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)

Utter garbage. Scotland is a constituent Nation of the United Kingdom - to refer to Scottish Identity rather than National Identity is not politically neutral - it smacks of POV. Scotland is not a state, nor is it a region, nor a province. It is a member of a political union of four constituent Nations, or countries that were previously sovereign states in their own right. Similarly Wales and England are also Nations within the UK - there is no political controversy in the UK regarding this issue of Nationality. We all know that England, Scotland and Wales are Nations (the Northern Irish question is a little more complex). We even have a phrase for them collectively "The Home Nations". It's mainly foreigners that have problems with the concept of the British Nations - it is a pretty unique situation after all in the modern world.--62.249.233.80 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2013 (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)

These are some fantastic points which will hopefully make it into the article very soon. Brythones (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2017 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.8.105 (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So where are the references to the genetic studies that verify that English or Scots speaking Scottish people have Anglo-Saxon marker genes? I'm waiting . . . There isn't even much evidence that many outside the Saxon South of England posses the Anglo-Saxon genetic markers, far less Scots. And where exactly are these Anglo-Saxon settlements in South East Scotland? - Surely you have a list to back up your claims? The language one uses does not decide one's nationality or one's national identity. You forget also Scotland (and Britain's) other language heritage, which pre-dates the arrival of Gaelic (Q-Celtic) in Southern Scotland - the British P-Celtic languages from which Welsh evolved. The ancient Welsh poem by Aneurin "Y Gododdin" - is about Yr Hen Ogledd - (the Old North), which consisted of the Lothians and parts of what is now the Scottish Borders - a British P-Celtic (Brythonic) speaking region for which place name evidence still exists. If there is an argument to be heard for the true ethnic origin of the people who live in Southern Scotland and Northern England, then it is Brythonic (Welsh) although again speaking a Celtic language doesn't make one a Celt either for the same reasons. The Anglo-Saxon language of the invaders may have caught on, but that doesn't mean they became Anglo-Saxons any more than it makes talking parrots human.--62.249.233.80 (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Genetic markers aside, it is erroneous to assume that the language just "caught on". As far as "Anglian" (rather than "Saxon") settlements in south east Scotland go, Prof. WFH Nicolaisen, in his definitive work 'Scottish Place-Names' devotes an entire chapter to them. Look anywhere on a map, and any settlement ending in '-ton', '-toun' farmstead, enclosure Haddington, Stenton, Swinton; '-ingaham', '-ham' settlement, village Coldingham, Tyninghame, Morham; '-bottle', '-battle' dwelling place Newbattle, Morebattle; '-wick' farm Berwick, Hawick etc, etc. Brendandh (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the most useful, informative and objective studies of the whole subject is 'The dialect of the southern counties of Scotland' by James Murray (1873). It can be read on-line. Cassandra

The genetic DNA information can be found in 'The Scots A Genetic Journey' by Alistair Moffat and James F Wilson (Pub 2011). Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.245.129 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The scots are anglo saxon idea you have is only credible from a cultural perspective in the lowlands. Yes the south east of scotland had saxon settlers but their impact on the modern genes of scots is very little. Soruces say modern scots are 40% gaelic, 10% pictish and the rest being cumbric and norse with a small amount of anglo saxon. It is factually incorrect to call scotland anglo saxon for this reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.244.26 (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

English attack or defence?

This article tends to repeat the old story of English military aggression against Scotland. But that is probably rather POV. The original small Kingdom of the Scots was agressively imperial (just look at the results and how it grew). Furthemore the 'Auld alliance' between Scotland and France was intended to ensure that the latter (a continental 'superpower') could pay the Scots to invade England whenever France needed a second front with its own wars with England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.12.48 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The above confuses me. If you're complaining about the article reflecting "the old story of English military aggression against Scotland" and how this is "probably rather POV" then you have some cheek going on to express your own POV with the nonsense of the French paying the Scots to attack the English. I'm also assuming you have decent sources to reflect your bold statements? Wowsssowss (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Independence in Europe

