Talk:Scots (ethnic group)

Merger with Scottish ethnicity
I think the suggested merger would be a mistake. The Scottish ethnicity article deals with the relationships between the several peoples and cultures which have come together to form the character of the modern population of Scotland. The Scottish people article deals with that component called the 'Scots'. It is one of a set of articles with the same relationship to the central one. If we were to merge the first two and wished to remain consistent, we should need to merge those of Picts, Viking, Angles, Norwegians, Scandinavia, Normans, English people, Northumbria and so on with that of 'Scottish ethnicity'. One useful thing which the present arrangement does, is to give people the opportunity to understand the difference between the ethnic Scot and the person raised in Scotland, some of whose genes may have come from the Irish background but who is likely to be a mixture. This is difficult to do when the same name is applied to both groups but is necessary for an understanding of the subject. (RJP 13:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC))
 * I agree. Merger is a mistake. They are clearly dealing with two distinct topics, one historical (well over one thousand years ago), the other present-day.--Mais oui! 10:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the merger would be a mistake, one article deals with history, while another is most certainly ethnically/anthroplogy based and it would indeed be difficult to apply history and ethnicity to the same people where it does not belong, perhaps even incorrect or onvalid to do so? Ciriii 00:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The names Scotia and Scoti are potentially usable for very good articles. Both Scotia and Scoti are potentially mergable, but not with this article. This articles is useless and garbage and could easily and harmlessly be scrapped, or redirected to Gaels or History of Scotland or something. Calgacus 00:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger with Scoti
none of the above discussion makes sense to me as I thought the debate was about a possible merger with Scoti and Scotia. The difference in subject matter between this and those two seems very minor and a merger sensible. However anybody more specialised should comment here on this issue. Kevinalewis 16:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The difference in subject matter is important. Actually i feel this article could do with some basic facts adding and clearing up, does anyone else who is maybe a more specialised than me? Scots, Scoti and Scotia are 3 distinct things and merging them would be like merging Saxon and Norman history...agreed there is a mingling period...but there is also a cut-off point. The main cut off point for here should probably mention the devolopment of the Novantae and selgovae into the Attacotti Celts, various other regional integrations and as a whole WHY the Scots are a different ethnic group within the United Kingdom, rather than the history of the Scoti in Scotia....which clearly remain 2 different articles; these I could see a merger of.(Ciriii 23:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC))


 * This article, as it is, fulfills the same purpose as the Scoti page, replicating the content to no purpose. This article is blatantly unnecesary. I will convert this page to a redirect (to Scoti) it unless any objects, or perhaps to Scottish people. Calgacus 18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's brilliant! Nopw it actually fullfills a role, good work Calgacus Ciriii 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)