Identity in the Scottish Diaspora

[Wareyin]

Your first six words Alan of your post. Which was in reply to, I think, the previous post where the author in his penultimate line of his post unwittingly and quite innocently asked(post 7), ------"does this mean I am not Scottish"-------.

It is his assumption that he might be, is what we are questioning. Where did this idea come from?

It seems to me that this question has been answered, several times already. When that question was asked, the author was not asking "Does this mean I am a Scot, or a citizen of Scotland?" Rather, the author was asking "Does this mean I have Scottish ancestors?" Whether or not a few Scots on here choose to accept it, Americans do not mean citizenship if they refer to someone as "Scottish", or any other hyphenated American.

[Reiver]

Carefully ignoring the fact that the Shetlands were not annexed to the crown until 1470
And the Royal control of the isles ( Hebridies including parts of the mainland) didn't happen until 1493

Earlier there was a reference to Lord Lyon and his comments about the Diaspora and Scots abroad (his words, not mine) and Alan maintains that the lineage aspect associated with that kind of position is anathema to most Scots.

Yet the majority of Scots voted for the status quo and all that it entails...voluntarily decided to be subjects of the Crown.

I don't see that you have a valid argument there.

[Jock Scot]

I think we've more or less resolved that now, Jock. It seems to be cross-pond different terminology. Are you wearing a vest or a waistcoat? Maybe both?lol:

Alan

Rather less than more in my book Alan!

I am at present wearing two vests and a fleece waistcoat, its a lazy wind over here at the moment.

[Jock Scot]

Earlier there was a reference to Lord Lyon and his comments about the Diaspora and Scots abroad (his words, not mine) and Alan maintains that the lineage aspect associated with that kind of position is anathema to most Scots.

Yet the majority of Scots voted for the status quo and all that it entails...voluntarily decided to be subjects of the Crown.

I don't see that you have a valid argument there.

As its a free country I don't always have to agree with what the Lord Lyon says. So I do indeed have a valid argument and I will press the case until someone comes up with an argument that convinces me otherwise. Thus far they have not.

[Jock Scot]

It seems to me that this question has been answered, several times already. When that question was asked, the author was not asking "Does this mean I am a Scot, or a citizen of Scotland?" Rather, the author was asking "Does this mean I have Scottish ancestors?" Whether or not a few Scots on here choose to accept it, Americans do not mean citizenship if they refer to someone as "Scottish", or any other hyphenated American.

You are putting words into his mouth and whilst you think that is what the author meant----and he might -------but that is not what he actually said. Is it?

[Wareyin]

You are putting words into his mouth and whilst you think that is what the author meant----and he might -------but that is not what he actually said. Is it?

I disagree that I am putting words into his mouth. I am explaining what American use of that term means. From an American perspective, the insistence that "Scottish" can only mean "citizen of Scotland" appears to be putting words into his mouth.

[Jock Scot]

I disagree that I am putting words into his mouth. I am explaining what American use of that term means. From an American perspective, the insistence that "Scottish" can only mean "citizen of Scotland" appears to be putting words into his mouth.

You have put words into his mouth, my dear chap. The evidence is there for all to see. He might have meant what you say he meant but the evidence says otherwise.

[Wareyin]

You have put words into his mouth, my dear chap. The evidence is there for all to see. He might have meant what you say he meant but the evidence says otherwise.

No, I have not. No more than explaining that when an American talks about a vest he means what you think of as waistcoat. Your insistence that he really meant what you think that word means rather than what we on this side of the Atlantic think it means is what is causing the confusion.

[Jock Scot]

--------------- Your insistence that he really meant what you think that word means rather than what we on this side of the Atlantic think it means is what is causing the confusion.

Precisely. At least we can agree on that.

[neloon]

Earlier there was a reference to Lord Lyon and his comments about the Diaspora and Scots abroad (his words, not mine) and Alan maintains that the lineage aspect associated with that kind of position is anathema to most Scots.

Yet the majority of Scots voted for the status quo and all that it entails...voluntarily decided to be subjects of the Crown.

I don't see that you have a valid argument there.

I can see that this is puzzling and indeed inconsistent.

1. Scots seem generally to quite like our Queen as a person and she is half Scots (whatever we now think that means ) She spends as much time as she can in Scotland at Holyrood Palace or Balmoral.
2. There was an Ard Righ na h-Alba (High King/Queen of Scots) right at the start of Scotland's history before there was a king of England. We got there first!
3. Jamie 6th was King of Scots before he foolishly went down to London to become also King of England. Had he stayed in Scotland, Edinburgh might have been the capital of the UK. We got there first!
4. Consistency is a problem for small minds and pragmatism tells us just to let things run for the present. Many Commonwealth countries adopt the same stance. There are more important things...

(By the way, the reality is that we didn't vote for the status quo and are currently moving towards the new status.)


Alan