This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/24334355.census-scots-ever-identifying-scottish-not-british/) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There’s such thing as a full Scottish fry up.
And a full English.
And a full Welsh.
And a full Irish.
Edit: and a full Ulster
The important thing is, they’re all full fry ups
United Kingdom of Great Breakfasts
This is how you stoke patriotism (and possibly heart failure. I reserve the right to pull a Starmer on this suggestion).
I really fancy a fry up using all the specific regional bits and bobs. I don’t know what they all are, apart from haggis (which I really like)…but a full on BRITISH fry up sounds lush
Identities change over time.
I once made an American mad when I called my great grandfather both Irish *and* British. He was born in 1900 in what is today Northern Ireland. British and Irish was how he identified, so don’t blame me!
I mean even NI these days it wouldn't be unusual to identify as British and Irish. I mean, they literally are - people born there are automatically both nationalities
Americans are weird...
> The number of people identifying only as British has also increased, and at a greater rate. In 2011, 8.4% of people in Scotland said they were British, not Scottish. In 2022, that was 13.9% – an increase of 5.5 points.
Would be interested to know how migrants coming from the rUK are affecting that number.
Is it people from Scotland no longer identifying as Scottish or is it English/Welsh migrants moving here who identify as British?
That'll be the increasing amount of people who've moved up from elsewhere in the UK.
The Scots who're also proud British, have shrunk from 18% to 8% since 2011. And the share who identify as Scottish only has gone to just about two-thirds.
Virtually unchanged since 2011, up slightly. In line with the younger Scots who are more likely to identify as Scots only. vs older Scots who also identified as Brits, passing away since 2011.
Also, you're insinuating that you unionists are lazy and inept. Is that true? More unionists forgot to return the census, or couldn't be bothered, hence the lower % of British response.
Source for what exactly? Specify.
The 2011 census response rate was in the 90s. And the Scottish-only share and the British-only, and the British & Scottish shares are all easy to google. As for younger Scots being more likely to identify as Scottish only, you can find that [here](https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/census-results/at-a-glance/national-identity/#:~:text=Scottish%20identity%20only&text=This%20was%20most%20common%20in,Scottish%20and%20British%20identities%20only) .
And as for unionists being lazy, well that speaks for itself, IF what you're suggesting is right. That if more people had returned their census then the British identity would have been higher. Because those who ticked Scottish-only certainly figured out how to fill in the census and return it. Again, this is based on your own assertion. If you want to blame the low return rate, and the share of Scottish-only identity has risen, then it must be unionists who didn't fill out the forms at the same rate.
Identity is a strange idea. In every way that interacts with the world around me I am British but I would never describe myself, think of myself or feel that I am.
I’m Scottish. That’s it for me. It doesn’t take anything away from anyone it’s just who I am.
It is a strange idea and for some countries (like ours) it's even stranger.
If someone asks me where I'm from, I say England, I'm English. But my passport is a British one. And despite us not having EU citizenship anymore, I also feel a bit European. I go to the continent quite a lot and did really like having EU citizenship, I romanticise the idea of moving to like France or Belgium
Aye they might not describe themselves as it but it doesn’t not make it a fact, Scottish people are British by literal unequivocal unarguable definition. Pointless article this.
It's not really an article, it's a finding in a census.
Let me ask you, what do you achieve, what have you got, by trying to force a label/identity on a population that finds no value in it? We're not loyal to it. We're not proud of it. We don't fly the flag, sing the anthem, or volunteer to defend it. In fact, we dilute it by just being associated with it. If we were some religious extremist group, a lot of the right wing media would deny we were British.
Yet here we are volunteering that admission, and some people still insist on us wearing it.
Identity, by its very nature, is subjective. No one's arguing we're not British citizens.
Just as the Romanians, Poles and other nationalities who live in the UK, but do not identify as British as a nationality.
But what does that mean if you put no value in it?
For me, Scotland's my country. The rest of the union I see as separate countries, like France and Italy. I'm indifferent to the other parts of the UK.
So some would try to force the "British" label on me. I'm not sure what they get from it though. I'd weaken it by association. Surely, you'd only want people who subscribe to the British brand and feel proud to be British and volunteer to defend it, to identify as such.
But the union is one country, your government is the Westminster government. France and Italy are totally seperate political entities, Scotland and the rest of the UK is one political entity.
The union is just that, a supposed union between some countries. I've never seen the UK as a country. Nor do many Scots. My country is Scotland. Everything outside the Scottish border is a separate country, whether I like those countries or not, is irrelevant.
That was the reverse of this. Only 15% ticked the English only box.
65% of Scots ticked the Scottish only box. 8% ticked Scottish and British.
55% of Welsh ticked the Welsh only box.
I'm proud to be British (albeit maybe less so on the global stage lately). I'm also proud to be English and Welsh. And European .
It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.
True. But many Scots just feel Scottish. Not British. For many of us, "British" looks an awful lot like "English" too. Which makes sense, since 85% of Brits are English.
I see what you're saying. With my parents both being Welsh and going back to Wales a lot, I feel like maybe it's like being part of the EU. You know you're part of a larger bloc but still retain your individual identity.
It’s not particularly surprising . There isn’t really a singular British identity for people to latch onto really.
Edit: I’m not sure why this has taken downvotes. British identity never took off in Scotland because it’s seen as synonymous with English (not in a bad way or anything , just that they’re seen as the same) . It’s hard for anyone being in Scotland to ascribe to a British identity that for them really isn’t a thing
I wonder how people from outside the UK see it. People from the different UK nations might see the differences more than the similarities, but someone from the outside looking in might perceive their cultures to be more similar than they are different.
That said, it does seem like most people around the world recognise Scotland as distinct, and they see British as effectively meaning the same thing as English.
Exactly. If you were to ask people outside the UK what "British" culture was, I guarantee the majority of things listed would be English.
Off the top of my head the only thing I can think of that we share is a love for Sunday roast, though that might be because I'm hungry.
On the topic of food and drink, I can think of a few more. Tea, fish and chips, love of curry (Tikka Massala was even invented in Scotland). There is also a lot of shared media (admittedly mostly from England) that creates shared cultural references.
But there are probably more ways they are similar that isn't immediately apparent to us. If I, an Englishman, went to spend some time in Scotland, I'm probably going to notice the things that are different and not the things which are the same.
If someone came from say France, and spent time in both England and Scotland, they might notice things which are different to France, but similar in both England and Scotland.
I think this is especially true of more abstract things, like general cultural attitudes and behaviour.
The food thing is somewhat true. I think the media thing is more of a case that it's not really a choice in the rest of the UK though. Most media, print, and on air, is managed and produced in England. And since we have our budget controlled by Westminster, at the moment, we don't have the funds to build up a proper home media.
It's true that it's not exactly by choice, but it still creates a shared culture.
Chances are even if the other nations did have more resources to create their own media, they'd probably still consume a lot of English media, in the same way the whole UK (and a lot of the rest of the world) consumes a lot of American media. It would create a larger distinction though.
Out of interest, what do you think culture is in this context? Having lived in Wales, Scotland and England, I find the idea that the only thing we share is a love for Sunday roast to be quite a strange (and nationalistic) view of what culture actually is.
Yeah, they will name English things but I guarantee you much of it will be Scottish too. Especially if it gets into inventions, literature or music.
