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.
The official National Anthem for Scotland is "God Save the Queen" as all countries under the rule of Westminster have this national anthem. This not only applies to Scotland but also Bermuda and other British Overseas Territories (BOTs) as well as Wales and Nothern Ireland. The only places this does not apply to are the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and this is because they are not under the rule of Westminster and are not considered not to be BOTs but Crown Dependents". (Alxh13:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC))
Thank you for starting a talk thread on this subject. I would ask that discussion is focussed here and that you not change the article again until Consensus has been reached. I am not sure how you derive what the "The official National Anthem" is - official as said by whom? The bare facts are that Scotland, when representing itself as such (and not as a part of the UK) does not use GSTK/Q - to have the article to say that does is false and misleading. This has been discussed in the past, there is no basis on which to validate your claims. As I have been typing this it appears you seem intent on edit warring I will make this crystal clear - Do Not Revert - Discuss or be blocked for 3RR. SFC939413:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This argument is just sillyness. I mean, pushing legal fictions over facts is bad and childish enough, but such an assertion is not even a legal fiction since God Save the Queen is unofficial anyways. Ignoring that, this article is about Scotland, not the United Kingdom, and that song is regarded by no-one as even a contender for the Scottish national anthem. In reality, there are only two songs which function as Scottish national anthems, Flower of Scotland and Scotland the Brave. Those are the two songs almost always played in international circumstances where national anthems are played and Scotland is represented as Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The difference between convention in the United Kingdom and 'official' status in countries in which it is necessary for everything to be set in stone is next to nil. God Save the Queen is Scotland's Anthem by Grace of being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That fact is not under dispute.
Your argument is that Scotland has many distinguishing anthems. That is true. But perhaps you would like to look at the infoboxes of other United Kingdom sovereign territory which too have its own unofficial anthems for times when distinguishing from the United Kingdom is necessary? Gibraltar , Saint Helena and Bermuda and see what they all have in common? Biofoundationsoflanguage18:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with above. God Save the Queen is not the National Anthem of Scotland. It really is as plain and simple as that. It isn't recognised as such, by anybody or by any body. This article is not about the United Kingdom, of which GstQ is most certainly the National Anthem. Globaltraveller20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. Scotland's numerous, unique, distinguishing unofficial anthems are not in doubt. However, God Save the Queen remains the anthem of the United Kingdom. That fact is undeniable and should be mentioned on the infobox. All sovereign British territory has God Save the Queen as an anthem. Scotland is no different. Biofoundationsoflanguage13:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The UK and Scotland are part of the European Union. Some regional anthems notwithstanding, the anthem of the EU is "Freude schöner Götterfunken", hence all territories within the EU have for anthem this beautiful Beethoven melody. At the time of writing, neither has the UK quit the EU nor Scotland quit the UK or the EU. -- Klaus with K16:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That's subsidiarity for you. Scotland has its various anthems, the UK has GStQ and Europe has "Freude schöner Götterfunken". This article is about Scotland. --John16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
"an extraordinarily important part of its identity" - No - and not by a very long way. This really does get to the nub of the problem (and that references both this discussion and the ludicrous MOS (re-read that as edit war) proposal). Scotland has a very separate identity from "the UK" - it has been part of the UK for 300 years - it had 700 (as a unified country) and a couple thousand (as a series of small trading empires that could collectively be viewed as Sea Kingdoms) previous to that. Perhaps this is something for those who are not Scottish that is difficult to grasp, but people from Scotland (and by that I mean 80-90%) view themselves as very distinctively Scottish. Independence rates run at around 20%, but that doesn't stop around 90% describing themselves as Scottish. The identity of who Scottish people are is very distinctively different from any notion of "Britishness" (and having lived in England for a few years I can guarantee the word British and English are interchanged to a laughable extent, proving a lot of people in England don't even know the differences between the two words). Scottish identity is very separate, and Scotland itself is very separate - "unified" really only is in a world governance stage - separate legal, educational, political, bureaucratic, religious, cultural and intellectual systems have exsisted in Scotland as a contiguous presence from England for all time - they haven't, and do not, integrate. The belief that in 1707 the two countries unified and that a line couldn't be drawn between them is a complete fallacy. And the most dangerous belief of all is that any of these distinctions that I have outlined are an inherently nationalistic or separatist set of views. I can't drive home the point enough they aren't, and it seems to have become a trojan horse here on wikipedia that any view of Scotland as being anything other than a constituent part representing 10% of the UK is some independence POV - that is false - tragically false, and it needs to stop right here, right now. SFC939419:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact still remains that Scotland is part of a country (while remaining a country itself) which has the anthem 'God Save the Queen'. I don't really care about ignorance south of the border, or what happened x year ago. All sovereign British territory has God Save the Queen. That is a fact. Any attempt to use how Scottish people view themselves to omit that fact is POV. Biofoundationsoflanguage07:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
"That is a fact" No it isn't - and you have provided no evidence to back up your spurious claim. The consensus here is quite clear. SFC939412:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It is one of the curious facts about sovereign British territory that, unlike most countries, it does not have any officially prescribed National Anthem. God Save the King may well be used as a National Anthem by many Britons but at base it has no more validity as a National Anthem than Rule Britannia, Scotland the Brave
or Pop goes the Weasel. In the face of this it is a bit disingenuous to argue over what must be or must not be the National Anthem of any part of the UK. All we can record is what the people of the UK believe to be their National Anthem. And people in different parts of the UK have different opinions. It's up to Wikipedia to record this situation -- not to simplify the truth out of existence. -- Derek Ross | Talk14:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
"As there is no objection to my compromise." apart from every other editor posting here - 6 established editors at time of posting - if you can't edit in good faith, accepting consensus, then I suggest you don't bother editing at all. SFC939412:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) If you don't understand what consensus is, then don't pretend to. I made an edit which was originally reverted. I realised why it was reverted and made alterations accordingly. Then that was undone for aboslutely no reason whatsoever.
Just because I might be in a minority does not mean that I don't have a right to try and reach a compromise. Biofoundationsoflanguage12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
"try and reach a compromise" -you are very much mistaken if you think that consensus means compromise. Such a statement is a vehicle to allow people to go into any article they please and insist that "my views have be represented here - even if everyone else disagrees" - there are sections in place on NPOV on undue weight. SFC939412:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
”
Go and ask 1000 people in Scotland what the national anthem of Scotland is and you would be extremely lucky if you found 1 person who said it was GSTQ. That is the bare truth - end of story. SFC939418:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
GStQ simply is not the, or a , national anthem of Scotland. The fact that it is the national anthem for the UK, of which Scotland is a part, does not have any bearing on this. siarach12:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The Times also picked up on the boxing team issue. However, apart from a statement by a Tory MSP and the correspondance between civil servants regarding the boxing team, I can find no reference to an Offical National Anthem for Scotland itself. GStQ remains the National Anthem of the UK of GB&NI, but Scotland itself does not have one. Therefore, used in a purely Scottish context, I would venture to suggest that GStQ falls equally under the 'unofficial' category where Scotland is concerned and the info box should remain unaltered. Unless of course, someone can source an official document containing a statement to the effect that "the official National Anthem of Scotland is God Save the Queen", should one exist. Rab-k10:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Official Language revisited again
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)
Go ahead and call me a liar - it doesn't change the fact that neither you nor anyone else has produced evidence to support the claim that Gaelic has the status of an Official Language on the basis of legislation which is not afforded to Scots. The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act does not, simply by the creation of BnG, afford Official Language status to Gaelic. If you compare and contrast the Wesh Language Act (1993) the distinction between the status afforded to Welsh in Wales and that afforded to Gaelic in Scotland becomes crystal clear in that the former has an Official Status which the latter does not (as yet) enjoy:
"An Act to establish a Board having the function of promoting and facilitating the use of the Welsh language, to provide for the preparation by public bodies of schemes giving effect to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality, to make further provision relating to the Welsh language, to repeal certain spent enactments relating to Wales, and for connected purposes."
"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."
Direct quotes from the respective legislation and not my "nonsense" as you put it. Did you note the differences, in particular to the part regarding the "conduct of public business and the administration of justice", which does not appear in the Gaelic legislation, and the fact that the Gaelic legislation only has a "view to securing the status of Gaelic as an official language"? The point, which you can ignore if you like, is that what gives Gaelic "Official Status" is not the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act, but the ECRML legislation, which applies equally to Scots and Gaelic. Until you see legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament, which establishes the same principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Scotland the English and Gaelic languages should be treated on the basis of equality, then Gaelic enjoys the same degree of Official Status under the ECRML (1992) legislation as Scots. Therefore, either include Scots alongside Gaelic or remove both - your argument in favour of one equally applies to the other. The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act (2005) does not confer any greater degree of status to Gaelic as was afforded it by the ECRML. Only a future Gaelic Language Act, worded closer to that of the Welsh Language Act (1993), will afford an Official Status to Gaelic not equally afforded to Scots. The ECRML, ratified by the UK Govt., brought the same degree of official recognition to both Scots and Gaelic - now your turn to "get over it".80.41.226.23415:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS – Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs)
The normal working language of the Parliament is English.
The Parliament legislates in English only. Therefore, all bills, delegated legislation and their accompanying documents must be in English. When an MSP or a committee wishes the SPCB to produce a translation of a bill they are introducing, and/or its accompanying documents, they must seek the prior approval of the SPCB.
With the prior agreement of the Presiding Officer, MSPs may use any language in parliamentary debates. When MSPs use a language other than English or Scots, the SPCB will arrange interpretation.
With the prior agreement of the Presiding Officer, any person officially invited to address the Parliament may do so in any language. When they use a language other than English or Scots, the SPCB will arrange interpretation.
Motions, amendments to motions and questions must be in English, but may be accompanied by a translation in another language provided by the MSP. When such a translation is provided, the SPCB will arrange for it to be published in the Business Bulletin along with the English text of the motion, amendment or question.
When the adoption of English as the normal working language of the Parliament compromises an MSP’s ability to participate in the proceedings of the Parliament, the SPCB will take steps to provide appropriate communication support.
When a committee produces a report and considers that there are good reasons for it to be published in a language other than English, the committee must seek the prior approval of the SPCB.
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS – Witnesses
Witnesses may give evidence to a committee in any language. Witnesses who wish to use a language other than English or Scots must provide as much notice as possible to allow the SPCB to arrange interpreting services, subject to availability. Witnesses should notify the clerk to the relevant committee.
When a witness uses a language other than English, Gaelic or Scots, the SPCB will offer them a translation of the Official Report of the meeting or item concerned into the language they used. When a witness uses British Sign Language (BSL) or another sign language, individual arrangements will be made.
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS – How it is reported
When Gaelic is used in meetings of the Parliament and committee meetings, the Official Report incorporates the Gaelic text before the report of the English interpretation.
When Scots is used in meetings of the Parliament and committee meetings, the Official Report incorporates that language in the body of the text.
When BSL, or another sign language, is used in meetings of the Parliament and committee meetings, the Official Report will include only the English interpretation. A note in the Official Report will also indicate that the text is not in the original language used. Where possible, such business will also be filmed to enable a record of the original language used to be made.
When a language other than English, Scots, Gaelic or a sign language is used, the Official Report will normally publish the report of the English interpretation only, with a note to indicate that the text is not in the original language used."
For a language which, according to you, is "not an official language", Scots gets a fair few mentions in the rule book of the Scots Pairly - along with Gaelic. If English is official by its de-facto nature, then you could easily be forgiven for applying de-facto status to Scots on the basis of that outlined above. Furthermore, your assertion that "the difference in status between Scots and Gaelic - both in terms of recognition and action by the Scottish parliament" does not seem to square with the reality of the situation, in particular with regard to Official Reports, as stated above. I fail to see how a legislature of a country which can publish Official Reports in a combination of up to three specific languages can regard one of these as being 'unofficial'. If it were not an 'Official Language', why would a body like the Scottish Parliament bother to publish Official Reports which "incorporates that language in the body of the text". Or am I missing something here... Rab-k18:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC) PS A little bed-time reading for you ;-) http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/languagePolicy/SPCB%20Language%20Policy_Scots.pdf PPS Unless someone comes up with a sound argument against inclusion, then on the basis of the above, (once the National Anthem issue is resolved and protection of the article is lifted), I intend to edit the info box 'Official Languages' section to include both Scots and BSL, alongside English and Gaelic.
