This is an archive of past discussions about Scotland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm sorry, this article is not an A class. The citations are diabolical. "The North British Review. By Allan Freer: Page 119. Scotland Under Her Early Kings: a history of the kingdom to the close of the thirteenth century. By Eben William Robertson: Page 286." Is this some new citation system I haven't heard about? What am I supposed to look up? The history section too is completely beyond help. The funniest thing is, someone cited "The Spottiswoode Miscellany: a collection of original papers and tracts, illustrative chiefly of the Civic and Ecclesiastical history of Scotland. By James Maidment - 1844: Page 444 to 445." What I find hard to believe is not so much that someone would cite a 17th century clerical source reprinted in the early 19th century about the obscure events of the 10th century, but that such a work was apparently easier to get hold of than a modern recent modern historiographical monograph. That aside, almost every sentence of the first two paragraphs of the medieval section constitutes complete nonsense. The second and fourth sentences of paragraph three are likewise highly dubious. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)08:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, on GA, the article fails abysmally with regard to Wikipedia:What is a good article?, 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c), and 5. In particular, the history and etymology sections are full of nonsense. The article has a lot in it which is good otherwise, so I'm not going to delist it immediately. However, if its other problems aren't fixed, it has to be delisted as a GA. One might even suggest that the article's inherent lack of stability should keep it away from GA categorization entirely. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid I have to agree. My specific comments on the geography section are available at the above-mentioned location. I am not an historian, but the imbalances in this section are surely obvious to the most casual of readers. I can see that attempting to steward a busy page which attracts unhelpful attention is likely to be a wearisome task, but surly other such pages must have similar problems without the same end result - or are we simply a nation of anarchists? Forgive me if I am being naive, but is it impossible to imagine a general consensus around the number and size of headings and having a few committed volunteers who would patrol the sections? Ben MacDui(Talk)10:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This issue has been raised before (see above) and the history and etymology sections were shown to let the article down, even then. I agree they are worse now, than they were. Could we not go back to the original situation such as here a few months ago when the history and etymology sections were at the stage they had been for some considerable time up to that point - and work from there? That I think removes this unnecessary tagging nonsense that we now have. There was a drive to try and improve this article, but there was absolutely no interest, which is ashame because the article seems to have regressed. It needs people to look into specific sections to try and improve them. We need people to look at the history section to try and make it more concise, probably the same with the National Symbols section and politics section. I've been trying to do the same with the Economy section (see User:Globaltraveller/Economy_of_Scotland. Any improvement in an article of such varied scope like this needs a structure and it needs volunteers. Thanks Globaltraveller19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please note that both the history and etymology sections were completely rewritten (badly) by a newbie about a month ago. Like a lot of other recent (within last month) changes to this article they ought to be comprehensively restored. Sorry, but I have had real life commitments and Wikipedia has been on the backburner. We should just comprehensively restore the long-standing pre-newbified versions. --Mais oui!20:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
OK – encouraged by Angus McLellan’s boldness I will attempt to upload the new geography section asap (not tonight). I might attempt to incorporate Climate in it and call it “Geography and Natural History” or something along those lines. This will lose a little, but not much text in terms of size (excluding references). I’d be happy to have a go at patrolling this section and preventing it getting larger. If Globaltraveller can do the same for Economy, then that is at least a start. Suggestion for some rules of engagement:
• edits which do not provide references or edit comments zapped on sight.
• edits which make the text significantly larger removed with a request to discuss the matter on the Talk page, indicating which text the editor would like to be replaced to allow the new text.
If anyone can provide an estimate of how much text should ideally go as a gross percentage for each section I’d be happy to see what adjustments can be made (to the Geography section).
Well I'm all in favour. Incremental changes aren't getting anywhere, and the drafts you and Globaltraveller have prepared are already a huge improvement. I know Mais oui! has some ideas on size, perhaps a bit too ambitious as slimming programmes go, but it's not as if large articles can't be featured. Featured articles don't need to be perfect, there's a chance to fix things during the review. Angus McLellan(Talk)21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The geography etc. re-draft is complete. Apologies if language and religion are uncomfortable sharing with shinty and haggis, but I suspect the only way to keep coherence is to have fewer larger sections patrolled by volunteers. More asap on this front. The changes added 2kb, although I suspect a fair chunk of that was references. Nonetheless I will resist the the temptation to add a picture of a golden eagle or similar. I will also resist the urge to start 'fixing' elsewhere. I am neglecting the islands. Ben MacDui(Talk)20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've put in a slimmed down economy section. I'm a bit concerned about image placing, so I got rid of one of the two images in the Education section, and one in the Economy section. But I'm not really sure. There's lots still to do. Help!!! Anyone? Thanks Globaltraveller22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely none from me, but reverting back probably will raise the article size back up again, which is not a problem, if it is :something that is going to be worked on and reduced. Another problem I have is the Culture section, it's too big, far too big. The :culture section on the Australia article includes sport and is tiny in comparison. Do we really need a section on cuisine and :media? Do we really need a section on Transport? The India, Australia, Canada and Libya are featured, and are the :best country articles on Wikipedia, their size and scope is something we should be using as a template? Globaltraveller20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Canada has a wonderful 'See also' section which I lack the skill to create but this might solve a lot of problems. I was considering creating a simple 'See also' heading and moving Transport there. However, I now see Transport in Scotland has such a 'see also' section based on Template:Scotland topics. Is there any reason not to use this? Ben MacDui(Talk)20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I will attempt to keep the geography section clear of additions and vandalism per the above discussion – embellished below – and I encourage volunteers to come forward to do likewise elsewhere and/or to assist with one or more geography sub-sections.
Proposed Policy
Many Scottish Wikipedians believe that this article has become too long and unwieldy. Minor edits which improve punctuation, syntax, accuracy and references are welcome in this section/article. If you wish to add new material please refer the matter to the Talk page.
Edits which increase the length of the article may be reverted unless suitable discussion of the proposed new content has taken place on the Talk page that reaches agreement as to which text is to be replaced to allow the new text.
Edits which do not provide references or edit comments are likely to be reverted without warning or explanation.
<ends>.
I am tempted to put part of this as hidden text in the Geography section. This is possibly in breach of umpteen well-meaning policies and guidelines, but may not be necessary. We shall see. Ben MacDui(Talk)20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not for you to decide who can edit unprotected articles. Your proposed policy goes against the whole idea of Wikipedia. Astrotrain20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
True, but edits which don't improve the article (like the anon user(s) who like(s) to add the perhaps-true-but-not-very-worthy-of-inclusion claim that there are more redheads in Scotland than anywhere else) can be removed. Most edits are just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Only bold editing is going to get this article to featured quality. That includes being bold in reverting unhelpful additions. Economy doesn't look like there's much fat in it, so do you fancy taking a chainsaw to Education ? It paints a rather flattering picture of early education, perhaps best dealt with by spending less time on it. Angus McLellan(Talk)21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between reverting an anon who has added something irrelevant, to reverting an established user and leaving a rather rude message on their talk page saying they can only add things to the article if they discuss it here first! Perhaps I could see his point if I made a major edit, but not the adding of one link and a small sentence! Astrotrain21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Somehow I understood the idea of Wikipedia was to produce a quality encyclopedia. This requires colloboration rather than anarchy. I am sorry if you, (Astrotrain) felt the message was rude. It was my intention to be clear. If edits are unhelpful they should be removed. There are tens of thousands of facts about Scotland not on this page, and the key question is - what is relevant? Ben MacDui(Talk)23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:OWN is irrelevant here; the issue is the article as a whole and no one editor's contributions. There is a consensus that the article should be revised to reach the feature article criteria (as all articles should, ideally). If you feel any part of the article is need of tender loving care, please feel free to change it to meet the MoS guidelines. Anyone can edit, just so long as the edits are for the better. In this case, significantly adding to the length would hardly be an improvement. Angus McLellan(Talk)23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that declaring some kind of single-article policy is a good idea. The concept of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not create a store of information which is controlled by a few editors. Yes, some things may be irrelevant to this article, but it is quite short-sighted of us to declare that our Geography section could do with no improvement, even to call it perfect. I think that rather wasting our time trying to stop people from adding new material, we should work on what actually needs working on to get this article up to FA status. Yes, it requires more work, but construction is always better than destruction. Well, in most cases, anyway. File:Icons-flag-scotland.pngCanænFile:Icons-flag-scotland.png03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone is suggesting there should be no changes or improvements. The implication is simply that if anyone can suggest any that they would ideally receive some sort of support for making them first. Higher up the page, we have a suggestion that Transport should be removed. It sat there for several days without disapproval, so I removed it. This was then reverted. Is the only way to resolve the situation a childish edit war? If not what? I am suggesting some sort of collective resolve to improve the article which is still little better than a dodgy undergraduate essay at present. This requires a level of committment and a consistency of approach that may be difficult, but surely not impossible to achieve. I notice other articles with signs on the Talk page stating 'please help improve these sections'. Personally, I very much doubt I'd start adding other 'improvements' without having a clear understanding of what the regular editors are trying to achieve. (Continues below.) Ben MacDui(Talk)08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
the Jersey pound is not a separate currency but is an issue of banknotes and coins by the States of Jersey denominated in pound sterling, in a similar way to the banknotes issued in Scotland and Northern Ireland --Bob20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It has the same official ISO 4217 currency code: GBP; they also use sterling banknotes and there exists no difference in the value of a JEP (the unofficial code) to a GBP [1] --Bob01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
A friend recommended some spectacles and I now see that there is of course a cunningly concealed 'Topics in Scotland' box (see above). I added 'Transport' to it and deleted the article section. 69kb and falling. Does anyone think the 'References' section in its current guise contributes anything of value? If not it is next for the chop. Ben MacDui(Talk)12:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I have restored Transport section as it is common for this to be in a country section. I would suggest cutting Military as it serves no purpose for a non sovereign entity. Astrotrain15:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Arguably the military section is too wordy, but with the best will in the world Astrotrain, it is hard to interpret the above as anything other than either an extraordinary lack of knowledge of modern Scotland, or a calculated insult. I am beginning to suspect you are a covert SNP activist trying to whip us all into a lather of self-righteous nationalism. Views anyone? - on transport and military I mean, not political affiliations. Ben MacDui(Talk)16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Time for a nice cup of tea and a Tunnocks Tea Cake. I'm not any sort of covert activist, but I'm perfectly capable of seeing there's a case to be made for not having a military section. On balance, seeing as Scotland has most of Britian's nuclear bombs, I'd argue for keeping it, but I don't need to accuse people of things in order to make the case. – Kieran T(talk | contribs)16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Broadly I would be in favour of keeping the military and transport sections (less so the Transport section). What needs the most work is the Culture section and all its subsections - it is HUGE, and a major drawback. I would say the media and cuisine sub-sections definitely need the chop, and the rest of the subsections put into one. Globaltraveller18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey boys, guess what? Deleting valid content does not equal improvement. Instead of simply removing good content, why do we not focus our talents on improving our article's content? When was the last time anyone put the article up for FA status? Do we actually need to be cutting down our article? I believe we've all become too focused on how many KB our article is in length. Guess what? Low KB does not equal FA status. Get over it, and lets make the article decent. File:Icons-flag-scotland.pngCanænFile:Icons-flag-scotland.png03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
My understanding of the problem is that over a few weeks or months up until about the beginning of December the quality of the article had been dropping. It was a Good Article and it is now up for deletion as such. In its state at the time I have no dispute with that. I am not in favour of cutting out information purely for the sake of FA status but in my view there is still a good deal of information in it that is extraneous and I am very happy to support proposed quality improvements. (See for example below). I note that no-one has queried the idea of removing the rump of the 'References', so off with its head. Ben MacDui(Talk)09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There is still some irrelevant stuff in some of the sections, that doesn't focus on the main points, and the text could be rationalised in a lot of areas, and all of that will help cut the size. Globaltraveller10:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Continuing Improvements II - The Culture Section
I've made an attempt at trying to reduce the unwieldy culture section into one, along the lines of similar sections on other articles, here: User:Globaltraveller/Sandbox/Culture
I did however chop the Cuisine section in my attempts to amalgamate all the other sections. Could people take a look and see what they think? Also in doing that I laid to the side the Religion and Language section. Perhaps they could be fitted in elsewhere in the article? I'd be grateful if people could take a look and see what they think and/or edit bits if they want. Thanks Globaltraveller22:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's the problem, I don't. I think the subheaders (a) take up too much space and are unsightly in such a short space. I've tried to provide links to the relevant links, in the text, to the sub-articles where possible. I notice most other country articles do this, as opposed to having subheaders. Adding in this Culture section as is, cuts the article down to below 70kB as well Globaltraveller10:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It think its a huge improvement. I have a couple of suggestions re the opening sentence or two and one or two other tweaks, but I won't get a chance to be more specific until the weekend. Ben MacDui(Talk)08:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit away. Basically all I've done is remove the list of the different sections rewrote a few sentences and added a few references. The problem is the Language and Religion sections, which are not there. My own opinion is they belong alongside population/demographics rather than culture? Globaltraveller21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added some tweaks. Re the structure, without sub-headings there is no link to the main articles which may not be crucial. However my preference would be to have the sub-headers of Religion, Language, Media and the Arts, and Sport. I presume the absence of Cuisine is intended. Fine by me as it says nothing of international note although perhaps the poor old haggis deserves a mention somewhere. Ben MacDui(Talk)21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There are links to the main articles in the text. The "Sport" link goes to the Sport in Scotland article, similarly "Scottish music" is linked and directs to the Music in Scotland main article, "Scottish Literature" links to the Scottish Literature article and so on. This I think does away with the need for sub-headers which would look unsightly in such a small piece of prose. The absence of cuisine was intended, as there wasn't much in it. Haggis could be mentioned as the "national food" perhaps in the introduction?? Thanks Globaltraveller22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that works. Religion & Language definitely seem more 'cultural' than geographical to me, but maybe they are separate sections for now at least. Ben MacDui(Talk)09:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a good point, but it raises complex issues. In the context of say Canada or Belgium, language, religion and culture are all clearly geographical issues too. For Scotland this is much less straightforward. Geology, geomorphology and demographics follow from one another. Currently, gaelic-speaking is largely confined to a relatively small geographical area, but by-and-large religious affiliations are not and nor are they tied to language or even to other aspects of local culture. I am not really qualified to attempt any kind of geographical discussion of Scots and its variants. Furthermore the whole approach of the existing sections on language and religion does not lend itself to incorporation into demographics. Although both these section are of value I wonder if they place too much emphasis on history (as elsewhere)? Three options:
1) Keep ‘em in Culture. 2) Have them as separate sections. 3) Move them to demographics but have them hugely reduced e.g.:
A quid pro quo would be to reduce the Subdivisions section by eliminating everything from “including education, social work,” to “For the Scottish Parliament, there are 8 regions”. Ben MacDui(Talk)15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd go with Option 3. It just seems the more sensible way to handle the subject. That way, the improved culture section can be added. Globaltraveller18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Country?
