Talk:Scotland/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Pictures

The article has too many pictures in places at the moment. MOS:IMAGES indicates that sandwiching of text should be avoided and this happens quite a lot. In other places there are long sections of text with no illustrations. If anyone wants to make some decisions, or suggestions, about which images to keep (or add) that is fine by me. Otherwise I will make some selections and try to find copyright free pics to fill in the big gaps from relevant articles.--SabreBD (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Queen

Following from the discussion of the appropriateness of the UK Prime Minister being in the infobox, I have boldly removed Elizabeth II from the infobox, as she is Queen of the United Kingdom, not of Scotland (or indeed of Scots), and this is the Scotland article. Also, the style "Elizabeth II" is nonsensical in the context of Scotland. You can't have a second if you've never had a first. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that will stand. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it has already been reverted. But it seems quite clear that every argument that applies to omitting the UK PM also applies to the UK monarch. Including the example of the infoboxes of autonomous communes of Spain, such as Catalonia, wherein it states that it is a constitutional monarchy, but does not namecheck Juan Carlos I. 16:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Stoughton (talk • contribs)

I've already restored your edit, as I mistakenly thought you'd restored the UK Prime Minister to the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with Ivor. Elizabeth II isn't Queen of Scotland but rather Queen over Scotland/Queen in Scotland. I note that the Head of State isn't included in the infoboxes at the American states/territories & Canadian provinces/territories. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Authority in the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies is still derived from the monarch. It is not the same as the UK PM --Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's covered by the reference to constitutional monarchy. No need to name the monarch, especially when the regnal number is not accurate in the context of Scotland. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Excluding the Queen from the infobox makes Scotland's inclusion in the United Kingdom redundant. It needs to stay for the sake of the readers and accuracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The numbering issue and conventions have been extensively discussed elsewhere and the convention is to use II. Personally I would get rid of the whole royal family, but for the moment the authority for the assemblies is derived from the Queen so if the head of the assembly is listed then so should the monarch. I'm not sure how much this proposal is serious, or is an indirect attack on the proposed removal of the PM; whatever the two are not linked.--Snowded ^TALK 17:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Snowded is absulutely right. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you regard the Catalonia article as misleading, in that case? Also, when did an Elizabeth I reign in Scotland? And surely the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly derive their authority from Acts of the UK Parliament, or the exercise of the authority of "Crown in Parliament". The Parliament in question being Westminster. Doesn't mean we need to include the UK PM, or the UK monarch in the Scotland article. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when did an Elizabeth I reign in the United Kingdom?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the style is utterly misleading, except in regard to England & Wales and Northen Ireland, all of which were reigned over by a prior Elizabeth. Scotland, and the UK, never were. And this is the Scotland article. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth's regnal number is a seperate topic, though. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant in that this is the Scotland article, and Scotland is the only part of the UK which was not reigned over by the prior Elizabeth. Thus the style "Elizabeth II" is uniquely wrong in this context. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Queen is responsible for ceremonial duties and for granting royal assent to acts of the assemblies; this is 101 constitutional law. The convention in both England and Scotland is to use II for I for Elizabeth, see countless discussions on her article. --Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't her article. This is the Scotland article, and the style is uniquely inaccurate in a Scottish context. 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Stoughton (talk • contribs)

We're getting off track. This is a discussion about her inclusion/exclusion from the infobox. Not about her British monarchial regnal number. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We're on track. The cipher EiiR is not in official use in Scotland for this very reason. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Its a valid question GoodDay. Ivor, if my memory is correct there was a court challenge to the use of II in Scotland which failed, however it is common in Scotland to omit the ordinal. I think it would be acceptable to do that--Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If the Queen is kept in the infobox (and it appears as though it will be), then the proper regnal number should be used. She's Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom not Elizabeth II of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Elizabeth of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use the example of the Catalonia infobox: mention the constitutional monarchy, but omit the name of the monarch? This deals with the constitutional concerns of derivation of authority, and accomodates concerns about the appropriateness/accuracy of the style and title in a Scottish context. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Its an option, but it is also the case that it is commonly omitted in Government circles in Scotland. The argument is therefore stronger to omit the ordinal. Now aside from stating your opinion, do you have an argument? If the common government use in Scotland is to omit it then what argument would you put in favour? Arguments GoodDay, not opinion please. --Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

She's Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (which Scotland is a part of), she's not Elizabeth II of England, Wales, Northern Ireland; Elizabeth of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the United Kingdom article. This issue comes up uniquely in a Scottish context. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You are making a statement not engaging with the argument (yet again) GoodDay. She is the "II" of the UK, the issue is omission of the ordinal in the context of Scotland. If you are too lazy to do a bit of research or think about the subject fine, but in that case have the decency to shut up --Snowded ^TALK 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No comment. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, why not leave Elizabeth II as it stands, but add a footnote explaining that there was never an Elizabeth I of Scotland?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A pipelink would achieve the same result, no need for a footnote. I am happy to have the ordinal or not, when I did a quick bit of research the ommission of the ordinal came up as an option and its attractive if other editors agree. GoodDay I see is either not willing or unable to take up the challenge to do more than sprinkle this page with his opinions--Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Snowded are you suggesting that the Queen be in the box simply as "Elizabeth", pipelinked to the Elizabeth II of the UK article? Because that would be very acceptable to me. 18:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Stoughton (talk • contribs)

Yep, seems like a good compromise to me and conforms with use --Snowded ^TALK 18:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just been doing some scouring of official Scottish governmental and media websites to see how they describe her. The Scottish government and parliament nearly always use the form "Her Majesty the Queen", so not much help to our debate there. [1] Interestingly, Scottish MSPs seem to be able to take office without directly swearing an oath to the Queen. I found a great many mentions in Scottish media outlets of Queen Elizabeth II. The Scotsman for example often uses the term and recently. [2] I am not convinced that it is not a common usage in Scotland, at least to some. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Scotsman" could as well be renamed "The Brecqhou Twins". Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it owned by the Barclays? Not sure that affect the basic issue. The "remove the II" case is I assume based on local commonname arguments? If lots and lots of media in Scotland and other things freely use it, then the argument falls, or is at least more tendentious. There seems to be a belief above that the commonname usage is a closed story. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Scottish Government and Parliament do not use "II", as far as I can tell. And since the 1950s, the Royal Cypher (EiiR) has not been used in Scotland, because of sensitivities around this issue. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already pointed that out. Going back to media, the Glasgow Daily Herald is also surprisingly fond of the term, most recently using it as her official title for the transcript of the biggest state occasion in recent years in Scotland, the greeting of Pope Benedict. [3] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Government outweighs media I think, and its a neat solution--Snowded ^TALK 19:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't secondary sources preferred over primary sources? GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The key thing is that it's commonmame that prevails in Wikipedia. The local linguistic uses are an example. The names of national articles are another example. The issue here is to determine what is the common name for the Queen (1) and for the way the Queen is named in Scotland (2). In the infobox, we can add a dash of "officiality" to our wikiness as we try to be all posh over there. So there is some weight to what Snowded says about governmental usages, but, as I pointed out, the official govt sites in Scotland ignore the conflict by calling her something else entirely. So we are back to other sources. It isn't the closed book some are suggesting is the point. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

