User talk:An Siarach/Archive 1

london edits
I am not going to change the wording again, but the london bombing were politicaly motivated but (loosely)religiously justified, breaking many islamic laws. Is there a better term that can be used than islamic extreemist, as it is diferent to the language used to refer to other such groups, most notibly western (george bush for example said that god spoke to him in relation the recent wars and the ira's article)--Happyhaydn 16:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

england and wales
any advice on this article Malice (legal term) i have changed it to say English and Welsh law a few times as one of the examples, is swansea and the wikipedia article on british laws devides this way. Just thought i'd ask as you seem to have an intrest in the subject of celtic identity.--Happyhaydn 16:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic Wikipedia
Turning from the topic of Picts and Scots for a moment. I note that you have a Gaelic user name and that makes me wonder if you're a Gaelic speaker. If you are, I wonder if you would consider working on the Gaelic Wikipedia as well as the English one. It's sorely in need of native speakers to edit it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes i am a gaelic speaker and im currently working on several articles for the gaelic wikipedia. Yours,

An Siarach

Anglo-Saxons and ethnic cleansing
Hallo An Siarach, Ciamar a tha thu? On my talk page you asked for some reading material discussing the possibility that the Anglo-Saxons practiced ethnic cleansing. The only link I can think of now is English and Welsh are races apart, BBC article Sunday, 30 June, 2002. Regards, REX 15:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirect Syntax
Fixed a few of your redirects, just so you know here is the right syntax (you where using two #). #REDIRECT article

Thanks!

*laughs*
Spot on with the UK/England comment, young An Siarach. If I had a penny for every time the Union Jack is regarded as "English", I'd have enough to transform Northern Ireland into a futuristic, sophisticated superpower with disposable income pouring out of its proverbial ears. Perhaps the British capital should be moved to a more suitable city, Edinburgh, maybe? Greatgavini 16:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Discourse with a vandal
"your own site says that irish was never spoken in the south east of scotland"

User: 81.154.92.125

As Irish didnt exist until a few centuries ago and Scotland is not an Irish nation i do not doubt it. However the Scottish language which was/is a form of Gaelic was spoken across all of mainland Scotland albeit only briefly and weakly in the South East which was historically and still is (now along with most of the rest of the nation) predominately English or perhaps more accurately English 'in denial' - like yourself sir. Away home and read some history before you come here making a fool of yourself.

An Siarach

Gaelic speech never penetrated the south-east of Scotland as far as most historians recollect. This area was settled by the Angles of Northumbria long before the spread of Gaelic out of its original areas in the west Highlands and lower Argyll. Many also now debate if it even penetrated into the Pictish heartland of North East Scotland. 69.157.109.6 19:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It did penetrate the South East but, as mentioned, this was fleeting and limited to certain parts of the nobility. Ive never seen any historian, nor anyone else for that matter, question its presence in the North East. The place name evidence is more than ample indeed there are far more of examples of the major gaelic place names along the east of Scotland than the West.

An Siarach

I'm sorry to say but I have to disagree in terms of place names as most I know of in the east of Scotland are Scandinavian, Pictish or Anglo-Saxon in origin (though the presence of Gaelic names is still there in numbers, most notably Din Eidyn/Edinbugh). In the west of Scotland, especially in the Highlands and in Argyll there is the largest concentrations of Gaelic place names in the country and I must say this is the first I've ever heard someone say otherwise. The only western areas where this is not the case is in the extreme north and Orkneys, where much of the place names are Scandinavian (Wick, Kirkwall, etc.) and in the south west where Anglo-Saxon names can be found in numbers. I do admit however that Gaelic placenames are the most widely spread out in the sense they can be found in some degree in every region of Scotland. 69.157.109.6 17:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The presence of place names with origins in other languages doesnt have any bearing on whether or gaelic was spoken in the areas previously. The ample evidence of gaelic placenames is all that is needed and i think it was in The Companion to Gaelic Scotland by Derick S. Thompson that i last saw maps of the distribution of place names which showed the far greater density of names with Gaelic origin throughout the Lowlands and East coast and its a book well worth checking out - an excellent all round reference.

An Siarach


 * I have for the past few weeks been studying the road maps of Scotland on Mapquest at the closest resolution/zoom and from what I gathered about the placenames: the number of Gaelic names are indeed most widespread across the whole nation but in the North-East, names with Picitish orgins (I checked while researching) outnumber those which are Gaelic in origin. In Lothian and the Borders area, those places with Anglo-Saxon names outnumber those which are Gaelic. Although there are Gaelic equivalents for each place name there, it does not denote they are Gaelic in origin, especially since this region was settled by both Bythons and Anglo-Saxons long before the arrival of Gaelic culture. As for the far north, Scandinavian names do dominate in Caithness, the Orkneys and the Shetlands with a few names of both Pictish and Gaelic origins. The entire west of the country from the Hebrides down to the South West is heavily concentrated with Gaelic placenames with very few examples of places with Brythonic origins (eg. Dumbarton). 70.50.20.186 02:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cinema of Scotland
Request for review. Please have a look at:


 * Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_14

I hope that you will consider voting Keep for both.--Mais oui! 10:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Medieval Scotland
An Siarach, as I know one of your interests is in medieval Gaelic history, I thought I'd let you know (if you didn't already) that I've just about finished a great deal of work on the mormaers and mormaerdoms of medieval Scotland. See: Here. I'm also letting you know because you might be able to add, correct and watch, something probably needed. ;) - Calgacus 16:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Scottish people/ethnic group
(Also can be seen on the discussion page for Scottish people) In response to one of your comments made in the Scottish people discussion area:

Phony-ethnicism ? Thats a harsh accusation to the millions of Scottish descendants around the world. Just because one doesn't carry on all of the cultural traits or language doesn't mean he/she still isnt of that ethnic origin. Other items related to ethnicity such as religion, etymology, familial ties/links, social/behavioural characteristics as well as genetic/physical traits are passed on from your ancestors. Your ancestry is where you came from and part of who most people are to at least some degree. Also, what exactly is passed down genetically isn't fully documented yet and some geneticists have even proposed that past memories and experiences of ancestors could be stored in our DNA. And finally, the 50,000 speakers of Scottish Gaelic aren't the only Scottish in Scotland, lol. The Scots language (related to the Old English/Anglo-Saxon language) is spoken by the Scottish people as well, mainly in the Lowlands, and has several speakers (over a million). It should be said that just because the people of Scotland speak English mainly doesn't mean that they don't have a distinct cultural and ethnic identity. Epf 19:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Religion which might legitimately class as having strong/unique ethnic ties are very rare, none of which are pertinent with regard to Scots. Etymology is part of language which goes back to the importance of language ( and the lack of any knowledge of the Scottish language by most who would call themselves 'Scots' or claim scottish ethnicity) . Familial ties do not make one anything other than what one is. Social-behavioural characteristics are cultural traits and disappear (obviously) with the loss of ones language and culture. Genetic and physical traits are completely irrelevant except to racists and others who espouse related similarly repulsive doctrines. I havent disputed that ones ancestry 'is where you come from' - this has no bearing on the fact that having a scottish/french/carthaginian/martian/divine ancestor does not make you scottish/french/carthaginian/martian or divine. The laughable claims you mention by 'geneticists' isnt worthy of consideration and you should stick to valid, proven, science if you wish to be taken seriously in any conversation. The 50,000 speakers of Scottish gaelic are the only people who can still speak the Scottish language and thus have a tangible tie to native/ethnic Scottish culture. The Scots language is irrelevant and you provide the reason why yourself ; as you say it is related to Old English/Anglo-Saxon and the Scots are not an English/Anglo-Saxon people. Lowland 'Scots' may refer to itself as 'Scots' but this does not make it 'Scottish' any more than the Spanish speaking population of America could give Spanish the status of 'English' and themselves the status of 'Anglo-Saxon' if they started to refer to it as such. Where on earth do i say that the population of Scotland lack a distinct cultural identity? All i have pointed out is that the great majority lack an ethnically Scottish (which is obviously to say celtic/gaelic) identity and simply cannot qualify as ethnically Scottish as they are, and their culture/language is, Anglo-Saxon.

An Siarach

Hi An Siarach ! Before I start, I want you to realize I don't need you to tell me how to be taken seriously in any conversation and to please lose the negative/insulting connotation in this argument. To begin with what you said about genetics, I just stated simply that some geneticists believe in a THEORY of inherited memories/experiences and I don't consider it ridiculous since we still dont know what the function of the majority of our genes are and many theories are possible until we have mastered the science of genetics.

Also, you can't simply say that to be "ethnically Scottish" is to be celtic/gaelic considering the history of the people consists of very important Germanic and unkown (Picts) influences. Gaelic culture/language may be an important factor but it isn't the only determining factor of Scottish ethnicity. Lowland Scots are of Anglo-Saxon origin since the land was conquered by the Kindom of Northumbria and their culture integrated with that of the Scotti and Picts to form Scotland. To say the the Irish Scotti cultural element is the only factor or a more imporant factor than the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian (Norse) in determining if someone is ethnically Scottish is very ethnocentric.

