Talk:Scotland/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Just the facts Ma'am

Rules for this section

1. Only facts are to be included, No dialogs or pleads or explanations, FACTS only.
2. There is the caveat to this section, if you do not produce a fact or want to chat you must put them into the Passionate factless comments section
   • If you do not they will be placed there for you.
3. Try to link your views to relevant articles and cite as much as you can. Use the following format for the link <ref>place link here</ref>
4. If a fact is already given do not list it again, it is a fact not a repetition. You can add citations to a poorly sourced fact
5. Facts can be opposed but place the rebuttal fact below the original one. (eg # * )
6. You CAN group these into sections if the list becomes unwieldy
7. Facts can be removed if they have no supporting evidence or are vandalism
8. You cannot remove a true and cited fact from a verifiable source Remember Facts CAN oppose each other; Facts can be given that seam to oppose each other but are talking about minute differences. If agreed by most in play only <s></s> strike out that fact.

Just the facts

FACTS:

1. Scotland is a part of the UK
2. The UK has no single written constitution. So unlike the United States Constitution the names of the subdivisions of the UK are left constitutionally undefined. (Actually, while states are referred to, there is no "constitutionally defined" term in the Constitution for US subdivisions, either. The term predates the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation, yet exists anyway. -Rrius (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC))
3. Scotland is a former independent kingdom
4. Scotland is called a home nation
5. Scotland is called a constituent country of the UK
6. Scotland is called a country
7. Scotland is called a nation
8. Scotland is not a Nation state.
9. Scotland is not an independent country
10. The word country has been known to be misinterpreted to signify an independent state
11. The word nation has been known to be misinterpreted to signify an independent state
12. Scotland is not a nation in the eye of international law, but Scotsmen form a nation.
13. Scotland is a kingdom within the UK

Passionate factless comments

Previous comments archived here.

Slight edit to present intro

What does the page think of the edit here - I think it should be roundly uncontroversial, tidies up the referencing, groups geography and political status in the same sentences (thus, I believe, clarifying both points) and improves the sentence structure.

As you can see, it has been reverted without justification, so I'm basically seeking some consensus in favour. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is something that others have requested above. I could live with either version though. I suspect, however, others will be opposed or aligned to this along the usual divide. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not really involved myself in the debate or by any means read the entirety of the arguments presented here, but it is simply a reordering of information rather than any change in content. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the version as edited by Breadandcheese. Regrettably I :think ANY edit is probably 'controversial' at this time, in the sense that it will stir up debate. However I wouldn't either take it personally or criticise the reverter. Let's spend a little time testing the water before remaking the edit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a variation of that offered by User:UKPhoenix79 is my preference:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is 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. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Scotland's capital city is Edinburgh, which is the 2nd largest city in Scotland and the 7th largest city in the UK. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Seems to cover everything, for me anyway. 80.41.216.180 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

yep, nothing wrong with that in my view. Only thing I don't like, and it's not central to the dispute, is "7th largest city", which is unnecessary — article isn't about Edinburgh — and misleading — means of defining city boundaries and of measuring city population are arbitrary and vary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment :0) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.Looks like another edit war on its way, me thinks I'll step back again! --Jack forbes (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checking that "successor state" is technically accurate/verifiable. To my humble knowledge UKGBNI didn't succeed GB - Ireland joined the union, then part of it seceded. Do please correct me if I'm wrong. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it almost entirely, but taking account of a few points raised here [Emphasis on alterations:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England to the south. 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. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Scotland's capital city is Edinburgh, which is the second largest cityin Scotland and the 7th largest city in the UK. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and subsequently, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As for successor states: I don't believe it is accurate, although I am prepared to be corrected on that. It is a particular legal term which can be easily omitted until accuracy can be demonstrated. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dislike constituent part linking to constituent country its almost an easter egg the link should go to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy also to lose the "7th largest city". The "successor state" to the Kingdom of Great Britian was indeed, as the CIA Factbook confirms, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, given that the current state only came into being in 1927, perhaps the insertion of the word "eventual" or "modern" or "current", or some similar qualification, would provide sufficient clarification, or alternatively:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is 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. The capital city is Edinburgh and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The above would leave no question as to Scotland's status. The "successor state" is included in the wiki-page (although needless to say not "reliable"), but a definition can be found here and here. 80.41.216.180 (talk)

Nice! It will help this article to be the first UK country to become WP:FA and hits all the major points that we need in an introduction per WP:LEAD. What do others think?

80.41.216.180, 80.41.252.104, 80.41.231.246, 80.41.255.137 your ip keeps on changing any chance that you might register? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We're nearly there. The only slight problem I have is that we need to mention the fact that the UK is a sovereign state. It just needs to be really clear. Some people mightn't know what the UK is and therefore the meaning of the sentence will be lost on them Eg. Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country which is a part of the sovereign state known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Do you see what I'm getting at?Wikipéire (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If others agree to that I'll be ok with it, though I do believe its rather clunky and unnecessary. I would just like to note that there is little precedence I have found for making such a statement. Just look at the examples I have given above. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about something a bit less "clunky":

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is 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. The capital city is Edinburgh and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Loaded with more compromises than the 'Good Friday Agreement', but hopefully something which will lead to a stable article. 80.41.214.75 (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Loaded with more compromises than the Good Friday Agreement LOL!!! So would that make you Tony Blair? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect.Wikipéire (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Breadandcheese (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Very happy with that, and preferable to what we have now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Still worried about the sentence beginning "Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland....". UKGBNI isn't a successor state of UKGB, whilst Scotland's former status is mentioned later in the lead. Remember, we have four paragraphs to play with, not one. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The end of the paragraph says "Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." In view of this, do we need "within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. " at the start. Why say that its part of the UK twice? 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

do we need "within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. " at the start. We definiely need that bit at the start. I think its perfect. It removes all confusion. The bit at the end just explains the history behind it all. There's nothing wrong with it. This is all in my opinion of course.Wikipéire (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why Scotland is part of the UK is mentioned twice this is just repetition also country should not link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Sorry, but don't see this as an improvement and think the use of sovereign state is fluff and superfluous. Who would say that "Alberta is one of the sovereign state of Canada's prairie provinces or "California is a state located on the West Coast of the sovereign state of the United States". Why is it necessary for the United Kingdom to have to be described as a sovereign state, everybody knows it is— for pete's sake it is one of the best known countries in the world, permanent member of the security council of the UN, used to have an empire. Let's get realistic here.-Bill Reid | Talk 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we absolutely need the mention of being part of the UK as far upfront as possible, because it is something non-Brits are often confused about. If we think it's repetitious we should drop the second mention, or move it further down the intro. However I think the second link adds to what is said in the first, because it gives some history.

Bill, you would be surprised how many non-Brits don't know whether England or Scotland or the UK or whoever are the 'sovereign state'. I have talked to many educated North Americans who don't know what countries are what in Britain. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point William, and indeed I do sympathise with your views but the problem here is all the people who think Scotland is a part of England! I myself recently had guests from Scotland to our house on the continent. They mentioned many Europeans and Americans thinking Scotland to be part of England! Totally ridiculous of course but nevertheless an important fact. --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is well known, but internationally the UK is widely known as Britain or even England so the fact that its a part of the UK needs to emphaised as well as the fact that is a sovereign state and it's not some state called England or Britain that Scotlands a part of.Wikipéire (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia not geography for idiots, if people think Scotland is part of England reading the article will prove them wrong. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I think the article makes this quite clear. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you there. It doesn't say anywhere that the UK is actually a state. It only hints at it. Considering it Scotland is a part of the Uk this fact is very important. This newer version only adds four words to the first sentence and it adds a huge amount of clarity. There is absolutely no confusion with the newest version which is want you want for the article to progress.Wikipéire (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please check out every other country's entry; how many are described as "sovereign state". Bill Reid | Talk 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of this consensus building is that Scotland and the UK is very different from anything else! If it weren't loads of other things wouldn't be mentioned either such as the fact that it is a 'country'. Anyway an answer. First ccountry I looked up was Ireland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland It says sovereign state.Wikipéire (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree very much with Wikipéire. Republic_of_Ireland says that because a) it is true and b) there is a certain amount of confusion over what 'Ireland' is, just as there is over UK, Britain, Scotland etc. We should keep the statement in for exactly the same reasons.

Barryob you are underestimating the amount of explanation required. The people who don't know about Scotland are not idiots, it's just something they don't know (can you name the states of India?). Because it's a widespread confusion it needs to be cleared up early in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again I must agree with DJ Clayworth...the explanation ought to be in the first part of the intro for minimum confusion. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No I dont know the states in India and the wikipeida article on the subject States and territories of India does not list them in the intro, neither does over-explaining Scotland's relationship with the UK in the intro the Government and politics section explains this --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, I should have said federated country. Ireland in no way is a comparable state. Scotland is described as a country because .... that's what it is. My point here is that using superfluous terms adds nothing to the article. If people come to the article and read Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom, what is confusing about that— if they are still confused they just follow the link and they find out; that's what links are for.-Bill Reid | Talk 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, perhaps we could cram the whole article into the first paragraph, that would avoid confusion! :) --Jack forbes (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) When comparing like entities you must not compare the topic with unlike entities. Scotland is not a Sovereign State as declared in Talk:Scotland#Just the Facts Ma'am so using the Republic of Ireland is a false comparison. One must compare with Subdivisions of a Sovereign State like Quebec to see if the comparison would be accurate. So far I have not seen any subdivisions that says the country it resides in is a sovereign state, it only states that it is a part of that country and links to the countries article. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The similarity with Republic of Ireland is not in the their status, but in the level of misunderstanding about the names. Many people don't understand the difference between Ireland the state, Ireland the island and Northern Ireland the consitituent country. Likewise many people don't understand the relationship between Scotland, England and the UK. That's why both of them get the status mentioned early. There is not the same level of misunderstanding over France or Australia, which is why they don't get their status mentioned early. It's all about serving our readers. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: It's an extra four words. This newest introduction seems to be closest we have come to a consensus. The reasons for having it there (ie there is a lot of confusion about the UK outside Britain and Ireland) outweigh the argument that it 'over clarifies'

UKPhoenix79 I never compared Scotland with Ireland I compared Ireland with the UK. Your have contradicted yourself by comparing it with Quebec. That's not a country. Scotland is unique. There are no other 'countries' outside the UK that reside in a sovereign state so it needs to be clarified.Wikipéire (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No not contradiction just facts we must compare with like entities. If you feel that Quebec is not similar many in that nation would be very angry with you and throw their begets in your general direction (not quite monty python I know) But I'm sure that there are many other examples such as Bavaria or the Flemish Region. But I have not really bothered to research for other former kingdoms inside a modern state. So when comparing please compare entities at the same level internationally. An independent State gets compared to an independent State, a subdivision of a State gets compared to another subdivision of a State. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, don't mean to be boring, but what is wrong with the way it is now.Sorry for shouting, must be getting to me. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with what is there now, but I think the new version is better. Unfortunately with passions running high even tiny improvements require huge amounts of discussion. That's the way things work on pages like this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That all sounds fine, but as I'm sure you know not everyone agrees with your " tiny improvement. " As you say there is nothing wrong with the way it is now so why don't people use a little bit of commonsense and avoid another edit war. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I say we use it now and fiddle with it in the talk page for later :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said you can't compare Ireland with the UK. However Quebec is a component bit of Canada but it doesn't need repeating that Canada is a sovereign state. Bill Reid | Talk 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again there isn't the same level of misunderstanding (except possibly among members of the Parti Quebecois :-) ). But even in Quebec everyone knows that Canada is a sovereign state - I hate to say it but that's not always known about the UK - many people think the sovereign state is called England. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I'm also a Canadian citizen and may I add that Quebec has never been discussed as a country nor as Bavaria of which I have spent many weeks in. The UK constituent countries are unique so mentioning the UK as a sovereign state is necessary to avoid confusion of how a country can be in a country. You are backing up your opinions with articles that are very different. You will need proper reasons why not to mention these four words.Wikipéire (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that Quebec was a country? But somebody else used Quebec and i followed up on it but as a federated country Canada is comparable to the UK; so are the United States and Australia. Are you saying that the general mass of people who come to WP are incapable of following links to the main article? Putting "sovereign state" in front of the United Kingdom is just unnecessary -Bill Reid | Talk 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Uk is the only place in the world where there is a 'country' within a country!! There is no confusion about the status of those other countries you mentioned but there is plenty of confusion around the world with the UK. They don't know what is is so simply adding four bloody words removes ALL the possible confusion.Wikipéire (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And you don't think saying Scotland is part of the UK does that?--Jack forbes (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't as saying the word country instantly causes confusion. Again as lots of people don't know what the UK is so we need to establish what it is while talking about Scotland. Also people may just read country and assume it to be an independent country (none of the independent country pages say independent country just country) and read the UK as some kingdom witout realising its a state. Just adding the four words saying that the Uk is the sovereign state while Scotland is a country inside it removes all confusion.Wikipéire (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From my experience living in Australia for a number of years it is actually Britain they are confused about, not United Kingdom! --Jack forbes (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Woooooaaaaahhhh there!!! We're in danger of descending into the same quagmire that surrounded the map issue. There is NO repeat NO version with which we will all be 100% satisfied, but for the sake of the article and the readers, can we not agree on the version proposed here? There are things within it which if it were down to me alone I would strip out, but there would only be arguments put forward by others for their reinsertion. I am happy that what is in the proposed version, and although not my first choice, it is something which I could live with in the hope that the Scotland article becomes a stable article and FA candidate. If you ask 50 people their view you'll get 50 responses, however we can't have 50 articles or have one article changed 50 times over. We're going for clarity and accuracy as opposed to brevity here in order to achieve the Holy Grail that is concensus. The one point I feel I must comment on is the use of "modern successor state". This isn't a newly created phrase, (a Google check nets in excess of 500 hits), but as Jza84 pointed out the UKofGB&NI is not the "successor state" to the KofGB, but it is the modern successor state, which is why I feel it should be included. For the sake of a sentence or two either way, I think it reads well and contains facts, whole facts and nothing but facts, which is pretty well what it should contain. (Even if repeated in one instance). To remind all without trawling back up the page what is being proposed:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is 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. The capital city is Edinburgh and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Perhaps it would be easier to ask those who, despite their no doubt justifiable misgivings, are not able to live with this version to make their objections known, with a brief explanation as to why they find this version unacceptable under any circumstances. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets see, United Kingdom a few times, Great Britain, constituant part, sovereign state, United Kingdom Of Great Britain and N Ireland........my god, how did you manage to fit Scotland in???? --Jack forbes (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all the points raised by jack horrible intro--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your criticism is there, Jack (or Barry). Are you saying it's too detailed? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First things first, user 80.41.246.79, if I have made a mistake point it out to me, do not call me a liar. I would appreciate an apology from you. --Jack forbes (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

?????? Either someone has hijacked my IP Address, I've got amnesia or Jack, you've been on the sauce! What (can anyone tell me) do I owe you an apology for, exactly? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC) PS I'll be logging off at 2300BST/2200UTC - if you can reply by then...

A thousand apologies, I jumped in to quick, it was actually ip 78.16.212.101. Sorry again, I think I should go on the sauce! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. My sanity having been restored, I'm off. G'night all. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm feeling a little bit foolish right now, so I'm off too. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO The current first paragraph is better than the above proposal. There is no need to say twice that Scotland is part of the UK . The Acts of Union are mentioned in the third paragraph and do not need to be in the first as well. The discussion of successor state is too technical and contains more detail than is appropriate to the opening para of this article. If required, this should be in the body of the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely.-Bill Reid | Talk 07:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As do I. I am afraid the above version reads a little as if it might have been extracted from a Conservative Party election leaflet circa 1950 something. On the other hand 80.41.246.79, despite your inexperience, you seem to have grasped many of the fundamentals of Wikipedia. I have no doubt you will go far. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 07:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

May I add that there's been huge discussion on why the current opening is unsatisfatory to a lot of people and current proposal has been the closest version to getting a consensus. Whatever opening is used it certainly won't be the current one.Wikipéire (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

80.41.246.79 asked that anyone who objected to the proposed change should give their reason(s). A number of people have done so. Can I ask that those who object to the current intro give their reasons (again if necessary). Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're taking the piss, there has been loads of discussion above. Read it. My personal main issue along with a good few others is that declaring Scotland a country was horribly misleading. There were many other problems with it too. You can read it all above. All the objections to the current one is about facts and that the its inaccurate. 80.41.246.79 says who can't live with it? You and 1 or 2 others moan on how its too factual and is too detailed. Well its not really longer in terms of words and it satisfies all the discussion which you can read above. Can you honestly say you can't live with it?Wikipéire (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't moan. 80.41.246.79 asked why we couldn't live with the the proposed changes and I answered as clearly as I could. The only objection to the current intro specifically mentioned by Wikipéire is to the description of Scotland as a country. But that is also in the proposed change. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I compromised!!!! I said if the word country is used then within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom should follow as people would be horribly confused to how a country can be another country or they might think Scotland is independent or something. This is all about compromise. I've done it. What about you?Wikipéire (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone asked me about Scotland and I replied it was a country within the United Kingdom where would the confusion be? I think you massively underestimate the intelligence of our readers. If they read just another paragraph or two they will find all the information that you think is so necessary. As for compromise, if you remember, many people preferred the term nation (including myself) but this was dropped in favour of country because people came to a compromise!! --86.147.38.250 (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to sign on!--Jack forbes (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Among the problems with the proposed change (IMO) is that it makes the relationship between Scotland and the UK more difficult to understand. Introducing concepts such as sovereignty and successor states which are technical terms in public international law complicates things. For example, there are those who argue that the current relationship with the EU means that the UK is not a sovereign state anymore. Saying "Scotland is part of the United Kingdom" is simple, clear and understandable. The final paragraph of the current introduction already says "Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state".

If you would like an alternative compromise, how about adding "and is no longer a separate sovereign state after United Kingdom and making the final sentence of the 3rd paragraph read "The place of Scotland within the UK continues to give rise to debate.

The first paragraph would become Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and is no longer a separate sovereign state. It 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. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides.

(I think the current intro is better than this proposal, but in a spirit of compromise ..." Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Most definitely not. The use of the word country suggests that Scotland is independent. It only says its not about 6 lines down. Not good enough really. Either use the word nation that is part of the United Kingdom or a country within the sovereign state of the UK.Wikipéire (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the statement "is no longer a separate sovereign state" does just that? --Jack forbes (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It does but its 6 lines down. You can't say its a country and then a couple lines down - oh by the way its not a sovereign state. What Scotland is should be clarified in the first sentence.Wikipéire (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would'nt exactly call it a by the way! Its the sentence immediately after. --Jack forbes (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Still as the term country 99.9% of the times means independent country Scotlands status needs to br clarified immedialtely after if the term country is used. Somthing like switching round the 'northern part of GB' bit and 'is no longer a s state' bit would do the job for me.Wikipéire (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, let's see your version. Bill Reid | Talk 10:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My version?? Scotland is a nation within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom would be my version. It's all very factually correct, but somehow I know you disagree.Wikipéire (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Bill meant if you were switching things around as you mention above how would it read.(if you did'nt mean that Bill let me know). --Jack forbes (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I am asking Wikipéire if he would provide his interpretation of the opening paragraph. - Bill Reid | Talk 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that Wikipéire needs to understand the difference between the terms "country" and "independent country" - they're not the same thing - it's really not that difficult! Most readers are intelligent and English-fluent enough to know the difference. Scotland's status as a country really isn't debatable. Changing the intro just to appease the less-educated who think that the word "country" automatically means an independent sovereign state is just plain silly. Also, could someone remind me where I can find the "debate" which led to the "consensus" being reached to remove the reference to Europe in the first sentence??? I would be most grateful, as for some inexplicable reason, I seem not to be able to find any discussion on this much-debated and mutually-agreed removal of a descriptor which has been part of the article for a very long time. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I accept that there is no reason to say 'Scotland is not a sovereign state' - there is no misconception on this front, and it is our duty to report what something is, rather than what something is not - the latter very often compromises NPOV in my experience. I am happy with the present 'country within the United Kingdom' (I don't even think 'sovereign state' needs mentioned) but also if there is to be clarification, I would suggest it returns to 'constituent country of the United Kingdom' or 'constitutent country in the United Kingdom'. But yes, generally I don't think such clarification is needed.--Breadandcheese (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still arguing about the word country. There are literally hundreds of good references, from 10 Downing Street to the UN, saying that Scotland is a country. You may not like it, and you may find it confusing but you cannot shy away from the fact that Scotland is a country. Surely this is a done deal. Let's move on and consider how we are going to present this fact to our readers. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Em, who is arguing about the word country? -Bill Reid | Talk 14:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked him to present his version of the opening paragraph so I could try and understand what he was saying but he seems to have gone FTM. -Bill Reid | Talk 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear he doesn't think Scotland should be called a country, but we need to knock that notion on the head. Country is massively documented and well accepted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland isn't a country in the political sense so don't get all uptight as if the whole world agrees that Scotland is a country. In most ways its not. Other than the politically biased downing street source there isn't a whole lot of sources out there that say it is.