COMMONNAME applies to page titles, it does not allow the invention of completey bogus titles in infoboxes. She is Queen Elizabeth II in Scotland. That is a simple, verifiable, fact. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also dealt with in FAQ at the top. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The FAQ offers a dead link to a supposed agreement on the question. It doesn't help us here at all. To be clear - I don't dispute that the Queen is correctly styled Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The question is whether it is necessary to refer to her in that style and title in the infobox of the Scotland article. It appears to be the consensus that Prime Minister David Cameron need not be included simply by virtue of his UK office. Why shouldn't the same hold true of the Queen? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Kittybrewster is referring to if a British monarch is named James, he'd be James VIII of the United Kingdom (as Scotland had 7, England 2) or if named David, he'd be David III of the United Kingdom (as Scotland had 3, England 0), such a scheme wouldn't effect British monarchs retroactivley. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

HM The Queen is referred to as Elizabeth II in Scotland. Because she is Elizabeth II of the nation State which is UK, of which Scotland is a part. Scotland is not a nation state, hence eg it is DEFRA which negotiates with Europe, although the money for Scotland goes straight to Scotland. To avoid this discussion, the Royal Family will not name their children James or David, or if they were to, then they would be known as George or whatever (see Edward VIII known as David but regnally named Edward; Albert was regnally named George VI). The EC wants no subdivision of the nation state. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A monarch can chose whichever regal name they prefer, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to reply "Up to a point, Lord Copper". Instead let me ask how your response is a remotely constructive contribution to the debate? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We've gotten off track here, concerning future British monarchs. See my talkpage, if you wish to continue. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't read the whole mountain of discussion concerning this and what I have to say has probably been said before, but; we have had this discussion a million times and it is always explained that the naming convention of British monarchs is that they take the number after the previous Scottish or English monarch with the same name, which ever is highest; so, calling the current queen Elizibeth II still makes sense in Scotland. I'm not great with royal history but I'm sure this has happened before where a British king had taken their number from the last Scottish king of the same name as it was the highest.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's never happened yet, concerning a Scottish name. Before the 1707 unification of the kingdoms England & Scotland, there were 3 English, 2 Scottish monarchs named William; 6 9 English, 0 Scottish named Edward; 1 English, 0 Scottish named Elizabeth. Both England & Scotland had an Anne, neither had a George or Victoria. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, England had 9 kings named Edward before 1707. ðarkuncoll 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, 9 Edwards. I forgot about the 'the Elder', 'the Martyr' & 'the Confessor'. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Which rather makes the point that ordinal numbers need have no real bearing on fact. ðarkuncoll 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That they needn't correspond to the actual number of monarchs with that particular name. ðarkuncoll 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Darn those plantagenets. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Were they all kings of "England" though? Historians debate this. Edward the Elder for example was most probably just ruler of Wessex plus some other bits - not York or Northumbria. There are others like that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

He was King of the Anglo-Saxons, the northern part of England still being under Danish occupation. And in any case, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor were certainly kings of all England. To this day the main royal crown is still called St. Edward's Crown, after the latter. ðarkuncoll 17:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is all OFF-TOPIC. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really - we were discussing the appropriate regnal number for the Queen. Background to that is historical usage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The point being that a monarch's number in no way has to reflect how many monarchs of that name have reigned over a particular place. Just look at Australia. (I might have used Canada as an example there, but the Elizabethan attempted colony in Newfoundland might have clouded the issue.) ðarkuncoll 18:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have come to the party a bit late but i will give my opinion. Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom there for the monarch should absolutely be mentioned in the infobox. The Prime Minister of the UK who is responsible for the defence of the UK (which includes Scotland) also clearly needs to remain in the infobox. I strongly oppose these attempts to try and grossly mislead people into thinking Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

INFO BOX ISSUES REDUX

Scotland  (English / Scots) Alba  (Scottish Gaelic)
Flag Royal Standard
Motto: In My Defens God Me Defend (Scots) (often shown abbreviated as IN DEFENS)
Anthem: None (de jure) Various de facto - see note 1
Location of Scotland/Archive 27 (orange) – in the European continent (camel & white) – in the United Kingdom (camel)
Capital	Edinburgh 55°57′N 3°12′W
Largest city	Glasgow
Official languages	English
Recognised regional languages	Gaelic, Scots2
Ethnic groups	89% Scottish, 7% English, Irish, Welsh, 4% other
Demonym(s)	Scots, Scottish3
Government	Devolved Government within a unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy4
Legislature	Scottish Parliament and United Kingdom Parliament4
Establishment  Early Middle Ages; exact date of establishment unclear or disputed; traditional 843, by King Kenneth MacAlpin
Area
• Total	78,772 km2 (30,414 sq mi)
• Water (%)	1.9
Population
• mid-2009 estimate	5,194,000
• 2001 census	5,062,011
• Density	65.9/km2 (170.7/sq mi)
GDP (PPP)	2006 estimate
• Total	US$194 billion
• Per capita	US$39,680
Currency	Pound sterling (GBP)
Time zone	UTC0 (GMT)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+1 (BST)
Driving side	left
Calling code	44
ISO 3166 code	GB-SCT
Internet TLD	.uk5
Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave and Scots Wha Hae have been used in lieu of an official anthem. Both Scots and Scottish Gaelic are officially recognised as autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages; the Bòrd na Gàidhlig is tasked, under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, with securing Gaelic as an official language of Scotland, commanding "equal respect" with English. Historically, the use of "Scotch" as an adjective comparable to "Scottish" was commonplace, particularly outwith Scotland. However, the modern use of the term describes only products of Scotland, usually food or drink related. Scotland has limited self-government within the United Kingdom as well as representation in the UK Parliament. Scotland is also a UK constituency for the European Parliament. Executive and legislative powers have been devolved to, respectively, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. Also .eu, as part of the European Union. ISO 3166-1 is GB, but .gb is unused.

I introduced changes tonight which were reverted. In my opinion the current fudged compromise creates a mess of a situation not worthy of an article with GA status. Main points:

• The Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom used in Scotland were removed some time ago and replaced by the Royal Standard of Scotland. The reason for this was that the UK CoA was deemed a UK symbol, not that of Scotland, and was therefore inappropriate for this article. How then can the Monarch, as Head of State, appear in the info-box? Scotland ceased being a State over three centuries ago and therefore as such has no "Head of State". It is the UK which has a Head of State therefore why does QEII appear at all? All I did was to emphasise HM status by repacing "Elizabeth II" with "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"; but this was reverted. Why? My own preference would be that QEII does not appear at all in the info-box as opposed to how HM appears now; leading the reader to the wrong assumption/conclusion that "Elizabeth II" is the Monarch of Scotland whereas the last individual to hold that title went by the name of Anne!

• I also included within "Legislature" the "United Kingdom Parliament". This too was reverted. Why? The UK Parliament is a legislature of Scotland as despite the creation of the parliament at Holyrood, Westminster continues to deal with legislation specifically unique to Scotland. For example, the legislation governing the process of electing members to the Scottish Parliament is a reserved matter determined by Westminster; despite its having no effect whatsoever on the wider UK. How can Cameron appear without reference to the UK Parliament as a legislature?

• The portrayal of First Minister and Prime Minister in the info box lacked continuity; with explanatory additions linked to the relevant article for one but not for the other. I introduced a degree of continuity by treating both equally, yet again this was reverted. Why does inconsistency appear the norm here?

• As with other info boxes, most noteably USA, I included the political party of the relevant office holders in brackets after the individual's name; this again was reverted. Is factual information really so controversial?