As for people with Scottish roots in the new world and elsewhere, you can't just simply lose where you come from. It is true that many people forget the Gaelic or Lowland Scots languages but you disregard the other elements too easily. Genetics and physical features still give an indication of ones origin and just because one is interested in this, it does NOT make one a racist/racial supremacist (hence the rising popularity of population genetics).

In terms of religion, it can be related to ethnicity (as you seem to agree) and the large amount of protestants in the US is clearly a result of many peoples with northern European roots, but there are particulary large numbers of Presbyterians (notably from Scotland, Ulster or the Netherlands) and Lutherans (Germany).

Familial ties and etymology are quite imporant because not everybody in the world can trace their family (and family name) back to Scotland, unless you have some degree of Scottish or Ulster-Scots ancestry (obviously the more you have the more connection you will have with the country of origin). I am also not stating that someone who is like 1/16 Scottish ancestry can be declared Scottish, but I'm talking about a person who can trace a significant proportion of his/her roots to Scotland and the Scottish ethnic group. Since most of the Scottish/Ulster Scots emigrated within the past 300 years, you cant compare their Scottish ancestry with the origin of all European peoples dating back thousands of years (if that is what you meant by the scottish/french/carolingian/divine jibe, lol).

Next, social/behavoural traits. These are not lost as easily as ones language is and not all of these traits can be simply defined as cultural. It is widely documented by most psychologists and sociologists just how imporant ones upbringing (especially earlier years) can be and just how much it will affect he/she in later life. Even if someone has "lost" all of their cultural/familial roots (which is hard to imagine unless one is adopted), certain behavioural characteristics are passed down to each generation by ones parents/grandparents and a large part of your personality is derived from them.

To summarize, although the surviving cultural traits become less distinguishable, many still remain and the more Scottish or whatever ancestry one can claim, the higher possiblity of one having more inherited cultural and other traits. In former British colonial countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, etc., much of the political and cultural origins of the nation can be derived from the original British migrants and to say that the people have "lost" all elements of where they came from is something millions of people strongly disagree with. As the peoples mixed together in these places, the ancestral and cultural traits became more diluted but of the millions of those people with Scottish ancestry, many of them have much more than 1/16 ancestry and in fact the large majority could claim at least 1/2 or more when the ancestries of both sides of the family are taken into account. I look forward to continuing the discussion. As one would say (I think) in the highlands, Mar sin leat, Epf 15:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You obviously do need to be told how to be taken seriously if you are putting forward unproven theories which few would take seriously to support your own arguments. As for ethnicity you can and i do and anyone who wishes to attribute 'ethnicity' as being anything remotely meaningful will also do so. Anglo-Saxon Northumbria was conquered by the Scots yes, this brought Anglo-Saxon people within the Scottish domain. This does not make them ethnically 'Scottish' anymore than the conquest of the native Americans made them ethnically 'Anglo-Saxon'. Their culture did not integrate with that of the Scots or the Picts (who had largely disappeared by this time) and it is precisely this fact which gave rise to the cultural and linguistic divide which features so prominently in Scottish history between the ethnic, native, Scots of the Highlands and the Anglo-Scots of the Lowlands. To describe the Scots as 'Irish' is incorrect and akin to classing the Lothian Angles as 'English' rather than 'Anglo-Saxon'. The correct equivalent to 'Anglo-Saxon' when qualifying the Scots would be either 'Celtic' or 'Gaelic' but then this is entirely unnecessary as the Scots are the Scots. Im not sure what you think youre refuting with the following line :

To say the the Irish Scotti cultural element is the only factor or a more imporant factor than the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian (Norse) in determining if someone is ethnically Scottish is very ethnocentric.

But how on earth else would one determine what is ethnically Scottish other than by the ethnic Scots? This is no less legitimate than to argue that the determining factor in English culture and ethnicity is Anglo-Saxon. But then perceptions of Scotland and Scottish culture are always tainted by inconsistant claims and arguments which have not considered the wider context.

Where do i claim that people 'lose where they come from'? Of course ones ancestry remains unaltered but that has no direct bearing on them. When a people lose the language and culture of their ancestors they cease to be the same people as their ancestors. They no longer have any direct link other than the (irrelevant) genetic. Thus the inhabitants of Iran are the continuation of the ancient persians as their language and culture can trace an unbroken link through millenia while the inhabitants of Egypt are simply Arabs and have no link to the ancient Egyptians whose civilization was ultimately killed by Arab conquest and invasion. To assume or claim otherwise is an example of phony ethnicism and as ive previously pointed out this is especially prevalent in the USA. As pointed out Lowland Scots is irrelevant with regard to ethnic Scottishness. Genetics, as previously pionted out, is irrelevant. Being interested in genetics does not make one a racist but tying undue importance to it serves no purpose other than either phony ethnicism or that of a racist cause.

I agree with regard to peoples who have not a thing to do with regard to Scottishness such as the Jews, the Sikhs and the Farsis. Religion is utterly irrelevant here though it might be different if the American Presbyterian population maintained worship with Gaelic Psalms and other truly Scottish features.

Millions of people in the UK have names of a Norman origin. Does that make them Norman? Of course it doesnt. Have a surname which is MacAnything doesnt make you Scottish and only a fantasist would claim otherwise. It doesnt matter how closely one can trace their roots to Scotland unless one is in posession of Scottish language and culture which is clearly not the case with the VAST majority of those claiming Scottish ethnicity or descent.

Agreed that behavioural traits do tend to outlast langauge but they are comparatively insignificant and do not long outlast the loss of language and of culture. Social/behavioural characteristics are defined by the society and culture into which one is born and raised and there is no surviving Scottish society in the USA, nor indeed is there in Scotland other than some of the Islands, and so the likelyhood of those claiming 'Scottishness' having enjoyed such a qualified upbringing is almost impossible.What serves my point quite well is the way in which you talk of 'higher possibility' of inhereted traits etc dependant on ancestry. To discuss something as unverifiable as this is utterly meaningless while qualifying ethnicity on the basis of something tangible like language is the only meaningful way of classing ethnicity. One cannot be English without speaking English, one cannot be Spanish without speaking Spanish, one cannot be Japanese without speaking Japanese and it is no different with regard to Scots - one cannot be Scottish without speaking Scottish. Whether the ignorant masses disagree(or would likely disagree) with something or not is of no consequence and has no bearing on the truth anymore than the world was made flat by the ignorance of previous centuries. How one percieves oneself does not make one what he percieves.

An Siarach

Response:

Wow. ok, I am admitting, you have hit an area that you did not want to touch. Also, please, enough with the negative and insulting connotation. I can't believe you have attributed ehtnicity to having to speak the language. WOW. You are saying genetics are irrelevant in the case of ethnicity. WOW. I am making a note to you now that I will spend every Wikipedia moment I have to debate this with you unless you stop discussing this with such a closed mind. Speaking Scottish Gaelic is not a "must" for being of Scottish ethnicity and you speak of a massive lie. The fact you think people automatically lose their ethnicity just because they no longer speak the language is ludicrous. I told you about how social/behavioural customs continue down each family line and make us unique. There are so many elements to culture and identity besides language and no matter how much it has been diluted you can't lose all of the traits of the main ethnic origin of you and your family.

I will first start with the impact of the Anglo-Saxon/Lowland Scots culture. Their impact is quite large and it merged (although not very smoothly and unformly equal) with that of the Highland Scots to create Scotland and the Scottish people. You also can't say that the Scots were native and the Anglo-Saxons weren't when they both came into certain parts of Caledonia around the same time period (the Gaels came from Ireland in the 5th and 6th centuries while the Angles wee moving into Lothian around the late 6th century). The only group which was native was the Picts who were culturally assimilated by the Scots and Anglo-Saxons. I do acknowledge the Lowland/Highland divide has obviously been important in Scottish history, but as to which is more Scottish is just futile. Both had a large impact on Scottish culture. Also, the Scotti can be described as being descended from "Irish" since that is where they originated from just as the Anglo-Saxons of the Lowlands originated from England (and earlier northwest Germany). The word "Scotia" literally meant in Latin "land of the Gaels" and even King Robert I of Scotland during the Wars of Independence used the terms "Scotia Maiora" for Ireland and "Scotia Minora" for Scotland (The Scots word for Highlanders, Erse, literally means Irish). The Highland Scots are mainly the descendants of the Irish tribe who invaded the northern island of Britain (Caledonia) in 5th and 6th centuries. In your view, the only true modern Scots are those who speak Gaelic and that is quite ridiculous in most peoples opinions (including mine). Scottish culture is a fusion of both the Gaelic, Anglo-Saxon and, to a smaller degree, Norse cultures, but is more prevalent in ceratin areas (the Highlands--> Gaelic, Lowlands--> Anglo-Saxon, Orkneys/Shetlands--> Norse). For example, Gaelic customs (like the clan system) can be easily be found in Lowland Scots cultural areas just as the Scottish Gaelic language has had significant influences from the Scots language and old Norse (compared to the original Gaelic spoken in the Ireland, especially in Munster and Connacht).

"But how on earth else would one determine what is ethnically Scottish other than by the ethnic Scots" ?

According to you, I supppose the only true ethnic Scots are the Irish since you apparently refute the cultural influences of the Lowland Anglo-Saxon Scots and the blending of the cultures of Scotland.

