This article was nominated for deletion on September 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on December 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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!
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)
First thing to my mind when clicking the link was the Scotland football team and brave defeat. CalG 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Has anyone considered finding a photograph for this article? Alan.ca 12:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
|
Last edited at 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 05:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
.
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article was nominated for deletion on September 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on December 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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!
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)
First thing to my mind when clicking the link was the Scotland football team and brave defeat. CalG 02:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Has anyone considered finding a photograph for this article? Alan.ca 12:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
|
Last edited at 21:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 05:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
.
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)