A good part of the section is definitely a personal interpretation of facts, with a clear-cut opinion on them. This is an encyclopedia. Please let us keep it to facts, possibly relevant and avoiding the temptation of cherry-picking. I have tagged the section for a NPOV check. --HarpsiMario (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bernicia

Not sure that this sentence is facually corret:

"Finally there were the 'English', the Angles, a Germanic people who had established a number of kingdoms in Great Britain, including the Kingdom of Bernicia, part of which was in the south-east of modern Scotland"

As I understand it, all of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom Bernicia was in what is now Scotland. It later merged to become the northern half of the kingdom of Northumbria before splittig off again following the Danish invasion of England. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.99.140 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Nationalist focus of this article

I see this issue has been raised before, but it still remains evident on the article. The last two sections in the History are barely about Scottish national identity at all, but read instead like one editor's personal take on the history of Scottish nationalism. Obviously nationalism plays a significant part to the Scottish identity, but anyone reading this article would think it was the only facet of Scottish identity worth mentioning in the last 100 years. The Scottish identity of the majority that didn't vote for nationalism during this time is barely mentioned, other than to receive a scolding from an undefined "intelligentsia". (Apparently it doesn't have its own "intelligentsia" worth citing).

These sections badly need re-focused back on the subject of the article. It could also do with an update on events over the last few years. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking back over the article I have to agree that the later sections are not focused on Scottish identity and they are, as a recent edit pointed out with tags, largely unsourced. I am thinking about a clean up.--SabreBD (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Good on you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scottish national identity/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* needs references and citations, per WP:CITE Tagged as containing original research

Last edited at 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 05:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Historic bi-polar national identity

This history of the Scottish 'national identity' fails to emphasise the most significant fact of 'Scottish' national identity. Namely that the Kingdom of Scotland comprised two main ethnic groups: the original people called Scots who spoke Gaelic and lived in the Highlands, and the English speaking inhabitants of the kingdom's southern provinces in the Lowlands. The history of the kingdom from say the time of King David to 1707, and indeed towards the end of the 18th century is one of continuous antipathy and often direct internal conflict between these two distinct ethnic groups or nations. Paradoxically the sense of there being a single Scottish national identity, one nation, only seems to have begun to properly form a century or more after Scotland and England were united and the kingdom of Scotland had ceased to exist. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scottish national identity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/051124.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109055700/http://www.flaginstitute.org/images/page10_large.gif to http://www.flaginstitute.org/images/page10_large.gif
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nas.gov.uk/guides/education.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Problems with this article (neutral point-of-view)

From the looks of things, there are a number of problems with this article.

For a start, the caption of the picture with Juncker and Sturgeon does not explain who the two individuals in the picture are; assumes that Sturgeon is some how representative of Scottish national identity more so than opposition leaders and the caption assumes that Scottish national identity has "flourished" since 1999, when in actual fact polling from Scotcen has shown a near consistent decline in "Scottish" national identity from 1999 to 2014 (going from a high of 80% in 2000 to just 65% in 2014). (Please see here) This could also be considered biased towards Scotland remaining within the EU following the EU membership referendum, and so should most likely be removed from the article.

There is also assumptions in the article that Scots were commonly working class which united them and that academics were pro-independence but working class people were not - which amounts to little more than speculation.

There is no mention of the fact that people who identify as Scottish do not necessarily support independence or the Scottish national movement more generally.

In terms of the opening of the article where it discusses distinct local identities, I suggest including Orkney and Shetland, areas which are socio-politically different to the rest of Scotland evidenced by the fact that all of the area's MSP's and MP's have said that if Scotland became independent they would push for a referendum to rejoin the U.K. as overseas territories, and through groups such as the Shetland Movement and Wir Shetland (which supports Shetland leaving Scotland to become a British Overseas Territory). Another user has raised some valid points about this further up the talk page which have so far been ignored. These areas may deserve their own sections in the article. Brythones (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Details of who the individuals in the photo are could be added but it would make the caption rather long and distract from the point being made. A click on the photo, where details are given, probably serves better. Scotland's role and identity on the world stage is an entirely different matter to individual Scots' self-identification when forced to choose a single option from Scots, British etc.. None of this has anything to do with the EU membership referendum or indicates a position on it and it would seem more plausible that unhelpful edit summaries and synthesis of unrelated matters to advance a point to justify the photo's removal in fact indicate the bias of the editor.

