As he detests 'Whiteness' of the Scots, I notice he's content wearing Western White man's apparel. His anti-White, anti-Scot rhetoric reveals a lot about his intent.
The evolution of languages is indeed related to genes. Language and country formation are organically synonymous with race. The Scots, like the Gaels of Ireland, have their own languages as do the Cymri (Welsh). The reason the Scots have a distinct national accent is because English is really a second language to Scots and Scottish Gaelic: Albais. A 2010 survey noted that 85% of respondents noted they speak Scots even though English is the main language of some 98% of Scotland. The Irish language in Ireland was revived and used for state purposes but English remains the language in common use. Attempts to revive Scottish Gaelic in the lowlands is being made.
From "GROUP IDENTITY AND NATION IDENTITY"
Languages and genes
Cavalli-Sforza's massive History and Geography of Human Genes constitutes the first genetic atlas of the world with 500 maps showing areas of genetic similarity together with profiles of hundreds of thousands of individuals from almost 2,000 communities and tribes. The data show that genetic markers and language families go together. There is a remarkable parallel between the history of genes and that of languages with coincidence of genetic and linguistic branching points. This work on patterns of genetic and linguistic distribution has led to interesting findings about the diversity and relations of languages of which the following are a few examples:
Khoisan: This language may be the result of a very ancient mix of west Asians and black Africans.
Basque: Basques have a different language and also different genes from the rest of the peoples of Western Europe.
English: In a worldwide sample of 42 populations, the population closest to the English is the Danish (21), and the one most distant the Mbuti Pygmies of Zaire (2373); genetic distance between the English and the Japanese is assessed at 1244, at 22 with the Germans, 24 with the French , 51 with the Italians, and 204 with the Greeks. The higher the number the greater the genetic distance; the genetic distances seem to relate well to linguistic distances between the various populations.
Italian: Magna Graecia genetically is found to be distinct from the rest of Italy; Southern Italian populations are genetically similar to those of modern Greece; there is also difference between east and west Sicily which can be ascribed to Greek colonization in the east, and Phoenician colonization in the west. The genetic assessments apparently discriminate Etruria from the rest of Italy and in east Italy, roughly correspond to the area of proto-historic East Italic inscriptions .
Other research besides that of Cavalli-Sforza suggests similar conclusions on the relation between genes and languages. Sokal says there is a definite association between gene frequencies and the modern language families of Europe; the correlation between genetics and language is significant. (Sokal 1989, 1992) . In Australia research by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies concluded that physical differences exist between aborigine populations and for large parts of the Australian continent genetic and linguistic differentiation has been proceeding in a similar manner.
Language as a special factor in nation formation and national identity
The very obvious parallelism between the analysis and findings of population genetics and the phenomena of language differentiation, language variation, dialectal features, language spread, etc. has long been treated as metaphorical but the recent research work suggests that there is more to it than that. The whole account in population genetics of the processes of race and species formation bears a close resemblance to the accounts given by linguists of the processes by which linguistic variation within a community can develop into differentiation of dialects and later of separate languages, by very similar processes of geographic separation, migration, isolation - with reproductive isolation in the case of the development of races and species being paralleled by communicative isolation in the case of dialects and languages. Development of a language is the result of interaction between the genetically controlled cerebral, anatomical and physiological features of the population (reflecting the relative gene frequencies within the population) and the environment within which the development of the language takes place. Language is a group product biassed towards the aspects of language most compatible with the cerebral and bodily articulatory organisation prevailing in the group within which the language is to be used. So far as basic and original lexicon is derived from integration of articulation with perceptual and motor organisation, the words found in the group will have their structure determined (within the limits set by the phonology preferentially adopted) by neural organisation governing perception and the planning of motor action. If gene frequencies alter significantly in a population over a period, then the tendencies and preferences of the children developing in that period will also alter. This will, insofar as the genes concerned are those affecting relevant physical or cerebral organisation for language, constitute a force tending towards language change. Even though children as such have no important influence on speech patterns and preferences, the tendencies and preferences changed in them as a result of changes in gene frequencies will continue to exist when they grow up into adults and it will be at the adult stage that the force deriving from population change in gene frequencies will start to have an impact on the phonological, lexical or syntactic features of the languages. The broad line of argument derives from the motor theory as such, that is from the theory that there is a specific neural basis for language derived from pre-existing cerebral organisation.
This is why Humza Yousaf can never really be a Scot despite how well of a Scotish accent he may have. It is the same reason why a Greek can never really be a Scot. It is purely a racial matter. Will the Scotish people recognize this? Right now Scotish Gaelic, the once predominant language of Scotland is spoken by 1.1% of the people.
The strongest national identity is that founded on race (lineage or bloodline). "The greatest force is common blood" (Sun Yat-sen).
