Talk:Scotland/Archive 32

Wording of legislation
The literature cited, the most reliable source types available, indicate a clear and unambiguous consensus that supports the current wording. The word "undermine" is also used by multiple scholarly sources, e.g.: There is also mention in of "alarm bells". What is the nature of this "alarm"?. Without further context it sounds like a dislike of what mainstream scholarship says about the topic.Cambial — foliar❧ 01:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 'Undermine' is a loaded word as it implies underhandedness on the part of the UK Government; it's better to use more neutral terms, such as 'significantly constrained'. We could also quote the word directly, as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 does. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not loaded. It does indicate plainly that the actions of the UK government were, as you say "underhanded" (or, as Collins has it "often by indirect methods". That is why the six experts who authored the latter publication used the word, because as they and other scholars describe in detail, the method of of constraint is indirect (and as also pointed out in the literature it was effected by disingenuously claiming in the blurb of the white paper and in parliamentary debate the opposite to reality). It's appropriate to reflect what scholarship says. Whether some believe that puts the UK government in a negative light is irrelevant. It's neutral reflection of the sources. It's not avoid anything which might imply "underhandedness" or indeed any quality that is readily described in the literature. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is loaded. If you really want to use the word then just directly quote one of the sources which uses it. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Despite its cheek, or lack of awareness to the irony of the edit comment,* I was content to leave this series of changes in place without reponse, the article wording having become satisfactory and the subsequent edit having addressed the ludicrous WP:CITEOVERKILL.


 * These edits today slow-warringly restore the red flag of the excess of sources and loaded wording. The Scottish government contend that the act undermines devolution, the UK government deny this. If we baldly state one of these views in the body of the article, we appear to be taking sides, undermining the credibility of the article. Assuming it is the case and that the sources are representative, simply adding the qualification that (along the lines of) “the weight of expert opinion on the matter indicates that the effect of the act (is to)....” gives authority that that section of the article isn’t just a hacked-in opinion piece, without the requirement on the reader to plough through all the sources and make a judgement thereof.


 * Please restore the status quo ante, before today's edit, while this discussion is ongoing.