"Gaelic has the SAME official status in Scotland as Scots. "
The BBC,Times and Scottish Government ITSELF disagree and if i might quote the last of those: The Gaelic Language Act recognises Gaelic as an official language of Scotland
"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. "
Its an interesting tactic you take here - highlighting one of the major (certainly not the only) differences in the status/recognition accorded each language as if doing so and simply saying "this is the only difference between the two" somehow undermines the well documented and accepted (outside these Wiki pages and even here only by a determined few) fact that Gaelic has been awarded a more prominent status and greater recognition than Scots.
"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. The intention is there, certainly, but in itself the Act does nothing to the alter the status of Gaelic.80.41.244.114 09:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)"
So you might like to believe but im afraid the afore mentioned media sources as well as the Scottish Government itself disagree with you.
"The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act does not, simply by the creation of BnG, afford Official Language status to Gaelic. If you compare and contrast the Wesh Language Act (1993) "
Well the first sentence is clearly not the case either in terms of how the major media understands the situation or how the Scottish Government itself seems to understand the situation - as already pointed out. As for the second sentence the Welsh Language Act and the status of Welsh in Wales are simply irrelevant. Italian is more of an Official language than is English - does this affect the status of English as an official language in the UK or wherever (which it would if we follow your line or reasoning) ? Of course not. Different languages in different nations/regions are given different priviliges, rights, recognition and status. The number of priviliges and whether or not recognition as official is de jure or de facto with regards to the language of one nation has no direct bearing upon the official status of a language in a different nation.
"For a language which, according to you, is "not an official language", Scots gets a fair few mentions in the rule book of the Scots Pairly"
So you think but wikipedia is not supposed to be based upon personal opinion, bias or original research which is all you have to support your arguments for equivalence of status with regards to Gaelic and Scots (and BSL - at least youve become consistent in arguing for that as well rather than simply having some special case made for Scots). Personally i think the page is both irrelevant and the frequent references to Scots (hand in hand with English with no requirement of translation)a result of seeming confusion over where Scots ends and English begins but my opinion is, like yours, neither here nor there. What this article and wikipedia generally requires is facts from reliable sources. There are plenty in support of official status for Gaelic and none whatsoever for Scots.
None of the evidence ive provided above is new - its all already been posted on this discussion page on this very topic. The determination by certain users to see their personal opinion that Scots has Official langauge status - regardless of contradictary accounts by the most major media institutions and the relevant political institution itself - triumph over reputable major references/sources has seen this argument drag on far longer than it ever should have.
No amount of original research based on the most tenuous lines of reasoning will justify languages not accepted by any major or relevant non-wikipedia source as being of "official" status being placed in the Official languages section of the infobox. Once we see legislation dealing with and recognition of Scots nation-wide as we have already seen for Gaelic and once the likes of the BBC and Scottish Government start talking about Scots as being an official language then it should certainly go into the infobox section. Until then it has no place there and the arguments demanding its insertion are simply based on original research.siarach14:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither Scots or BSL will be going into the Official Languages section because neither is an official language and nothing other than pov argument based upon original research/colourful interpretations and the denial of unequivocal contradictory evidence has been provided in justification of this imaginary shared status between Scots and BSL, recognised simply as minority languages, and Gaelic. This entire ridiculous argument could have been happily avoided if the section could just be "Languages" rather than "Official languages" but thanks to enforced conformity amongst pages we dont have that option. Find sources equivalent to those provided which state the status of Gaelic as an official language -BBC,Times, Scottish Government - which do the same for Scots (and BSL) and youl have some valid reasons for including them both. Until then you have nothing but your personal interpretation of what various acts actually mean - an interpretation which flies in the face of orthodox opinion. siarach14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Siarach - You would appear, like so many, to have bought into the 'Spin' that the last administration used when trumpeting their Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act. Likewise the BBC, whose news articles were based pricipally upon press releases from the same source. Perhaps you'll take the view of CnG over mine, who expressed doubts during the Bill's consultation period prior to its becoming an Act:
"EQUAL STATUS – SECTION 1 OF THE BILL
4. One of our main concerns is the absence in the Bill of recognition of equal status between Gaelic and English. We believe that the Bill should specifically state that Gaelic is an official language in Scotland and will, in principle, be treated equally with English in the conduct of public business, through the language plans required of public authorities. This principle recognises the importance which the Executive has placed on the Gaelic language and culture being " important to all of Scotland and is a unique part of our culture and heritage". CnaG has consistently argued for Gaelic to be accorded the same status as Welsh in terms of the Welsh Language Act 1993. This would, in the case of Gaelic, give effect to the principle that so far as is appropriate and practicable Gaelic and English will be treated on the basis of equality, in the provision of public services. If it is possible for the Welsh Act to have the wording “so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable to the principle that in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on the basis of equality” it should be possible to have a similar provision in a Gaelic Act. It is interesting to note that the Welsh Language Board recently reported that “today those who feared what a statutory Language Board might do, based on the principle of what is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practical” are in agreement that this is an acceptable method of promoting the language. This approach is generally regarded as one which provides the necessary flexibility and sensitivity in offering a realistic solution which takes account of local circumstances, the need to provide official support for the language and the likely demand for services in Gaelic. We do not advocate one solution to all public authorities' language plans throughout Scotland, since circumstances are different throughout Scotland and this should be reflected in language plans.
5. We believe that unless the Bill is strengthened along the lines suggested we will continue to have confusion and uncertainty in what is actually meant by “the functions conferred on the Board by this Act are to be exercised with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland”. We can provide the Committee with examples of where Gaelic speakers have been denied reasonable requests to obtain services from public bodies through Gaelic because of the absence of a clear position on the legal status of Gaelic. Response from such bodies have been along the lines of "the language does not have legal status" or "does not have equal validity with English unlike the situation in Wales". It is unlikely that the present wording in the Bill will compel bodies which hold these views to change their minds in the absence of a more definitive requirement as we suggest. When the Bill was published in September, the Minister Peter Peacock MSP said that “this Bill will make it easier for people to use Gaelic and ensure that public bodies – such as Councils and Health Boards – have to take the needs of Gaelic speakers into account”. This aspiration can only be met by the inclusion of a more robust statement on the status of Gaelic to take account of the needs of Gaelic speakers along the lines of the Welsh Language Act.
6. The Committee will be aware that the UK Government’s ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages provides the same status for both Gaelic and Welsh (i.e. both languages come within the provisions and undertakings of Part III). We urge the Committee to languages come within the provisions and undertakings of Part III). We urge the Committee to in the context of the Charter, should also apply in relation to domestic legislation and similar provisions as already apply for Welsh should now be accorded to Gaelic in the Gaelic Bill."
The Executive chose to ignore the advice and concerns raised by Donald Martin and CnaG and published the Bill as an Act with the critical passages UNALTERED!
Is it too much to ask for you to agree with Donald Martin, if you can't bring yourself to agree with me? Rab-k15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ive already said it several times and il say it once more. Wikipedia is not a place for Original research which is what you base your POV upon. Several reputable sources name Gaelic as clearly as could be as an Official language and these take priority over your, and any other wiki users, opinion. siarach15:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You persist in posting a link to Original research. I'll go one better - I'll quote from it - "the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article".
Every contribution I have made to this page has included both links to and direct quotes from original documents from/and reliable sources. It is obvious that you have neither bothered nor intend to take the time to study those documents to which I have linked, which would thereby enable you to appreciate that none of the above are "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories". References to the Acts are factual. My interpretation of the GL(S) Bill and, (crucial passages of the Bill having been unaltered), the subsequent Act are shared by others, including the Chief Exec of CnaG.
Your attempts to railroad this issue into the sidelines betrays the fact that you are neither interested in this debate, understand fully the ramifications of the issue nor are prepared to alter your position, whatever the evidence, from whatever source. Your attitude towards Scots mirrors that of those who for years sought to extinguish "Erse" completely from these shores. Language snobbery and persecution is not, it would appear, restricted to those whose principal or preffered tongue is English. A couple of press articles and a press release with the now inevitable political spin are no match for legal documents in the form of EU, UK or Scottish primary legislation, parliamentary conventions or published consulation documents.
I once heard CnaG referred to, tongue-in-cheek, as "Cosa nostra Gàidhlig". If the opinion of the 'Don' of that organisation doesn't sway you, I guess nothing will. The term Asinine is not one I would use lightly within these halls of wisdom, however... Rab-k16:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The ECRML clearly states Gaelic and Scots are both official languages. It also states this applies to all territories of the United Kingdom. Also, the reading of the Bill above states Scots as an official language. I think the real debate here is over who decides it as official, the EU, UK, or Scotland itself. Wikipedia itself says, on the matter of Official Language: "An official language is a language that is given a unique legal status in the countries, states, and other territories." shortly followed by "Officially recognised minority languages are often mistaken for official languages." On proceding to this article you find the international law on this matter
"regional or minority languages" means languages that are:
traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population; and
different from the official language(s) of that State.
As scots is used by a group "numerically smaller" thab the others, it should be listed as a minority language, not an official language. Why not just keep the list as it is, separating them as regional languages? (No comment on BSL)Josh17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Every contribution I have made to this page has included both links to and direct quotes from original documents from/and reliable sources."
Yes indeed - quotes which have been moulded to fit your personal opinion on what the ramifications of said documents etc. This is the definition of original research. I, on the other hand, have simply pointed out that the status of Gaelic (which you dispute and thus this daft argument) is clearly stated by major, reputable sources and require no great argument to carry them as they are perfectly clear and that your claims that Scots and Gaelic are held in equal status by the powers that be simply has no basis in fact.
"Your attitude towards Scots mirrors that of those who for years sought to extinguish "Erse" completely from these shores."
Absolute nonsense. I dont doubt its comforting for you to imagine this to be the case and it always amuses me when people desperately attempt to transfer their own, or someone elses, bigotry onto me. I am concerned with facts - nothing more. My involvement in this debate rooted in the same motivation which led to my involve in the almost equally ridiculous argument over the (undoubted amongst the worlds expert orientalists and related academics but disputed by a hardcore of persian nationalists on wikipedia) ethnicity of the Safavid dynasty of Iran or the "controversy" over the term 'British Isles' (by far the most common term with great historical precedence and international usage but disputed by a small core of petty Irish nationalists) or any other edit war/debate which has featured a small core of users who argue consistently against facts or the accepted orthodoxy regardless of how many facts and references are thrown at them. I am motivated by a desire to see articles based on simple, objective fact and untainted by wishful thinking, original research and POV. siarach18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem in affording equal status to Gaelic, Scots and BSL as "Regional" or "Minority" or even "Offical" languages and I too agree that the "The ECRML clearly states Gaelic and Scots are both official languages".
I do have a problem however with those who argue that a Government press release and the regurgitation of it in the media carries more authority than Acts of the Scottish Parliament and the ratification of European Union Conventions by the United Kingdom Parliament.
"The Gaelic Language Act recognises Gaelic as an official language of Scotland, commanding equal respect with English" says the link posted by siarach. This statement only appears in a (former) Scottish Executive News Release and is contained nowhere in the Act. This press release formed the basis of all other media articles including those posted by siarach which surrounded the passing of the Act. Let us call it for what it is - Spin. Spin in the hope of deflecting incoming flak from, amongst others, CnaG.
During the consultation process of the Bill, the Chief Exec of CnaG submitted a report in his name which stated that CnaG believed:
"One of our main concerns is the absence in the Bill of recognition of equal status between Gaelic and English. We believe that the Bill should specifically state that Gaelic is an official language in Scotland and will, in principle, be treated equally with English in the conduct of public business, through the language plans required of public authorities".
and
"that unless the Bill is strengthened along the lines (Of the Welsh Language Act 1993) suggested we will continue to have confusion and uncertainty in what is actually meant by “the functions conferred on the Board by this Act are to be exercised with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland”".
The Chief Exec. of CnaG recognised that the Bill fell short of giving Gaelic the staus of an "Official Language" and expressed his concerns accordingly. The former Scottish Executive ignored these however and the wording of the Act remained that which was contained in the Bill. If the Bill didn't specifiy it as an Official Language - the unaltered wording of the Act thereby also fails to confer the status of "Official Language" to Gaelic. How else can you possibly interpret this???
If, as the Chief Exec. of CnaG acknowledged, the Bill which became the Act was not worded in a way which conferred "Official Language" status to Gaelic, then the only legislation which does is the ECRML - which also includes Scots.
