Talk:Scotland/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Politics - main and futher

Could someone please point to the discussion forming the consensus, and explain why they feel the Euro link is required - what does it add? Thanks/wangi 19:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The standard usage across articles is to link to the relevant subarticle, ie Politics of Scotland. Other articles are linked to from the sub-article. The "Further" links are just clutter: but if we must link to "Further" articles we should at least be consistent and include Europe. --Mais oui! 19:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain has removed the Politics of Europe link for the umpteenth time, saying: "the Europe article has no relevance to Scotland". That is a simple untruth: Scotland is part of Europe and a part of European politics, eg. we take part in direct elections to the European Parliament, and our MEPs are members of Europe-wide political parties. --Mais oui! 10:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I find it strange that you actively remove a valid article (Politics of the UK), but insist on including a badly written stub. The Europe article doesn't even mention the things you listed above! Astrotrain 11:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that Scotland remains part of the UK with many important powers reserved by Westminster and most people in Scotland continue vote for parties that are organized on a British basis a link to (Politics of the UK) is clearly potentially useful to people who are unfamiliar with Scotland. Benarty 11:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Personally I do not care. However I found it very strange that a "discussion" was taking place in the edit summary field and people were pointing back to consensus on the talk page, which doesn't exist. Come on guys, try harder to work together, yeah? After all it's such a trivial issue... /wangi 13:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate State and Jurisdiction

"Scotland continues to constitute a separate state and jurisdiction in Public International Law."

This statement was removed from the introductory paragraph by a user earlier today, with the justification that Scotland is fully part of the UK. Whilst that is indeed the case I don't see the above statement contradicting that Scotland is fully a part of the UK, but that Scotland operates as a separate legal state and jurisdiction (by virtue of Scots Law - the Scottish legal system), which is clearly the case is it not? Globaltraveller 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• While Scotland does have its own legal system- I am not sure that this makes this statement necessarily true. The linked article isn't much help. Astrotrain 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• No, the Scottish legal system is merely a matter of domestic law and means nothing under international law. Public international law deals with the relationships between sovereign states. Scotland currently has no power to enter into international treaties or become a member of the UN. Louisiana has its own distinct legal system within the U.S., for example, but it is just like Scotland in that it lacks the ablity to do what sovereign nation-states do. --Jules7484 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• No-one is saying anything about Scotland being able to enter into treaties or join the UN - that is, entirely, not the point and is conflating two separate issues - the issue of legality and the issue of sovereignty. That statement does not say anything about Scotland having sovereignty - it does not betray the fact that Scotland is a part of the UK. What it does say is that clearly Scotland is a separate "legal" state from the rest of the UK (legal state as opposed to sovereign state) and a separate jurisdiction (over which Scots Law applies). Globaltraveller 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• As phrased, the sentence in dispute does imply something other than Scotland having a distinct legal system. But referring to international law, the statement implies that it is a matter of external and international relations as opposed to a unique organisation of domestic law. I would suggest a phrase such as, "Within the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, Scotland maintains a unique legal system." The reference to public international law is precisely what confuses the issues of internal jurisdiction in the U.K. with international jurisdiction and sovereignty. To use the comparison of the State of Louisiana again, the State of Louisiana constitutes its own jurisdiction for the purpose of civil and criminal law; it does not, however, have any distinction from the rest of the U.S. that provides any meaning under international law. --Jules7484 16:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Globaltraveller, you are right when you mention the political and jurisdictional uniqueness of Scotland versus the rest of the united Kingdom. As relating to the UN, in a paper published a few years ago, it has started to recognize sub-state differences when they are different from the larger political order constituting the internationally recognized state. But the statement is misleading and inappropriate. The treaties signed by Scotland with England, or with Scotland and Norway, become part of the UK state papers. The legal order of Scotland is part of the UK and not forming any recognized part of international order. By your reasoning, the differences of the respective American states would also form part of the international legal order, but they do not. Even in Canada, where the provinces, especially Quebec, have some aspects of a sovereign state, like drafting some treaties, those powers are an arrangement of the larger state order, not international law. It is also subject to the same. The UN is clear in this. The statement should be removed and re-worder to be clear. (Gary Joseph 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