The principal contributors and watch-keepers of this article need to address these issues or the status of the article itself will be open to challenge; the fudged compromises currently in place being detrimental to the quality of the article itself.195.171.9.229 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Having done as suggested and brought up the issues here, I'll leave it for a few days and unless arguments to the contrary appear I'll remove the monarch reference and insert UK Parliament.195.171.9.229 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is not Beth's official title or even the WP article name. If we include the UK parliament should we then also include the EU which also has legislature powers over Scotland to some degree? As for adding political parties this is not the norm at other UK related articles. One question for you: Why did you inform user:BritishWatcher about your edits and not first this talkpage? BW has not edited this article since Sept 2010. What took a new IP editor to this talkpage? One final thing, WP works by consensus not by waiting a couple of days and changing an article cos no-one can be bothered getting involved in your pointless discussion. Bjmullan (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Points as follows:

• I informed BW on his page of my changes as he was last to contribute to the previous discussion and I was canvassing his opinion specifically on what I had changed. As it is you reverted those changes before he or anyone else could form an opinion, but that is by-the-by.
• The EU only has legislative powers in as much as they are enacted by those sovereign parliaments within the EU, therefore although the European Parliament does indeed legislate, in the case of Scotland such EU legislation comes via either Holyrood or Westminster and not directly from Brussels; therefore there is no need to mention it in the info-box, whereas there is indeed a need to mention Westminster.
• The info-box currently gives the reader the impression that Elizabeth II is the monarch of Scotland, which is not the case as she is Head of State to, amongst others, the UK. Scotland, not being a State since 1707, has had no Head of State since Queen Anne. The 'note 4' gives a dubious statement not supported by a WP:RS when it states that "Scotland's head of state is the monarch of the United Kingdom". As stated previously, Scotland has no Head of State therefore note 4 is misleading.
• Entries for Salmond and Cameron did not give equal information to the reader as to their specific role therefore my changes treated both equally in regard to this. You sought to revert that (along with everything else) without justifying why one should be treated differently from the other. I await your response to this with interest.
• "If you can improve it further, please do so" states the GA box at the top of this page. Including political parties was in order to do so; your "not the norm at other UK articles" smacks of the continuity between UK articles nonsense others spout here. How is anything to be improved if that attitude is taken? Never heard of the phrase "taking the lead"???

195.171.9.229 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC) PS On a personal note, I go to whatever article I choose and rest assured there are others who find my contributions far from "pointless". If I said you'd be better off concentrating upon racing cars and E-list celebs from NI then I'm sure you'd find those remarks about as acceptable as I do yours, therefore please keep it civil and to the point; nobody appointed you IC ('In Charge') of anything on these pages.195.171.9.229 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

My proposed infobox is shown to the right. Please do not alter it but rather comment on my changes below. Changes concern:

• Removal of ref. to Queen Elizabeth; Scotland having no Head of State.
• Use of Govt. terminology/links as per UK article page; for clarity as opposed to continuity.
• Matching format for entries for Salmond and Cameron.
• Inclusion of UK Parliament for legistlatures
• Changes to Note 4

195.171.9.229 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

rest assured there are others who find my contributions far from "pointless" You have made a total of 12 edits here at WP; who are these other? Can you name them (with diffs)? This is still a pointless discussion borne out by the fact that no one else other than me can be bothered to taken part and this is my final comment... Bjmullan (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, its pointless, issues have been discussed before and the IP is obviously canvassing. For the avoidance of doubt there is NO agreement to these changes. --Snowded ^TALK 07:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Right. No agreement. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a Johnny come lately to this but having read most dicussions above I'm warming toward the version here. (sorry...sound of can of worms being opened)Endrick Shellycoat 21:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reading more I remembered why I avoid this article.Endrick Shellycoat 22:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive contribution Bjmullan. Why do so many editors to this article hide behind a smoke screen of aggressively challenging the motives of IP editors in an attempt to stifle debate, whilst at the same time choosing to ignore the fact that this article's infobox is peppered with factual inaccuracies and omissions? There is no dispute that Scotland is not a Sovereign state, therefore why does a small cabal of editors insist, wrongly, upon the inclusion of a Head of State in the infobox? In two weeks time the Scotland Bill will progress to the House of Commons Committee stage at Westminster. This is a highly significant and purely Scottish piece of legislation being determined by MPs at Westminster. However, once again the fact that the United Kingdom Parliament legislates upon matters purely related to Scotland is ignored by a group of editors who insist upon the exclusion of the United Kingdom Parliament in the infobox. Why is it that entries for Cameron and Salmond are treated differently and any attempt to provide the reader with equally relevant links and explanations are removed? The cozy consensus here appears to be based upon the principal that if it doesn't appear in similar articles elsewhere then it doesn't appear here, even where this results in factual inaccuracies and omissions being repeated here, as is the case elsewhere. This is not how a WP:GA article maintains its status!195.171.9.229 (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.27.17.6 (talk)

Not content to hide behind one IP address I see you are using two (195.171.9.229 & 195.27.17.6). I think you should read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Bjmullan (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not prepared to address the issues raised I see that you instead elect to generate more smoke. I think you should read the second sentence of my last contribution and concern yourself, not with the messenger, but the message. The WP:GA status of this article is being left open to challenge. 195.27.17.6 (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Being an old hand around here, I think I have a fairly good idea who this (ahem) "mystery" ip address is. Needless to say, it is a banned user. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Never banned; why would I have been and on what basis would I be now? I undertook to make changes to the infobox, these were reverted due to a lack of consensus. As was suggested I have come to this page and have made suggestions and assertions which challenge the status quo, and to date the only argument to counter a single one of these is that "adding political parties this is not the norm at other UK related articles". No other 'argument', (I hesitate to use the term in this case), has been forthcoming with regard to: a Head of State appearing where no Sovereign State exists, Westminster being a legislature for Scotland but being exluded from the infobox and Cameron's entry being different in format and style to that of Salmond's. Instead, attention is diverted towards "old hands" speculating as to who I may or may not be. A WP:User account is NOT a requirement to edit WP or indeed to contribute to a talk page therefore might I suggest those with an issue as to my lack of a witty or obscure nom de plume simply 'get over it' and concentrate on the issues raised.195.27.17.6 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I changed Monarch to Monarch of the United Kingdom, so nobody would mistake the Queen as Monarch of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems a bit of a pointless effort. Is there a point you're trying to make? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Breaches of WP:POINT are the raison d'etre of that account. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I request that you delete your ABF comment. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What of the UK Prime Minister entry? GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What of it? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Its entry is as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not Prime Minister. So that readers won't mistake Cameron as Prime Minister of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's potential confusion between the first/prime ministers of the two entities. There is no potential confusion between different monarchs. This is a complete non-issue. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the calls for Elizabeth II's deletion from the infobox, is based on editors complaining she appears as Monarch of Scotland. My reasonable elaboration edit, would help diffuse those deletionist calls. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been no serious calls for deletion. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