 * * “BRD is an optional essay. If you think it can be improved, the appropriate action is to edit, not to revert": “option” BRD may be but it is one that fosters co-operation and consensus and I only had to take it having already “act(ed) to... edit, not revert”, to a straight rebuff
 * Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Scottish government contend that the act undermines devolution, the UK government deny this. This is not relevant.
 * Wikipedia seeks to be detached from such arguments, and represents the contents of mainstream scholarship. The wide variety of mainstream scholarship cited supports the function of the legislation described presently. If you are aware of peer-reviewed literature or other high-quality academic works that state differently, please bring it to everyone's attention. I'm reasonably familiar with the literature and I've not seen a shred of evidence that this is in competition with alternative theories nor controversial within the field. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the excessive references (three is fine) and rephrased the sentence to quote "undermines", as I originally suggested. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, those changes now make the wording "detached from such arguments, and represents the contents of mainstream scholarship". Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I should say that I've just given the whole section a bit of a rejig with the aim of improving its structure, but it doesn't massively affect the content in question except that I've condensed it a little. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't falsely suggest that the contents of constitutional law textbooks are only "academic opinion". The evident desire to avoid representing the relevant literature appropriately looks increasingly like special pleading. You state above that the wording used across much of the literature "implies underhandedness on the part of the UK Government". I'm not sure that's true, but assuming it is true hypothetically, the proper response here is - so what? There is no reason to avoid description of the facts surrounding legislative mechanics simply because it indicates something about the government. Together with the of relevant content in the citations (in the highest quality sources, yet also those not readily available to the general reader), this has the air of special pleading for censorship. The indirect or "underhand" method used to achieve constitutional reform is not only described in numerous sources, but even makes its way into the title of a journal article "Constitutional Reform by Legal Transplantation". I'll start an rfc to gather wider input on whether we can use the verb "undermine", as is used multiple times over in eleven or so academic sources, in wikivoice. <i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 01:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The edit summary you've linked to explains exactly why the content was deleted – you used ten sources to back up a single point when two or three do the job. Their quality was not the issue, only the number. The word "undermine" is currently quoted in the passage, so I'm not sure an RfC is needed. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I referred not to the removal of sources but to the deletion of sentences in the quotes in the textbook and journal citations; coincidentally the same sentences in the textbook that state as fact the exact material you have sought to reframe as "academic opinion". You've offered your view that the verb "undermine" cannot be used in wikivoice because it might imply something negative about a government. There's no policy basis for this, but it's nevertheless worthwhile to gather wider community input. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 02:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean; the relevant sentence is currenty supported by four sources, all with accompanying quotations which specifically use the word 'undermine'. The removal of the other six sources naturally meant deleting their accompanying quotes, that hardly means I'm trying to suppress anything.
 * The sources you've inserted do contain academic opinion, unless journals aren't academic publications? A.D.Hope (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * . ES: Reducing number of references for Internal Market Act point from ten to two. You thus removed eight citations. In the two which you did not remove, you deleted sentences from the quotation parameter. These are coincidentally the same sentences in the textbook that state as fact the material you have sought to reframe as "academic opinion".
 * The sources state the facts about the effects of legislation. I don't follow your logic in your last question; journals are academic publications, how do you jump from there to it being "opinion"? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 02:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, even the abbreviated quotations had substantially the same meaning as their longer originals. The original quotations are also the ones currently in the article, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.
 * You could frame the passage as academic opinion, academic consensus, or any other term which makes it clear to the reader that the content is to be understood as a summary of the academic position on the Act. A.D.Hope (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence you removed from the textbook quote is "UK Internal Market Act 2020 imposed new restrictions on the ability of the devolved institutions to enact measures" The authors do not then repeat themselves. Content drawn from the more highly-regarded journals,and particularly that from textbooks, can be stated in wikivoice. We can therefore simply state this directly without a framing to suggest it ought to be understood in a certain way. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 03:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the following passage does substantially repeat the information I cut, but it's not that important. I'm not trying to hide the fact that new restrictions were imposed; we don't disagree on the facts.
 * I do disagree that academic content can always be stated in unqualified wikivoice. Particularly for relatively recent events and where emotive language has crept into the sources (e.g. 'sweeping powers' in Keating), giving context is beneficial.
 * One way I do think we could be more direct is by reframing the passage. Posibly something like:
 * The powers of the Scottish Parliament have changed since 1998. The Scotland Acts 2012 and 2016 gave the legislature further powers to legislate on taxation and social security; the 2016 Act also gave the Scottish Government powers to manage the affairs of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Conversely, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 curtailed the parliament's powers by reducing its ability to regulate goods and services.
 * This isn't the main page for Scottish devolution, so we can be succinct. The important thing is to show that devolution has both expanded and contracted since it was introduced – the details are for the main article. A.D.Hope (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've not suggested that academic content can always be stated in unqualified wikivoice. In instances where analysis differs amongst the literature, we must take care in presenting the material. This is reflected in the community consensus at source types, that where scholarship is, we are to.