According to this, Scotland isn't actually a country, but it's only "common usage" that causes it to be described as such. So which site do we believe - that of No.10, or that of the Scottish Parliament? Marks8717:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Somehow I have the feeling that these issues have been discussed ad nauseam in the past, but that the conclusions are buried in the archive. Perhaps a useful task would be to collate such issues and add it to a 'To do' Template - see below. Ben MacDui(Talk)15:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Nor is Scotland a nation. Wikipedia defines a nation as "A nation is a group of humans who are assumed to share a common identity, and to share a common language, religion, ideology, culture, and/or history. They are usually assumed to have a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent." Scotland is not this. It a constituent country of the UK and nothing more: it can not be described as a "group of humans" but is an area of land within the UK. Tphh20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting theory. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't deal with original research. It's readily verifiable that Scotland is referred to as a nation, and that Scottish national identity is discussed in print. Can you suggest a source that agrees with your interpretation? Angus McLellan(Talk)21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The Scottish national identity would be the identity of the Scottish people, not of the Scotland itself. I am yet to find a source denying Scotland's nationhood but sources referring to Scotland only as a constituent country or part of the United Kingdom are readily available: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scotland, http://www.britainusa.com/sections/index_nt1.asp?i=41010&d=12. Besides, this is a matter of accurate use of language and consistency within the encyclopaedia. Would you refer to other formerly independent states that are now part of a larger union, such as Bavaria, Burgundy, Texas or Venice as nations? Tphh13:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. A nation is a group of people and so it is wrong to describe Scotland as such. Have updated page accordingly.--Mgillie09:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Constituent country is completely uncontroversial with no political overtones: it, therefore, complies with the POV policy. Country, whilst technically correct, when used to describe an area of land, implies, in general use, political sovereignty, which Scotland does not have, and the use of country could, therefore, lead to confusion. Nation means a group of people and Scotland is not this either. Furthermore, nation can also imply sovereignty and also lead to confusion. "In modern times the word Scot is applied equally to all inhabitants regardless of their ancestral ethnicity, as the nation has had a civic, rather than an ethnic or linguistic, orientation for most of the last millennium" is, therefore, also nonsensical, as nation implies a single ethinic group. Angus McLellan says that Scotland being referred to as a nation is readily verifiable, but this does not make it correct. Constituent country is, therefore, the only appropriate term. AlexOUK14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Re my above comments of 17.12.06, the Archive summary was created and there are numerous references to this topic. See Talk Archives 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 and 13. Ben MacDui(Talk)18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Having read through the archive, I am still not convinced of the case for calling Scotland a nation. To reiterate, my understanding is that country would be correct but ambiguous and controversial but constituent country is correct, unambiguous and uncontroversial. AlexOUK09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, tricky. The Québécois have recently been recognised as a nation by the Canadian federal government. Québécois specifically refers to the French speaking group of people in Quebec, and their relatives elsewhere, whilst the word Quebeckers refers to all the people of Quebec, including the Québécois. This recognition affirms the Québécois' distinct culture. However, the province of Quebec itself is not a nation: it is an area of land. It is the Québécois who make up the nation. In my opinion, all the Quebeckers together could also be considered a nation, since they also belong to a group of people with some sort of connection. The Scottish people are also a nation, but Scotland itself is not. This is an article about the area of land. Whilst the article may include sections which are really about the people living in Scotland, what is important is that it refers to whatever is happening in Scotland. The Scottish nation is much more difficult to define than the land, and is probably much broader than just the people who happen to be currently living in Scotland. Does it include all people living in Scotland? Does it exclude people who used to live in Scotland, but moved elsewhere? Is it exclusively ethnic Scots? If so, how do you define that? Only people descended from the Picts? The history of Scotland is exclusively the history of the land and the various peoples that have lived there. Once a people leave Scotland, they are not generally relevant to the history of Scotland that follows their departure. For example, people moved from Scotland to Northern Ireland during the plantations. Whilst some may consider them to being part of the broader Scottish nation, after they left, these individuals were no longer creating the history of Scotland, but were now shaping the history of Ireland. The important factor is the location, not the people. You could create an article about the Scots and their history, politics etc. However, this article is primarily about the land – the location, with whoever happens to be living there a side issue. AlexOUK08:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent and thanks for finding the reference and fixing the typo. My only quibble is that the image refers to an issue not mentioned in the text and I believe should be amended to something like "People on Buchanan Street in Glasgow, Scotland's largest city." This is possibly fatal, but I am almost beginning to think we are making progress. Geographical sub-divisions is reduced per the above too. It could now be a sub-division of ‘demographics’ as an alternative. Ben MacDui(Talk)19:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the changes are excellent too. I've updated some of the images- agree that the Buchanan St image was not very good- replaced with a better quality one representing religion. Astrotrain22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thinking aloud my current intention is to try to be methodical and keep going down the page, which brings us back to Transport. A quick glance at the 12 countries with featured status suggests that only 2 have a transport section. In my view the section says next to nothing that an intelligent person would not surmise knowing Scotland to have a 'western' economy. It has but two citations to its name (which is two more than some I admit). On the other hand it says nothing that is inaccurate that I can see. As discussions above resulted in no especially clear consensus I'd say, let's leave it for the time being as I feel confident it is adequate for GA status. If that is saved (still a moot point) it can we worked on further if Featured status remains a goal. Which brings us on to National symbols.
Oh dear. Only one citation and one or two rather dubious claims. Is anyone aware of a useable definition or of any useful conclusions on archived Talk? Ben MacDui(Talk)19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently no one is. wangi suggested (Archive 12) moving the National Symbols section to a separate page. I note that Canada and Pakistan, both featured articles, do so. My suspicion is that most of the emblems are ‘unofficial’ and essentially part of folk history rather than anything than can be easily referenced. Were FA status still desired, I am fairly sure this section would have to go. Retaining the section in its current form did not seem to impinge on Good Article status. The retention of GA was (I imagine) a main purpose of this self-imposed romp through the article, which now ends happily as I notice that without much fanfare this status was ‘kept’ (GA Disputes) earlier this morning. Ben MacDui(Talk)10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Moving National Symbols sounds good. I remember that at the last Peer Review it was criticised for being listy and that it needed to be coverted into prose, and I'm not sure how one would go about that with any degree of success, let alone reference the thing. Another worry is the references section. At the FA review (if this is the general direction we are heading), they are increasingly particular about the way references are laid out, handled, cited and consistent as I have cause to know. The history and politics sections need references too. Globaltraveller11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
FA Status
Happy New Year to all - I think a general congratulation is in order. Firstly, I am aware that there are numerous folk who are quietly doing a fine job in keeping this article free of vandals, uncited edits and heavily POV contributions. Secondly, it has been fairly stable since about 19th December, during which time GA status was maintained.
The idea that Featured Article status should be pursued has been raised several times (see Archives 5, 11, 12). In principle, we are no doubt all in favour, but perhaps it is not so easy. It seems to me that unless an individual is willing to take lead responsibility, the key to a successful effort is likely to be having an agreed strategy. Otherwise we all end up nibbling away at different bits and potentially acting at cross purposes, plus confusing those who are trying to hold the bounds. I think it would be helpful to have comments at this stage on general idea and the 'To Do' list plus the idea of moving national symbols. Ben MacDui(Talk)10:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Rockall
Apparently "if you find you have reverted a page even once in a day it may be a sign there is a problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting always with the article's talk page." (WP:3RR) I confess to having done so and seek the advice of experienced editors. I refer to the addition: "Rockall, a small rocky islet in the North Atlantic which was annexed by the UK in the 1950s and later declared part of Scotland by the Island of Rockall Act 1972." As noted in my first revert this is an apparently unsourced statement. It is also contentious as can be seen from the lengthy entry on the Rockall page itself and indeed on the Talk page. How can this best be resolved without recourse to unseemly squabbling? --Ben MacDui(Talk)19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh good grief. I never said that it was untrue. However, the facts as presented may now be verifiable but they are only a small part of the truth as a quick glance at the Rockall table of contents and lead para suggest e.g. "In 1997, the UK abandoned any claim to an extended EEZ around and beyond it. The remaining issue is that the status of the continental shelf rights of surrounding ocean floor is disputed with the United Kingdom by the Republic of Ireland, Denmark (for the Faroe Islands), and Iceland." Thus, in order to justify any reference to Rockall at all, I would suggest that said reference needs to be at least as long as the entire rest of the discussion of the 'territorial extent of Scotland' as it currently stands. Indeed to do it justice it probably needs to be rather longer. --Ben MacDui(Talk)18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope. That is the beauty of internal wikilinks: you do not need to dot every i and cross every t - the reader can follow any link that interests them and more fully enlighten themselves. --Mais oui!11:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
However, I believe the the wording is misleading, and in fact what is notable about the issue is not that the UK claims a rock, but that the claim is disputed. I will amend accordingly. I am not an authority on these matters, but from what I can gather the claim has no de jure validity whatever. I note Fraser MacDonald's (see citation) concluding remarks: "At this point in the argument, lawyers have blamed geographers and geologists for the wealth of ambiguity that resides in the hitherto uncomplicated term ‘rocks’." In this case the geographer's blame the transport fans. --Ben MacDui(Talk)19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
They only dispute the continental shelf rights around Rockall, and do not claim Rockall itself. The fact that the UK has annexed Rockall and declared it part of Scotland is indisputable. Astrotrain20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
A rare event indeed: I agree with Astrotrain! There is no longer any dispute about the actual rock called Rockall, the dispute is about the waters and seabed around it. --Mais oui!01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's ensure this exciting outbreak of agreement is recorded in the archive summary, when the time comes! I am not in a position to strongly disagree, indeed you may well be right. However my understanding of WP:V is that 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth'. All I can say is that a source or two available suggests the claims are not accepted. If you can come up with credible sources that confirm this I will gladly concede the point. However, comments on the Rockall Talk page imply that the reason there is so little concern about the UK's claim is that it is so absurd, not because the claim is accepted. Waveland, on the other hand, may have a genuine claim. --Ben MacDui(Talk)18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
So, Scotland's claim is "absurd". Tory Island (WGS 84, 55 Degrees 16' 29.9" N, 8 Degrees 15' 03.3" W) is 423.3km/ 263.0 statute miles/228.6 nautical miles from Rockall. Aird An Runair, North Uist (57 Degrees 36' 09.7" N, 7 Degrees 32' 56.4" W) is 367.0km/228.0 statute miles/198.1 nautical miles from Rockall. Within 200 nautical miles.