The definition of a country: In political geography and international politics, a country is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation and government.

Scotland fails. Look at this article entitled 'Scotland is not a country' http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm It doesn't say 'Scotland is not an independent country' but 'Scotland is not a country'

More: Note the lack of saying 'independent countries' but just 'country'

http://www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm

http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/howmany.html

This last one says this: In the UK most of the population consider England and Scotland to be different countries, and Wales to be a principality. However, when it comes to international relations, they are all represented by the UK government, so according to many definitions they aren't countries or even nation states.

Getting the idea yet? Where does it say that a country doesn't have to be independent to be a country and ignoring the biased UK web page sourced and mislead British people where is Scotland called a country?

This UK government site certainly doesn't http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/index.htm : The full title of this country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Great Britain (or just Britain) does not include Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK.

The Wikipedia list of countries says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries :::This list of countries, arranged alphabetically, gives an overview of countries of the world. It includes territories that are independent states (both those that are internationally recognized and generally unrecognized), inhabited dependent territories, and areas of special sovereignty.

Such inclusion criteria means the list does not treat the word "country" as synonymous with "sovereign state," as one may often find in colloquial usage.

This says that the countries in the list don't have to independent countries at all. And guess what Scotland isnt there!!!!

All I was looking for was a compromise about its status within the UK. Clearly now with all this evidence the term country cannot be used.Wikipéire (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out sites that call Scotland something other than a country, or fail to list it as a country is irrelevant. If a site says "DJ Clayworth is a Wikipedia editor" and doesn't mention that I'm Canadian does that make me not Canadian? The "geography about" contributor is expressing his own personal opinion, and using his own definition of 'country'. He's entitled to his opinion but it certainly isn't binding on us.

We have, as I said, many authoritative sites calling Scotland a country. Please can we move on to something else. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. If you show a few respective (not blogs by some idiot or anything) non British websites that say Scotland is a country I will back down.Wikipéire (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should you want a website as verification when you can have loads of published books as sources? - Bill Reid | Talk 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

...and why on earth should you want to look at non-British sources? Are the British somehow incompetent to decide what their own country's geography is?

Anyway, I've already posted such sources, including one from the United Nations and one from the UK government. I posted the UN one on 14th April, on this page, and the Downing Street one a few lines above it. So are you going to back down now? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I'm sorry Wikipéire but I do have to agree with the majority on this one. Adding that extra line is rather repetitive and unnecessary. As for the other points please read Talk:Scotland#Just the facts Ma'am it might help you on your quest for facts.

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is 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. The capital city is Edinburgh is the second largest city in Scotland, and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I personally think that this is a great improvement on the original and helps this article on its way to the WP:FA Status we all want. We have to keep that goal in mind and I am happy that people are actually trying to cooperate with this task. So I think we should put it up. What say you all shall we start the improvement and the drive to make Scotland the First article to become a Featured Article or what? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipiere would be interested in this: Our own article on country states that "Definitions may vary. It is sometimes used to refer to both states and some other political entities." It is also sourced (see the page) by a Commonwealth Act (foreign was on your checklist, was it not?) stating that: "Foreign country means any country (whether or not an independent sovereign state) outside Australia and the external Territories". There are also multiple other sources, citing thus...you may wish to read through all of them. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read that and in the list it provides Scotland isn't there!!In other words it says Scotland isn't a country independent or not. It says there are two methods of determining what a country is. The BBC uses one way: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/country_profiles/default.stm Under country profiles Scotland isn't there, but it is under territory!! You can't just pick and choose to say Scotland is a country just because it suits you when there are thousands of instances when it is clearly not applicable. If you want to use the term country the article has to clarify damn well that Scotland is not sovereign. If it doesn't then you can't use the wrod country. We had a perfect intro except people thought it was too detailed. The word within doesn't help either.Wikipéire (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And America calls their subdivisions states but they are not States... Think of Shakespeare "A Rose by any other name" Well everybody calls their subdivisions different names but they all mean that they are a part of a larger unit. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire, nobody denies that we have to explain carefully that while Scotland is a country it is not a sovereign state. Are you going to stop arguing that Scotland is not a country if we do that? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. Regarding the current "international" version with multiple references; we've got the breakfast, now can someone provide the dog... The reason I kicked this whole thing off was to try to provide a more suitable intro to complement the map which, by a de-facto concensus, (and contrary to my own personal choice I might add), changed to that showing Scotland's place within the UK. Fine, if that's what the majority want, I'd like to think of myself as a Democrat. Now, given the visual reference to the UK, I thought the opening paragraph might benefit from a makeover to describe, in one sentence, Scotland's relationship with the UK, for the benefit of the reader. Now we've ended up with another edit war which, if truth be told, if I'd realised would be the end result, I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. The reason, as was asked previously, that I don't like the recent, (as opposed to current), edit was that it was about as well written and informative as the instructions for flat-pack furniture from IKEA. What I had hoped to have in place of it was something more informative which tied in with the map, in that it set out clearly and concisely what, where and why Scotland is what it is and how the UK, which is after all shown on the map, fits in. Therrefore my preference is for this:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is 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. The capital city is Edinburgh, and in addition to the mainland Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This, IMHO, ticks all the boxes. I'm aware the very mention of the UK strikes terror in to the hearts of some, but if I/we must now live with the map showing Scotland in a UK context, it makes sense to me, (with my wiki-editor hat on as opposed to my political hat), to tie both together for the sake of clarity. I'm trying to keep my politics for the bar, the canteen at work and for any poor soul who is prepared to listen to me spout forth, (or should that be froth), about Scotland. Is it too much to ask others to do likewise? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly ticks all the boxes for me, but you will be surprised, or maybe not, the amount of people who will have some reason to disagree with it --Jack forbes (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And Idon't think the argument over the the map is over with! Its an argument or discussion for another time!! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well my box is decidedly unticked. I feel the last sentence is not required in an opening paragraph. I believe that it should try to describe the country, as precisely as possible, what it is today. IMO, the rest of the lead section is the place for historical snippets. In fact, can anyone tell me what precisely is the problem with the existing lead? -Bill Reid | Talk 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading and uninformative.Wikipéire (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For example? -Bill Reid | Talk 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just try and read this whole talk page mate. That thing at the top that says the same stuff is discussed over and over again wasn't lying.Wikipéire (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that the intro does need to be worked on so that we can work towards WP:FA. Right now I think everybody can agree it can be worked upon since wikipedia is an evolving encyclopedia it is natural that improvements are suggested and work to help articles accept other policies in wikipedia like WP:LEAD are implemented. Can we include the intro now so that we can have the editors who briefly visit the article make improvements as they naturally edit? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What intro there are umpteen different suggestions on the talk page each more half baked than the one before it. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mate? What exactly is misleading and uninformative. Please point these out so they can be addressed. Bill Reid | Talk 07:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also don't understand Wikipeire's objections, unless he is referring to the ones that he has already raised and have already been countered. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

This one Mr O'B:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is 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. The capital city is Edinburgh, and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Okay with you and Mr Reid to try it out for a period to guage reaction? As with the map, if there is a majority against then I'll be happy to concede. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my feedback is I still don't like it. I feel this version is, editorially speaking, a retrograde step. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor I. -Bill Reid | Talk 07:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted on both counts. Your feelings towards the proposed revised first paragraph mirror my own with regard to the current map. However, in the same spirit of the map proposal, (which according to some is an as yet unresolved issue and yet the 'rv' edit war has thankfully ceased for the time being), would you be prepared to allow the paragraph, as detailed above, to be placed on the article for say a week or two, with editors invited to place comment here? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps before it is placed in the article, it might be a good idea to ask those editors who feel it is a backward step to point out the deficiencys in the proposed paragraph. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no need to say that Scotland is part of the UK twice in the opening paragraph. The rather arcane sentence about the various kingdoms is better in the third paragraph of the intro. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the United Kingdom. It is located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides. 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.

Scottish waters consist of a large sector of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves in the European Union. Edinburgh, the capital and second largest city of Scotland, is one of Europe's largest financial centres. Scotland's largest city is Glasgow, what was once one of the world's leading industrial metropolises, and now lies at the centre of the Greater Glasgow conurbation which dominates the Scottish Lowlands.

The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent state until May 1 1707, when the Acts of Union, despite widespread protest across Scotland, resulted in Scotland becoming a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Though Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, the constitutional future of Scotland continues to give rise to debate. The Scotland Act 1998 established a Scottish Parliament with devolved powers, the first elections to which were held on 6 May 1999 with Parliament sitting for the first time on 12 May that year. There are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs), elected by the additional member system. The Scottish Government is led by a First Minister who appoints ministers with devolved portfolios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipéire (talk • contribs)

Main points I disagree with country should link to country nothing else, constituent part should link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing the latter link should be fine, but country should really to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. With the alternative use of the word 'country' the link clarfies that it is a country but not an independent one. That link clarifies Scotlands position and removes confusion. It is better for all parties than 'within the sovereign state of the UK' that was suggest earlier don't you think?Wikipéire (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm finished with this thread. Nothing I'm seeing here remotely improves the article and have better things to do with my time. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I see nothing that really takes this article forwards. I'm decidedly against this proposal and any of its simillar guises. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, try again:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country and a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands, including the Hebrides and Northern Isles. 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. Scottish waters consist of a large sector of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves within the European Union.

Edinburgh, Scotland's capital and second largest city, is the seat of the Scottish Parliament and one of Europe's largest financial centres. Glasgow, "second city of the British Empire" and largest city in Scotland, lies at the heart of the Greater Glasgow conurbation, which dominates the densely populated Central Belt.

A former independent state, the Kingdom of Scotland was united, despite widespread protest, with the Kingdom of England in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Despite having ceased to be a separate sovereign state as a result, Scotland's constitutional future within the Kingdom of Great Britain's modern successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, continues to give rise to debate.

References to be reinserted, needless to say. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The "land border" bit shouldn't be there, its a bit overkill. 'Bordered by England to the South' would be much more appropriate. Also country shouldn't link to country. Had we not established that the use of the word was similar to word 'state' used in Amercia and didn't actually mean country rather it was just the name of the subdivision?Wikipéire (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the border bit. However, following the comment by Barryob, I read the link to Country and it includes in the intro the mention of "dozens of non-sovereign territories (subnational entities, another form of political division or administrative division within the expanse [realm or scope] of a larger nation-state) which constitute cohesive geographical entities, some of which are former countries, but which are not sovereign states. Most of these nowadays even have a great deal of autonomy and local governments but such do not constitute a nation as they are possessions of such states". Therefore the link to Country seemed altogether appropriate in Scotland's case, particularly with the constituent part link in the same sentence. (A link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom might open up the Nation not Country argument again).

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country and a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it is bordered by England. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands, including the Hebrides and Northern Isles. 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. Scottish waters consist of a large sector of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves within the European Union.

Edinburgh, Scotland's capital and second largest city, is the seat of the Scottish Parliament and one of Europe's largest financial centres. Glasgow, "second city of the British Empire" and largest city in Scotland, lies at the heart of the Greater Glasgow conurbation, which dominates the densely populated Central Belt.

A former independent state, the Kingdom of Scotland was united, despite widespread protest, with the Kingdom of England in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Despite having ceased to be a separate sovereign state as a result, Scotland's constitutional future within the Kingdom of Great Britain's modern successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, continues to give rise to debate.

Thoughts? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not agreed that any comparison to a US state is pertinent, and it is certainly spurious. A state (US) is an explicitly arbitrary creation of the US government, and is subordinate to the US government in all forms and forever, and has little or nothing else relevant to itself apart from its relationship with the US government (such as history, a popular memory, a heritage, a future, or anything else). Exceptions of no great consequence include a few "older" states such as Virginia (remembering its colonial heritage), those with a pre-US history (eg, Texas and Hawaii were once separate entities), and the circumstances surrounding the US Civil War. In point of fact, this every-state-is-just-like-the-others attitude reflects the intent that there is no state that will ever be different from the others.

Moving from one state to another means having to fill out a bureaucratically different tax form next year, and little else. Even moving between places with different common law and heritage (eg, from Texas/SouthernUS to Louisiana/French/Napoleonic) means virtually nothing. One is more conscious of moving between urban and rural places (there are some lifestyle differences), regardless of whether a different state is relevant to the move.

That hardly applies to the issues surrounding this talk page. I would suggest (with respect) that comparing Scotland to a US state implies a lack of understanding, either of Scotland by some, or of the US by others.

Also, please keep in mind that there are others who are interested in the main article besides the debaters, and the (merciful) cessation of arguments on one word does not imply consensus. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Glasgow, second city in the British Empire" Don't you think this belong in the history section, ie: The victorian era. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that 80.41.202.188 has changed the text of its signatures above to imply that its contributions were made by 80.41.246.79. I have no idea why they would want to do this but it should be taken into account when looking at the edit history for these IPs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done so to enable those others who are contributing to realise they're dealing with the same individual. No conspiracy, just contributing from PC's at home and at work. Anyone would think I was trying to hack into the Pentagon the way you've worded that. Jeeze, paranoia anyone?

"comparing Scotland to a US state" is something I was unaware either I, or the passage I quoted, was doing. Where is the link I apparently missed?

Fair point Jack forbes, just thought it might explain why on the face of it, and without a reader knowing the whole story, Edinburgh had bucked the usual trend of largest city being the capital city. 80.41.242.49 (talk) - usually 80.41.246.79 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a good healthy dose of paranoia. Sometimes they really are out to get you, <grin>. Particularly when they start editing their sigs. But in this case, fair enough. Best way of making sure that people know that it's all the same person is to register a "throwaway" account, though. Editing sigs will always look dodgy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This may have been suggested before, (theres been so many I'm not sure where I am) but would replacing country with Country be any help and leaving the rest of the paragraph as it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack forbes (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC) --Jack forbes (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is only one thing that should be clear by checking every other subdivision listed on wikipedia and that is this one thing, every subdivision whatever it was called, that name is linked to a Country specific topic about those subdivisions. That one simple fact is self evident and thusly the word country which is used to signify the subdivisions found in the UK would need to be linked to a UK subdivision specific article. If people do not believe that this is true I will be willing to pool up evidence just like I have in the past... but do I really need to do that? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that country followed by constituent part works well and puts everything into context. Other comments? 80.41.202.47 (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) usually 80.41.246.79 (talk)

Not quite what I meant. If you check Talk:Scotland#Intro Comparisons you will see that each one goes to a Country Specific topic when the subdivisions name is used, not to the name of the subdivision. So state ≠ state, parish ≠ parish, region ≠ region, etc.

Each country has its own specific name for its subdivision as shown by the template above. So a country specific article describing the unique properties of these subdivisions are essential that is why it should link to either constituent country or Subdivisions of the United Kingdom either one would fulfill the necessary criteria. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Right I was thinking of making a very small change to the current first two lines. As they are now:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country[5] that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom,[5] and shares a land border to the south with England.

These two lines mix up political term with geographical term in the first sentence as well as in the second sentence. Restructering them so that its a political defintion followed by a geographical term I think is a good idea. It will not change in anyway what the sentence say. No words will be changed or removed. New version:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country[5] that is part of the United Kingdom.[5] It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and shares a land border to the south with England.

Anyone disagree that it is better? Again nothing has changed with the wording at all just moving geo and political descriptions together so that more clarity can be had instantly.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 23:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough an anon IP had the same idea and then left a message on my talk page [1] complaining that I had reverted his or her edit. Just out of curiosity, have you give up using socks? Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope he/she has. --Jza84 |  Talk  08:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

God you guys like avoiding the question asked of you. The person came my way too and I noticed the edit as at the time it was actually on the page before it was reverted. The ip editor appears to have disappeared so I suggested the same edits. Now your opinions on the actual matter at hand?WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, myself and others have already stated that we don't want this change. As I've said before, the preference you seek is, editorially speaking, a retrograde step. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly? How is it editorially speaking, a retrograde step There's no change at all in what it says.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can convince others that this is the right way forwards then that's fine. Personally I'm out. I've said my piece, and their's little point discussing this over and over, particularly with a user who's used sockpuppetry in votes and circumventing 3RR. This discussion needs closing asap so we can concentrate on other aspects of the page and project. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The original IP is still here, but was not here, so to speak. Having initiated the whole thing, it may come as no surprise that I still think the first paragraph, as was, needed improving. However, there doesn't seem to have been a huge number in favour of change, except on the part of myself and one or two others, with about the same number of editors opposing. Happy to let discussion run however, there is no timer on such discussion after all. 80.41.201.61 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC) usually 80.41.246.79 (talk)

Completely agree with Jza84's comments above. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So what your saying is you have nothing against it but you aren't going to contribute your opinions on what exactly is wrong with it? That's very helpful.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is in the current for it leads to confusion with non-brits and this needs to be addressed. Since this is a global encyclopedia this confusion has been solved before by many other Countries (big s) inside this encyclopedia by linking the name of the subdivision with a country specific article dedicated to those subdivisions. This is what needs to be done here and I am at a loss as to why others think that this would be a step back instead of a step forward to FA status... Is there a reason that this should not be done? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Devolution

The lead section needs a sentence or two on the devolved government. Anyone? -Bill Reid | Talk 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No I don't believe it does. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What?? You don't think the biggest thing to happen in Scottish politics in a couple of hundred years is important enough to be in the lead section? --Jack forbes (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it wasnt in the first paragraph of, says, Bavaria. --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that maybe that was because its government wasn't devolved? --Bill Reid | Talk 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is more or less, William. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that more or less, Cameron? --Jack forbes (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me Cameron, have you actually read the Bavaria article? -Bill Reid | Talk 07:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I really dont wish to argue but what exactly do you two understand under the term devolution? --Cameron (t|p|c) 09:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavaria like other German states was always an autonomous region (except under the Nazis). Its recreation after the last war was with its areas of responsibility already defined. Scotland lost its autonomy at the Union so the powers it got in 1999 were devolved from Westminster to Hollrood. -Bill Reid | Talk 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavaria does not have any devolved powers, Germany is a federal republic Bavaria's powers are guaranteed by the German constitution --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that a short sentence on the devolution structure would be positive.

--Breadandcheese (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Scots removed

I recently added "Scots:Scotland" behind the gaelic word for Scotland. I was just wondering what consensus was like on this issue. Surely as a widely spoken language a mention ought to be kept even if the word is the same? --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The infobox gives the info that they are the same; repeating the name "Scotland" for what is after all a non-standardized variety/ies is pointless. If it was different, like Albanie or Schotland, that'd be different maybe. Why not Scotland (Scottish Gaelic: Alba; Scots: Scotland; Scottish English: Scotland; Orcadian: Scotland; Shetlandic: Scotland)? If the point of a wiki article is to give information, then that's enough. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the Scots name for Scotland is definitely "Scotland", but isn't the English name for Scotland, "North Britain" ? Perhaps we should retitle the article, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please , don't even joke about that! :) --Jack forbes (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish English is irrelevant as it is a form of English. I dont think this is being taken seriously enough. Scots is an official recognised language after all. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a scots language other than Gaelic and every insistence that there is is simply a ('canaanite') chauvanism against any nationless people in Scotland (that does seem to freak people out) as the dismissal of the English spoken in Scotland - the language everyone speaks - also shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromean (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as a scots language" - couldn't agree more. Next thing they'll be trying to tell people the world isn't flat! I ask you, some people these days... 80.41.213.40 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scots" is not a language; it is a dialect of English, just like American English. I certainly see no point in listing the name Scotland separately, especially when the name is the same. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scots is not a language" "like American English". LOL! Forgive me, but what is it then, other than a brand of porridge oats? Perhaps I can help you here, try reading the following, as I get the distinct impression you are confusing Scots with Scottish English:

Council of Europe

(You will note that the document in the link concerns the "European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages" and NOT the "European Charter for Regional or Minority Dialects").