 * We need not concern ourselves with this here. There is not a shred of evidence that it's in competition with alternative theories nor controversial within the relevant field. The eight citations supporting the undermining of legislative autonomy, all to peer-reviewed literature or academic titles, all use the word undermine in referring to the legislation's effect on DA legislative autonomy and/or devolution itself. Furthermore, the indirect, instead of direct, approach to the consitutional reform is explicated at some length in several of the articles cited: this is the basis on which the scholarship uses the word "undermine". To counter that analysis, we have – nothing.
 * Where information is stated in multiple university-level textbooks, as in the case of the information about the act's restriction or removal of powers of the devolved institutions, it can and should be stated as fact in unqualified wikivoice.
 * My concern here is to fill what was previously an obvious lacuna in the brief summary of post-1997 devolutionary changes, bringing it up-to-date. The initial contribution was a single sentence, mirroring the single sentence about the 2012 Scotland Act. It's based on a wide variety of cited academic literature (at least 15 academic works; others are available). None of the available literature contradicts the facts as presented. Eight of the sources support the specific words used. I'm not seeing an objection here that is grounded in the community consensus policies that guide how we treat scholarship on this website. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 17:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If I can sidestep some of the issues above, if a single sentence is satisfactory from your perspective then I'd suggest using the wording in my previous comment. The sentence does not need to be supported by ten sources (see WP:OVERCITE), only enough to back up the point being made; in this case I'd suggest three is fine. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The wording in your previous comment does not represent the sources. You've indicated that you would prefer not to represent the sources because you believe "'Undermine' is a loaded word as it implies underhandedness on the part of the UK Government. That is not a reason to fail to represent the sources on Wikipedia. The nature of this undermining is explained at length in the sources, and it's entirely proper to state it directly.
 * I suggest using the sentence as originally proposed, amended to frame the verb "undermine" as the academic view, something like: The first clause can be cited to the CUP textbook and the LQW article, the latter to Guderjan, the Journal of European Public Policy and Modern Law Review articles, and the Aberdeen/Edinburgh University report. As we have the refn template available four is a perfectly reasonable number of citations to indicate the sources of this widespread view.
 * In the longer term we can gather wider community input as to whether the word undermine, used by eight academic works and the seventeen-plus subject-matter experts who authored and reviewed them, ought to be stated in wikivoice. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 11:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My current point is that we can be concise as the passage we're discussing is not part of the main article (Scottish devolution). The Internal Market Act is relevant because it's an example of the limits of devolution, but don't really need to explain it further. It should be presented as a contrast to the 2012 and 2016 Acts, which expanded devolution, as in my suggested wording. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Failing to closely reflect the sources isn't how we ought to proceed here. In your previous comment you say you wish to sidestep some of the issues. Is it fair to infer you have no response to them? We can present this as a contrast to the 2012/2016 acts by placing the sentence in my previous comment subsequent to the sentence starting "Two more pieces of legislation, the Scotland Acts of 2012 and 2016..." that appears in the current version. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We're not failing to closely reflect the sources; the issue with the IMA, as explained in the sources, is that it restricts the ability of the devolved governments to regulate goods and services in practical terms.
 * Your assumption is unfair. I'm just trying to focus on the issue as I see it, which is less about the use of 'undermines' and more about how to incorporate the IMA into the section we're discussing. We don't significantly disagree about the interpretation of the sources, so far as I can tell. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK good; in which case I don't understand your objection to " This briefly summarises the sources and covers the main points in the literature. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 12:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the first clause. It's clear that the IMA has an economic effect, but I'm not sure whether the sources support the phrase 'significantly constrains' — regulation of goods and services is only one part of the parliament's economic powers, after all. My preference would be to state plainly what the act does and leave readers to draw their own conclusions about exactly how severe the restriction is. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the two textbooks to which I refer above puts it more directly: The phrase 'significantly constrain' is directly supported by several other sources cited:
 * I am not particularly tied to the words "economic matters"; it may be better to be more specific eg. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 14:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any dispute with your first quote, the act did remove powers from the devolved administrations in practical terms. Nevertheless, when the following quotes speak of 'significant practical limits' and the like they're referring specifically to the effects of the act rather than the powers the administrations have over their economies in general. I'd therefore go further than you do in your final paragraph and phrase the sentence something like:
 * ''The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was considered to "undermine" devolution as it effectively removed the Scottish Parliament's ability to regulate goods and services from other parts of the UK.
 * Just a note – I use 'effectively' because I believe the devolved governments can still technically regulate goods and services, but that the power has been rendered useless in practical terms. Is that right? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. We seem to be going in circles: you're back to the framing "was considered". We don't do this for content taken from textbooks on the subject, regarded as they are as the most reliable type of source available. There is no reason to do this where multiple peer-reviewed sources agree with none saying otherwise.
 * You say you don't have any dispute with [the] first quote. This suggests you may have a "dispute" with the other five sources above. If so, what are the scholarly sources on which you base your disagreement with those sources?
 * The qualifier "goods and services from other parts of the UK" is misleading: the sources state it restricts their ability to regulate goods and services from their own region, because the only effect of doing so would be to put them at a disadvantage (and ultimately put firms out of business). Perhaps we can combine your active voice phrasing with the summary I give above:
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 20:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What about:
 * Two more pieces of legislation, the Scotland Acts of 2012 and 2016, extended devolution by enabling the Scottish Parliament to further legislate on taxation and social security. The 2016 Act also gave the Scottish Government powers to manage the affairs of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Conversely, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 weakened devolution by constraining the Scottish Parliament's legislative autonomy over goods and services; in passing the act without the consent of the devolved governments the UK Government also ignored the Sewel Convention.
 * I honestly don't think the paragraph needs more detail than that – it shows the ebbs and flows of devolution, which is what it should do, whithout getting into detail the main article can cover. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I've only just caught up with the posts of the last few days but I'll just note that I'm encouraged by the progress regarding the wording. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a lot to go through, sorry! Catch up and participate as you can, no rush or obligation. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My main concern here is content about the UKIMA. The sentences about the Scotland Acts look fine: we might briefly mention the Calman Commission, but I'll not contest leaving it out. With regards to the verb "weaken": I don't see this in the sources, and we're obliged to follow them closely. I also think "regulate economic activity" better follows the sources and keeps a more encyclopaedic tone. The word "legislative" after the word "parliament" seems like pleonasm. Thus: <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Weaken' and 'undermine' are close synonyms, but the latter has pejorative connotations while the former does not; if we're expressing the effects of the act on devolution in wikivoice rather than as a quote then 'weakens' is the neutral option. I strongly disagree that 'regulate economic activity' is a better summary of the sources, it's simply too vague. I don't think 'legislative autonomy' is a pleonasm, but I'm not particularly fussed about the wording there. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * &, how about this wording I found, this is direct from a source but could be adapted if you want to avoid a direct copy paste.
 * Direct Quote
 * “The UKIMA has important implications for devolution. In particular, it disrupts the basic approach to managing the co-existence of different sites of legislative power within the UK.”
 * My adapted version
 * The UK Internal Market Act has important implications for devolution as it affects the core approach used to manage legislative competence within the different constituent countries of the UK.
 * Citation
 * https://ukandeu.ac.uk/reshaping-devolution-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-act-2020/ ChefBear01 (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's correct to use words which may have pejorative connotations where they are used by numerous authors in the academic literature. This especially where we are indicating that this is what scholarship says. We're simply closely reflecting what they say about the topic and being neutral to the sources. I'm not aware of any consensus in the policies and guidelines about avoiding words which some editors view as having pejorative connotations - unless I am missing something? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 18:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cambial Yellowing, I think my adapted version more closely follows. WP:NPOVChefBear01 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't my opinion that 'undermines' has a pejorative connotation, it's a fact; check the OED. The sentence is no longer directly summarising the scholarship, so it's inappropriate to use a word which is not neutral. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SNPOV says:
 * “areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in these” ChefBear01 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these contributions, ChefBear01. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, that part of the sentence summarises a wide range of scholarship.    The neutrality on Wikipedia is about neutrally representing the sources; it's not about seeking inherently "neutral" words. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 19:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular problem with quoting 'undermined', as that preserves the direct link to the sources:
 * Conversely, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 "undermined" devolution by constraining the Scottish Parliament's legislative autonomy over goods and services.
 * It's using the word in wikivoice without making it clear that we're quoting that I'm not keen on. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. My view is that, firstly, we cannot only put a quoted statement: we must also say what the act does in wikivoice, and ought not to conflate the two. Secondly, if putting a statement in quotation marks we ought to give some indication of what group we are quoting. Until we're able to gather a wider view, I'm ok with putting the word undermine in quotation marks, but neglecting to indicate that it's a quote in-text gives it the appearance of scare quotes. Thus: <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 14:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong about the above, and I certainly share your concern about giving the impression of scare quotes. Your alternative wording fixes those issues, so I'd be happy to use it in the article. Hopefully this settles the matter, but if anyone else has suggestions we can always revisit it. Thank you for working through this so patiently, I do appreciate it (and I suspect you'll also be glad that we've reached a conclusion between ourselves!) A.D.Hope (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also support the wording. Good work all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cambial Yellowing I just went to add 'that' to the sentence, which in my view is a grammatical rather than a semantic change. While there I had a play around and I don't think that removing the quotes alters the meaning, what do you think:
 * Conversely, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 constrains the Scottish Parliament's autonomy to regulate goods and services, and the academic view is that this undermines devolution
 * The quotation marks make it obvious that the word is quoted, but even without it's clear enough that the word is a summary of the academic position. Also, I do think we could add that the passage of the Act was an example of the Sewel convention being ignored. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I support your change to the current sentence. Numerous sources highlight the failure to observe the Sewel convention; I have no objection. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also happy. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Wars of Scottish Independence
"In return for surrendering Scotland's nominal independence, John Balliol was pronounced king in 1292". Surely it's not being suggested that Scotland was only nominally independent before then? Should this not read "In return for securing Scotland's nominal independence, John Balliol was pronounced king in 1292" or something similar? Roryharrow (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The sentence should probably be something like 'In return for recognising Edward I of England as his feudal overlord...', as that's what actually happened in 1292. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Scottish Government or The Scottish Government
We could do with settling whether this article should refer to 'Scottish Government' or 'The Scottish Government', at least in references. Obviously in sentences it will depend on the grammar.