Sulasgeir01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Fact Box Map
A version of the Fact Box map not displaying the other UK countries in a paler shade of green was being used previously before I changed it to display other UK countries in a paler shade of green too, which is inline with the style of map used in the Fact Boxes of all other UK countries. Can it please be seen to that the Fact Box map style stays inline with all the other UK country Fact Boxes and isn't reverting back to the misleading map which differs from all other UK country Fact Box maps and misguides readers into thinking Scotland isn't in the UK. Somethingoranother23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This issue has come up in the past, indeed the map was changed by K851jg2 from this to the current version purposefully, with the reason "Lightened grey of rest of UK as it was almost indistinguishable from Scotland's green colour". The map you are attempting to replace the current one with makes it very difficult to even see that Scotland isn't the whole of the UK. This article is about Scotland - that is what the end reader is wanting to find out about - for the end reader to have to squint at a map to try and work out a very small difference in two shades of colour is hindering them not helping. The United Kingdom is mentioned in the second line of the article, and countless times in the body - I doubt very much that a reader is ever going to be in any doubt that Scotland is not part of the UK. Ultimately the aim of the infobox map is to graphically say where the country is, not widely detail it's political and cultural relationships. Frankly I would support the other UK info boxes being changed as well, but that is up to the regularly contributing editors on those articles to decide. SFC939423:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the map style used by all other UK countries. If there were they would have changed it too. The map you keep reverting to has purposefully doesn't highlight other UK countries because it is a map intended on representing Scotland as outside of the UK. The map style used by all other UK countries is undisputably more accurate as it displays the country is an area of the UK. Aswell as now that maps of all EU countries show them all as part of the EU it is ridiculous for the map not to show Scotland as part of the UK. The map style not showing Scotland as part of the UK has purposefully been drawn in that way to present Scotland as not being part of the UK. If or when that day happens the map will be correct, until then the map style used by all other UK countries is correct. Somethingoranother23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No, SFC9394 has a valid concern regarding the colours being hard to distinguish between on certain monitors / display settings. Remember not everyone sees the image exactly the same as you do - computer monitors are notoriously badly calibrated. Please think about improving the image by making the contrast between the colours used for Scotland and the rest of the UK higher. This is not a political issue, it is to do with understanding the function of this image on this article - and that is to accurately pick out Scotland. Thanks/wangi23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You're not doing yourself any help by messing around with the original image too - what do you expect people to use for comparison? If you can sort it out so the original is back to the original (what you've just done could be seen as an attempt to get round 3RR) then I'll give it a look tomorrow. Thanks/wangi00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Messing around with the original? You know what the previous one looked like. And how on earth do you mean I'm trying to get around the 3RR? Seems to me and most likely is certain people are trying to keep the map of Scotland showing it as a separate country and so are simply refusing anything which shows Scotland as part of the UK. I would like to remind those that this is Wikipedia and people must abide by NPOV which is not happening on this article so I'm going to report this article and all those who are trying to keep their bias on here by stopping the changes to the Administrators Board unless political bias is removed and the map is changed to display Scotland as part of the UK Somethingoranother00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Somethingoranother, Calm down. I'm unsure why you feel the need to brew up conspiracy theories and tartan clad nationalism. Rather instead please try and take the concerns of others in good faith. I am planning to compare the images tomorrow from another system I use that has much less contrast on the display to see how your new image looks on it. I have reverted your edit to the current image, play fair while discussing the matter (you made three reverts on this article to use the new image, and then changed the image itself to use the colours). Thanks/wangi00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Why will the location map of Scotland in the same style as all other UK location maps simply not be accepted and keeps being reverted to a less easy to understand map which is out of line with all other UK location maps? Somethingoranother22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Scotland should perhaps be coloured blue in line with its cultural history as well as the rest of the UK being highlighted to outline the UK. Somethingoranother22:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Folks may wish to consider the situation with Kosova (or Kosovo), in which various editors argued that neighbouring (or parent-state) Serbia should be shown on the map in a pale green, just as some people want the non-Scottish parts of the UK to be shown. The two countries are in different situations, but for what it is worth, the consensus from editors was that the pale colour was useful. You may wish to delve into the archived talk pages to see the arguments presented, some of which are relevant here. Sorry for the lack of internal link - it appears in several archives, so if you're interested, please just have a browse from the Kosova talk page. – Kieran T(talk)22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes this article's map used to show the rest of the UK in a pale colour but now it shows the rest of the UK in just grey the same as all the other countries shown in the map. I think someone deliberately coloured the rest of the UK grey to make Scotland appear a separate country from the UK. 88.110.171.19801:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Why don't we change this to one similar to that used on France and Germany. The image is bigger and Scotland will be easier to see, rather than some little speck that is hardly distinguishable unless we use a magnifying apparatus. --Bob06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Good thinking Bob. This is also used by the United Kingdom and is much clearer in my view. It is also more consistent with the Europe and Continental Europe maps which link from the lead paras. I like the dark blue idea too, although it might work less well with a coloured map and a light blue sea. --Ben MacDui(Talk)08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Those maps seem to get more flak than the style currently used, for some reason... Anyone know why? I have observed over a number of months new accounts (or IP users) coming in and changing all countries to those style of maps which are then always reverted back... /wangi09:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going along with Bob and Ben MacDui here, on the much clearer and more detailed maps being used. I can't see why not. As for the three choices above, the originial is still the clearest. Globaltraveller15:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I do like the Euro map - since context was what was initially requested it makes perfect sense given Scotland and the UK are part of the EU. Also, the resolution is far higher, which is a plus for any potential redistribution projects people may undertake with the content (print form resolutions etc. etc.). If POV is argued on the EU being highlighted then the exact same argument can be made for the rest of the UK not being highlighted on the Scotland map - food for thought - people can't have it both ways. SFC939420:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the Euro map should be used with the rest of the UK coloured a dark shade and the EU coloured in a lighter shade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.100.23 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I said shading BOTH of them in if you didn't read it properly. The rest of UK a dark shade and the rest of the EU a lighter shade. After all Scotland is more united with the UK than it is with the EU.
We shouldn't have the EU shaded- Scotland is not a member of the EU, and if it were to become independent, it is said that it would not automatically become a member and would have to apply for membership. Astrotrain21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You also changed Image:LocationScotland.png for no apparent reason. Basically people are not going to respect your views if all you do is consistently attempt to change things without discussion. In short few editors will Assume good Faith when all it appears you are trying to do is implement your view of events without any consensus being reached. I would additionally point out for the record the wikipedia policy on Sockpuppetry. SFC939422:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I modified Lucy's version by adding in the world map and making Scotland and the rest of the UK stand out more. This map is used in most European country articles, has better resolution and is easier to make out Scotland. What so people think? --Bob23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The map of Scotland currently being used is old style of map which is not very detailed and just looks a lot worse and makes the article not look as good. The new Europe style of map looks so much better and detailed and really gives the article a good look. Lucy Locket23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Bob could you please change the map from the old crappy style to the one you posted. I think you, me and others will appreciate it. Lucy Locket23:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
(1) It's out dated and most countries aren't using that sort anymore
(2) It's biased against the rest of the UK for not highlighting the rest of the UK to try and make Scotland seem like a separate country outside the UK.
(3) It looks crappy compared to the Europe one and is far less detailed or informative.
The Europe one outshines the one you're bent on 100 fold over. Get over your Scottish nationalist fixation and allow editors to contribute and improve the Scotland article.
Lucy Locket00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for creating such a smorgasbord. It seems to me that the issue is striking an appropriate balance between clarity and information provision. On balance I prefer the style of 4-7 on the latter grounds as it is more detailed. 7 provides greatest clarity, (it is crystal clear where Scotland begins and ends). 4 provides the most information, but at the risk of confusing a visiting Martian who would need to read the text to understand the relationships of Asia and Africa to Europe, Europe to the EU, the EU to the UK and the UK to Scotland. I like 5 & 6 least - they draw they eye to the UK rather than to Scotland. If this idea was being promoted on the England page, a critique could certainly be that it was an attempt to conflate 'England' and the 'UK' and re-inforce rather than eliminate that confusion that already exists in many people's minds on the subject. To put it another way, an intelligent but uninformed reader from a country where European geography is not well understood might easily assume from these maps that 'Scotland' was an island off the coast of Europe (sub-divided into two or three parts) and that the lower half of the second island must therefore be 'England' or Ireland'. Furthermore Scotland is 'part of' the UK, and the EU and Europe, not just the UK and I can't see any obvious reason, other than to emphasise a particular political point of view, to use 5 or 6. On balance I'd prefer to assume Wikipedia is read by humans rather than Martians and go for 4, and if we are using STV my second vote would be for 7. --Ben MacDui(Talk)09:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Y'all: Get over the accusations. Get over yourselves. Let's assume good faith here. I say we use 4 for now. It presents the most information, and it's in line with all the other EU articles. It promotes continuity, and gives the reader a sense that the articles are related somehow. That's good. I also say, however, that we figure out a way to make Scotland either a Deep Blue or a Deep Green, because coloring Scotland red is just wrong. File:Icons-flag-scotland.pngCanænFile:Icons-flag-scotland.png09:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Guys, hopefully you're all aware of a similar discussion going on just now at Talk:United Kingdom#New map: Let's have some open debate. Some interesting points from that discussion that are equally valid here (and some of my own):
The maps purpose is to identify the subject geographically (be that the UK or Scotland), not its position within another body. Additionally, for the UK example it is very strange to have the EU coloured on the map when the EU isn't mentioned in the lead.
There is no key to the maps - what do the colours mean? With one colour it is obvious that it is depicting the article subject, but with other things highlighted you would not know what was being highlighted unless you already knew...
The new map has a very poor projection, with Scandinavia and Iberia vastly disproportionately sized.
The current map is fine it is suppose to show Scotland's position in the world and that is what it does, most countries still use the old maps only some european maps use the new ones. --Barrytalk12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
7 is the best and clearest, and I think that is what we should be aiming for. Of the original maps I agree with Barry abovem that the current one is fine, even if the map itself is more distorted. You do realise though that if we did use #7 it would leave us open to accusations of pro-Labour and anti-Africa bias in this hyper-sensitive political environment that seems to go alongside these simple things. Pro-labour because red is used, and anti-Africa because Africa is not shaded in the same way Europe is ;-) Globaltraveller20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I have noticed there is an aversion towards any map showing Scotland as part of the UK. Why is this? It is both silly and dangerous to the future of the UK to display maps on Wikipedia showing either Scotland, England, Wales, or Northern Ireland as being outside the UK. Many other European countries are made up of unions between other countries yet articles about those countries don't seem to push a separatist POV. With Wikipedia becoming so popular on the internet now I think unless people want to see the future of Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland become like that of the Balkans they should stick to the facts on articles relating to the UK and leave separatist POV behind for the sake of all those who live in the UK.
I myself would like to see a map of Scotland using the Europe style map used on other European countries so people can see where Scotland is in Europe and Scotland coloured blue as a sign of Scottish heritage and the UK shaded a light blue with maybe the EU shaded a light colour too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.215.171 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
The map being red isn't meant to have anything to do with the Labour party and Africa isn't coloured the same colour as Europe because Africa isn't in Europe and the different colouring distinguishes between Europe and Africa.
How can many of you here seriously make a NPOV about this subject when many of you have "I support independence for Scotland" on your user pages? Your POV is a danger to the UK itself what with how popular Wikipedia is now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.189.183 (talk • contribs)
This is becoming ridiculous. Hover your mouse over the map for a moment, what does it say? On my computer it reads “Location of Scotland” not “Political situation of Scotland”. The map is designed to display Scotland’s geographic location and nothing more. If you’re worried about Scotland’s position within the UK being unclear, then why don’t you try improving the actual article? In any case, please stop meddling with a perfectly suitable map. Kanaye01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to do with the map - simply pointing out that in the Facts Box HM is listed as Elizabeth-II; Incorrect of course. The current monarch is Elizabeth-I of Scotland, albeit QE-II of England. Yours aye, exiled Scot (Australia)
Except that there hasn't been a Queen of Scotland (or of England for that matter) since 1707 when both positions were replaced by Queen of the UK, Australia, etc, etc. This is an old chestnut which has been discussed many times before and which the Scottish courts have ruled on. Wikipedia agrees with the court decision. -- Derek Ross | Talk00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are a few facts.
All 27 EU member states use a map in the style of 7, except the UK, which currently resembles 5 without the two tones.
Versions 4&7 have been deleted.
Votes so far (registered users only): No Four, 2 (plus one 2nd vote); No Seven, 1; No change, 2 (plus one 2nd vote).