In terms of ancestry, you have some very controversial opinions and are largely your own POV.

"As pointed out Lowland Scots is irrelevant with regard to ethnic Scottishness. Genetics, as previously pionted out, is irrelevant. Being interested in genetics does not make one a racist but tying undue importance to it serves no purpose other than either phony ethnicism or that of a racist cause."

These claims are ridculous and not backed up by anything other than your ethnocentric opinions. Huh, kinda reminds me of how you described my POV:

"You obviously do need to be told how to be taken seriously if you are putting forward unproven theories which few would take seriously to support your own arguments."

Anyways, who are you to decide what is irrelevant and what isn't ? Are you the divine creator of Scotland and the World ? Genetics can be of great value to studying ethnic groups as it again reveals origins, possible shared history with other groups as well as the impact of invasions/settlements of other peoples on an ethnic group. You are also claiming that the Egyptians are merely Arabs and don't have a unique ethnic identity. This is ridculous and the influence of the ancient Egyptians can't just be limited to physical/genetic chacteristics because Egyptians do have a quite distinct identity within the larger Arab world (same goes for Northwest African Arab-Berbers) just as ethnic Indonesian groups, Filipinos and Coastal Malays (Malaysia and Sumatra) have distinct identities within the very large Malay cultural world. Obviously I agree that when the descendants of Scots in the new world or wherever lost their language (Scots or Gaelic) and many aspects of their culture and customs (varying degrees of traditons and customs do remain with many families) they no longer could be declared the "same people" as an ethnic Scotsman back in Scotland. However, like I said, many things do remain such as religion, social/behavioural traits, and ancestral/familial ties to people in Scotland or Ulster and of course genetic and physical characteristics (even if you consider them irrelevant).

"Religion is utterly irrelevant here though it might be different if the American Presbyterian population maintained worship with Gaelic Psalms and other truly Scottish features."

Presbyterianism is a very imporant part of Scottish culture, hence the Church of Scotland (largest denomination in Scotland) being a Presbyterian church ! Just as the majority of English (at one time anyway) are/were Anglican (so many atheists now). Presbyterianism was also prevalent in Holland but alot of its origins are very much tied to Scotland. The large amount of Presbyterianism in the US is without doubt because of the millions of people of Scottish and Ulster Scots/Scotch-Irish descent.

"Millions of people in the UK have names of a Norman origin. Does that make them Norman? Of course it doesnt. Have a surname which is MacAnything doesnt make you Scottish and only a fantasist would claim otherwise. It doesnt matter how closely one can trace their roots to Scotland unless one is in posession of Scottish language and culture which is clearly not the case with the VAST majority of those claiming Scottish ethnicity or descent."

Another one of your "proven theories" which many people take "seriously" right ? WOW. Those Norman names go back 1,000 years and the Normans were few in number when they conquered Britain and (just as with the Normans in Sicily) were absorbed by the British population. When you have a Scottish surname you may or may not be able to trace a signifcant amount of ancestry to Scotland but in most cases, people can because they have more Scottish familial linkage besides that from their surname. People who have signifcant amounts of Scottish ancestry can be considered to be descended from ethnic Scots and depending on how they identify thmeselves, ethnic Scots (even if different from those in the homeland). I also told you, many people do retain many traits which pertain to ethnicity and yes a large portion have lost the language and/or varying amoutns of traditonal customs, but that does not mean they can't be considered Scottish whatsoever or unable to reconnect with their roots. In your view, does this mean a Chinese person who's born in Scotland and learns the language and customs is now ethnically Scottish and not Chinese ??? Or are you for example ethnically English as much as Scottish because "you speak the language and are in possession of its culture" ?

"Agreed that behavioural traits do tend to outlast langauge but they are comparatively insignificant and do not long outlast the loss of language and of culture. Social/behavioural characteristics are defined by the society and culture into which one is born and raised and there is no surviving Scottish society in the USA,"

These traits are hardly insignificant and though less distinguishable from other customs and language, are still quite important. Yes, many chacteristics are defined by our surrounding culture but so much of our traits, traditions, personality and how we interact with the society/culture is derived from our upbringing and interaction with those who we spend most of our childhood with and are closest to us which most of the time is our family. So many familes here in Canada nad the US have their own traditions and customs passed down for generations. My family for example has many traditional gatherings and customs passed down from my Great Grandparents who immigrated from Italy. I also acknowledge a degree of my personal traits to my Grandpa (who i grew up around alot as a child) and his grandparents were from the lower Scottish Highlands (the Grahams of/near Loch Katrine) and he has acknowledged how he shared some of them with his father and mother and so forth.

There may be no surviving "scottish society" if what you mean is the majority popualtion of a certain area being ethnic Scottish (exception of Nova Scotia in Canada). However, there are areas where Scottish influence is most detectable, most notably Nova Scotia in Canada where both Highlanders and Lowlanders settled; Kentucky, Tennessee and anywhere throughout the southern appalachian mountains area in the US really where both Highlanders and Lowland Scots heavily settled and is especially detectable in the local accent and customs; various ethnic Scottish towns across both countries, notable a town called Fergus in Ontario, Canada, home of the largest Highland Games in the country. Also, Highland Games, Celtic, Scottish and Ulster-Scots festivals and events take place all over both countries annually. There's even a very big one held every year in my hometown, Fort Erie, which is just south of Niagara Falls, Canada.

"To discuss something as unverifiable as this is utterly meaningless while qualifying ethnicity on the basis of something tangible like language is the only meaningful way of classing ethnicity."

You go on further to make claims that one is not English without speaking the language, one is not Japanese without speaking the language. I and practically all respected anthropologists think this is ridiculous as I have told you how cultural, social/behavioural, ancestral/familial, genetic, religious and physical characteristics also are part of ones connection with ethnicity. I mean under your current classification, all 200 million or so Americans, and however million more people out there from Australia, Canada, wherever are all ethnic English because their native tongue and, in most cases, only language as well many cultural traits is English or Anglo-Saxon based. The millions of Italians and Greeks around the world who are very pround of their culture and identity but dont speak their mother tongue aren't ethnic Italians or Greeks ? All of the recent immigrants and descendants of immigrants from the Asian sub-continent, Africa, Carribean, etc. in the UK who only speak English (or in rare cases Welsh) are only ethnic Scottish, Welsh or English ?

Thats all i'm going to say for now, but I don't want you to keep getting angry with this. I do enjoy discussing this. You should however put yourself in my shoes or the shoes of any American, Canadian, Brazilian, Australian,etc. who is descended from various immigrants and, according to your POV, has no ethnicity because our native tongue or only language is not of our very recent ancestors and that no part of who we are comes from them or their culture other than genetics. We see alot of these newer immigrants here who are allowed to speak their own languages wherever they want and get special status or help from the government while when our ancestors came here (especially if they were Irish catholics or from southern/eastern Europe) got treated only a little better than slaves, unless your anccestors actually were African slaves. You are saying we've lost all of our ethnic traits ?, we have lost much but also have retained much and many, like me, are regaining even more as we connect more with where we come from. The way you desribe how to label ethnic groups and how you view those people in the new world, would mean that the people here are in a sense lost and have no concrete identity other than the vague and quite heterogenous tags of "American", "Canadian", "Australian", etc. which have very little ethnic commonality (unless one is of an indigenous native american or australian aborigine tribe).

Epf 21:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Genetics : A child is born to two genetically Indian parents in England. Neither parent, and thus nor does the child, speak any language other than English. Their culture etc is almost entirely English. According to your argument they are juts as Indian as any native as Delhi. Ridiculous, and an example of how irrelevant genetics is when accord undue significance.


 * Again, you misunderstand me and I am not saying they would be the "same" as ethnic Indians in India, but they would still be related in terms of common origins, genetic/physical features, social/behavioural characteristics and whatever cultural/family traditions and linkage they would still posess. They would be English of Indian ethnicity or ethnic origin/ancestry compared to someone who is English of English ancestry/origins.

A significant population in the UK (as well as other parts of the world) have Norman genes and names. Using your rationale they are Norman despite being lingusitically and culturally unconnected. They are now Anglo-Saxon - in the UK at least.


 * Actually, their is barely any genetic imprint left from the Normans and it would be hard to distinguish it from the the larger imprint of the Danish Vikings anyway. Besides, these elements are mixed with largely Anglo-Saxon and Celtic elements and all these constitute English ethnicity in cultural, lingusitic and physical/genetic terms.

Language is a tangible link to ethnicity which has a direct bearing on an individual and people. Genetics does not.


 * You are just plain incorrect here and genetics/physical traits are quite important to ethnicity hence the distinguishing physical/genetic traits between numerous ethnic groups/peoples.

Again with the Lowland Anglo-Scots. Their impact is undeniable and irrelevant. No-one will deny the impact of the Normans in England - does this make them Anglo-Saxon? Of course not. However their descendants became Anglicized over time and thus ceased to be Norman.


 * The Normans were absorbed both in terms all ethnic traits, whether "cultural" or physical/genetic. As with the Lowland/Anglo-Scots, their impact is not irreleveant and that is an ignorant pro-Gaelic POV as the Anglo-Saxons were key in forming Scottish ethnicity and culture. Their massive influence on Scottish culture can no way be compared to the the influence of the Normans.