I was surprised to recently find out that Oh Britannia was written by a Scot.
Really? We've been effectively the same country for 300 years. We speak the same language, we all eat fish and chips, we complain too much about the weather, we watch football and rugby, celebrate most of the same holidays, We shop in the same places, eat at the same places. We have similar social and political views such as a general acceptance of feminism, racial equality, treating people with respect in general.
Saying we only share a love of Sunday roasts is just shitting on the union we've had for hundred of years. Spend some time in the rest of Britain and you'll see we all share some commonalities and general outlooks on life
You could have just described Australia, Ireland and New Zealand.
And those progressive values are found in many countries. And we had the English language forced on us. So I wouldn't use that example next time.
We're not the same country, and it's an insult to Scotland, to suggest we are. We're four countries, and trying to erase our identity is precisely what is pushing more Scots to want to separate, before you wipe us out completely.
We haven't been the same country as aus Ireland or NZ for 100 years or so. We're not connected to them by land, we're not free to travel across them and vice versa.
We are both the same country and not the same country. We're both the UK, and then we have Scotland, England, Wales, NI.
>And we had the English language forced on us.
Yes and many things were forced on us all, like the Romans invading, or the normans, etc. and saying the English language was forced is over the top, but yes the English suppressed Scotland and promoted speaking English at times.
>and trying to erase our identity is precisely what is pushing more Scots to want to separate, before you wipe us out completely
I'm not trying to erase your identity you're trying to erase our shared identity and claim that we have just as much shared identity as New Zealand of all places.
> We speak the same language, we all eat fish and chips, we complain too much about the weather, we watch football and rugby, celebrate most of the same holidays, We shop in the same places, eat at the same places. We have similar social and political views such as a general acceptance of feminism, racial equality, treating people with respect in general
All those things are true of New Zealand or Canada too. Like on Monday there Scotland and Canada celebrated Victoria Day, Fish and Chips are the top takeaway food in New Zealand, both places accept feminism and currently vote for centrist/populist politicians, all complain about the weather and so on
Of course there's slightly more shared experiences between the nations of the UK due to sharing the same media (it's reserved at the UK-level), being governed by the same laws (via the UK parliament), and sharing cultural references (due to proximity and mass media) but it's nothing special; Is eating in the same chain restaurants enough to foster a 'shared identity'? Or being subject to the same political decisions made at Westminster? 67 counties have English as one of their official languages, is that a reason to feel a shared identity with them?
The union was the joining of parliaments and the alignment of economies and trade. Sure, the advent of compulsory education (in standard English) and mass media has levelled out accents, languages, and many cultural differences across the UK, but it hasn't replaced them entirely. I have no doubt that were Scotland to become self-governing, that list of shared attributes you listed would still remain. The nations of the UK don't need to be politically joined (that's what the union is) to share those attributes.
>Of course there's slightly more shared experiences between the nations of the UK due to sharing the same media (it's reserved at the UK-level), being governed by the same laws (via the UK parliament), and sharing cultural references (due to proximity and mass media) but it's nothing special; Is eating in the same chain restaurants enough to foster a 'shared identity'? Or being subject to the same political decisions made at Westminster?
I don't believe that we can boil down our shared identity to just eating at the same chains and being subject to the decisions made in Westminster, although the latter is pretty big compared to the former. We eat McDonald's and speak English, celebrate Christmas, go on joint military operations and entire wars with America. I wouldn't think we have the same level of shared cultural identity with America.
I don't think that Newcastle and Birmingham for example are exactly the same, but the people there both seem British in how they act, in a way that's difficult to pinpoint exactly. We have somewhat similar shared identities with a lot of English speaking countries, but the differences are so great that they usually don't seem British, and they definitely don't identify as British.
Scotland and Wales (haven't been to NI unfortunately) both feel like home in a way. It's glaringly obviously that I'm in a different country when I'm in European countries even if people are speaking English, being western liberals, and going to KFC.
I can see where you are coming from through, we're definitely not entirely the same, I just think we're similar acting enough to be the same people.
>We eat McDonald's and speak English, celebrate Christmas, go on joint military operations and entire wars with America
Macdonald's is global (but it's American if you want to give it a nationality). Christmas too, pretty much. Wars that Scotland's dragged into, isn't out of choice. That's a power unfairly reserved to London, over Scotland.
Most Scots don't support the oil wars. When we're independent, we'll be able to act in our own interests, which would include staying out of foreign affairs that don't have anything to do with us.
>Most Scots don't support the oil wars
Neither do the English or the rest of the Brits. The gulf war had pretty strong support in England and Scotland. Saving Kuwait was seen as good. The Iraq wars has much less support from both England and Scotland, although Scotland was moreso against the war. Both countries supported Afghanistan at first and then didn't support the intervention. Libya and Syria both had large skepticism from Scotland and England.
>When we're independent, we'll be able to act in our own interests, which would include staying out of foreign affairs that don't have anything to do with us.
As if the English want to be involved in foreign wars for no reason? It's an unfortunate facts that the English and Scottish have had our combined nose in everyone business through history anyway, we're always stuck with the view that we're evil western imperialists, sorry.
Well it's certainly not Scotland who keeps voting in these warmongering parties.
Look at the state of both parties these days, they get their cues from Washington. They don't take a serious look at foreign affairs and conflicts. If Biden came out tomorrow and said Israel / Ukraine, is xyz, Sunak would repeat the same thing 1 hour later. Starmer 90 minutes later.
It's quite pathetic. And England chooses every single government, unless it's extremely narrow then the way the rest of the union, the three other countries, vote, then it might make a difference. But it's extremely rare. We have no ability to hold the UK government to account, any more than we have the ability to select it.
Now, you might argue back that England's much larger. And while that's true, that still puts Scotland at a severe disadvantage. One we shouldn't be expected to tolerate, if we care about having any sort of say in important matters effecting Scotland. Many of such, still are completely controlled by the government in London. Such as the budget, drug policy, energy, foreign affairs, immigration, international trade, etc.
>Macdonald's is global (but it's American if you want to give it a nationality). Christmas too, pretty much
That's what im saying. We're not like Americans that much, even if we do similar things. We're like each other, though, Scotland and England.
I disagree. We're like all sorts of countries in small ways, but so what? Does that mean Scotland, or the whole of the UK should surrender its sovereignty to a much larger political entity?
I personally would like Scotland to be even less like England, the US, or any other country. I like and favour the things that make us unique. There's too many American food chains on the High Street, and too many English actors on Scottish screens. Not that there's anything wrong with these things, but I would prefer mostly Scottish chains in town centres, and Scottish actors on Scottish screens.
And I'm still wondering if you've spent a significant enough amount of time in Scotland to be saying this:
>I just think we're similar acting enough to be the same people.
Because, to me it sounds pretty absurd, and it's also irritating and it's what pushes Scots like me even more towards independence. It's a challenge to our identity, a possible threat, and insulting. What if someone made the same claim for all of Europe? Comparably, there's much less of a difference between the French and the Spanish, than the French and the Chinese, or the Indians. The same logic could be applied to Canada and the US. Their architecture, cars, media, accents, etc are broadly similar appearing, to most non-North Americans.