An IP's been complaining about the Monarch's entry. About a month or more ago, discussion opened about deleting both the UK Prime Minister & UK Monarch. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, we haven't got a problem here, don't create one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's creating one? I'm attempting to avoid 'future ones'. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you presume there will be a future problem? There is only one monarch of the United Kingdom.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Her current entry, erroneously appears as Monarch of Scotland. That's a potential for future problems. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the number of people who would misunderstand this is minute. One would have to make a number of wildly incorrect assumptions (and fail to read the article) to believe that Elizabeth II is just the Queen of Scotland. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't assume that. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Where's the evidence that even a moderate number of people misunderstand it? Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where's the evidence that people would've misunderstood Prime Minister for Cameron's entry? GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question. Prime Ministers / First Ministers are an entirely different issue. There's room for confusion there, whereas you'd have to be thoroughly bewildered to not know who the Queen is or that Scotland does not have a royal family. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you mean reliable sources to back my concerns? I don't have any. Do you have any, to back your claim? GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked, because I'm not the one advocating a change. The burden is on you to provide evidence to back up your wish to change something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I haven't the time or capability to do a survey, door-to-door around the world? I'm at a disadvantage. I'm disappointed though, by the rejection of my changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a wee tip: if User:GoodDay managed to contribute just ONE sane, constructive, informed, mature, decently referenced, non-WP:POINT edit to a Scotland-related article, then he might have a leg to stand on. However, after tens of thousands of edits, he has so far failed to acheive this simple assignment. Nuff said. (And as for "An IP's been complaining" -> don't make me larf /barf). Mais oui! (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please delete your ABF comment. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Mais oui would delete his "ABF" comment if you deleted your pot stirring posts. Hmm! 212.219.249.5 (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not content with stirring the pot @ NI GD has decided to stir it all over the British Isles (sic). I suggest he takes his own advice and steer clear of UK/Irish articles. Bjmullan (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on topic; not me. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to be a genius to simply accept as basic fact the idea that people outside the UK quite often confuse the relationship between the sovereign state of the UK, and it's constituent parts. Given the fact that most of the time this works in England's favour (the "Queen of England" = EIIR etc), you'd think Scottish editors would be interested in making sure the infobox here was actually doing it's intended job of providing accurate information to those who come to find out about their country. As nice as it might make some people feel to believe otherwise, 'who is the Queen of Scotland' is not a question many people outside the UK would be able to answer in a heart-beat. And people who do know a bit about history, are likely to be confused because there is no literal "Queen of Scotland" anymore, just like there is no "Queen of England" anymore. If editors are claiming the infobox just sits there containing obvious facts everybody in the world already knows, then why does it even exist? People asserting there's no issue here, either have a problem escaping their personal world view, or are pushing an agenda. This article is for people who know nothing about Scotland, not the other way around. MickMacNee (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've posted identical questions at Talk:England, Talk:Northern Ireland & Talk:Wales. -- GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which for your information Catfish Jim & the soapdish has also posted on, and directed everyone to this debate - good first step. To me this seems a debate which crashes into WP:Politics. When the last such debate of changing the Infox box on the Wales article on the issue of Prime Minister, it got so heated with revisions that an Admin blocked the article from all editting for 4days - ho hum, great fun for no one. Secondly, our own article List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II makes it pretty clear that the current incumbant is Queen of Scotland, although there was some deabte in the 50's as to whether she was QE1 or QE2 - so hence they just have a crown on their PO vans. Before this debate swings into what is a political debate - we are just an encyclopedia of fact - can we be clear on what the issues are? Is the need to change the infobox a point of clarity, or a point of politics - and there may not be a lot of difference to some in that, as WP:Politics points out. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth II is neither Monarch of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. She's Monarch over those constituent countries, as Monarch of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

How does that article make it clear exactly? The Queen of Scots is not the Queen of Scotland. A separate Post Office van logo does not, a separate Scottish monarchy make. Elizabeth II has symbols for use in Scotland, but they are of the Queen of the United Kingdom in Scotland, not of the Queen of Scotland. Anne was the last Queen of Scotland, and the Pillar Box War were unsucessful because the ordinal lineage 'of Scotland' stopped with her. Elizabeth II has 16 realms, of which Scotland is not one on its own. MickMacNee (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I conclude this is a political campaign or a politically motivated issue raised by GoodDay over anything else, and hence has nothing to do with an encyclopaedia. There's clarity which we should strive for, and there's being pedantic, and this just seems to go too far for the wrong reasons. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make such an assumption. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Clarifying that there is no Queen of Scotland is not pedantry, and it has everything to do with an encyclopoedia. The clarity we should strive for is to have an infobox for Scotland that does not muddle up concepts and boundaries that are proven to be hard to grasp for outsiders of the Kingdom. MickMacNee (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! GoodDay to the rescue to fix what isn't broken, AGAIN! --LiamE (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on topic, not contributor. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I would if the topic at hand wasn't just you being a drama queen. --LiamE (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on topic, not contributor (who happens to be male). GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. The topic is drama from a drama queen. --LiamE (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to GoodDay improving and adding text to the article. With his obvious interest in Scotland I'm sure he has a variety of high qaulity books on the subject. I look forward to those sources being used to raise the article to a FA. I'm sure there are others who feel the same way. In fact, knowing that he has been here for several years I am in no doubt that he is more that capable of doing so. I would expect no less from such an experienced editor such as he. I also look forward to visiting the Scotland article in the future and seeing it sitting at the apex of wikipedia articles. GoodDay, I have a lot of faith in you. I only wait for your experienced Wikipedia editing to improve this article no end. Go for it my wikipedia friend. 212.219.249.5 (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

National motto

Both 'In defens' and 'Nemo me impune lacessit' are used on the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland, so why shouldn't we list both of them as National mottos? Furmonger (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Nemo me impune lacessit" is the motto of the order of chivalry and not that of the country/monarchy, which is "In My Defens God Me Defend". Read the articles themselves and all will become clear. :) 81.158.35.17 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Theatres

I was hoping to add the Dundee Repertory Theatre to the short sentence on theatres at the culture section but, it seems I am unable to do so at this time. Citizens Theatre is mentioned but it would be nice to include another to let people know of another specific theatre that deals in serious plays in another part of Scotland. If someone could do this for me I would be very grateful. Thanks. Carson101 (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it does this already long article any good to accumulate lists and I was about to suggest that further examples are better placed in Culture of Scotland. But looking at that, it doesn't cover theatre. So we've got article coverage of Scottish literature, Scottish art and Media in Scotland (none of which fit here) plus the "Scottish Theatres" Navbox (which includes Dundee Rep, but a bit of a gap in between maybe needing to be filled? AllyD (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

Re my last edit - nice pictures, but we already have 3 images of the Celestial City and we don't need uncited statements in the captions. Ben MacDui 20:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources.