As for "You also can't say that the Scots were native and the Anglo-Saxons weren't" you have completely missed the point. Whoever inhabited the north of Britain first is utterly irrelevant as regards Scottish ethnicity. Scotland did not exist until it was founded - by the Scots. Incidently your timeline for the arrival of peoples in the north of Britain is quite out of date and i recommend you have a look at recent archeological discoveries especially with regard to the ( non-existant) immigration of the Scots from Ireland in the 4th-5th centuries - though il emphasise again that it matters not when they arrived or when they arrived in relation to the anglo-saxons as it is they who are the Scots and they who founded Scotland and they for whom it is named.


 * Just because it was named after them does not mean Scotland and ethnic Scottish were entirely Gaelic or descended from the Scotti. Scotland was just as much created by the Picts and the Anglo-Saxon Scots at the time as it was by the Scotti. Even if the Dal Riadan migration did not take place, most of the land was inhabited by the disntinct Pictish people. My dates are not incorrect as the presumed migartion is thought to have taken place in the 4th-6th centuries, around the same time the Angles were settling in Lothene.

" Both had a large impact on Scottish culture" Both had a large impact on the culture of Scotland. Only one had Scottish culture. Same as the modern immigrant populations have tremendous impact on on English culture but this hardly makes them ethnically English.


 * Exactly, but you seem to associate Scottish culture with Gaelic culture only and the fact is this is not the case. Scottish culture is not just simply Gaelic and the Anglo-Saxons weren't merely immigrants, their culture was present during the formation of Scotland just as was the Gaelic Scotti and Picts. They are key in the formation of Scottish ethnicity.

"According to you, I supppose the only true ethnic Scots are the Irish since you apparently refute the cultural influences of the Lowland Anglo-Saxon Scots and the blending of the cultures of Scotland."

The only truth ethinc Scots are the Scots - who are Gaels. The ethnic Irish are the Gaels or Ireland. The cultural influences of the Lowland Anglo-Scots, as previously stated, are neither here nor there.


 * Again, this is non-sense as the true ethnic Scots are a blend of Gaels and Picts and Anglo-Saxons. In this sense, Scottish culture and ethnicity ceases to be merely Gaelic.

"In terms of ancestry, you have some very controversial opinions and are largely your own POV."

Controversial yes. My own POV - well obviously yes and that of anyone who wishes to treat ethnicity as something tangible rather than something utterly meaningless which people can bandy around on a whim without having anything to qualify it.


 * Without anything to qualify ? Your meanings of ethnicity would allow anyone who learns a language and gets citizenship to be part of a new ethnicity. You compeltely neglect the importance of descent in defining ethnicity held by most anthropologists.

"These claims are ridculous and not backed up by anything other than your ethnocentric opinions. Huh, kinda reminds me of how you described my POV:"

These claims are backed by a rational understanding of history and a logical approach to the meaning of the relevant terms. What is ridiculous is allowing your own utterly subjective desires to cloud your appreciation of history.


 * My own utterly subjective "desires" ? It sounds as if your running out of ways to defend your point and are now turning towards using insults. As for the "rational" and "logical" approach, it seems to be one that is lacking in correct understanding and knowledge of historical facts and what constitutes ethnicity.

"Anyways, who are you to decide what is irrelevant and what isn't ?"

What a ridiculous question. Who are any of us to decide what is relevant and what isnt? If what i have argued as being relevant is not then it should be quite easy to prove so without resorting to nonsense( and incidently self defeating ) such as this :

"Are you the divine creator of Scotland and the World ?"


 * You are claiming it as non-sense only because it reflects your ignorant and inconsiderate viewpoints on the matter that is being debated. In fact, what you have argued is not relevant and this matter has been already proven so by most anthropologists. You just can't let go of your own ideological goals and personal feelings on the subject matter.

"Genetics can be of great value to studying ethnic groups as it again reveals origins, possible shared history with other groups as well as the impact of invasions/settlements of other peoples on an ethnic group."

Bang on. As stated however it has no direct bearing on ones language, culture and hence ethnicity.


 * Again, those arent the only factors involving ethnicity, and genetics does have a bearing on it as it reveals the common origins and physical traits of an ethnic group which are equally important in its definition. Ethnic groups, cultural groups and lingustic groups are not the same thing.

"You are also claiming that the Egyptians are merely Arabs and don't have a unique ethnic identity. This is ridculous and the influence of the ancient Egyptians can't just be limited to physical/genetic chacteristics because Egyptians do have a quite distinct identity within the larger Arab world"

They are Arabs. Naturally they are a sub-group within Arab civilization. Neither this nor geographical happenstance makes them the same civilizaiton or race as the Egyptians who built the pyramids etc.


 * Obviously they are not the same people as the ancient Egyptians but most modern ethnic Egyptians are able to claim a degree of genetic connection with those peoples and even their Arabic dialect has been influenced by Coptic as well as Egypt's other ethno-lingustic influences. Even within the Arab world, the Egyptians are considered distinct, just as with the Arab-Berbers of NW Africa. The "true Arabs" in the ethnic and genaological sense are those from Saudia Arabia, Yemen, and Oman and their descendants throughoutt he middle east. Arab is about as much an ethnic term as Malay is and both groups are very heterogenous.

"those Norman names go back 1,000 years and the Normans were few in number when they conquered Britain and (just as with the Normans in Sicily) were absorbed by the British population."

Yes indeed. Just as the ethnic Scots of the Lowlands were absorbed by the Anglo-Saxon population and civilization and just as the ethnic Scots to migrate to the New World were absorbed there by the dominant Anglo-Saxon civilization.


 * The ethnic Gaels were not absorbed by the Anglo-Saxon Lowlanders and instead both groups contributed to Scottish ethnicity, identity and culture. The weakening influence of the Gaelic element in no doubt is related to Scotlands close proximity to England and the centre of Anglo-Saxon culture. The significant influences Scottish Gaelic and Scots had on each other is more evidence of the blending of these peoples to form ethnic Scots.

" I mean under your current classification, all 200 million or so Americans, and however million more people out there from Australia, Canada, wherever are all ethnic English because their native tongue and, in most cases, only language as well many cultural traits is English or Anglo-Saxon based."

Nope - not ethnically English (though some would, and might legitimately, claim ot be) but ethnically anglo-saxon. Their perception of themselves has no relevance when one objectively appraises their ethnicity which is derived from the Civilization of which they are a part ( Anglo-Saxon) and hence the language of that civilization (English) and its related culture.


 * This does not make sense as the culture of all those nations is influenced by countless numbers of different peoples and ethnic groups from around the globe in varying degrees. The dominance of English language does not make the people a supposed "anglo-saxon ethnic group".

" The millions of Italians and Greeks around the world who are very pround of their culture and identity but dont speak their mother tongue aren't ethnic Italians or Greeks ?"

Now you raise a point worth considering. There are obviously stages when immigrant populations/communities are in an intermediate or transitionary stage between the culture and language of their ancestors and that of the dominant civilization in which they find themselves. As the culture with these groups remains fairly strong many of them might legitimately be classed Italian-Americans or whatever. However the Scots have always had a far weaker civilization in terms of its maintainance (for very interesting reasons of self-perception and history on which there are some very interesting writings - i think i recall Michael Newton had an excellent essay on the topic ) and thus are assimiliated far sooner. Naturally there are some who could quite legitimately call themselves Scottish-Americans but there are only a few hundred of them pretty much restricted to Nova Scotia.


 * Also, it must be noted the similarity of Scottish people and culture to English aided in the increasing assimilation. However, large numbers of the people retain varying degrees of what constitutes Scottish ethnicity depending on their ties with Scotland and Scottish culture which varies from person to person. Only the most intermingled, assmilated and long-settled could be considered to have possibly lost all of their Scottish ethnic origins. Indeed elements of Scottish culture have most survived in Nova Scotia where both Lowland and Highland influences have thrived.

"l of the recent immigrants and descendants of immigrants from the Asian sub-continent, Africa, Carribean, etc. in the UK who only speak English (or in rare cases Welsh) are only ethnic Scottish, Welsh or English ?"

Nope. Depending on how assimiliated they are to the dominant (Anglo-Saxon) civilization they are Anglo-Saxon with Asian/African/whatever ancestry. Again il point out that their perception of themselves doesnt change what they are anymore than i could be Japanese simply by believing so. There are some Argentinians who could legitimately claim to be of Welsh ethnicity as patagonia has preserved the language and culture to a (comparatively) impressive extent.


 * Agreed they would be English of whatever ancestry and their ethnic origins would remain for quite some time depending on how their descendants would intermingle and be absorbed into the indigenous population. Of course there are Argentines who are also ethnic Welsh and even the ones who havent retained as much Welsh traits as others could still claim Welsh ethnic origins they would still retain a degree of Welsh traits.