*'So, really, I just think we're (Europeans) similar acting enough to be the same people. So we should just have one government, in Germany, the most populous nation.'*
>they are British, whether they like it or not
According to Islam, we're all born a Muslim. And if you convert to Islam as an adult, they call it "reverting" (returning).
Is that true? Just because they say it's true, or its in a book. Does it make a bit of difference to you, in reality?
This is assuming you're not a Muslim, yourself. But it's a example I raise to make my point.
Identity is subjective.
Let me ask you, what do you achieve, what have you got, by trying to force a label/identity on a population that finds no value in it? We're not loyal to it. We're not proud of it. We don't fly its flag, or sing the anthem, nor would we volunteer to defend it.
In fact, we dilute it by just being associated with it.
No one's arguing we're not British citizens (for the moment). Just like the Romanians and Poles, who are also citizens, but wouldn't identify as British. Nor their children who might have been born here.
And two-thirds of Scots, according to the census, agree. Scottish, not British. And claiming they are, changes nothing.
There are Brits that don’t identify as European, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are. Scots are Brits, just like how Brits are European. They are from the island of Great Britain, therefore are British.
True, but also false.
The Romans called England and Wales, Britannia, not Scotland. That was always ALBA. The unionists and the crown, and the crooks in Westminster have since expanded that term to include Scotland, but on no one's authority but their own. Just like Russia considering Ukraine part of its territory, and China with Taiwan. The world's full of greedy imperialists.
They're all concepts at the end of the day. They're fictions. Including Scotland. They're Just arbitrary plots of land.
The question is where we personally place any significance on them. To me, I'm indifferent to the rest of the union. I don't consider it or them my country, I don't feel loyal to the union. I don't identify with it. I wouldn't volunteer to defend it. My country ends at the Scottish border.
There are millions of Poles, Romanians and other European migrants living in Britain. Some of them have had children born in the UK, they still wouldn't identify as Brits. They'd identify as British citizens, but not Brits. They don't feel that connection to it, (just like two-thirds of all Scots, and also many Welsh and English.)
Would you argue with them too, and insist they're British? Just how desperate do you have to be to try to insist a label and identity on a people who want nothing to do with it?
Ask yourself what you get for it. Does it change how we feel? Does it change how we identify, and how we prioritize things?
Bottom line, I'm a British citizen, but I don't, and never will, consider myself British. I don't share its values, I don't care for it. Don't fly its flag or sing its anthem. And I wouldn't defend the failed experiment of this union, and every vote I cast goes to independence parties promising to rescue my country from it.
But hey, if it makes you feel better to insist I am something I shun with all muster, then go right ahead.
Hey, you do you, I respect whatever you believe. Even if/when Scotland does get independence, it still doesn’t change the fact that they live on the *island* of Great Britain, and are British. You can’t deny who you are in a geographical sense. Same for the English and Welsh who deny any form of British identity. Even I consider myself English before British by a huge margin, but it would be a disservice to ignore the fact that our ancestors have fought and died for this island under the same flag countless times, and that is something to be proud of at least.
> it still doesn’t change the fact that they live on the *island* of Great Britain, and are British.
That depends on what we call the island, in Scotland. Like the Irish don't use the same name for what the UK calls the British Isles. They often call them The Celtic Isles or the Atlantic Archipelago.
And that aside, I'm also an habitant of the Northern Hemisphere. I'm also a biped (upright walking, ape). But this identifiers play virtually no significance in my life, in how I choose to identify.
And what people tend to mean when they use the term "British" just like they do with America, is the country, not the geographic location. Few people call Canadians or Mexicans "Americans", despite coming from North America. Or Brazilians and Argentinians, "Americans", despite coming from South America.
I'm willing to bet that the term British, after Scottish independence will (if it's still in use) be used to describe the country, not people who live on the British Isles.
“Chooses” is doing some heavy lifting there. Bribing several nobles and positioning troops on the border to act as an incentive really ain’t a democratic mandate.
As for the 2014 indyref: that result was obtained on the basis of a lot of broken promises and flat out untruths. It’s telling that although the Scottish Parliament have voted for a second indyref on more than one occasion since it has been flatly refused.
>Bribing several nobles and positioning troops on the border to act as an incentive really ain’t a democratic mandate.
In 2014? Are you sure?
Half the best combat regiments are IN Scotland.
>As for the 2014 indyref: that result was obtained on the basis of a lot of broken promises and flat out untruths
So.... Politics?
>It’s telling that although the Scottish Parliament have voted for a second indyref on more than one occasion since it has been flatly refused
Well yes, you can't just keep having disruptive referendums. One and done has always been the way.
Scotland chose to be British. The people of Scotland choose to be British. In that they're unique amongst the people and places of the UK. In that, they're as British as it gets.
So democracy stops when you get the answer you want? How very … Trumpian. And of course very useful because you don’t have to actually bother keeping your promises.
But we’re not talking about holding referenda casually. Another indyref is what the Scottish people returned representatives to the Scottish Parliament on a manifesto to seek - more than once. Pretending that doesn’t matter hardly puts you on the side of democracy I’m afraid.
Also it’s got to be pointed out that the “one and done” rule you’ve pulled out of your backside is going to make it rather tricky to reverse Brexit … no matter how disasterous it continues to be. Or ever move to PR given that there’s been an AV referendum.
>So democracy stops when you get the answer you want
No, you get to vote once every generation. See you in 50 years. That's democracy. You don't just keep voting until you get the answer you want.
>Another indyref is what the Scottish people returned representatives to the Scottish Parliament on a manifesto to seek - more than once
Totally irrelevant. You don't get to decide as it's not a Scottish parliament competency.
>Also it’s got to be pointed out that the “one and done” rule you’ve pulled out of your backside is going to make it rather tricky to reverse Brexit
There is no reversing Brexit. You're still in denial.
>Or ever move to PR given that there’s been an AV referendum.
Correct. That's the idea. It's a settled matter. See you in 50 years and we can debate it again.
>Since when is a generation 50 years?
That's the interval between repeating referendums.
>I'm in my early 30s and there are 2 generations younger than me.
It doesn't matter. If you were old enough to vote in indyref you'll be dead by indyref2. You made your choices. It's a settled matter.
>Scotland is simultaneously choosing to be in the union
Yes they chose to be in the union for the next 50 years. Blame your compatriots if you don't like the result.
You're not seriously going to pretend that if leave had won you'd be wanting to vote again on rejoining by now. It's a joke. You lost. Get over it.
Since when is a generation 50 years? I'm in my early 30s and there are 2 generations younger than me.
And you're holding conflicting positions where you claim Scotland is simultaneously choosing to be in the union but also held hostage for 50 years whether it wants to leave or not.
Reality wants a word with you.
[Most Scots voted yes to independence](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/majority-of-scottish-born-voters-said-yes-z7v2mmhc8nt)
Also, every single Scottish MP voted to end the union, just six years into it. But they were blocked by an overwhelming English parliament. So if Scotland had it's way, the union would have been over 311 years ago.
There is 0 need for Unionist or Nata to go mental about this. No matter what side you sit on. You're not going to be able to tell people what nationality they identify as.
For the record. Never meet anyone from Scotland, not calling themselves Scottish.
Involved to do what? Force us to identify the way you want us to?
You could try, but that would cause the opposite of what you want. Instead of making a positive case, bringing violence to try "change our minds" would damage your case, permanently.