"There is no mention of the fact that people who identify as Scottish do not necessarily support independence or the Scottish national movement more generally" and neither, as far as I can see, is there any implication that they do, so it does not seem necessary. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And in what respect does the picture in question relate to Scottish national identity with a neutral point-of-view?

There are constant references throughout the article to Scottish independence but no mention that people who identify as Scottish do not necessary support independence, therefore implying that Scottish identity is intrinsically linked to Scottish independence, when it is not.Brythones (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The article is replete with discussion on aspects of identity quite aside from politics but, regarding politics, it covers a spectrum of aspects and viewpoints on identity that are not tied to the advocacy of independence, for example: "the National Association for the Vindication of Scottish Rights... argued for the devolution of Scottish business to Edinburgh and it was taken for granted that the union was vital to the progress and improvement of Scotland. The Scottish Unionist Association that emerged in 1912 from a merger of the Scottish Conservatives and Liberal Unionists referred to the Irish Union of 1801, while the union between Scotland and England was taken for granted and largely unthreatened.", "The newly created Ministry of Transport suggested nationalising the railways with a separate, autonomous Scottish region... A campaign, headed by a coalition of Scottish MPs from the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties, used the rhetoric of nationalism to secure the amalgamation of Scottish and English railways.", "The forming of the SNDC later led to the set up of the Scottish Economy Committee (SEC). Neither of these bodies sought a cure for Scotland's ills by nationalist political solutions, and many of those who were actively involved in them joined in a comprehensive condemnation of any form of home rule", "common Scots shared a working-class identity underneath—...—the dual Scottish/British identity". That's not to say there isn't scope for improvement or additional material, for example the strain of nationalism in the Scottish Unionists, but the portrayal of the article as equating Scottish identity with advocacy of independence is not warranted. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet in the 1960-present day section national identity is constantly conflated with nationalism. The passage is badly written, poorly sourced and requires major changes to bring it back to neutral POV. There are assumptions in the passage that Scottish national identity is intrinsically tied to Scottish nationalism, which it is not. Brythones (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

So you are now restricting you claims to just one section of the article, not the entire thing as before? There may well be room for expansion in the section in regard to the coverage of any matters related to national identity which are not connected with politics, particularly the union/devolution/independence, but in that case highlight them so they can be addressed and added (e.g. fortunes in sport, particularly football?). That does not mean that the existing material is not pertinent to issues of national identity; it would seem obvious that the acceptance, rejection or indifference (all covered) to options for union/devolution/independence are central to the question of identity. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The section in question needs a complete review. I accept it is relevant, but I do not accept that it is intrinsic that to be a Scottish nationalist you must be Scottish or to be Scottish not British you must be a Scottish nationalist - it is not good enough to pass this content off with the assumption that the reader already knows this. This must be expressed in a clear, neutral way, which is not the case at the moment. Brythones (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: I think that the 1960-present day section of the article requires a major rework with the "Independence in Europe" section being removed to be replaced by sections on Scottish nationalism and independence, with an expansion of the devolution section of the article (mentioning the SNP's rise as the main opposition to Labour giving way to the devolution referendum and Scottish Parliament), with the main section discussing how Scottish identity has developed and changed since 1960.