" You should however put yourself in my shoes or the shoes of any American, Canadian, Brazilian, Australian,etc. who is descended from various immigrants and, according to your POV, has no ethnicity because our native tongue or only language is not of our very recent ancestors and that no part of who we are comes from them or their culture other than genetics. "

One of the problems (probably the main problem) with your argument is evident here. How any of those poeple feel on the matter has no bearing on the reality. No amount of sympathy on my part with their wishes should have either. The question should be approached objectively - not from the slant of what people affected might wish. As for them having "no ethnicity" this is untrue and not something ive said at any point. The nationalities you name are not also ethnicities - Americans, Canadians and Australians being generally Anglo-Saxon and Brazilians Portuguese. The Scots, however, are an ethnic group as well as a nationality and existed prior to the founding of Scotland. One can be Scottish by geography or nationality or by ethnicity. The difference between us is that i distinguish the two.


 * I explained below why I put this comment to show how people abroad retain and re-connect with their roots. America and Canada and Australia and Brazil are heterogenous societies with influences from countless peoples and ethnic groups and have no common people or ethnicity, only citizenship/nationality. Indeed without ethnic origins/ancestry, they would be merely considered American, Australian, etc. citizens who speak a certain language whether it be French, English, Portuguese, Spanish, whatever (all official or almost official in the respective countries) unless one was a native Amerinidan or of native origins.

I think its fairly obvious that we wont achieve anyhting like a consensus on this topic given our greatly different perception of the question and our understanding of what certain concepts mean. As youve stated youve felt that ive been insulting or antagonistic at various points - something many people seem to feel when they engage in a debate with me but not something which is intentional; My abrasive manner is not deliberate im afraid! Any offence given on my part was unintentional and regetted.

Regards,

An Siarach


 * I just find it so puzzling how you deny that Scottish culture is a fusion of the Gaelic, Anglo-Saxon, Pictish and Norse elements and my views are not subjective whatsoever. I made some comments about how you seem to dictate what constitutes to be Scottish as you thinking you were God because other than it simply being not true, your view does not coincide with historical and anthropological viewpoints on Scottish people and appears as a pro-Gaelic, pro-Highlander, anti-Germanic POV. I merely brought up the idea of how people feel about their ethnic origins outside of Scotland to show the craving for people around the world to re-connect with their Scottish ethnic origins. As we have discussed earlier, there are certain aspects of ethnicity which take quite a number of generations and inter-mingling with other peoples to "lose". Language is something that is not necessary in defining one's ethnicity and just because an Indian person is born in the UK and can only speak english and mainly knows English culture does not make that person the same as an indigenous ethnic English person or a person with English ethnic origins. That person will retain in some degree aspects of their ethnic Indian roots for some time. One fault in your argument is how you downplay the role descent plays in determining ethnicity and this is the concept widely relied upon by most anthropologists. With regards to genetics, the common physical/genetic features of different peoples is important in ethnicity as it displays the groups fairly common origins, which is key in defining an ethnic group. Obviously with someone who is physically/genetically different from someone who is typical of those with ethnic Scottish origin, it can be denoted the person has different ethnic origins, no matter what degree they are. This biological diversity is important to maintain as without it, the cultural, lingustic and other aspects of ethnicity will gradually be degraded as well. There will be no differentiation between any peoples and a giant American or French-style melting pot will thrive with only a small number of dominant cultures taking precedence. This is part of the reason why the number of ethnic groups in the world is falling at an unprecedented rate and indigenous ethnic groups/peoples are disappearing. I do differentiate between nationality/geography and ethnicity but how I and most anthropologists do so by mainly involving descent (as well as the obvious factors of religion, social/behavioural traits, family traditions, culture, language, and physical features/genetics) and how you do so with simply language and a few cultural traits IS how we differ. Like I said, it takes quite a few generations and significant ethnic inter-marriage for one to completely lose his/her roots. A great example is how you compared the Normans and the Anglo-Saxon Scottish Lowlander but the impacts are of varying degrees. The ethnic impact of the Anglo-Saxons was much larger because it consisted of political linguistic, cultural, religious, familial and genetic/physical traits while the Norman invasions were largely confined to political, cultural and lingustic ones due to the very small numbers in which they came. The Anglo-Saxons settled in significant numbers and a comparison between the two can not be made as Normans were very much absorbed while the Anglo-Saxons formed the basis for English ethnicity. In Scotland the Anglo-Saxon people and culture in turn blended with that of the Picts and Gaels and were hardly "absorbed" in any kind of the sense associated with the Normans. Ethnic origin is indeed very much part of who we all are (even if we don't consciously realize certain traits) and its aspects are something which last much longer than we do as they are passed down to our descendants (especially in the physical/genetic sense which outlasts all other traits). For now, I will agree that we disagree, but I hope my comments have made you re-think some of your views on ethnicity as this is not merely my own POV, it is that of most anthropologists and population geneticists and my information is from both my research and common historical/anthropolgical knowledge.

Till next time, Epf 03:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Epf 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I will answer in detail to each of the sections you critiqued in my previous entry when I have more time as this is an area where I feel some of your views are related to ethnic nihilism and are against racial and cultural preservation. If there is a way we can more easily discuss the issue (eg. MSN Messenger), it would probably be helpful, but if not, I will continue to post until we come to some sort of consensus (for both our benefit). I stand by the common stance that someone with a large proportion of ethnic origins/descent cements a connection with that ethnic group/people even when currently living in a separate/different nation or culture. The importance of common genetics/physical features also can not be played down as "irrelevant" in terms of ethnicity.

I have responded to your indidvidual comments above. Epf 05:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Highlands-Lowlands
Sorry about the delay. Just got back from a weekend trip to Venice. Don't worry about it too much. You seem to know what you're talking about. That user has heard about the earlier Anglian strand in some parts of the south-west, as there was some Anglian penetration of that area in the 8th century. But the thin layer of anglian settlement in the area was recelticized in the following two centuries, so it has no impact on any discussion of the Highlands-Lowlands of the later middle ages. Historians often take the Fordun passage as the first indication, but in my view the subject is misunderstood. For instance, in the 16th century, Lothianers called people from Carrick "Highland". (see Galwegian Gaelic) Fordun was not talking about any highland line, but rather that Gaelic speakers tended to inhabit uplying regions (see agriculture section in Scotland in the High Middle Ages), which would include virtually all of Scotland except Lothian, a narrow strip of east-coast and the area between Glasgow and Edinburgh. According to An Atlas of Scottish History to 170 (1997), this was the linguistic setup in 1400. Whether you believe that, or the map in the Scottis-Inglis map in the Scottish Gaelic language page, there was no simple highland-lowland divide in the age of Fordun, not even a century later. Sadly though, with any popular article on wiki, we are often subject to the lowest common denominator. So nuanced phrases will often be replaced with more absolutist and misleading ones if a certain type of editor ever encounters such a thing in a published piece of writing. You seem to have taken care of it though. I would give up trying to convince Epf that Gaels are the true Scots, as it requires a lot of historical understanding to realize and is far to far removed from the Multiculturalist vision cultivated by modern Scots Regards. - Calgacus 11:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Scottish Gaels are indeed the ones closes related to the Irish Scotti, but that does not make them the true "Scottish" or true "Scotsman" as Anglo-Saxon, Pict and Nerse ethnic influences were also quite imporant in the forming of Scottish identity and ethnicity. IF this was not the case, the Scottish people would just simply be Irish people in Caledonia which is just laughable to anybody with an extensive historical and athropological understanding. Epf 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It simply does make them the true "Scots" as they are the original Scottish people. You are confusing the two kinds of 'Scot'; those who are Scottish ethnically ( the Scottish gaels) and those who are Scottish by nationality/location. Scotland was founded by, united under and named for the Scots - who were Gaels. Without the Scots (who were Gaels) there would be NO such thing as a Scotland or a Scottish people. Scotland came to be inhabited by various other ethnic groups as well and they were 'Scottish' in the same way immigrant populations in England might be 'English' without being ethnically so. Now obviously there is a 'combined' Scottish culture influenced/formed by all the disparate and various historical/contemporary ethnic groups just as there is a greater 'American' culture in the USA across all groups as well as specific cultures which are Afro-American, Franco-American, Hispanic American etc. Now the background and history of the USA and Scotland are obviously vastly different and nothing more should be read into the analogy than what i state as an example of a greater, nation spanning culture in conjunction with ethnic specific cultures. The Scottish people pre-date the founding of Scotland and there are thus (the aforementioned) two different definitions of 'Scottish' although because of historical revisionism and antagonism by the Anglo-Scots over many centuries - the 'mi-run mor nan Gall' - this fact is not widely known or acknowledged. - An Siarach