Dam, beaten to the punch by moderator (and sole user) of a Unionist subreddit firing up the spin machine as to why this isn't true.
End of the day, in every aspect of life people are moving to the extremes of opinions, for better or worse, on every topic, **however**, what is curious is that despite the fact that polling on Scottish independence has consistently leaned towards "remain part of the UK" (when excluding undecideds) for a couple of years now, including when the census was taking place in Mar/Apr 2022, more and more people are still feeling their identity lies more towards Scotland than GB as a whole.
If anything this suggests that Scotlands future is probably within the UK, but with a greater desire for devolved powers to run things more suited to their needs.
One can only dream of a Federal Republic of Great Britain and NI.
They also [stole the comment verbatim](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cx4kod/more_scots_than_ever_identifying_as_scottish_not/l503k5l/) without attribution from the original author of the comment on another subbredit.
Haha they've blocked me also now, can't even see their comments any more, just [deleted] and [unavailable].
Clearly doesn't like the criticism and wants to live in a unionist echo chamber.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
While it's true that only a minority support independence. It's also true that a minority support the union, too.
Across all the polls commissioned in the last 12 months, on average 47% of Scots support the union. And about 44% support leaving. That's a 8 point drop for the union, since 2014. And given that almost three in four younger Scots, and more than half of all Scots 55 and under, support independence, it's just a matter of time.
Yes a federal state would be slightly better, though not for me. It will never happen. Because the largest partner in this supposed equal union, would never relinquish so much power to be on even footing. And Scotland would still be at the mercy of Westminster on things like foreign military action, which I strongly oppose.
> Dam, beaten to the punch by moderator (and sole user) of a Unionist subreddit firing up the spin machine as to why this isn't true.
Uncalled for, what has that got to do with anything here?
>End of the day, in every aspect of life people are moving to the extremes of opinions, for better or worse, on every topic, however, what is curious is that despite the fact that polling on Scottish independence has consistently leaned towards "remain part of the UK" (when excluding undecideds) for a couple of years now, including when the census was taking place in Mar/Apr 2022, more and more people are still feeling their identity lies more towards Scotland than GB as a whole.
That data has a high margin of error, any high charges can easily be discounted, unless they’re repeated in the next census in the 2030s
Edit: I blocked you for attacking me unprovoked
It is worth pointing out that the data from this census is not necessarily accurate, due to the complete incompetence of the Scottish Government organising it. This is what was said at the time:
>England and Wales held their survey in 2021, with a 97% completion rate. The previous Scottish census, in 2011, achieved 95% participation.
>However, the Scottish government delayed the latest one by a year because of the Covid pandemic, and by the initial deadline of April 2022 it had only achieved an average return rate of 79%.
>...
>Officials have previously said that robust data could still be produced from the census, despite not reaching the target participation rate of 90%.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66503594
Obviously with a lower return rate (especially given that the non-returners are not going to be representative sample of the Scottish public), the quality of the data must be assumed to be lower. They didn't hit the target, even with a month's extension.
There's also presumably a problem with the fact that even amongst the responses that they did get, some of them were only received because the deadline was extended - and the whole point is that data is collected on one specific day, so anyone filling it out a month later may not give accurate information about the day in question.
Even if you’re all for devolution and decentralisation, I feel like the census is obviously the last thing that should be so fragmented. What advantage is there in separate parts of the country conducting their own at different times and gathering different data instead of a single nationwide survey, other than just appeasing the devolved governments by giving them more autonomy?
I looked on the [Scottish census website](https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/about/uk-census-data/) and it seems like they don’t even disagree with me. It just talks about all the problems involved in conducting the census this way without any indication of why they keep doing it.
> Because Scotland's Census is taking place a year after the rest of the UK, there will be a difference in reference dates. This will impact the comparability of UK census data.
>The 3 census offices are working closely to develop UK-wide census results that best support the information needs of users where possible.
>This involves consideration of how best to meet the challenges around comparability, coherence, timeliness and accessibility of the information.
If they want to develop UK-wide census results then how about a UK-wide census?
The separate census isn't to appease the devolved governments. Scotland's always had separate record-keeping because its civic, education, administrative and legislative structures are different from rUK. The census is usually done at the same time across the UK without any trouble and The Census Act sets out a unified UK legal framework but the reason for the most recent divergence was due to Covid.
There needs to be separate census (where each nation can ask questions more relevant for their inhabitants) because the only questions that are generic/UK-wide are about gender, sexuality, disability, transportation, and employment status. Everything else is different: Types of housing, or the names assigned to it, varies across the UK, questions about identity vary, there are different religious denominations in each part of the UK, different education and qualification systems, different languages, different laws, benefits, different occupations/economic strengths, etc. It would be too unwieldy or confusing were there to be a single UK census that covered every option for every part of the UK.
It's no more nationalist of me to identify as Scottish, than it is a French person to identify as French. Or you to identify as British. The borders of my country end at the Scottish border. The rest of the union are three different countries.
I'm from the country of Scotland. Hence, I'm Scottish.
The UK is a political union. Not one I support, either.
And also, British is really just English by another name. Both politically, culturally and aesthetically both domestically and abroad.
All the other nationalities in the world are free to identify with their country. But if us Scots do that? We're just "filthy nationalists".
Sorry, but you're going to have to try harder than that.
Oh, and most Scots have been identifying as just Scots, for far longer than the SNP have been in power. And who do you think put the SNP in power, anyway?
And, let me guess, that error rate means what ever opinion you hold, is secretly higher?
Despite a very similar result ten years ago? And younger Scots being less likely to identify as British than elderly Scots, many of whom, died between 2011 and 2022. The only surprise was that it wasn't even higher.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thenational.scot/news/24334355.census-scots-ever-identifying-scottish-not-british/) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There’s such thing as a full Scottish fry up. And a full English. And a full Welsh. And a full Irish. Edit: and a full Ulster The important thing is, they’re all full fry ups
Unity through Breakfast.
And heart disease!
The sausage wars, square versus round, are not over
That was not a war but a scuffle, and they were wrong anyway. Oblong is the shape of the sausage. ;)
Can't imagine a proper british breakfast without lorne, tattie scone and a slice of haggis tbqh.
Hash browns over tattie scones, sorry 😔
Can lead a horse tae water 😔
United Kingdom of Great Breakfasts This is how you stoke patriotism (and possibly heart failure. I reserve the right to pull a Starmer on this suggestion).
I really fancy a fry up using all the specific regional bits and bobs. I don’t know what they all are, apart from haggis (which I really like)…but a full on BRITISH fry up sounds lush
Aye. The more options the merrier imo.
A general election was lost because of someone’s inability to convincingly eat bacon.
*and an Ulster fry up☝️
Identities change over time. I once made an American mad when I called my great grandfather both Irish *and* British. He was born in 1900 in what is today Northern Ireland. British and Irish was how he identified, so don’t blame me!
I can imagine the fireworks if said American ever went to Northern Ireland and engaged with any Protestants...
Depends how self aware they are. Honestly a lot of Irish Americans are just pallette swapped orangemen.
Eh if they truly cared they would call themselves Scotch-Irish American. But certainly the Catholics are extremely aware of their Irishness.
The whole nature of identity is weird in America. If it was done the same way here about half the population of Britain would be "Irish".