This all seems pretty clear---for the purposes of public international law specifically, Scotland does not constitute a separate state, because it can not engage in those things which public international law consists of, namely negotiating treaties. In many ways, membership in the United Nations is definitive of "separate state for the purpose of public international law"; if two countries share a UN seat, enter into treaties and protocols jointly, and so on, they are for the purposes of public international law the same state. I agree that the Quebec/Canada situation is remarkably similar. --Delirium 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have amended the introduction based on the facts. It really can't be made much clearer than that. Scotland is a state - and fulfils all the basic functions of a state. It is also a jurisdiction. It is not a sovereign state, but the quotation that it does not enjoy direct membership of the UN and EU, whether it is a sovereign state or not, is factually misleading nonsense. Whether Louisiana constitutes something similar or not, or Quebec, is irrelevant in this regard, but the fact they are part of federal states has a great deal to do with their constitutional positions. Scotland is not part of a federal state, thus comparing Quebec and Louisiana with Scotland is also factually misleading. --Globaltraveller 22:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let's stop nitpicking over analogies. While the US states or Canadian provinces aren't exactly analogous to Scotland, the comparison is valid on the issue concerned here. None can enter into treaties with foreign nations, none qualify for admission to the UN, etc. By mentioning "Public International Law" in the quote above, Globaltraveller is making the statement very misleading. In reality, Scotland is just a constituent state of the UK with a moderate degree of "home rule" and its own domestic legal system. For the record (and for the purpose of establishing consensus) I agree with Delirium, Gary and Jules above.--WilliamThweatt 01:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is shaping up into an edit war. I will no longer argue this point and will not, and have not, made any changes. Globaltraveller, you can argue "the facts" but they are on the side of the rest of us. I went to the UN's website and also read several international law papers posted on the web, including one from a UK lawyer specializing in constitutional and international law, and Scotland does not constitute a separate "state" in international public law. That is reserved only for those units that fulfill the tenets of international public law ( US, UK, Canada, Mozambique, etc). Scotland does however constitute a separate “jurisdiction” because of its law- Scots law. This is the same in Canada, in respect to Quebec because of the latter’s civil code. Louisiana is also similar because it has some civil code tradition, because of its French connections. It is not irrelevant that these two sub-federal units are compared to one in unitary state because they all three have the civil code tradition in some form or another.

Thus Scotland has a personality in both public and private international law, but in the former is subsumed with the UK for all other purposes except legal jurisdiction. Even the UN’s International Law Commission defines what constitutes a “state” in international law and Scotland does not fulfill that. Adding the term “state” in any public international description in reference to Scotland is wrong and misleading.--Gary Joseph 04:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"Adding the term “state” in any public international description in reference to Scotland is wrong and misleading". Is it? Then you'd better tell that to the editors over at the English law article:

-EXTRACT BEGINS-

The United Kingdom is divided into states each with a separate legal system and jurisdiction. For the purposes of Public International Law, a "state" is the nation given de jure recognition so that it may, inter alia, enter into a treaty with another nation. But, for the purposes of Conflict of Laws, Beale defines a "state" as follows (at § 2.1/2.5):

The civilized portion of the earth is divided up into certain units of territory in each of which a particular law proper to that territory alone prevails, and that territory is for legal purposes a unit.

§ 2.2. What Determines the State. — It has been seen that the existence of separate legal units within the dominions of a single sovereign is a fact, the result of historical accidents.

Beale offers this example of historical accidents at § 2.2:

"...when Hawaii was annexed to the United States it remained a separate legal unit; but when Wales was conquered by England it became a part of the legal unit, England."

