Scottish vs. Scots

[andyfg]

"The Scots are a race, who are spread around the globe. It is the blood that flows in our veins.

To be 'Scottish' you have to be born in Scotland, and it doesn't
matter [where] your blood has come from.

If you are a Scot you are of the Race. If you are Scottish you are
from the place. And yes, you can be one without the other - or of
course you can be both."

I always find these discussions on Xmarks interesting. But sometimes a little confusion arises. What the High commissioner does here is rather clever. He gives us a "stipulative definition." In other words, he tells us "When I say Scot I mean this ... of Scots race. When I say Scottish I mean this ... born in Scotland." Leaving aside a very problematic understanding of race (race is, after all a social construct) what the HC does is quite acceptable. It is way of bringing clarity to a discussion. Another type of definition is a "descriptive definition." This tries to analyze the way a word is used in popular language. It merely describes the way words are used. And the way words are used changes over time.

Sometimes confusion arises in the threads when we mix these two types of definition. One post will be tackling the stipulative definition and a reply will be looking at a descriptive understanding.

To dialogue with the High Commissioner's view we can take one of three approaches. 1) We can question his stipulative definition as to its adequacy. 2) We can thank him for his stipulative definition and then talk about the descriptive definitions of Scot and Scottish. 3) We can accept his definition at face value and talk about the substance of his argument (the difference between race and birthplace). Any of those is quite fun!