Scottish vs. Scots

[Leprechaun 91]

One wonders if this is not a sort of, "Asian / Oriental" argument? People are "Asian," Rugs are "Oriental." Are people Scottish or Scots? Are Sporrans Scots or Scottish. I tend to go with the idea that Scots are the people of the "race or heritage" Scottish are Citizens and objects.

[skauwt]

i dont get what all the fuss is about
i see myself as a scottish scot who lives in scotland...... who also just happens to be called scott

[Lyle1]

i dont get what all the fuss is about
i see myself as a scottish scot who lives in scotland...... who also just happens to be called scott

Exactly! Have a happy New Year!

[Lachlan09]

One wonders if this is not a sort of, "Asian / Oriental" argument? People are "Asian," Rugs are "Oriental." Are people Scottish or Scots? Are Sporrans Scots or Scottish. I tend to go with the idea that Scots are the people of the "race or heritage" Scottish are Citizens and objects.

Indians/Sri Lankans/Pakistanis/Bangaldeshis in Britain have commandeered the term “Asian”. Now, even British officialdom honours them with that title, at the expense of the rest of Asia. On official British forms, my (Filipina wife) had to fill in, she has had to put "Others", as there “Asian” didn’t include Philippines and there was no other suitable regional box.

[Leprechaun 91]

Indians/Sri Lankans/Pakistanis/Bangaldeshis in Britain have commandeered the term “Asian”. Now, even British officialdom honours them with that title, at the expense of the rest of Asia. On official British forms, my (Filipina wife) had to fill in, she has had to put "Others", as there “Asian” didn’t include Philippines and there was no other suitable regional box.

Philippine Islands are generally listed as "Pacific Islanders" are they not? (At least I see that box here in he States.)

[Lachlan09]

Philippine Islands are generally listed as "Pacific Islanders" are they not? (At least I see that box here in he States.)

No they are not. In the UK, there is no sub-group called Pacific Islands mentioned in official forms. If there were, it would not apply anyway, as the Philippines (comprising inhabited/uninhabited islands including large land-masses, totaling 7,107 nos) is not included in Pacific Islands. It is properly counted as part of South East Asia.

As I said, the only available box was “Others”, as the forms didn’t even have “South East Asia”.

That brings me to my own experience whilst seeking a temporary flat in 1984. A friend I was living with temporarily in Hoxton suggested I contact Hackney Borough Council (a rather loony-left-wing London borough council based in Mare Street which supported Colonel Gaddafi and such-like) to house me with council-owned rented accommodation until I could buy somewhere. I had to fill in a form which would be appraised by HBC and points awarded for deservedness. When I came to the ethnic background section, I noticed lots of tick-boxes. There was a whole mass of boxes covering the Indian sub-continent, including Gujerati, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Chettinad, Karnatika/Tamil to name a few; likewise many boxes covering African backgrounds plus various Caribbean and North/South American etc, there were some Arab/Middle East boxes too. They also had boxes for gay and lesbian etc. Then there were 3 more boxes – white, Irish and Others. So all the Eastern part of Asia had to put “Others” (including the various diversified Chinese regions, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan, Korea, Thailand, etc etc), while Caucasians of various nationalities and ethnic backgrounds had to put "White" of all things (not even the modern Caucasian version !). So, Scotland, England, Wales, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, USA, Canada, Russia, Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Aus, NZ etc were all lumped together.

The one which got my goat in a big way was “Irish”. Hackney Borough Council passively (sometimes actively) supported the IRA at that time and I have been in a pub in that borough when they passed round a black beret for a collection. I certainly did not give and no doubt people in the pub saw that. Hackney thought Irish people merited special treatment, that their culture was so foreign it needed special care. My reaction to the form was, the Irish are no more and no less different than the Scots. So I ignored “White” and filled in the “Others” box and wrote below it “Scottish”.

Suffice to say, I didn’t get the flat as I didn’t qualify, I was too bourgeois for them.

[Paul]

One wonders if this is not a sort of, "Asian / Oriental" argument? People are "Asian," Rugs are "Oriental." Are people Scottish or Scots? Are Sporrans Scots or Scottish. I tend to go with the idea that Scots are the people of the "race or heritage" Scottish are Citizens and objects.

Well technically Oriental people are Oriental - though, the Orient is just a an area within Asian (so you're being more specific) and Asia as a massive continent and contains many people of different races.
Here in Scotland we do not call people from the Far-East "Asian" - as you do as that term is mainly reserved from those with ethnics in South Asia - such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. Every continent is massive with lots of different indigenous people - which may equal to a different race.

Perhaps, if you draw a clear distinction between "Britons" and "British". Britons, after all, are the native inhabitants of the Isle of Britain - be they in England, Scotland or Wales. If you use the term "British" strictly to mean anyone who just so happens to live in Britain irrespective of their ethnicity, ancestry or national origin, then it becomes like the word "American" and simply designates a person's geographical location and political subjectitude; denoting nothing of their race, ethnicity or background.

Britons are actually those who lived in Mid-Scotland downwards... the term doesn't cover the whole of Britain. Most Britons moved to Wales and around Cornwall after being conqured and there are supposed to be very, very few of Britonic descent in Scotland and England after these invasions.

[Paul]

Recent genetic research indicates that the Anglo-Saxon invasions from Germany in the 400's and the Norman invasions around 1066 had only a nominal impact on the ethnic (genetic) makeup of the population of Britain, although they had a vast cultural impact. As these newcomers took on the position of the ruling-class, their language became the official tongue, and their practices of adopting surnames may have become de riguer, but the vast majority of the peasant population would have continued to be of Briton (rather than Germanic) descent. - Much the same thing happened in Central and Southern America - the Spanish Conquestadors brought the Spanish language and culture to Mexico and Latin America, but the population remained primarily that of the Native American tribes who are genetically closer to their Q-Haplotype Asian ancestors than they are to R1b Europeans.

Well most of the evidence actually shows that many, many Britons fled the island of Britain and established the colonies of Gailcia and Brittany - as well as moving to parts of Wales and Cornwall.
My main point was that Britons did not live throughout the island of Britain prior to invasions and after these invasions they were far less than a majority within the island.

[Rob]

Well most of the evidence actually shows that many, many Britons fled the island of Britain and established the colonies of Gailcia and Brittany - as well as moving to parts of Wales and Cornwall.
My main point was that Britons did not live throughout the island of Britain prior to invasions and after these invasions they were far less than a majority within the island.

What evidence? What are your sources?

The overwhelming evidence from studies in population genetics clearly indicate that a large majority of the population of the island of Britain are direct descendents of the people who migrated from Northern Iberia after the last Ice Age (12,000 to 15,000 years ago) and became the Britons. Even in East Anglia (genetically the most Germanic part of England), the descendents of the Britons still constitute a majority (51.2%). The highest percentage of Britons in England is in the Southwest where the Britons form a very large majority (78.2%), which is even higher than in the Scottish Highland region (75.9%) and similar to the percentage in North Wales (78.5%). There is no real evidence for the Britons being driven out of England and the DNA evidence constitutes proof that it never happened.

The Picts of Northern Scotland were genetically Britons from the same Northern Iberian source as the rest of the Britons, and therefore not a separate race.

Sources:-
“Blood of the Isles”, by Professor Bryan Sykes.
“A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles”, by Capelli et al.
“The Origins of the British”, by Professor Stephen Oppenheimer.

[Lachlan09]

But where does the term Jock originate for Scotsmen and also for American college footballers