Some jurisdictions such as Australia use the term "law unit" and some authors use the word "country", believing that these words are less confusing than the use of the word "state". The majority view is that "state" is the best term. Hence, for Conflict purposes, England and Wales constitute a single state. This is important for a number of reasons, one of the more significant being the distinction between nationality and domicile. Thus, an individual would have a British nationality and a domicile in one of the constituent states, the latter law defining all aspects of a person's status and capacity. Dicey and Morris (p26) list the separate states in the British Islands. "England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, and Sark. . . is a separate country in the sense of the conflict of laws, though not one of them is a State known to public international law." But this may be varied by statute. The United Kingdom is one state for the purposes of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Great Britain is a single state for the purposes of the Companies Act 1985.

-EXTRACT ENDS-

I am supportive of Globaltraveller's general stance here, but unlike him I do not think that we can re-add the link to the State (law) article until we have a solid reference. The above Beale quote may help, and I am intrigued by the bit about "But this may be varied by statute. The United Kingdom is one state for the purposes of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Great Britain is a single state for the purposes of the Companies Act 1985." Now, if GB (which is not a sovereign state) is a state (law) for the purposes of the Companies Act, then surely Scotland is a state for the purposes of all dedicated Scottish statutes and statutory orders (of which there are thousands)?

It would seem that Scotland (and E&W; and NI) certainly is a state for the purposes of private international law, but to use the word "state" for public international law may be too confusing, because people assume that "state" always means "sovereign state", which is of course not the case. A state is simply a political and/or legal unit (in Scotland's case, both): some states are sovereign, others are not (Scotland ain't, which is why I support making that explicit, which was done with the recent addition of the final sentence of the intro: "Scotland is not, however, a sovereign state and enjoys neither direct membership of the United Nations nor the European Union"). --Mais oui! 06:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure I follow Mais oui!'s reasoning, I do agree with the result of his/her edit. It avoids the use of the ambigious "state" in regards to Public International Law while properly pointing out the fact that Scotland is not a sovereign state eligiable for membership in the UN or EU. I'd also like to suggest that we must keep in mind for whom we are writing. The vast majority of readers that will come here to read about Scotland will not have advanced degrees in Political Science and will not be familiar Beale or Dicey & Morris, etc or with the subtleties of the use of the word "state" in the circles of Political Science & International Law. (If they do, then they will already understand the position of Scotland, anyway). We need to keep the article as non-technical (without sacrificing accuracy) as possible in order for the layman to understand and I think the current wording (Mais oui!'s version) does just that.--WilliamThweatt 17:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The point cannot be altered, Scotland is a state, and fulfils all the accepted and legal definitions of such. I can only assume the excitement of some of the above contributors is due to the conflation of the definition of state with that of "American State". You simply cannot extrapolate that view to the rest of the world and expect it to hold. Comparing anywhere else with Scotland, in these terms, is downright misleading. The issue is what constitutes sovereignty, not what constitutes a state (the evidence for that stacks up in Scotland's favour). Whilst we do have to keep the article non-techincal, I take issue with the view, that because not all contributors have advanced political science degrees, thus we have to keep definitions to those which are "cosy", "nice" and "generally accepted" amongst the populace, but which betray the proper position. This is an encyclopaedic article, to reinforce fact, not to reinforce assumptions. Nevertheless I am prepared to accept Mais oui!'s current revisions until more concrete and more explicit evidence can be found. Globaltraveller 11:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No Puppet King.

It is one of the oldest and most tiresome myths of Scottish history that Edward I deliberately foisted John Balliol on the Scots as a puppet king. It is totally untrue. Balliol was chosen by a full feudal court, presided over by the English king, because he had the strongest claim in terms of the law of primogeniture. For further discussion of this subject see the talk pages of William Wallace (The Great Cause and other Matters), and Robert Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale (Edward's Ambition).

