic, a crowd scene at a match which ticks the boxes - ginger wigs, tam-o-shanters, saltires and tartan... FlagSteward (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This article has POV issues

Rather than focusing on Scottish national identity, large paragrahs are dedicated to nationalists who seek to break up the United Kingdom. Its also awfully written in places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishWatcher (talk • contribs) (2009-11-17)

Could you highlight where you mean? I did try and make the history section as neutral as possible, so I'm not sure what you are on about exactly.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well i have concerns about alot of the article and its style but its things like this that led me to put the tag on..

"If a united Scotland were to stand together and demand either devolution or, at the very least, a thorough reassessment of the Anglo-Scottish relationship, it would presumably be very hard for the British political administration to simply ignore."

"As the rest of Britain also suffered from economic recession, and thus needed to review every expense, the infrastructure of Scotland became somewhat neglected. "Remote" (from a Westminster point of view) and unprofitable railroad lines were subsequently shut down to minimise maintenance costs."

"many Scottish nationalists have caught sight of a new way of trying to achieve status of an independent nation, by means of the European Union (EU). The goal is to gain "Independence in Europe", as the catch phrase of the campaign launched by the SNP goes,and it appears that the EU then becomes instrumental in the "struggle" (or, rather, passive demand) for a higher degree of independence; an accessory for dissociation with Britain."

Alot of this article sounds like a Separatists handbook. Most of this has nothing at all to do with Scottish national identity which is meant to focus on things like symbols which unite Scots. Not go into huge detail about nationalism although it deserves a few paragraphs it doesnt need a whole history lesson. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of that has come from my sources. I don't think it is supposed to be so biased. Indeed I didn't intend for it to be read that way (I'm no Scottish nationalist - I live in Northamptonshire!). I'll see what I can do... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesy1289 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

How about now? With respect to:

"many Scottish nationalists have caught sight of a new way of trying to achieve status of an independent nation, by means of the European Union (EU). The goal is to gain "Independence in Europe", as the catch phrase of the campaign launched by the SNP goes,and it appears that the EU then becomes instrumental in the "struggle" (or, rather, passive demand) for a higher degree of independence; an accessory for dissociation with Britain."

... this doesn't seem biased to me. It is true that many nationalists (note: not all - the SNP are apparently divided on this) see the EU as the way to leave the UK.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an important section, but as presently written it is a bit long-winded and lacks citations. The SNP has used the slogan Independence in Europe, however some commentators suggest that if Scotland became independent it would not automatically become an EU member state. [4] There were several articles on this topic in the Scotsman back in 2007, here's one written by the then Minister for Europe.[5]--Pondle (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This whole Independence in Europe thing has nothing to do with the subject of the article. It might be appropriate to Scottish independence or somewhere like that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

RE Pondle: Add that to the article.

RE Angus McLellan: My sources were to do with how the rise of nationalism has furthered a sense of national identity in Scotland. I am inclined to agree with you that it should be moved, however.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd echo the comments about the quality of the writing and the misdirection of this article. I have tried to get rid of the most obvious WP:WEASELry, but really the whole thing needs a complete rewrite just on style grounds, let alone content. Jonesy1289 - you might want to have a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a and following, particularly User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing. You should also have a read of WP:AVOID to help you think about unencyclopaedic phrases like "It is interesting...".

More generally, it's bizarre talking about Scottish national identity and only starting at the 18th century. The real interest is in how a motley bunch of Gaels, Picts, Britons, Normans and Norse first coalesced into Highlanders and Lowlanders during the Middle Ages, and then became Scottish in the century after the great Scottish civil war between those two factions in 1745-6. The process of creating a Scottish national identity was largely complete by mid-Victorian times, but that's almost where this article starts. Certainly the 20th century should be dealt with in more more than 4 paragraphs of a few sentences each. One of the great "whatifs" is what might have happened if the Lord of the Isles had pressed home the advantage on the second day of Harlaw, eliminated Mar and then allied with the English to take on the remaining Lowlanders. You might have seen the Tay forming a border between England and a Norse kingdom of Ross to the north. Instead this article reads like the view from the Central Belt, and largely defines Scottishness in terms of the relationship with England, with little consideration of the view of Scottishness in Melrose or Ullapool, let alone Rothesay or Lerwick. Or indeed Antrim or Nova Scotia. FlagSteward (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It was my first real attempt at contributing significantly to an article, so it's a bit of a learning curve to me. I'll take a look at those articles to imrpove the writing style. I like the changes which have been made, by the way. They make it read much clearer.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by a self -evident fact: 'Scot'land is one of Britain's two Anglo-saxon countries, but it does everything it can to deny that obvious fact. The fact that English-speaking Anglo-saxons have lived in lowland Caledonia for fifteen hundred years (exactly as long as the invading Gaelic-speaking Scots tribe) seems to escape many folk. Scotland today is an Anglo-saxon country and has been for hundreds upon hundreds of years. The tartan, bagpipes and haggis stuff is not fundamental, but rather it's quite incidental, to Scottishness: they belongs to the gaelic Highlands and are not part of Scotland's genuine mainstream Anglo-saxon culture and history. It's almost as if the people of the USA suddenly decided that they were really all Sioux or Apache. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.210 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Scots-Asian reference

I note that someone's put in a reference to the Sunday Herald of 4 Sept 2005 to support the statement in the intro that "many of "immigrant" descent see themselves (and are seen as), for example, Pakistani and Scottish: Asian-Scots." Leaving aside the fact that Asian and Italian immigration isn't really mentioned thereafter - the intro should summarise the rest of the article, not throw in new concepts never to be repeated - I've not been able to confirm the reference. Obviously it would help if the Wikipedian concerned had given an URL or even an article name, but there's nothing I can see on the Herald website from that date which helps. One possibility might be "New face of young Scotland; Tikka masala hasn't topped haggis as our national dish yet, but Scotland is rapidly becoming more ethnically diverse." of 12 Sept 2004 but I've not seen anything definite. Anyone? FlagSteward (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This is quite clearly well-meaning socialist new-speak describing an idealised society. Scotland is for the most part not a multi-ethnic society. With the main exception of Glasgow there are simply very few foreign immigrants compared to other parts of Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.12.78 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Scottish identity an Anglo-saxon identity?

Scotland struggles to find a seperate national identity from England probably because it doesn't really have one, or at least nowhere near as much as some nationalists would have folk believe. That's not because of historic English imperialism but rather because today's 'Scots' are predominantly an Anglo-saxon not a Gaelic/Celtic people - in other words they are mainly 'English'. The original invading Scots were gaelic speaking celtic settlers from Ireland, but at the same time some 1500 years ago the Anglo-saxons or 'English' settled the south and east of what would much later become part of 'Scotland'. The long term consequence would be that despite the historic retention of the name 'Scotland' the country is for the large part ethnically, culturally and linguistically 'the land of the northern English'. The 'English' of England and the 'Scots' of Scotland today are both more sensibly described as 'British' since for everyday purposes neither has a strongly distinct or different national identity from the other. Meanwhile anyone with a serious interest in Scottish history will be fascinated to note how often and to what degree the story of Scotland's huge (indeed predominant) Anglo-saxon or 'English' heritage gets ignored, minimised or carefully airbrushed from the picture in favour of an often mythical or semi-mythical celtic background.