Therefore, aside from what you call them - "Minority", "Regional", "Official" or whatever, the Official status of Gaelic comes from the ECRML , not the GL(S)Act, and the ECRML also applies to Scots, as ratified by the UK Govt. That is the basis upon the equal treatment of Gaelic and Scots which I seek, but acknowledge that without support from other editors, will never achieve. True what they say - "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" - shame...Rab-k18:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
In the hope that I should cease feeling like the small child in the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes and equally so as to counter accusations of selectivity - links to the pertinent documents for anyone with an hour or two free to read.
Current version of article fine by me. I shall retire to my talk page should anyone wish to continue this 'discussion'. Perhaps Government Press Releases should not be regarded as a "Reliable Source", given that the Government of any country could issue a Press Release tomorrow stating that the world was flat and the moon was made of green cheese. Prior to their issue, Govt. Press Releases are not subject to any vetting or scruitiny other than by those who issue them. Scruitiny only comes after the event, by which time they are in the public domain. Beware 'Spin'. Rab-k07:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Protected
Eagle-eyed editors will have noticed that I have protected this page on account of the not-about-to-end-any-time-soon edit war. I would like to think that the issue can be resolved by discussion and, perhaps, by the study of reliable sources. I assume that the content of the article national anthem of Scotland is not disputed, so perhaps you could start by working out how best to summarise that in the rather limited space available in the infobox. --Stemonitis12:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay then. Is there a concensus out there to unblock the page on the basis that "(Multiple unofficial anthems)" is retained and that both Scots and BSL are added to Official Languages in the info box, or are we going to sit indefinately with the page protected TFN? Rab-k13:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Neither Scots or BSL will be going into the Official Languages section because neither is an official language and nothing other than pov argument based upon original research/colourful interpretations and the denial of unequivocal contradictory evidence has been provided in justification of this imaginary shared status between Scots and BSL, recognised simply as minority languages, and Gaelic. This entire ridiculous argument could have been happily avoided if the section could just be "Languages" rather than "Official languages" but thanks to enforced conformity amongst pages we dont have that option. Find sources equivalent to those provided which state the status of Gaelic as an official language -BBC,Times, Scottish Government - which do the same for Scots (and BSL) and youl have some valid reasons for including them both. Until then you have nothing but your personal interpretation of what various acts actually mean - an interpretation which flies in the face of orthodox opinion. siarach14:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The "form of government" entry in the summary box does not mention that it is a parliamentary democracy. That is out of line with other summary boxes with for states with similar government. (new zealand say) —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Scottish Politics and Public Support for Independence
Can I move that the following be put back in the section on politics of Scotland as it is relevant to the current situation and is needed I feel to put the section on the main into some sort of context that isn't all one sided. "the latest opinion polls show that support for Scottish independence with the Scottish people is currently at around 31%. [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movellon (talk • contribs).
Indeed. It has no place on this article. To put it another way, if we were going to include the support on that poll, why should we not include the fact that, according to a poll released yesterday [1], the majority of Scots anticipate Scotland will be independent within the next 20 years, or that a majority of Scots would consider voting for independence in the future? Surely those two equally, if not more important, factors should be included in any analysis? Of course they shouldn't. This article neither requires an analysis of the "current situation", neither does it require broad speculation on what might be or might not be the case now. As Barryob points out it would only provide a POV-fulled running commentary, where every opposing view would come out of the woodwork, every time a poll changes in their favour. I think the way the article currently treats the constitutional position is fair and balanced. Globaltraveller00:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
But then you are a nationalist and I don't think you are being objective enough with regard to this as you have a personal interest in making sure that this information is kept out of the article. It is entirely relevant as the minority SNP is pushing for something that only 30% of people support. 90.192.2.11007:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
And hej presto, as if by magic an ip sockpuppet pops up to make a blatant personal attack on Globaltraveller ("using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views"). This ip trolling must be knocked on the head, very, very hard. It is my strong belief that we should adopt a zero tolerance approach to the disgraceful pattern of ip sockpuppetry, trolling and personal attacks on this article and its Talk page. This article is being stalked by some very unpleasant characters. Respected editors must show solidarity in the face of the onslaught. (We would welcome the attention of a Rouge Admin or two!)
By the way, I have seen zero evidence in his editing of how Globaltraveller may or may not cast his vote. He is a wonderful asset to the Wikipedia project, having brought at least two articles up to Featured article status, and licked many more into shape. If we allow tremendous editors like him to be attacked, we will end up with other losses to the project, like the nonsense which led to the loss of User:Deacon of Pndapetzim yesterday (himself the creator of several Featured and Good articles).
If you do choose to attack other editors, please at least have the courage of your convictions and log in to your account. This ip trolling is simply pathetic. --Mais oui!08:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The only poll of public opinion that matters are those which form Governments. The rest - food for party hacks and apparatchiks. Shall we have a monthly or weekly update of this along the lines of: "Pro-Independence results"? Me thinks not! "Lies, damned lies and statistics" comes to mind. Rab-k17:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
BBC reference
This reference's only comment on the official anthem is to say replacing GStQ, but this can easily be read (and I read it that way) as a colloquilaism, not as a statement of the current anthem. This has been discussed ad naseum here and the consensus is to leave it as it stands at "multiple national anthems." I personally tried to find official references (such as a Scotland national website, Scotland tourist site, etc.) that explicitly stated any national anthem, and found none. In lack of a direct, definitive reference, the consensus is the, well, consensus, and thus the page stands as it is now. VigilancePrime06:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the consensus is daft. Scotland's *only* national anthem is God Save the Queen. I'm not doubting that it has patriotic, rousing, national songs, but it certainly does not have multiple national anthems. I'm not going to waste a large chunk of my life fighting against it. I'll let someone else do that. Biofoundationsoflanguage14:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't particularly bothered either way, just hoped to reflect the true situation in the article. However, having found nothing official to the contrary, (I don't include comments by Tory MSPs or correspondance between civil servants as official), the only conclusion I can reach is that Scotland in itself has no official National Anthem. Only the UK of GB&NI has, and the words of that anthem are themselves traditional rather than official. In the case of Scotland, GStQ is as "unofficial" as the next song. Rab-k14:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree Scotland has no National Anthem. It has many patriotic national songs. So the current information under "Anthem" isn't stricly correct, I would say. The point I would make is that God Save the Queen has special status. Few things are official in the UK, which causes difficulty on wikipedia among people who would rather something didn't exist. As with all British territory, God Save the Queen is one thing all parts have in common. Biofoundationsoflanguage16:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Scottish Gaelic in Scotland
Mais Oui, I think it's fairly well known and accepted that fluent Scottish Gaelic use is exclusivly found in the Western Isles and not anywhere on the mainland, pls discuss in future and maintain Wiki's good faith editing policy. 194.193.170.8413:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It took you 1 minute and 8 minutes respectively to rv my edits, yet my offer to discuss these edits has sat here ignored for almost an hour. This would suggest to me that you are solely interested in reverting edits as opposed to discussing the improvement of the article; however I hope that I am wrong. 194.193.170.8414:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that that you are rewording a referenced statement. Which then leads to the two questions:
1) if the rewording doesn't change the meaning what is the point of making it ?
2) if the rewording does change the meaning then does the reference support the new meaning ?
If you can give satisfactory answers to these questions, I would imagine that no one would object to your change. But in the absence of a rationale, I think that Mais Oui is just erring on the safe side by reverting. In fact I suggest that you read the reference, particularly the section "Geographical Distribution of Gaelic Speakers" before repeating a common misconception. -- Derek Ross | Talk16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Scotland the nation?
Why is it so that Scotland is called a "nation" in the opening lines, and indeed thereafter, in the text of this article? Is not it so that the nation is in fact the ancient island of Great Britain? Is it not the case that Scotland for 300 years past has been rejoined to Mother England in the nation of Great Britain; that the common race of our Great British Island as sired from the fruitful loins of our sturdy ancestors, the noble Hengest and Horsa, has for these three long, prosperous and happy centuries been joined in one nation? Therefore how can it be accurate to refer to one part of our Mother's body by the term "Nation", when that term is surely reserved for it whole? The wording is sad, and wrong, but there's nothing I can do. No-one here will stand up for Lady Britannia, no-one here will hear her cry of sorrow and act manfully; no-one here will stand up for her. Am I the only person here of noble spirit, prepared to hear her cries? Will no-one else stand up for what is right? Will no-one here stand up for our Lady Britannia, our Mother? name: England's Rose19:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This is for discussing the article - your comments seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the article. You don't have a right to post whatever you want on a article talk page - it should be relevent. If you keep on posting rubbish then you will likely find yourself getting blocked for WP:POINT violations. As for "Scotland as a nation" - a google search brings up 3.8 million hits - and indeed I spend a very enjoyable day recently in the National Museum of Scotland. SFC939420:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is it "rubbish"? Because you disagree? Surely 'tis a matter of great import to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by England's Rose (talk • contribs) 20:32, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
"ancient island", "Mother England", coupled with a screed of "cries" that - if I didn't know better - I would presume was satire. I am here on wikipedia to help build a good encyclopaedia that is free, accessible and of high quality for everyone - not play silly games. If you don't have any meaningful discussion to undertake on the article then I will better invest my time doing real editing that makes a real difference. SFC939421:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Dare I admit to being passionate about our common motherland? Should I be rose-cheeked about enjoying Chariots of Fire and shedding a tear of pride? Must I shun the gazes of men for seeking to uphold Lady Britannia's good name, or to urge men of sense to consider the truth of designating a land that is no longer so, and perhaps never was, a nation? To silence criticism is to silence freedom, for which many a Great Briton, Scotsmen, Welshmen, Yorshiremen, among others, have died. No more duty can be urged upon those who are entering the great theater of life than simple loyalty to their best convictions. SFC, if you do not honour Britannia as I do, I hope you would honour truth and see the mistaken nature of the current article. For now, I will be silent. I will let other men, stronger than I, take up this, my position; for a reasonable and worthy position it is, and in some time, I'm sure, other voices will be added to the general call for good sense. Name: England's Rose21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
As a friendly tip, rather than simply debate whether or not off-topic conversation should be allowed, why doesn't someone involved just remove it. And if any of participant's wish to continue the conversation elsewhere, feel free to do so. By the by, English Rose, you typed: "theater" which is the American English version of "theatre". ScarianTalk22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
If you would deign to comprehend those words, you would come to the realisation that they are indeed about "changes to the encyclopedia". Name: England's Rose22:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, a little rough round the edges it may be, but I believe User:England's Rose has a point. And let's remember to not bite the newbie, but support them into the community, rather than suggest this is a class A drug user please - that's not terribly civil.
I've suggested this many times before, but again I must also assert that a "nation" is a group of people, not a division of land, and so this opening line is, well, 'a bit wrong', to say the least... Properly, Scotland is a constituent country (no need to pipe it so it has a link to country - really guys - come on!), which is the division of land that Scotland is under proper grammar and scholarly definition. Nation = people, Country = division of land, OK? Frankly, as it is, it reads stupidly, and is clearly completely compromised by a core of editors trying to place Europe as a lower and more useful tier of geography over the United Kingdom, in what is another example of "hiding" the UK very existence from the world... we really shouldn't be describing Scotland in any other frame in the first sentence as other than "a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".... this is the approach taken by every other majoy encyclopedia going. Jza8423:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
From the first sentance one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom I fail to see how this is hiding that Scotland is part of the UK?, as for England's Rose ramblings I do not think it is due to drug use but I am not going to respond WP:NOFEEDING. --BarryobVigeur de dessus00:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite - I'm not condoning that kind of post of course - a great deal of it is clearly very unhelpful. But what I'm saying is that using "is a nation in Europe" is, well, a bit silly, and I suspect possibly a bit of nationalist mischief. It's like saying "'Earth is nation in the multiverse, and one of the 8 planets of the solar system" - its very jumbled. Really, Scotland is in the UK in Europe in the World - that's a logical tiered structure - "nation" issue aside. Jza8400:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that "nation" refers to the people; "state" refers to the government and that "country" refers to the land and therefore that "country" is the most appropriate term in this case. However this has been discussed before and and at that time many people objected to "country" on the grounds that it implied "independent country". Since "state" is plainly wrong, "nation" was the term used in order to ruffle least feathers even though it's not technically correct. -- Derek Ross | Talk06:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Derek Ross is accurate in his summary of the history of the consensus over the opening sentence. It was actually a compromise. It is my impression that many Unionists actually prefer to use nation over country when referring to Scotland; both in Wikipedia articles and in the real world, press releases etc.
Perhaps it would help if we got off our collective arses and actually properly referenced this article? If there are so many Google hits then surely, surely we will have no problem referencing the nation statement? None of us seems to actually give a damn about bringing it up to Featured status, and I personally will do very little with it until the Admins keep the ip trolls in firm check.
