Letter: Census identity

GEORGE K McMillan (Letters, 15 March) does not seem to know much about the "British" census. Ever since censuses started in their current form in 1841, Scotland has been responsible for its own. It has always had questions that related exclusively to Scotland, including, in some years, whether people spoke Gaelic.

There has never been the opportunity for the United Kingdom or Great Britain to be recorded as the country of birth. It has always been a question designed to find out where in Scotland the person was born. If individuals were not born in Scotland, a separate column stated they were born in England, Wales, Ireland or wherever. I feel Mr McMillan's strong feelings of unionism outstrip his knowledge of this subject. His claimed descent from a "clan" is, in this case, irrelevant.

Alison Halley

Newbattle Abbey Crescent

Dalkeith, Midlothian

MR MCMILLAN cavils at Scotland being referred to as a country; to a unionist this is quite logical. A unionist believes Scotland equates to a large British county or possibly a province. The unionist regards Scotland as, say, a Lancastrian regards his county; nothing wrong with that if you are a North Briton.

The North British want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be British, but they also want to be a special kind of British called Scots. It disnae wark; ye can be yin or tither. Personally I am Scots, not British. I don't live in Scotlandshire. Unfortunately, I do have to have a British passport to travel.

R Mill Irving

Station Road

Gifford, East Lothian

THE straw-clutching attempts by George K McMillan to find something - anything - to criticise the SNP about demonstrate the paucity of the SNP's opponents' case and Mr McMillan's confusion about British political geography.

"Great Britain" and "the United Kingdom" are not countries, but artificial unions of several countries, one of which is Scotland.

It is perfectly reasonable to anyone except someone as prejudiced as Mr McMillan for the census form to be headed "Scotland's census" and for respondents to have the option to specify their country of origin as Scotland.

Peter Swain

Innerwick

Dunbar, East Lothian

I WAS intrigued by George K McMillan's letter on the census.

In my experience census questions and answers require careful examination and understanding.

Thirty years ago I was surprised to learn that my mother, who shared the house and kitchen with us, constituted a separate household because she cooked and ate separately.

I have always wondered about the questions on ethnicity; it did not seem to be a euphemism for race, as there was differentiation between India and Pakistan, but there was little opportunity for those born abroad to non- British parents like myself to indicate their origins.

Why have there never been questions on cultural identity, which is of such importance? I have always found questions asking for first language or mother tongue intriguing, based as they are on the assumption that the answers will be the same as dominant language. This assumption alone shows the insularity of this country, however one defines it.

My first language historically was Latvian, my second German, which I have lost completely, my mother's language was Russian, which I acquired third, but my best language is English, which I never spoke at home.

Our ethnic origins were a matter of contention in the family. The cultural identity was emigr Russian with additions. We were always loyal British citizens.

There were many people like me in post-war Europe and there are many now in multi- ethnic, multicultural Britain.

This should be a matter of pride.

Marina Donald

Tantallon Place

Edinburgh