Currently, the writing and sourcing of the section is poor and full of assumptions. Brythones (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to add that multiple times there have been complaints in this talk page about a nationalist bias in this article which have been overlooked and undermined by some editors (see Wikipedia's policies concerning ownership and neutral point-of-view). An attitude of reverting edits for no reason and then ignoring valid points on the talk page about those reverts is not helpful or acceptable. Brythones (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As the article in no way states nor implies "that it is intrinsic that to be a Scottish nationalist you must be Scottish or to be Scottish not British you must be a Scottish nationalist" we're fine then. Continually moving the focus of your ire per your edit summaries and the dialogue above whilst not being able to pinpoint anything that supports your conspiracy theory does nothing to convince. As I said, if there are issues missing from the section, expand it. Don't advocate the blanking of existing material you just don't like. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The article has entire sections dedicated to independence, which it refers to as "freedom". It does not contextualise these sections for those who are new to the topic that not all of those who identify as Scottish support the Scottish nationalism. The subject matter is Scottish national identity - so one might, therefore, assume that independence is key to Scottish national identity because of it is constantly referenced throughout the article interchangeably with Scottish national identity, which is not acceptable and not neutral.

It also implies that all aspects of Scottish politics are determined by national identity, for example: "Oil or no oil, the Scots would need to politicise the "pseudo-nationalism" they had relied on for so long. Or rather they would need to abandon it altogether, they would have to shed the secure (even if forged) tartan-image—established through Tartanry and Kailyard, and reinforced by the tourist ideas of Scotland held by foreigners as well as by the Scots themselves—replacing it with a different form of identity." (WHAT?)

The union is portrayed in an entirely negative sense throughout the article, for example:

"...the English parliament pressed for full union of the two countries, passing the Alien Act 1705, which threatened to make all Scotsmen unable to hold property in England unless moves toward union were made and would have severely damaged the cattle and linen trades." - No context given why the English Parliament actually passed the Alien Act (in response to the Act of Security 1704)

The union is referenced as though it actively attempted to assimilate Scottish national identity into a wider British national identity - which is false.

In what way does an image of Nicola Sturgeon embracing Jean Claude Juncker with a European Union flag in the backgroup link to Scottish national identity today in a netural sense? It does not: it is completely biased.

The 1960-present day passage seems more concerned about promoting Scottish nationalism than it does discussing Scottish national identity in an entirely neutral point of view (this is an encylopedia for goodness sake). And I am in no way the only one with these concerns: just look at various other contributions on this talk page. Brythones (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is "completely biased" in the same way as the head of any other government representing their country in an international forum is "completely biased". I suppose that the electorate must have been "completely biased" when they voted for her party. And pretty much anyone meeting Juncker will have a whopping great EU flag in the vicinity. That is the nature of modern PR politics. But I do wish you would resist with the apples and pears tactics. You insist on deleting a photo with a completely misleading edit summary, claiming that the caption is saying something which it is not. Classic straw man tactics more suited to cheap blogs than a quality encyclopaedia.Mais oui! (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

62% of Scottish voters did not vote for her party though, and regardless, what does that have to do with Scottish national identity? Brythones (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet again, the straw man is wheeled out. And your maths are not very good. Only 53% did not vote for her, which is far fewer than the 58% who did not vote for Theresa May in the summer, which also has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Mais oui! (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

And moving back on topic, why is the picture a relevent and politically neutral example of Scottish national identity? Brythones (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The caption addresses the international profile of Scotland in relation to its identity, so it would seem pertinent to illustrate that with the current senior politician in Scotland, demonstrably in an international context. Do you have similar concerns about the political neutrality of obviously pertinent pictures of Nicola Sturgeon at the Nicola Sturgeon article, likewise the Ruth Davidson, Alex Rowley or Willie Rennie articles? Including a pertinent picture in context does not denote approval or endorsement of its subject. You're reading things into the section that are not there.

I can see no basis for your assertion that "The article has entire sections dedicated to independence, which it refers to as "freedom"". The word "freedom" appears once in the entire article, in inverted commas, in a reference to devolution, not independence, and stating that there was disunity as to what that meant.