"A nation is a unit which has both an evolutionary and racial significance" (Arthur Keith).
As he detests 'Whiteness' of the Scots, I notice he's content wearing Western White man's apparel. His anti-White, anti-Scot rhetoric reveals a lot about his intent.
The evolution of languages is indeed related to genes. Language and country formation are organically synonymous with race. The Scots, like the Gaels of Ireland, have their own languages as do the Cymri (Welsh). The reason the Scots have a distinct national accent is because English is really a second language to Scots and Scottish Gaelic: Albais. A 2010 survey noted that 85% of respondents noted they speak Scots even though English is the main language of some 98% of Scotland. The Irish language in Ireland was revived and used for state purposes but English remains the language in common use. Attempts to revive Scottish Gaelic in the lowlands is being made.
From "GROUP IDENTITY AND NATION IDENTITY"
Languages and genes
Cavalli-Sforza's massive History and Geography of Human Genes constitutes the first genetic atlas of the world with 500 maps showing areas of genetic similarity together with profiles of hundreds of thousands of individuals from almost 2,000 communities and tribes. The data show that genetic markers and language families go together. There is a remarkable parallel between the history of genes and that of languages with coincidence of genetic and linguistic branching points. This work on patterns of genetic and linguistic distribution has led to interesting findings about the diversity and relations of languages of which the following are a few examples:
Khoisan: This language may be the result of a very ancient mix of west Asians and black Africans.
Basque: Basques have a different language and also different genes from the rest of the peoples of Western Europe.
English: In a worldwide sample of 42 populations, the population closest to the English is the Danish (21), and the one most distant the Mbuti Pygmies of Zaire (2373); genetic distance between the English and the Japanese is assessed at 1244, at 22 with the Germans, 24 with the French , 51 with the Italians, and 204 with the Greeks. The higher the number the greater the genetic distance; the genetic distances seem to relate well to linguistic distances between the various populations.
Italian: Magna Graecia genetically is found to be distinct from the rest of Italy; Southern Italian populations are genetically similar to those of modern Greece; there is also difference between east and west Sicily which can be ascribed to Greek colonization in the east, and Phoenician colonization in the west. The genetic assessments apparently discriminate Etruria from the rest of Italy and in east Italy, roughly correspond to the area of proto-historic East Italic inscriptions .
Other research besides that of Cavalli-Sforza suggests similar conclusions on the relation between genes and languages. Sokal says there is a definite association between gene frequencies and the modern language families of Europe; the correlation between genetics and language is significant. (Sokal 1989, 1992) . In Australia research by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies concluded that physical differences exist between aborigine populations and for large parts of the Australian continent genetic and linguistic differentiation has been proceeding in a similar manner.
Language as a special factor in nation formation and national identity
The very obvious parallelism between the analysis and findings of population genetics and the phenomena of language differentiation, language variation, dialectal features, language spread, etc. has long been treated as metaphorical but the recent research work suggests that there is more to it than that. The whole account in population genetics of the processes of race and species formation bears a close resemblance to the accounts given by linguists of the processes by which linguistic variation within a community can develop into differentiation of dialects and later of separate languages, by very similar processes of geographic separation, migration, isolation - with reproductive isolation in the case of the development of races and species being paralleled by communicative isolation in the case of dialects and languages. Development of a language is the result of interaction between the genetically controlled cerebral, anatomical and physiological features of the population (reflecting the relative gene frequencies within the population) and the environment within which the development of the language takes place. Language is a group product biassed towards the aspects of language most compatible with the cerebral and bodily articulatory organisation prevailing in the group within which the language is to be used. So far as basic and original lexicon is derived from integration of articulation with perceptual and motor organisation, the words found in the group will have their structure determined (within the limits set by the phonology preferentially adopted) by neural organisation governing perception and the planning of motor action. If gene frequencies alter significantly in a population over a period, then the tendencies and preferences of the children developing in that period will also alter. This will, insofar as the genes concerned are those affecting relevant physical or cerebral organisation for language, constitute a force tending towards language change. Even though children as such have no important influence on speech patterns and preferences, the tendencies and preferences changed in them as a result of changes in gene frequencies will continue to exist when they grow up into adults and it will be at the adult stage that the force deriving from population change in gene frequencies will start to have an impact on the phonological, lexical or syntactic features of the languages. The broad line of argument derives from the motor theory as such, that is from the theory that there is a specific neural basis for language derived from pre-existing cerebral organisation.
This is why Humza Yousaf can never really be a Scot despite how well of a Scotish accent he may have. It is the same reason why a Greek can never really be a Scot. It is purely a racial matter. Will the Scotish people recognize this? Right now Scotish Gaelic, the once predominant language of Scotland is spoken by 1.1% of the people.