Talk:Kingdom of Scotland

Fib
Pictish Fib was one of the predecessors to the Kingdom of Scotland. Fib does not have a separate article in Wikipedia but is a redirect to and is covered, briefly, under the article for the modern council of area of Fife. The two entities cover much of the same geographical area though modern Fife may be larger. See also Picts.

If you believe you have a case to alter this long-noted and stable element in this article, please make it here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Flag
When did the modern blue flag of Scotland replace the light blue? does anybody know. --Aaron106 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the light blue flag was never really a thing, per se. There was no official color for the flag of the Kingdom of Scotland, in fact for most of its history there was no official flag. The Saint Andrew's Cross flag was a fairly recent thing brought about towards the later stages of the Kingdom of Scotland's existence (15th-16th century) and as far as I know it was only some reference to painting (or marking) the uniforms of troops representing the Kingdom of Scotland with a Saint Andrew's cross in order to distinguish them in some conflict (which I think was the English Civil War). Blue was a fairly expensive and rare dye at the time so it likely would rarely have been used for flags and banners and whatnot in a relatively poor and peripheral northern European kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.74.77 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Scotland's flag is the 2nd oldest in the world. Hardly recent. And it was used before then unofficially too. Caidey 18:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

“Semi-constitutional” monarchy?
The UK is the textbook example of a ceremonial monarchy (“crowned republic”) - semi-constitutional means the King still holds significant practical executive power, which He doesn’t? 120.23.144.62 (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The King still has significant powers like completely removing parliament. He also is required to sign in EVERY law so he can decide to just. Not sign a law. He has a lot of powers. But, he doesn't abuse them often. Caidey 18:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the UK is often cited as the prime example of a constitutional monarchy. Why you have stated this fact in an article about the Kingdom of Scotland - a predecessor of the UK by nearly 100 years, which, in its own time, was noted by commentators to have a significantly more autocratic political system than did England - is something of a mystery to me, however. Even England in this period was, arguably, a semi-constitutional monarchy given the lack of a Prime Minister and thus the monarch acting effectively as an executive, but was considered far more of a "constitutional monarchy" than was Scotland. Vexedelbasy (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Citation Style
User:GoldRingChip, you appear to be improving the references, which is very valuable, but also changing the citation style to use sfn/harvnb. This too could be beneficial, but not if the article ends up with a hotchpotch of styles, and per WP:CITEVAR Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change.

To be clear, I would support the use of that citation style if there is editor consensus, as it has some very clear benefits in terms of article source readability, but only if the intention is to change all references to sfn/harvnb (which is a lot of work). Could you say what you intend, and then we can test if there is consensus for the change. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thank for pinging me on this! So I don't want to violate consensus or create a weird inconsistency of styles in a single article. Furthermore, I have no personal preferences, and I'm always glad to format an article in whatever way other editors like! The Mackie refs were a bit messed up so I fixed them, but made them into Harvnb/Sfn while I was there, thinking maybe I would do that with the rest of the refs, too.  But I see that the refs in this article are already nicely formatted without that style and that they shorten with the title, not just the author(s), which is great!  SO—! I would be willing to slog through the entire article and convert it all to a shortened reference format, but only if you think it's a good idea (i.e. with consensus) and if it were possible to maintain it with the title. Your thoughts? —GoldRingChip 11:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. That is great. So my own view is that sfn style is better and your offer to do that is very much appreciated. However, I think we should wait to see if other editors object. The main advantage of shortened footnotes are (1) that the source is much more readable for editors and (2) that it becomes much easier to spot duplicate references in an article when all the sources are in a list at the end of the end of the article. The principle disadvantage is that editors unfamiliar with the style will often insert the old reference style, but that is easily fixed on a case by case basis. Anyway, let's see if there are any objections. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, then. How about you let me know if/when you think it's been long enough to gather other editor feedback and I'll hold off until then. Just ping me, then. —GoldRingChip 20:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@ 89.196.137.45 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)