Talk:Scotland

Population

Sorry I tried to update the population figure but I mucked it up. Here's the new figure and the reference. 5,295,000 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20754750

Currently

Scotland is "currently" part of the United Kingdom. IMO it should be made patently clear that this may, or may not, be the case in the next year or two in the lede, along with the qualifier of 845-1707? Brendandh (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The lede does state "In May 2011, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won an overall majority in parliament and intends to hold a referendum on independence on 18 September 2014.". Perfectly clear. Additionally altering the leading sentence to "Scotland is a country that is currently part of the United Kingdom" implies that this situation will change. Per WP:CRYSTAL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

But it will undoubtedly. Notwithstanding 2014's outcome, there's change afoot, so this is grey at the mo, and not crystal. Brendandh (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

And notable! Brendandh (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No dispute about the notability, it's that "it will undoubtedly...there's change afoot" that is patently false. As you put it, "grey...and WP:NOTCRYSTAL"; it stays out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

False? Hmm'mm! It's happening, and it's grey, and 'undoubtably' it ain't going to be the same as per priori, whatever the outcome of the 2014 plebiscite. This needs to be reflected in the article properly. Brendandh (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A referendum's happening. Adding "currently" makes it sound like Scotland is about to leave the UK. Chances are it's not. 5.81.139.184 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Mutt Lunker. "currently" adds nothing that benefits the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been pondering the last half hour about how to put it more simply but can someone else try? I'm struggling to respond further without sounding patronising. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Like you say, it suggests that this situation will change. Its not necessary, and there is a significant reason not to include it. Rob (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think adding "currently" might not be too constructive, but I also think that we do need to reflect the fact that there are real question marks hanging over Scotland's future in the UK. Scotland's current position is definitely notable; saying "Scotland is currently a member of the UK" isn't like saying "Poland is currently a member of the EU" or "Texas is currently a state in the United States of America", as there is a real chance Scotland's position could change in the near future, whereas safe money is on the others staying the same...but maybe look for a better way of reflecting this. I'll ponder on it myself.

(You also can't rely on saying "it's unlikely to change" or "it IS likely to change" as there are polls pointing the outcome strongly to both sides, as well as straight down the middle.)--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

PLease go some napkin math regarding the overall population of Scotland Vs number who voted for the SNP. Even if you assume every voter voted for the SNP for independence (which they did not, many were protest votes) the figures comes out due to pathetic turnouts to be less than 20%. That is not a mandate for independence, nobody in the SNP has addressed parts of Scotland that have never voted SNP either. I find it quite laughable that people on this talk page are insisting independence will be granted. At least wait and see, but the math seems to suggest it will be a resounding 'No' vote. 135.196.94.75 (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC) FW

"Napkin math" isn't exactly robust...There are supporters of independence who didn't vote SNP or Green, common (deliberate) misconception is to consider a Yes vote a vote for a permanent SNP government. 2011 numbers are out-of-date anyway, people have swung round, changed their minds or moved from yes/no to "undecided". Regardless; I reiterate that "there are polls pointing the outcome strongly to both sides, as well as straight down the middle" so we can't make any assumptions based on polls or faulty "napkin math". --Connelly90 13:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Gaelic is apparently already an "Official Language", not just Regional

Excuse me, I have a letter from Alasdair Allan (the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland's Languages) explaining that the Gaelic Scotland Act of 2005 actually secured Gaelic as an official language. He doesn't go into much more detail than that but if we look at the wording of the act itself we can see where he's coming from. The wording is unclear and rather unhelpful at first, but it stated that Bord na Gaidhlig's aim was to secure Gaelic as an official language "of equal respect" to English. That doesn't meant that the aim was to secure it "as an official language", rather an official language "of equal respect" - that is the goal to work towards. The official language status already being there is implicit. If you would like proof of this letter I can show you an image. --86.133.249.101 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please provide the source. Rob (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Will a photograph of the letter do? --86.133.249.101 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No - because anyone using a scanner and a bit of creative editing can produce such a (forged) letter. It would be better if the Scottish Govt. website could specify Gaelic as having such recognition for then the website could be cited in the article. Perhaps Alasdair Allan might be able to initiate such a change to the SG website?86.154.72.233 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This [1], clearly states that Gaelic is an official language. From the Horse's mouth! Brendandh (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Infographic?

Hi, I’m Andrew Clark and I work at the Office for National Statistics in the UK.

We publish lots of infographics and I wonder if this one on Scotland (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Profile_of_Scotland.png) would be of interest for Scotland

FYI, the full gallery is here <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_created_by_the_Office_for_National_Statistics>

All the best

Andrew Clark (smanders1982) 10 Dec 2013

Smanders1982 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew. Nice graphics! I'm sure that we can use them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The infographic says "Edingburgh" --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

== Very questionable infographic==

Firstly: In the same week this infographic was offered to wiki, the Office of National statistics was found by the Financial Times http://archive.is/CTdWs to have grossly miscalucluated Scotland's productivity over a number of years, in an importsant publication - a radical under-calculation of the basic historical position of the entire Scottish economy. The ONS subsequently admitted to this -- but given the date, it is doubtful whether the information in this infographic has been corrected. Perhaps some of the other statistical information in the article should be reviewed in that light.

Secondly, I'm shocked if you're willing to accept this infographic in any circumstances. It's a strange mishmash of cherry-picked statistics with no coherent time-frame, much of it out of date, some of it representing a single quarter in one particular year, sometimes well out of date, some of it on the other hand, for no clear reason, representing trends: some of it comparing Scotland with England (a population ten times its size in a landmass twice the size) plus Wales (comparable for region & population) -- but excluding one UK region, Northern Ireland, which is also comparable. For the purposes of economic statistics the UK Treasury uses twelve economic zones: nine of England, plus the three other countries. Another graphic, the expectancy, arbitrarily compares Scotland to Wales alone: for something compiled by even student statisticians, this is illiterate.