I would like to vote for 1, 3 or 5. i.e. not 2, which I think is misleading. AlexOUK 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Or how about something along the lines of the maps used by the German Bundeländer? (See Bavaria) AlexOUK15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Fact box map, again
Five is the map being used by all other countries in the UK, just with their own country highlighted. I think we should go with it, lets not make Scotland seem the odd one out. Gavin Scott11:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets not get into all this again... The map you added has a number of very important problems:
The projection is very poor - compare the "size" of Scandinavia and Iberia, is it right?
The sole purpose of the map is to locate Scotland, the two tone shading (other tone for the UK) simply serve to confuse those that the map is there to help - the two tone only help if you already know where Scotland is!
The one I've reverted back to might not be the prettiest, but it's functional and doesn't have the problems above.
I find it significant that a logged-in User turns up here two days after the Scotland article has been semi-protected. This article has been subjected to high and sustained levels of non-static IP vandalism for many months now. And one of the recurring acts of idiocy has been someone repeatedly trying to apply a different map, despite failing to get anything near consensus here at Talk. It must stop. Users must realise that a pattern of IP abuse just seriously pisses everyone else off. Do the honourable thing and log in for all your edits. --Mais oui!13:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Good. I am very pleased indeed to hear it, because somebody out there has been making a complete idiot of themselves with ceaseless IP jumping. There is no way that the editors of this article are going to succumb to bullying. --Mais oui!15:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I am very rarely in this article but the fact that A) Scotland is the only member of the UK with a map which is of a different style from the other ones and B) The map looks like (most likely it is meant to) give the impression that Scotland is independent in someway. Its, silly and really clumsy. Gavin Scott22:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Military of Scotland
Why does this article have a section talking about a military of Scotland? Scotland doesn't have a military of its own as it's not a sovereign state. No other UK article has a military section. Scotland uses the United Kingdom's military for its defence. It's like the article on Florida saying 'The Military of Florida'.
While The U.S. does constitute a Federation of states, very few of the states have ever been sovereign (California, Texas, and Vermont being the exceptions I know of). Scotland, on the other hand is a Nation-State, as well as a constituent country of the UK. The UK is currently responsible for the Defense of all of the home nations/constituent countries, but Scotland has in the past had it's own military, and their are distinctively Scottish units in the British Army. File:Icons-flag-scotland.pngCanænFile:Icons-flag-scotland.png06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Map redux
Somebody tried replacing the map again, this time with the reasoning that it is "outdated because of Serbia and Montenegro". I reverted until that claim can be investigated. If there is a problem with the way the Balkan countries are depicted, it would be better, IMHO, to just crop eastern Europe out of the current map than to replace it altogether.--WilliamThweatt18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The current one can just be cropped if that is a problem. No consensus was reached on using the other map - mainly due to the fact that it was, I personally believe, uploaded for reasons of POV rather than making the article better. SFC939419:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Devolution
I have made an edit to tidy up the first paragraph of the politics section: [2]. This clarifies that Scottish devolution was based on the referendum in Scotland, not a purely a parcel of changes UK wide (i.e. it's the Scotland Act which is important here); links to the related devolution article; and removes general posturing/weaselling/unsourced that "However, it is thought unlikely that any British parliament would unilaterally abolish a home rule parliament and government without consultation via a referendum with the voters of the constituent country.". Thanks/wangi23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The discussion of the etymology seems incomplete and I was curious about the omission. The original Roman name for Ireland was Scotia (Hibernia too, of course). I believe the name Scotia only came to be associated with northern Britain in the Middle Ages and, even then, only as Scotia Minor. This seems an important point. Was that omitted for a reason (i.e. do I have something wrong about the history)?
--Mcorazao22:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is long enough, and the etymology is full of don't knows and maybes. We articles on Scotia and Alba which could more easily be expanded with etymoncruft. So far as I'm aware, Scoti are attested in surviving Roman sources, along with the mysterious Attacotti, but Scotia is not. On the subject of dubious etymologies and origin legends, we do have an article on Scota, but not on Goídel Glas, Simón Brecc, or Cruithne (legendary king). Angus McLellan(Talk)00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion for the etymology section:
==Etymology==
The [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] first uses the [[Old English]] word ''Scotland'' in the 10th century. This was derived from the [[Latin]] ''[[Scoti]]'', of uncertain origin, applied to [[Gaels]]. The [[Late Latin]] word ''[[Scotia]]''—land of the Gaels—was eventually used only of Gaelic-speaking Scotland. This name was employed alongside ''Albania'', from the Gaelic ''[[Alba]]''. This had originally meant Britain, but was later restricted to the same Gaelic-speaking regions as ''Scotia''. The use of the words Scots and Scotland to encompass all of modern Scotland became common only in the [[Scotland in the Late Middle Ages|Late Middle Ages]]. Medieval [[origin myths]] derived Scotland's name from the [[Egypt]]ian princess [[Scota]], mother of [[Goídel Glas]], [[eponym]]ous ancestor of the Gaels.
Sorry you've not gotten any feedback on this. That is a much better etymology section than the current one, plus it is concise. You should add it, optionally retaining "In modern times the word Scot is applied equally to all inhabitants regardless of their ancestral ethnicity". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You may find it of interest that Snyder's The Britons p. 69 (See Notes section for book info) says "the Irish were involved in both trading with and raiding late Roman Britain. Though usually called Hibernii by Greek and Latin authors, the Irish who began raiding Britain in the fourth century were called Scoti (also Scotti).... Scoti may derive from an Irish verb "to raid", and of course raiding (of cattle and slaves) was endemic in early Irish society. But the Irish also came to Britain as colonists. Their most lasting settlement, in Argyll, came to be known as Scotia, or 'Scot-land.' For some reason, medieval Latin scholars continued to use the term Scoti to describe Irish living in both Ireland and Scotland." .. dave souza, talk09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC) amended 10:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Etymology section could be very complicated, esp. if one were to have a line or two about every theory involved. I mean, what does "etymology of Scotland" mean? Etymology of the word Scotland, or the concept itself? If the emerging belief that Alba itself is just the Gaelic and/or Pictish word for Pictland is correct, then how relevant is the term Scotland itself, or even Scotia, since these are exonyms only employed in translation, then by this mechanism taken into English? Discussion of the origin of the latin stem Scot- is best avoided; it could come from the Old Irish world for boatmen, or from some obscure British word, or from some Roman slang word if it was first actually employed by Roman soldiers on the northern frontier. No-one knows; and when no-one knows, theories are just theories; just let it be is my advice. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
While the origin is vague, the usage of Scoti for both Irish and Dalriadans appears well attested. Either way, the section should cite sources. .. dave souza, talk10:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Official language
Actually, how many offical languages are there in Scotland? From this article, it states English, Gaelic and Scots are all official languages. However, when I check its notes, it seems that only English and Gaelic are the official languages. Which one is true? Is Scots an official language in Scotland? From the information I found, it seems that it is not. Salt08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I see. However, as there is no any official language as such in Scotland, should we mention it clearly in the article? For me, the article seems to imply that there is an authourity stating that English, Gaelic and Scots are all official languages. Salt03:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Ive checked the archived bit on the Scots language and there doesnt seem to be any justification whatsoever for its inclusion as an "Official" language. Recognition by the European Union's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages doesnt make a language official and nor does it being spoken by a section of the population. Is there any actually genuine justification for Scots being included as an "Official" language? siarach12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Since Scotland doesn't have an official language at all, then it would be entirely arbitrary which languages are put in the official language box. Whether it's just English (since it is the only one which is used consistently by government bodies) or English and Gaelic (since Gaelic has been awarded "equal standing" to English) or all three (since they are all recognised as languages of Scotland by the EU). Due to this complexity I would suggest that the box be re-named just "Languages". Scroggie15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Ive tried to change "Official languages" to just "Languages" and reinsert Scots in the infobox but when i try the languages section just disappears. Could someone with a proper understanding of how these things work do it? siarach16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The {{Infobox Country}} is used by other articles so changing it wouldn't be on but would creating a near duplicate box calling it, say, {{Infobox Country(Scotland)}} cause any problems? --Bill Reid | Talk17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it would! We had our own infobox until a few months ago (I created it), but, unknown to me at the time, it is strictly forbidden to have a template that only applies to one article: TFD automatically deletes all it finds.
On the substantive point, I think Scots should be restored because it is officially recognised, by treaty, by the UK government as being an indigenous regional or minority language. --Mais oui!18:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think thats pretty far removed from what most people would understand to be an "Official language". Also by the same rule Cornish should be treated as an official language of England, or since there is no English polity, the UK generally and Romany language would be seen as an official language of Germany and Yiddish in Holland and so on so forth. Being recognised by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages simply cannot be seen as rendering anything like an official status upon listed languages. siarach19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The exact same could be said about the inclusion of Gaelic despite the fact that 1% of the population speak it (and not all of them on a daily basis). SFC939419:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No it could not. Geographical spread of the language and proportion of speaking population are both irrelevant to this topic. What is relevant is state recognition. Gaelic has some official recognition while Scots has none. siarach20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yet you have conceded (above) that it does, at an EU level. You can't pick and choose recognitions, taking UK/Scottish but ignoring EU. If the Scottish Parliament goes to the extent of having an entire official website in Scots then they are happy to accept that it exists. SFC939420:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes i can. This EU recognition of Scots as a minority language has absolutely nothing to do with it being "Official" or not in Scotland. The Scottish parliament recognises Gaelic officially to an extent, they do not recognise Scots in the same manner. The fact that the EU, or the Scottish executive, recognises its existence does not by any stretch of the imagination make it anything approaching an official language anymore than does the Charter confer Official status upon the various other minority languages listed. As ive already pointed out to apply the same rule you propose for recognises Scots as "Official" to all the other recognised minority languages would result in absolute ridicule - Cornish as Official in the UK, Romany in Germany etc. siarach20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
So the Scottish Parliament "to an extent" recognising Gaelic makes is completely valid yet the Scottish Executive and the European Union recognising Scots to an extent makes it completely invalid? Double standards - plain and simple. SFC939420:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Im afraid not. The former has a degree of official recognition, the latter does not. An argument can be made for the inclusion of Gaelic as "Official". No argument whatsoever can be made for the inclusion of Scots. When/If Scots recieves the same recognition as Gaelic or English then it could be considered official in some sensible sense rather than the tenuous almost beyond belief (indeed simply invalid) dependence upon the Charter for Minority languages for some kind of bizarre supposedly "Official" recognition which flies in the face of what you would find on any other wikipedia article for a nation affected by it. Feel free to edit every listed language on the charter into the "Official languages" sections of their respective nations and see what reaction you get. siarach20:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"Im afraid not." - That's your interpretation - I have just provided one which questions it.
“
Feel free to edit every listed language on the charter into the "Official languages" sections of their respective nations and see what reaction you get.
”
That was done at Selkirk wasn't it? An "official" language, as you claim, was added and resulted in a never-ending vandal edit war - which you now appear to have conceded defeat in. If Gaelic is an "Official" language as you claim then surely there is no question of whether it should be included on the Selkirk page? Presumably? Or does such a situation undercut the very point you have attempted to make? SFC939421:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you my interpreation is in alignment with that of the orthodox view of the issue and hence of the seeming majority of editors who do not award "Official language" status to languages based on the simple recognition of their existence within the relevant nation while yours is not. Selkirk isnt relevant and nor is your question regarding it - and even if your question was relevant it would not undercut the point i have made. Whether or not all placenames should have their equivalent (if existing) versions presented in each official languages is a seperate issue and not connected to this one which is simply whether or not Scots has been awarded anything like "official language" satus which it has not. Il invite you to provide some kind of evidence that Scots is recognised in an genuine official capacity - obviously be genuine i mean evidence/an argument which would not be recieved with absolute ridicule where it to be used for the minority languages generally. siarach21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"Il (sic) invite you to provide some kind of evidence that Scots is recognised in an genuine official capacity" - Evidence has been provided above by other editors - you are simply setting a discriminating (and I use that in a scientific sense not ethnic) bar which keeps Gaelic and cuts Scots. My points on Selkirk were absolutely valid. If it is an official language of Scotland - recognised at some vast level above and beyond doubt then why isn't it in the infobox? It seems perfectly clear to me how this lies, and I would point out that if a proper rounded view on things were taken you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree that a language spoken by 50,000 people in a popoluation of 5 million should be given status above a language spoken everyday by millions "would not be recieved (sic) with absolute ridicule". What are we producing, an encyclopaedia or a selective list of unrepresentative factoids? The NPOV policy text on Undue weight should be read carefully - it strikes me that is absolutely what we have here. Goodnight and goodbye. SFC939421:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
"Evidence" which, as already pointed out several times, would be disregarded completely and the reasoning behind it with ridicule where it applied to all related languages. Gaelic is there because it has been recognised by the Scottish executive - Scots has not. The double standards here are entirely on your part. Your points on Selkirk were totally irrelevant. "If it is an official language of Scotland...why isnt it in the infobox?" - err because its been edited out, thats why. The rest of your post is again irrelevant for reasons already provided. Tocharian could become an official language of Scotland despite the fact its never been spoken if it was recognised as an official language by the Executive. This is a matter of recognition not of number of speakers or geographical spread. Your second to last sentence is valid and should be taken to heart by yourself. If i am POV on this issue then (seeing as im taking the orthodox position) so are most editors connected to all the nations within the Charter who so wickedly deny the likes of Yiddish and Romany their (According to you) rightful place as "Official" languages of the Netherlands and Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Montenegro, Slovenia, Slovakia, Serbia and the Netherlands respectively (to name but two examples). As for a proper rounded view this is precisely what i have taken and it is in contrast to your inconsistent and barely supported POV that Scots has somehow been recognised as an Official Language of Scotland - a conclusion requiring a very determined interpretation of a very tenuous line of reasoning totally inconsistent with what is to be found in similar "nation" articles. siarach21:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I think the point is well made on the official language page of Wikipedia:
"Officially recognised minority languages are often mistaken for official languages. However, a language officially recognized by a state, taught in schools, and used in official communication is not necessarily an official language. For example, Ladin and Sardinian in Italy and Mirandese in Portugal are only officially recognised minority languages, not official languages in the strict sense."
