It is strange to me to come across a site which would use the word 'translation' where "Scots wha hae wi Wallace bled" has been rendered into standard English (Scots who have with Wallace bled). No speaker of English could fail to understand Burns' poem. Other than the odd particular word and the aberrations of spelling to reflect local pronunciation, Scots cannot claim to be a separate language which can be translated. Scots is a dialect of English. Because of its historical remoteness from fashion-setting London it has kept some characteristics which emphasise its Germanic (not Celtic) roots and its close relationship to another West Germanic tongue, Dutch. The largely silent 'gh' of modern southern English is still gutturally present in Scots. The rolling 'r' of Old English and the 'k' instead of 'ch' in church show that Scots is closer to the older sounds (and to Dutch) than the modern southern speech. When I first studied Chaucer I was told I should not talk about translating it because it was English and you could not translate English into English. It was to be 'transcribed'. I saw the point though it always struck me as a fine difference. However, there was no denying that the language was English even though Chaucerian or Middle English is further away from the modern standard tongue and spelling than is Scots.
Wham the Scots may be is something they have to work out as each generation goes on but it is a pity that they do not embrace the large element of themselves which is English. The ethnic origins of the central and eastern lowlands lie among the Angles and you could not get a more English name for a fortified place than the 'burgh' of Edinburgh, whatever the rights and wrongs about the claims for Edwin (Angle) and Eidyn (Brythonic Celtic).
Scotland does have a language which is not English and that, of course, is Irish, the language of a northern Irish tribe, the Scots of Dál Riata who like the Angles, gave their name to the land they conquered. They raided and settled in the western highlands and islands just as the English, from Germany, were doing to Roman Britain in the south. They brought a new (to the region) language which was Goidelic Celtic or Q-Celtic and largely overran the speakers of Brythonic Celtic or P-Celtic, the alleged namers of Eidyn, who were the native inhabitants whom we would now call Welsh. This was much the same people as the Romanised Britons who were penned up in the western parts of southern Britain in Devon, Cornwall, Wales and even Cumbria while the rest became England. The English called them Welsh, or Wylisc (pronounced Wullish), meaning foreigner.
Again we see the Scottish people's linguistic and ethnic origins are not entirely as they like to see them. Just as with English and Scots so with Scottish and Irish Gaelic. My mother was a fluent speaker of Irish and said she could understand written Scottish Gaelic though changes in pronunciation meant she could not follow the speech.
There is little linguistic evidence of those other significant others of the Scottish people, the Norwegian Vikings apart from DNA and place names like the anomalous northern area called Sutherland because that's what it was for them.
As the Scots now continue the debate about independence they are of course a distinctively identifiable nation but they might also reflect upon origins of language, culture and ethnicity, their roots, to use a current buzzword, as more intermingled with others in these islands than they might like to think.