Please observe official Wikipedia policy on No personal attacks. In particular, please note the clear instruction: "... some types of comments are never acceptable: racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor... or using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Any such personal attacks will be immediately removed from this talk page (see Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks). Using ip sockpuppet or meatpuppet addresses, or edit summaries, to make personal attacks is particularly frowned upon. Please log in to your account.
Issues relating to the geography and politics of the United Kingdom and nearby territories can be surprisingly complex and controversial, and the subjects raised in this FAQ regarding the Scotland article are best understood in this context. We aim to be enyclopaedic and neutral. We also recognise that reconciling diverse views can be hard work as common phrases are sometimes interpreted in different ways in different cultures. We ask that editors new to this page read the following with an open mind. Where necessary, please research the facts rather than simply jumping to conclusions based on what you "know to be true".
This is one of the most frequent questions raised by visitors to this talk page. However, in the absence of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to Scotland,[1] England, Northern Ireland, Wales and the UK itself. Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries", and this term has broadly won preference amongst the editing community. Note however, that a country is not the same as a "sovereign state", and that "constituent country" is also used in other parts of Wikipedia. The community endeavours to achieve an atmosphere of neutrality, compromise, and camaraderie on this issue.
A2: Widespread confusion surrounds the use of the word "nation". In standard British English, and in academic language, a nation is defined as a social group and not a division of land. This is also the approach taken in the article entitled nation, across Wikipedia and in other major encyclopedias (for example, the Scottish people and the Québécoisare described as "nations"). The term Home Nations is generally used only in sporting contexts. It is not used in major reputable sources outside of sport.
Infobox-related issues
Q3: Why are two flags used?
A3: There have been extremely complex discussion about these matters. The Royal Standard of Scotland (commonly referred to as the "Lion Rampant") was used by the King of Scots until 1603. Today, its correct use is restricted to official representatives of The Monarch.[2] The blue and white Saltire is the flag of Scotland and is widely used by national and local government offices and in numerous other less official capacities. As with other issues described here this outcome is to some extent a compromise solution that seems to suit all parties in that it identifies symbols of Scotland as an entity in its own right, whilst also emphasising the importance of the relationship with the United Kingdom.
A4: There is no official Scottish national anthem. Although there is no doubt that Flower of Scotland is currently amongst the most popular unofficial national anthems in Scotland, it is not the only one, nor even the longest established.
Q5: What is the reference to the "Scots language" about?
A5: Scots is spoken by 30% of the Scottish population (approximately 1.5 million individuals) according to the 1996 estimate of the General Register Office for Scotland.[3] It is recognised by the European Union's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.[4] By contrast, Scottish English is a variation of standard British English. Whilst the distinction is by no means clear cut, Wikipedia policy permits the use of Scottish English words and phrases where appropriate. Scots, on the other hand, has its own site: see the Scots Wikipedia.
Q6: Wasn't Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom the first Queen Elizabeth to reign over Scotland?
Q7: What is the difference between "Great Britain" and the "United Kingdom"?
A7: See the article entitled "Terminology of the British Isles". Great Britain is the name of the largest island that the UK encompasses, and is not generally used in source material as the name of the sovereign state.
A8: This view is supported by some sources, but the current consensus amongst the editing community is aligned to a greater body of work which describes both Northern Ireland and Wales as countries. However, the terms are not all mutually exclusive: a country can also be a principality or a province, and these terms are mentioned throughout Wikipedia as alternative names in afternotes.
References
^Scottish Parliament. "Your Scotland questions; Is Scotland a country?". Scottish Parliament. Retrieved 2008-08-01. As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as 'countries'.
This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Scotland was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Scotland is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations.
If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
I think its a bit inaccurate to say that Highland Scots are descended from Celtic peoples while Lowlanders are germanic. This is very black and white and it isnt binary like this. In fact, the fact that at one point most of Scotland was Gaelic speaking should totally put this false notion to rest. Language doesn't equal ancestry and languages have shifted over time. There is no genetic proof that the two populations are markedly different. I think this should be examined and possibly removed as it is inaccurate 2001:FB1:11A:E21:9509:BCCB:28A6:38E7 (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the Union of the crowns heading under the History heading of Coat of arms of Scotland, there is an infobox that shows the primary version of the coat of arms to have the Lion Rampant on the shield, with unicorns on both the sides. The one currently in the infobox of this article is the mentioned as an alternate version.