A quick Google search shows that both UK and Scottish governments refer to 'The Scottish Government' on their own websites. But our own Wiki link is simply 'Scottish Government'.

Is there an existing Wikipedia policy on this? Dgp4004 (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Dgp4004. In references (website/publisher) best just "Scottish Government", that at least is in the logo, and they themselves decapitalises in general text, so not part of the proper name, just like it isn't "The United Kingdom". Plus a bit redundant. Ofc, general mentions in text should follow grammar and MOS:THECAPS.  Dank Jae  16:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

GA ready?
The article currently has a citation needed tag and at least one permanent dead link tag. In addition, the article seems quite unstable: 5 reverts in a row just 2 days ago. Beyond that, the sourcing is weak: refs 313321, barring one, are not well formatted at all. A lot of the refs are just glorified bare urls. Linking is inconsistent in the refs. There's GOV.UK but www.gov.scot. There are a few refs which lead to blogs. The article cites Spotify, as a primary source too. There's BBC News and BBC but Bbc.co.uk and also Bbc.co.uk. Some refs have whacking long quotes but some don't. Some have publisher locations and some don't. Some have archive urls, most don't. Some books are cited with sfns, some aren't, some have the page range inside the refs and some have it outside.

Beyond the referencing, some of the article choices are strange. Why have the DFM in the IB when UK doesn't have their DPM? The first sentence in the body isn't referenced, or if it is it isn't clear how. The first two sentences of Prehistory are not cited. The term "first minister" is linked six times throughout the article and is variably written as "first minister" "first minister of Scotland" and "First Minister", and when used in front of a name can be "the first minister, John Smith" or "First Minister John Smith". When working with dates, sometimes commas are used after them ("in Marchanuary, that" and "in Febrember this") and sometimes they aren't. There's plain old Charles III but also King Alexander III. Scottish National Party is linked twice, given the initialism "SNP" on its second mention but not on its first. MOS:JOB is inconsistently applied. The sentence "the first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, announced the following day that as a result a new independence referendum was "highly likely"" has no reason for being there. There's both "healthcare" and "health care". The statement "founded in 1413, the University of St. Andrews is the oldest in Scotland and one of the oldest worldwide" is unreferenced. The name of the university is also written as both "St. Andrews" and "St Andrews". It's also linked twice. In general, there are a lot of issues with MOS:OVERLINK. Most of the captions giving facts are not cited. The article uses "Parliament of the United Kingdom", "UK Parliament" and "British Parliament". I could go on.

To the GA nominator, I'd suggest that you pull the nomination for now and work on the article more extensively, otherwise it is extremely likely the nomination will fail. WP:GA?'s immediate failures would almost certainly rule this one out. I'll flag up things needing references. I would also like to see this article as a GA, but at the moment it doesn't seem like it will be any time soon, and definitely not in its current form. Cheers Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Tim, thank you for your advice. I will begin undertaking work on some of the areas you have identified. Thank you. Goodreg3  (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Goodreg3 - Thanks. Just keep in mind the list isn't exhaustive. I'd also recommend putting the article up at WP:Peer review before any prospective GA nomination: will smooth out any bumps in the track before it's ready to be looked at under a microscope. Additionally, have a look at the list of country GAs here and see how well it holds up in comparison (layout, formatting, contents, style): especially Wales, last reviewed in 2020 which is fairly recent and is the most similar article to this one. Have a look at WP:RSPSS too, which has a good list of sources to build the article on. Cheers Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It would appear that my recent efforts have been in vain, as all have been reverted by Mutt Lunker. He either clearly does not want to see this article progress, he believes he can do better himself or alternatively he has another problem which I would ask for him to share publicly on this talk page. Goodreg3  (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