Official recognition by a state that a language exists within its borders does not constitute what is commonly understood to be an official language. Indeed, I think it's rather obvious consider the issue in the United States over official languages. Scots does not in any way meet the barrier for such a definition. Well there's my two cents anyway.--Breadandcheese04:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
On another note: if we included Scots, we'd have to include British Sign Language. From Hansard (18 March 2003 here "Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government recognise that British Sign Language (BSL) is a language in its own right"
Everyone is doing a great job of keeping the recent vandalism under control on this article. Thanks! Even so, I'm inclined to semi-protect it so as to stop editing by anonymous or newly created editors. This will have no effect on any editor whose account is more than a few days old but should cut out a lot of the "drive-by" vandalism which the article has been suffering from lately. Does anybody have any objections ? If so let's hear them. I can still be persuaded to change my mind if I hear something that I haven't already considered or if there's a lot of support for an unprotected article, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not particularly bothered by all the blatant, drive-by vandalism by IPs. As you say, we all have that nonsense well under control.
However, what does piss me off somewhat is when brand-new Users suddenly start making mega-changes to the article, usually (for some reason) the History section. A bad example occurred near the end of last year (Oct/Nov?) when a newbie, who couldn't even spell or write cogently, suddenly rewrote nearly the whole History section. It was not "vandalism" because the edits were pretty obviously in good faith, but it was, over a 2-3 week period, highly disruptive, and I think that the History section is still a bit of a mess since then.
I do not think that that is grounds for semi-protection, but I just wanted to have a wee moan ;)
How do you go about telling newbies that their writing skills are truly appalling, without hurting their feelings? -- Mais oui!23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as the semi-protection goes, I don't think things are that bad either. As for Mais oui!'s other point, perhaps candid criticism is kindest in the long run. If you can't stand criticism, Wikipedia is not for you. New editors may as well find that out sooner rather than later. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Derek Ross. The work being done to keep the article vandal-free is fantastic - and perhaps for some of us is even enjoyable. However of the hundreds of anon IP edits over the past few months, the 1 or 2% that have not been reverted have been minor tweaks. Perhaps the advantages of this situation is that anyone familiar with the page will know that weak edits are likely to be a waste of time and that because the page is so vulnerable lots of people watch it, and that this in turn creates a sense of common purpose. I have to say I have no previous experience of the difference, but I'd certainly support it as an experiment - it might even result in greater enthusiasm for improving the article! Ben MacDui(Talk)08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There can certainly be a case for semi-protection for a while to give defendants a rest, though Wikipedia:Protection policy doesn't seem to encourage it except for very heavy vandalism. From the history of the last couple of days this page seems to be getting a bit less vandalism than Charles Darwin which has been semi-protected at times, but not for a while now. However, it seems to work pretty well if the effort is put in to put WP:VAND tags on user pages of the culprits, and check their User contributions link to see if they've been up to other mischief – the more vandalism, the sooner they get blocked. Taking the point Mais makes, Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table has a couple of templates for problem users, and there may be other templates or these could be adapted to suit. .. dave souza, talk11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: Charles Darwin has been semi-protected since 21 March, and it must be said that it's a lot quieter these days. The "sprotected2" adds a nice wee padlock symbol instead of the ugly banner, so that's not so bad. .. dave souza, talk14:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
As there seems to be no end to the idiocy, perhaps we should re-consider semi-protect? At least for a week or two? --Mais oui!09:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
<unindent> Certainly reconsider, but looking over the edits on 5 April there were only two anon edits, one of which was a minor test, and the other clearly vandalism. In neither case were any warnings added to the anon's user talk page. The best way of dealing with vandals is to follow the steps shown at Wikipedia:Vandalism, including adding a template message to their talk page and ideally clicking on the "User contributions" link in the toolbox to the left on their talk page to see what other mischief they may have been up to. The second anon is now warned of a block for any more nonsense, but I can't do all the warnings myself and must get back to the Ancient B's / Picts. Orrabest, .. dave souza, talk09:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've no idea. The original statement (Ben MacDui's?) said "Despite various claims to the contrary no Roman forts are known to have been constructed to the north of the Highland Line"; I only changed that to "No Roman forts are known to have been constructed beyond the Highland Line"; the statement was referenced by the person who made it (or afterwards), but I don't have that book to check the reference. The author posibly meant "beyond the Gask Ridge". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not absolutely sure, but from reading our article, it would appear that the Gask Ridge pretty much sits on the Boundary Fault, or perhaps slightly to the south? (Dunkeld is south of the fault, just, isn't it?)-- Mais oui!13:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have visited the sites of a few of them and can confirm that they are in the rolling strathland just south of the hills proper. I doubt that any of them are north of the Highland Line. -- Derek Ross | Talk15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's informative. For folks like me who are rather vague about where the line is, would it be possible to rephrase the sentence something like this:
While Roman forts were briefly set along the Gask Ridge close to the Highland Line, none are known to have been constructed beyond that line.
The above sentence is fine as an alternative. Not sure why Calgacus removed "never extended to more than half the land mass". Hanson concludes: "For many years it has been almost axiomatic... that the Roman conquest must have had some major... impact on Scotland. On present evidence this cannot be substantiated, either in terms of environment, economy , or indeed society." It's only one source of course. Just noticed that one of my original sources has been removed in this medley of edits. Will return to fix later. Ben MacDui(Talk)18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hanson's arguments are not historical consensus I should let you know. Most historians think the Romans had a great impact on Scotland. Read Peter Heather, for instance. Northern Britain clearly follows Heather's model; that is, of a series of small buffer states on the immediate frontier liable to constant military and political intervention, and one or many large states beyond them. The Romans are thus the most likely reason the Picts developed a large state, both as a response to their aggression and also their unification of Britain, which created plundering opportunities most readily exploited by larger scale organization. This is why there is a Pictland, but not an Ireland. The Romans, thus, can be argued to have created Scotland. PS, I removed that statement (don't know anything 'bout your source) because it was unnecessarily and dangerously specific. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)18:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Snyder suggests the Romans created a British identity in what had previously been tribes without a shared identity, though with related dialects of a more or less common language. It's possible that this identity then created the perception of the (probably) similarly Brythonic Picts as outsiders. .. dave souza, talk22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that Hanson's position is a re-interpretation - his remarks quoted above highlight this. However, I think his views are interesting. The Romans may well 'have created Scotland' indirectly although their influence over most of what is now Scotland was probably less than is sometimes supposed. Ben MacDui(Talk)11:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC) PS 'Dangerously specific'? Surely 'commendably specific, if somewhat controversial'?
"Fir Alban" and the "men of Scotland".
As a translation of Fir Alban, men of Scotland seems very retrospective. For the time of the Picts, men of Britain or men of Alba might be more accurate and less misleading. Laurel Bush18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
I kinda agree with you, though I'm personally sceptical about how relevant "men of britain" (as opposed to a part of Britain) was in the 9th or 10th century. The idea that Alba is simply Pictland is kinda new, and may end up being controversial (though I've seen enough literary and placename evidence to be certain). Best to translate as "men of Alba". The problem lies in the Braflung Scoine tale, Cináed mac Ailpín's (entirely "Pictish" name note) legendary annihilation of the Picts, which means "Scotland" and "Pictland" are wrongly seen as different concepts (which they are I supppose in a retrospective sense); hence our language is burdened with mutually exclusive terminology that renders it almost impossible to do justice to the true nature of historic Scottish identity. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ)18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
"Scots" language
There are several references to the "Scots" language in the article, most notable the claim that the Latin motto: Nemo me impune lacessit
translates into Scots as: Wha daur meddle wi me?.
Is this meant to be a joke? Besides the fact that these so-called "translations" only loosely follow the original text, there is the fact that Scots is not a proper language. Scots, or Inglis, is a term used to describe the mixture of English and Gaelic spoken by people in medieval Scotland (pure Gaelic was also widely spoken, and a variant of French was common amongst the nobility). In modern times, the term "Scots" is used to refer to the various dialects of Scottish English speakers. There are many different dialects in Scotland, and these vary vastly from one another. The phrase: Wha daur meddle wi me?
appears to be written in a way that was common in Medieval Scotland, and is no longer spoken in any part of Scotland. And although Scots is spoken, it is extremely rarely written. Even Scots who speak with very strong accents write in Standard English. Most "Scots" words are simply different pronounciations of English words. There are some words, for example "aye" (meaning "yes") which are uniquely Scottish, but these words cannot be considered as belonging to another language because they only exist as a part of a dialect of English. The promotion of "Scots" as a language is part of a desire to strengthen Scotland's identity which has taken off post-devolution (especially amongst those who wish to see a fully independant Scotland). But the "Scots" language is NOT a proper language, and most of the "Scots translations" appear jesting, if not mildly derogatory to Scotland and its population. I feel that these Scots translations should be removed from the page. Please reply with your comments. - R160K23:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
All very interesting, however it does leave the question of what the compilers of the Dictionary of the Scots Language and the like are up to, and what it was the Christopher Murray Grieve, William Laughton Lorimer, and Alexander Gray, among others, were writing in. Any language is an essentially arbitrary construct, represented in reality by a whole continuum of dialects, and deciding whether Scots is a language or a dialect is largely a matter of taste. As for the claim that the Scots language movement is in some way related to modern political developments, it would a stretch to see the 1930s, when the dictionaries were begun, and the three gentlemen in question were alive and well, as being an era when devolution or independence were significant political questions. Angus McLellan(Talk)00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear R160K - if you have not already done so please take a look at the Archive Summary and Archive #13 where this subject was covered in detail. Whether or not it is appropriate here, the phrase 'Wha daur meddle wi me?' is commonly used. Ben MacDui(Talk)09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with R160K. Scots is not considered a language in the same way as Gaelic and it is never used officially. Astrotrain09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the lead section appears to be asserting unreferenced claims and using weasel words....
... when the Acts of Union (despite widespread protest across Scotland)... (source please)
...The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have been the three cornerstones contributing to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union.... (have they? who says? how much so? was this their intention? why do they? - sources please).
Also, Scotland is country not a nation - a nation is a group of people, a country is a division of land. Jhamez8405:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
First one is no problem - Magnussons History of Scotland happily covers it, thought I will not be able to get a page number ref for a couple of weeks (though I am sure plenty of other books cover it in detail as well) - there were full scale riots in Edinburgh, the signing of the act was a shambles, undertaken by MP's, if my memory serves, in a small room in what is now Edinburgh University buildings as they fled a baying mob. Protests across the rest of Scotland were also happening - the act of union wasn't popular.
The second one is even less of a problem, Tam Devines book, which I am currently reading, covers this in plenty of detail and ref's are not a problem. As for the country/nation - plenty of sources, including governmental ones, refer to it as such - the past debates on this exist in the talk page archives. SFC939409:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This is very good to hear! I'm sure these comments are true, but attributation of sources needs to be satisfied, which would only improve the integrity of article anyway. I would ask if it is necessary to include the riots in the lead as it seems to be quite a new addition to the article? - Yes I know it was (is) contentious, but if it was that contentious it wouldn't have happened surely. This kind of stuff against Unionism needs to be spot on to stop accusations coming up again and again from other editors; a point of interest is the United States had two wars regarding Unionism, but doesn't mention this in the lead.