By the way, Scotland most certainly is a state, due to its legal system (see State (law)). It just ain't an independent, sovereign one at present.
Fair point about the subtleties of "state" but, as you know, if people get upset about the separatist implications of describing Scotland as a country, they're going to have a tartan fit over the implications of describing it as a state, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk07:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of us would like to progress the article, but taking time off from a tricky FA candidature in place at present, I am in agreement with Mais oui!. What would be the point of spending the time on it when so much effort is spent simply keeping it free of childish nonsense? There has to be a case for some kind of intermediate protection that would prevent anon IPs and complete newbies from wasting everyone's time. Yours grumpily, on a Monday morning. Ben MacDui(Talk)08:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I couldn't possibly comment on IP contribution, but I do believe consensus can change, and we are required to write a factually verifiable encyclopedia - frankly, unionist or nationalist, I don't care too much if there is a consensus to use "nation" because its a very, very misinformed one if that was really secured in the talk page archives. Scotland is not a sentient group of people, its a division of land; a constituent country. It's just so blantantly wrong - like asserting "The Scottish people are a country. - and then defending it as a compromise! Jza8411:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
"its a very, very misinformed one" - then you are disagreeing with others of reputable origin: [2] (cached because it costs). It may be debatable and discussable - but it is best to avoid use of strong hyperbole to state your case, since it is clearly not "very misinformed". SFC939412:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, the nation of Scotland do indeed occupy the northern part of the island of Great Britain, so I stand by my points, including that it is "very misinformed" - it just is, it's rotton terminology. Surely you're not asserting that this use of "nation" is the right way forwards? Or using this backwards tiered sentence structure? We're going to find sources that use the term "nation" incorrectly, but two wrongs don't make a right, and we can be better than other webspaces with a little more critical thinking. Jza8417:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(time to shorten the indent) Agreeing with Jza84, may I point out that (first) the standard usage in the first sentence of country articles in Wikipedia is "Xland is a country..."; see for examples England, Wales, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France, Poland, Czech Republic, Spain, and Portugal (though Switzerland anomalously uses nation): (second) Scotland is commonly described as a country- see all the examples in Talk:Country/Archive 1#Examples of official use in British English, illustrating how the word country is used (the Scottish government examples were Labour/LibDem, if that matters)- but I don't think equally authoritative sources could be found for "Scotland is a nation" : (third) as a matter of language "nation" refers to people, "country" to land- see standard dictionaries such as OED or Chambers. The archive summary at Talk:Scotland/Archive_Summary#Scotland - A Nation? suggests either nation or country would sit with the editing consensus. As a newcomer to this debate, I don't want to get into an inevitable edit war, but why shouldn't the first sentence of this article follow standard usage and use 'country'? ariwara21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the phrase "Scotland is a nation" reads as though it's referring to the Scottish people rather than the country. For example would the phrase "Glasgow is the largest city in the nation" mean anything? Or "the sparesely populated Highland council area is the largest in the nation"? That just doesn't feel right. At the other end of the scale what about Scots outwith Scotland - surely they are part of the the nation of Scotland? Timrollpickering03:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to argue this point before, without success, but I will repeat in the hope it might be successful this time. "Scotland is a nation" is a nonsense, as Scotland is a division of land, and a nation means a people. Constituent country seems to be the standard term used in Wikipedia, and whilst it is stated in the first sentence that Scotland is a constituent country of the UK, this is after saying it is a nation of Europe. Scotland's first sentence should mirror that of England, Wales and NI stating it to be a constituent country (or "part" in NI's case) of the UK, not primarily a part of Europe. AlexOUK11:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should cut and past the voluminous dialogue from the archives into an essay that interested readers could peruse at their leisure. You have a point, but then so does Country#Nation:
The term has become synonymous with 'country' where nations without sovereignty (that is, nations that are not states) have aimed to identify themselves on the same terms as sovereign states
Feel free to continue to chip away at this but the overwhelming consensus to date has been to support the existing version. As for myself, I fear that national pride may be on the wane if the recent progress on the GA issue below is anything to go by. 18:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not compromise:
Scotland, (Gaelic: Alba, Scots: Scotland), an independent state until 1707, is one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Scotland occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. Apart from the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands.
Edinburgh, Scotland's capital and second largest city, is one of Europe's largest financial centres. Scotland's largest city is Glasgow, which is the centre of the Greater Glasgow conurbation. Greater Glasgow is home to approximately 40% of Scotland's population. Scottish waters consist of a large sector of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves in the European Union.
Under the terms of the Acts of Union 1707, (despite widespread protest across Scotland), the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England were unified to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. However, Scotland's legal system continues to be separate from those of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; and Scotland still constitutes a discrete jurisdiction in public and in private law. The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union. As a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Scotland is not a sovereign state and does not have independent membership of the United Nations or the European Union.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full name of the country. Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom (UK), and forms part of Britain (the largest island) and Great Britain (which includes the Scottish islands).
As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”.
Now, as the Scottish Parliament confirms "it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as “countries”", perhaps we should adopt that description for the opening paragraph? Rab-k21:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think "constituent countries" is entirely accurate and considerably less controversial, as such I certainly think no change is necessary. I'd also question that page which says "Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom" - can one be a kingdom within another united kingdom? Can one be a kingdom without a King or Queen? It seems to me to be rather meaningless in this context - roughly akin to the status of the Kingdom of Fife. --Breadandcheese05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute what you're saying. I just don't see how a concensus was reached as to use of the term "Nation". Scotland has legally defined boundaries, a legal system unique to it, a democratically elected legislature to make and impose laws separate to all and any other similar bodies and a host of other elements which fall just short of those being attributable to a Sovereign State. (Which of course it is not). But a "Nation"? Sure, those people whose ancestry is Celtic, for example, could be classed as a "Nation": the "Celtic Nation". (I am a Scot, but my ancestors hail from East Lothian/Berwickshire and are Anglo/Norse in origin, not Celtic. But I remain forever a 'Scot', all the same). I would be happier with the term "Country" rather than "Nation" being used, keeping the "Constituent Country" tag along with it. Anyone else agree? Rab-k19:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Edinburgh's grid coordinates
The coordinates given for Edinburgh in the Infobox (55°57′N, 3°12′W) point to somewhere in the middle of Princes Street Gardens West. Now, while this is undoubtably a very fine spot indeed for an ice cream on a summers day, is it really the centre of the city?
I would have thought that there were several better candidates: the castle at the top of the royal mile; the palace or the parliament at the bottom; or, perhaps for the more scholarly, the Tolbooth (which is surrounded by the city chambers, St Giles, the Heart of Midlothian and the supreme courts).
Whatever, I do not think that the Bandstand is really a very satisfactory centre point. But perhaps there is nothing better we can do with the current blunt coordinates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mais oui! (talk • contribs) 09:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
My guess is that it was picked in order to make GoogleMaps display the entire Royal Mile and Princes Street nicely. Perhaps picking a more significant point like the Castle or the Parliament building would move more of the other significant places off-screen at the higher magnifications. -- Derek Ross | Talk15:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Try asking Google Maps for 55°57′N, 3°13′W - that minimal change already takes you right out of the old town centre. You would need to go to tenths of a minute to get anywhere more precise in the centre. And when it is a question of locating a place the size of Edinburgh, that would be slightly strange. --Doric Loon17:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Correct or pedantic
As I've come across many instances where it is insisted that it is people, not places, that form nations I am surprised this page has escaped being edited.
To pre-empt the dispute: should we alter the introduction to clarify that it is the Scottish people who are often believed to form a nation, or leave it as is and hope the implication is enough? --Breadandcheese16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
For the most recent previous discussion on this very topic, please see the section, Scotland the nation ?, above. For earlier discussions, please see the archives. -- Derek Ross | Talk20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There are probably still a few tweaks required, but hopefully nothing of major significance. I shall require the services of a competitively-priced optician prior to any further such maintenance. Ben MacDui(Talk)18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr12321:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Nae probs - it actually provided an excuse to clean out a lot of uncited material. Thanks also to AngusM and Lurker. As Epbr suggests it should not be so far away from FAC, although my view is that this is likley to be a fairly pointless exercise without permanent semi-protection. Ben MacDui(Talk)08:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
England and Scotland are both countries ... or Scotland and England are both not countries. Take your pick. However whichever one of those statements is true, neither place is part of the other. Both are part of the United Kingdom however. -- Derek Ross | Talk19:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Many years ago I had to put an American couple right when telling me that England was a beautiful country (I was in oban at the time) If we don't differentiate between Scotland and England as countries then many people will continue to believe we are part of England.--Sandbagger22:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Scotland and England are both constituant countries in what could be described as a federal-type system known as the United Kingdom. Unfortunately in that type of arrangement, the larger more populus member of that system namely England could in somewhat shadow its smaller partners, which has been seen in the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the former Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Republics. However good examples of where this type of system work is in the USA. -- RÓNÁN "Caint / Talk" 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
In 1962 King Olav V of Norway made a formal state visit to Scotland. A full three day formal program was done as if it was in London as usual. According to this article unfortunately in Norwegian it was the first state visit to Scotland in 150 years. It also says that this state visit was a speshial request from King Olav to express gratitude to the Scottish people. Have there ever been any other state visits to Scotland since?Inge19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
None. Olav's visit was to express gratitude for the support given to the Shetland Bus and for King Haakon's (and his own) home in Carbisdale Castle during WW2. Athough relations between the Norwegian and Scottish peoples have always been good, that was special. Nothing comparable has happened between Scotland and Norway since. -- Derek Ross | Talk04:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it was a state visit, but did the Norwegian monarch not make a high profile visit to Edinburgh in 1999 or 2000? I seem to remember the state coach being employed to parade him up the Royal Mile. --Mais oui!08:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
King Harald and Queen Sonja of Norway made a state visit to Edinburgh, but it was in 1994, not 1999 or 2000 see this article. I too remember watching it (I'm a republican, but like a good show). This was a full-on state visit, with 21-gun salute, carriages etc. and was the first state visit to Edinburgh since 1975, when King Carl of Sweden visited. Here is a list of official state visits to the UK- unfortunately it does not distinguish between visits to London and Edinburgh. I get the impression the 3 Scandinavian visits have been the only recent ones, but I could be wrong. On the subject of Scottish-Norwegian relations, the county of Hordaland used to ship over a Christmas tree to Edinburgh, but stopped last year because the ferry ceased running in winter.
The Norwegian consulate website is a good place for details on the relationship between the two countries. Enough, in fact, that there could be the beginnings of a Wikipedia article on the subject. I didn't know there were 9 honorary norwegian consuls in Scotland, in addition to the official Edinburgh Consulate General. Lurker (said·done) 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the answers. I was sort of hoping for it to have been a one off. It makes it more speshial that way :) An article on relations between Scotland and Norway seems like a good idea. When it comes to acient history I know there are some old peace treaties between the two, but I seem to have a vague memory of an alliance as well. Is this a fact? Inge16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
He was a Knight of the Garter, the Thistle, the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order and received the Royal Victorian Chain so his British connection in that respect was quite strong. Inge10:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The last royal visit from Norway to Scotland was in May this year when Queen Sonja visited Shetland for the opening of the Shetland Museum and Archives, this wasn't a state visit of course. Article from the Royal House in Norwegian but with pictures :) Inge10:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Bannerfor that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza8422:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Map
I recently changed the map to the same style used in the articles on England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Iceland and Norway - all the countries surrounding Scotland. However, it has been reverted by someone saying I need to obtain "concensus" before doing this, even though the kind used by all the above-mentioned countries is far superior to that being used in the Scotland article. May I have concensus, please? JPBarrass07:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You may not be aware of it, but your edit follows in the wake of an extraordinarily sustained sockpuppet and meatpuppet ip attack on this article. To say the least the editors of this article were put right off by the scale and tone of what became blatant vandalism.
If you are unaware of this you may want to wade through the Talk archives (eg. Talk:Scotland/Archive14) and the History.
I for one support the use of a superior quality map. I don't see how previous problems with vandals should block such improvements. If you have other problems with the map itself you should state them. (and I did read the archive and found no consensus on people not being allowed to change the map to a better one) Inge09:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Lurker has sought to revert to the Image:LocationScotland.png map in the info box. My understanding of the argument in favour of not adopting a version of David Liuzzo's map, Image:Europe location SCO.png, (versions of which are used on other articles), was that the map should only show Scotland in relation to Europe. Not, as was preferred by some, a map showing Scotland in relation to the UK, in turn in relation to Europe. The argument was that the article was about Scotland, not the UK, therefore a visual reference to the UK was not required. My version of David Liozzo's map, Image:Europe location SCO 2.png, should not alter the apparent concensus which existed with regard to the previous map, in that it also shows Scotland's location only in relation to Europe.