Three sources to state it's part of the UK? I don't think it being part of the UK is under any serious dispute, allot of people would LIKE to see it no longer part of the UK (and it's close but again, irrelevant) however, but that's not the same. Only one reliable source is needed to back up the articles claim that it's part of the UK surely? Let's see - Wales: 1, Northern Ireland: 2, England: Three. Goodness. Let's follow the Welsh Example perhaps, I dislike excessive cites, it's scruffy and not really needed. Goes for NI and England too. Kaiai.--Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If anything (and I agree it doesn't need that many sources), it should be bundled as per WP:Bundling. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 02:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The three sources are there because there has been some dispute on this talk page as to call Scotland a "constituent country" of the UK or to say that it is "part of" the UK; they are only there to reinforce the wording. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"The Four Masters"

An IP added the following sentences to the Etymology section: "A term used to honor Queen Scotia who was a Pharaoh's daughter according to the Four Masters. She was Queen of the invading Milesians or Gaels from northern Spain that conquered the Tuatha Dé Danann in Ireland.." I reverted it - patent nonsense, unreferenced, out of context, ungrammatical, unsupported by anything in the Etymology of Scotland article - but it was then re-inserted by User:Joshuajohnlee (with a {{cn}} tag), on the grounds of WP:NOCITE. That guidance also says "Use your common sense", so I have reverted it again on that basis. Unreferenced nonsense should have no place in a high profile good article like this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick google of the keywords of that statement ("four masters" egypt scotia scotland) brings up about 5,000 hits, so there's clearly some background to it. From the quick glance I had over the results there were mentions of this so that's why I reverted. I haven't had time to actually look through it yet but if I find a source I'll be putting it back in. There's nothing to say that it's "nonsense" (yes it unreferenced, but not harmful), and I still think I was right to reference WP:NOCITE there. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 08:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, but editors should take a position that seeks to protect the overall integrity of the article. If there are myths along those lines, they should be described as such, and perhaps some referenced text added into Etymology of Scotland, rather than this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: See Annals of the Four Masters. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PPS: How about: "According to the Annals of the Four Masters, the word was used to honour Queen Scota (or Scotia), a Pharaoh's daughter who was Queen of the invading Milesians or Gaels from northern Spain that conquered the Tuatha Dé Danann in Ireland." To be added (with refs) to the Etymology article? The clearest - but not most authoritative - ref I can find is [4]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Ghymtle's general point of view. If it is to be inserted in any article it should be referenced and made clear that it is only a myth. I don't think it is terribly relevant here, where there is only room for a brief outline of the etymology, but perhaps with the above provisos it can fit into the etymology article.--SabreBD (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with User:Sabrebd. With citations, it is a potentially useful addition to "Etymology of..." but not relevant here. Ben MacDui 10:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

FAO People editing "part of the United Kingdom"

Again, it has gotten to the point where nearly every day I sign on here, there is an edit to this article which changes "Part of the UK" to "consituant country of the UK" or, more reciently a "region of the UK"; this issue has been done to death and the current wording was decided on multiple times. Do not change it.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt if anyone will bother to read this comment (or even the FAQs above) before making such changes. I would suggest, however, adding an HTML comment to the top of the paragraph asking that that sentence or first paragraph of the lead be not altered without prior discussion, see FAQs etc.. Tim PF (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, cheers --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Its a good move and might save a lot of editing - I just rephrased it a bit to fit with guidelines.--SabreBD (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point; I should have directed people to the discussion page rather that simply telling people not to edit it. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Two points:

1. The HTML comment has introduced 2 blank lines, which is causing the wiki software to leave a bigger than usual gap between the hatnote and the first line. — fixed.
2. I would reiterate a reference to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) in the fourth box from the top of this page, as I found out earlier this month:
   • This edit with summary (Undid revision 426360496 by Mark.hamid (talk) Discussed numerous times on Talk. Please read that first, then discuss. Thanks)
   • Was followed a few days later by this edit with summary (Undid revision 426361854 by Daicaregos (talk) No evidence of the discussion of this issue to which you refer.)
   • At which point I started a thread at his talk page:

     I think you'll find the Q1: Is Scotland a "country"? in the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of the talk page.

     The first item appears to be "The Queen"... (The top menu item at the time)

     Ok, I should have said right at the top. It's in the fourth box down, just below the Saltire, and you have to click on the "[show]" box to see the text.

   • Which seemed to do the trick.
3. You may wish the HTML note to itemise 2 or 3 things to not do or read first.

I cannot count up to 2. Tim PF (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't need edit comments there, not least ones several lines long. Just revert, and direct the editors doing this to the FAQ/archives. This is how its done everywhere else. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Independence at the bottom

I don't understand why we should have anything political such as Independence in the first few paragraphs, it has nothing to do with the previous paragraph and just jumps in: "They have announced their intention to hold a referendum on independence sometime during the second half of the present five-year parliamentary term". --81.147.26.123 (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Issues surrounding devolution and independence continue to be debated.", I don't see how Independence can come into this part either, Health education and many devolved matters come into it respectively though I don't see us singling out them either. --81.147.26.123 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Anything in regards to Independence or any party winning an Election should be in the Politics and Government section, not in the first few paragraphs, it does not fit in properly, I have removed it. 81.147.26.123 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed two parts of a paragraph as stated above 86.159.173.157 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Education

In this article I read under "education": "The Scottish education system has always remained distinct from education in the rest of United Kingdom, with a characteristic emphasis on a broad education" Maybe, this is history? Martha Nussbaum writes in her book "Not for profit": "Scotland used to have a four-year B.A. degree, with the first year devoted to liberal arts courses. ... The standardization of higher education imposed by the EU's Bologna scheme, however, has made Scotland assimilate to the rest of Europe, rather than vice versa." --13Peewit (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This broad education is still true of secondary, where pupils study more subjects at Higher level, and of tertiary education. Nussbaum makes blatant mistakes: the older Scottish universities award an M.A., not a B.A. This indicates the breadth of study. Further, Honours courses at these universities still last four, not three, years. 94.193.240.11 (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe Scotland still operates it's education system with a strong emphasis on broad education, perhaps even more so in recent years. A few of the publications from Learning and Teaching Scotland say that 'Every child and young person is entitled to experience a broad general education.'. I used to teach in Scotland but I liked to focus more on interacting with the kids rather than reading theory so I may have missed the mark completely on this one, but that's my take on it anyway. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

GDP revisited

Back in 2009 (see archive 24), in one of those rare episodes of consensus breaking out spontaneously, we all seemed to agree that we should use the Scottish Govt GDP numbers, the ones with oil and gas shared geographically. When I looked today, we weren't, nor had we changed to nominal GDP or to pounds instead of dollars. If anyone wants to put the dollar value in, the IRS say that the average exchange rate during 2006 was 1 USD = 0.544 GBP here. I make it 225 billion, near enough. And if it's per capita you want, a nice round 5.1 million should be near enough for the population in 2006, see here, which works out at £24000/$44000. Since newspapers often tell readers that Scotland's GDP is 96% of the UK average and this article now says ~120% there should probably yet another footnote, as if there weren't too many already, put in the infobox to explain the apparent discrepancy. Then the papers, or those of them lazy enough to use Wikipedia as their fount of knowledge, could get things right. How likely is that? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Blundering about, I came across this page , which links to updated Scottish Govt GDP estimates which run up to 2009. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Lion Rampant?

