Scottish vs. Scots

[skauwt]

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

[Lyle1]

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

Exactly! Have a happy New Year!

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Isn't that the difference between being Scots/Scottish and British?

[Lachlan09]

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

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

[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!

[Leprechaun 91]

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

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

[Paul]

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

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

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

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

[Lachlan09]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MacLowlife]

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

But not for us, mercifully. I find all of this interesting and am grateful for the contributions. I would call them "diverse" but that has such connotations these days.

[Sammac]

I think Scottish Block is what Sir Walter Scott got when he couldn't think what to write !

Did Sir Walter Scott drink Scotch to help with Scottish Block?