You might also like to look at the Scottish Parliament Language Policy:

Scottish Parliament (Version in English if you prefer)

And finally, and with particular reference to pages 8, 14 and 19, may I refer you to this:

UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Enjoy! 80.41.213.40 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to end this annoying discussion about whether or not Scots is a language - It it an internationally recognised language. It can even be learned as a foreign language, and is very much independent from English. Fionnlaoch (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Does anyone else feel giving the percentage of people who say they are affiliated to the Church of Scotland should be edited out considering the other major religions are not given any? Personaly speaking I would hardly give religion a mention if at all (maybe an effect from growing up in the west of Scotland). Perhaps a mention that the Church of Scotland has the largest affiliation would do with further mentions of Catholics and other religions. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a strong case that religion has been formative of Scotland and its culture, in a way that is unique. You can trace a route through which religion has touched and driven the politics - from John Knox via the Bishops' Wars to the Claim of Right; then from Thomas Aikenhead to Scottish Enlightenment, then from figures like Ebenezer Erskine or John Witherspoon through to the Disruption of 1843; then into the 20th century political and religious establishment with John Wheatley and beyond to Claim of Right 1989 - again prominently involving religious establishments. We may not be comfortable with all this stuff (I'm a staunch atheist myself) but it is probably as formative and relevant as anything in the endless to-and-fro about Kingdoms and countries which has dominated this article over recent weeks. AllyD (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You can't make a study of the culture of any nation without considering its religion(s). And you can't understand the history of Scotland without understanding Knox, Roman Catholicism, the Covenant, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know,Sigh, the both of you are right! Can't change history I suppose. I guess I've just got a hangover from remembering people being defined by their religion, although it's changing over the years. Living abroad as I did for a number of years gives you a different perspective. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the 2001 census statistics for affiliation are CoS 42.4%, Roman Catholic 15.88%, Other Christian 6.81% with no other religion gaining over 1%. There is a case to be made for mentioning the Catholic %age, although I don't think it's necessary myself.Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And 28% stated they have no religion [2] which may be one of the highest proportions in the world? (Certainly something which visitors from other countries (e.g. USA) have remarked on.) Possibly something heading for notability? AllyD (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Jedi myself, I consider this to be a lamentable state of affairs. Nonetheless, if you look at the pdf provided in Religion in Europe#No religion, although it is higher than the UK average (perhaps many Scottish respondents think it is a question about football?) and is on the high end for northern Europe, it is not so unusual. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually think you have to question the percentages given for religion in Scotland. If you stood outside Ibrox or parkhead and asked what religion they were you would'nt have to be a genius to figure out what answers you were going to receive. Now, ask them if they attended Church/Chapel and you would see a different picture. Asking people if they feel an affiliation for a certain religion is entirely different from being religious! I know we can only give official figures(what other type are there?) but I question the validity of the questionaires. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would add perspective to take a quick look at one of the Demographics sections that seem to be appearing in many US-related articles, with "race" and "ethnicity" replacing "religion" (these occupy a place in US history similar to what you describe for religion in Scotland) ... eg, Braidwood and its county of Will. The data is based on the self-descriptions of those who chose to fill in something on optional US census questions, and is unreliable for a variety of reasons. I think that it adds nothing (certainly not to an understanding of race and ethnicity in US history), but then it doesn't seem to take away anything, either. What can one infer from the assertion that of the 5,203 people in Braidwood, 1.04% (ie, 54) are classified as being multi-racial? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone disagrees with taking percentages away from religious affiliations in Scotland I will do so. I will wait for a week and if I see no disagreement I will change it --Jack forbes (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of First Minister

I would like to propose to the editors of wikipedia to put First minister Alex Salmond's name before Gordon Brown's on the right hand table. This is because the First Minister is a more significant figure in Scottish society than Gordon Brown. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. In my counrty (Canada) our provinces & territories have their premiers listed, not the Prime Minister of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a different situation, though. The way Canadian federalism is set up, the provinces are separate and equal jurisdictions to the federal one; in other words, there's no real heirarchy between a provincial premier and his/her federal counterpart. I don't believe that's the case with the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay for understanding my situation! You seem like a very real wikipedian Thanks again for supporting me! --Duckie for broadway (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There might be a little problem though; while there's a First Minister for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales? there's none for England. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Better get one quick then, hadn't they... 195.27.13.214 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to cause any severe arguements so I only am proposing First Minister Alex Salmond to be above Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the Scotland page not anywhere else or for any other country. Just the Scotland page. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your concerns, I cannot see this happening in the near future. The PM (who is incidentally also Scottish!) remains the head government throughout the United Kingdom and is thus placed at the top of the infobox! --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the PM should be removed from the infobox only the Her maj and the first minister should be there as the former appoints the latter who practially runs Scotland, I unerstand about the how devolved/reserved but using that logic the Welsh Northern Ireland and Sottish head of governments should appear in the UK article infobox. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 10:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really mind here, but would've thought that keeping the PM here would add value and information to the article, rather than take it away. I don't think it does any harm staying. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing the PM implies that the FM is the highest authority in Scotland. The (IMO) ought to remain!--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He is the highest authority in the Scottish parliament. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If the support here is to keep the PM then the heads of the devolved government should be added to the UK infobox --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least the FM should be shown above the PM. After all, the article is about Scotland. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, that would confuse the hierarchy. The PM is above the FM. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps Barryob has a point when he says the FM's of the devolved parliaments be added to the UK infobox? --Jack forbes (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I remain neutral as to that. But that is beside the point here anyway; Such a change would be discussed at the Uk talk page. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just a matter of jurisdiction, is it not? The UK Cabinet - and therefore the PM - has jurisdiction over Scotland, whereas the Scottish Cabinet - and therefore FM - does not have jurisdiction over the UK. I suppose the constituent country FMs could be added to the UK infobox, though I don't know why; they have nothing to do with UK governance and it begs the question: why not then list mayors or council heads? Anyway, as Cameron says, that's a matter for the UK talk page. As for here, there just doesn't seem to be any getting around the point that the Scottish FM is subordinate to the UK PM, and the latter does have influence over Scotland that overrides the FM's - as far as I know. --G2bambino (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The First Minister does indeed have jurisdiction over part of the UK. Its called Scotland. The Prime minister as you say does have influence over Scotland but cannot always override the decisions made in the Scottish Parliament, as was shown when the UK treasury tried to stop them implementing their own local income tax. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You avoided, or missed, my point. If the setup is such that the there are limitations on the UK Cabinet's ability to legislate for Scotland, that doesn't eliminate the point that the UK Cabinet still has authority over Scotland. The limitations could be removed or overridden by the UK Cabinet, but the Scottish Cabinet could most certainly not create legislation that binds the UK. --G2bambino (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you are correct, but having the power to do something and being able to do it, as strange as it might seem, are two different things.--Jack forbes (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm.. I'm not sure I see the difference. The rules are the rules, and, like it or not, the Scottish Cabinet is within the jurisdiction of the UK Cabinet. The Scottish government is not sovereign (not even co-sovereign like the Canadian provinces), so it remains subordinate to Westminster, which means that, ultimately, the PM of the UK has the ultimate say over Scottish affairs. --G2bambino (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am only proposing Salmond to be above Brown in the table. I am not proposing to remove Brown, he is after all the prime minister. I agree with Jack Forbes on this point --Duckie for broadway (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that cause confusion around precedence? After all, the uninitiated reader might deduce from such that the FM of Scotland has greater authority than the UK PM, whether only in Scotland or otherwise. --G2bambino (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This page is about Scotland not the UK. The First Minister has more powers over Scotland than the Prime Minister in most cases. The First Minister is more important and therefore should preceed Brown. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's just a POV, wheras the UK PM having status/power over the Scottish FM is not. --G2bambino (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a !vote would be called for!Would somebody like to list the options?--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to calmly say that Alex Salmond has more power and There fore should be above Brown. Others may say differently but this is the facts in Scottish society today. Brown possibly could be kept but I urge the editors to contemplate carefully. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since England doesn't have it's own First Minister? I'm supporting keeping the Infobox as is (UK PM above Scottish FM). GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually suprised they never came up with a better name! First Minister and Prime Minister essentially means exactly the same thing!--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alex Salmond has more power? Not what I hear, and not borne out by looking at the facts. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What kind of power does Gordon Brown have to create policy within the Scottish parliament? Even if you disagree with me over that I notice that in the infoboxes on US states there is no mention of the President. Do you not think the US President has more power than say the governor of Texas or any other state? --Jack forbes (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You should also check out Bavaria and the Australian states. I'm sure there are plenty more examples. I'm not even suggesting that Browns name be omitted from the infobox (although if I did it would not be an unreasonable suggestion). --Jack forbes (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But, again, those examples would only be valid here if the situation of the UK constitutent countries was the same as those of US states or Canadian provinces, which I really don't think it is. --G2bambino (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you not agree there would be no confusion to the reader over who was Prime Minister, it does actually give you that information directly below his name. Still trying to think of an alternative name to First Minister, our leader does'nt sound quite right. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, on second thought I'm not really bothered in which order they go. Just as long as the PM isnt left out completely and their position (ie of UK/Scotland) is noted (as it is at the moment)...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased you could see the compromise in this. I won't immediately jump in and change it but wait for the others opinons and hope they see it as you do. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unitl England has it's own First Minister? I'll have to continue to 'oppose' removing Brown and/or putting him below the FM. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what England not having a first Minister has to do with this discussion! --Jack forbes (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain to me what the connection is? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

'Tis a dirty word, but here goes, Consistancy across the 4 articles (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland & England); though I admit, that's an increasing impossibility. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotland has a parliament, England does'nt. How can you have consistancy over two completely different situations? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

'Tis a shame, that England lacks a Devolved Parliament. But, as long as Scotland remains within the UK? Prime Minister Brown gets the prominant spot (in the infobox). GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

'Tis a shame indeed! I ask again, how can you have consistancy over two completely different situations? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll never get consitancy on those 4 articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain you did'nt mean to, but you hav'nt actually answered my question. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

IF England had it's own First Minister? Then I'd call for the removal of Brown from the infoboxes of the 4 articles. Since in my country, we don't have Prime Minister Harper in the infoboxes of our provinces & territories. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the logic here curious. If Scotland is a region that needs a map that shows the UK per other examples why then does Scotland also need UK figures in the infobox, although it is clear that Texas, British Columbia, Bavaria, and Catalonia don't? This is surely a greater inconsistency. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 07:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the map was an issue of geo-politics. The FM/PM issue seems to be more one of heirarcy, though also based on governmental structures. As I've said above: if the situation of the UK's consituent countries was the same as that of Canada's provinces or the US's states, then I'd support a similar formula for the infobox being used here. But, I remain unconvinced that there is much parallel between those examples; the constitutional situation of Scotland within the UK is not the same as that of British Columbia within Canada. To be honest, though, I don't know about Bavaria or Catalonia. --G2bambino (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The situation in Bavaria is almost exactly the same. They have a sub-parliament that of their own that is inferior to the federal parliament. They have a Ministerpresident who is listed alone in the Bavaria infobox...there is no mention of Chancellor Merkel...That is one of the things that made me change my mind...--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The situaion with Catalonia is almost the exact same a region with devloved powers from the central government and no mention of the Spanish Prime Minister, Brown has to go for the sake of consistency for the love god please think of the consistency . --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that the relative 'importance' of the governments is relevant; on that view George Bush should be in the infobox. The London article gives the name of the mayor, not the PM: because it's an article about London. This is an article about Scotland. ariwara (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But those areas don't state that it's a country and has its own government in the opening paragraphs. The removal of the PM would be ridiculuousl misleading that Scotland was some independent state! Both have to be there. The PM has more authority than the first minister! You can't ignore that fact in the article!WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would omitting the UK PM be misleading? The article itself makes the constitutional position of Scotland within the UK abundantly clear. Does anyone actually read an infobox, anyway? BTW, WP doesn't like images built into signatures, [3]. Bill Reid | Talk 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make the constitutional position clear at all. Anyway I see the change has already been made by putting the FM infront of the PM. I am fine with it. The Queen should be last though. I will remove the picture shortly. I was not aware of that as I saw other editors using pics.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty ought to remain where she is...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It was I who put the FM above PM, although I did say during the discussions that it would not be unreasonable for me to ask for the PMs name be taken out. If the discussions led to a consensus to take him out I would not object. --Jack forbes (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good move. Seeing as there was no consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What was'nt a good move? --Jack forbes (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Placeing the FM above the UK PM. But, I see it's been done at Wales, so it doesn't matter now; I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So if something is done on the Scotland article that has not been reflected on any other 'UK' country article, then that's unacceptable. Yet if another 'UK' country article does it, only then does it become acceptable for the Scotland article to do likewise? What is with this 'can't be done on the Scotland article unless and until someone else has done it elsewhere' attitude??? 80.41.198.87 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The straw poll (below) suggests a majority in favour of 'UK PM above Scottish FM'. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire now says he is fine with FM on top and Cameron is also now ok with it. --Jack forbes (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Id like to ask why since the option to have pm over fm one in the poll why it is not that way on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HRH-Ryan (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to know why that is...PM should be above FM should it not? Gavin Scott (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly support listing the FM first. It's not so much a matter of "more/most power", but of specificity. The corresponding article for a US state would list the governor, right? Or indeed, a UK UA would list the mayor (if anyone). That England doesn't have a FM or equivalent is a result of anomalous facts in the world, not of some quirk of WP. Alai (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus regarding PM and FM

• Feel free to also take part in the above discussion!

• Option 1: Remove Prime Minister from infobox.

1. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2. ariwara (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option 2: First Minister shown above Prime Minister.

1. Jack forbes
2. Duckie for broadway
3. Alai (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (this follows the order of the article itself, monarch, scottish parliament, british parliament)
5. Gavin Scott (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (I have changed my mind, I prefer having FM first.)

• Option 3: leave infobox as it is. (ie PM above FM)

1. Cameron
2. GoodDay
3. DJ Clayworth (talk)
4. Wikipéire
5. UKPhoenix79
6. User:HRH-Ryan —Preceding comment was added at 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RIP Constituent country

Sniff sniff. I see constituent country was removed from this article (days ago). GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I objected to the intro change but eh my objections were criticized to put it midly. Any change I've suggested has been decided to be a 'retrogade step'. I would very much like the cc term to be reinstated into the intro.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You may have objected to it, but there was a long discussion over it. I hope you don't just change it, well I'm sure you won't! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I won't! I only make changes if theres an inaccuracy or if there's consensus for something.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but one persons inaccuracy is anothers accuracy, so we all have to be careful. Sorry, I'm sure you know that anyway. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems a bit harsh ofSFC9394 to accuse Malarious of vandalism for suggesting the use of country. The display is "country" and the link is to a page which is accurate in its description. Constituent country looks likely to be accepted on Wales and England as a way of ending interminable debates to the satisfaction of all parties. I don't want to intrude into a prior debate here and accept the current wording. However I think the reversal could have been more gentle. --Snowded (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

References

They've been 'trashed', for want of a better description. Would some willing and able samaritan fix them please. Thanks. 80.41.196.64 (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (I wouldn't know where/how to start)

Motto

I am confused. The motto for Scotland is Nemo me impune lacessit, or so it says on the info-box. However, the motto which appears above the crest, (in keeping with the Scottish armorial style), on the Royal coat of arms of Scotland, and Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom used in Scotland, is the Scots motto In Defens; an abbrevited form of the motto In My Defens God Me Defend. (See: Clan Scrimgeour heraldry)

All Crown bodies in Scotland also use this motto, e.g. Procurator Fiscal Service,etc.

The motto Nemo me impune lacessit is the motto of the Order of the Thistle, Royal Regiment of Scotland and Scots Guards. It first appeared on the Royal arms of the Kingdom of Scotland during the reign of Charles II, being absent from the arms of previous monarchs, including those of Mary, Queen of Scots, (See here: Wood carving showing Royal arms of Mary Queen of Scots), and James IV. (See image of arms at Stirling Castle).

Why then is the motto of Scotland listed as Nemo me impune lacessit and not In Defens?

In a sense, the equivalent would be to claim that the motto of England is not Dieu et mon droit but Honi soit qui mal y pense, which is of course motto of the Order of the Garter, and not the motto of England. 86.158.68.35 (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources as to why you think this is so? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My modest library has long since filled the shelves of many a charity shop. However, on-line sources with regard to the motto IN MY DEFENS GOD ME DEFEND being the motto of the Royal arms of Scotland are as follows:

• "The motto In DEFENCE (Sometimes IN DEFENS; possibly a contraction of ‘In my defence God me defend’) is invariably placed above the crest."
• "Below the shield is the additional motto: NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT (trans: ‘No-one provokes me with impunity’). This was incorporated into the arms by Charles II and is associated with the Order of the Thistle."
  • Public Sculpture of Glasgow by Ray McKenzie, Gary Nisbet

• "The Royal Motto, "In Defens", has been shortened from "In My Defence God Me Defend". The Royal Arms also display below the shield the motto of the Order of the Thistle: "Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
  • Heraldry – The Arms of the Earl of Dundee (taken from a book "Scottish Heraldry" by MD Dennis, published in 1999 by the Heraldic Society of Scotland: ISBN 0-9525258-2-8)

• "The ancient motto of the King of England is, God and my right (intelligitur) shall me defend. Of the King of Scotland, In my defence, God me defend."
  • The Fourth part of the Institutes of Laws of England: Concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts, by Edward Coke

• "The stamp bears the royal arms of James VI before his accession to the English throne. The Latin inscription reads: 'In Defence, Iacobus Rex 6'. This was in use to around 1603. 'In Defence' is an abbreviated version of 'In my defence, God me defend'."
  • National Museums of Scotland – Book stamp associated with James VI

• "The arms of Scotland crowned, with I.R. on the sides, encircled with a ribbon of the Order of the Thistle, having the motto, IN MY DEFENCE GOD ME DEFEND. Edinburgh Printed by Rob V Valde-grau Printer to the Kings Majesty. Anno Dom . 1597"
  • Typographical antiquities: an historical account of printing in England, by Joseph Ames

• "The word of the arms of Scotland was this, “In my defence God me defend"
  • The Progress and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, by John Nichols

• "and beneath the shield of Scotland the motto ”In my defence God me defend"
  • Historic notices in reference to Fotheringhay, by Henry Kaye Bonney

• "adorned upon one side with the Arms and supporters of Scotland upon a plate of gold, crowned, surrounded by the collar and jewel of St Andrew, with this motto below, IN MY DEFENCE GOD ME DEFEND."
  • Original Letters, Illustrative of English History; Including numerous Royal letters, by Henry Ellis

• Image: Arms on publication showing full motto

• Image: Wood carving of arms of Mary I showing full motto

• Organisations incorporating the motto in their logo:
  • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
  • General Register Office for Scotland

With regard to mottoes in Scottish heraldry appearing above the crest:

• "The motto appears above the crest as is the custom of Scotland."
  • The Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of Canada

• "The Scottish Royal motto appears above the crest, and the motto of the Order of the Thistle below the shield"
  • International Civic Heraldry

• "the Scottish matriculation of arms and differ from an English grant in that the motto is above the crest"
  • Cheshire-Heraldry

• "THE SLUGHORN (or slogan or cri de guerre) is the warcry used by the clan or family to which the owner of the achievement belongs. Its appearance above the crest is typical of Scottish heraldry, but it will be found elsewhere. Scottish achievements with no warcry usually feature the motto here. In England, where the motto is traditionally placed beneath the shield, a second motto may appear above the crest. Warcries are short, meaningful and easy to distinguish aurally. Mottoes can be relatively long."
  • Baronage

• "The Motto and its scroll may be of any colour, and may be shown either below the shield, English style, or above the crest, Scottish fashion."
  • Cayman Islands Govt.