IMHO it's not GA ready. The page should not have Category:Countries in Europe, added on to it. Scotland isn't an independent country & the content of the Category-in-question, should be limited in sovereign states. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ??? Country...... Countries of the United Kingdom. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 03:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Category is meant for independent countries & should be changed to Category:Sovereign states in Europe. That's why List of sovereign states was moved from List of countries, all those years ago. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree the cat could be changed.... seems you're arguing it wasn't a country. It's to bad our cat system is so unorganized and completely unstable. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 04:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of category pages with 'countries' in their titles, should be changed to 'sovereign states'. Due the multiple meaning of the term 'country'. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the Scottish page so much more detailed than the England page
Why is this? Is it because Scotland has more history and culture? 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:781E:DBDE:179B:C555 (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the England page just needs more contributors. Jump in :) Dgp4004 (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm an SNP supporter. 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:781E:DBDE:179B:C555 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Very nice. However: Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry. Can you please help me remove my first message? Thanks Tim 2A02:C7C:74AD:AF00:781E:DBDE:179B:C555 (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @2A02 - you can just strike it off if you like, or I can do it for you. Just put at the start of your message and put at the end of it. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why does England 'not' have a devolved government? Anyways, any editors (with reliable sources) may go ahead & make the England page more detailed. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The England page is an example of a 'Good Article'. It doesn't need to be expanded into detail because it was cut down to avoid over-bloating. It says everything needed and gets straight to the point. This page is the one that needs more work. There's some sections that could be cut-down with information moved into the sub pages. 90.215.134.58 (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , the short answer to your first question is politics. Devolution was a Labour Party manifesto promise designed to secure Scottish and Welsh support in the face of SNP and PC advances.  There was no such demand in England.  Furthermore with a Scottish PM and Scottish Chancellor there would be no impetus to permit a conflict between an English Parliament and the national one.  Finally because of the population skew, an English Parliament would have far more weight to throw around and so reduce the importance of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose any trimming down of this page. But, good luck to anyone who makes the attempt. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Languages in lead section
This level of detail re languages is rather more than desirable for the lead section. Per WP:LEAD, the references are probably superfluous, or if they are not already used in the languages section, better applied there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. Although not with languages, I have tried to condense some of the information in parts of the article into more relevant sections i.e recent changes made to move population content and highland clearances from Scottish Enlightenment subsection into population subsection as seems more relevant there. Goodreg3  (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Sweeping and inattentive changes
I'm alarmed at the rapid and sweeping changes being made in the recent sequence of edits to this article. Very little attention seems to be being paid and inadequate explanations, if any, given. These include a mass removal of apparently pertinent quotes and other substantial and opaque changes in the first, very substantial, edit and a reference added which was a wholesale, verbatim quote of that very section of the Wikipedia article, for goodness sake! It looks like a hasty tick box exercise to make noted deficiencies go away and to remove tags without genuinely addressing the issues behind them. I'm afraid I'm familiar with this style and standard of editing from this user, cf. the manner in which they put the article forward for GA review. There should be credibility in any edits to improve this article and superficial and inaccurate ones such as these will not stand scrutiny, only sending the article in the opposite direction. I am very apprehensive as to the state of this article under such attentions.

I'll note that some of the edits may have been beneficial to the article but, when such a high proportion of edits are evidently detrimental, it should not be for other editors to sort the wheat from the chaff. Also, it's impossible to automatically revert individual edits when multiple conflicting intermediate edits hobble the undo function. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh come off it already.
 * 1 - This is the first time I have nominated an article for GA status, so I am not sure what you are referring to by "the manner in which they put the article forward for GA review".
 * 2 - You never seem to "sort the wheat" of any edits you revert of mine, rather, you revert, leave it and move on. You don't tend to stay around and try to improve the article in any shape or form. I am not saying for one fraction of a second that it is your duty, or the duty of any other, to rectify users edits, however, I would appreciate a little consideration around its a work in progress. I have a firm belief that Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort, and most users will seek to either help other users or carry out edits to enhance the edits of a user. On the contrary, you appear to just revert, revert and revert. You don't stick around to help, you offer little to no constructive advice, and frankly, the way I see it, you dish out opinions in a way which seems that it is only your opinion which matters, something which does not come across as being very polite or courteous. Not an attack, just as a suggestion of "here is what you could do better", should you choose to accept it. I doubt you will, though. However....