Do we really need the "Lion Rampant" in the infobox? as I don't believe that it should be considered on equal grounds as the Scottish saltire as a flag representing Scotland. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In a word, 'yes'. The reason for this subtle difference is that in place of a coat of arms (CoA), as you would expect to see in other articles regarding countries, a nod to the former CoA was included as a compromise. Scotland no longer has a coat of arms as such, just a version of the UK CoA which are unique to Scotland; but they remain UK arms and are not those of Scotland. The only symbol associated with Scotland's former CoA which remains in use is the Royal Standard of Scotland. It was therefore felt at the time that this was the only symbol which could legitimately appear in addition to the national flag in place of a CoA, and a compromise amongst editors was reached whereby it, rather than any historical symbol, would appear next to the national flag. A look at the Kingdom of Scotland infobox will point out the distinction. Given the stushie at the time and the ensuing stability of the infobox I'd leave as is. It's not a bad compromise IMHO. Endrick Shellycoat 12:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I see the lion rampant I think of Scotland. It was once used as an emblem exclusively for Scottish Kings, though that has now changed with the times. I do believe that it an offence to fly the lion rampant without permission from the Queen of the United Kingdom. That aside, I think the lion rampant is a popular flag in Scotland and not particulary associated with royalty but with Scotland itself.. Carson101 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Law and criminal justice

In the third paragraph of the Law and criminal justice section, it says "Many laws differ between Scotland and the rest of Britain, whereas many terms differ" Since "whereas" normally means "in contrast", what is this actually saying? That:

• "Many laws differ between Scotland and the rest of Britain, and (as a result) many terms differ"
• "Many laws differ between Scotland and the rest of Britain, whereas not many terms differ"
• "Not many laws differ between Scotland and the rest of Britain, whereas many terms do differ"

I would expect it to be the first, and I'm given to understand that in legal documents whereas may mean "it being the fact that", but that doesn't seem right here and this is not a legal document. 94.30.43.69 (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. Just a case of poor grammar. I suspect that it was trying to say, in effect your first point. Three specific examples of the differences in "terms" follow on after that sentence. Differences in laws were discussed earlier in the paragraph and differences in procedures follow the three examples of differences in "terms". Pyrotec (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Military Statistics

I was wondering if we could have a discussion about the number of enlisted Scots that lost their lives during the First World War? Below is what is already contained in the article:

"With a population of 4.8 million in 1911, Scotland sent 690,000 men to the war, of whom 74,000 died in combat or from disease, and 150,000 were seriously wounded.[72] R. A. Houston and W.W. J. Knox, eds. The New Penguin History of Scotland (2001) p 426"

Unfortunately I can not verify or examine further Houston and Knox's claim, since the links are not online. I do have some other online references.

Professor Niall Ferguson in "The Pity of War", the Scotsman newspaper and the Scottish National War memorial list other stats.[5][6][7]

Ferguson indicates 557,618 Scots were enlisted. Consequently, 26.4% lost their lives (British figure was 11%), which would make it 147,211 Scots lost their lives. Twice as much as the numbers contained in the existing wiki article. I would appreciate any comments. Newhabitat Newhabitat (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK the point is also made in Ian Brown (ed.) “The Edinburgh History of Scottish Literature” that over half a million Scots enlisted and more than a quarter of those died, a far greater proportion than elsewhere in the UK. [8]

Finally, Houston and Knox have a quote that 150,000 Scots died which refutes what was previously there! [9]

I’ve amended the article accordingly. Newhabitat (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Change Scottish Gaelic to Scottish ?

Referring to it as Gaelic in Scotland is fine but when referring to it in a page that will be read by people from various different continents it must either state that Scottish or Scottish Gaelic is an offical language of Scotland rather than just Gaelic. Agreed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Better qualified editors than I can comment on correct terminology, but I would find Scottish confusing (with Scots language). Scottish Gaelic would be pretty clear to me.--SabreBD (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It said "Scottish Gaelic" before and I challenge anyone to find a good ref that calls it "Scottish". I've worked with this language all of my working life and I only know of one person who insists on calling it that. But we only need to state it a few times in the lead, further down just "Gaelic" should suffice. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose your right it's only really referred to as Scottish outside of Scotland. I only meant in the info box where it says official language someone had put just Gaelic. Which could be quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is it referred to as "Scottish"? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic is the norm as far as I'm aware. I do think the Scottish parliament should change it to Scottish but, my preference adds no weight to this argument and it should therefore remain as Scottish Gaelic. Carson101 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In Scotland it is simply called "Gaelic". We have two other langauges, "Scots" and "English" and, "Scottish" would most likely refer to Scots. The Scottish parliament has no mandate to rename languages in any case. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Jim. In fact I'd go further: we never use the word "Scottish" on its own. We use "Scots" as the plural of "Scot" or as a noun referring to the Germanic language but "Scottish" is always an adjective as far as Scots are concerned, and not one which sounds right when used as a noun. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Right I understand we don't refer to it as Scottish in Scotland I made that clear in my reply. It is actually referred to as Scottish (not always) in America and other places. What we call it is irrelevant. Using Gaelic in the main article is fine however in the info box just simply putting Gaelic could confuse many people from outside Scotland as to wether they are talking about Scottish, Irish or Manx Gaelic. I actually use the term Scottish on it's own. I prefer it to Scot/Scots. I know other people who use it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Images yet again

Once again, this article is turning into a picture gallery, with the text being squeezed between photos. Does the article need more than one photo of the modern Glasgow waterline? Is there any need at all for a large picture of the Glasgow Cineworld, hardly one of the most elegant buildings? AllyD (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

None whatever. Ben MacDui 15:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I have reverted the recent changes as it is a MOS style issues. See the next thread on the Architecture section.--SabreBD (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Architecture

A recent addition added virtually all of the Architecture of Scotland article. This contained quite a lot of unsourced material and I would suggest had too much detail for this article. I was going to restore this after a revert to sort out the image issues above, but then I realised was going on. It is probably just worth considering the issues here first, given the already considerable length of the article. So, do we need an architecture section; how long should it be and with what emphasis (eg. medieval/modern?).--SabreBD (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• As I understand it, pasting article content from one place to another is improper, as it discards the edit history of the original source? That aside, no, the Scotland article is already more than long enough; there used to be a warning on edits to articles of this length, but it seems to have stopped appearing. AllyD (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Its only improper if you delete the original. In this case I think it is just inappropriate and does not fit with the WP:Summary style used in this article.--SabreBD (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to have been added to provide space to introduce the additional photos to the article. Some odd choices... Glasgow Science centre in a section on middle ages and Reformation architecture? Bizarre... no apparent connection between the photos either... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of countries that border only one other country

There is a discussion at the above talk page in which some contributors have expressed the view that Scotland and Wales should be excluded because they are not "independent sovereign states". Any views one way or the other? --TraceyR (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this a matter which can suitably be decided based on the general inclusion standards for the "List of countries..." articles? I'm sure this is a point they've had to discuss at some length before. Shimgray | talk | 21:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The origins of the Dal Riata