• "When displayed, the motto normally appears on a scroll or ribbon beneath the escutcheon (and any supporter compartment/base). The exception is for Scottish Armorials where it usually appears in an escroll above the top of the crest. In rare instances where more than one motto has been adopted, they are often both displayed above the crest, or one above the crest and one below the escutcheon."
  • Modar University

• "In Scottish heraldry where the motto is granted as part of the blazon, it is usually shown on a scroll above the crest. A motto may be in any language."
  • Scottish Flag

• "The motto Escrol is positioned above the crest in Scottish Armorials."
  • The Arms of the Baron of Kilmarnock

Origin and associations with Nemo me impune lacessit:

• "The motto ‘Nemo Me Impune Lacessit’ is inextricably linked with the Order of the Thistle and has been designated by the Statutes of the Order as the motto of that Order since at least the 17th Century. The older Royal motto of Scotland is ‘In Defens’ and this appears on the Royal Arms from an earlier period."
  • Royal Regiment of Scotland

• "NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT. The motto of the Order of the Thistle (no one shall harm me with impunity) is borne at the centre of the standard."
  • Royal Scots Dragoon Guards

• Image: Badge of the Scots Guards

• Motto of the Order of the Thistle: "Nemo me impune lacessit (no one harms me with impunity)"
  • The Monarchy Today

• "The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle represents the highest honour in Scotland. Revived by James VII (James II of England), the Order has a complement of 16 Knights (KT). In 1987, The Queen decided that Ladies should be eligible for the Thistle in the same way as men. The Motto of the Order is Nemo me impune lacessit ("No one provokes me with impunity")."
  • British Monarchy web site

• Other sources:
  • Scots History on line
  • The Royal Collection
  • UK Govt.

To summarise:

The motto of the Royal arms of Scotland is IN MY DEFENS GOD ME DEFEND, abbreviated to IN MY DEFENS, (as in the case of the arms of James IV), or usually IN DEFENS. This was the original and only motto of the Royal arms until the inclusion of the motto of the Order of the Thistle, by Charles II, whose inclusion could simply have reflected a desire to apply an equivalent chivalrous motto to the Scottish arms to that of Honi soit qui mal y pense on the English arms.

British Army regiments who continue to use the motto of the Order of the Thistle, Nemo me impune lacessit, include the Scots Guards, the Royal Regiment of Scotland and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. However, other regiments continue to use the motto of the Order of the Garter, Honi soit qui mal y pense, including, for example, the Grenadier Guards, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, Life Guards and the Blues and Royals.

It may well be the case, particularly without an understanding of Scottish armorial traditions, that persons wrongly assume that the motto of the Order of the Thistle, appearing as it does beneath the escutcheon, is the motto of both the Royal arms of Scotland and the Royal arms of the UK as used in Scotland. As a result, this chivalrous motto is wrongly considered to be the Royal motto of Scotland itself, whereas the position in relation to the crest of the original motto IN DEFENS, and the fact that its use predates that of the motto of Order of the Thistle by several centuries, would suggest that IN DEFENS should be regarded as both the original and the correct motto of the Royal arms and by default of the country itself.

Furthermore, IN MY DEFENS GOD ME DEFEND is not, as has been wrongly suggested on the basis of rules governing English armorials where mottoes appear above the crest, a 'War Cry', but appears as the first line of an old Scots prayer:

In my defence God me defend

And bring my sawl to ane good end

ane vertuous lyf procureth ane happie death...

(ref.Electric Scotland)

Alternatively:

In my defence God me defend

And bring my soul to ane good end

When I am sick and like to die

Father of Heaven have mercy on me

(ref.Annals of Banff: Index to old cemetry)

It would not be unreasonable to liken the true status of Nemo me impune lacessit to that of Honi soit qui mal y pense, and in turn IN DEFENS to that of Dieu et mon droit.

I have yet to find a source which states categorically that Nemo me impune lacessit is the motto of Scotland, other than those sources which make absolutely no reference whatsoever to the motto IN DEFENS and which I therefore suspect are making an assumption that the position on the Royal arms of the motto Nemo me impune lacessit confers a status upon that motto which is not afforded under the conventions of Scottish heraldry, nor is such a status supported historically. The tradition of English heraldry may also account for IN DEFENS being mistaken for a "warcry" as opposed to being regarded as the principal motto of the arms.

Should it not simply be a case of English rules of heraldry being mistakenly applied in the interpretation of Scottish armorials, then I remain throughly confused as to how it has come about that in Scotland, the motto of the chivalric Order of the Thistle has become regarded as the motto of the country itself, as opposed to the motto of the Royal arms, as is the case in respect of England. Any light anyone might be able to shed on this would be appreciated. 86.158.218.187 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No takers then??? Shouldn't the motto on the Scotland page be changed accordingly??? 80.41.211.115 (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User 86.158.218.187 has certainly put an excellent case for changing it. No arguments here! --Jack forbes (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Scotland article now refers to In my defens God me defend. By rights, the correct motto should be reflected in the Scotland article also. 80.41.239.225 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead (again)

The lead's been reshuffled again tonight. I'm aware that consensus can change, but I'm not aware that is has changed. Any comments? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was 'I don't care'?

It's hardly a controversial edit now is it? Barely changes a word.WikipÉire ^♣ 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus certainly isn't "I don't care". That doesn't help a great deal. I'm not saying I'm necessarily against the change, but I am conscious that we had a major lengthy discussion about it and I for one respect that. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, the lengthy discussion was about what words to include and exclude in the lead, not the specific order in which they were placed. My edit was a copyedit, not a major edit; I was only trying to improve the flow of the opening sentences currently broken up by an excess of periods. --G2bambino (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the work you did was in good faith, absolutely. I'm even happy to agree to the change (I didn't revert it), but I was just concerned (very concerned) that several others would oppose it. We have enjoyed a period of stability, and wouldn't want to disrupt that for the world. If there's no objections made soon, I guess that's an all clear... for now. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one, much prefer the existing version. Let us recall that this is primarily a geography article and most country articles that I am familiar with begin by locating the country concerned, not be defining its role in the geo-political universe. You will notice, for example, that the UK article lead provides a lengthy description of its attributes and only at the end mentions membership of larger groupings. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks fine as it is! --Jack forbes (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and, as a subnational entity, Scotland's geography is defined by its larger container. The lead already says the country is in the UK, just in another sentence, when it need not be. As my edit was so minimal, one can only wonder if it's the same old pro-Scottish independence bias that's driving opposition. --G2bambino (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, the same old pro-British unionist bias that's driving the change. ;) 80.41.211.115 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is one automatically biased if they admit the existence of something that exists? --G2bambino (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the present version deny the existence of the UK? You can't keep throwing accusations of Pro-Scottish independence bias everytime someone disagrees with your edit. As shown, it can easily be turned around as Pro-British unionist bias on your part. --Jack forbes (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't throw any accusations; I postulated on the possibility of biases over-complicating a simple edit, based on the observation that it only seems to have been the moving of the words "United Kingdom" to before "Great Britain" that caused any ruffles amongst certain individuals with publicly well known personal stances on certain matters. It's all rather a tempest in a tea pot; but why would anyone make it such? It's certainly a good possibility that it's a form of territory marking, done in order to deter others from making even the most innocuous edits here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias?

This article seems to be written with a strong bias for Scotland. While I don't disagree with the sentiment I think the article should be changed have a more neutral tone. It just doesn't seem fitting for an encyclopædia article. 82.41.10.26 (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of bias please? Jack forbes (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict): It would help if you could quote some concrete examples. I would be happy to help provided they really are biassed. --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A new take on the old "country" debate

Reading through the extensive discussions, above, regarding Scotland's status as a country, I note that there is actually considerable agreement. This is reflected in the following agreed facts from the "Just the facts" section at the top of the page:

"5. Scotland is called a constituent country of the UK

6. Scotland is called a country"

It seems that any disagreement has been over how best to describe this in the lead. I note that most of the variants proposed above included both of these facts. Many, if not most, editors agreed with the most recent of these proposals, but some had particular objections (e.g., comparing Scotland to a U.S. state, etc). However, it seems to me that the current version of the lead does not pick up these two facts. I thus find it less than satisfactory. Here's how the first two sentences currently read:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England...

The problem with this, IMO, is that it is misleading. As has been clearly established, above, Scotland is not an ISO 3166 country. It is a constituent country. I therefore propose the following modification to the lead:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and shares a land border to the south with England...

Footnote

1. Countries within a country. 10 Downing Street "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

I like the symmetry between the wiki link to "constituent country" and the reference given. However, another reference could be used, if deemed necessary. What do you think of this proposed revision? Sunray (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I will make the change. Sunray (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed in the past and it was agreed that country should be used! Also, if you want further discussion on it please give time for other editors to come to the discussion. Jack forbes (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just while were on the topic again, may I just quickly suggest for editing of the intro, as the source says country in a country then so to should the line. ie Scotland is a country in the uk etc. Selective picking of what the source says like there is now that will lead to people wanting to change it.WikipÉire ^♣ 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It says just that! Scotland is a country....It is part of the United Kingdom. Is the United Kingdom not a country? Jack forbes (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats my whole point. You had to cut out a sentence to match it with the source! A slight tinkering of the sentence structures would solve that.WikipÉire ^♣ 15:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to quote a source word for word. All the information from the source is there for all to see. Jack forbes (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The original observation is inaccurate: there is not considerable agreement. And there are inconsistencies thoughout. For example, some who likened Scotland to a Canadian province or a US state (and not something distinct within the UK) also objected to infobox contents which were like those of a Canadian province or US state (which lists the local executive without mentioning the national executive), on the grounds that Scotland was not like a Canadian province or US state. As for citing facts, this is no more than cherry-picking selected factoids for the purpose of argument, wrapped up in a claim of rational thinking. Who lists facts that effectively rebut the pre-conceived notions of the lister? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see—as expressed by many on this page—is that the statement "Scotland is a country" needs to be explained. Scotland is not a country according to ISO 3166. So we need to be clear on this. "Constituent country" is one way of saying it, "country within a country" is another. Would those who do not favour my suggestion, above please suggest an alternative? Sunray (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How about keeping the current introduction as an alternative? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You got there before me! Jack forbes (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that ISO 3166 has been mentioned previously as someone's fact (in support of the mentioner's POV, of course). With all due respect, the problem that exists here is not one of facts, nor one of a perception of the facts; it is more a question of agenda (we all have a POV, right?). No one is going to cite a fact that others will look at, and then say "Ah! Of course! I see that you are right!" As a suggested alternative, why not let those who have made substantial contributions to this article lead, and the rest of us can live with it for awhile? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray. A very slight adjustment needs to be made. Not the mass change that was discussed before, just a slight tinkering to make whats being said more concrete. For example no other UK con country article says just country. It may be confusing. Not that I object to the term country as that was accepted through consensus. What is wrong with the whole with saying its a country in a country all in one line?WikipÉire ^♣ 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire, You said exactly the same thing just a few hours ago, repeating it won't suddenly change peoples minds. Jack forbes (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The current lead (which I don't necessarily agree with) was decided upon after extensive wide-reaching discussion, with only Wikipeire being the only real vocal opposition. Even if the lead is changed from a discussion here, another discussion will likely return it to something similliar not long later. There's a whole article out there that needs work, please lets leave the lead as the consensus settled on, and work on the rest of the page. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well actually there wasn't consensus on the wording of the intro, just whether country or con country was used. On the contrary I feel a small change in rearraning sentences could stop this being brought back up rather than the other way around. Sure what are we doing right now?WikipÉire ^♣ 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jza84 is one of the people who contributes substantially to this and this kind of article, so I hope that Jza84's preference carries greater weight. There are several others. Can we agree to let only them sort it out for the time being? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For the good of the article (this is why we are here!) I agree with Notuncurious to leave the seasoned editors of this article to sort it out! Jack forbes (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edi conflict)Seasoned editors? Good grief! No one's personal opinion is better than anyone else's. Wikipedia works by consensus. At the moment nothing will change as there is no consensus, but other editors may have an opinion too. You have to respect that. You can't just do what one person says, they don't own an article.WikipÉire ^♣ 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not about ownership. Its about leaving an article stable for a while where there has been concensus and allow people to improve the article where it needs improving! Jack forbes (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about major changes or making all this unstable again. This isn't some huge debate whether one fact is right or wrong or defining whats beings said. Its just merely a suggestion to slight lingustic changes which may stop future problems. Other editors may appreciate that themselves and see it as improving the article as its an area that needs improving. I'm not trying to win anyone over.WikipÉire ^♣ 00:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that if you're (Wikipeire) going to persue this matter, then you need to involve WP:SCOTLAND and WP:UKGEO at very least. That said, this time, you need to abide by the outcome, and not repeat the debate a week or two later with no concession or additional source material. However, I'm really not interested in yet another wasteful dead-end debate. Neither the weight of opinion or source material has altered in the last few months. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change anything, just suggesting that restructing the exact words that are there, might be less confusing and might stop problems happening in the future!WikipÉire ^♣ 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Jza84, I really like your reason: "There's a whole article out there that needs work, please lets leave the lead as the consensus settled on, and work on the rest of the page." Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's no use Wikipéire, the seasoned editors of this article (some who have been here for all of three months) have spoken. Sunray (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is me you are referring to, I made no claims to being a seasoned editor. Jack forbes (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My real concern is with the level of discourse on this page. After weeks of discussion, characterized by irrelevancies, ad hominems and straw-man arguments, (causing many serious editors to flee), this article still has a sub-standard lead (more on this below). Only my love for Scotland (my POV) keeps me here. Sunray (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Several people have stated that the article needs a great deal of work. It does. But it is hard to get past the first line: "Scotland is a country..." This, from a *serious* encyclopedia? Hardly. Scotland is not seen as a country by many people the world over. The assertion needs to be explained.

Consider this statement: "I think that ISO 3166 has been mentioned previously as someone's fact (in support of the mentioner's POV, of course)." Whether ISO 3166 represents a POV is irrelevant. ISO 3166 is a fact. It is the reality of much of humanity. In light of that FACT, simply stating: "Scotland is a country" is arguable (at best). We have a chance to educate and inform the reader here, but we do not. The article will not be taken seriously until we address this. Sunray (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither your love for Scotland nor your integrity have been impeached, Sunray. And Jack forbes need not think that your comment above was aimed at him. As for your dispassionate words, that much is to the good. However, it sounds like you want a specific POV (your own) to be considered pre-eminent, along with others who do not make substantial contributions to this and similar articles, and this article will suffer until you get your way (I hope I'm wrong about this). Speaking for myself, I find myself privately disagreeing with much of Jza84's POV, but reasonable people may disagree. Jza84 does not agree with the current version of the lead, but is willing to live with it until things settle down, and the article can be elsewhere improved in the meantime. Please support Jza84's suggested course. Please. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with some of what you say, you miss my main point: It matters not what my POV is. I do not simply wish my view to be pre-eminent. I'm used to controlling for bias. What matters is that the statement in the first sentence of this article is itself POV And that is shabby. Sunray (talk)

I'm not sure what ISO 3166 has to do with this article? ISO 3166 is a list of abbreviations for territories not all of which are countries e.g French Guiana is listed but it is very much a part of France. ISO 3166 isn't relevant to proving Scotland's country status. Countries that are not independent are still well recognised as legitimate entities. Just Google for non-independent countries and see—official US government and UN sites use the term among 125,000 others. Bill Reid | Talk 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC

Yes that's right. Scotland has a claim here. We don't support that, however. We simply lump it under the heading of "country." Sunray (talk)

Agree with what Bill Reid says, Scotland is not an ISO 3166 and so what ? this does not mean that Scotland is not a country. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not! Right now Scotland is a constituent country or a country within a country. That is what we need to say in the intro. And its not a POV, just a simple fact that the reader will likely benefit from knowing. Sunray (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now, there seems to be considerable opposition to this, for whatever reason you may think! To me, sure, Scotland is in Britain; a consistuent country, and that's the truth. Trouble is, Scotland is verifiably a country, and this is a sticking point for people. How do you propose to obtain consensus Sunray? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get it! The article tells us that Scotland is part of the UK. Does that not say what you are looking for Sunray? Jack forbes (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's say I'm a reader who doesn't know much about the UK. I'm curious about Scotland. I go to the WP article and read that Scotland is a country. I follow the link and look for Scotland on the List of countries. It isn't there. Now I'm confused. I might look at the footnote, or I might not. Many would move on to something else instead. This could easily be prevented by a link to constituent country (which actually gives the example of the UK. Sunray (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ISO 3166 is a goner, good. The opening of the article says Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom,. Nothing could be more explicit than that. Footnotes is the place you look for positive verification of the facts. No-one has written List of non-independent countries (yet) but please, read the article including the citations and forget the red herrings. Bill Reid | Talk 19:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"ISO 3166 is a goner..." Hardly. ISO 3166 is the reality we have to deal with. Most people have some degree of familiarity with the UN's designation of countries. We have to address that.

You are quite right that the lead is explicit. However, it is not sufficient. That is the problem I am raising.

"Forget the red herrings." This statement leads me to believe that you have not yet understood my point. I have not used any red herrings. My point is simple and I have merely expressed it in different ways. Sunray (talk)

No one has yet dealt with the concerns I've raised. Would someone please try to do that? Sunray (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Maybe a few more sources to back up what your saying might help. The way the article is written currently, with the word country being there by itself misleading suggests that it an independent country. As seen in the 'fact only' section above, the word country can be seen as meaning that. So therefore a small change is needed to reflect this.WikipÉire ^♣ 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of reopening old debates, wounds, etc, but for the sake of completeness: it seems that ISO 3166-2:1998, Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions — Part 2: Country subdivision code. does regard England and Scotland as countries, see Newsletter, p9 p11. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a late addendum to the discussion above. Entrants to ISO 3166 are/were proposed by national governments. HMG (as represented by BSI) did not propose any of the constituent countries for separate codes. Though it did secure FK for the Falklands, GI for Gibraltar, GG for Guernsey, IM for Isle of Man, etc - all of which are clearly not independent countries. (And GB for the UK, of course!). ISO 3166 is not a neutral standard. The absence of Scotland from it signifies nothing other than that [most of] its international post is delivered via London. --Red King (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

National anthem

I'm curious as to why there is no national anthem in the infobox. Has this been missed out for any particular reason? I would say the de facto anthem would be Flower of Scotland, although other's might say Scotland the Brave. Here are just some refs confirming they are considered unofficial or de facto [4] [5] [6] [7]. Any thoughts? Jack forbes (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The National anthem of Scotland itself states that Scotland has no national anthem 1, 2, 3, 4. That is why none is listed. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It does'nt actually say there is no anthem, it says there is no official anthem! Anyway, I'm sure I sing the Scottish national anthem at the Scotland international football games. Jack forbes (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But it would have to be official to be added to the infobox. Many people call the Germans krauts but it isn't listed as a demonym in the infobox because it isn't official. = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I will have to go over to the UK article and remove English as the official language from the infobox! Jack forbes (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention God Save the Queen as the official anthem! Jack forbes (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As to the first one:go ahead = )! But I have sources proving the latter...= )--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If something's official through de facto means, it can be included. The US doesn't have an 'official' language but its there.WikipÉire ^♣ 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But there are multiple anthems which makes it hard to determine which is the anthem...--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you lived here you would know there are only two candidates for national anthem, flower of Scotland and Scotland the Brave, and if you asked people in the street I'm fairly sure they would say the former. Jack forbes (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I don't? Surely my name is as Scottish as names get? = )I agree that most people would say the former (although there is still confusion). One of the links I provided above was of a poll to see which is the preferred anthem and Flower of Scotland won.--Cameron (T|C) 12:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you can't get much more Scottish than Cameron. Let's sing Flower of Scotland together! :> Jack forbes (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

With pleasure...: "O Flower of Scotland, when will we see..." = ) --Cameron (T|C) 12:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bravo!! Aye, it fairly stirs the heart. :> Jack forbes (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom has an anthem God save the Queen. That covers the entire sovereign state (including Scotland). GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But as I'm sure you know, the UK is made up of countries within countries and we all have our national anthems. That's why when Scotland play football and rugby internationaly the announcer asks everyone to stand up for the national anthem. Jack forbes (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokers - if ever there was a sovereign state with multiple identities, the UK is it. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, but it's fun! :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:HRH-Ryan

Just to say my peice:

Flower of Scotland has never been declared my by act of parliament or by Royal Warrant as the anthem of Scotland -so how can it be de facto. It may be the popular anthem -but in political correctness the anthem of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom would be God Save the Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.132.60 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

De facto is what you call something when it is generally accepted to be the case but has never been officially defined. Thus English is the de facto language of the US but not de jure, which is what you call it when something is officially defined. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but "generally accepted" is massively question-begging in an encyclopedia context. More so in this instance, because there is at least one significant other: "Scotland the Brave". I think the current single entry is therefore misleading. --Stevouk (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And now for something completely different!