Can someone explain which one will be correct to be displayed here, and what significance should the other two hold? And if possible, can the explanation somehow be accomodated on the article itself too? Pur 0 0 (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Banner of Scotland As a general note for other confused editors, the Royal Banner of Scotland, which is the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Scotland in flag form, is a current Scottish flag. Its official use is restricted to certain high-ranking Scottish officials and the royal palaces when the monarch isn't there, but it's widely used unofficially and is often seen at events like football matches and on souvenirs.
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.:
The result is that, while the devolved governments retain regulatory competences, these are undermined by the fact that goods and services originating in, or imported into, England can be marketed anywhere.
In so doing, England could competitively undercut producers and in effect undermine permitted divergence.[2]
The market access principles undermine devolved competences in two ways...[they] significantly undermine the purpose of devolution, which was to enable the devolved nations and regions to legislate according to their own local needs and political preferences.[3]
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)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 unexplained deletion 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. Cambial — foliar❧01:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Cambial — foliar❧02:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
your edit. 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"? Cambial — foliar❧02:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Cambial — foliar❧03:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 in competition with alternative theories [or] controversial within the relevant field, we are to try to cite current scholarly consensus.
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,[4][5] 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. Cambial — foliar❧17:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Scottish Parliament's powers in economic matters are significantly constrained by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and the academic view is that the act undermines devolved autonomy. 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. Cambial — foliar❧11:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Cambial — foliar❧12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK good; in which case I don't understand your objection to "The parliament's powers in economic matters are significantly constrained by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and the academic view is that the act "undermines" devolved autonomy. This briefly summarises the sources and covers the main points in the literature. Cambial — foliar❧12:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
One of the two textbooks to which I refer above puts it more directly:
[the act] removed powers from the devolved institutions."[5]
The phrase 'significantly constrain' is directly supported by several other sources cited:
provisions which, if enacted, would significantly constrain, both legally and as a matter of practicality, the exercise by the devolved legislatures of their legislative competence; provisions that would be significantly more restrictive of the powers of the Scottish Parliament than either EU law or Articles 4 and 6 of the Acts of the Union...The UK Parliament passed the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the Internal Market Act 2020 notwithstanding that, in each case, all three of the devolved legislatures had withheld consent.[6]
That Act’s modifications to the UK’s material constitution have significant implications for the exercise of their respective competences...their prospective application under the UKIMA imposes significant practical limits on their political autonomy in areas of devolved competence—limits that the dominance of the far larger English market further reinforce.[7]
The effect of the market access principles would therefore significantly undermine the purpose of devolution, which was to enable the devolved nations and regions to legislate according to their own local needs and political preferences.[3]
mutual recognition will place significant limits on the ability of any legislative or governing body to set and enforce its own distinctive policy choices[8]
the UKIM Act 2020 allows extraterritorial application of rules that reflect different preferences or even undermines local preferences through regulatory competition, its effects are not insignificant for devolved legislatures.[9]
I am not particularly tied to the words "economic matters"; it may be better to be more specific eg. The parliament's powers to regulate economic activity are significantly constrained by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and the academic view is that the act undermines devolved autonomy.Cambial — foliar❧14:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 significantly constrains the parliament's powers to regulate economic activity, and scholarship indicates that it effectively undermines devolved autonomy.Cambial — foliar❧20:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 significantly constrains the parliament's autonomy to regulate economic activity, and scholarship indicates that it undermines devolution.Cambial — foliar❧17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'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)[reply]
@Cambial Yellowing: & @A.D.Hope:, 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.
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? Cambial — foliar❧18:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
“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)[reply]
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.