I will from now on contact you via-email or MSN and have added your address. I do understand your views as the Scottish Gales as the true Scots and that they are distinct from both the Irish and the "Anglo/Pictish-Scots". You do have to admit that the non-Gaelic Scottish people constitute a separate ethnic identity as well that is both separate from the English and immigrants and descendants of immigrants. Although the other Scots have been very much Anglicized culturally, they are still indigenous to Scotland as well and their Anlo-Pictish-Norse elements does make them a distinct people (and do retain varying degrees of Gaelic cultural elements). Again, this is my last post as I will now be using e-mail/MSN (mine is evan.bartlett@hotmail.com). Cheers, Epf 18:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it so hard to distinguish Scot and ethnic-Scot, c/f Russian and ethnic-Russian? I don't think An Siarach would mind as much if todays English-speaking Scots (largely descended from medieval Lowland Gaels, and modern Highland Gaels and Irish anyways, rather than English/Lothian immigrants) were as enthusiastic about Gaelic culture as their English-speaking Irish brethren. - Calgacus 18:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify i have never at any point disputed the distinct nature of the anglo-scottish culture and people with regard to the English ; i have the highest regard for it ( it is after all a huge part of my national culture ) and firmly believe that the UK, and because of our Imperial past the world as a whole, would be far, far worse places today had it not been for the displacement and dominance of the Anglo-Saxon civilization over the Celtic in Scotland and the consequent development of history as we know it. I do, however, think Anglo-Scottish culture is far from as distinct as most Scots (both Gaelic and English speaking) pretend - i despise the petty 'anyone but the english' nature of most Scottish nationalism - but my point all along has simply been that its distinction as an Anglo-Scottish culture/language/race does not make it Scottish - this status is already taken by the Scottish Gaels - anymore than the presence of the distinct English speaking culture of the USA can claim to be Iroqois or Cherokee. My gripe has always been with the blurring of lines between distinct cultures and the mistaken classification of one culture as something else - if anything im an occasional pedant when it comes to the exact meaning of a word,categorization or names in this context. An Siarach


 * You confuse me An Siarach. Language and culture are not the same thing, although I'm not saying their necessarily distinct either. Likewise, I agree that identity differences do not necessarily correspond with real cultural differences. However, I'm rather amazed by your denegration of Gaelic culture (I assume that's what you meant by "Celtic"). The perception of Gaelic culture as intrinsically backward is a cultural product of the medieval French and Anglo-French worlds. There's no intrinsic connection between any language and backwardness. If the Albany Stewarts had managed to wrest the kingship from the branch of their dynasty that was forced into Lothian, the Scots may very well have, like the Poles, managed to retain their language but keep the ability to keep up with continental developments. The native English in the High Middle Ages were generally backward compared with French-speakers in the same period, likewise the French-speakers compared with the Mediterranean Greeks, Italians and Arabs; this wasn't the case in the 19th century, when the precise opposite was true. The early medieval Gaels possessed far more literacy than the "barbaric" Scandinavians or even the English, and probably had a similar number of speakers as the latter. That this isn't the case today is one of those arbitrary products of history, nothing to do with language. - Calgacus 20:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure where you see me denegrating Gaelic culture when i simply pointed out the fact that it had been displaced by the Anglo-Saxon. My opinion that this gradual change, without which history as we know it - the reformation, the scottish enlightenment, the Union and the Empire - would be hugely different and imo a huge number of the positive aspects of the modern world were spread via the anglo-saxon civilization and British empire. Ive not said anything about the Scots and Gaelic culture being more primitive than the Anglo-Saxon during the years you have in mind but i do believe that a Scotland which had retained Scottish language and culture rather than becoming anglicized would have had a lesser impact (and the importance of the Union and Empire here is tremendous) than the anglicized Scotland of reality which joined with England to form Great Britain. The thought of a thriving Gaelic Scotland which was never anglicized has tremendous appeal to me - to the heart as it were - but my head tells me it would not have had as significant an impact or as positive an impact as our own anglicized Scotland. Anyway theres not much point in getting involved in one of these 'What if?' historical arguments as theyre obviously impossible to answer and, no matter how educated, remain based on opinion and conjecture which is all i was putting forward earlier. An Siarach
 * I wasn't making it up. I read the denegration in this statement: "the world as a whole, would be far, far worse places today had it not been for the displacement and dominance of the Anglo-Saxon civilization over the Celtic in Scotland and the consequent development of history as we know it". It is, as you say, a "what if", which is why I proposed another "what if". A Gaelic Scotland today would be a vibrant one that'd make a much more distinctive contribution to European culture than the sub-English one of today, wouldn't be obsessed with England (as the Scots are), and would have no more lingusitic reason to be backward than the Finns or even the Swedes. I not sure how much impact you can think English-speaking Scots had as English-speakers; after all, these are, in your own view, just another few million English. Do you really believe this (I'm genuinely curious)? - Calgacus 20:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

That statement wasnt in any way meant as a denegration of the Gaelic culture ( which is my native culture after all) but simply a reflection of my belief of the impact a thoroughly Gaelic, and thus less integrated/English, Scotland would have had on the world. My opinion has more to do with the Empire than with Scotland in itself. Scotland, and its population, had an enormous impact on the world via England and the Empire and i do not think anything like this is plausible in a world where Scotland remains a nation totally distinct linguistically,culturally and politically from England. I can see a Gaelic Scotland as a vibrant nation and culture making, as you say, a much more distinctive contribution to Europe but the existence of such a nation would come at the expense of the Union and the British Empire the existence of both of which was a tremendous force for good in the world imo and the presence of (anglicized) Scotland within both was essential. That is the basis of my belief - not that Gaelic culture or civilization or any hypothetical Gaelic Scotland would be inferior in any way to Anglicized Scotland - but that, due to its differences and the consequences these differences would have, the former would not have had the impact the latter had on the UK, the Empire and the World. Not inferior, simply different and thus less compatible with England and thus (imo) incapable of as wide-ranging an impact as the Scotland of history. An Siarach
 * Well, I'll leave you to your opinion. Obviously, a non-Anglicized Scotland wouldn't have intergrated as well into the England of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, but I've not managed to glorify the achievements of the British Empire in my own head as an Empire (of which the Scottish Gaels were one of the first "victims"), and so I really don't share your view. The sheep of the Highlands probably share your view though, and the wealthy descendents of their Gaelic-speaking predecessors (when of course they survived to have any) probably ought to as well; but who knows. Maybe you're correct, maybe you aren't. It is, as you say, a "what if". - Calgacus 21:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Somerled
Hey. I'm glad you're working on this article. It's been down my to-do-list for a while, but not been a priority because my experience tells me that editing popular articles is a comparative waste of time, and also it'd probably be of more benefit for me to do more obscure Scottish regional rulers. Still, I have a couple of points. There are more than a few "Somerleds", including the father of Fergus of Galloway and a King of the Gall-Gaidhe(a)l (who I actually suspect is the same guy). Perhaps a move to "of Argyll" might be in order (presuming a table of rulers of Argyll would eventually be introduced)? Secondly, I see you are using the form "Somhairle Mòr mac Gille Brìghde". I'm wondering where this form comes from? I mean, if the H-lenition is present, then wouldn't it be "Somhairle Mòr mac Ghille Brìghde"? There is an orthographic change at the beginning of the thirteenth century when the leniting Hs become regular. As a rule, when I employ medieval Gaelic names, I omit lenition for people born before 1200, and retain it for people born after 1200. Hence why I have Máel Ísu I of Strathearn, but Maol Íosa II of Strathearn; and Donnchad I of Fife, but Donnchadh IV of Fife; Máel Coluim of Atholl, but Maol Chaluim II of Lennox (although I probably should have done Maol Choluim, but there you go). So I would have Somairle Mór mac Gille/a(i) Brigte (Benjamin Hudson would probably write Somairle Mór mac Gillai Brigti, but I've never understood why he would do this). I'm merely following contemporary scholarship in doing this; it would be much simpler just to use all modern forms, as the Welsh do, but if scholars don't do it, then I guess wiki shouldn't. :) Anyways, maybe you could also use whatever Gaelic form you choose in the title, you wouldn't be breaking any wiki rules, since these forms are now becoming used more in English language scholarship than the anglicizations, and you would avoid the hideous effect whereby people in other wiki languages, using the English wiki as a source, import anglicized forms into their language, as if it were somehow the native form. - Calgacus 20:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi calgacus. This article has also been on my to-do list for a while ( months in fact) and i was surprised that there wasnt a decent sized article already in place. What ive put up is really pretty rushed and rather basic but il be sure to expand/improve it in line with what you suggest as soon as ive got a bit of time ( im rather bogged down with other work atm). With regard to the form "Somhairle Mòr mac Gille Brìghde" ive used this as its the form used in the recent history of the lordship written by Domhnall Uilleam Stiùbhart which i listed among the references. regards, An Siarach
 * Well, as I cannot ask Domhnall Stiùbhart, do you see any reason why the h in mac Ghille should be omitted, when this form is otherwise modern? "mac Ghille Brighde" has 55 hits on google btw, "mac Gille Brighde " only 3. This article may be of interest - Calgacus 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I cant see any reason why mac Gille Brighde shold be used rather than mac Ghille Brighde - as stated i simply used it as it was the same form used in the main reference on the topic in the language and his level of literacy in the language is considerably greater than my own. If you wish to change it to 'Ghille Brighde' please feel free to do so. An Siarach
 * OK, I think I will at least insert the pre-1200 form Somairle mac Gilla Brigte, with his form (and h in brackets). - Calgacus 21:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice one
"Please bear in mind that it is no more correct to refer to Britain/the UK as 'England' than it would be to refer ot the USA as 'California' or 'Texas'. Quite why references to Britain so frequently use the wrong nomenclature while we never see France referred to as Languedoc, Italy as Lombardia or Spain as Castille il never understand." Thank you, I hope we manage to track them all down and correct them.