Re endless nation/country debate - as suggested above see also Talk Archive: "After considerable discussion there is an informal consensus amongst Scottish Wikipedians that Scotland is a nation and a country, although clearly not a sovreign nation state. See Archives 1, 2 (twice) 3, 6, 11 (twice), and 13." I have added a couple of refs re the Act of Union. Citations in the article are improved over the past few months but by no means up-to-scratch as the To Do list suggests. Etymologists, historians etc., please take note. (A pertinent question might be why issues raised in the lead are not mentioned in the corresponding section of the article - another history 'to do'.) The three cornerstones issue is a 'well known fact' - I have put in a rather weak website reference as I don't have a better one to hand. Perhaps SFC9394 might oblige? Ben MacDui(Talk)19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I shall scan through the last 100 or so pages that I have read (where it came up numerous times) and provide a couple of quotes and references at some point this weekend. SFC939420:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sources added - for point 1 a more extensive quote is provided below from the source:
“
In Edinburgh, The Duke of Hamilton, the recognized leader of the parliamentary opposition against the union, was cheered to the echo by the crowds who then attacked the house of Sir Patrick Johnstone, a strong union supporter. The Duke of Queensbury, the Queens Commissioner, needed a military escort to Parliamentary House. From that point on anti-union demonstrations were common in the capital. In November rioting spread to the south west, that stranglehold of strict Calvinism and covenanting tradition. The Glasgow mob rose against union sympathisers in disturbances which lasted intermittently for over a month, while in the burgh of Dumfries the proposed articles of union were ritually burnt before an angry gathering of several thousand townspeople. It was also rumoured that plans were being laid for an armed uprising.
”
For point 2, fuller quote reads as:
“
The Scottish Board of Supervision ran the Poor Law from 1845 and the Prison Board was set up in 1838. These two were followed in due course by others, for public health, lunatic asylums (1857) and education (1872). Scots lawyers staffed this new bureaucracy and its inspectors were Scots doctors, surveyors and architects. The Scottish Burgh reform act of 1833 vested the management of the towns in the broad middle class. It was a crucial piece of legislation which, taken together with the administrative revolution mentioned above created a new and powerful local state run by the Scottish bourgeoisie and reflecting their political and religious values. It was this local state, rather than a distant and usually indifferent Westminster authority, that in effect routinely governed Scotland.
”
I have added only a cut version of these quotes to the article ref.s as I don't know what the sensible limit on an extract is before it becomes too much. To take an ironic run on point three;, the book is called "The Scottish Nation 1700-2000", and it isn't a nationalists guide book either, having recommendation quotes on it from Gordon Brown and the late Donald Dewar. SFC939418:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that this paragraph is under discussion, because the reference quotes above don't justify the inclusion of the line in parenthesis following: "The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent state until 1 May 1707, when the Acts of Union (despite widespread protest across Scotland)". A more apt revision may be: (despite protest in the capital and other areas), a month of protests in three geographical locations is not widespread protest across a whole country. Johnskitt17:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Infobox flag straw poll
Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez8411:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Removal of 'Etymology' section
Angus removed the etymology section. We have had it for quite a long time now, although it was rewritten very recently. I just wondered why, and if other countries' articles have such a section? Can we benchmark and see what other articles are doing? I have long thought that the etmology of the words Scot and Scotland deserve their own article, together with the numerous other names that Scotland has, or has had. --Mais oui!19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Great idea. We tried to do something like that with Britain, but there were so many people with hidden (or not-so-hidden) agendas trying to see "British Isles" etc defined according to their political views that ultimately the thing was scrapped. Shame! But for Scotland it should work - the names are not controversial, just interesting. --Doric Loon20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
But also quite long, and adding references will make it longer. Or have we given up on the idea of slimming the article down? Is 2-3k of etymology a good use of limited space? Angus McLellan(Talk)20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a short etymology section is fine, and would enjoy an article on the subject, but sections without references are a hindrance to any serious attempt to improve the Scotland article. Ben MacDui(Talk)21:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I think too that there should be a small etymology section, although the original one seemed fair enough as it was. If we want to cut down on size, getting rid of, or slimming down National Symbols would be good. Certainly it should be converted to prose, rather than just being a list - but I wouldn't know where to start with that. Globaltraveller16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
While you are there, please feel free to sign up as a member of the WikiProject, or just give it a "Watch". Ta. --Mais oui!09:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Coat of arms revisted
As we have discussed in the past: England's royal arms are (more or less) gules, three lions passant guardant or; Scotland's or, within a border flory counter-flory gules a lion rampant of the last, and so forth. That these arms are no longer used on their own doesn't mean they no longer exist. Doops | talk18:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't care deeply about this issue but I really wish the two of you would stop back-and-forthing on the article about it. Argue it out here instead please. --Guinnog19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Evening.... My point is that the shield on its own does not constitute a "Coat of Arms" in the Heraldic sense. (See wiki page on "Heraldry"). The 'Royal Coat of Arms as used in Scotland' are the only 'contemporary' arms associated with Scotland. (That being the constituent country of the UK). If you insist on only displaying the shield then
a) It should be that quartered with the harp of Ireland and three lions of England in the style of the 'Royal Arms used in Scotland'.
b) It should not be described as a "Coat of Arms".
The 'Country' has not had a Coat of Arms since Cromwell's Republic. Prior to and since then the arms have been those of the Monarchy, in whichever style they themselves have seen fit to display. (The same applies to their style of title - hence current Queen is not 'Elizabeth I & II'). To display the shield from the 1603 Coat of Arms of the King of Scots on the "modern" Scotland page is misleading. (That image should be left to the wiki page 'Kingdom of Scotland', where you will find the full achievement of that style of arms is displayed). Whether some contributors like it or not, Scotland exists as part of the UK. (For now anyway). The correct symbols to attach to this article are those of the UK which apply specifically to Scotland and not, (IMHO), those of a Kingdom which ceased to exist some 300 or 400 years ago, depending upon which year you wish to start the ball rolling on that score. (As for England - not my field. Others can argue).
I Can only sugggest an e-mail to the Lyon Court might resolve this issue, if someone care to do so. "Guinnog" - Moderate, please! Yours aye Rab-k20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please do read up on the archives; we've been through it all in depth before. You make three broad points, Rab-k; I'll respond to them each in turn:
The meaning of "arms" and "coat of arms": we all know what "shield" or "escutcheon" means; we all know what "full achievement" means. What about 'arms' or 'coat of arms'? These are shorthand terms sometimes used to refer to a full achievement, sometimes used alongside a mere shield. It's excessive finckiness to try to forbid the word "arms" or to try to limit it to one or the other of these two meanings — an excessive finickiness which often characterizes the zealous amateur more than the professional. (The officers of arms use the word 'arms' informally all the time, which I can document if needs be.)
"Arms" of a country: Where a monarchy is concerned, there really is no meaningful distinction between the arms of a country and the royal arms of its monarch. These arms are the monarch's by right; but they are his/hers by right of being monarch. That's why, for example, they are adopted by conquerors who win the throne in battle; that's why they pass to a female monarch's son unmarshalled by the paternal arms (which are dropped). Throughout the wikipedia, no distinction is made in infoboxes between the royal arms of a monarchy and the so-called 'national' arms of a republic.
UK arms vs. Scottish arms: This is an article on Scotland. We display the Scottish saltire rather than the UK Union Flag. Displaying the United Kingdom arms wouldn't really make any sense. That's a non-option. But the question is: can we display the Scottish arms? Somebody might suggest that they no longer exist; that's simply false — of course they still exist; the queen and her government use them every day. They just don't use them ALONE; they form one (or, north of the border, two) quadrant(s) of the UK arms. But although always displayed along with English and Irish arms, they still are Scottish arms; the Royal Arms can still be blazoned in shorthand "Quarterly I & IV Scotland II England III Ireland" in Scotland (and similarly, mutatis mutandis, elsewhere). I submit that it's OK to use the Royal Arms of Scotland.
All that said, though, I would be open to changing the label beneath the arms to something like "Royal arms of Scotland (ancient)" or something like that if that's what it takes to achieve compromise. Cheers, Doops | talk20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
No need to compromise. As a "zealous amateur", rather than a "professional", both I and my ego should know that we're way out of our respective depths being in here. I'll be happy to drop an e-mail to the Lyon Court and leave it at that, just for my own albeit "amateur" piece of mind you understand. "Guinnog" - Don't protect the page on my account...80.41.242.3721:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Just to be clear, I make no claim of being "professional" myself; I am purely an "amateur" — an honourable term and one I certainly did not intend to be a slight. Cheers, Doops | talk21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
We're pretty much all amateurs here. I'll be happy to unprotect when all parties to the edit war have a consensus they and we can live with. --Guinnog21:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please unprotect (or at least reduce to semi-protect, which is probably a good idea considering the vast quantity of IP vandalism we have to deal with every day). It is only one (very new) editor who is pushing this, plus an IP address jumper. The known and respected contributors to this article have held the consensus reached in 2005. Edit warriors, especially if they are very obviously being backed up by single-edit IP accounts, must simply be reverted. --Mais oui!06:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Tried to remove some content from education as requested above, however finding it hard as the section had no mention of nursery or primary at all.
Removed this statement. ItIt has no source, and has been tagged since February - As a result, for over two hundred years Scotland had a higher percentage of its population educated at primary, secondary and tertiary levels than any other country in Europe.[citation needed]
You'd have been better employed in looking for a citation yourself than in deleting the statement. It is actually true. Scotland's lead in education was only diminished when other European nations (starting with Prussia in the 1870s) began to introduce national education schemes of their own. -- Derek Ross | Talk06:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Bill Bryson, for what he's worth, Scotland still puts a higher percentage of its population through higher education than any country in Europe. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Politics
Due to the recent election, the Politics section of the article is not correct. Would it be best to alter it now, or to wait until decisions such as who the new First Minister will be have been made? pcfreakshow14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Tony Blair as "Prime Minister"
Scotland doesn't have a Prime Minister (TB's PM of the UK), I think this part should either be removed or corrected to reflect this.
Malcovitch
200.83.12.20022:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. On US states, Canadian provinces, etc, they have the people responsible for the individual states/provinces - i.e. governors, l-govs, senators, first minister equivalents, not the PMs or PM equivalents of the larger political unit. The PM of the UK is the PM of the UK, he has no particularly defined responsibility to Scotland. Totally misleading to have him there. Scotland is not (atm at least) a sovereign state with Tony Blair as head in addition to his responsibilities for the UK. That's how it makes it look. Scotland has a First Minister, a deputy First Minister, and a Secretary of State, the last of whom the PM is the governmental overlord. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Scotland is not like a canadian province or US state it has two Governments one for the UK of which the PM is leader and a devolved one of which the FM is leader the Scottish sec is a part time job, also the Queen is not the Queen of Scotland yet she is included in the infobox --BarryobVigeur de dessus14:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to point out that the root of all this trouble is a procrustian attempt to fit things into the infobox. Why should we let the infobox run our lives? It serves us, not the reverse. Doops | talk07:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm... This article is still a long way from being ready for FA. When it was Peer reviewed we almost totally ignored the many (good) recommendations they gave us!! That FA nom was plain daft.
Until someone takes charge, and really drives this article forward (as User:Globaltraveller has done with several articles, including 2 FAs) then we are going nowhere. As far as I can see, the vandals are winning this particular battle: this article has been so heavily vandalised over recent months that I think it has put off serious editors.
Every single time I raise the FA issue here at Talk the silence is deafening. I am beginning to think that we are all quite happy to have a mediocre Scotland article. That is a real shame, as I know that there is a large corp of talented editors who are very interested in Scotland-related material. --Mais oui!18:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
My enthusiasm for improving the article has increased since the semi-protection. Without it, just watching it is a headache never mind attempting to add anything of value. I am v. busy right now but will attempt a few continuing improvements as time permits. Ben MacDui(Talk)07:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not only a lack of citations in the article itself but the main article redirects are, with a few notable exceptions, unsourced. If the Scotland article is to be a meaningful summary of the other main articles then these have to be tackled also. --Bill Reid | Talk08:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You have hit the nail on the head there!!
Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland is only in its infancy, and we have not even begun to explore the possibilities. However, one thing has become crystal clear to me over the last few months as I have helped in some of the assessments: most 'top-level' Scotland-related material here at Wikipedia is of a dire quality, and largely unsourced (that is not a coincidence). By 'top-level' I mean all the articles titled "X of Scotland" or "Scottish X".
Of course exceptions do exist, eg. the good Economy of Scotland, but generally speaking these keystone articles are real crap. My personal pet-hates are the articles on Scottish culture and Scottish people.
Billreid is right: until we knock some of these cornerstone articles into shape we are fighting a losing battle here at the main Scotland article, because this article should be resting on a solid foundation of good sub-articles (really just summarising what is in the subs).