I notice that the article says Scoti rather than Scotti! I always thought the latter spelling was correct so I checked the article on wiki and Scoti was used as the article name but stangely Scotti was used in the article. Seems there is a bit of confusion here. Anyone know enough to clear it up? Jack forbes (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Both ways are used. The first reference to 'Scoti' or 'Scotti' is by the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who used 2 t's (their marauding in Roman Britain in 360 and 364, and their defeat in 368). Among those who used 1 't' was the Irish historian Charles O'Conor, such as in his 1775 Oygygia Vindicated, where he pressed the argument of Irish origins. There doesn't seem to be any agreement (or dispute) about which is acceptable. The Scoti article notes that it can be either way; it looks like the article itself has been massaged into a list of sections that refer to Irish topics. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says "The name Scotland derives from the Latin Scoti" If the original Latin was Scotti, do you think 2 t's should be used in the article? I know its no big deal, I'm just wondering why we don't go with the original latin spelling, as surely the name Scotland came from the first reference! Jack forbes (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put much faith in what the article says ... it's one those that appears to be someone's personal take on history, and it lacks merit. Changing the name between 'Scoti' and 'Scotti' wouldn't be a worthwhile improvement, I think, considering the article content; but it wouldn't do any harm, either. If you're thinking of writing a real article, it wouldn't take much research, as there isn't much to be said; but there are pitfalls.

I recall that the next tangible reference to 'Scot(t)i' (after Ammianus) is about 580 by a Spanish cleric, who was the first to refer to Ireland as 'Scotia'. The first known reference to 'Scotland' is 100 or 200 after MacAlpin, before Stratclyde and the Lothians were incorporated. There is a good case for Irish origins, but it's expressed as a one-way transfer of power and culture, which is unlikely; and it abuts the (sometimes contentious) subjects of Pictish origins and Celtic Christianity. There seems to have been "agreement" that the origin of the word 'Scot' is derived from ancient opinions that the Scythians were from the north, and that Scot is this same word, inaccurately applied.

Virtually every Irish, Scottish, and English history related to ancient Britain was tainted by the fiction of De Situ Britanniae, which was the prime authority on Roman-era history between 1750 and the late 19th century (for northern England and Scotland, it was virtually the only authority). Its relics can still be found in modern speculations and theories. The Irish preferred their (legitimate) manuscripts over De Situ Britanniae when there was conflict, so their accounts are "less tainted" regarding ancient British history, but the false accounts were accepted when there was no conflicting manuscript. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you really do learn something new every day! I may pop down to the library and look in to it more closely. You seem to be well informed on the subject, and I'm sure if you had the time or the inclination you could make a good job on the 'Scot(t)i' article. Thanks again for your reply! Jack forbes (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The first reference to Scotland as "Scotland" is 75 years after "MacAlpin" (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Manuscript A, sub anno 933: "Her for Æþelstan cyning in on Scotland ..."). Ireland is being called "Irland" slightly earlier, sub anno 914. The Irish are "scottas" in 891 (the three men in a boat), but not after that as far as I know. The first "Scottish" king to learn that he was "Scottish" could have been Constantín mac Áeda at one of his various meetings with English rulers. If he understood Old English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotia does, obviously, derive from Scoti. Scotland is an English exonym derived from Latin (presumably) and attested from the 10th century onwards. In Gaelic it is called Alba, attested earlier. Alba emerged in Gaelic as the word for what was also and previously known in Latin as Pictavia, possibly from the 8th century or earlier, but definitely from the 9th century. Hence the story changes depending on whether one focuses on the signifier or the signified, and for the former depending on language. As for Scotti versus Scoti ... it isn't a meaningful difference, as both are used in Latin throughout the Middle Ages. Regarding Scotia and Scythia, it was a similarity that had effects on medieval writers (may even have given Scotland its later patron saint), but the two words do not appear to be connected in etymology. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikipéire

I'm not really sure where to hold a centralised discussion about this, but I thought it worth mentioning that User:Wikipéire was blocked indefinately today for sockpuppetry. OK you may think, but could there be a correlation between that Malarious (talk · contribs) and 213.202.143.73 (talk · contribs), which seem to share comparable sentiments? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me if it was a sock, indeed I was going to post just such a suggestion last night based on my revert. The editing practises of the user are highly suggestive of socking. Might be worth getting a CU done. SFC9394 (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I had some suspicions a while ago, but IIRC I couldn't see any evidence of misuse of second accounts (good hand/bad hand, 3RR or multiple contributions to debates), so I let AGF rule. I see Wikipéire strenuously denies (at his talk page) any wrongdoing, but he certainly uses at least one IP not listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire, see this diff. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country (again)

Just letting ya'll know. The articles England, Wales & Northern Ireland use constituent country (just pointing out the inconsistancy). GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

and consistency on what is an accurate statement would help us fend of those trying to remove country or make us areas. Much as I hope Wales and Scotland will be countries, the fact is that at the moment they are constituent ones. --Snowded (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just letting ya'll know, you should take a good look at talk:Scotland#Just the facts: #2, #4, #5, #6, #7 & #13. Like it or not, and irrespective of E,W & NI, this article has been stable for quite some time; I'd suggest leaving it alone. For those desiring consistency, try addressing the info box map issue; the E & NI maps are way too big IMO, and quite why Wales should need two of them God only knows. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is not independant, from the rest of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Never! (sic). "It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England". How could that possibly indicate that it is "independant, from the rest of the UK"? What is this, a Web-based "Encyclopaedia" or an 'idiot's guide' to the world and everything in it? If the reader cannot glean from that one sentence in the introduction precisely what Scotland's status is then we may as well forget the whole bally exercise and start giving out free subscriptions to the National Enquirer!

Again, am I missing something here with regard to the repetitive grinding of this one particular axe? One person's climbing back on their own particular hobby-horse of consistency across UK articles and their constant regurgitation of old arguments which have been thrashed out time after time is simply not what this page should be about. Repeated POV pushing should be stamped out IMO. We have been here time and time again and yet again out comes the same tired arguments. I for one, if you haven't guessed, am getting a tad fed up with it all. Please, make it stop... 80.41.195.209 (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:So this article continues to get special treatment eh? What a terrible thing I did, suggesting this article line-up with the other 3 (heresy on my part, I guess?). Ya'll may as well restore nation to the lead & restore the Scotland only Map too. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks. As I'm a consistancy buff, this article tends to 'try my patients'. As a result, I'll drop this topic (and go back to keeping my distants). Again, my apologies. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we just use country and constituent country? For instance,

“ Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom and shares a land border to the south with England. ”

(References omitted) -Rrius (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is my final comment on the issue Scotland is verifiabley a country not an independent one but still a country this has been pointed out several dozen times, this is an encyclopaedia not geography for idiots the intro should not be altered for those who think country automatically means independent country and even then the second sentence states stands political status and GoodDay you everlasting quest for consistency where there is none is now borderline trolling --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to you labelling User:GoodDay as a troll! Such actions do not comply with WP:AGF. If you think he actions are bordering on trolling, I suggest you go and re-read the what is a troll? essay. --Cameron (T|C) 16:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I did read it see Pestering GoodDay has raised this issue numerous times as seen below the consensus is to call Scotland a country which is also verifiable, GoodDay just isn't letting go.. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless GoodDay's edits are always polite and good faith. A simple comment would have suficed, there was no need for a such an accusation. --Cameron (T|C) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, sometimes "a simple comment" might not get the message across, particularly where an individual feels that simply having failed to find support for their own POV is evidence of them having been "bullied out, again", (Special:contributions/GoodDay 18:07, 28 May 2008), and who openly admits to having "been claiming 'group ownership'" on this article. (User_talk:G2bambino#Scotland). "Some trolls are critical of the project, its policies, its users, its administration, or its goals. Often, this criticism comes in the form of accusations of cabals, ilks, or campaigns that are typically invested in a particular POV, invested in maligning a specific user, and other similar claims." (From: What is a troll? Misplaced criticism). Cameron, your loyalty to your friend is admirable, however I feel on this occasion it may be somewhat misplaced. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said GoodDay was my friend? Loyal to someone I don't know? I don't think any of the above quoted essay applies to GoodDay. He is a wonderful contributer. But let us end this conversation, it is not the right place. --Cameron (T|C) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But to finally put the consistency issue to bed, probably the most independent and authoritative source connected with the debate surrounding the use of "country" is the International Organisation for Standardisation, which in the reference now included in the Scotland article pertaining to the ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-9 (2007-11-28), uses the following classifications on page 11:

• "ENG England country"
• "NIR Northern Ireland province"
• "SCT Scotland country"
• "WLS Wales principality"

The UK Govt. has stated on a web page that the "United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", much in the same way as the Scottish Govt. has stated on a web page that "Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom (UK)", however IMO, the ISO classifications carry greater weight than either of the other sources. On this basis, and with regard to consistency between UK articles, the only consistency would appear to be between the Scotland and England ISO classifications. Perhaps those with a preference for such should take their case to the Talk:England page and argue their case there for the England article intro to mirror that of the Scotland article intro, for the Scotland article intro is in fact correct in as much as it corresponds to the ISO classification. The England, Wales and Northern Ireland articles however do not correspond with the ISO, and are arguably incorrect. Good luck! 195.27.13.214 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I already said, I'm not gonna press the issue anymore. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is stable; Scotland is effectively described, whatever word we wish to use; the issue is a molehill.--Gazzster (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So glad to learn that the list of discussions you initiated in order to "press the issue":

• Talk:Scotland/Archive_15#Scotland in the UK
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_16#Special Treatment
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_16#Is it possible?
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_16#Where's the beef?
• Talk:Scotland#RIP Constituent country
• Talk:Scotland#Constituent country (again)

will not get any longer... 80.41.195.209 (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay is not a troll. If he feels strongly about an issue, he may raise it time and time again, as often as he wishes. I see no problem with this, for he is always courteous, avoids rancour, respects reason and abides by consensus. If anyone who raised an objection frequently could be labelled a troll, three quarters of Wikiusers, including myself, would be a troll.--Gazzster (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothwithstanding your assertions, the individual concerned might do well to curb their enthusiasm where this article is concerned, so as not to lead myself and others to jump to such conclusions in the first instance. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have thought we as individuals are responsible for the conclusions we jump to. If we are unsure of what a user is inferring, we ask them outright.--Gazzster (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I sense a 'Hamster wheel' developing here. Let us agree to disagree. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

FAQ?

Anyone agree this page could use an FAQ like the one on Talk:United States covering the various issues we see ad nauseum? - MichiganCharms (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it needs a FAQ. I've been here quite a few times, raising old concerns & restarting old discussions (much to the displeasure of others). So sure, an FAQ would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it could use an FAQ? Jack forbes (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of me; I've already worn out the why not consistancy question. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought everything had been stable for a while, other than one or two small debates! Jack forbes (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been stable (no edit wars). GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Clans ?

I am intrigued; why no mention of clans in the entire history of Scotland? Did the Romans really have an influence in Scotland to deserve about 200 words, yet the Scottish clans not a single word? Some may say that the clan system ended in 1745, others in the clearances, yet reading the wikipedia page on Scotland one seriously wonders if it ever existed at all. there is a mention of clans at the end of the article: under the heading National symbols: ...the textile pattern tartan that often signifies a particular Scottish clan.... This statement may reflect what some consider the present state of the clans to be, but was it always so? Czar Brodie (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Your Czarness! Even now, the clan system is an important cultural aspect of Scottish life. Perhaps popular non-Scottish culture views it as something of a superficial icon, like haggis, caber and thistle jokes.Anyone like to help out here?--Gazzster (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact is that clans are more a fun thing than an important part of Scottish life nowadays. They were certainly far more important historically than they are now. I suppose that we should have something under the culture heading though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I don't live in Scotland, but in one of the the 'colonies'. And overseas, I think, the clans are more important as a means of identifying with the ancestral country (sorry-should that be 'constituent state' lol). My grandfather, God rest him, who never saw a sod of Scottish soil, spent hours trying to figure out which specific clan our family came from. And it is often the case that traditional elements of a country are far more important to the diaspora than to the indigenous population itself.Perhaps this could be noted in reference to the Scottish diaspora.--Gazzster (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with you, Gazzster. Even native Scots tend to get more interested in Clan societies, etc., after they emigrate than they ever were while living in Scotland. Although there are exceptions of course. But the importance to the diaspora could certainly be noted. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country

The opening paragraph should use "constituent country" in the first sentence, not "country". The use of "country" has brought up countless controversies over and over again, and there is a reason - it's one sided. See Wales, where "constituent country" is successfully used. Although having still been discussions over there, they have certainly never been as numerous, frequent, and long as the ones here, on the matter. Constituent country is correct by all accounts. Country, however, is, although verified by some sources, discredited by others, and the safest thing to do would be to settle with "constituent country" which serves no discredits as of today. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, no one use the expressions ad nauseam or ad infinitum in these discussions. I shall agree with you that there are many sources out there that argue that they are not countries and that they should not be called countries; I personally have never thought of Scotland as a country because it's a part of larger nation: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The problem is that there are plenty of sources that do call it a country, home nation, constituent country, etc. The argument will never be settled because people who live there will always insist on calling it a country. I agree that constituent country is a compromise, but I'm not going to spend my time arguing a case when it could go either way. The term country in the English language has many meanings, not just a nation state. I looked up Scotland and England in two different encyclopedias, and neither used the term country. Kman543210 (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll love this, but someone just unilaterally removed constituent country from the Wales article. Kman543210 (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It was removed by FishieHelper, someone who has just been editing here, and must have seen the discussion arise and the link to Wales. Can someone please revert that, since I, as an IP, cannot. (Do not worry, it has been reverted now). And yes, since some say it IS a country and some say it is NOT, the only thing they ALL decide on is that it is a constituent country, and therefore, that is the most neutral thing we can go by. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I removed it - I read the discussion on talk first and it seemed to me that using 'constituent country' in the opening line was not a consensus position but a matter of dispute. I have no problem using the term in the proper context - (I actually put into into the lead of the UK article) - but the opening line seems inappropriate. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It has correctly been put back there now. Anyway, if you see how they deal with it there, it seems to have been much more successful in achieveing non-controversy and NPOV than have we, so it would be wise to follow and use consituent country, as the clearest, most safest, and most accurate definition, over "country". People may say that this has been brought up again and again, which it has. But there is a reason discussions are repeated, and that is because there is a controversy and not a NPOV. That is why Wales has fewer discussions on the matter than do we - because they adopt a less controversial, and therefore, less POV, stance. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Using "country" at all was a matter in dispute, so some compromised on "constituent country." Most people insisted that it be in the opening line, especially on the England article, because it was felt by some that calling it a country in the first sentence is misleading. Pulling out sources didn't really help because you can find legitimate sources for both sides. If I were to choose, it wouldn't say "country," but I think having the word "constituent" at least is a little more specific. Kman543210 (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You do not add something to an article to make it sound neutral or less controvertial. You ensure there are enough good sources to back it up, and there are enough to say that Scotland is a country Jack forbes (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that saying 'Scotland is a country' could be potentially misleading. However, saying 'Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom' is perfectly clear and reasonable. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point. There are also sources which say it is not a country. Therefore, saying it IS a country, or it ISN'T a country, is a POV. Therefore, the one thing that is a NPOV is calling it a Constituent Country. http://publications.europa.eu/code/pdf/370000en.htm 84.13.166.40 (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting claim - I've never seen a source that specifically says Scotland is not a country - can you quote some? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the reference you quoted above does NOT refer to 'constituent country' - it refers to 'constituent parts'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes constituent part is a synonym for constituent country. And the Internation Standards Organisation does not list Scotland as a country, in a list of every country in the world: http://www.guavastudios.com/downloads/countries/countries.txt 84.13.166.40 (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this should put it to rest.Jack forbes (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Here we go, again. Please, will ALL members of the "constituent country lobby" refer to Page 11 of the the International Organization for Standards newsletter No I-9 (Date: 2007-11-28) before they start beating up what was a stable article with their own POV. There you will see in black and white that the accepted category for Scotland, as specified by the neutral and internationally respected ISO, is "Country"! 80.41.251.123 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You're simply backing up our point. Even sources from the same group (The ISO) disagree on whether Scotland is a country or not. There is no good saying "look, this source says it isn't", because another source equally excludes it from being a country. Therefore, saying either one way or the other is POVP, and Constituent Country is the only NPOVTTU 84.13.166.40 (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeez - READ PAGE 11 and LOOK AT THE DATE! Whatever version of the ISO you're looking at, forget it - the newsletter I-9 is 7 months old!!! It ammends the previously published document! It is current! It is factual! It is accurate! What more do you need???

• Dated 2007-28-11: "On page 36 of ISO 3166-2:1998, replace the present entry for UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNI (GB) with the following new one (changes in red):
• SCT Scotland country"

80.41.251.123 (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On the webpage What is ISO 3166 it states

ISO 3166 is the International Standard for country codes. The purpose of ISO 3166 is to establish codes for the representation of names of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest, and their subdivisions. It does not establish:

• the names of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest which are taken from the relevant UN sources;
• the names of subdivisions of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest, which are taken from relevant official national information sources.

so the section you quote (apart from the code) is from the "Gazetteer for the Reorganised Statistical Regions and Local Authorities in the United Kingdom" written by the ONS in 1997. josh (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Constituent country over Country. Fonez4mii (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for references for 'constituent country' - and references to 'constituent part' do not count!!! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Trolls sometimes have to be fed. I think this one needs a nice tasy treat. Yum. Fonez4mii (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you really calling 80.41.251.123 a troll? Point out where he/she has trolled! Jack forbes (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jack forbes, but if quoting from the latest relevant ISO publication makes me a "troll" then I'm perfectly happy with that title. 80.41.251.123 (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

80.41.251.123 is not the troll, 84.13.166.40 is --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 14:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't think just because one votes for constituent country over just country that he is a troll. For the record, the only thing I have changed on the article recently was reverting that obnoxiously large map that someone kept putting up. The problem with this discussion is that reliable sources can be found for all points of view. Constituent country was not a made-up term on Wikipedia though: [[8]][[9]][[10]][[11]][[12]][[13]][[14]][[15]]. There are several sources that use the term, and even the UK government websites use it at least once as well as constituent parts. Are all those sources reliable that I just provide? No, but I'm just providing examples that the term is used to describe the type of countries England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are. Like I said on the Wales talk page, I shan't be dreaming of Wikipedia whilst sleeping tonight, so I'm fine with the group decision. My vote is constituent country. Kman543210 (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If the sources listed by Kman above are not used, then there are some serious POV issues here, and that is unnacceptable, as it appears they have been being pushed for a while. 84.13.166.40 is certainly not a troll for bringing up a valid point. 80.41.251.123 is a troll for constant ignoral of all other discussion, use of uncivil structures, oh, and additionally, a lovely comment left on my page. I suspect the user is a sockpuppet of someone anyway. I mean, single-purpose IP, trolling, POV pushing - all sounds familiar to me, but that's just my oppinion.

To summarize:

• There are sources which say Scotland is a country
• There are sources which say Scotland is not a country
• There are sources which call Scotland a constituent country.
• There are so far no sources which say Scotland is NOT a constituent country.

Fonez4mii (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

His lovely comment on your page was in response to your unlovely accusation of trolling, and now you call him a sockpuppet without foundation. It appears you are not averse to a bit of trolling yourself! Jack forbes (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You say I call him a sockpuppet without foundation - I listed my reasons for calling him one above.

It appears you now want to try to imply I am a troll, for the fact that you disagree with what we are trying to discuss here, since you don't want a NPOV.

Firstly, regardless of whether my accusation of his trolling was accurage or not, it does not give him any right to leave a comment like that.

Secondly, he was trolling, as explained above.