Re: Gàidhlig translations
Absolutely no problem at all, it'd be an honor to see +gds on articles I've worked on. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problems. I was however reflecting on the term "Rìgh Fortriu"; it struck me how funny it is that this originally Gaelic (i.e. Old "Irish") term has no available form in the modern Scottish language. You're actually crossing new boundaries in the modern language. I was thinking about what it should be. Old Irish genitive is Fortrenn and dative Fortrinn, so this makes the modern name Fortreann and Fortrinn. Am I right? Would King of Fortriu be Rìgh na Fhortreann then? BTW, no need to cite my name; you translated it, and I myself am only using the work of others; while I appreciate the gesture, you should probably delete my name from the bottom. Good work BTW; your work on Gàidhlig wiki is invaluable. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For your interest BTW, I found another medieval Latin term for Gaelic. As you know, it is almost always called "Scotica", but Jocelin of Furness in his Vita Kentigerni (Life of St Kentigern, c. 1180) calls it Albanica. He says, when explaining the meaning of "Kentigern", that "Ken is in Latin caput, and Tyern in Scottish (Albanice) is in Latin dominus" meaning that the name Kentigern was interpreted as meaning "Head of the Lord". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 16:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and certainly with regard to Fortriu ( and some other terms ) i wondered what i should do with them - for example I didnt bother mentioning Dunnotocher castle as i couldnt find the original Gaelic name for it and the thought of sticking up the anglicized version of such an obviously Gaelic name didnt sit comfortably. Il take your advice regarding the modern rendering of the name into account. Very very interested in the stuff regarding 'Albanica' and Kentigern - cheers. An Siarach


 * I don't know either what the modern Gaelic name for Dunnotar is. Dúin Foither and Dúin Fother are the forms in 7th century entries in the Annals of Ulster. A late 10th century/early 11th century Scottish Gaelic-Latin source calls it Opidum Fother (Fother fortress), and the Prophecy of Berchán renders the sentence "for brá Dúna-foireir" ("upon Dunnotar's brow"), rendering it elsewhere as "ar in luirc os Foither dun" ("on the shank above Dunnotar"). Maybe that will help you find the modern form, no? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) [[Image:UW_Logo-secondary.gif|15px]] 21:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats very useful. Il have a go at composing a modern form from the older ones youve provided. Cheers again. An Siarach

How to present Gaelic speaking king names on WP
Hello ! I am looking for input on the above question, and since you are a native Gaelic speaker, I think you can add usefully to the discussion of the above on my talk page (at the bottom). It would be nice to put the question to bed once and for all. I know Mais Oui! doesn't like me piping names like Cínaed mac Ailpín that or Selbach mac Ferchair that, and anonymous editors come along and change them, so a solution would be good ! Thanks in advance Angus McLellan 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

New WIkiProject
Hey again. I took Mais oui!'s advice and opened a wikiproject: WikiProject Medieval Scotland. See you there. :) ! - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Beinn
I have added a "" template to the article Beinn, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. James084 16:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer
Hi, I noticed that on your userpage that you're wondering why the entire UK is sometimes referred to as England and this phenomenon does not occur in other cases such as Spain, Italy. My theory is that the UK is referred to as England because it is perceived abroad as an English speaking country. The USA is not a "Texan" speaking country, nor is Italy a "Lombardian" speaking country. The problem is, how do we reconcile this theory with Spain. Spanish is sometimes referred to as Castilian, but I don't think all Spain has ever been referred to as Castile. I'm afraid your question remains unanswered - we need a sociologist, a historian and a psychologist to answer this problem --Latinus 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes ive pondered the significance of the English language on the frequent misrepresentation of the UK as England. Another hugely significant factor imo is simply the frequency with which the English refer to the UK as England or the Prime Minister as 'Prime Minister of England', the monarch as 'Queen of England' etc etc rather than as that of the UK - the only British people to do this, you will never hear a Scot talk of the UK as 'Scotland' or similarly a Welshman of 'Wales' in the same manner. An Siarach

Safavids
Hello. Could you please take another look at the article Safavids. User:Tabib is once again messing up the article, because he thinks that the world-famous Encyclopaedia Iranica is "biased" and "not neutral". I am really tired of this Pan-Turkist nonsense ... Tajik 11:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Im too fed up with that article tbh and im not going to bother betting involved in it again. I thought your version which briefly detailed the evolution of the dynasty from Iranian origins, initially Turkic speaking and then totally Persian was totally fair and not something with which people might disagree but i was obviously wrong. Im not sure what we can do to sort out the dispute. An Siarach

Kurów
Could you please write a stub http://gd.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w - just a few sentences based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w ? Only 2 -5 sentences enough. Please. Pietras1988  TALK  06:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As i said on the GD wiki itself i will do so as soon as i can but i wont have a chance to until the middle of next week as im very busy atm. An Siarach

Ok, thx. Pietras1988  TALK  08:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal
Do not call edits that you do not like vandalism, it is considered to be a WP:ATTACK. Alibabs 13:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Putting up lies/deliberate POV while fully aware that they are just that can quite easily be construed as vandalism. Waving Wiki guidelines about to defend your own actions which deliberately undermign the factual integrity of an article is laughable. An Siarach
 * Can you prove that my edits were lies? Alibabs 00:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As my position is that of orthodoxy there is no onus on me to prove anything. Can you prove they were anything but? An Siarach
 * Yes, I will do. Alibabs 11:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And if you do fair play to you. But i dont think that you can. An Siarach

Vandalism isn't clever
anyone can make up a name in gaelic, i guess you could say that there is a word in galic for internet or ipod, it doesn't mean that there is reason to have a made up gaelic town name on a site about a place that has no gaelic connection or gaelic history Retro junkies ( left unsigned by )
 * There is a section for a Gaelic name which had not been provided. I provided it. Citation was asked for - evidence (can you get any bloody simpler than a straightforward dictionary translation any idiot could look up?) and here you go making a fool of yourself whiing on about 'vandalism'. You obviously have some sort of chip on your shoulder regarding this issue, i couldnt care less. Theres a space for the Gaelic equivalent of the name which will be provided, regardless of your POV and laughable accusations of 'vandalism' . An Siarach

so where will you stop? putting galeic on the ipod page or anything you like? because im sure your magic dictionary can make up irish names for all that stuff. keep your dead Language up in the highlands, because it isnt welcomed anywhere else Retro junkies (left unsigned by)
 * What a charming and intelligent chap you are. Way to go on concocting a winning rebuke ;). An Siarach
 * Hey An Siarach, you certainly seem to attract the trolls. @Retro junkies, quit being trollish and nasty; you've already debunked all credibility you could have. I suggest you go away and look at the contributions of Doc. Glasgow, who although he has the same views, is able to clothe them with credibility. If you do that, you'll transform your image from being biggoted to just being POV; ATM, you just look like a nutter. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Campaign to "Shire-ify" Scotland
Please see: --Mais oui! 21:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:Argyll
 * Talk:Bute
 * Talk:Ross (area)
 * Talk:Moray (county)


 * Shire-ification campaigners targetting Template:Scotland counties too. --Mais oui! 09:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
If all three of us switch our votes to Option 2 then perhaps we have a better chance of persuading Angus and some others that the otion should at least be available. Otherwise we lose the indigenous languages from the Infobox altogether. --Mais oui! 10:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. An Siarach

New category: Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies
Some new categories: I wonder if you would consider reviewing the CFD debate about the first-mentioned, and contributing your thoughts? It is at: Ta. --Mais oui! 12:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC) Ta
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies - has immediately been nominated for deletion
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Glasgow
 * Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Paisley
 * Categories_for_deletion


 * Will do. I tried to get to the discussion on the first one as soon as i saw you stick it up on the noticeboard but i couldnt find it. An Siarach

Help !
I appreciate that Medieval Irish isn't exactly modern Scots Gaelic, but would you have any ideas on what ''Cath etir Albancho ar aen-rían cur' marbad and Crínan ab Duín Calland & sochaidhe maille fris .i. nae .xx. laech.'' might mean ?