I do not intend getting into an edit war over this and will be happy to go with the concensus. However, all I ask is that the Image:Europe location SCO 2.png map be left on the article until 0000 BST on 17 October to at least permit other editors to see the map and make an informed choice in arriving at concensus. I would hope this would not be too much to ask of fellow wikipedia contributors.
I have no problem with the map as it presently is, but shouldn't we ensure that the maps for the UK's constituent countries are consistent with each other? Those for Wales, Northern Ireland and England all show the UK in colour. --Simcom (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
We seem to come back to the fact that there is, thankfully, no requirement for continuity/consistency between the UK Constituent Country articles, nor IMHO should there be. (From what I understand, this article gains more plaudits for layout, content, etc. than its Home Nations counterparts, therefore if one particular article should be emulated, one need look no further!). Rab-k (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Viking
I find it odd that there is no mention of viking influence at all in this article (and very little in the History of Scotland article). Is that topic generally deemed to be of such a low importance among Scottish scolars? Or is this particular article the victim of some sort of bias?
On a related and slightly off topic issue I became curious as to if there is a nation building process going on in Scotland now? If so is it centering only on gælic or celtic culture and history?Inge09:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In relation to your first point. In my opinion the entire history section needs redrafted, but I hestitate from plunging in there myself as I am far from being an expert on that topic. In its defence though: it is bloody difficult to summarise a couple of thousand years of history in 4-5 paragraphs (we just cannot afford to let the History subsection overdominate the entire article). In my opinion: of course the vikings deserve a passing mention, duly cited.
In relation to your second point. I could reply at length, however I will desist, because it is made crystal clear at WP:TPG that Talk pages are not here for editors to indulge in a general chit-chat about the topic. If you want to have a more informal discussion please take it to User talk pages. You will find a list of editors interested in Scottish topics at our WikiProject: WP:SCO. --Mais oui!10:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest this article seems to be of questionable neutrality - there are several phrases '...despite widespread protest across Scotland...' in the introduction being an example and others with regards to the Act of Union with England that breach wikipedia's neutrality guidance. Despite being referenced, they give only a single viewpoint (primarily against the union and pro-independence). Such discussion with regards to union and the nationhood of Scotland belongs on its own separate page (with BOTH sides of the arguement). 81.96.243.127 17:00, 14 October 2007 (GMT)
"Such discussion with regards to union and the nationhood of Scotland belongs on its own separate page". The piece of law that resulted in the unification (and therefore by implication loss of Sovereignty) of the article subject - and it shouldn't even be discussed in the article? If you have respectable sources which indicate that the 1707 union was widely supported in Scotland and not controversial (subject to protests and rioting) then feel free to add them and modify the text accordingly. You won't find such sources because it wasn't - and that is the widely held view (both within academia and out with) . Under such circumstances it is wise you read wikipedia's policies on Original Research and Undue Weight, the "neutrality guidance" does not give sanction to unduly promote minority views. I will let others add their thoughts and give it a couple of days before I remove the tag. SFC939416:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The phrase is entirely unnecessary! 'The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent state until 1 May 1707, when the Acts of Union resulted in a union with the Kingdom of England to create the Kingdom of Great Britain.' is an entirely neutral representation of historical events. This phrase has been inserted (by the above user) along with others to editorialise and promote a view that the act of union was entirely and always negative with regards to current discussion of Scottish independence. How about reporting the 'minority' views of the Scottish nobles who signed the act? Jw2034 17:30, 14 October 2007 (GMT)
"This phrase has been inserted (by the above user) along with others to editorialise and promote a view" Please read WP:NPA and read it very carefully - do not attempt to negatively characterise other editors actions, comment on the content, not the contributor. SFC939416:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, those nobles remembered in tradition with great fondness by Scots and English folk alike. There is little doubt that for better or worse the Act of Union was a defining moment in Scottish history and unquestionably deeply unpopular at the time. By all means argue for a better way to say this, or for the subject to be enlarged on, but to describe the presentation of known facts as POV is simply over-the-top. Ben MacDui(Talk)16:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
By the end of 1705, and despite much public opposition, Scotland's economic crisis pushed Scottish parliamentarians towards union. An almost entirely pro-union body of Scottish commissioners met with English commissioners at Whitehall between April and July 1706 to settle the terms. The task was completed with little difficulty.
It continues...
The Articles were then considered and ratified by each parliament. In Edinburgh, the union was hotly debated between supporters and opponents, article by article, for three months. Public opposition was frequently demonstrated in petitions and in protest and violence in the streets. Nevertheless, final approval was given on 17 January 1707, and the old Scottish Parliament met for the last time on 25 March. At Westminster, the Articles were laid before the House of Lords for approval on 28 January 1707 and an Act incorporating them was passed in March.
Hmm. The late Gordon Donaldson (in his Scotland's History, in an essay entitled "Errors Old and New") has this to say (pp. 36-37):
It is rather similar with the petitions against the Union of 1707. It is useless to produce the figures showing that the number of petitions which came in from the grass-roots - presbyteries and parishes - was pitifully small: we still hear that 'one of the most striking demonstrations of virtually unanimous opposition is the Addresses of rejection of the Union which poured into parliament from all over Scotland'.
Fair enough Angus. However, the 'Mob', (not being part of the "Scottish governing, commercial and professional classes" which were warming to the Union), probably relied less upon the written word in the form of petitions and more upon physical acts to make their point. A United Kingdom Parliament site touches upon the issue of such petitons: http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/06_04_petitions.html
However, as negotiations for union progressed, the public mood became increasingly volatile, and during 1706 there was frequent civil unrest and disorder in Scottish towns. Union was gaining acceptance among the Scottish governing, commercial and professional classes, but Jacobites and others made the lower social ranks worry about the burden of taxation they would have to bear. Ministers of the Kirk spread more discontent as they began campaigning against union, gathering momentum in the spring of 1706, just as the negotiations began in London.
In October 1706 the Scottish Parliament met to consider the Articles of Union. Publication of the Articles triggered widespread unrest. Violent demonstrations took place outside Parliament House, and inside there were fears that the building would be invaded by protesters.
On 23 October the Edinburgh residence of Sir Patrick Johnstone MP, the former lord provost of the city, was attacked by the mob. Defoe described the Edinburgh mob as 'a hardened, refractory and terrible people'. On several occasions the Duke of Queensberry was pelted with stones, while other Scots MPs were bullied on their way to and from Parliament House.
The Earl of Mar informed Godolphin that 'the opposing party's misrepresenting every Article of the Treaty make the commonalty believe that they will be oppressed with taxes'. Troops were brought in to the city with orders to shoot if necessary, and several regiments were placed at Queensberry's disposal on the Scottish border and in Ireland in the event of trouble.
The situation in Edinburgh grew quieter in November. Trouble now broke out elsewhere. Early in November there was rioting in strongly Presbyterian Glasgow. In Stirling, Dumfries and Kirkcudbright (also strongly Presbyterian and anti-union), copies of the Articles were burned at the town crosses, witnessed by aggressive crowds. There were rumours of a 50,000-strong 'Association' being formed in the north, and also of a Jacobite invasion led by the Old Pretender. But despite ministerial fears of armed insurrection on a national scale, the only disturbances in the period leading up to union were local and short-lived.
Both the Scottish and UK Parliament sites would appear to support the view that the Acts of Union did indeed result in a union with the Kingdom of England, "despite widespread protest across Scotland". I would therefore suggest that the article remain unaltered. Rab-k22:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Images
Does anybody know what the image guidance is regarding Featured article status. We cannot just allow people to keep adding more images. In my opinion just one image per subsection is plenty and all other images should be added to the appropriate subarticles, not this main article.
Further, we should really be picking iconic images that undeniably represents a key notable aspect of the topic. Eg, is that dull stone representation of the arms of Edinburgh University really a good representative image of Scottish education? Nope. --Mais oui!09:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, in every respect.
WP:FA insists that the article has “images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.” The lengthy woffle on some captions was an issue in the recent GA review.
WP:MOS says :
“▪ Most captions are not complete sentences, but extended phrases, which should not finish with a period.
▪ Complete sentences in captions always end in a period.
▪ Captions should not be italicized, except for words that would otherwise be italicized.
▪ Captions should be succinct; more information on the file can be included in the image or media description page, or in the main text.”
However, User:Yannismarou/Ten rules to make an article FA says “ ▪ Find or create pictures and maps with OK copyright status. Try to have informative captions. As Peirigill once told me: "Some FA reviewers want captions to be complete sentences. Take advantage of this to relocate or reinforce some information from the article into the captions".”
I am afraid MOS and its cousins has numerous internal contradictions of this kind and so far as I can see there is no method of creating any kind of consistency except by dedicating a year of one’s life to the project or appealing to ArbCom.
WP:IUP says “In articles, if you wish to have a photo beside the text, you should generally use the "thumbnail" option available in the "Image markup" (this results in 180 pixels wide display in standard preferences default setting).”
In other words, we should avoid using specified pixel settings.
WP:PIC asks us to “Avoiding image "stackups"” – co-incidentally using a saltire image as an example. We are close to falling foul of this in the military section a present.
MOS itself says “ ▪ If there are too many images in a given article, consider using a gallery.” – although I have had to remove a gallery as a condition of a GA Review. So it goes. I would definitely avoid having one here.
All in all there is nothing definitive that I can see, and indeed a degree of inconsistency.
I suggest the following:
The etymology image caption is far too long and contains a red link.
In geology the relief map is better than nothing, but we would ideally have a much better version. Something along the lines of Image:Ecosse carte physique at right but in English and with Shetland in the correct place.
Military has at least one image too many and I’d suggest ditching the fast boat, which has nothing about it that is uniquely Scottish or even British. I actually liked the 'Thin red line' at left, which would perhaps provide a fine contrast between the grand old days of yore and modernity. If we go with just one image per section, then I’d be happy with the Tornados.
.
Educashun: The EU image is indeed ghastly – and we already have Edinburgh and Glasgow images. Contenders for a replacement…? Marischal College at right - or if we would like something modern and inclusive perhaps Sabhal Mor at left. Ben MacDui(Talk)12:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I liked the 'Thin Red Line' too - well, it was me that applied it in the first place :)
Regarding already having Edin/Glas images, I liked the image that we had of the rather imposing civic buildings of Inverclyde we used to have in the local government bit. If we restored that (or similar) then we could indulge in another Glasgow image elsewhere, eg university. Education is a very hard concept to provide an overarching image of. How about a tawse! Pretty much sums up the educational experience of centuries-worth of Scots who had their indigenous languages thrashed out of them. --Mais oui!13:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there should be an image of Trident for the military section. The caption can mention how contraversial it is for the nukes to be based in Scotland (which isn't even mentioned yet). Astrotrain13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly support that proposal. In fact, I think that the fact the UK's nuclear weapons base is located in Scotland is really so notable it ought to be in the introduction to the article. After all, the fact that the United Kingdom is one of the official '5 nuclear powers' is notable enough for the introduction to the United Kingdom article.