Rcpaterson 23:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously. What's your point? -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought the point was transparent. I offered the above by way of explanation for my removal of the reference to Edward I installing a 'puppet' king. I see that this silly and altogether misleading point has now been reinstated; not by you, I assume, since you take my remarks as 'obvious.' I'm only interested in historical accuracy and not at all in playing politics, or in dealing with wounded vanity. I will edit this one last time, with my more accurate wording; beyond that I have no further interest. For additional information I refer you to the talk pages I mentioned above.

Rcpaterson 02:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no intention, as I said previously, of playing politics here, but who would have thought that a minor correction of fact would have descended into a schoolboyish farce! It is patently obvious that I am dealing here with a petty-minded autodidact, with only the most superficial understanding of Scottish history. I am making no more amendments to this piece; but for those who are interested, and with eyes to see and minds to understand, here, in a fuller form, are the reasons for my alteration.

The Great Cause

In 1290, following the death of the Maid of Norway, the grandaughter and only successor to King Alexander III, a number of claimants for the vacant Scottish throne came forward. With no clear way of settling the issue, and with the country threatening to descend into dynastic war, the Guardians asked Edward I, the English king, to arbitrate. There was no surprise in this: Scotland and England for many years had enjoyed good relations, and Edward was known to have arbitrated with fairness in a quarrel in Continental Europe. However, before considering the matter Edward insisted that all of the Claimants recognize him as Lord Paramount of Scotland, the feudal superior of the realm. This claim had been made before, most recently by Henry III, Edward's father, and rejected. After some initial resistance, Edward's demand was accepted, whereupon a feudal court was summoned to meet in the castle hall at Berwick-upon-Tweed. Here the whole question of the succession was settled in a fair, open and legal manner. Both John Balliol of Galloway and Robert Bruce of Annandale, as the leading claimants, were allowed to appoint forty arbiters each, to which number Edward added twenty-four of his own. It was these arbiters who decided in favour of John Balliol, because he had the superior claim as the descendant of the eldest daughter of David of Huntingdon; even twenty-nine of Bruce's own arbiters voted in his favour. Finally, on 17 November 1292, Edward gave full judgement in open court. The English king's later use-and misuse-of the feudal concessions he had gained in the process sholuld not detract from these simple facts. The myth, and it is a myth, that John Balliol was a 'puppet monarch' deliberately forced on the Scots as an act of English manipulation was given shape at a parliament held in St. Andrews in 1309, the first to be summoned by King Robert Bruce, the grandson of the Claimant. Rcpaterson 23:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that full and interesting description. I still think that it should be in the article rather than here though. To edit Wikipedia it is not enough to be knowledgeable. You need to be persistent, tactful and willing to explain what you are doing. If that means playing politics then so be it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Should there not be proper coverage of this sort of thing somewhere else, and not just a brief survey in the general Scotland article? --Doric Loon 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. I think, on reflection that some of the remarks I made above tumbled into outright grumpiness; but I found it frustrating in the extreme that an edit I made to clarify a simple point of fact was reversed on two occasions for no apparent reason. I am very new to this whole project, and simply been spending some sleepless hours correcting the large number of errors in items touching on the history of Scotland. I assumed this would be a fairly neutral exercise, as I confine myself to matters of fact, and always give an explanation for any changes I make on the relevant talk page. It has been suggested that I might write complete articles; but if straightforward amendments are subject to 'sabotage' what a risk it would be to attempt something more ambitious! What I most definitely do not want to do is to embark on the labours of Sysiphus, rolling the stone up the hill only to see it roll back down again. I should be able to 'play politics', but it is not in my nature.