The nearest I can get is "Battle between the Scots Crínan abbot of Dunkeld was killed and nine score heroes". I assume that concerns the winner, the king I suppose. Thanks in advance ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

English as ethnically German?
Hi. Whereas I agree that the English ethnic group is related to the German ethnic group, I do not think you can claim that the English are a Germanic people. English peolpe are not ethnically German. I refer you to this definition from the ethnic group article An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986), and this quote ''Members of an ethnic group generally claim a strong cultural continuity over time, although historians and anthropologists have documented that many of the cultural practices on which ethnic groups are based are of recent invention (Friedlander 1975, Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983, Sider 1993). On the political front, an ethnic group is distinguished from a nation-state by the former's lack of sovereignty. While ethnicity and race are related concepts (Abizadeh 2001), the concept of ethnicity is rooted in the idea of social groups, marked especially by shared nationality, tribal affiliation, religious faith, shared language, or cultural and traditional origins and backgrounds, whereas race is rooted in the idea of a biological classification of Homo sapiens according to chosen genotypic and/or phenotypic traits''. The crux of the definition is the presumption of relatedness. I think that if you want to assert that English people are German then you really need to provide some sort of verifiability, preferably something which shows that a majority or significant minority of English people identify as ethnically German. As I say I see no problem with asserting that these ethnic groups are related, but relatedness is not the same thing, English peope are also ethically related to Welsh people, Scottish people and Irish people, among others, this does not make them of the same ethnic group. Alun 11:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Im puzzled. You seem to believe that i have somewhere stated that the English are a German people, i have not. You also suggest that i have stated they are part of the same ethnic group - again i have not. "i see no proglem with asserting that these ethnic groups are related" - then what exactly is the problem? This is exactly what i have done. They are Germanic - look up the article on Germanic peoples and List of Germanic peoples. That the English are Germanic is not a topic of controversy or even of small scale debate, it is orthodoxy. I think you may be confusing the different meanings of "German" and "Germanic". An Siarach


 * Sorry, my mistake, you are quite right, I was confusing Germanic and German. Alun 12:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. An Siarach
 * I'm wondering if use of the word Germanic on wikipedia is actually incorrect. The OED here defines Germanic as Of or pertaining to Germany or to the Germans, German and Marked by German characteristics. So Germanic people are not Speakers of Germanic languages. This is probably the source of my misunderstanding. In effect Germanic is just the adjective of German, so Germanic people are the same as German people. I may still be misunderstanding something here, but it does seem to me that the article Germanic people is incorrect when it states that The Germanic peoples are the nations speaking Germanic languages. I'm more inclined to accept the OED definition than the wikipedia one. The OED also defines the noun Germanic as The language of the Germanic people; Teutonic. You seem to have a lucid understanding of these things, what do you think?Alun 05:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the entry for Teutonic in the OED, one definition is Of or pertaining to the group of languages allied to German (including Gothic, Scandinavian, Low German, and English), so I think the Germanic people article should be renamed to Teutonic people, or something similar, clearly Germanic has a different meaning from the one used in the article. Alun 06:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The English are no more Germanic than Scottish, Welsh or Irish people. They have no more German blood than Scottish, Welsh or Irish people. All four speak a Germanic language and that's it. So yes, they are as related to Germans as they are to Italians, no LOL'ing, no 'bollox', now't. Enzedbrit 21:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, no Enzedbrit, you are wrong here. All four do not speak a Germanic language. Over a quarter of the population of Wales speaks Welsh, and Gaelic is spoken at least a little by most Irish people (it is a compulsory subject in all elementary schools). As for Scotland, they still retain more non-Germanic cultural and linguistic elements than do the English. With regards to genealogy, the English do have more Germanic ancestry than the Welsh or Irish as has been shown with both of the two Y-chromosome studies on British populations you cherish so greatly. English culture, identity and language is very much Germanic from Anglo-Saxon and Viking sources. They also are obviously related to all Germanic peoples, including ethnic Germans, both in an ancestral/genetic sense and more in a cultural/linguistic sense. Any comparison to Italians is ridiculous and laughable.Epf 22:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * EPF, all Welsh and Scottish people speak English and I'm sure most if not all Irish people do too. 1/4 of Wales speaking Welsh does not mean that they do not also speak English.  So yes, all four countries/peoples DO speak a Germanic language.  You are the first person, and An Siarach below, to ever tell me otherwise.  I had no idea that stating that all four countries/peoples speaking English is an unrepentant point of view.  That is really really ... strange.  With regards to Scotland so it's a scale thing?  They tip the scales more towards non-Germanic cultural/linguistic ancestory leaving England in the cold hence they win some sort of competition?  And what parts of Scotland?  The Anglo-Norman south east as opposed to those parts of England which remain very Celtic?  Again you are looking at two large nations as complete wholes.  You are taking us back to the debate of months ago and I'm not having it.  Give it up.  Stop looking at England and Scotland as two big blocks that can be judged as a whole against the other: it doens't work.  My other comments are neither ridiculous nor laughable.  You will note too that I have taken the time to write these out on the talk page for said article, whilst you have not.  Enzedbrit 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually Scots is a Germanic language, so maybe we can call the speakers of Scots a Germanic people then? All four nations of the UK do actually speak English. I went to a Welsh language school (Ysgol Gyfun Llanhari), but we still had to learn English, obviously, and the vast majority of pupils there spoke English as a home language, and English in the playground. If you want to define a Germanic people as any people who speak Germanic languages, then you have to accept that the vast majority of Welsh and Scottish people do in actual fact speak English as a first language. The truth is that the 2001 census gives a figure of 20.5% of the population of Wales as Welsh speakers (from Welsh language), so it's just over a fifth and not over a quater. This means that nearly 80% of the population of Wales do not speak Welsh. I really think you need to decide if you are talking about a linguistic group or an ethnic group. English people are not ethnically German (see Ethnic group). If you want to claim that they are speakers of a Germanic language, then that cannot be disputed. The article Germanic peoples seems to me to be incorrectly named, see my comments above.Alun 05:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Enzedbrit. Im not going to bother engaging in any discourse with you as youve shown yourself to be unrepentantly POV . Any arguments you might have have been quite emphatically shown up by Epf and any other users who have the patience to try and counter you.An Siarach
 * EPF has found an ally, and one with a Gaelic name. Very fitting.  I'm pleased for the two of you.  I take it you agree then with EPF that Cornish is a dead language, thousands don't speak it and it should not be included as a language of England? Enzedbrit 03:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"an ally" - amusing. Cornish is a revived language spoken by some enthusiasts and possessed as a mother tongue by some of descendants of enthusiasts. To claim it is spoken by thousands is ludicrous. I have some sympathy with your position with regard to Cornish being included on the English people template and indeed id typed up a comment with regard to that topic on that pages talk page last night but didnt bother posting it as i simply cannot be bothered getting involved in a debate on a topic i do not really care much about and which is not especially ( in my mind at least) clear cut. An Siarach


 * Just because Welsh, Scottish and Irish people also speak English does not make them necessarily Germanic. With the the trend of globalization, the whole world could eventually be classified Germanic since English is spoken largely as a second language all over the world (it is a compulsory school subject in Korea for example from elementary all the way to high school). Most people in Wales, Scotland and Ireland do speak English but there are more native and more fluent speakers overall of Celtic languages in these nations than in England. I never claimed that the Irish can all speak Gaelic fluently, but, most people in Ireland can speak at least at a beginners level as it is taught as a compulsory subject in elementary schools similar to the way Welsh is in Wales. Celtic languages are also official in Ireland, Wales and Scotland with radio and TV stations in those languages as well as various usage in everyday life. Overall, England and English people are culturally and linguistically Germanic. Scotland is at a crossroads as the Gaelic elements of its original culture and language have been consistently eroded away by English influence. Even so, it is fair to say that although the language is only restricted to 60,000 or so speakers there, the Gaelic cultural influence is obviously still present at varying degrees across the country and is a part of Scottish identity. The Irish and the Welsh have long been much more successful in retaining their Celtic identities, both in terms of language and culture. Ireland may not have as many fluent Celtic language speakers as in Wales, but Gaelic culture continues to thrive in Irish society in family traditions, cultural festivals, music/entertainment, sports (GAA) and in politics/government (Oireachtas, Taoiseach). It should also be noted that amongst the immigrant communities of Scottish, Irish and Welsh in the new world, Celtic languages still survive with thousands of speakers. When taken from a cultural and linguistic perspective, again the English are Germanic. The Welsh and Irish, in terms of language and culture can be very much classified as Celtic albeit with much Germanic (English) influence (historically more forced upon rather than the gradual adaptation seen in recent times). Scotland is, again, a crossroads between Germanic and Gaelic culture but Scottish culture, language and identity was orignally Gaelic throughout almost all of Scotland and remnants of this do exist in Scottish identity which clearly can still distinguish it as being more Celtic than that of England. The last point that deserves mention is that the Irish, Welsh and Scottish dialects of English clearly have alot of Celtic language influence and much more so than dialects of areas such has Devon, Cumbria and even Conrwall in England that retained a celtic cultural element the longest. I do not wish to get much more involved in this debate any further and only posted this comment since apparently Enzedbrit complained that I have not "taken the time" to post a response, and this is mainly due to the lack of time I have had recently to make such a discussion. I find discussing this at all with Enzedbrit is futile anyways as he is a consistently insulting, abusive and misinformed user that in my opinion clings to some widely unaccepted "one Britain, one people" ideology. Epf 18:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Wars in Ireland
I've being doing some long-overdue edits to Edward Bruce, particularly under the headings "The Invasion of Ireland" and "Arrival and the Campaign of 1315". I began it because the original article was hopelessly wrong in many places, but am now wondering if what I am writing would be better suited as an article in its own right on the Irish Bruce wars? Fergananim 20:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that idea a lot. An Siarach

User:No More POV Please
We have a "new" user, User:No More POV Please, who is going around POV pushing on Gaelic related articles. The crux of his POV pushing is Gaelic being synonymous with Irish. He is certainly a version of a previous user, as he knows too much about wiki culture to be otherwise. It'll be worthwhile to keep an eye on his Contribution History. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do. An Siarach