Fonez4mii (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are strictly UK sources (and some Scotland), the first two directly from the government that use constituent country: [[16]][[17]][[18]][[19]][[20]][[21]] These are not the end all and be all regarding sources though. I could just as easily find the same amount of sources that call them home nations, countries, nations, countries within countries, etc... But let's please be polite; we're not saving lives here. Kman543210 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kman is entirely correct. There are so many different things they can be called. Therefore, since "constituent country" (synonyms: home nations, constituent parts) is the only one which cannot be disproved by a source, it is therefore the most NPOV choice. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The summary above is blatantly wrong! There are no reliable sources that say Scotland is not a country. Oh, and Fonez4mii, you must be a sensitive soul to be hurt by the comment on your talk page. Got to go, watching the football! Jack forbes (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The summary above is perfectly correct. The ISO reference does not include Scotland in the list of countries. And I am certainly not "hurt" by the comment, but it is something (and here may be a new concept for you) called civility and not attacking someone. Fonez4mii (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sources and logic indicate that the term constituent country should be used instead of the potentially misleading term 'country' which applies sovereignty.Pureditor 15:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you intentionally ignored the ISO reference that was given to you? Civility is not a new concept to me, which is why I don't go around accusing people of trolling and sockpuppetry with no good reason (whatever you might say). Jack forbes (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to Jack forbes: I hope you weren't referring to my comments as blatantly wrong. If you were, then I apologize for not being more clear in my statements. I did not mean to insinuate that I could find loads of reliable sources that say Scotland is not a country. I was strictly speaking of reliable sources that use different terms for Scotland, even from the UK government websites. There are sources that do argue that they are not countries, but these would all be opinion pieces that someone wrote up on the internet. I highly doubt any government would take the time to write a piece stating that they're not countries. The evidence that others were talking about them not being countries was evidence of exclusion, meaning official sites that list all the world's countries and do not include England, Scotland,... They would not be included because they are not sovereign nations. Again, I was only providing sources in response to someone wanting them that the term constituent countries was used. Kman543210 (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the summary by Fonez4mii which stated there are sources that say Scotland is not a country. Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the ISO, there is the EU http://publications.europa.eu/code/pdf/370000en.htm which does not include it in its list of countries, and refers to them as consituent parts. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, that list only refers to sovereign states the ISO says Scotland is a country --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As I explained above ISO does not define Scotland as a country. The document that explains ISO 3166 states that it only defines the codes. The rest is sourced from a government document. In this case one written by the ONS in 1997. josh (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

So that's Barrob's point countered. Fonez4mii (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh how so it still says Scotland is a country even if its from the ONS --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine they would put it there if it where not true! Jack forbes (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that the ONS is another organisation that also refered to Scotland et al as constituent countries. So that ref proves nothing new. josh (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say there is going to refs proving both sides, arguing one over the other to disprove the other term is a bit pointless. The problem is that its misleading the way the intro is currently phrased. Either have as a 'country within the United Kingdom' or use 'constituent country' with the current phrasing. Both are correct, neither is better than the other but both are better than the current misleading intro. Please just build a consensus on one that you feel has the most NPOV and stop arguing your individual points. ThanksPureditor 17:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Right I'm going to (try to) stay neutral in this one: Seeing as there are both sources to state that Scotland is a country, and sources to state that Scotland is a constituent country, it would be POV of us to exclude one in favour of the other. As a comprimise why don't we add both. Eg: Scotland is a country and one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom. I'm sure somebody can make a much nicer sentence but you get the idea. --Cameron (T|C) 17:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. There are sources which say it is a country, and sources which say it isn't. None of the sources say it isn't a constituent country. Therefore, the fact that it is a constituent country is the thing that all the VP's agree on. Fonez4mii (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, if we say Scotland is a constituent country within the UK we are repeating ourselves. We are effectively saying Scotland is a country within a country within the UK. It just doesn't make sense! Jack forbes (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If we could get some consistency on Wales, Scotland and England it would help all round. A possible compromise is country. That way the reference is there to "constituent country" but country is displayed. I agree with Cameron that it would be POV to choose one over the other --Snowded (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe this suggestion was put forward in a previous discussion. I agreed with it then and still do.Jack forbes (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We are most certainly not using country. That not only goes against what the whole point of this discussion is about, but against what most people have stated here anyway.

Using constituent country is not POV because it IS a constituent country, and no source says that it is not a constituent country.

However, there are sources which say it is and isn't a "country", so saying it is or isn't a country is POV.

Fonez4mii (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We are most certainly not using constituent country! You have still to give a reliable source proving Scotland is not a country. Jack forbes (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Which we have. Deary me. And Jack forbes, you are pushing such a POV it's unreal. You just edited your userpage to hide the fact you're scottish, support scottish independance, and that everything on your page was about scottish nationalism, just to make sure people don't realise your pushing a bias POV. If you fail to accept the sources we have given, then you have reached the definition of a troll. This is your last chance to correct your behaviour. Also, from observing multiple instances of your comments, you seem to have a problem with writing civilly and calmly, and instead have to retort to overuse of exclamation marks, and calling me a "sensitive soul" for being the victim of a personal attack. Fonez4mii (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy for you to report me to an admin for my bias POV and uncivil behaviour. In fact I really want you to, then we can leave it up to the admin what to do. Jack forbes (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack, we have given sources, but you ignore them. Please do not continue this, as it won't end well for you if you do, considering the awful state of your conduct so far observed by several. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I do hope that wasn't some kind of threat. Jack forbes (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no call for that (Fpnez4mii & 84.13.166.40) - assume good faith and stop making statements like "we are most certainly", its antagonistic and against the spirit of Wikipedia. Jack just fed it back to you --Snowded (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:GoodDay has given permission for me to put his/her support of Constituent country over country here. See my talk page. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. It's me, the "troll". LoL! GoodDay's view is not something new to this article or discussion, nor does it carry any weight greater than anyone else's here. In fact, GoodDay probably wouldn't give two-hoots what Scotland was described as, just so long as the England, Wales and Northern Ireland articles mirrored it. For GoodDay, if I understand him correctly, is not bothered so much by descriptions as he is consistency bewtween UK related articles. Sadly, not even the ISO can help him here as it classifies England and Scotland as Countries, Wales as a Principality and Northern Ireland as a Province. Furthermore, you'll find that the England article also has an intro' not dissimilar in the use of the word "country" to that of the Scotland article, ("England is the largest and most populous country of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland"). The ISO reference is clear. After much discussion, the concensus among the established editors on this article is to adopt the current ISO definition of "country". (The England article would appear to be doing the same). What is the problem here? Is the ISO some kind of "troll" also? 80.41.201.30 (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are a troll - the item you last left here was evidence of that. And there are sources that say Scotland isn't a country, in case you havn't actually been reading? 84.13.166.40 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sticks'n'stones my friend; 'twas not I who swung first. You're right of course, there are sources which state that Scotland isn't a country, even the Scottish Government maintains that Scotland is a "Kingdom within the United Kingdom", and there are are even sources who claim that man never set foot on the moon. The fact is that politics and partisanship aside, the ISO clearly refers to Scotland as a "country", England as a "country", Wales as a "Principality" and Northern Ireland as a "Province". That hotbed of Scottish (and English) Nationalsim that is the ISO clearly states these facts, irrespective of the British Government, ("constituent country" / "country"), or Scottish Government, ("Kingdom"), or any other UK body's POV. The ISO is neutral, apolitical, independent, whatever you want to call it. If anything can be classed as having a NPOV, it is the ISO! Therefore why not abide by the ISO classification? 80.41.201.30 (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't people read ISO 3166, instead of making things up according to their own points of view. ISO does not provide a definition of "country". It provides a list (or series of lists) and matching abbreviations. Scotland and England are listed as countries.Pyrotec (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Though I do believe Scotland is best described as a "country", I wouldn't give undue weight to the ISO thing: Northern Ireland is not a "province". Ulster is a province. Northern Ireland is six-ninths of Ulster. Describe that as you like, but it certainly isn't a province. Just my two cents. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 20:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, but you could argue that Ulster is a province of Ireland, whereas Northern Ireland is the province of the United Kingdom. (But let's not go there, here. ;) 80.41.201.30 (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, probably best not to. ;) --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not saying it's a province. We're saying that since there are sources that say Scotland IS and ISNT a country, so it's a POV to say either way. The only thing we can do to achieve NPOV is call it a "constituent country", which is more accurate, and is not contradicted by any source. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Starting again

The level of abuse and vitriol in some of the above posts makes a nonsense of wikipedia. Assume good faith please.

I proposed country as a compromise. I'm happy to take that across to Wales and England as well. We do need some consistent treatment - at the moment the same sources are producing different versions on each of the three pages. --Snowded (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole idea of this conversation is to get rid of "country". The term "country" is the one that we have all been agreeing we don't want. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be your idea, but its not mine and its not something on which we are all agreed. This issue has been run over the years on all the UK constituent country sites. The evidence on country has been assembled in each case and resolved in favour of country/constituent country each time. Continuing to raise this in the face of clear consensus is vandalism. --Snowded (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't go "agreeing" for me, thanks all the same. "I" am perfectly happy to adopt the specification stated in the ISO document referred to previously which specifies Scotland as a "country" and England as a "country". (At least this forms a degree of consistency which should please some!). 80.41.201.30 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, enough.

While I don't have time at the moment to figure out who did what to whom and why, I strongly suggest the name calling and edit warring stop NOW. I've protected the article page in the Wrong Version for 48 hours, and will be bringing this up on ANI. I would also like to remind everyone with the abnormally high amount of IP addresses participating in the edit wars/conversation here on the talk page that you cannot edit dually under an account and an IP to try to influence consensus by appearing to inflate your opinion. Checkusers are an option here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. I'd be interested to see if 80.41.201.30 is the same person as Jack Forbes, since alarmingly, Forbes stood up for the IP's personal attack on User talk:Fonez4mii. 84.13.166.40 (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a personal attack? Sounds more like a joke to me. I would also suggest that before saying anything you may regret, you create an account for yourself to avoid any similar sockpuppetry allegations being made of you. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 22:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

80.41.201.30 is not Jack Forbes. He is not me, nor I him. I am also, as I identified myself at the time, (as "troll", which under the circumstances still amuses me), 80.41.251.123, and I have no clue what I'll appear as today until I save this and read for myself. Either way, banding about petty accusations does not alter the fact that the most Neutral POV likely to be found anywhere will stem not from Governments, nor Govt. Departments, but from apolitical organisations with no POV whatsoever other than that which can be termed 'Neutral', e.g. the ISO. Should the ISO release newsletter I-10, at some point in future, which states that S/E/W&NI should be classed as "Constituent Countries" then I'll be happy to go with that. However, for the time being, the ISO classifies Scotland as a "country", which is what the article should reflect. 80.41.249.114 (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As explained several times to you, with your refusal to get the point, the ISO does not say Scotland is a country. Fonez4mii (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You really cannot accuse people of being a Troll because they don't agree with you. Your own style is confrontational name calling so I think we have a case of pots and kettles and the colour black here. --Snowded (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your inability to read what is there in the document is beyond help. For the last time, the most recent ISO publication, newsletter I-9 dated 28 November, 2007, classifies Scotland as a "country". If you want to fly in the face of facts, go ahead - knock yourself out! For your benefit however, click on the link below, then revisit your last post. 80.41.249.114 (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Page 11 ISO Newsletter I-9 2007-11-28 (click to enlarge)

Snowded, please look up "refusal to get the point". And no, the latest ISO publication does not say that. It simply lists codes. The original ISO link which we provided showed that Scotland is not a country. Fonez4mii (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have, and suggest you calm down, stop throwing insults and try to work towards some form of consensus assuming good will. You are beginning to remind me of Wikipiere, our favourite sock puppet on matters relating to "country". --Snowded (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"The original ISO link" is what newsletter I-9, Date:2007-11-28, updated!!! You are using an out-of-date reference for your argument!!! 80.41.223.229 (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you not listen? The "update" mentions nothing about how scotland is now a country. It simply gives codes. Fonez4mii (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ISO 3166 is the International Standard for country codes. The purpose of ISO 3166 is to establish codes for the representation of names of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest, and their subdivisions. It does not establish:

• the names of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest which are taken from the relevant UN sources;
• the names of subdivisions of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest, which are taken from relevant official national information sources.

so the section you quote (apart from the code) is from the "Gazetteer for the Reorganised Statistical Regions and Local Authorities in the United Kingdom" written by the ONS in 1997. josh (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Josh :) Fonez4mii (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here, (LoL), under yet another IP no doubt - we shall see. Sm:)es and 'thank yous' all round I guess for using yet another out-of-date reference! I suspect, although could be wrong, that josh took a stroll around Americola.com in order to find a reference to the "Gazetteer for the Reorganised Statistical Regions and Local Authorities in the United Kingdom, Office for National Statistics, June 1997". (Unless of course he stumped up the £40 to get the original from HMSO, which I doubt). Unfortunately, where your argument is concerned, that version of ISO 3166-2 / BS 6879 which referred to the ONS Gazetteer has been "withdrawn".

The current version of BS ISO 3166-2, dealing with "Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions. Country subdivision code", will set you back a tidy £200 from standardsuk.com/shop, which I for one do not intend spending in order to win an argument with those who refer to documents which are over a decade old and which have been withdrawn in favour of updated versions. The current document, BS ISO 3166-2:2007 , published on 31st Jan 2008 , replaces both BS 6879:1999 and BS ISO 3166-2:1998 . Although I have not read a copy of BS ISO 3166-2:2007 , (I will enquire at my local library ASAP), it is not unreasonable to assume that it incorporates the changes detailed in the ISO 3166-2 NEWSLETTER I-9, Dated 2007-11-28 , specifying "Changes in the list of subdivisions names and code elements", which on page 11 specifies Scotland as a "country".

I fail to see where the red-herring of what ISO 3166 "does not establish" fits in. Of course it cannot "establish names of subdivisions of countries". If it could, it might list Scotland as 'Chilly Jock-o-land' or something equally ridiculous. So it doesn't establish names - big deal! It's function is not to "establish names". It does never the less insert the word "country" adjacent to the word "Scotland" on page 11 of the I-9 Newsletter.

Given the proximity of the publication of ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-9 to the publication of BS ISO 3166-2:2007, (2 months later), it is not unreasonable to assume that the changes outlined in the Newsletter I-9 have been incorporated into BS ISO 3166-2:2007, namely: "SCT Scotland country"

Should ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-10, (whenever it is published), include the words "Constituent country" adjacent to "Scotland" then I'll change the intro' on the Scotland article myself to reflect it. Until then however, "country" it is! Perhaps before dishing out the smiles and thank-you's, you might try referring to current documents and not those published a decade ago and which have since been withdrawn! 80.41.226.198 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The point that you don't seem to be understanding is that ISO are only responsible for the codes. The whole point of ISO-3166 is defining a bunch of codes and nothing else. The rest is sourced from the ONS. ISO create standards have no authority to define sub-national divisions or their names so they get that data from an national agency. If you check your beloved I-9 you will see that in the header section for the UK it states List sources: “Gazetteer for the Reorganised Statistical Regions and Local Authorities in the United Kingdom”, Office for National Statistics, June 1997; corrections notified by BSI 2000-11-27 Code source: British Standard BS 6879

As you have stated yourself ISO cannot establish the name of Scotland nor can they establish the collective names given to sub-divisions. They use national agencies to gather that data. If you need me to explain this to you again I'll be over here. josh (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. What you don't get is the term "country", as used in the Newsletter I-9, has nothing to do with "names given to sub-divisions". Given my aside on Northern Ireland/Ulster in the previous section, you can see how fraught that area can be. The ISO doesn't take a view on names like Northern Ireland/Ulster, for obvious reasons - how can it be "Northern" when the RoI (Donegal) extends further north - how can it be Ulster when it is 3 counties shy of Ulster - why not call it 'Ullans' afetr the Scots dialect spoken there, etc. etc. That is what the "names given to sub-divisions" concerns, not whether "country" or "principality", etc., appears next to them . (Furthermore, the ONS Gazetteer of 1996 referred to in Newsletter I-9 concerns the names of the unitary authority council areas in Scotland, Wales and to a lesser extent in England, following the reorganisation of local government in 1996). This is still a red herring as I repeat that your ref is out of date and the context of this discusson has nothing to do with "country" appearing adjacent to "Scotland" in Newsletter I-9. This "naming" issue is a diversion that does not alter the fact that the ISO uses the term "country" to classify Scotland in Newsletter I-9, and probably reflects this also in the latest version of BS ISO 3166-2, published in January of this year. Are we clear? 80.41.199.223 (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Picture

Current.

Other.

I feel the picture being updated just with the UK As on large one like england. I feel it should be kept there it still shows the location in a bit better detail.--78.150.151.187 (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Two images added to the right. For the record, I support the status quo. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 22:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current one that is a little smaller and shows Scotland in relation to the continent as well. The other image seems to be a lot larger and can be a little distracting in my opinion. Kman543210 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Support status quo per reasons above.Fonez4mii (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Support status quo, European context is more important than British & Ireland in isolation --Snowded (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Status Quo. 80.41.249.114 (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No. I support the other picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.249.125 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I also support the second picture. It is used for England and Northern Ireland (not sure about Wales), but it's better because it doesn't show as much of the atlantic ocean. Most people know where the United Kingdom is, but this one shows a clearer boundary between the constitueny countries of the red and white. bsrboy (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Country within a country" wording proposal

Come look see here and vote. MickMacNee (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors need to be aware that a concensus is being built on Talk:United Kingdom to replace reference to Scotland being a country with the following phrase "Scotland is a semi-autonomous constituent subdivision of the United Kingdom occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain" --Snowded (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

And they say it's the Scots who make porridge?! I predict that the cooks of that globule of indigestible muck won't be stepping up for a Plain English award any time soon. AllyD (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been explained in the past and is crystal clear. Other articles don't have "jurisdiction" over the content of this article - that goes against one of the fundamental points of wikipedia. Discussion and consensus is reached on this talk page regarding this article - "solutions" aren't going to be enforced when they have not been discussed and agreed here - simple as that. SFC9394 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you honestly think it's right to expect everyone to have four different discussions if they believe the are discussing a common issue? There is a notification right there on this page, you are free to join. Your interpretation of the application of consensus and the concept of 'article jusrisdiction' is just plain wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here; in complete agreement with the above. 80.41.207.44 (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion there is intended to be a centralised discussion however, one that is meant to include stakeholders/interested parties from this page, hence the notice. If there is a fundamental objection to be made, I think it would be advisable to make that clear at Talk:United Kingdom. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's one view. However, as always, there are alternatives, including the seemingly novel thought that Wikipedia's policies might be relevant. WP:NPOV - "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" - seems to have nothing to do with voting. There's no need for me to repeat this at Talk:United Kingdom since NPOV applies there too, even if editors there may be acting otherwise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

--I'm not saying I agree with the proposal - the reality is quite the opposite. But if there are such sentiments felt here, they need to be shared at the appropriate page. You have, afterall, been invited to the discussion. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Much agree with comment by Angus McLellan and comment earlier by SFC9394. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well can can all stop the allegations of bad faith and bad intentions right here. If anyone comes along and tries to change this page agains wikipedia policy, there are ways to deal with that. You have nothing to fear from any consensus that doesn't comply with policy. Opting out of the discussion based on what page it is taking pace on isn't frankly going to cut it in any future analysis of what went on. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. I have sought to reach a compromise on the basis of ISO 3166-2:2007 using the term "country", with this being used in conjunction with "Constituent country". See Talk:United Kingdom#New Suggestion Discussion (Arbituary Break 3). Regards 80.41.219.121 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To those who believe a consensus at United Kingdom can be applied here? you're not gonna be successful. Take it from one who knows. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain. Is this just a personal perception, or does it have a grounding in policy? MickMacNee (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Any consensus reached at UK's discussion page, shall effect only United Kingdom. Also, I've tried in the past to bring this article, England, Northern Ireland & Wales into sync; but each time my efforts were met with strong resistants. The general response I got each time? The Scotland article shall decide what goes into the Scotland article (other articles? stay out). GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That's as may be, but it has zero grounding in policy or procedure. A sufficiently strong consensus will always be applicable irresepective of where it was decided, even if people have to be dragged though the arbitration committee for them to get the message as to how wikipedia works. MickMacNee (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the arbitration. It's not like it's difficult to source "Scotland is a country ..." or "Scotland is a nation ...", while finding contrary views, on past experience, relies on random crap on the internet and thumbing through dictionaries. So this is largely a content dispute and arbcom don't do those. Insofar as it could be dressed up as a a policy issue, which arbcom might consider, it would be voting versus WP:V and WP:NPOV. "Dear arbitrators, can WP:V and WP:NPOV be overruled by a vote?" I think you can guess what the answer to that question would be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom can quite easily deal with editors/groups of editors who disruptively ignore an established consensus. It rests on getting that strong consensus first, which I thought I had adequately explained above, has nothing to do with 'jurisdiction' of pages and the venue of the discussion. Arbcom getting involved would have nothing to do with ruling on policy, you cannot seriously be suggesting that a discussion that receives input from a significant number editors would end up with a consensus that violates a basic core policy? I think stating that position involves a massive assumption of stupidity on the part of a large number of editors. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes indeed. I can easily imagine a happy band of editors voting to ignore policies because it seemed like a good idea at the time. I can imagine worse yet, experienced editors or administrators ignoring policy, but perhaps you'll have seen this yourself somewhere? It's not so that I have a vivid imagination, but rather that I have a long memory.