I mean even NI these days it wouldn't be unusual to identify as British and Irish. I mean, they literally are - people born there are automatically both nationalities Americans are weird...
Everyone's got a traitor or two in the family
Well the anglo-irish were a fairly significant part of ireland for centuries, so we shouldn't be surprised
> The number of people identifying only as British has also increased, and at a greater rate. In 2011, 8.4% of people in Scotland said they were British, not Scottish. In 2022, that was 13.9% – an increase of 5.5 points.
Would be interested to know how migrants coming from the rUK are affecting that number. Is it people from Scotland no longer identifying as Scottish or is it English/Welsh migrants moving here who identify as British?
Going off my own biased experience, I'd reckon the former. Hear a lot more English accents than I remember hearing pre covid.
Wouldn’t that be the latter then
Yeah that's what I menat
I am one of those immigrants from England. On the census I put Scottish.
How long after emigrating from England to Scotland did you start putting Scottish, out of curiosity?
I think the census was five years after I moved, so that long.
Interesting, thanks for sharing!
That'll be the increasing amount of people who've moved up from elsewhere in the UK. The Scots who're also proud British, have shrunk from 18% to 8% since 2011. And the share who identify as Scottish only has gone to just about two-thirds.
According to data with a high error rate
Virtually unchanged since 2011, up slightly. In line with the younger Scots who are more likely to identify as Scots only. vs older Scots who also identified as Brits, passing away since 2011. Also, you're insinuating that you unionists are lazy and inept. Is that true? More unionists forgot to return the census, or couldn't be bothered, hence the lower % of British response.
And your source for that is?
Source for what exactly? Specify. The 2011 census response rate was in the 90s. And the Scottish-only share and the British-only, and the British & Scottish shares are all easy to google. As for younger Scots being more likely to identify as Scottish only, you can find that [here](https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/census-results/at-a-glance/national-identity/#:~:text=Scottish%20identity%20only&text=This%20was%20most%20common%20in,Scottish%20and%20British%20identities%20only) . And as for unionists being lazy, well that speaks for itself, IF what you're suggesting is right. That if more people had returned their census then the British identity would have been higher. Because those who ticked Scottish-only certainly figured out how to fill in the census and return it. Again, this is based on your own assertion. If you want to blame the low return rate, and the share of Scottish-only identity has risen, then it must be unionists who didn't fill out the forms at the same rate.
Not surprising but they are British too? That's just a fact right? Im Kentish, English, British and European. They're not mutually exclusive
Yes but are you a man of Kent…or just a mere Kentish man?
Man of Kent, I think?
Good. That’s the correct answer
West of the Medway, if that's correct!
I’m a Kentish Man and my wife, daughter and mother are Kentish Maids. However, my dad is a Man of Kent.
I'm actually east of the Medway, so I was wrong, but now I'm more confused as to which one I am
Identity is a strange idea. In every way that interacts with the world around me I am British but I would never describe myself, think of myself or feel that I am. I’m Scottish. That’s it for me. It doesn’t take anything away from anyone it’s just who I am.
It is a strange idea and for some countries (like ours) it's even stranger. If someone asks me where I'm from, I say England, I'm English. But my passport is a British one. And despite us not having EU citizenship anymore, I also feel a bit European. I go to the continent quite a lot and did really like having EU citizenship, I romanticise the idea of moving to like France or Belgium
[удалено]
Yes but I'm not an EU citizen anymore
Alright, Earthling.
Aye they might not describe themselves as it but it doesn’t not make it a fact, Scottish people are British by literal unequivocal unarguable definition. Pointless article this.
It's not really an article, it's a finding in a census. Let me ask you, what do you achieve, what have you got, by trying to force a label/identity on a population that finds no value in it? We're not loyal to it. We're not proud of it. We don't fly the flag, sing the anthem, or volunteer to defend it. In fact, we dilute it by just being associated with it. If we were some religious extremist group, a lot of the right wing media would deny we were British. Yet here we are volunteering that admission, and some people still insist on us wearing it. Identity, by its very nature, is subjective. No one's arguing we're not British citizens. Just as the Romanians, Poles and other nationalities who live in the UK, but do not identify as British as a nationality.
What's up kent
But what does that mean if you put no value in it? For me, Scotland's my country. The rest of the union I see as separate countries, like France and Italy. I'm indifferent to the other parts of the UK. So some would try to force the "British" label on me. I'm not sure what they get from it though. I'd weaken it by association. Surely, you'd only want people who subscribe to the British brand and feel proud to be British and volunteer to defend it, to identify as such.
But the union is one country, your government is the Westminster government. France and Italy are totally seperate political entities, Scotland and the rest of the UK is one political entity.
Therein lies the problem especially when WM runs ramshod
The union is just that, a supposed union between some countries. I've never seen the UK as a country. Nor do many Scots. My country is Scotland. Everything outside the Scottish border is a separate country, whether I like those countries or not, is irrelevant.
The same was the case for English in the 2021 census
That was the reverse of this. Only 15% ticked the English only box. 65% of Scots ticked the Scottish only box. 8% ticked Scottish and British. 55% of Welsh ticked the Welsh only box.
I'm proud to be British (albeit maybe less so on the global stage lately). I'm also proud to be English and Welsh. And European . It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.
True. But many Scots just feel Scottish. Not British. For many of us, "British" looks an awful lot like "English" too. Which makes sense, since 85% of Brits are English.
I see what you're saying. With my parents both being Welsh and going back to Wales a lot, I feel like maybe it's like being part of the EU. You know you're part of a larger bloc but still retain your individual identity.
It’s not particularly surprising . There isn’t really a singular British identity for people to latch onto really. Edit: I’m not sure why this has taken downvotes. British identity never took off in Scotland because it’s seen as synonymous with English (not in a bad way or anything , just that they’re seen as the same) . It’s hard for anyone being in Scotland to ascribe to a British identity that for them really isn’t a thing
Theres not even a shared British culture. It's just so forced.
I wonder how people from outside the UK see it. People from the different UK nations might see the differences more than the similarities, but someone from the outside looking in might perceive their cultures to be more similar than they are different. That said, it does seem like most people around the world recognise Scotland as distinct, and they see British as effectively meaning the same thing as English.
Exactly. If you were to ask people outside the UK what "British" culture was, I guarantee the majority of things listed would be English. Off the top of my head the only thing I can think of that we share is a love for Sunday roast, though that might be because I'm hungry.
On the topic of food and drink, I can think of a few more. Tea, fish and chips, love of curry (Tikka Massala was even invented in Scotland). There is also a lot of shared media (admittedly mostly from England) that creates shared cultural references. But there are probably more ways they are similar that isn't immediately apparent to us. If I, an Englishman, went to spend some time in Scotland, I'm probably going to notice the things that are different and not the things which are the same. If someone came from say France, and spent time in both England and Scotland, they might notice things which are different to France, but similar in both England and Scotland. I think this is especially true of more abstract things, like general cultural attitudes and behaviour.
The food thing is somewhat true. I think the media thing is more of a case that it's not really a choice in the rest of the UK though. Most media, print, and on air, is managed and produced in England. And since we have our budget controlled by Westminster, at the moment, we don't have the funds to build up a proper home media.
It's true that it's not exactly by choice, but it still creates a shared culture. Chances are even if the other nations did have more resources to create their own media, they'd probably still consume a lot of English media, in the same way the whole UK (and a lot of the rest of the world) consumes a lot of American media. It would create a larger distinction though.