To illustrate my point, please peruse these logs, especially the first one:
(Please do not misunderstand me: a lot of Scotland-related content is wonderful, but just not the 'top-level' stuff.) --Mais oui!10:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't know how endemic this is in general terms, but the number of edits to Scottish islands which actually provide references is quite small. I usually put a {fact} tag on them and delete them after a month or two if a reference isn't provided. I am hoping to get the time to have a bash at improving Geology of Scotland, but it won't be soon I'm afraid. Ben MacDui(Talk)17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Picture of Scota & Godiel Glas
Can we just get rid of the damned thing? It's superfluous, something no one takes seriously anymore, if they even hear about it, and it just takes up space that we don't really have because of the infobox. Especially considering all the other space lower in the article we could use images in! Honestly, why is it there? File:Icons-flag-scotland.pngCanænFile:Icons-flag-scotland.png06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Scottish Gaelic isn't currently an offical language, the link provided ([3]) aims to try to secure the language and come up with a proposal to make the language offical, that isn't true yet, though in certain parts of the country i.e. the Western Isles it is already an official language.
With regards to Scots, it is a dialect of English, and therefore shouldn't be mentioned, the USA, Australia and New Zealand articles have an official language of "English" even though their language is far more different from "England English" than Scots is. Eraserhead119:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Scots is a very different dialect of English, with words that aren't remotely connected to English words. See a Scottish Wikipedia article for examples (okay, a lot of that is dialect spellings, but words like 'glaikit', 'scunner', 'mappy', 'dreich', and many more aren't English words at all). I'd argue that it should be listed (EDIT: However, I do think your point is of utmost importance, and needs a much wider consensus). Also, I may be misunderstanding the act, but here's how I see it: the act makes Gaelic an official language, and to ensure that it is secure in this position, it creates an organisation to oversee and promote it as such. Wikipedia and the BBC agree with me. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)19:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I seem to be wrong about Gaelic, reading legal documents is always difficult, and the implication was difficult to get, but the BBC article is pretty clear. With regards to Scots having different words for things, American English has 'Sidewalk' for example, maybe the reason UK people can understand it easily is increased exposure though. Also as language evolves you get lots of new words that didn't exist before, some of which will only grow up in certain parts of the English Speaking world, but I still feel the language is still English (as I have mentioned before). EDIT: If Scots is going to be set as an official language of Scotland (as a dialect) then English should be removed and it should have a note saying it's a dialect of English.
Eraserhead111:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I must admit, on second thoughts, I'm a little less certain about the status of Scots than I was before. However, I'm inclined to think (and I will check to make sure) that it probably wasn't linguistically related to English originally. Certainly according to the footnote in the infobox, it has been officially recognised by a European body as an indigenous language — so it probably deserves to be there, separately, regardless of its relation to English. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the American English argument, neither the US House of Representatives nor US Congress websites have a language option for American English. However, the Scottish Parliament website has options for, amongst others, Gaelic AND Scots! If its' being recognised by our own legislature as being a language distinct from English does not give it defacto status as a language in its own right then I don't know what does - or is this the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about??? Neither Scots nor Gaelic may be considered 'Official' in the sense that Welsh is an Official Language of Wales. You couldn't stand in a courtroom in Edinburgh and reply to a cross examination in Lallans, nor likewise in Aberdeen reply in Doric, nor in Inverness reply in Gaelic. (You can however stand in a court room in Cardiff and reply in Welsh). The court case of Taylor v Haughney (1982) involved the status of Gaelic, and on appeal the High Court ruled against a general right to use Gaelic in judicial proceedings. That, as they say, is probably the acid test for official status.
The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 established a public body, (BnG), "with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language". The Act differs from the Bill preceeding it, which set out simply "to require certain public bodies to publish, maintain and implement plans giving effect to the principle that in the exercise of the functions of those bodies the Gaelic and English languages should be treated on a basis of equality". The Act charges BnG to seek only to secure Gaelic as an Official Language, the Act does not in itself recognise Gaelic as being one. It will be for BnG to achieve this ultimate goal. (A goal which the Bill had effectively set out to achieve). For now, at least, English is the only Official Language in Scotland - neither Gaelic (as yet) nor Scots enjoy such status.80.41.226.13518:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Gaelic is as much an official language as English, this much has been established. Both the BBC, the existing Wikipedia article, and my interpretation of the act support this. However, if that is not enough evidence, then perhaps an official report from the Scottish Parliament website does, where it is stated a number of times that Gaelic is both a de facto and de jure official language, awarding it equal standing with both English and Welsh.
A bit of searching around has yielded results that look like Scots is certainly not recognised anywhere as a de jure official language, in which case it's a matter of finding whether or not there is supporting evidence to present it as a de facto official language. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Angus. I have posted this (and more) to Mais oui and also Ben Mac's talk pages:
May I therefore refer you to the Wiki page for Official Languages and the Section Officially recognised minority languages.
With regard to the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, it starts:
The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 21st April 2005 and received Royal Assent on 1st June 2005
An Act of the Scottish Parliament to establish a body having functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language, including the functions of preparing a national Gaelic language plan, of requiring certain public authorities to prepare and publish Gaelic language plans in connection with the exercise of their functions and to maintain and implement such plans, and of issuing guidance in relation to Gaelic education.
This provides for the establishing of Bòrd na Gàidhlig which will have "functions exercisable with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland". Therefore the Act states both the intention and the means but does not itself confer the status of Official Language upon Gaelic. It will be for BnG to exercise its functions in order to secure Official Language status for Gaelic - FACT.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I have now provided a number of reliable sources (BBC, Scottish Parliament proceedings, and the Act itself, assuming it is read carefully) which show that Gaelic is an official language, and here's another: Historic Day for Gaelic (Scottish Executive news release 21st April 2005). Direct quote: "The Gaelic Language Act recognises Gaelic as an official language of Scotland, commanding equal respect with English." [Emphasis mine]. The Act both establishes Gaelic as an official language, and as a condition of doing so, creates the Bòrd na Gàidhlig to secure its status as such — i.e. the usage of the word 'secure' is in the meaning of "ensuring that which is established de jure is also established de facto"
Could you clarify the relevance of Taylor-Haughney to this? I've searched and looked at an overview of the topic (if you want me to become more acquainted, you'll need to point me at specific points, as I think you'll understand why I'm reluctant to invest time in becoming intimately familiar with an entire case) which shows that the case was a New Zealand case (which raises an issue, in that Scots law is separate even from that of the rest of the U.K., and requires sitting a separate exam in order to practise law here) which covered the provision of an interpreter for a Thai-speaking refugee applicant. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The above was entered after an edit conflict with the below comment. It does not in any way acknowledge the existence of the below comment, which I will now read and take cognizance of. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I wish to propose a compromise. As English is tagged de facto, why not tag Gaelic and Scots minority. The UK has ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and has in effect specified that, under Articles 1 & 2 of the Charter, both Gaelic and Scots are, among others, officially recognised minority languages. This is also in keeping with the wiki page on the subject which states:
"Officially recognised minority languages are often mistaken for official languages. However, a language officially recognized by a state, taught in schools, and used in official communication is not necessarily an official language. For example, Ladin and Sardinian in Italy and Mirandese in Portugal are only officially recognised minority languages, not official languages in the strict sense".
I'm willing to accept this compromise (other users may not, but since we seem to be the only two discussing this on the talk page at the moment...) pending your comments on my above response (indented below your previous response — it ended up edit conflicted). Angus Lepper(T, C, D)22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I now fully accept that what you say seems to be the case. The explanatory notes for the Act seem to suggest ("[...]the implementation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in relation to the Gaelic language.") that it is in fact a case of the ECRML being ratified with specific reference to Scots and Gaelic in Scots law, and that the secondary sources that I cited are in fact being lax about their usage of the term "official language". That clears it up considerably, in my opinion. :-) Angus Lepper(T, C, D)22:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Angus. Thanks for that - the brick wall my head has been banging against can take a breather ;-). My edit conflict was to propose that Note 1 on the info box read as follows:
Restored comment removed by another careless anonymous user. I have no serious objections to that note. No hard feelings, I hope! Angus Lepper(T, C, D)23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm still a little wary of the fact that so many normally reliable sources seem to be indicating what is apparently the wrong thing. However, at the moment, taking things straight from the horse's mouth, it appears that they are indeed incorrect (and so I feel that the proposed changes should be made). I will attempt to gain further clarification, either from a source well-versed in law or by directly contacting the Scottish Executive. Incidentally, I am archiving this discussion as User:Angus Lepper/Scottish official language. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion on this subject at all and claim no expertise whatever. Are you sure that "the implementation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in relation to the Gaelic language." is not the same thing as 'recognition of an official language'? Is there an official definition of what an 'official language' is? The compromise proposed above would seem to be factually accurate at least. Ben MacDui(Talk)08:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC) PS In my very limited experience folk do stand in courtrooms and reply in Doric on a fairly regular basis.
Ben Mac' There are indeed official definitions of Official Languages. See Languages of the European Union and, with particular reference to this discussion, the section on the status of regional and minority languages incl. Gaelic and Scots. 80.41.226.13509:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC) PS If "no strong opinion" and "no expertise" then perhaps you, (and others), shouldn't be so quick to revert edits without first fully checking reasons for them, nor cry vandalism when it suits, nor get hung up on the I-D, or lack of, on the part of the editor. Discussion in a detailed manner will give you the opportunity to change the minds of those who like me, while genuinely well intentioned in their quest for accuracy, may at the end of the day simply be wrong in their assertions - in which case I'll thank you for increasing my knowledge and understanding of the subject and be on my way. (PPS I'd like to see the reaction to genuine Doric spoken at the High Court in Embra!)
As far as I am concerned, edits on controversial matters which change the substance of the article which have not reached consensus with other editors will be reverted mercilessly. The above links refer to Official Languages of the EU, not of the UK or Scotland and I don't see its relevance unless the UK has formally adopted some protocol that is related to it. Ben MacDui(Talk)12:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
By definition, as a European directive, the UK is obliged to regard it as law. The UK automatically adopts the ECRML, and ratifies it with the GLA (sorry for the initialisms, but they really are a bit lengthy to repeatedly write out in full). Angus Lepper(T, C, D)12:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
So a country which acknowledges the existence of a language by accepting the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages apparently automatically confers the status of "Official language upon that language my mere dint of recognition? This take on the matter is quite detached from what genuinely constitutes an official language within a state or region. siarach
Indeed, I think the point is well made on the official language page of Wikipedia:
"Officially recognised minority languages are often mistaken for official languages. However, a language officially recognized by a state, taught in schools, and used in official communication is not necessarily an official language. For example, Ladin and Sardinian in Italy and Mirandese in Portugal are only officially recognised minority languages, not official languages in the strict sense."
Official recognition by a state that a language exists within its borders does not constitute what is commonly understood to be an official language. Indeed, I think it's rather obvious consider the issue in the United States over official languages. Scots does not in any way meet the barrier for such a definition. Well there's my two cents anyway.--Breadandcheese04:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
On another note: if we included Scots, we'd have to include British Sign Language. From Hansard (18 March 2003 here "Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government recognise that British Sign Language (BSL) is a language in its own right"
You may well be right - especially as I notice that no-one is robustly defending the idea that Scots is an official language. However in the above you are (a) quoting Wikipedia as as a source, which I would tend to ignore, and (b) the logic is, in my view, rather odd. Official recognition by a state that a language exists within its borders does indeed constitute what is 'commonly' understood to be an official language. The method by which the US determines official languages, or indeed the EU, (unless someone can provide evidence of a treaty that forbids states from having their own official languages) is irrelevent. If Gordon Brown, or possibly the Executive announce that the UK/Scotland now has Klingon as an official language, that is surely enough. Ben MacDui(Talk)08:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with Scots and Gaelic being marked minority and English defacto, but if things like British Sign Language have the same status as Scots then I'm inclined to not include it as that seems like its adding too many different languages to the page. I also think that the court case about Gaelic was before the language act linked from this page, so therefore that precedent is surely invalid?
Therefore I think Gaelic, English (defacto) are probably the most sensible languages to include.