In a list of "remarkable things the average non-Scot does not know about Scotland", Trident would have to feature in the top 10 or even the top 5.. --Mais oui!08:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You urban types are so droll. The image is fine, but surely Inverclyde is a part of the Glasgow conurbation? I was suggesting something from those far-flung places currently ignored by the visual aspect of our fine article rather than the exotica a couple of junctions further up the M8. You may, for example, have heard of Aberdeen, Dundee, Stirling and Inverness. There is also that other part of the country - what's it called? - The Borderlands, or something similar. Mind you it is a shade short on exciting images, unless of course you fancy this snap of the local vernacular. Ben MacDui(Talk)07:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
A nation is a cultural entity composed of people; not necessarily an independent state. There can be said to be a Scottish nation coexistent with a British nation and British state. --Breadandcheese23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've re-established it. Please achieve Consensus on talk before making the change. For starters the mass of discussion on this page (and archives) is a worth a read through. SFC939420:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
On a lead sentence, of a very well established article, with many contributors, on a piece of content that a cursory glance at the talk page indicates is contentious. Our own guidelines state that consensus should be reached before changes made under such conditions. The editor was, of course, technically within their rights to make the edit - the article is not under protection, but it would be prudent, given the conditions I outlined, to realise that it would not be the most sensible course of action. SFC939423:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the sentence, but I won't change it again. PS- too bad the four UK 'constituent countries' articles, can't be more consistant. GoodDay21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Infobox
I hate to be a gripe, but the infobox seems to be spurning a life of its own at the side of the article - especially the section on Unification and Annexation, which is far too detailed for what it is trying to show - and I think missing the point completely. I realise the land area of what is Scotland has changed substantially from the earliest times - bit have been added and bits have been subtracted. It is certainly fascinating and perhaps deserves its own article, but does it really need to be recounted in detail (including the annexation of Rockall in 1972) at the side of the page, in something that is meant to give but the briefest snapshot of the country in question? Globaltraveller21:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 21:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree. This explosion of information is absolutely not what an infobox is designed for. And it is absolutely full of selective (and totally unsourced) information, making it hopelessly POV. For example, why is the "annexation"/re-annexation of Ork/Shet included, but not the original Norse annexation of the islands from Pictish Scotland in the Early Middle Ages? Other losses of Scottish territory are there, so why not that one? --Mais oui!09:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hardly an "explosion" Mais oui. Honestly, never mind POV, more like OTT, given what I included was merely a few additional dates of key events which gave shape to the country as it stands today . While I'm perfectly aware and am constantly reminded that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, the links to the relevant articles lead the reader to the 'sources', therefore it is hardly 'unsourced'. As for the change and exchange of territory, it is due to the fact that they were often repeated throughout history that such instances like the loss of the Northern isles by the Picts to the Norse are not mentioned. Nor the 'to-you', 'to-me', 'to-you', 'to-me' nature of Berwick. I only specified the final gains and losses of territory which leave the territorial boundaries of Scotland as we find them today, not the scores of others which preceded them. And what, do tell, is wrong with mentioning Rockall? It is a legal fact and again the links take you to the articles where the sources are cited. The only POV here is on the part of those who dictate that only those events previously included in the info-box should be maintained and no others added what so ever! "Hopelessly POV"? How so? Rab-k10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Given the deafening silence which has followed my last contribution, please can any Editor enlighten me as to how my proposed changes, illustrated in the thumbnail image, fall into the "POV" category, as defined by Wikipedia:
"POV" is an abbreviation for "Point of View". It is most commonly used to signify that in the opinion of the writer, some statement is not written in a neutral manner -- ie, in the sense "this is non-neutral and takes a point of view". Non-neutral content or style conflicts with Wikipedia's goal of being a neutral factual information source.
I suspect I know why Mais Oui has come to this conclusion but, as he has not replied, I would welcome clarification from others. Many thanks. Rab-k04:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the way Mais oui writes about Orkney and Shetland above is quite telling. I think it is in all cases important to recognise that we all are in some way preconditioned in our opinions. As am I writing from a Norwegian perspective. I think we should be extra attentive to this when writing wikipedia articles and when debating opposing opinions.
On a different topic I notice that there have been several instances in this article and perhaps in related articles were editors have made fruitfull edits only to be rejected by one or two editors citing some old consensus or that this article has been like this for so long that it has to be like this for ever. This is not helpfull to the development of wikipedia. Inge08:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll go back to my initial point. I'm not sure we require a compendium of the gains and losses of Scottish territory from the earliest times - up to as late as 1955 (Rockall) I'm not sure that is the point of what is trying to be ascertained when we're talking about unification or annexation (ie the "geographical" aspect). Allied to that, even if it were relevant - does it need to clutter - a summary infobox? Thanks Globaltraveller12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Version 2
Okay Globaltraveller, leaving Rockall to one side, which I'm happy to do in the (vain?) hope of reaching concensus, would you settle for the key events, (minus Rockall), as they appear in the revised thumbnail image? Are the other points not as legitimate as those in the current article as to how Scotland came to be in its present form? (Neither Caithness, the Northern Isles nor Western Isles are currently listed. Nor Berwick, which accounts for the odd kink on that part of the border which otherwise corresponds to the Tweed). Happy to go with what I propose, (Minus Rockall and as per thumbnail), or leave as is? Thanks (in advance). Rab-k13:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC) PS I'm still none the wiser how I fell foul of rules governing POV. Thoughts, anyone?
As I said before - I'm not sure we require any of it. Doesn't matter whether it be the annexation of Rockall, or the loss of Berwick to England, or the loss and then re-incoporation of the Orkney, Shetland, Outer Hebrides etc ad infinitum. I'm not sure that any of that is relevant to what we are trying to show. The geographical space of Scotland has no doubt changed - but Scotland, or the Kingdom of Alba, or the Kingdom of Scotland or whatever we want to call the political entity of Scotland - existed despite these geographical changes. That, I think is the main point which we should be trying to convey. Globaltraveller15:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Essentially yes. The formation, is not really important, the establishment of the political entity is. To take an example Switzerland was technically "unified" in 1291, but the geographical areas involved are a fraction of the current state of Switzerland. I'm no expert on the issue but the Kingdom of Scotland article suggests the Kingdom of Scotland - what we shall the call the political entity of Scotland (notice how I neatly swerve round the country/nation thing by using that term) existed from c843. The point is that the geographical area of Scotland has changed, even the name of the country might have changed and its political status might have changed, but the state (using the term loosely) existed despite these changes. That is what we should be showing. Globaltraveller18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
"This follows new research into the collection which includes the famous Drosten Stone, a cross slab carved with an ornate cross and a series of fantastic beasts. It also has a rare Latin inscription indicating it was erected in the time of King Uurad, son of Bargoit, who died around 842 AD. This means it was among the last great works of art created by the Picts before their kingdom was united with Dalriada under one king in 843 AD – leading to the birth of Scotland."
I think it would be better if the unification and establishment took precedence over the formation aspect (not only is it logical and sequential to do so - establishment precedes formation - the unification/establishment point is the pivotal aspect which created what we know as Scotland. So, essentially, I'd swap the order of the two elements in Version 4. Globaltraveller20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Under the section national symbols it states that the flag of Scotland is the oldest national flag still in use. The Wiki page on flags (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag) states that the flag of Denmark is the oldest flag still in use. ~ColonySwiss~01/11/2007~
The Dannebrog is the oldest State flag still in use. Scotland ceased being a State in 1707, however, and according to legend, the Saltire pre-dates the Dannebrog and remains in use as a National flag. Therefore, it can be said that the Flag of Scotland is the oldest National flag in use, but not the oldest State flag in use, which is of course the Dannebrog. Rab-k13:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It has - on more than one occassion, along with the [[:Image:Saltire.jpg]. Rightly or wrongly, some editors take the view that only the Dannebrog has legitimacy as to claims of status as only in tradition, rather than fact, does the Saltire pre-date it. References/images are usually removed. (These Danes are a force to be reconned with!) Rab-k17:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You will have noted the recent reverts in the geography section. It is not a big deal, but I would prefer not to have this reference here on two main grounds. Firstly we already have a sufficiency of history. To clutter up the geography section with it seems unnecessary. Secondly, it's not as if Berwick was simply a time-honoured Scottish possession that was, as the current version suggests, lost to perfidious Albion in 1482. If its article is to be believed it first came into Scottish hands in 1018 and changed hands umpteen times between then and the fifteenth century. A third and related issue I'd like to bring back to our attention concerns the difficulties of maintaining coherency in this article. It has been pretty stable of late, with much of the discussion concerning the images and infobox. This suggests to me that (by and large) its contents are considered generally satisfactory by most editors. This is an opportunity to remind ourselves that one of the main problems we face is not in finding notable new material, but in limiting the content to the most notable and relevant. Comments welcome. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk18:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Guilty party here! My persistant efforts to have Berwick listed is due to its being one of the "Important Exceptions" to the territorial extent of Scotland, as defined by the Teaties of York and Perth. The reclaiming of Berwick by England in 1482 was the final 'adjustment' of the territory of Scotland which, (with the exception of Rockall - which I won't mention further for fear of another slap-down), has remained unchanged since that event. The importance to Scotland of Berwick in economic terms during the two centuries prior to it's final transfer to English rule is not mentioned here and rightly so - it is not, as you say, a section on history. However, for the sake of a mere 8 words, I do not think the sentence as it stands overwhelmingly detracts from the main article. In terms of physical and political geography, the final alteration to the territory of Scotland, accounting for the Anglo-Scottish border leaving the Tweed some 5 miles west of the coast in order to encompass the town, is surely both "notable and relevant".Rab-k10:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, few of us are 'bovvered' one way or the other. I shall let the matter rest, but encourage all of us to consider whether our additional tweaks here and there are really necessary. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Motto Of Scotland
I think the Scots translation is wrong for two reasons: firstly, when I was a kid I had a Scottish nanny, and she used to talk to me in Scots to make me laugh, and from what I can remember, Scots is pretty much modified form of English. The meaning of the Scots motto listed is different from the meaning of the English motto. The Second reason is that, even if I am misunderstanding the Scots, it seems unlikely that the same motto would be both a statement and a question. There's a question mark at the end of the scots translation. This is illogical. Please, someone fix this. Quodfui00:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That may be so. But since the motto we present has been recognised as the traditional Scots translation for over a hundred years, the fact that it's not as literal a translation as the English one is neither here nor there. It's not up to us to rewrite the standard Scots translation. -- Derek Ross | Talk01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Alba - IPA
In keeping with other articles, the Scotland article should IMHO retain the International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation for Alba in the opening sentence. (Particularly given that it is so frequently mis-pronounced). When included in the article I took my version from Macleod, Iseabail (1998) The Pocket Guide to Scots Words. Glasgow: Scaramouche 1998. ISBN1-899471-01-4. This publication has the pronunciation as alapə, stating that "stressed syllables are in bold type". Given the recent removal, restoration and subsequent revision, can someone confirm if the current version by Akerbeltz is correct, in as much as it differs from my reference by inclusion of ɫ ? (I'm afraid I sold my copy of Dwelly's years ago - that might possibly be regarded as the source for confirmation should someone have a copy to hand). Regards Rab-k (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason to use this phonetic device on three grounds.
Firstly it makes the opening sentence even more clumsy than need be. I can see no reason for it to say more than "Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a nation in northwest Europe and one of the four ..."
Secondly, I would tend to avoid a phonetic rendition unless the word might be very hard for a non-Scot to pronounce (e.g. Dubh Artach). Doubtless a few folk get 'Alba' wrong but its not as if they are going to be misunderstood as as result.
Thirdly, very few people understand these phonetic renditions anyway, so even where there is a potential prolem, I suspect they have little value. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk09:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the ipa for the word Alba ought to be removed, but for a different reason: we should only provide ipa for the actual bolded word, if and when required, not for other words in the article. Providing the ipa of other words is just as distracting and superfluous as translating other words in the text (as I note occasionally occurs in Wales-related articles). And please do not cite the Wales or England articles as examples we ought to be following: both are hideously bad, in their own ways, and are far below the standard of this article. If you need benchmarks you should be looking at WP:FA country articles, eg Belgium, India, Turkey, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan etc.
PS I have created a new page Etymology of Scotland based on two recent versions of this section and the (to my mind somewhat speculative) information at List of country name etymologies. This includes a reference to the pronunciation of Alba, and is, I believe, the appropriate location for this kind of detail. Ideally those with strong and informed views on this subject will sort out any remaining issues with the section of this article there. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk10:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the easy bit first. alapə is both a bit unhelpful and not quite right. It's not quite right in the sense that l represents an alveolar l whereas Gaelic here needs a velarised and dental l. Secondly, there's a general problem across Wikipedia and linguistic transcriptions in general regarding the use of stop symbols. You either get people who very closely follow the IPA and use [p] for a unaspirated voiceless bilabial and [pʰ]for the aspirated version, [b] for the voiced stop. At the same time, other authors prefer a slightly more phonemic spelling wherein the [p]/[b] pair is used for easy of writing to represent whichever binary pair the language in question has. The outcome is somewhat messy. On the bright side, Gaelicists generally use [b̊] for the voiceless unaspirated bilablial and [p] for the voiceless aspirated bilabial as historically Gaelic had voiced [b]. This IPA spelling I thought uselful here because it takes away some of the ambiguity surrounding the stop conundrum.
As far as the question of whether it should be on the first page, I'm not getting involved in this discussion again. There are numerous examples of wiki pages which have not only one but several transliterations and transctiptions after the headword (just browse a few chinese examples for example). I think it should be there because someone who's not familiar with Gaelic shouldn't have to trawl through 4 pages to get to the IPA, but if there are people who feel that possessive about their header line, I won't argue even though I think it silly.