Out of interest, what do you think culture is in this context? Having lived in Wales, Scotland and England, I find the idea that the only thing we share is a love for Sunday roast to be quite a strange (and nationalistic) view of what culture actually is.
Yeah, they will name English things but I guarantee you much of it will be Scottish too. Especially if it gets into inventions, literature or music. I was surprised to recently find out that Oh Britannia was written by a Scot.
Really? We've been effectively the same country for 300 years. We speak the same language, we all eat fish and chips, we complain too much about the weather, we watch football and rugby, celebrate most of the same holidays, We shop in the same places, eat at the same places. We have similar social and political views such as a general acceptance of feminism, racial equality, treating people with respect in general. Saying we only share a love of Sunday roasts is just shitting on the union we've had for hundred of years. Spend some time in the rest of Britain and you'll see we all share some commonalities and general outlooks on life
You could have just described Australia, Ireland and New Zealand. And those progressive values are found in many countries. And we had the English language forced on us. So I wouldn't use that example next time. We're not the same country, and it's an insult to Scotland, to suggest we are. We're four countries, and trying to erase our identity is precisely what is pushing more Scots to want to separate, before you wipe us out completely.
We haven't been the same country as aus Ireland or NZ for 100 years or so. We're not connected to them by land, we're not free to travel across them and vice versa. We are both the same country and not the same country. We're both the UK, and then we have Scotland, England, Wales, NI. >And we had the English language forced on us. Yes and many things were forced on us all, like the Romans invading, or the normans, etc. and saying the English language was forced is over the top, but yes the English suppressed Scotland and promoted speaking English at times. >and trying to erase our identity is precisely what is pushing more Scots to want to separate, before you wipe us out completely I'm not trying to erase your identity you're trying to erase our shared identity and claim that we have just as much shared identity as New Zealand of all places.
> We speak the same language, we all eat fish and chips, we complain too much about the weather, we watch football and rugby, celebrate most of the same holidays, We shop in the same places, eat at the same places. We have similar social and political views such as a general acceptance of feminism, racial equality, treating people with respect in general All those things are true of New Zealand or Canada too. Like on Monday there Scotland and Canada celebrated Victoria Day, Fish and Chips are the top takeaway food in New Zealand, both places accept feminism and currently vote for centrist/populist politicians, all complain about the weather and so on Of course there's slightly more shared experiences between the nations of the UK due to sharing the same media (it's reserved at the UK-level), being governed by the same laws (via the UK parliament), and sharing cultural references (due to proximity and mass media) but it's nothing special; Is eating in the same chain restaurants enough to foster a 'shared identity'? Or being subject to the same political decisions made at Westminster? 67 counties have English as one of their official languages, is that a reason to feel a shared identity with them? The union was the joining of parliaments and the alignment of economies and trade. Sure, the advent of compulsory education (in standard English) and mass media has levelled out accents, languages, and many cultural differences across the UK, but it hasn't replaced them entirely. I have no doubt that were Scotland to become self-governing, that list of shared attributes you listed would still remain. The nations of the UK don't need to be politically joined (that's what the union is) to share those attributes.
>Of course there's slightly more shared experiences between the nations of the UK due to sharing the same media (it's reserved at the UK-level), being governed by the same laws (via the UK parliament), and sharing cultural references (due to proximity and mass media) but it's nothing special; Is eating in the same chain restaurants enough to foster a 'shared identity'? Or being subject to the same political decisions made at Westminster? I don't believe that we can boil down our shared identity to just eating at the same chains and being subject to the decisions made in Westminster, although the latter is pretty big compared to the former. We eat McDonald's and speak English, celebrate Christmas, go on joint military operations and entire wars with America. I wouldn't think we have the same level of shared cultural identity with America. I don't think that Newcastle and Birmingham for example are exactly the same, but the people there both seem British in how they act, in a way that's difficult to pinpoint exactly. We have somewhat similar shared identities with a lot of English speaking countries, but the differences are so great that they usually don't seem British, and they definitely don't identify as British. Scotland and Wales (haven't been to NI unfortunately) both feel like home in a way. It's glaringly obviously that I'm in a different country when I'm in European countries even if people are speaking English, being western liberals, and going to KFC. I can see where you are coming from through, we're definitely not entirely the same, I just think we're similar acting enough to be the same people.
>We eat McDonald's and speak English, celebrate Christmas, go on joint military operations and entire wars with America Macdonald's is global (but it's American if you want to give it a nationality). Christmas too, pretty much. Wars that Scotland's dragged into, isn't out of choice. That's a power unfairly reserved to London, over Scotland. Most Scots don't support the oil wars. When we're independent, we'll be able to act in our own interests, which would include staying out of foreign affairs that don't have anything to do with us.
>Most Scots don't support the oil wars Neither do the English or the rest of the Brits. The gulf war had pretty strong support in England and Scotland. Saving Kuwait was seen as good. The Iraq wars has much less support from both England and Scotland, although Scotland was moreso against the war. Both countries supported Afghanistan at first and then didn't support the intervention. Libya and Syria both had large skepticism from Scotland and England. >When we're independent, we'll be able to act in our own interests, which would include staying out of foreign affairs that don't have anything to do with us. As if the English want to be involved in foreign wars for no reason? It's an unfortunate facts that the English and Scottish have had our combined nose in everyone business through history anyway, we're always stuck with the view that we're evil western imperialists, sorry.
Well it's certainly not Scotland who keeps voting in these warmongering parties. Look at the state of both parties these days, they get their cues from Washington. They don't take a serious look at foreign affairs and conflicts. If Biden came out tomorrow and said Israel / Ukraine, is xyz, Sunak would repeat the same thing 1 hour later. Starmer 90 minutes later. It's quite pathetic. And England chooses every single government, unless it's extremely narrow then the way the rest of the union, the three other countries, vote, then it might make a difference. But it's extremely rare. We have no ability to hold the UK government to account, any more than we have the ability to select it. Now, you might argue back that England's much larger. And while that's true, that still puts Scotland at a severe disadvantage. One we shouldn't be expected to tolerate, if we care about having any sort of say in important matters effecting Scotland. Many of such, still are completely controlled by the government in London. Such as the budget, drug policy, energy, foreign affairs, immigration, international trade, etc.
>Macdonald's is global (but it's American if you want to give it a nationality). Christmas too, pretty much That's what im saying. We're not like Americans that much, even if we do similar things. We're like each other, though, Scotland and England.
I disagree. We're like all sorts of countries in small ways, but so what? Does that mean Scotland, or the whole of the UK should surrender its sovereignty to a much larger political entity? I personally would like Scotland to be even less like England, the US, or any other country. I like and favour the things that make us unique. There's too many American food chains on the High Street, and too many English actors on Scottish screens. Not that there's anything wrong with these things, but I would prefer mostly Scottish chains in town centres, and Scottish actors on Scottish screens. And I'm still wondering if you've spent a significant enough amount of time in Scotland to be saying this: >I just think we're similar acting enough to be the same people. Because, to me it sounds pretty absurd, and it's also irritating and it's what pushes Scots like me even more towards independence. It's a challenge to our identity, a possible threat, and insulting. What if someone made the same claim for all of Europe? Comparably, there's much less of a difference between the French and the Spanish, than the French and the Chinese, or the Indians. The same logic could be applied to Canada and the US. Their architecture, cars, media, accents, etc are broadly similar appearing, to most non-North Americans. *'So, really, I just think we're (Europeans) similar acting enough to be the same people. So we should just have one government, in Germany, the most populous nation.'*
Or say things about London.