I'm a little worried that too much weight is being given to one authors interpretation of the origins of the Dal Riata. One book by Ewan Campbell where he postulates that the Dal Riata came from the islands and lands either side of the Irish sea rather than solely a migration from Ireland does not appear to be a strong enough reason to include this in the etymology section. I could understand it being included if this was a mainstream view amongst scottish historians. If someone can show references that this is now the case then I stand corrected, otherwiswe I don't believe that this book should be given so much weight in what is a very short section. Carson101 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. It also concerned me that the statement mentioned monks building monasteries before Roman intervention. I don't see how that is possible given that there were no monks in Ireland before the Romans arrived in Britain. Druids maybe, monks no. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A very good point Derek which I'm surprised that I and others did not pick up on. Carson101 (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should not be given undue weight. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Most historians now disregard the migration/invasion theory. There is absolutely no historical or archaeological evidence describing such an event. It was a creationist myth popularised by Gaelic kings in the middle ages to foster closer ties with Ireland. The culture may have spread from Ireland (via Spain) however the people had always been there. Indeed permanent human settlements were established in the Western Isles several thousand years before Ireland was even inhabited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The habit of some historians who still regard history as a single standalone subject that can be commanded and conquered from a desk rather than a multidisciplinary field which draws upon other data such as archeology, anthropology, genetic studies, linguistics etc etc never ceases to amaze me. A simple primer in Goidelic would suffice on its own to debunk any nothing that there was not South to North spread of something. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the fact is the Dal Riata did not come from Ireland. There language may have came from there although it may just be the older form of celtic language spoken in the British Isles (Brythonic being a Romanised version of it). Unorthodox perhaps but a solid theory none the less. As I said. There is no archaeological evidence to suggest there was a migration/invasion. How could genetic studies prove a migration theory. Scottish and Irish people along with Welsh and English all share very similar gene types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just that one statement "Whatever the fact is the Dal Riata did not come from Ireland" tends to make me dismiss any of your unorthadox theories out of hand. I'm also sure that you know that your unorthadox theories have no place here anyway. Carson101 (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the unorthodox theory. That's the opinion of the majority of modern day historians. My unorthodox theory was the one which questioned wether the goidelic branch of celtic language was merely a more ancient un-romanised form of celtic. And I know the Gaelic language theory would never be put on wikipedia. However the rejection of the migration/invasion of Irish tribes to Western Scotland is a widely accepted fact by as I said most modern day historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, people didn't just grow out of the ground. 15,000 years ago the whole of Scotland was covered in a thick blanket of ice and nobody lived there. At the very least people must have followed the ice sheet as it moved northwards. All peoples originated in Africa and ended up in their current places by migration (and possibly invasion if they were latecomers). So the Dal Riata must have walked there at some point. They cannot be an exception to the general rule unless they were teleported to their current position by God. Which is unlikely to say the least. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of Goidelic, any theory has to fit with other theories of the Proto-Indo-European tongue since Goidelic is thought to be a descendant of PIE. And current research indicates that PIE didn't start to split into daughter languages until about 6000 BC, at which time all the PIE speakers most likely lived around the Black Sea. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, some people will always look towards the most far fetched solution possible. Reliable sources... beyond that, I'm moving on before the Basques/Illyrians/Kurgans/Martians start making their inevitable appearance :) Akerbeltz (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know people don't spring up out the ground. I've used that statement many times myself when arguing with so-called Irish-Scots. However it's a scientific fact that Scotland was permanently habitated by humans at least 2,000 years before a permanent human settlement was founded in Ireland (Ireland was also covered in ice you know). Adding this evidence to the fact that the majority of the Kingdom of Dal Riada was in Scotland (as well as it's seat of power) the most logical conclusion to come to is that rather than a migration from Ireland to Scotland it was a cultural conversion. Probably helped by the fact that the Dal Riadans were isolated from the rest of Scotland by the Cairngorm mountains. Hence it would be far easier to trade with Ireland just 30 miles across the sea than to attempt to trade with the expansionist Picts. Naturally as centuries of trade took place cultural values would have been adopted from the Irish as well as their language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There are any number of reasons and examples where a former colony becomes more powerful than its ancestral home. The United States for one, so while it is of course notable that the Scottish Dalriada were more powerful than the Irish, it proves nothing in terms of movement. As in the US, it may simply have been that they possessed superior weaponry to the natives, or better agricultural techniques, faster horses, better crops whatever, allowing them to expand at the cost of the natives and soon commanding more territory (=power) than their Irish cousins. But why am I wasting my breath... Akerbeltz (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That fact alone would prove next to nothing. However as I said Scotland was inhabited first. It's far more likely that Dal Riada was a Scottish kingdom that expanded into Ireland. I believe there is old Irish documents that refer to the Dal Riada in Ireland as Cruithin (a name they also used to refer to the Caledonians). I also remember that in Irish documents from the middles ages the Dal Riada have no recorded family ties with any of the Irish gaelic tribes. The evidence against an Ireland to Scotland migration is staggering. Frankly I question why you seem so adamant to reject these facts and continue with some popularised myth created as I said in the middle ages to foster closer relations with Ireland. It was also believed for centuries that Kenneth McAlpin was a Gael who conquered Pictland. However ancient documents in Paris proved that to be false. Kenneth McAlpin was in fact a Pict. If there is solid evidence to suggest a migration/invasion then please by all means enlighten me of it. However since there is literally none I question why it is put in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons, one, I don't kick a model into touch without a lot of solid evidence and two, I'm primarily a linguist. There is no way on earth you can derive the Goidelic lingtuistic continuum in a North-to-South movement. It just doesn't work on so many levels. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the language. I'm talking about the people. It claims the Dal Riada migrated from Ireland. That is as un-pheasable to me as North-to-South movement of Goidelic languages is to you. I even said earlier in this debate that a cultural conversion of the Dal Riadans was the most likely conclusion. The language and beliefs the the Irish Gaels spread to the peoples inhabiting the Western Isles of Scotland.

In a phrase much quoted by archaeologists, if there was an invasion or mass migration from Ireland into Scotland, they came without luggage. Modern thinking accepts that contacts existed among the peoples who lived on both sides of the short channel between County Antrim and South-west Scotland since the Bronze Age. The formal enlargement of the Antrim Dal Riata, to that of one incorporating the lands in Argyll wasn't an invasion or mass migration but a formalising of what was already happening on the ground, ie cultural and economic almagamation albeit with the Antrim ruling class in charge. These ideas, in my opinion anyway, stand up to much more scrutiny than the notion of invasions, mass migrations, etc. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Well how could it be the Antrim ruling class. If the seat of power (and indeed the majority of the kingdom) was in Scotland. Is it not more logical that it was a Scottish ruling class that expanded into Ireland. As I have said the Irish referred to the Dal Riada in Ireland as Cruithin. A term also used for the Caledonians. Isn't it possible that this word was used to describe the people who lived in the land across the sea (Scotland). Just because they shared a cultural similarity with the Irish tribes does not mean the Dal Riadans were in fact an Irish tribe (or indeed ruled by the Irish) themselves. You could go even futher. The term 'foreign gael' was used by Irish scholars to describe people in the Western Isles of Scotland. Historians reckon this was due to the Viking settlement of the isles. However another theory could be that the Irish were in fact referencing the original inhabitants of the Isles (the Dal Riadans). After all they were Gaels but not Irish. And if this term was a reference to the vikings then why was it not used for the Viking settlers in Dublin and other parts of Ireland where Vikings awere simply referred to as Norse and their offspring referred to as Irish/Gaelic in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gall-Ghaidheal term doesn't appear until much later. And I don't have time for this but feel free to take it up with the archeological establishment, publish a paper, whatever. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That still wouldn't explain why descendants of Gaelic/Viking intermarriage in Ireland were not named Gall-Ghaidheal though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr IP, It would really be nice if you would just type ~~~~ after your comments and then your IP number will come up without the bot having to find it. It makes replying to you much easier. Ta Bill Reid | (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the map - mayhap because there were fewer Vikings? Just plot the density of Norse-Gaelic placenames from Sutherland to Ireland, it might give you a hint. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Really ? I would have thought there were more Norsemen in Ireland due to their settlement of what became major population centres. Sorry about the tilde thing. I would not be able to spot a Norse Gaelic placename I'm afraid Akerbeltz. I'll take you word for it though.195.194.215.249 (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

In a way that's both shocking and symptomatic... look for anything that contains the elements -pool/bul/pul, -bost, -said, -shader/siadar, -dal/dale, -ness/nis, -borgh/borg, -vik/wick/uig/bhig, -bhagh/way, -ay/ey/oy, -val/bhal, -stein/staoin Akerbeltz (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Scots invented football?