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: Conversely, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 constrains the Scottish Parliament's legislative autonomy to regulate goods and services, and the academic view is this "undermines" devolution.Cambial — foliar❧14:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
^Keating, Michael (2 February 2021). "Taking back control? Brexit and the territorial constitution of the United Kingdom". Journal of European Public Policy. 28. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis: 6–7. doi:10.1080/13501763.2021.1876156. hdl:1814/70296. The UK Internal Market Act gives ministers sweeping powers to enforce mutual recognition and non-discrimination across the four jurisdictions. Existing differences and some social and health matters are exempted but these are much less extensive than the exemptions permitted under the EU Internal Market provisions. Only after an amendment in the House of Lords, the Bill was amended to provide a weak and non-binding consent mechanism for amendments (equivalent to the Sewel Convention) to the list of exemptions. The result is that, while the devolved governments retain regulatory competences, these are undermined by the fact that goods and services originating in, or imported into, England can be marketed anywhere.
^Lydgate, Emily (23 September 2020). Dr Emily Lydgate, University of Sussex: Evidence on the UK internal market bill. Finance and Constitution Committee (Report). Edinburgh: Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. 21st Meeting 2020, Session 5. Retrieved 15 October 2020. In that context, even though the new powers might not be used, I expect that the UK Government wants the legislation to be in place before those statutory instruments come into force, in case the common frameworks fall apart. What we are seeing is the UK Government responding to a threat by trying to centralise power or create a system that will function in case there is a problem...For example, England might authorise a new active substance for pesticides, or a new GMO, and would then be able to freely export those products to devolved nations, even if they had controls domestically. In so doing, England could competitively undercut producers and in effect undermine permitted divergence.
^Masterman, Roger; Murray, Colin (2022). "TheUnited Kingdom's Devolution Arrangements". Constitutional and Administrative Law (Third ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 471–473. doi:10.1017/9781009158497. ISBN9781009158503. S2CID248929397. UK Internal Market Act 2020 imposed new restrictions on the ability of the devolved institutions to enact measures...mutual recognition and non-discrimination requirements mean that standards set by the legislatures in Wales and Scotland cannot restrict the sale of goods which are acceptable in other parts of the UK. In other words, imposing such measures would simply create competitive disadvantages for businesses in Wales and Scotland; they would not change the product standards or environmental protections applicable to all goods which can be purchased in Wales and Scotland.
^ abFrost, Tom; Huxley-Binns, Rebecca; Martin, Jacqueline; Mithani, Shaneez (2023). "The English Legal System and European Law". Unlocking the English Legal System (7th ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN9781032204574. The 2020 Act amended the devolution statutes of Scotland, Wales and NI...it removed powers from the devolved institutions.
^Wolffe, W James (7 April 2021). "Devolution and the Statute Book". Statute Law Review. 42 (2). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 121–136. doi:10.1093/slr/hmab003. Retrieved 18 April 2021. the Internal Market Bill—a Bill that contains provisions which, if enacted, would significantly constrain, both legally and as a matter of practicality, the exercise by the devolved legislatures of their legislative competence; provisions that would be significantly more restrictive of the powers of the Scottish Parliament than either EU law or Articles 4 and 6 of the Acts of the Union...The UK Parliament passed the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the Internal Market Act 2020 notwithstanding that, in each case, all three of the devolved legislatures had withheld consent.
^Horsley, Thomas (2022). "Constitutional Reform by Legal Transplantation: The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020". Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 42 (4). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1143–1169. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqac018. PMC9732217. PMID36518972. The market access principles may not preclude the devolved administrations from legislating in the same way that, for example, the Devolution Acts make it unlawful (ultra vires) for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly to enact legislation [that] is contrary to Convention rights. Nonetheless, their prospective application under the UKIMA imposes significant practical limits on their political autonomy in areas of devolved competence—limits that the dominance of the far larger English market further reinforce.
^ abArmstrong, Kenneth A. (May 2022). "The Governance of Economic Unionism after the United Kingdom Internal Market Act". Modern Law Review. 85 (3). Oxford: Wiley: 635–660. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12706. So when used to disapply relevant requirements in a destination devolved jurisdiction the effect is different from that generated by the devolution statutes when they treat rules that are outside of competence as being 'not law'. In this way, the legislative competence of each jurisdiction is formally maintained, but its exercise constrained by the extraterritorial reach of regulatory norms applicable elsewhere in the UK and by the potential for regulatory competition where local producers are subject to local rules but competing goods can enter that market in compliance with the regulatory standards from where they originate...the UKIM Act 2020 allows extraterritorial application of rules that reflect different preferences or even undermines local preferences through regulatory competition, its effects are not insignificant for devolved legislatures.