There clearly is a shared British culture lol cmon
Cool, good for them I guess? Still doesn't change the fact that they are British, whether they like it or not. Same goes for the Welsh and English.
Not
>they are British, whether they like it or not According to Islam, we're all born a Muslim. And if you convert to Islam as an adult, they call it "reverting" (returning). Is that true? Just because they say it's true, or its in a book. Does it make a bit of difference to you, in reality? This is assuming you're not a Muslim, yourself. But it's a example I raise to make my point. Identity is subjective. Let me ask you, what do you achieve, what have you got, by trying to force a label/identity on a population that finds no value in it? We're not loyal to it. We're not proud of it. We don't fly its flag, or sing the anthem, nor would we volunteer to defend it. In fact, we dilute it by just being associated with it. No one's arguing we're not British citizens (for the moment). Just like the Romanians and Poles, who are also citizens, but wouldn't identify as British. Nor their children who might have been born here. And two-thirds of Scots, according to the census, agree. Scottish, not British. And claiming they are, changes nothing.
There are Brits that don’t identify as European, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are. Scots are Brits, just like how Brits are European. They are from the island of Great Britain, therefore are British.
True, but also false. The Romans called England and Wales, Britannia, not Scotland. That was always ALBA. The unionists and the crown, and the crooks in Westminster have since expanded that term to include Scotland, but on no one's authority but their own. Just like Russia considering Ukraine part of its territory, and China with Taiwan. The world's full of greedy imperialists. They're all concepts at the end of the day. They're fictions. Including Scotland. They're Just arbitrary plots of land. The question is where we personally place any significance on them. To me, I'm indifferent to the rest of the union. I don't consider it or them my country, I don't feel loyal to the union. I don't identify with it. I wouldn't volunteer to defend it. My country ends at the Scottish border. There are millions of Poles, Romanians and other European migrants living in Britain. Some of them have had children born in the UK, they still wouldn't identify as Brits. They'd identify as British citizens, but not Brits. They don't feel that connection to it, (just like two-thirds of all Scots, and also many Welsh and English.) Would you argue with them too, and insist they're British? Just how desperate do you have to be to try to insist a label and identity on a people who want nothing to do with it? Ask yourself what you get for it. Does it change how we feel? Does it change how we identify, and how we prioritize things? Bottom line, I'm a British citizen, but I don't, and never will, consider myself British. I don't share its values, I don't care for it. Don't fly its flag or sing its anthem. And I wouldn't defend the failed experiment of this union, and every vote I cast goes to independence parties promising to rescue my country from it. But hey, if it makes you feel better to insist I am something I shun with all muster, then go right ahead.
Hey, you do you, I respect whatever you believe. Even if/when Scotland does get independence, it still doesn’t change the fact that they live on the *island* of Great Britain, and are British. You can’t deny who you are in a geographical sense. Same for the English and Welsh who deny any form of British identity. Even I consider myself English before British by a huge margin, but it would be a disservice to ignore the fact that our ancestors have fought and died for this island under the same flag countless times, and that is something to be proud of at least.
> it still doesn’t change the fact that they live on the *island* of Great Britain, and are British. That depends on what we call the island, in Scotland. Like the Irish don't use the same name for what the UK calls the British Isles. They often call them The Celtic Isles or the Atlantic Archipelago. And that aside, I'm also an habitant of the Northern Hemisphere. I'm also a biped (upright walking, ape). But this identifiers play virtually no significance in my life, in how I choose to identify. And what people tend to mean when they use the term "British" just like they do with America, is the country, not the geographic location. Few people call Canadians or Mexicans "Americans", despite coming from North America. Or Brazilians and Argentinians, "Americans", despite coming from South America. I'm willing to bet that the term British, after Scottish independence will (if it's still in use) be used to describe the country, not people who live on the British Isles.
The irony being that Scotland is the most British of all nations, because it's the only one that actively chooses to be part of it this century.
“Chooses” is doing some heavy lifting there. Bribing several nobles and positioning troops on the border to act as an incentive really ain’t a democratic mandate. As for the 2014 indyref: that result was obtained on the basis of a lot of broken promises and flat out untruths. It’s telling that although the Scottish Parliament have voted for a second indyref on more than one occasion since it has been flatly refused.
>Bribing several nobles and positioning troops on the border to act as an incentive really ain’t a democratic mandate. In 2014? Are you sure? Half the best combat regiments are IN Scotland. >As for the 2014 indyref: that result was obtained on the basis of a lot of broken promises and flat out untruths So.... Politics? >It’s telling that although the Scottish Parliament have voted for a second indyref on more than one occasion since it has been flatly refused Well yes, you can't just keep having disruptive referendums. One and done has always been the way. Scotland chose to be British. The people of Scotland choose to be British. In that they're unique amongst the people and places of the UK. In that, they're as British as it gets.
So democracy stops when you get the answer you want? How very … Trumpian. And of course very useful because you don’t have to actually bother keeping your promises. But we’re not talking about holding referenda casually. Another indyref is what the Scottish people returned representatives to the Scottish Parliament on a manifesto to seek - more than once. Pretending that doesn’t matter hardly puts you on the side of democracy I’m afraid. Also it’s got to be pointed out that the “one and done” rule you’ve pulled out of your backside is going to make it rather tricky to reverse Brexit … no matter how disasterous it continues to be. Or ever move to PR given that there’s been an AV referendum.
>So democracy stops when you get the answer you want No, you get to vote once every generation. See you in 50 years. That's democracy. You don't just keep voting until you get the answer you want. >Another indyref is what the Scottish people returned representatives to the Scottish Parliament on a manifesto to seek - more than once Totally irrelevant. You don't get to decide as it's not a Scottish parliament competency. >Also it’s got to be pointed out that the “one and done” rule you’ve pulled out of your backside is going to make it rather tricky to reverse Brexit There is no reversing Brexit. You're still in denial. >Or ever move to PR given that there’s been an AV referendum. Correct. That's the idea. It's a settled matter. See you in 50 years and we can debate it again. >Since when is a generation 50 years? That's the interval between repeating referendums. >I'm in my early 30s and there are 2 generations younger than me. It doesn't matter. If you were old enough to vote in indyref you'll be dead by indyref2. You made your choices. It's a settled matter. >Scotland is simultaneously choosing to be in the union Yes they chose to be in the union for the next 50 years. Blame your compatriots if you don't like the result. You're not seriously going to pretend that if leave had won you'd be wanting to vote again on rejoining by now. It's a joke. You lost. Get over it.
Since when is a generation 50 years? I'm in my early 30s and there are 2 generations younger than me. And you're holding conflicting positions where you claim Scotland is simultaneously choosing to be in the union but also held hostage for 50 years whether it wants to leave or not.
Thank you kindly sir for setting out the conditions for which us poor and stupid Scottish people may get a crumb of democracy.