One alternative might be a solution I have seen appearing in Asian pages (I can't remember an example at the moment thought) where a special box has been created to list alternative forms and their pronunciation, that might be a way of having the Gaelic/Scots names + IPA in general near the header without making the header line "heavy". Thoughts? (Akerbeltz) 18:57, 30 January 2008 (GMT)
However, surely Wikipedia is not about what the man in the street thinks. It's about facts. If Scotland has more than one Patron Saint then put them in there. Let the man in the street say "oh! I didn't know that!". Then let a thousand Scottish Pub-quiz questions be forged.. :-)
There's also St Columba of Iona, although veneration of him fell out of fashion. Perhaps more obviously, there's also St Alban as patron saint of Great Britain. --Breadandcheese02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not a fact ... not a verifiable one at least ... that one saint is a patron saint. We could ask God who He appointed to patronize Scotland, but until He answers it is conjecture. Andrew is about the most unconvincing patron saint for any country, and the origins of that come from the fact that the church of Cell Rigmonaid concocted a myth connecting themselves to the saint ... a myth prolly stemming from the belief that the Picts and Scots came from Scythia (thought to be etymologically connected with Scotia). Anyways, the saint most requested to intercede with God on behalf of the Scottish nation for most of the Middle Ages is St Columba; St Andrew became more popular in the later Middle Ages because the most senior bishopric in the Scottish church was dedicated to him. For all that's said about St Margaret, popular devotion to her seems to be virtually non-existent, although importantly she was the only ancestor of the late medieval Scottish monarchy who was canonized. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why we don't just list ALL the Patron Saints. Just because 'most' people don't realise there can be more than one Patron Saint of a country and that Scotland has at least three isn't a good reason not to. I added Columba and Margaret to the patron saints entry and yet again it has been reverted. Part of the joy of Wikipedia is being able to discover new facts that challenge your beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.82.125 (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
For the same reasons we don't need to list every animal of significance that once lived in Scotland but is now extinct here. The Scotland article should be a summary of good work in other articles that have the space to go into all the details as the section below suggests. By all means create a page called 'Patron saints of Scotland' and then it can be linked too from here. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk11:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This article may be too long
Yep, now at 86 kilobytes, and counting...
For the umpteenth time I now raise this issue once again here at Talk. Is no-one around here genuinely interested at getting this article through FA?
I propose that we ought to shunt off some things onto the relevant sub-articles, which, heaven knows, could nearly all do with vast improvement (notable exception being the Economy of Scotland article). Each section here at the main article should be just 2-5 paragraphs long. It is very hard to cut down History, although I wish someone would give it an honest crack, but certain other sections could be easily edited down, eg. Politics, Military and Transport. And some of the images have to go: they are just clutter, and can very easily be moved to the relevant sub-articles.
We have to ask ourselves: what is the really important information that must be conveyed to the reader? What is it that makes Scotland a distinctive and notable topic in an encyclopaedia? Is there anything unusual about the topic that differentiates it from other, at-first-sight-similar, topics? We need to present the essence of the topic, clearly and succinctly, and leave the detail to the sub-articles, which readers can very easily access at a click of the provided link. --Mais oui!07:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. The Geography etc. section has expanded despite my best attempts. I have pruned it back again. Looking at the recent edit history its mostly the accretion of small edits, especially images that are causing the problem, although this edit [3] by your good self, whilst relatively trivial added nearly 2MB. No idea why. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk12:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ben - I see under the cover of "This article may be too long", your 750 bytes worth of text deletion (plus deletion of two images) made short work of my edits in Geography, Flora and Fauna and images. Got rid of that pesky Berwick after all, eh? "The Georgraphy etc. section has expanded despite my best attempts". Oh please, 8 words, bravo! I look forward to seeing you being equally as ruthless with the 'more established editor' set, or is it only contributions from 'newbies' which get to feel the cold steel of your keyboard? Hat, coat, door... Rab-k23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much we can do with it to be honest. In my opinion, the large majority of this article needs to stay. We have far too many articles this one has been split into in the first place. Oh, and the pictures at the side of the "Etymology" section obstruct the text quite a lot. WBOSITG (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
For a few suggestions, could the Politics section be trimmed a bit. Do we need to know the leaders of all the political parties, for example? Alex Sammond is notable as First Minister not the leader of the SNP. Do we need to know that the styling of the Queen as Elizabeth II is controversial here, or in the sub article. Can we trim some of the UK constitutional information and put a main/see also to Her Majesty's Government / Politics of the United Kingdom. Whilst reference to the constitutional position of Scotland within the Union is importance, there has to be a balance between some of the fine detail here when a broad stroke and position is required. In Economy, could we take away the currency sub-section? Does the difficulty of using Scottish money in England that can be found sometimes, need to be in the main article? In Transport, can we trim back some of the railway info as it far exceeds the roads for example and is larger than the airline section. I don't think the article needs wholesale cuts, but trimmed here and there to basic but informative detail and clear direction to the sub articles. For a comparison, Australia is an FA and is 59k. Germany is an FA and is 99k. Maybe country articles can be a bit bigger? Anyway, just some thoughts. Regan123 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I've manged to cut or move quite a lot of info. The article is now 79 kilobytes, which I think is short enough, even if we need to add quite a lot of extra info to make this into a FA. I've cut military, politics and transport. I think the history and geography sections are an appropriate size for a country article. The culture section could maybe be shortened, but I'll leave that for someone else to have a go at. I saw no need to remove any images. Lurker (said·done) 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Infobox Map
I have recently undertaken to restore the original map by David Liuzzo, [Image:Europe location SCO.png], depicting Scotland within the context of the United Kingdom, as well as within the wider European continent. This reflects Scotland's constitutional position as a Constituent country or one of the four Home Nations of the United Kingdom, and as such is also consistent with the maps featured in the England, Wales and Northern Ireland articles. It would appear that the individual who created the current revised map is attempting to airbrush reality by removing any reference to the UK. The current reality is that Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom, and as such should be reflected in this map, in accordance with the precedent established on the other Home Nations articles.
I do not intend getting into an edit war over this and will be happy to go with the consensus, if we can establish one here, however was there ever a consensus in changing the original map in the first place?
139.153.13.68 (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Generally, if an edit war is happening, its a good idea trying to come to a consensus before changing the page, rather than reverting again and then posting on the talk page saying "I do not intend getting into an edit war over this". Personally, I don't particularly care if the image shows the UK or not, but I'm trying to bring this article up to FA standard and I'm going to get angry if an an edit war screws things up. Lurker (said·done) 14:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If you get angry, what will happen? He does raise a valid point again about the airbrushing and downplaying of the UK in this article and others by what seems to be Wikipedia's Scottish Mafia. Getting consensus on this page is invariably like trying to turn the sky green. Impossible. I'd support the IP all the way. -- Jza84 · (talk)13:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Simple- if I see people persistently edit warring on this issue (on either side of the issue)they will be reported and could end up being blocked. I don't care how hard you think it is to get consensus, changes that are likely to be contentious should be discussed before being made. If that isn't working, you know the dispute resolution options that are available. Edit warring helps no-one. BTW, this talk of a Scottish Mafia on Wikipedia breaks WP:FAITH. Lurker (said·done) 13:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It's impossible to assume good faith with edits like this and this. Not only is the guy not part of the project, but hasn't even asked its members. It is a pure bad-faith, nationalist move, and complete ownership of the article. Looks like we can't even say UK on the talk page now or even support the article. -- Jza84 · (talk)15:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm asking for engagement and justification. Wikipedia is not censored, and nor should anyones comments be. If there is no discussion, I presume we can revert the WikiProjects to pre Mais Oui levels? -- Jza84 · (talk)16:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As the "individual who created the current revised map" I can assure you I am not "attempting to airbrush" anything, but thank you for your insight (sic) into the reasons for my having created the map. Allow me to enlighten you as to why I spent the time doing so.
The Liuzzo series of maps are, IMHO, the best 'Wiki-world' has to offer. The original version showing Scotland within the UK/EU was not included in the info-box because it was felt that a map simply showing Scotland's location was entirely appropriate, given the article concerns Scotland, not Scotland (United Kingdom) or Scotland (European Union). Given that Scotland pre-dates the UK and to this day continues to distinguish itself in many respects from the remainder of UK, I too saw no problem with this argument. The map chosen to show only Scotland on the European continent was IMHO inferior to that of the Liuzzo maps, and I decided to alter a Liuzzo map, in keeping with the terms of use, to that now in the info-box.
This was not, as you seem to imply, part of a nationalist plot to deny the existance of the UK or even EU, but to improve upon that which had existed previously, while maintaining the concensus which had been reached, namely that the article is about Scotland and therefore that should be what the map shows, with no need whatsoever to refer visually to either the UK or EU.
As I have been reminded by other editors, what other articles may or may not adopt as standard does not automatically follow for this article. Rab-k (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProjects
Why is there so many completely irrelevant projects on this article? Did the projects on here ask for the article to be included? I tried to remove some of the ones which are clearly nothing to with the article but User:Mais oui! re-added them for no real reason. This kind of misuse can damage projects by having articles outside the scope added it can cause other users to begin adding similiar articles to the projects e.g. Wales being in WP:History which clearly is nonsense. Projects are there to help articles improve and only if they fall within the scope of the project. Please desist from re-adding the projects. └and-rew┘┌talk┐18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Modern history
This article looks in pretty good shape, but one sentence in the above section lept out as not being up to the same standard as the rest of the page "Following the Scottish Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, Scotland became one of the commercial, intellectual and industrial powerhouses of Europe.". Looking at Powerhouse didn't really help and how important is "one of"? I couldn't think of a short and simple way to fix it, but hopefully everyone will see that it does need fixing. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This section merits attention, not least because it jumps from the Enlightenment to post-industrial decline in just one sentence! Shortening some of the other sentences (I've edited a couple) may create some space for more about the C19? AllyD (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Too many sections
There seem to be too many sections in the article. The TOC has a whopping 17! I think we could merge some of them, but I'm unsure how. Looking at country FAs, Chad and Cameroon have Economy and Infrastructure sections. Could the transport section go here? What about putting subdivisons into the geography section? Education seems to be included in Demography/Demographics in many country FAs. I'd also consider putting National symbols in Culture. Does anyone else have nay ideas how we can reduce the number of sections? Lurker (said·done) 14:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What about subdivisions moving into the Politics section as they seem to be more relevant together. Could religion merge into demography as they again seem related. Otherwise I agree with your suggestions. Regan123 (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Queen's Title on the Article
This is a somewhat sharp message left on my talk page. I understood that the consensus was that she would be referred to as Elizabeth II but I am happy to be proved wrong...
Queen Elizabeth is NOT referred to as Queen Elizabeth II in Scotland. On ALL official documentation she is simply 'Queen Elizabeth'. On post boxes, she is Queen Elizabeth, on the royal crest and at the royal palaces, she is Queen Elizabeth...in the Scottish Parliament, she is referred to as Queen Elizabeth...hence why, on the Scotland page, I changed the text to Queen Elizabeth...you seem to wish to perpetuat the myth than Queen Elizabeth is 'Queen Elizabeth II' in Scotland, which is facutally and legally incorrect...call yourself a moderator...rubbish!
Im pretty sure Queen Elizabeth is "II" in Scotland and would be very surprised if this turned out to be factually and legally incorrect. Elizabeth is II in Scotland for the same reason that any future Kings of the UK called James or Constantine UK would be VIII and IV respectively in England despite England only having historically been ruled by only 2 kings named James and none called Constantine. Sounds to me like the user who left a message on your talk page is letting nationalist wishful thinking get in the way of the facts. The facts being that Scotland doesnt exist as a nation and neither does England. Both constitute parts of the United Kingdom and the monarchy of the United Kingdom decided to adopt the highest regnal number attached to the name of a historical monarch of either of the historical states. siarach (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
List of regnal numerals of future British monarchs: Needs sourced in many places but is generally accurate. Scots Law permits a Monarch to style themselves how they see fit. Elizabeth II is what she is because that is how HMTQ wishes to be styled. Former Speaker of the Scottish Parliament Sir David Steel may have referred to her in the "constitutionally correct manner...as Queen of Scots", but despite subsequent Speakers of the Scottish Parliament also using this title, it has yet to catch on. (The fact these individulas were not hauled off to 'The Tower' would indicate that Her Majesty did not find use of the title too displeasing to one's ear). The post box nonsense would indicate that your detractor does not live in Scotland, for they would otherwise know that no Post Box here bears any royal cypher, other than those marked GVIR and GVR. (I doubt there are any older cyphers remaining, but I could be wrong). Rab-k (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
And indeed, whilst it's true that Royal Mail postboxes don't carry the EIIR cypher, and the phone boxes gained their own style of crown, this was done because people were setting fire to, and blowing up, the originals! It's not fair of the user above to imply that they are this way because of some reason in law. – Kieran T(talk)18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't quite see where you're coming from Kieran. While you're right about the post box and the absence of EIIR, the crown was, is, and continues to be used elsewhere.Crown of Scotland. Rab-k (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a Very controversial issue to refer to Queen Elizabeth of Scotland as Queen Elizabeth the Second. Queen Elizabeth the First of England Was well known for being only queen of 'half an island' and she was also responsible for the execution of Mary, queen of Scots. It is also important to note that on post boxes (A controversy that resulted in many new post boxes being replaced) and most official documentation She is Referred to as simply Queen Elizabeth.