The Great Cause is touched on in a variety of Wikipedia pieces, two of which I mentioned above (William Wallace and Robert Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale). You will also find it in the History of Scotland, and there is a summary piece on the Competitors for the Crown of Scotland. It is, I agree though, worthy of fuller treatment on its own: to include it here would run the danger of distorting the pace of this article. Just remember one thing: despite what it says on the main page John Balliol was the legitimate King of Scotland and not an English puppet. Thank you for showing an interest. Rcpaterson 23:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the "puppet king" allegation was still in place, I've replaced it by a shortened version of the more neutral approach outlined above, which is supported by my reading of Scotland, A New History by Michael Lynch. "Scotland's nobility" is an inexact reference to "the Guardians" who had already approached Edward I for advice on the succession, and had a treaty with him in hopes of a dynastic union ruling the two kingdoms before the death of the Maid of Norway brought crisis. All too much detail for this article, but improvements welcome. ..dave souza, talk 20:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Would anyone have any objections if the first line was altered to read:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba; pronounced (IPA: [ˈaɫapə]), approximately "ALA-puh") ...

The first line of the article about Wales has a pronunciation guide like this. - File:Icons-flag-scotland.png calum 13:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally i think that kind of guide (IPA + a general phonetic explanation ) is the best thing to have - am i alone in finding the IPA completely and utterly useless ? siarach 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The IPA is brilliant. You do have to learn it, but you only have to do that once and then you have it for all languages and all situations you encounter from then on. It's FAR easier, more consistent and more helpful than other approximations, because everyone understands the same thing by it. For example, the German word for "love" is Liebe. If you look in the traditional beginners' books or phrase books, you will find the pronunciation given as lee-bur or something similar. That is because English people do not pronounce an <r> at the end of a word and the way THEY deal with -ur in a word like neighbour sounds a bit like the way German deals with -e. But if you happen to be Scots, you are lost. You will understand the <r> as a consonant and wonder why it should pronounced when it is not in the spelling. Precisely we Scots who have always suffered from England-centred transcriptions are liberated by the IPA. It SHOULD be taught in schools, but to anyone who doesn't know it and wants to progress in their general knowledge I would say, make the effort, half an hour will do it, and you have it for the rest of your life. --Doric Loon 21:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Where would one go about learning the IPA? The wikipedia entry isn't so great for newcomers; or at least, wasn't the last time I checked. Canæn 07:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the IPA can be used to make either a broad or a narrow transcription. Narrow involves a larger number of obscure-looking symbols, and is unnecessary in most instances. In this case, the [ł] could perfectly well be rendered with /l/, which would be less scary for beginners. The phonetic realisation of /l/ in Gaelic really shouldn't be indicated here. --Doric Loon 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

National Anthem?

Forgive me if I've missed a decision Gents, or if some piece of legislation has been passed at home deciding the issue (I'm on hiatus in the United States) But is Scotland the Brave now the de-jure/de-facto national anthem?

As far as I knew in it was God Save the Queen (De-Jure UK Anthem) Then Flower of Scotland / Scotland The Brace / Scots Whae Hae (Etc).

Can anyone correct me if I've missed a decision?

Kaenei 17:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not missed anything - TBH I don't know why that is listed - Flower of Scotland would hold more water on the basis that it is most used at an international level, but there is no official anthem, and that should surely be noted in the box. SFC9394 18:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that should read Flower of Scotland, with a note that it isn't offical and that there are others - I may be wrong but I think Rugby uses a different song. I always consider Flower of Scotland to be the national anthem. 82.41.11.43 10:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes - please change this! (Officialy, God Save the Queen is the national anthem of the UK and therefore of Scotland - but I don't think too many Scots would agree with this. Rugby uses Flower of Scotland and as far as I'm aware, so do the majority of Scots. This whole thing has come about because some members of the Scottish Parliament say Flower of Scotland is a dirge and we shouldn't use it. Maybe that's true but everyone I know would sing Flower of Scotland. If I know one thing it's that Scotland the Brave is NOT the Scottish national anthem - I don't even think most people know the words!

Might I suggest something along the lines of; NATIONAL ANTHEM: God Save the Queen (UK De-Jure) Multiple unofficial Anthems (De-Facto)

I would be willing to try my hand at creating the article for the unofficial anthems if anyone thinks that could be a worthwile wording or such. Just an idea.

Kaenei 23:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)