I find when I'm discussing what to include or exclude, or how to say something, that I refer to sources, as WP:V and WP:NPOV require. For that reason it seems misguided at best, and alarming at worst, to read a huge discussion at Talk:United Kingdom which never refers to sources, only to editors' opinions. For editorial opinions, blogs are the place, not an encyclopedia. There have been numerous discussions as to the intro here, many of which refer to sources, all of which are packed away neatly in the archives.

But some Googling would be quicker, and should be enough to put the endless debate into perspective: Scotland is a nation and Scotland is a country. Anyone with time on their hands could have a look through Scotland is the and Scotland is a to see if something else pops out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously not listening. I'm not here to discuss the country issue, and I am a little bemused as to why you think I need it explained to me, I can, and have, read the archives, I am fully aware of the content of the past discussions. I'm here to tell you how wikipedia works regarding consensus, the arbitration comittee, and 'jurisdiction' of articles. If you have developed other ideas about how it actually works due to your own bad experiences, well I can't do anything about that, all I can say is you won't get very far if you start reacting to anybody and everybody based on those assumptions. So if you've nothing further to say on that specific point, then I think we're done here. MickMacNee (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, you'll need it. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mick. Merge discussions only take place on one page but they affect both pages so long as the other page(s) were notified. The same goes for this page! The talk could have taken place in the sandbox for all I care, consensus is consensus. Otherwise, how do you explain that discussions for consensus on WikiProjects affect articles? By that reasoning WikiProjects wouldn't work. It's really as simple as Mick has explained! --Cameron (T|C) 14:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the way things go on this particular article. Some editors here don't take kindly to being (as they'd view it) bullied. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually one of the editors standing up for the "country solution". All editors are welcome to take part in the discussions and polls on the UK page. I recommend and invite them to do so. The is really no "bullying" going on here. --Cameron (T|C) 16:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I know there's no bullying going on. Just the same, I'm crossing my fingers (and my toes). GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Per my above comments in this section, I have just made a procedural revert of SFC9394 (talk · contribs) after he reverted a change to this page [22], citing the fact that no discussion had taken place on this article's talk page. I am making no comment on the merits of the consensus being claimed in the edit SFC9394 reverted, and will not enter into any discussion along those lines in reply to this action. MickMacNee (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on Intro

Ok so consensus was built on Talk:United Kingdom as a centralised debate on the intros of the four countries within the country of the Uk. Some editors were concerened that some constituent country articles appeared to have a different status to others of the United Kingdom. Therefore consensus was achieved to get something consistent, accurate and something that all editors were happy with. The below draft was the one which all editors which actually seeked consensus agreed upon. It calls Scotland a country which was a lot of editors wanted for accuracy and it also contained an adjective for the other group of editors who didn't want to imply sovereignty. However this consensus was reverted because even though notice was given here, some editors think that because it was on a different page the consensus doesn't apply. So the question is what do editors from the Scotland page have against this intro:

'Scotland' (Gaelic: Alba) is a constituent country within the United Kingdom. Located in the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it shares a land border to the south with England.

• It calls Scotland a country.
• It is NPOV and doesn't imply sovereignty
• It has already gained consensus from editors

If you disagree and haven't raised anything on Talk:United Kingdom please mention something here so consensus can be 100% confirmed. Thanks Pureditor 00:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

seems good, sorry to be fussy about a comma, but how about:

'Scotland' (Gaelic: Alba) is a constituent country within the United Kingdom. Located in the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it shares a land border to the south with England.

Czar Brodie (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, it hardly changes it. I agree it probably flows slightly better. As per the current article land border should link to Anglo–Scottish border. I've taken that and your suggestion and put it on the top of this heading for clarity to other editors on whats being suggested.Pureditor 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

yes the full stop seems better, however in the interim I have been following the various links and references to constituent and Subdivisions of the United Kingdom and a point worries me. I see that a lot of talk has gone into the subject and hope I'm not repeating an old argument. As a Scot i am not familiar with Scotland being constituent country, the term is in fact new to me. the problem with the links is they lack references. my fear is that this term may be, as applied to Scotland, a wikipedia invention. the only credible source to any country in Europe being a constituent country, was Resolution 1365 (2004) (Council of Europe) stating "The larger the European Union becomes, the greater will be the need for integration and unity among its constituent countries and regions". The problem here is that while it would be possible for the Council of Europe to state this, you would never find its "constituent countries" referring to themselves as such. e.g. France is not a constituent country, nor would it refer to itself such. In conclusion, it may be possible for the United Kingdom to refer to its constituent countries, but it seems dubious for the countries of the United Kingdom to refer to themselves as such. The reason for this, it seems to me, is that the United Kingdom (like the Council of Europe) exists only because of the the countries who constitute it; however the individual countries continue to exist regardless of the larger union. The union can only define itself through its members, but the members need not define themselves as existing only because of some greater union. So Europe may refer to France as one of its constituent countries (countries that constitute it), but France will refer itself to being a country, a country that (as it so happens) is "within" the Council of Europe. So until the referred Subdivisions of the United Kingdom gets references/links to Scotland being the averred "constituent country", I think it wiser to say:

'Scotland' (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the United Kingdom. Located in the northern third part of the island of Great Britain, it shares a land border to the south with England.

note that the link "country" does not lack references and states "There are non-sovereign territories (subnational entities, another form of political division or administrative division within a larger nation-state) which constitute cohesive geographical entities, some of which are former countries, but which are not sovereign states. Some are designated as countries, others are not. The degree of autonomy and local government varies widely...."Czar Brodie (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Like it! Although I'd go for a slight change in words:

• Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the United Kingdom. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and shares a land border to the south with England.

I've posted your proposal at Talk:United Kingdom#Summary of Polls (Arbitrary Break 2):Was this the breakthrough suggestion?. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll support the most recent proposal, but I think we should pipe the link to constituent country, the government does refer to them that way and we can source it. -MichiganCharms (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

the government of Westminster may refer to Scotland being one of its constituent countries, in the same way that Europe may refer to the United Kingdom as being one of its constituent countries, but i think you would be hard pressed to find the Scottish government referring to itself in such a way. I do not think it would be appropriate to say in an article about the United Kingdom that "the United Kingdom is a constituent country/union within the Council of Europe", but it may be appropriate to say in an article about Europe that "the United Kingdom is a constituent country within the Council of Europe, along with....". I see nothing wrong in listing Scotland and others as a constituents in an article about Britain, but "Scotland the constituent country" in an article about Scotland would seem to me to be out of place.Czar Brodie (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A large majority of editors opposed just using the word country as it was misleading regarding Scotland's sovereginty. So therefore editors who just wanted country to be used agreed on an adjective constituent being put in before the term. They were happy as Scotland was still being called a country and the others were happy as it was not misleading and not NPOV. Some editors see the term country as being nationalistic pov but were able to agree on it being used as long as an adjective was there to make it more npov. User:Czar Brodie do you see the npov side of it where country could be misleading? A large group of editors thought just the inclusion of an adjective would solve the problem. Do you agree with that?Pureditor 07:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. The ISO refers to "country" with regard to Scotland and England in the ISO 3166-2 newsletter I-9, (Page 11), which was consolidated into ISO 3166-2:2007(Second edition), published 2007-12-15. We can therefore also source country, from a verifiable and reliable source, with regard to both Scotland and England. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mr. ip but we're not trying to fight one term over the other here. That was done on Talk:United Kingdom at length already. Both sides agreed to back down and attempted to actually reach a consensus. Both sides can be sourced calling it a country or not. This is not what this is about. As per Talk:United Kingdom, the line at the top was agreed on as being the most fair which appealed to both sides. We are not starting the argument again, this is about asking what improvements can be made so that editors of this page who haven't contributed already can have their say in improving it. Thank you.Pureditor 07:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Don't apologise on my account; I'm fully aware that "we're not trying to fight one term over the other here". If you'll recall at Talk:United Kingdom#Summary of Polls (Arbitrary Break 2):Was this the breakthrough suggestion? I went as far as to suggest a compromise which employed both terms simultaneously, with verifiable and reliable sources being used to support each. I note however that you apparently were unable to support that particular compromise! 80.41.246.232 (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" again. For the benefit of those not already aware, Fone4Me has taken it upon himself to 'Call Time' at Talk:United Kingdom with a "Final Poll Discussion". "What's the hurry?" says I. A few hours ago an alternative suggestion was put forward by User:Czar Brodie which has had little exposure to the remainder of the contributors to discussions here or at Talk:United Kingdom. I don't recall a time limit being put in place or anyone appointing Fone4Me ringmaster at that particular circus. Given Fone4Me has only been around Wikipedia for a few weeks, I'm hoping the phrase 'Act in haste, revert at leisure' might give him a clue to one possible result of a too hasty drawing to a close of discussions there/here. 80.41.251.36 (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

hello User:Pureditor, sorry about the delay in replying, was catching up on some much needed sleep. To the questions 1) do I see the npov side of it where country could be misleading?; and 2) A large group of editors thought just the inclusion of an adjective would solve the problem; Do I agree with that? I reply that 1) the way a country defines itself is of prime importance. Sometimes these self definitions may ultimately be confusing, even incorrect to some, but it is manners and ultimately correct to address them in the way they are known. For instance the term People's Republic of China is correct when defining China as a political entity, yet the term Republic may lead some to be confused. I do not think it would be correct to clarify the politics of the People's Republic of China by changing its name, nor do I agree that changing how Scotland defines itself is correct simply on the basis that such a definition may be misleading. The other question 2) I refer to another example: Republic of China, this adds fuel to the confusion in the last example, yet the reader in reading about the Republic of China if clarified as to the status of this country. Politics and nations are not standard and rarely simple. I think the proper place for defining Scotland's political status is in the article, not by changing how it refers to itself. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. i have thought of an amusing example how countries define themselves and the confusion thereto. Great Britain defines itself as a Kingdom, yet is it not ruled by a Queen? Perhapses this would confuse some readers. A new term could be applied, Queendom, and a page to link this term. (this is not part of my arguments, just a little light humor on the illogical ways countries define themselves).Czar Brodie (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

p.p.s. Amazing, the term Queendom actually exists.Czar Brodie (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I made no attempt to suggest that I own anything, contrary to what the IP is suggesting. Please find me some evidence of where I have shown ownership of the article. The fact that I have worked on spearheading much of the debate does not mean I have assumed ownership, but am simply actively involved with the discussion.

The act of me naming the poll "Final Poll", was, as already stated in reply to your came comment over there, a name to refer to the poll that would recollect on the results of all the previous polls and hopefully bring us closer to a conclusion. As I made clear, the poll is in no way binding.

----fone4me 16:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been here before. Trust me Fonez, the editors who frequent this particular article, are not gonna accept a consensus reached elsewhere. Not without a struggle, anyways. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What does the Scotland article prefer?

Shall it apply what's decided at United Kingdom or shall it decide on it's own (via consensus here)? For the stability of this article, make your opinons known. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(The following are the options that have been presented at the central discussion at talk:United Kingdom)

•Constituent country (linking to constituent country)

• Rrius (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC): "Constituent country" is the term used by the government, it succinctly describes the subdivisions, and it links to a relevant article.

•Semi autonomous subdivision of the United Kingdom

(The following are not options that have been presented at the central discussion at talk:United Kingdom but should be noted for consideration)

•None of the above

• I believe that X is a part of the United Kingdom, is the most apolitcal, undisputable idea. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Please, it is not apolitical, it is deeply political --Snowded (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

  I've lost patients with the struggle to adopt consitituent county (or for that matter the other terms country, home nation etc & how they should be linked). I'm stickin' with 'part'. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I can not speak for this article, but my feeling is that we find no cause to even discus the matter. It is really a none issue. Scotland, as defined by Scotland, is a country. I placed my arguments above but the only replies I received were "consensus". My understanding is that the editors of Great-Britain have come to a conclusion and are determined to impose it on others. The hole matter is beginning to look like banana republic elections. I attempted a reasonable discussion, but no reasonable reply was posted to my arguments. On a more amusing note, I noticed you managed to convince England to call itself a "constituent country", please, oh but please keep it that way. This is the funniest thing I've seen all week. There has always been a friendly rivalry between our nations and this is a gem. Thank you, I've linked the page to England on a "panic button" so that if ever I get the blues I just need to read "England (pronounced /ˈɪŋglənd/) is a constituent country" and my day seems all the sunnier. All the best, yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's all very well us having the same !vote again but the poll alone is not consensus. We would have to discuss all the things we have already discussed on the UK page to give our argument weight. This just can't be. What if something different gets decided here? Surely the whole point of the UK discussion was to get consensus for a term to be used on all articles. The discussion there was perfectly valid as are all central discussions. If anyone does not agree they can feel free to cite an offical policy or guideline. --Cameron* 20:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not just redoing the vote from UK. Editors here, many of whom were not in the other debate, will have a say. If this leads to a different result, then we won't have uniformity across these articles. Wasn't that the status quo ante? All in all, it is worth trying. If it fails, it fails. If people bring the pettiness from UK here, they do. -Rrius (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of course you needn't participate if you do not want to, but don't let the earlier "discussion" discourage you from working with the concerned editors who will be earnestly attempting to reach consensus. That is not to say all editors will behave that way. Would that one could make such an assertion, but recent events at United Kingdom suggest there will be bumps along the way. -Rrius (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In my honest oppinion, we have already reached consensus, and rejecting it here is just plain awkward, and not cited by any policy. Perhaps a vote is not needed, and consensus from the centralized discussion should go ahead here anyway. --fone4me 20:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

see what I mean, Great Britain comes here labeling the matter a "discussion", and then says there has been a already been a discussion, that they have "consensus". As I said earlier the matter is a none issue,whats the point. The hole thing seems ludicrous.Czar Brodie (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fonez, you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think you will find it easy to enforce that consensus here. You are welcome to try, but seeking consensus anew seems to me to be the most likely method to create lasting and uniform consensus. -Rrius (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If country where rejected I would go for the Semi autonomous constituent subdvision of the United Kingdom, only without constituent Semi autonomous subdvision of the United Kingdom reads just fine.Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just go with semi-autonomous "part" of the United Kingdom instead of subdivision. Lawabider (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I will again point all editors involved to this page. -MichiganCharms (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

← Have the polls proved helpful? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really and besides my favored option is not even up for vote Country of the United KingdomBarryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In good faith, My vote is Scotland is a country. My reasons are:

Scotland refers to itself as a country. The way a country defines itself is of prime importance. Sometimes these self definitions may ultimately be confusing, even incorrect to some, but it is manners and ultimately correct to address them in the way they are known. For instance the term People's Republic of China is correct when defining China as a political entity, yet the term Republic may lead some to be confused. I do not think it would be correct to clarify the politics of the People's Republic of China by changing its name, nor do I agree that changing how Scotland defines itself is correct simply on the basis that such a definition may be misleading. Would you define the United Kingdom as the United Queendom? Queendom may seem logical and clarify the fact that there is no King, but this is not how the United Kingdom defines itself.

It is normal for a greater union to refer to its members in such terms as "constituent". This in no way requires the "constituents" to refer to themselves in such a way. For instance, the Council of Europe refers to its members as constituent countries, [Resolution 1365 (2004) (Council of Europe) stating "The larger the European Union becomes, the greater will be the need for integration and unity among its constituent countries and regions"]. yet you would never find its "constituent countries" referring to themselves as such. e.g. France is not a constituent country, nor would it refer to itself such. It may be possible for the United Kingdom to refer to its constituent countries, but it seems dubious in the extreme for the countries of the United Kingdom to refer to themselves as such. The reason for this, it seems to me, is that the United Kingdom (like the Council of Europe) exists only because of the the countries who constitute it; however the individual countries continue to exist regardless of the larger union. The union can only define itself through its members, but the members need not define themselves as existing only because of some greater union. So Europe may refer to France as one of its constituent countries (countries that constitute it), but France will refer to itself to being a country, a country that (as it so happens) is "within" or a part of the Council of Europe. the government of Westminster may refer to Scotland being one of its constituent countries, in the same way that Europe may refer to the United Kingdom as being one of its constituent countries, but I think you would be hard pressed to find the Scottish government referring to itself in such a way. I do not think it would be appropriate to say in an article about the United Kingdom that "the United Kingdom is a constituent country within the Council of Europe", but it may be appropriate to say in an article about Europe that "the United Kingdom is a constituent country within the Council of Europe, along with....". I see nothing intrinsically wrong in listing Scotland and others as a constituents in an article about Britain, but "Scotland the constituent country" in an article about Scotland would seem to me to be out of place.

By their very nature, there can be no logic in standardizing Nations. I refer to another example: the Republic of China, this adds fuel to the confusion of the People's Republic of China, yet the reader, in reading about the Republic of China is clarified as to the status of this country. Politics and nations are not standard and rarely simple. Would you define the United Kingdom as the "constituent country of the United Kingdom simply because the Council of Europe refers to it as such? I think the proper place for defining Scotland's political status is in the article, not by changing how it refers to itself

Some Editors may come from countries where standardization is the norm, the reason things seem so ordered in those nations is probably because they are relatively new or have gone through some radical overhaul. European nations are often building blocks and assemblies of complicated feudal patchwork. The results may seem confusing, and no doubt a well written article would explain these contradictions and bizarreness, but it seems wrong to enter into this feudal mess with a goal of standardization.

I do hope I have explained my point. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Also in Good Faith, my preferred compromise is to use both the principal terms in question: Country and constituent country for Scotland & England, together with principality and province used for Wales and Northern Ireland respectively, as per the terminology used in BS ISO 3166-2:2007 (second edition). (The term constituent country being cited from the UK Government). These being as follows:

• Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England.
• England (Cornish: Pow Sows) is a country that occupies most of the southern two-thirds of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares land borders to the north with Scotland and to the west with Wales.
• Wales (Welsh: Cymru; pronounced }) is a principality that occupies the largest western peninsula of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the east with England.
• Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a province that occupies the northeast of the island of Ireland. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south and west with the Republic of Ireland.

All of the above terms are verifiable and can be cited from reliable sources, which in addition to the ISO:

• "Scotland is a country" at Google: Hits include: www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk, www.historic-scotland.gov.uk, www.scotland.gov.uk, www.friendsofscotland.gov.uk
• "England is a country" at Google: Hits include: www.britishembassy.gov.uk, www.defra.gov.uk, www.statistics.gov.uk, www.english-nature.org
• "Province of Northern Ireland" at Google: Hits include: www.roadsni.gov.uk, www.detini.gov.uk, www.assemblywales.org, www.oft.gov.uk, www.dca.gov.uk
• "Principality of Wales" at Google: Hits include: www.royal.gov.uk, www.opsi.gov.uk, www.princeofwales.gov.uk, www.nationalarchives.gov.uk, www.assemblywales.org.