Of course, It is common sense that in general she is reffered to as Queen Elizabeth II of the Commonwealth, (Many other states were never under the crown of Queen Elizabeth of England) but I think the article should at least mention that the Queens title in Scotland is a controversial one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.151.151 (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Source? I'd say it isn't remotely controversial. Short of a few fools blowing up a couple of post boxes in the 50s, nobody has ever mentioned anything further since. Anyway, you're also factually incorrect: in all official and formal documentation she is referred to as Elizabeth II. --Breadandcheese (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Scotland the 'nation'
Why is it being insisted that Scotland is a country? Can you have a Scottish nationality? No! If you are from Scotland you are British. If you are using the term nation to identify a group of people then why isn't the Basque region or Brittany considered nations? It is a completely false statement and should be removed.Melvo (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You have contradicted yourself from the get go. Nation does not equal country. The principle debate on here is whether country or nation should be used (the compromise is both). There is nuance in the debate, and both terms have wide usage (both in official and colloquial circles). The debate is very old (and there are vast screeds in this talk page archive if you want to read them). What I don't think you will find virtually anyone agreeing with is that "If you are from Scotland you are British" - that seems to be an attempt to deny that the word "Scottish" even exists. SFC9394 (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is it being insisted that Scotland is a country? because the cited source says it is. There is even a quote from the source in the footnote. Read the sources before passing judgement on the accuracy of an article. Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions. Lurker (said·done) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Aside from those technical arguments, there is a practical side to things. I am British because I was born in Britain, I am Scottish because I was born in Scotland, I am Aberdonian because I was born in Aberdeen. None of these descriptions excludes the others: they are all true. And any one of them might be the best answer to a question that someone asks me, depending upon how specifically they want to know my origin.
However none of them say anything about my citizenship. It may well be that I am actually Australian. That is why it is important to separate the concepts of "country" (which is geographical), "nation" (which is ethnic) and "state" (which is political/legal) even though most people confuse them. -- Derek Ross | Talk20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That is why it is important to separate the concepts of "country" (which is geographical), "nation" (which is ethnic) and "state" (which is political/legal) even though most people confuse them.
Most people confuse HIV (a virus) with AIDS (a set of symptoms/diseases associated with HIV infection). Does that mean that HIV and AIDS aren't distinct concepts? Hardly. All it means is that most people don't care about the difference between the concepts enough to ensure that they use the correct term for the relevant concept, perhaps because they don't feel a need to distinguish between them. People who do feel a need, sufferers or medical staff perhaps, are far more likely to use each term to refer to its specific concept. The situation is similar in the case of country/nation/state: political scientists will likely use the terms carefully; the general public will likely use the terms carelessly. -- Derek Ross | Talk06:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, upward conformity is one method of narrowing the range of meanings assigned to words by a Discourse Community, but it's still misguided to see it in terms of right or wrong meaning. If HIV and Aids ever actually did become substantially confused, a new term would simply be invented for one. We naturally delegate the authority to assign meaning to medical terms to medical specialists, who for the most part monopolise usage (except for some terms which grow more popular because of their prominence in our lives) and what they say constitutes "truth". Here it's literally life or death that we do that. To move beyond this to abstractions like "nation", "country", etc, terms which came into usage before political "scientists" tried (if they ever did, and I don't think so) to fix their meanings, is I think highly flawed. Political scientists are not generally assigned that role in our community, and a survey of lots of specialists in our society will (if you undertake it) show that use of these terms are no more fixed among these lofty spheres than in amongst the riff-raff. And I think an analysis of the history of the term "nation-state" in the usage of political "scientists" is enough to demonstrate that these people are little less "careless" than the general public in their use of terminology. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Melvo. I think you will find that you can indeed have "Scottish nationality". Just ask any official from the SFA, SRU, CGCS and a host of other organisations who will give you chapter and verse as to who qualifies for "Scottish nationality". The same, might I add, applies to the nationalities of all other British Citizens from the constituent countries of the UK, or "Home Nations" as they are also known.Rab-k (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Although not directly related, I have rather a problem with the 'nation' tag being used in the opening. First, it is not uncontroversial and there is no precise criteria for nations generally; secondly, a nation applies to a group of people not a place; thirdly, the same is not included in the introduction for the other UK constituent countries. --Breadandcheese (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I see no controversy other than by a couple of people on here. I don't see vast screeds having been written about it in the broadsheets or campaign marches every 6 months. As I have cited before and I will cite again, Britannica's first words in its article on Scotland are "The nation of Scotland"[4] Secondly, the word nation is frankly more inclusive, covering all who form part of Scotland, irrespective of their origins - this article is not just on the physical geography of Scotland but on the cultural, historical and artistic character - frankly when attempting to cover such a wide area on something with as historical (and current) complexity as Scotland, nation is a perfect word. Thirdly - and the one I feel most strongly on and have commented on before. What other editors decide on other articles is of very little relevance. The end goal of wikipedia is not a series of identikit articles mostly comprised of "fill in the blanks" for that particular subject. The editors of this article (whoever they are) will reach a consensus on what the contents of this article will be following the policies of wikipedia - not be forced into accepting content decisions based on consensus reached by other editors on other articles (wherever and whatever those articles are on) not only not taking into account, but completely disregarding, the views of the editors who actually work on the article. Other than office actions that is the anathema of what this place is supposed to be about. SFC9394 (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I see the request for copy editing is still live. But having read the discussion above in its entirety, I would suggest there may be very few brave enough to tackle the task. You've done a fantastic job on getting it to where it's at now but may I respectfully suggest at least one modification to shorten what is a rather lengthy entry? The early lines where it states The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent state until May 1, 1707, when the Acts of Union, despite widespread protest across Scotland,[9][10] resulted in a union with the Kingdom of England to create the Kingdom of Great Britain.[11][12] appears to suffer from having superflous info in it - namely the words - despite widespread protest across Scotland - Any political decision ordinarily brings protest of one sort or another and in that respect the words tend to convey a partisanship which shouldn't really be in an entry of this nature. The opening info should be establishing the 'facts' for the reader, and the fact is The Acts of Union resulted in the union and any reference to how it was percieved or reacted against should be in an analysis of the political situation historically and not in the main 'Scotland' entry? I'm really sorry for parachuting in on you folks like this but like you, I want to see the best, most neutral, most accessible entry on Wiki for Scotland. OzScot (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"The opening info should be establishing the 'facts' for the reader". Agree totally. Fact of the matter is, that the demise of the State that was Scotland was not a popular move, except amongst some of the ruling classes. This 'fact', which is referenced, speaks for itself. I don't quite see how a statement of 'fact' can be regarded as "partisanship". If there had been dancing in the streets in some quarters then that would also have been a 'fact' worthy of note, however no history book I've ever read mentions such. I'm not one for the discounting of 'facts' simply because in a modern context they may make uncomfortable reading for some. It is the exclusion of facts that result in situations where, for example, most Scottish school pupils believe that the Battle of Culloden was fought between Scotland and England, not between Jacobite and Hanoverian, with as many if not more Scots fighting on the Hanoverian side than on the Jacobite. I'm all in favour of 'facts', even if that does result in a "rather lengthy entry". Rab-k (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it's possible my use of the word partisanship was the wrong term, however the point I was trying to make is that you (or whoever created that line) are describing the reaction to an event and not the event in and of itself which is all that should be there at that point. I have no idea where you are getting the idea that it makes 'uncomfortable reading' - it makes good reading but is in the wrong place contextually (IMO). As for dancing in the streets there will have been those who at least metaphorically were - I'm well aware of the protests which took place as chronicled by T C Smout and others but there were those who stood to gain much from the Union - all I am saying is that in a general intro it appears out of context as it's like saying Geologically - Scotland upped stilts and set out North much to the annoyance of Pangea. It's not the content I question, it's the context. OzScot (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There is of course a deeper context surrounding the politicking of the act of Union - which of course would be explored in depth in any subsequent article about 18th Century Scottish history or the Act of Union. This was not just any "political event" in Scottish history it was a pivotal event in Scottish history and should be adequately mentioned and contextualised in the lead - much of which follows in the article stems from that very event. That is an unassailable point. The clarification about the response of the Scottish population to it, isn't some arbitrary analysis, it is a neutral, factual and I would say important illustration. It is, in essence describing the event and the socio-political atmosphere of the Act of Union without going into detail. It showing that something of pivotal importance to the whole Scotland article, was by en large, not popular at the time. That, I think, adequately puts it in context. So if it is important, describes a pivotal event, is factual. is referenced, is neutral, isn't partisan and in context (of what is being described) what other justifications are there for burying it? Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
As you quite rightly say - it was pivotal, it is a key moment or event, but is the introduction to Scottish 'events' the place for recording the reaction to it? You see, in the same entry the North sea is mentioned - the North Sea is pivotal in shaping our economy so why is there no mention of the multitude of claims and counter claims about our territorial disputes over who owns what? The Church of Scotland is mentioned but no mention is made of the often bloody deaths which ensued in establishing it in Scotland - deaths and protestations I hasten to add which were on a far grander scale than the protests at the legitimising of the Act of the Union - why is the Act of Union being singled out as THE event which needs a counterpoint when other events or organisations in the opening entry have had far fiercer battles in the course of their history? I'm not saying for one second that the protests should not be pointed out to the reader - but the opening is not the place to do it unless you are going to treat each subject accordingly - and that would lead to an intro of huge length. Please note - I have no gripe about the content only the context - for an encyclopedic entry to afford 'one' event a counterpoint when the others are just as deserving is completely baffling me? OzScot (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
But the point is, that it isn't illustrating anyone's viewpoint and it isn't a "counterpoint", it descibes one of the biggest things to happen in Scotland's history (if not the biggest) and sets it in the socio-political context of the time. I'm sorry but the Church of Scotland and the discovery of North Sea - while no doubt important are not on the same plane as the Act of Union, in its total ramifications for Scotland - the subject matter of the lead adequately reflects that. Incidentally the North Sea oil reference isn't about people's differing viewpoints, it is clarified by referencing United Kingdom Government Law and legislation- once again, factual and neutral. That is the same treatment as the reference with reagrd to the reception of the Act of Union in Scotland. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Community councils
Re "Community councils are informal organisations that represent specific sub-divisions of a council area.":
With its use of "informal", this statement does not look quite right. I believe that each local authority is required by statute to have a 'community council scheme', and the Scottish Government recognises community councils as constituting 'a level of statutory representation'. It is true however that boundaries of community council areas have no statutory definition and there is no clear statutory provision for the conduct of elections - to the extent that it can be difficult for an individual elector to know to which community community council area they belong and whether, from one election to the next, a local authority is using a consistent sense of boundaries. Laurel Bush (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC).
No mention of the word "kilt"
Notice kilt isn't mentioned anywhere on the page, though tartan is (under national symbol), which is a pattern found on a kilt. There's also a piper pictured wearing one on the page. I know everything cannot be mentioned but isn't a kilt one of the most known symbols (or stereotypes) of Scotland? Something very small mentioned in the line with tartan perhaps. Is it officially classed anywhere as national dress? --Revolt (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Scottish Renaissance
The link within the Medieval Scotland section to the "Scottish Renaissance" takes us to a Wikipedia entry that describes the Scottish Renaissance as a 20th Century Scottish literary movement. There is no mention of any kind of Medieval Renaissance in Scotland and speaking to a more historically inclined cousin, this was indeed the only Scottish Renaissance. Of course I'm not 100% sure, so could someone with a bit more knowledge and time please look into this further. Ta. Davidonut (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