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Scottish aristocrats have alredy in the 15th century played football under well defined rules, the research found the Museum of Scottish football, according to the daily The Times. Until now it was believed that the earliest forms of football before the game for the 19th century in England was introduced clear rules, reduced to a brutal battle many players around the ball. 78.2.56.67 (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of references to support the claim that the Scots invented football, such as It's official - Scotland invented football and Scots invented beautiful game. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Much as we might like the irony of Scotland inventing football since forms of the game have been played in Europe at least since the 12th century, it is a difficult claim. I guess it revolves around the issue of what is an organised game and since we don't seem to have the rules that is a difficult point to prove. Newspapers and other sources often dig up this kind of issue, especially during times like a world cup, but they are probably best treated as unreliable for this kind of thing. A reliable source would be something like a history of football or games that covers the medieval era.--SabreBD (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

How about Vocabula first published in 1636? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean as a set of codified rules? It might be possible to find a source that says that I guess. However, I don't think there is much a case for "inventing football" as such.--SabreBD (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no 'inventor' of football. Anyone can think of kicking a circular object around, it has probably been done for thousands of years. However the modern game of Association football was invented in England, that is a certifiable fact.Ben200 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Renewed prosperity as our cities were bombed?

In the first and second world war section the last paragraph starts with, ""The Second World War brought renewed prosperity—as well as bombing of cities by the Luftwaffe."". I may be missing something and there is a book reference at the end of the paragraph. It is perhaps my fault that maybe I'm not reading it properly but that sentence does not appear to make sense. Does war and bombing by the Luftwaffe = prosperity? Anyone else puzzled by that sentence? Carson101 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be something like: "The Second World War brought renewed prosperity, despite extensive bombing of cities by the Luftwaffe."--SabreBD (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled as to how a world war would bring prosperity to the country, unless perhaps it was the manufacturing capacity rising that contributed to it in some way. Carson101 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep that is exactly what happened.--SabreBD (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

UK legislature

I assume that, since this is an encyclopedia, that facts are important. I had added the UK legislature to the infobox so that it reads "Legislature: Scottish Parliament, UK Parliament". Can't see anything wrong with that. How bizarre it was that an editor simply undone by edit. I have undone his. Just thought I would write this onto the talk page. Joseph1990 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The UK legislation is already there in the info box. You need to make a case for any change here and read 'WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 23:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not within the infox. Scotland is a constituent part of the UK, it's legislature is the UK Parliament as well as the Scottish Parliament. How in any way is that not factual or contentious?Joseph1990 (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The info box makes it clear its a devolved government and in the context of the article I think its enough as it is. Also the template seems not to support "legislature2" However its not a major issue, so see what other editors think and abide by the consensus. --Snowded ^TALK 23:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why have the Scottish Parliament as it's legislature as you say yourself that it is obvious that it is devolved government. This is when Wikipedia breaks down, when facts are negotiable. Scotland, as a constituent part of the UK, which sends Members of Parliament to participate within the House of Commons, has as it's legislature the UK Parliament. It is completely bizarre of you to say firstly, that it is already within the infobox, secondly that it is a contentious statement that Scotland's legislature is also the UK Parliament and should paradoxicaly be left from it. If members of the flat earth society went to an article describing the physical features of the Earth and contested that the Earth was round, would you say "We must remove all references to the Earth being spherical since it is a contested statement." Plainly not.Joseph1990 (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Also i'll add this. I see on your Userpage that you are Welsh and are interested in Welsh articles. It would seem that it is the consensus to include the UK Parliament as it is on the Welsh wikipedia article also. Why have you removed the reference to the UK Parliament in the Scottish article but not the Welsh article? Joseph1990 (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the British monarch, British Prime Minister & the British Parliament doesn't belong in this article's infobox 'nor' the infoboxes of Northern Ireland, England & Wales. No more so, then the Canadian monarch, Canadian Prime Minister & Canadian Parliament belongs in the 13 Canadian provinces & territories articles infoboxes (I note that Elizabeth II is in the Canadian provinces & territories articles infoboxes, however). GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well after reading the prior archived talk pages the consensus is that the Prime Minister does indeed belong within the infobox. However that is not what this discussion is about, we are talking about a reference to the UK Parliament within the infobox, the Canadian province of Alberta includes the Canadian Parliament. Why this is such a huge issue here is warped and nonsensical and just shows that their is a tremendous amount of POV pushing here. Joseph1990 (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Alberta infobox includes the Canadian Parliament 'only' in the form of showing Alberta's seats in that Parliament. I'd have no probs with that kinda setup here & at N.Ireland, England & Wales. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You all do a lot of excellent work to keep Wikipedia going, it wouldn't be as excellent as it is without you people. What is frankly, bizarre, is that something factually accurate and innocuous as having UK Parliament within the legislature section of the infobox prompts this whole discussion, it is ludicrous. I respect the fact that if someone was making a clearly controversial and disputable edit then that would warrant such discussion, but I can't see how it could be and to argue otherwise is not encyclopedic and is not I think NPOV. Joseph1990 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I recommend having the UK Parliament shown, but only in the manner of showing how many seats Scotland has in that Parliament (i.e. the Alberta example). GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Scotland not the UK, there UK Parliament should not be included just as we don't include the EU Parliament. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What a piece of flawed logic; are you to say that the Parliament of the UK to not preside over Scottish law and governance? Can we please have some notice for the incredible ludicrousness this brings up. There's an elephant in the room watching Braveheart. --George2001hi (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The logic is really not that complex and you might find it helpful to your case to assume that the issue has been discussed before and that editors acting in good faith have reached some form of consensus rather than launching into ad hominem remarks. There are many parts of the world with legislatures at state/region/province etc. level and (as I recall the discussions) most of them don't also add information about the sovereign state/meta-state as readers will generally assume that such bodies also have a role. The UK may be unusual in that devolved government is relatively new in some constituent countries and largely poorly understood in the one that has no such assembly. I just looked up three "state" articles (Bavaria, Georgia and Western Australia) and could see no obvious references to federal/national etc. premiers or parliaments. I am by no means familiar with this issue internationally but if you can provide evidence that this is not in fact the norm elsewhere that might be persuasive. Ben MacDui 22:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I had no intention nor any direction, for that matter, of causing offence; but I do feel that nationalism is quite centralised in this article (e.g., the last paragraph of the lead). On to the matter, the comparison of Scotland to the states of the U.S., Germany and Australia is in fact flawed because of the fact that the UK isn't a federation nor has a written constitution to reaffirm its regions' level of independency without some legal controversy. The examples have absolute law and no questions are left because of explicitness of the possible acts of government. This ambiguity amongst the definite superiority and order of the assembly/parliaments of the U.K. is a full-enough reason to add the proposed. --George2001hi (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That paragraph strikes me as being a reasonably neutral summary of the facts, but you are welcome to suggest improvements. What is that you think is not explicit enough about the Scotland Act 1998? I am not aware of any obvious ambiguities. What may be different is the potential instability of the relationship between the UK and its constituent countries, not the lack of a written constitution at UK level. Ben MacDui 11:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)