 * The edits you are alarmed by were intended to address the issues noted above about the state of the references. I intended to set around rectifying this before moving on to the other issues which were raised. In my opinion, the information on the article was not given unreliable sources (albeit apart from the mirror copy of the article, and I admit, that was my hasty mistake, yes). With that, why did you not raise it at the talk page, rather than revert the edits? References were not removed and information was not left unsourced in any instance. The references were not altered in a way which would prevent readers from navigating to reliable sources. Instead, long and unnecessary quotes from books and journals were removed to clean up the reference section. Users are more than capable of navigating to the source and reading it, should they wish. Secondly, a small number of the references on the page were dead links. I removed them, and replaced them with either up to date sources, or archived sources, rather than a link which directed you to a 505: Bad Gateway message. I guess you didn't actually consider this?
 * There are only two areas which I set out to address tonight and early this morning. Unfortunately, you have restored the article to an earlier state in which it consists of more dead links and sources than there need be. If it is your intention to withhold this article back for whatever reason, and to ensure it does not achieve GA status, then sadly, you appear to be going the right way about it.
 * At least you acknowledge that some edits of mine were constructive and beneficial to the article. That is something, at least. Goodreg3  (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made a start at checking you latest batch of edits but have only got a small way through them, in around an hour of work. Characteristically, there are already multiple errors and questionable changes. If you insist on editing in such a manner, please can you slow the pace to allow others to find your errors and to clear up after you, making smaller individual edits to allow them to be followed more easily? It really is not considerate to impose this task upon other editors.
 * I can't devote any more time right now, so if someone else can provide scrutiny of this batch, I'd be relieved. I've reached as far as this one, though further scrutiny of the preceding edits would be welcome as I made fairly broad checks of them only . Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m not imposing any task upon other editors, so therefore not being inconsiderate. In many cases, the only user who appears to get in a tangle about this is you. Also, not sure I appreciate the need for “scrutiny” as you put it. Am I being watched or something!? Additionally, I find it rather offensive that you assume my edits will contain errors and needing to slow the pace to “clear up after you”. I would say that is inconsiderate in itself. Goodreg3  (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You know that I've been aware of your tendency to introduce errors, material which fails verification etc. for years now, so why would I assume anything has changed? Very evidently it has not. With many of your edits, they could more be classified as ill-considered, factually inaccurate or low quality, if worthy of remedial action (I have given detailed explanations in edit summaries), but many are straightforward unambiguous errors such as here, here and here? If you believe that to be no imposition, are you advocating that we should not "get in a tangle" and just leave the errors in place, to avoid causing you offence? Do you think it’s okay to maintain such an uneven standard as long as some of your edits are correct? Such a mixed batch of edits actively lowers article quality; not your aim I’d hope. With so much remedial work required whenever you edit, a straight revert is the likeliest way to improve the article.