Seems fairly appropriate, so I've amended the page to that. However excluding BSL (which probably has more official recognition than Scots) because "its adding too many... to the page" is hardly encyclopaedic. Therefore I'll keep campaigning for either all or neither.--Breadandcheese06:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is Scots still included in the Official Languages section when it clearly does not have this status and when the consensus from the above discussion seems to accept this? Im holding back from removing it (again) in case im missing something here. siarach12:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I wish you'd all make your bally minds up. Gaelic has the SAME official status in Scotland as Scots. The ONLY difference is that the BnG has been established with a view to eventually securing a status for Gaelic equal to that of English. There is no equivalent body for Scots. Contrary to links in the article, GAELIC HAS NO OFFICIAL LANGUAGE STATUS in Scotland other than, as with Scots, under the terms of the ECRML, as ratified by the UK Govt. If the BnG achieves what it was set up to then the next step along the course of achieving official status will be for Gaelic to mirror the status of Welsh in Wales, which must be treated as being equal to English by all public bodies. The claim that official status is conferred upon Gaelic but not Scots is wrong, as the only difference between the two is the presence of a Govt. body promoting the use of Gaelic versus the lack of an equivalent body for Scots. Other than this, their status is equal under the terms of the ECRML. The ECRML is the ONLY piece of legislation under which the UK Govt. provides any status to either language. The Scottish Govt. provides no additional status for Gaelic under the terms of the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act establishing the BnG. This Act does NOT confer any additional status to Gaelic that does not already apply equally to Scots under the ECRML. People should not confuse the legislation which established the BnG with any official status as is being discussed here. If you have Gaelic in the info box, the same criteria apply to Scots and it should also be included. The establishment of BnG is NOT, and I can't stress this enough, a tacit granting of any Official Status greater to that which already applies to Scots. You either have both - or neither. Simple!!! Arguments to the contrary need to be very careful as to the wording of the Act establishing the BnG. That Act is the ONLY legislative difference between the two languages and it in itself gives Gaelic no additional status over Scots. The intention is there, certainly, but in itself the Act does nothing to the alter the status of Gaelic.80.41.244.11409:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You have spoken nonsense and blatant untruth on so many levels there. There are numerous examples of the difference in status between Scots and Gaelic - both in terms of recognition and action by the Scottish parliament and the accepted reality such as that reflected by times article. Your arguments for equivalence of status are basically OR. I could go into comprehensive detail on the various factors and differences in the situations and status of each one but i simply cant be bothered as they are already perfectly clear. Scots is not an official language - get over it. siarach10:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Info box map (86.141.53.179 19:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC))
It isn't independent, but it is a nation and a constituent country, and so the map is, in my humble opinion, fine. Also, what would you suggest as a replacement — it is tasked with showing the position of Scotland in Europe. Highlighting the rest of the United Kingdom would be incorrect as this would show the position of the UK in Europe. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Surely it is important to reflect Scotland's status by showing its geographical position in relation to the rest of the UK as well as Europe. The new vector maps do this very well! Every other "constituent country" has adopted this; it is inconsistent that this page has not.
"it is inconsistent that this page has not." I very, very much disagree with statements like this - groupthink should not be happening. The process of Consensus is completely short circuited when content decisions on each article are made on the basis that "this this and this have it so this must to" - that is wholly against what the point of a consensus making process on an an individual article should be about. To be honest the way this new map has been edited into a lot of pages is very disconcerting to me. SFC939422:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
New Towns
I am removing the following new section unless a consensus is reached on introducing it:
===New towns===
Because of overcrowding in Glasgow and Edinburgh, five new towns were created. They are East Kilbride, Livingston, Cumbernauld, Glenrothes and Irvine. East Kilbride is said to be the most successful because the town has a controlled population, scotlands largest undercover shopping centre, many leisure facilities and is home to one of the U.K's largest aircraft engine manufacturer.
There are several reasons, not least that it is totally unsourced. But, more importantly, it displays the classic historiographical mistake of presenting recent events as being of more significance than older ones. What about the establishment of the royal burghs, or the plantation of lowland burghs in the Highlands (Campbeltown, Cromarty etc). Just sticking an ad hoc "New Towns" section in makes zero sense, and just clogs up an already overly long article. We will never get this article up to WP:FA standard if we allow ill-thought through additions like this. Let us concentrate on quality, not quantity. Ie, please let us improve the often poor quality of existing sections. --Mais oui!09:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Timing: I see that it has just been moved to a far better spot, and actually sourced. Fine by me. But we must not allow just any old thing Scotland-related to be added to this article. In fact it must be very selective indeed. --Mais oui!09:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Mais oui: It appears some here are being somewhat over-selective in their selectivity. Articles are not 'Owned' by individuals and contributions should be judged on merit. As long as it is accurate, relevant, sourced and well written there is no reason whatsoever for exclusion. Quality vs quantity should always be considered but to restore on the basis of personal taste is unjustified. If you restore - give reasons for doing so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.39.222 (talk • contribs).
Articles may not be owned by individuals, but consensus must be established for major or contentious edits — preferably in advance, on the talk page, or alternatively by default when no-one objects to the changes having been made. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)21:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ongoing vandalism, Anon editing etc.
Am in general agreement with sentiments expressed by SFC9394 (in today's edit summary). Maintaining the integrity of this article is a chore beyond any common sense. I am watching about 300 articles and I'd say 80-90% of the controversial edits I observe are anon IPs attempting to 'improve' things here (with or without good intent). I cannot think of any good, practical reason not to have this article permanently semi-protected. Ben MacDui(Talk)19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Ben MacDui: I choose not to use the name of a lump of rock, or a Greek God or whatever, (together with a Yahoo or Excite e-mail address, which would take me all of 5 minutes, if I could be bothered), on the basis that I feel my contributions should be judged on content, rather than whether I 'join the club', so to speak, and use a pseudonym rather than an I-P address - we all remain anonymous! What is more, if a person wishes to behave like a *****er, they can do so with or without a name and Wiki log-in, or several different log ins, for that matter. Don't think all named contributors are saints and I-Ps sinners - each can be equally 'good', 'or bad'. Best regards, your equally anon but always well intentioned friend 80.41.226.13520:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
(Semi-)protection is not a step to be taken lightly for this reason. However, there is the argument that you can choose to create an account if necessary, and that semi-protection provides a way of providing greater control over the editing to an article. If accounts have obviously been created specifically to vandalise or edit war on an article, then they can be indef-blocked — yes, users can create new accounts, but this is much more hassle than it is with an IP address, as lengthy blocks are usually (but by no means always) avoided for anonymous users, for fear of penalising innocnt users. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"I feel my contributions should be judged on content," - that is all anyone's contributions are judged upon - what we have with this article is well down a road of vandalism. The language issue is being discussed here and that is fine, that seems to be the area you are working on. The problem with people who don't want to call themselves after lumps of rock is that they get lumped in with those causing problems - that is your call. All I can say is that we have had lengthy and repeated uncivil editing from anons changing maps, removing content, changing the whole lead paragraph and generally doing nothing but blatant POV pushing with zero discussion. It has to stop - either by SP, range blocks or contacting ISP's - we have policies, and if people can't follow them then they should be shown the door. SFC939422:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not only anon editors who can be accused of POV pushing and edit warring, there are some who call themselves after "But yes!" in French who are among the worst culprits. 81.129.175.3522:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Angus Lepper writes: "(Semi-)protection is not a step to be taken lightly for this reason". What reason? Anon IPs do occasionally tidy up minor spelling and syntax items and even bring the odd issue to our collective attention. However, I have no interest in theory, only in the practical issues. Without them, the article has a chance of being improved. With them, it is a significant task simply to stop it being overwhelmed by POV pushing, abuse and vandalism. What advantage accrues to either the community or the encyclopedia by continuing to allow this? There are vast oceans of articles for anons to indulge in if they have something genuine to offer. Ben MacDui(Talk)07:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
In general I am OK with only allowing non-registered users, on Mac Guides (guides.macrumors.com) you have to be a registered member and made 5 posts (and gone through a waiting period of 24 hours for the mods to activate them) to edit them. With this in place I have never actually seen any vandalism at all (fwiw I am Eraserhead). A similar policy on wikipedia wouldn't work (you don't have a forum for a start ;)), but only allowing registered users doesn't seem like a big deal, you don't even need an email address to sign up to Wikipedia, but if you look at my edit history I have made lots of edits so am hardly likely to commit vandalism at this stage. Eraserhead114:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The English Population and Anglophobia
The article mentions in the demographics section, a Polish Population, the English Population has been there far longer and there are many English who live in Scots. Additionally there is a considerable Anglophobic resentment of English in Scotland particularly in rural areas with many English having suffered attacks and there being substantial dislike of "White Settlers". Whether or not one thinks Anglophobia is a good or a bad thing, should this not be mentioned in the article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.137.180 (talk • contribs)
Don't the English make up like 10% of the Scottish population or something? They certainly should be mentioned if that kind of thing is going to be talked about. 25,000 Americans live in Scotland btw,[4] (and it's growing), which is more than the number of Chinese living in Scotland. Don't know about Anglophobia though ... not really serious enough of an issue to get a mention in a concise article like this ... maybe a Racism is Scotland article or something along those lines. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Anglophobia certainly exists although as you say i dont think its a major enough issue to deserve any mention. siarach10:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Scotland during the Viking age
There is no mention of the Vikings in Scotland although it had a large impact on the lands no doubt. How about we add it under a special section under history? Something like "Scotland and the Vikings" or something like that? Below text is a cut-and past from the Viking Age page:
Scotland
The Vikings are supposed to have led their first raids on what is now modern Scotland by the early eighth century. While there are few records, their first known attack was on the Holy island of Iona in 794, the year following the raid on the other Holy island of Lindisfarne, Northumbria.
In 839, a large Norse fleet invaded via the River Tay and River Earn, both of which were highly navigable, and reached into the heart of the Pictish kingdom of Fortriu. They defeated Eogán mac Óengusa, king of the Picts, his brother Bran and the king of the Scots of Dál Riata, Áed mac Boanta, along with many members of the Pictish aristocracy in battle. The sophisticated kingdom that had been built fell apart, as did the Pictish leadership, which had been stable for over a hundred years since the time of Óengus mac Fergusa (The accession of Cináed mac Ailpín as king of both Picts and Scots can be attributed to the aftermath of this event).
By the mid-ninth century the Norsemen had settled in Shetland, the Orkneys (the Nordreys- Norðreyjar), the Hebrides and Man, (the Sudreys- Súðreyjar - this survives in the Diocese of Sodor and Man) and parts of mainland Scotland. The Norse settlers were to some extent integrating with the local Gaelic population (see-Gall Gaidheal) in the Hebrides and Man. These areas were ruled over by local Jarls, originally captains of ships or Hersirs. The Jarl of Orkney and Shetland however, claimed supremacy.
In 875, King Harald Finehair led a fleet from Norway to Scotland. In his attempt to unite Norway, he found that many of those opposed to his rise to power had taken refuge in the Isles. From here, they were raiding not only foreign lands but were also attacking Norway itself. He organised a fleet and was able to subdue the rebels, and in doing so brought the independent Jarls under his control, many of the rebels having fled to Iceland. He found himself ruling not only Norway, but the Isles, Man and parts of Scotland.
In 876 the Gall-Gaidheal of Man and the Hebrides rebelled against Harald. A fleet was sent against them led by Ketil Flatnose to regain control. On his success, Ketil was to rule the Sudreys as a vassal of King Harald. His grandson Thorstein the Red and Sigurd the Mighty, Jarl of Orkney invaded Scotland were able to exact tribute from nearly half the kingdom until their deaths in battle. Ketil declared himself King of the Isles. Ketil was eventually outlawed and fearing the bounty on his head fled to Iceland.
The Gall-Gaidheal Kings of the Isles continued to act semi independently, in 973 forming a defensive pact with the Kings of Scotland and Strathclyde. Until, in 1095, the King of Man and the Isles, Godred Crovan, was killed by Magnus Barelegs, King of Norway. Magnus and King Edgar of Scotland agreed a treaty. The islands would be controlled by Norway, but mainland territories would go to Scotland. The King of Norway continued to be nominally king of the Isles and Man. However, in 1156, The Kingdom was split into two. The Western Isles and Man continued as to be called the "Kingdom of Man and the Isles", but the Inner Hebrides came under the influence of Somerled, a Gaelic speaker, who was styled 'King of the Hebrides'. His kingdom was to develop latterly into the Lordship of the Isles.
The Jarls of Orkney continued to rule much of Northern Scotland until 1196, when Harald Maddadsson agreed to pay tribute to William the Lion, King of Scots for his territories on the Mainland.
The end of the Viking age proper in Scotland is generally considered to be in 1266. In 1263, King Haakon IV of Norway, in retaliation for a Scots expedition to Skye, arrived on the west coast with a fleet from Norway and Orkney. His fleet linked up with those of King Magnus of Man and King Dougal of the Hebrides. After peace talks failed, his forces met with the Scots at Largs, in Ayrshire. The battle proved indecisive, but it did ensure that the Norse were not able to mount a further attack that year. Haakon died overwintering in Orkney, and by 1266, his son Magnus the Law-mender ceded the Kingdom of Man and the Isles, with all territories on mainland Scotland to Alexander III, through the Treaty of Perth.
Orkney and Shetland continued to be ruled as autonomous Jarldoms under Norway until 1468, when King Christian I pledged them as security on the dowry of his daughter, who was betrothed to James III of Scotland. The dowry was never paid, and the islands passed to Scotland.
red
The one being used
the one I think is more correct
5
6