I would say thought that the "Oil or no oil" sentence is somewhat flowery and essay-like, which may or may not be down to the cited ref. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, re-reading your proposal, I think it outlines what the section is in fact attempting to do, without the bias you see in it. It could be expanded, more explicitly tied to issues of identity and tidied up a bit but blanking material that relates to people or notions that one opposes on a supposed neutrality basis is ill-conceived. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Pictures of Nicola Sturgeon/Ruth Davidson/Willie Rennie are fine when they are the subject matter: but in the case of this article Nicola Sturgeon is not the subject matter and is not even a neutral representative of the subject matter. The picture of Sturgeon and Juncker was added very recently: it is not a key component of this article and should be removed immediately as it lacks any form of political neutrality/accuracy as I have discussed above. As I've said the caption is not supported by any references and is, if anything, quite inaccurate.

The use of "freedom" is still a clear example of bad, unbalanced writing. As is the "Oil or no" section. Again, it is not acceptable to just overlook problems with neutrality and just pile on more content, when the existing content has been found to be problematic by a number of users.

Or perhaps we should add in a picture of Theresa May embracing David Mundell with the caption "Scotlands identity has flourished within the UK" ? That would be equally ridiculous to what we have now. Brythones (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

And to add to that this is not a feature in other national identity such as English national identity and Welsh identity. Brythones (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with other users that iy would be helpful if Brythones's criticism would be more focused. Reading through the discussion, it seems to move all over the place, making it hard to discuss concrete changes. Jeppiz (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

That is because that is the entire purpose of the User’s actions. The User shows zero inclination to suggest concrete improvements to the actual article. All they wish to do is decry earlier contributors with unsupported allegations that they are a bunch of Scots Nats. Now, even if that were true (and it is palpable nonsense), it would be utterly irrelevant. Our rules specifically exclude denigrating other editors based on their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality or their political views. The only thing that matter is the quality and verifiability of their contributions.

The User,s only concrete edit has been to try to remove a photograph of the FM and Juncker, with a complete red herring of an edit summary, claiming the caption says something which it does not.Mais oui! (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there objections to the picture of the Declaration of Arbroath on the basis that it is not the subject matter or a neutral representative of said (anti-Plantagenet bias?) or do you see pro-Hanoverian bias in the picture of redcoats laying in to kilties at the Battle of Culloden, anti Church of Scotland bias in the Disruption Assembly picture, pro-Union bias in the picture of the Articles of Union? Or is your objection just "I dinnae like it"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Suggested changes to the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Myself and other users have raised concerns about the neutrality of this article, which has been disputed by Mais oui! and Matt Lunker. I have submitted a Request for Comment to get more perspective from other users on whether or not these concerns are legitimate or not. Thanks, Brythones (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have only addressed concerns raised by you in this dialogue, not you and your army. I note you have not responded to my post above regarding how your spurious characterisation of one image as supposedly not being neutral would by logical extension discount the bulk of the other images in the article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

My criticisms and suggested changes to this article are:

• Distinctive identities in Orkney and Shetland should be acknowledged
• The image of Nicola Sturgeon and Jean-Claude Juncker should be removed from the article as it is not relevant to Scottish national identity and implies that these two contemporary political figures are in some way neutral representatives of Scottish national identity
• The "1960-present day" section of the article is poorly written and not neutral, therefore requiring major changes. The section implies that Scottish nationalism is intrinsically tied to Scottish national identity as no explanation is given to suggest that the two are separate concepts
• I suggest that the 1960-present day section should focus more on contemporary Scottish national identity than contemporary Scottish nationalism - with a more objective focus on the current state of Scottish national identity and separate, more focused, sub-sections dedicated to devolution and Scottish nationalism
• Other elements of the article which may be perceived as biased should also be scrutinised: for example lack of context around the 1705 Alien Act and claims that the British state attempted to assimilate Scottish national identity into British national identity may be perceived as politically biased or even false. This is an encyclopedia: including information which is vaguely relevent to the subject matter just to make one side look better than the other is not acceptable, this should be a neutral and objective article about Scottish national identity. Brythones (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding to the above list:

• The World Wars section of the article is poorly referenced and complaints about its neutrality have been lodged by other users elsewhere on this talk page. Brythones (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