The above is not a complete list of sources, however as can be seen, they are certainly reliable. Many argue that such terms lead to "confusion" on the part of the reader. My response is that perhaps here is the best place to educate in order to avoid such confusion, it is, after all, an Encyclopaedia. If you prefer this alternative option, please comment to that effect. Regards 195.27.13.214 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

--Whilst they have their place, "hits" on Google are not as simple as you might assert. For example "Principality of Wales" might be part of "Wales is definately not known as the principality of Wales", or "Province of Northern Ireland"... is not used by the government in any official capacity" etc. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

--"Troll" here. You are correct of course, however, have you actually read any of the above links/hits? A mere 10 minutes surfing might allay any suspicions. Cheers. 80.41.237.6 (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. An example of my concern is demonstrated with how this search throws up links to Wikipedia and Welshpedia (!), whilst many links refer to "Principality of Wales" in a historical context (e.g. here). I'm not saying there isn't legitimate content, I'm saying treat the results with due care and attention; some are not reliable. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Agree entirely with your concerns, which is why I stuck to sites with a ".gov.uk" address in the hope that they would meet the criteria for reliable sources and, along with the ISO ref, be acceptable to other editors. Cheers 80.41.237.6 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Over on the UK discussion, there was an 83.33% consensus for "constituent country". --fone4me 07:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well as I explained in my arguments above it would be normal for the UK to refer to its constituents, however it is not the practice for the "constituents" to refer to themselves as such.Czar Brodie (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cameron found this, in which the guidelines for centralized discussions are given. It seems we are allowed to enforce the centralized consensus on the offspring pages. --fone4me 08:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That policy (like most of wikipedia) does not use phrases like "enforce". It simply says that fragmented discussions are to be avoided if possible. It also requires an attempt to engage other editors in a process. Given the history of this contentious issue you would have been better advised to seek agreement to a process. FAD the UK discussion gives you no enforcement powers on this or any other pages. --Snowded (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(response to Fonez4mii, copied from the reply I gave to an identical message on the mediation page) Though I think your use of "offspring pages" here is a bit misleading. The two pages are separate articles. My suggestion of the UK Wikipedians Discussion page would have made more sense and potentially cause less grief. The notices about the discussions should have been placed there as well. There is a difference between what one is allowed to do and what would be prudent to do or what would be advisable to do here. It is encapsulated in the distinction between "Doing things right" and "Doing the right thing". Can I ask how what has been done will help avoid unnecessary friction and reduce the chance of debates becoming unduly heated?  DDStretch  (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment: Using language like "enforce", etc is unlikely to help one persuade others to adopt the solution one advocates, and I think more care needs to be taken over the whole approach adopted to bring about these changes on this page and on all the others.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is always the option of calling them home nations. --fone4me 11:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that one of the reasons advanced as to why the discussion on consistency was restricted to one page was to centralise the discussion, and Fone4my was a proponent of this, I am at a loss why the same editor is now duplicating messages here as well as on the mediation page (links given in banner at the top of the page). In any case, Jza84 has adequately pointed out the problems of using "home nations" on that page and I advise people to take any more discussion of the matter there.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote it here so that all readers would be aware of it. I am no longer suggesting "home nation" itself, but "nation". --fone4me 11:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Restarting this discussion here, just because a few editors don't seem to understand the basic idea that the talk page of a particular country does not have primacy over a discussion that occurs in any other appropriate place, was a complete mistake in my opinion, and is only serving to fracture the discussion, and waste effort already expended by going over already covered ground. The only position this helps is the status quo, which is of course edit warring on the intro. MickMacNee (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys we are focussing on the wrong thing here. This shouldn't be an argument between the people who edit Scotland and the people who edit United Kingdom. The point here is that we are writing an encyclopedia, and obviously in an encyclopedia consistency is good. If what's written here disagrees with what's written in another article then the whole of Wikipedia looks stupid, and it's more ammunition for those who say "Wikipedia is a pointless exercise and will never be a useful tool". We need, somehow, to reach a consensus that spans all the relevant articles. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct Clayworth. Consensus was already reached at 83.33% for Constituent country over on the United Kingdom talk. I therefore see no reason for it not to be placed in the article here too.

Alternatively, please see the developmental discussion progressing here.

--fone4me 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How does an edit have 83% consensus? Wouldn't the remaining 17% revert it, anyway? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The UN does not recognise Scotland as a country, therefore is should not be refered to as one in the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.194.102 (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

There seems to be a large number of reverts occurring. I've posted a thread on WP:ANI here. Cheers,  This flag once was red  08:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest edits cease. I put it back to the version before the edit warring started with a suggestion that resolution be achieved on the talk page. There is also an informal mediation in place and people should not be altering the main article at this stage. --Snowded (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I can, if required, protect the page if this cycle of reverts and reinstatements becomes more clearly an edit-war, but I would urge all to cease and discuss the issue both on this talk page and on the relevant informal mediation page.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country[7][8] that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom,[7] and shares a land border to the south with England.

Do we just revert this every time we see it since there was a "vote"? It's hideously written anyway, not worthy of the beginning of an article. The use of "occupies" is particularly ridiculous IMO Lawabider (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you realise that 'votes' decide nothing - we try to reach concensus by discussion. However, in a spirit of not seeking an edit war, I have not reverted your change - just provided an appropriate link. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Troll" here. Why are people undertaking such edits while "this article - is currently the subject of informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal"? Lawabider, please read the tags at the top of this page before contributing. Thanks. 80.41.249.160 (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks, it's hard to scan every link on a wikipedia page so I missed those tags.Lawabider (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I feel this page should be protected --Mixedupworld (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The sounder course would be for an admin who follows this page to go Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th) and look over the case, as this is not the only article Mixedupworld likes to disrupt. -Rrius (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-22 United Kingdom

Just a reminder; I hope ya'll can give us your imput. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Socks

A series of socks have been making disruptive edits here and at related articles. Many of these edits add needless section headings. My opinion is that the recent additions of section headings by Martinnutini look the same to me. The brand new account may be yet another of these socks, but I would prefer if someone more experienced with sock spotting would make the call. -Rrius (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed to an extent... however, I wouldn't be comfortable blocking such an account given nobody had welcomed them or made them aware of editorial norms (i.e. WP:MOS). I've made Martinnutini aware. Let's revert, but also assume good faith. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to get 3RR'd in the face of that. Over to you :-) Mr Stephen (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm on to it. I suspect I'll eating my own words momentarily however! :O --Jza84 |  Talk  22:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite like the edits being added into the page there realy light up the page and the picture is nice as well. Please keep the edits --Martinnutini (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I bet you do like those edits. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th). Alanraywiki (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit war Martin; you're only gonna get yourself blocked. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Wikipedia is a free information site , i get that. Pepole have been edeting the scotland page ok. And the edits have been deleted. I As a wikipedia member feel that these edits should be kept in place not only becuase they bring a bit more joy and brighntness to the artice it makes the whole thing stand out properily and make pepole read the article before they vandalise it. I FEEL these EDITS SHOULD BE KEPT even if they are subheadings becuase as i said it makes the whole article stand out and make pepole actutatly read it every day in life before they go of the page becuase they dont know where to look. But for instance if you kept the edit subheadings pepole can look for the bit they was looking for and read instead of reading the whole article on thing they allready know. You may not see where this is going but i can --Martinnutini (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It matters not to me; but other seem to disagree with you proposal. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh realy. Well i was told by another wikipedia user who protects the scotland page from vandilism to GET MY WORD ACROSS WHICH I AM. Wikiedpia Anyone can edit ye and keep for 5 seconds--Martinnutini (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are being reverted because you appear to be a wp:sockpuppet for a blocked user who only days ago blanked the Scotland article. Even if that were not the case, you are putting in way too many section headings: not every paragraph needs a heading. -Rrius (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well look at england , northern ireland & wales and stuff. They have alot of subheading. Just keep the heading it makes the artictle look good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinnutini (talk • contribs) 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, Martinnutini, about constant reverts. But that's evidence of no consensus! You gotta work with these people, not point fingers ;-) As for headings, the rule for them is pretty much project-wide, so there's no changing that I'm afraid. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC) And please be more civil! Kindness is the only thing keeping Wikipedia from not sucking

all i ask is for the sub headings to be kept there. Please i mean i do everything for this site. I go around my town and take pictures for its article and places in scotland for this article. Please --Martinnutini (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's alright. Can you think of another way to get your pics brought up without it being in a subheading? What would convince you? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So, all those in favour of Martinnutini's proposal? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If they're doing this at England, Wales & Northern Ireland? then fine, go for it. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Sockpuppetry. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

When will they ever learn? GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems this person is gathering a reputation for disruptive socking and disruptive conduct. The it continues the more likely it is the puppet master is exposed, or failing there being a master, there'd eventually be a range block considered as a remedy. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've applied a anon-only block to the IP address whose edits were removed and for whom a message was just removed by MickMacNee. There is a group of addresses that are probably being used for at least some of the time, and Kilmarnock (currently protected) has been suffering as well (see Talk:Kilmarnock for a train of usage that links to a number of known sockpuppets.)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All of them

The edits me and my brother Martin (brother of Paollo Nutini) edits should be kept there.--Sophie Bextor (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view on the sub-headings (though I note that there does not appear to be consensus for them as they have been removed by multiple editors and discussed - negatively - on this talk page), however I see no justification for including the French translation of "Scotland" alongside the English, Gaelic and Scots translations - French is not an official language of Scotland, and I'm unclear why you (or your brother, or his brother) considered it relevant.

I'm also concerned about the practice of making numerous small edits over a sustained period of time; it makes it very difficult to revert one edit, and although I only reverted the "l'Ecosse" edit it wouldn't surprise me if other editors simply reverted all edits in a block rather than distinguish between the bad and the not-so-bad.

Finally, it's great that you're discussing this but you need to be prepared to respect consensus - I note the comments (by your brother?) on Talk:Kilmarnock and that you/he seems not to have read/understood the comments prior to your/his remarks, and that there seems to be an unwillingness to assume good faith, and a desire to make personal attacks ("racim", "racism") and SHOUT.

Cheers  This flag once was red  20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well My Brother (Paulo Nuttini) is a scottish singer. And secondly please please please just keep the edits becuase i do alot of things for wikipedia. I Went around kilmarnock taking pictures and the page is protected and all i get is blocked. Please they are doing this to Wales , England & northern ireland. Why cant it be done to Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophie Bextor (talk • contribs) 23:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This user was blocked as yet another sock of the Nimbley-Mixedupworld-Martinnutini line. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th). -Rrius (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Another revert war seems to have broken out this afternoon, this time over the appropriate coat of arms. Rather than endless to-and-fro (roughly the last thing that page needs), I've restored the prior version and suggested that the participants bring their proof to this page before editing further. AllyD (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice an edit by user User:Astrotrain giving what she describes as the Arms of the Queen of Scotland. The picture of the Arms posted were those of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Accordingly i corrected the image to that of the Kingdom of Scotland. I seem to have started an edit war as tmy correction has been deleted etc. I give the query I posted of User:Astrotrain's talk page:

You recently added the Arms of what you described as Queen of Scotland. The Royal coat of arms is listed at top of Scotland page, but if you add a copy with supporters it seems correct to add the proper arms thereto. The Arms you are placing are described as "The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom", Not I believe as "the Arms of the Queen of Scotland". I think the that the current Queen is Queen of The United Kingdom not Queen of Scotland. I think this tittle was abandoned by the act of the union. As I understand it, the Kingdom of Scotland ceased to exist on 1 May 1707, following passage of the Acts of Union, which merged Scotland with England thereby creating the Kingdom of Great Britain. If you want to add the picture that you are insisting on you should perhaps add "The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom used in Scotland" [other editors may well question this, I do not see the point], not "The Royal Coat of Arms of the Queen in Scotland". For the designation "The Royal Coat of Arms of the Queen in of Scotland" you should perhaps add Kingdom_of_scotland_royal_arms.svg. I noted that your correction stated "these are the Royal Arms of the Queen in Scotland", maybe, BUT they are not the Royal Arms of the Queen of Scotland. yours Czar Brodie (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It said it was the Royal Arms of the Queen in Scotland, not the Queen of Scotland. Perhaps Czar should actually read what he or she is reverting. The Arms are there due to a previous edit war, and that was the agreed compromise to add the current Royal Arms to the politics section. Either that or the correct Royal Arms will be added to the infobox. Astrotrain (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please direct me to the previous edit war, and the agreed compromise. Sorry for not seeing this compromise. My thinking is that Of and In are unclear yet "The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland" is more in view of the picture being added. Czar Brodie (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I refer to your, User:Astrotrain, directing me to the archives, for which I thank you. I found various edits from September 2005 [see]. the matter was signed off by you stating: At no point did I break the "3 revert rule". Since this dispute is getting really ugly, I will not be wasting my time on this article. Let the abusive arrogance of Mais Oui and the amateur heralidic authority of Doops decide what is the coat of arms. Astrotrain 23:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC). I also noted that the only compromise was to not include the Great Britain arms. Accordingly I withdraw my suggestion to label the arms "The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom in Scotland". My suggestion based on the material in the archived is to not add the arms of the United Kingdom regardless of their label. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't read it properly, the agreement is to have both coat fo arms included. Astrotrain (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I read the article, I was somewhat disappointed in you. I like heraldry and would have welcomed a bit of colour in the article. However, without going into the fine detail of the said talk in 2005, I refer in particular to your conclusions as pasted above. If you agreed to let matters rest back in 2005, why are you again raising this issue? Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone who was there- this is what happened. The Queen's Royal Arms were always used in the infobox, being the Royal Arms actually used in Scotland. Edit wars broke out when some users used the historical King of Scot's arms instead. The compromise was the use the shield of the old arms in the infobox and the full Royal Arms of the Queen in the politics section. Then that situation has lasted till now. I restored the consensus position. Astrotrain (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

anybody can go [there], only I'm not sure they would want to. The fact is there was no clear consensus position, and certainly no agreement to adopt the image you are advancing, only your withdrawal from the debate, which I understood to mean that you were happy with the status quo. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus, you can ask any of the other editors. I suspect you have other motives for making these changes. If you insist on moving the arms, they will be reinstated in the infobox then. Astrotrain (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's good that this is being discussed here, but can the reverts stop until you/we have decided on consensus? Astrotrain, you're on 3 reverts right now, and Czar Brodie - you're not far behind. Cheers,  This flag once was red  20:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On that last, I strongly agree. CB, there was indeed a degree of consensus in favour of including the royal arms, in that sort of context, by way of resolution of a dispute about which to put in the infobox (which I'm glad to say seems to have stayed stable since -- using the UK royal arms (for use in Scotland) there was completely unreasonable, confusing and inconsistent with the other 'home nations' articles). See this section in particular, and apply usual disclaimers about the possibility of consensus changing, of course. This version of the arms are distinctly Scottish enough to be worth discussing as such someplace, but where that is, and what prominence it should get, is a matter for normal editorial judgement. Do take care in how it's captioned and glossed, though: this is a sufficiently obtuse heraldic point that it would be very easy to generate more confusion than light. Alai (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the inclusion of these arms on this article adds more value to the page for our reader. I don't think it is unreasonable to include them as a thumbnail at all, with the right caption and context. Infact, might we worth pinning this to a section about the union (Scotland within the UK or Modern history perhaps). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alai for responding to my request for clarification. My apologies to Astrotrain for my error of interpretation. I therefore will not appose Astrotrain adding agreed consensus arms. yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Flower (or rather bryophytes) of Scotland

Flora of Scotland just made GA and unless there are objectios I intend to amend the 'main' template at the Flora and fauna sub-section to:

Main articles: Fauna of Scotland and Flora of Scotland

and amend the last sentence from "The Fortingall Yew may be 5,000 years old and is probably the oldest living thing in Europe." to:

The UK's tallest tree is a Douglas Fir located in Reelig Glen near Inverness, and the Fortingall Yew may be 5,000 years old and is probably the oldest living thing in Europe. Although the number of native vascular plants is low by world standards, Scotland's substantial bryophyte flora is of global importance.

Images

For some reason we seem to be accumulating these and I have removed a few. I liked the Balmoral and Lion Rampant flags, but I don' think we need two of the latter (inc the infobox) and the Government and politics section had four images. With the greatest respect to Her Majesty I don't think we need a Royal image twice in the same section. The importance of North Sea oil notwithstanding, the Pacific Quay image is (to me) a little more aesthetically pleasing. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 13:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

you may have a point, but see Talk:Scotland#Coat of Arms above, and [old archives]. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't say that the differences between them is a matter I pretend to know the details of, or that I find especially interesting. Nor do I feel particularly strongly about this issue. Nonetheless, I can't see any purpose in having two images that to the lay reader are more-or-less the same. I am quite open to persuasion but I can't see any obvious necessity for it save that it produced some kind of armistice at the time of the original discussion. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 16:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

perhaps, but as was explained to me, the compromise was to use the arms you deleted, not the ones you left. Just place the Queens arms (the image of shield you deleted) over the "royal coat of arms" and you will satisfy yourself, Astrotrain, Alai, and Jza84. That seems the best solution. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Lion Rampant which is used as the Second national flag, and the oil platforms, given the significance to the Scottish economy. Astrotrain (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Scottish economy? British economy is a better definition relating to North Sea oil. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

90% of North Sea Oil in the United Kingdom sector is in Scottish waters, and Aberdeen is the oil capital of Europe. Astrotrain (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be significance to the Scottish geography, but you mentioned Scottish economy. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oil is the most significant part of the economy of Scotland. What does the Glasgow Science Center have to do with the economy? Astrotrain (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

no idea, I didn't put the picture there. My guess is that Glasgow, unlike the oil industry, is the most significant part of the economy of Scotland. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to linking 'part' to 'Subdivisions of the United Kingdom'?

In the second sentence it says "It is part of the United Kingdom..." Any objections to linking 'part' to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom' in a similar way to the Wales article? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think if the sentence read "It is part of the United Kingdom..." It would be perfectly acceptable perhaps even better as it would let those who are not familiar with the make up of the UK find out what we mean by "part" right away. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its a good idea, and getting variations of this on the different pages would be a contribution to stability of the "country" issue --Snowded (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Partial Protection of this article

Sorry to be a pain, but since the protection of this page was lifted on July 11, there have been many instances of identical or near identical vandalism almost every day, and sometimes many times a day, by ever-changing anonymous IP users who all seem to be closely related to Nimbley66 (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nimbley6 (4th) and related sockpuppet reports.) So, I've semi-protected it so that new editors and unregistered editors (anonymous IP users) can't edit the page. I hope actoion may be ongoing to resolve the greater problem with this disruptive child, and so once that has happened, the protection can be lifted. Sorry for the restrictions.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you double-check the protection level of this article? It seems that the July 20 vandalism by the IP editor should have been prevented under semi-protection. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It should work now. I made a slip-up in only protecting page-moves to new and unregistered users.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Angusmclellan changed the duration of the protection to two days, asking whether two days of protection is enough. I don't think it will be.

The Nimbley SSP case referred to in the opening paragraph of this thread must be dealt with in more than the whack-a-mole manner in which it has been heretofore. This user's vandalism and block evasion has continued over the course of months from various accounts and IPs. Despite the name, Nimbley is actually on his 3rd sock puppet case. The original one opened on 4 April, and this one opened almost one month ago. Two days of protection will give us nothing more than two days without vandalism here; the vandalism will continue at the other victim pages during that time and resume after the two days is over.

It seems clear to me and to others that the only effective measure would be a range block. Until that happens, the only way to deal with the vandalism is to protect this page, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hurlford, and a number of others—effectively applying the whack-a-mole approach to page protection. -Rrius (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sceptical it will be sufficient as well. Nimbley seems extremely determined, and doesn't seem to give up easily. I'll hold off re-protecting it for now, feeling that it can rest until new vandalism is detected. I had assumed that others were doing things about more investigation, but I guess I may be wrong about that. So, I'll have a look myself. However, I will be away and without any Internet access for a month starting very shortly, and so I may not be the best person to take this matter forwards.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And I've reimposed it after the actions of this morning. We do need to get a better solution to this.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring Harp page and the significance of Hugh Trevor-Ropers work

I would like to invite some Scottish wikipedians to a discussion on the talk harp page [[23]]. I am currently in discussion regarding an edit warring with an unknown poster relating to early medieval triangular harp instruments and origin in Scotland. As far as I can see and from multiple refrences and sources, the triangular harp was first evident in Pictland, and later to Ireland and the Anglo-Saxons. However user 93.107.129.136 states himself that such ideas are wrong and that any such Pictish relief is foreign in origin as the “stones are not of Pictish origin, they are influenced by Irish adventurers to Caledonia. These Irish settlers brought the Gaelic language, Gaelic literature and music with them, and Irish art”. So from this everything we percieve as being Pictish in art, culture and society is of Irish origin? To back up his point he has quoted one study by the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper in The Invention of Tradition [24]. That all Scottish culture is of Irish origin and therefore the triangular harp, music, insular art and pretty much everything attested to Scotland (Gael or Pict) didn’t originate there. Personally I find Ropers work bias although I was not aware indepth of Ropers theories it seems to me he attempted to whitewash Scottish history. I am well read in the harp and have edited the harp, clarsach and Origin of the harp in Europe pages and have found this is not the case backed up by quite a lot of references and cited sources, both Scottish and Irish.

However as the work of Roper is a cited source then I am willing to include this, but edit in caution as then all articles relating to Pictish and Scottish art, language, society and culture can be attrested to the Gaels of Ireland. User Rivertorch suggests the article should include cited quotations from each theory, fair enough. But from a research perspective, is Ropers work a fringe theory, or does his study have credence in the article. If that’s the case, then should it be included in every Scottish historical article? I personally think his views are racist and bias against the Scots. I ask you to click on the harp page, review all the data and discuss. Regards Celtic Harper (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this is the latest phase in a longterm dispute, Celtic Harper. You have my sympathy but I'm not really knowledgeable enough to help out. I guess that the Deacon of P or Angusmclellan would be your best bets for support since they are editors with good knowledge of this period. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it further a Request For Comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages might get you more informed (and less controversial) opinions than a request on this page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably the Picts uniqueness in also having crossbows supports them as being the most generally experimental with 'stringed instruments' and the most likely originators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.132.217 (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is more applicable to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland and should be continued there. I'll provide a brief intro. Ben MacDui 13:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)