^Guderjan, Marius (2023). Intergovernmental Relations in the UK: Cooperation and Conflict in a Devolved Unitary State. London/New York: Routledge. pp. 166–176. doi:10.4324/9781003349952. ISBN978-1-032-39485-5. Since the act became law on 17 December 2020, the devolved administrations can continue to set standards for goods and services produced within their territory, but their rules do not apply to goods and services coming from other jurisdictions. They also must accept products imported into one part of the UK. This undermines their legislative autonomy and renders certain policies ineffective
^Keating, Michael (2 February 2021). "Taking back control? Brexit and the territorial constitution of the United Kingdom". Journal of European Public Policy. 29 (4). Abingdon: Taylor & Francis: 491–509. doi:10.1080/13501763.2021.1876156. hdl:1814/70296. The UK Internal Market Act gives ministers sweeping powers to enforce mutual recognition and non-discrimination across the four jurisdictions. Existing differences and some social and health matters are exempted but these are much less extensive than the exemptions permitted under the EU Internal Market provisions. Only after an amendment in the House of Lords, the Bill was amended to provide a weak and non-binding consent mechanism for amendments (equivalent to the Sewel Convention) to the list of exemptions. The result is that, while the devolved governments retain regulatory competences, these are undermined by the fact that goods and services originating in, or imported into, England can be marketed anywhere.
^Lydgate, Emily; Anthony, Chloe (September 2022). "Brexit, food law and the UK's search for a post‐EU identity". Modern Law Review. 85 (5). London: Wiley: 1168–1190. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12735. While the mutual recognition principle preserves devolved powers, rather than requiring that devolved nations conform with a wide range of harmonised standards (as they did in the EU), the Act undermines devolution simply because devolved legislation will no longer apply to all relevant activity in the devolved territory...Devolution is also undermined by the asymmetry of legislative authority...the UK Internal Market Act is a protected enactment, which devolved administrations are unable to appeal or modify, but which the UK parliament will be able to modify when legislating for England.
^Solomon, Russell (1 September 2022). "Breaking up is hard to do? Devolution and the sovereignty dilemma of post-Brexit UK". Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies. 14 (2). Melbourne: European Studies Association of Australia and New Zealand: 35–48. doi:10.30722/anzjes.vol14.iss2.15834. The UK government has sought to avoid regulatory divergence through its Internal Market Act 2020...the IMA effectively undermines the regulatory competences of the devolved governments. The loose arrangements of the EUWA of 2018 were thus turned into harder edged centralised control
^Keating, Michael (15 March 2023). "Regulation in Scotland and Wales after Brexit". Contemporary Social Science. 18 (2). Taylor & Francis: 185–196. doi:10.1080/21582041.2023.2197881. UK measures regarding the application of international trade agreements, the EU Internal Market Act, legislation on subsidy control and professional qualifications undermine the regulatory autonomy of Scotland and Wales...It is another ironic effect of Brexit that parliamentary scrutiny and devolution have been undermined
^Horsley, Thomas (2022). "Constitutional Reform by Legal Transplantation: The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020". Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 42 (4). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1143–1169. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqac018. PMC9732217. PMID36518972. The market access principles may not preclude the devolved administrations from legislating in the same way that, for example, the Devolution Acts make it unlawful (ultra vires) for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly to enact legislation [that] is contrary to Convention rights. Nonetheless, their prospective application under the UKIMA imposes significant practical limits on their political autonomy in areas of devolved competence—limits that the dominance of the far larger English market further reinforce.
Yeah, I'm really confused isn't the audio track in the header of this article, supposed to be a pronunciation guide for the word "Scotland"? But for some reason it says "Uhvupa". Am I missing something or do we need to re-record it? DSQ (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Because that's not how you pronounce the word Alba, that would be "Al-ah-ba" or "Al-ah-pa".
Even if it was the correct pronunciation, which it definitely is not, the audio file link should not be next to the word "Scotland" surely? It should be moved to be next to the word Alba.
Because the file is in the header multiple non English Wikipedia pages used this audio file as an example of how to say the word Scotland. That's how I discovered it by finding it on the Japanese language Wikipedia page スコットランド. DSQ (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]