What I cannot understand is why you are not just WP:Bold and edit the article to improve it. You have not. The only thing you have done is try to remove an image you dislike with a complete red herring of an Edit summary, which claims the caption states something which it does not. Show a bit of initiative and try to improve the article. Otherwise, you are you being disruptive. We at WikiProject Scotland have seen your type of behaviour before. User:Goodday was banned and topic-banned from UK-related topic for several years because of just the type of disruptive Talk page campaign that you seem to be determined to embark on.Mais oui! (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Some valid concern - narrow the area in concern to just the 1960 section by reducing the 'independence' mentions salted throughout, those are making backward links when none is justifiedl put a caption on the image of just the names and the event and skip the creative writing partl and then put the tag just on the 2960s section. Markbassett (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Mais oui! - I would like to get some concensus before fixing the article: I have already been bold and my edits have been reverted. Brythones (talk) 12:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The reason your edit (your *only* substantive edit to date has been to try to delete a photograph you dislike) was reverted was because you employed a dishonest Edit summary. And I find it concerning that you have still failed to acknowledge that. It hardly engenders confidence for your competence in trying to improve this article. However, we’ll see what you come up with. But if you muck about it will be BRDd.Mais oui! (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Massive changes without a single Edit summary

I have requested that a user brings their massive deletions and additions to Talk, not least because despite a raft of major edits they did not provide a single Edit summary. Mais oui! (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

My edits were in line with what we had already discussed on here. I decided to focus more objectively on the state of Scottish national identity and the SNP/independence versus the current section which is poorly written and not neutral. My edits also fleshed out the section more, with the addition of more than 4,000 bytes. Brythones (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Warring regarding "culture" in opening sentence

Regarding the continual removal of a reference to culture in the opening sentence and per my edit summary (" follow the link for a cited def of national identity which, patently, is "...represented by distinctive traditions, culture...""), if you had followed that link you would have found a citation for the definition therein, by the Oxford English dictionary, stating "A sense of a nation as a cohesive whole, as represented by distinctive traditions, culture, and language". If that applies to national identities in general, it applies to that of Scotland specifically. Stop warring.

Please also read MOS:LEADCITE about why we tend to limit citations in the lede, particularly redundant ones for matter which are straithghtforwardly verifiable, as I had indicated to you in my edit summary. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Saying that a nation is represented by culture has nothing to do with national identity. Source it or it should be removed. Get out of here with your own research.195.159.175.68 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So are you disagreeing with the Oxford English dictionary's inclusion of culture in its definition - per above - of national identity, claiming that said organ is not a WP:RS and can be disregarded, or what? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That OED definition looks good to me. But as I've pointed out on numerous occasions that doesn't describe Scotland until quite modern times - not until 19th century romanticism and 20th century nationalism had re-written Scottish history. Until long after 1745 there were still TWO clear and very distinctive 'traditions, culture, and language' in Scotland - Highland and Lowland, Celtic and Anglic. There simply was not, and could not have been, a single Scottish identity in earlier centuries. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.240.202 (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Will you stop combing through article talk pages to find discussions which you can spuriously tag your forum posts to? There's a brief pretence of pertinence by giving the OED your seal of approval (I imagine they are delighted), then with a clang you tack on a pet POV that you've been persistently and similarly irrelevantly plonking into other talk pages and which neither addresses the matter of the opening sentence, nor any other speficic improvement to the article - this page's sole purpose. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Historical fact is not POV. It is an extremely well-documented historical fact that for centuries Lowland Scots consistently described Highland Scots (the original Scots) not as Scots but as 'Irish', and as 'Savages'. That period only drew to an end at the close of the 18th century. Modern Scottish sentiment simply doesn't like to be reminded of the embarrassing 'two nation problem' of historic Scottish identity. This Wikipage therefore avoids mentioning the problem. But it should include all the facts, not just currently fashionable views which impose a fictitious perception of unity onto centuries past. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.164.225 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

So confirmation that it has precisely naff all to do with the matter under discussion, the definition of national identity in the first sentence and that you've made your latest clumsy and transparent attempt to hijack an unconnected talk thread with one of your cut and paste forum campaigns, already similarly scattered across other talk pages (by previous IP socks). Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)