 * I’ll note I’m far from alone in making significant amendments to your edits of the last few days, including at other articles, which include the removal of material of questionable pertinence or factual accuracy, and poor referencing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * As a participant of WikiProject Scotland, I would perhaps suggest all involved taking a brief pause to build more consensus on the edits to this article on all sides. On the one hand, Goodreg3 it is great that you are trying to improve the article and get it to GA which would be a great achievement but on the other hand, you are making quite significant edits to an article which has raised some legitimate concerns from Matt Lunker. I see that some big sections have been cut and while reducing the size is a necessary step given the current article length, I spotted the 20th century history was edited to go from lengthy detail on Rudolf Hess straight to devolution. It is important therefore that major edits are done carefully, either in the sandbox or previewed before published. Ensuring that key information and references are not lost is vital. As an observer, I would probably say for all parties to have a read of Dispute resolution and consider either discussing major changes here on the talk page (focusing on the content) or consider disengaging from editing for a few weeks. It will be fantastic to see this article get to GA but looking at some of the recent changes, as well as the recent talk page discussions, I would say that there is a risk of an edit war and this can be averted through consensus. Coldupnorth (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the section to which has drawn attention, it is vastly deficient, whizzing from Rudolf Hess to rather boosterish text on "Silicon Glen", etc. in just one transitional sentence. So nothing there about post-WWII planning (urban devastation, the New Towns, Tom Johnston and the Hydro-electric schemes, Hunterston-Ravenscraig-Linwood, etc.) The successes and failures of such manageralist projects were important for what came next - and certainly more than 150 words on Hess's crashlanding. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh it must be amazing being so perfect, Mutt. You know, we are humans and humans make mistake. I would also like to point out that we are Wikipedian’s and not academics. Alright, I make mistakes, pretty sure you do it too. It is offensive that you keep trying to make me out to be some clueless idiots who cannot spell, doesn’t give attention to things and conduct edits with no consideration. I could go on. It’s offensive and I’m tired of it frankly. I have been doing my best to help, but it seems to be in vain and a complete waste of my time. So congratulations, you have got what you have clearly been wanting and that is for me to take a step back from editing the article and trying to improve it. Poor referencing? How? I would also like to point out that some of your highlighted edits of mine were attempts to re-word the source to avoid copyright, not intentional mistakes but rather trying to avoid plagiarism. If I had just put it in word for word then that would have been an “error” too I guess. Can’t do right for doing wrong. It’s a shame, Wikipedia, and the Scotland page particularly, appears to have become a very unsupportive community. Goodreg3  (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If I can be frank with you here Mutt, I do not feel supported by you whatsoever, and would go as far to question to your behaviour and actions towards me. Take from that what you will. I would like to point out Civility
 * 1 - Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates
 * 2 - Editors are expected to not personally attack or harass other editors. This applies equally to all: it is as unacceptable to attack an editor who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, disruptive to the work of building an encyclopedia, and editors engaging in such behaviour, may be sanctioned, including, but not limited to being blocked. <Br/>
 * 3 - Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict.
 * 4 - The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:
 * Direct rudeness
 * rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
 * personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
 * {| class="wikitable" ! Shortcut:  WP:ICA  |} ill-considered accusations of impropriety
 * belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")
 * 4 - Wikihounding <Br/>
 * 5 - * Take a real-life check. Disengage by two steps to assess what you're about to say (or have just said). Asking yourself "How would I feel if someone said that to me?" is often not enough; many people can just brush things off. To get a better perspective, ask yourself: "How would I feel if someone said that to someone I love who cannot just 'brush it off'?" If you would find that unacceptable, then do not say it. And, if you have already said it, strike the text and apologise.
 * 6 - * Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.
 * I could go on about how I feel you breach such guidelines. Mutt, I put it to you that you are guilty of each of the above points and would ask you to consider and reflect on this moving forward.
 * Anyway, best of luck with whatever avenue the articles goes down. Goodreg3  (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please contemplate how much time and effort it takes to analyse such numerous and sweeping edits, to amend and manually correct them, bit by bit, and to make detailed, explicatory and (largely) matter-of-fact edit summaries, for your, particular benefit. That’s a ton of support, which would be easy to dodge with a straight revert and cursory summary. You always refute it though and more on the basis of hurt feelings than what has had to be addressed in the article. To take your example of typos and spelling mistakes, if I correct them and note this in the edit summary, that’s all one can reasonably do and it is not “trying to make (you) out to be some clueless idiots who cannot spell” to do so.


 * I’m at a loss to know what sort of “support” you would like instead. The ignoring of flaws introduced to the material? Their correction without explanation in the edit summary because you would perceive it as a personal slight? Yes, we are human, we make mistakes but if they should not be a routine and substantial part of one’s output.


 * I’m glad to see that you are now making efforts to avoid copyright violations but, when paraphrasing material, the meaning should remain both evident and unchanged. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

is it your goal, to bring this page to GA status? GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is my intention to get the article to GA status, however, I am more inclined now to stop my efforts as it does not seem to be appreciated no matter how hard I try. So to editors who strive for GA status, I wish you all the best of luck. Goodreg3  (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Goodreg3 - I'm sorry to hear that. Best of luck. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. I very much have a feeling that my efforts and contributions, all of which have been in good faith, will not be missed, however. Goodreg3  (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I can't support this page for GA, as long as the category "countries in Europe" is attached to it. I'm not questioning whether Scotland is a country (and so I'm not calling for changes to the intro), just pointing out that the category is (IMHO) meant for independent countries & should be removed. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Clunk. Somewhat of a hobby horse of yours, I recall, and a sidetrack in this thread. If that alone were the issue at hand, we’d be laughing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sticks & stones. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)