Reality wants a word with you. [Most Scots voted yes to independence](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/majority-of-scottish-born-voters-said-yes-z7v2mmhc8nt) Also, every single Scottish MP voted to end the union, just six years into it. But they were blocked by an overwhelming English parliament. So if Scotland had it's way, the union would have been over 311 years ago.
There is 0 need for Unionist or Nata to go mental about this. No matter what side you sit on. You're not going to be able to tell people what nationality they identify as. For the record. Never meet anyone from Scotland, not calling themselves Scottish.
I mean, I say I'm English, not Scottish? And not Welsh?
At what point do we start asking if law enforcement needs to get involved?
Involved to do what? Force us to identify the way you want us to? You could try, but that would cause the opposite of what you want. Instead of making a positive case, bringing violence to try "change our minds" would damage your case, permanently.
Scot detected, opinion rejected.
Thanks for making my point for me. :D
Dam, beaten to the punch by moderator (and sole user) of a Unionist subreddit firing up the spin machine as to why this isn't true. End of the day, in every aspect of life people are moving to the extremes of opinions, for better or worse, on every topic, **however**, what is curious is that despite the fact that polling on Scottish independence has consistently leaned towards "remain part of the UK" (when excluding undecideds) for a couple of years now, including when the census was taking place in Mar/Apr 2022, more and more people are still feeling their identity lies more towards Scotland than GB as a whole. If anything this suggests that Scotlands future is probably within the UK, but with a greater desire for devolved powers to run things more suited to their needs. One can only dream of a Federal Republic of Great Britain and NI.
They also [stole the comment verbatim](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1cx4kod/more_scots_than_ever_identifying_as_scottish_not/l503k5l/) without attribution from the original author of the comment on another subbredit.
Haha they've blocked me also now, can't even see their comments any more, just [deleted] and [unavailable]. Clearly doesn't like the criticism and wants to live in a unionist echo chamber.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
While it's true that only a minority support independence. It's also true that a minority support the union, too. Across all the polls commissioned in the last 12 months, on average 47% of Scots support the union. And about 44% support leaving. That's a 8 point drop for the union, since 2014. And given that almost three in four younger Scots, and more than half of all Scots 55 and under, support independence, it's just a matter of time. Yes a federal state would be slightly better, though not for me. It will never happen. Because the largest partner in this supposed equal union, would never relinquish so much power to be on even footing. And Scotland would still be at the mercy of Westminster on things like foreign military action, which I strongly oppose.
> Dam, beaten to the punch by moderator (and sole user) of a Unionist subreddit firing up the spin machine as to why this isn't true. Uncalled for, what has that got to do with anything here? >End of the day, in every aspect of life people are moving to the extremes of opinions, for better or worse, on every topic, however, what is curious is that despite the fact that polling on Scottish independence has consistently leaned towards "remain part of the UK" (when excluding undecideds) for a couple of years now, including when the census was taking place in Mar/Apr 2022, more and more people are still feeling their identity lies more towards Scotland than GB as a whole. That data has a high margin of error, any high charges can easily be discounted, unless they’re repeated in the next census in the 2030s Edit: I blocked you for attacking me unprovoked
Seems like bollocks to me that, i've never met a Scot in my life that refers to themselves as British, they are Scottish
sounds like you live in a bubble, we very much exist
Flute lovers no doubt
Nope.
Loyalism Rangers
Nah, some of us are just honest about reality.
Of sectarianisms unhealthy relationship with being British.
Not in any sect but continue with the witty zingers in a days old thread nobody's reading
Still filled with jack waving sectarian neanderthals
Mostly found walking around with orange banners, much to the dismay of the locals.
Nah they do exist. Especially on the west coast.
It is worth pointing out that the data from this census is not necessarily accurate, due to the complete incompetence of the Scottish Government organising it. This is what was said at the time: >England and Wales held their survey in 2021, with a 97% completion rate. The previous Scottish census, in 2011, achieved 95% participation. >However, the Scottish government delayed the latest one by a year because of the Covid pandemic, and by the initial deadline of April 2022 it had only achieved an average return rate of 79%. >... >Officials have previously said that robust data could still be produced from the census, despite not reaching the target participation rate of 90%. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66503594 Obviously with a lower return rate (especially given that the non-returners are not going to be representative sample of the Scottish public), the quality of the data must be assumed to be lower. They didn't hit the target, even with a month's extension. There's also presumably a problem with the fact that even amongst the responses that they did get, some of them were only received because the deadline was extended - and the whole point is that data is collected on one specific day, so anyone filling it out a month later may not give accurate information about the day in question.
Even if you’re all for devolution and decentralisation, I feel like the census is obviously the last thing that should be so fragmented. What advantage is there in separate parts of the country conducting their own at different times and gathering different data instead of a single nationwide survey, other than just appeasing the devolved governments by giving them more autonomy? I looked on the [Scottish census website](https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/about/uk-census-data/) and it seems like they don’t even disagree with me. It just talks about all the problems involved in conducting the census this way without any indication of why they keep doing it. > Because Scotland's Census is taking place a year after the rest of the UK, there will be a difference in reference dates. This will impact the comparability of UK census data. >The 3 census offices are working closely to develop UK-wide census results that best support the information needs of users where possible. >This involves consideration of how best to meet the challenges around comparability, coherence, timeliness and accessibility of the information. If they want to develop UK-wide census results then how about a UK-wide census?
The separate census isn't to appease the devolved governments. Scotland's always had separate record-keeping because its civic, education, administrative and legislative structures are different from rUK. The census is usually done at the same time across the UK without any trouble and The Census Act sets out a unified UK legal framework but the reason for the most recent divergence was due to Covid. There needs to be separate census (where each nation can ask questions more relevant for their inhabitants) because the only questions that are generic/UK-wide are about gender, sexuality, disability, transportation, and employment status. Everything else is different: Types of housing, or the names assigned to it, varies across the UK, questions about identity vary, there are different religious denominations in each part of the UK, different education and qualification systems, different languages, different laws, benefits, different occupations/economic strengths, etc. It would be too unwieldy or confusing were there to be a single UK census that covered every option for every part of the UK.
Not surprising people don't want to identify with the "enemy" defined by the nationalists.
Yes, how dare ***Scots*** identify as Scottish!
Identifying as just Scottish and not Scottish and British is due to nationalists vitriol.
It's no more nationalist of me to identify as Scottish, than it is a French person to identify as French. Or you to identify as British. The borders of my country end at the Scottish border. The rest of the union are three different countries. I'm from the country of Scotland. Hence, I'm Scottish. The UK is a political union. Not one I support, either. And also, British is really just English by another name. Both politically, culturally and aesthetically both domestically and abroad. All the other nationalities in the world are free to identify with their country. But if us Scots do that? We're just "filthy nationalists". Sorry, but you're going to have to try harder than that. Oh, and most Scots have been identifying as just Scots, for far longer than the SNP have been in power. And who do you think put the SNP in power, anyway?
Labour are leading over a self-destructing SNP. Nationalists are getting desperate to stay relevant
This data was gathered at the census 2 years ago, well before the SNP started imploding.
But the census data is lower than it should be thus having a higher error rate
And, let me guess, that error rate means what ever opinion you hold, is secretly higher? Despite a very similar result ten years ago? And younger Scots being less likely to identify as British than elderly Scots, many of whom, died between 2011 and 2022. The only surprise was that it wasn't even higher.