Thirdly, please also not that the British Prime Minister David Cameron explicitly, in a public speech, urged all UKK civil servants (which would include the ONS) to help the anti-independence campaign. (I recall listening to this speech, but can't remember when. I'm sure reference can be found.) Also see National Collective page regarding both the reulst of their Freedom of Information request and a Tass News agency report of UK civil servants engaged in lobbying foreign governments to exert influence on the referendum campaign for the anti-independence side.

In the light of the above points, information on Scotland from UK civil service sources cannot be assumed to be either neutral or factually reliable. 109.155.147.144 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes but that graphic is not in the article.--SabreBD (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mislabeling on the Scottish population by ethnic group - All People section

Clicking on the link for the 'Scottish population by ethnic group - All People' section to the original Scotland census web site here [[2]] I noticed the term used is Gypsy / Traveller not Gypsy / Irish Traveller. As many Scottish gypsies identify themselves as 'Traveller' and Scotland having an indiginous 'Highland Traveller' community it would be an error to label all people who self identify as Travellers with the Irish label. Considering the census doesn't call these diverse communities as Irish Travellers. It was probaby a misunderstanding that all people who identify as 'Traveller' must be therefore Irish a common mistake though. That would be incorrect as labeling all Irish Travellers as Scottish Travellers. Can someone change it kind regards. Uthican (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done.Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Is scotland a country?

shudnt scotland be cald a constituent contry get ur facts right ppl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.138.6 (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Learn to spell, then come back. Britmax (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources support the view that Scotland is a country—see for example the article entitled Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table of references at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. This view is shared with other reputable encyclopedias. There has been a long-standing consensus to describe Scotland in this way.

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, 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.

Rob (talk | contribs) 16:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the FAQs at the top of the page before posting; this question is answered directly. The short answer is "Scotland is a country". A "constituent" country is still a country. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong - Scotland is not a country. The UK is a country. When did Wikipedia get taken over by the SNP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.12.136 (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you will find that "the SNP" are quite busy with other matters at present. We may all be able to agree that the terminology of British Isles related matters is complex, but as Connelly90 suggests above you may find the FAQ at the top of this page helpful. Ben MacDui 12:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The UK is a "Sovereign State" and England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are countries, but they aren't sovereign states. (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) --Connelly90 14:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you will find that a false analysis. There was no extinction of the sovereignty of the two kingdoms on the island of Great Britain (Ireland being a totally different kettle of fish), merely a merging in 1707 (Whatever nonsense has been spouted since). Have a look at the clauses of the acts? Im afraid Wales doen't get a look in by virtue of being taken by conquest (however unfair that may be!)

Brendandh (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Motto

Is it worth noting in the infobox that it's often a shortened motto (i.e. "In Defens") that's used, as opposed to the full "In My Defens God Me Defend."? --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have removed it when I was tidying up formatting. It could be listed below the full motto, or in a note ref. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 17:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Olympic Team

Is Scotland the only country in the world without an olympic team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.19.217 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No. England, Wales and Northern Ireland to name but a few. --Connelly90 07:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Add a few more: Kurdistan, Catalunya, Quebec, Greenland....Brendandh (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tibet, Gibraltar, Macau...--Connelly90 16:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to tease the OP guys. To answer your query, many territories share teams. Great Britain is shared between the UK's countries (of which Scotland is one of), some of its overseas territories, and the Crown dependencies. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

See National Olympic Committee, which lists the states with olympic teams, and the criteria for recognition. As it says "Following an amendment to the Olympic Charter in 1996, NOC recognition can only be granted after recognition as an independent country by the UN." Though there are a few territories which have been recognised from before then, and still have their own teams. Also see Campaign for a Scottish Olympic Team. --Vclaw (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Team GB is also something of a misnomer, for it includes athletes from Northern Ireland, which is not part of Great Britain but is part of the United Kingdom. Quite why this persists is a mystery and one which N.Irish participants must find rather irritating.86.154.133.74 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It is actually called the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic team and as much fun as this is - is there some point that relates to improving the article, which is what this page is for?--SabreBD (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The IOC refers to it as Great Britain and recognizes Team GB as an alternate name; it's the BOA that uses Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team officially, but still uses Team GB almost exclusively these days (except a few times during the London Olympics where the BOA themselves referred to the team as "England"...but that's another story). If Scotland was the only country in the world without an Olympic team, then it would improve the article to include it. --Connelly90 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Concurring with SabreBD, I don't see any hint that the continuation of this thread is in any danger of improving the article. Unless I'm missing something, can we draw it to a close please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but I can draw a pretty decent dog... --Connelly90 13:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Oh please can we stop diverting into general chit-chat on various threads in this talk page? The page is specifically to facilitate improvement to the article and general discussions (Scotland-related or not) which have no bearing on the text of the article should not go here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

GDP per capita

I can't edit the page, but the sidebar shows GDP Per Capita as $44,378 (8th).

Clicking on 8th takes you to a selection of GDP Per Capita lists, which have 8th place from $52,300 to $67,500. Have the figures been updated elsewhere and not on this page? The highest position I can see Scotland taking based on these figures is 17th. 91.84.93.167 (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess those numbers have been updated on the GDP per capita page and it's not been caught on this Scotland page. Economy of Scotland states that it's $46,887(?) so there's something not right here. --Connelly90 09:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI-Using the latest Scottish Government numbers, it works out to be $45,583 (I think) --Connelly90 09:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So still a long way below 8th. Since the highest possible based on that is still 17th, I would hazard a guess that at some point someone typoed 18th and nobody fixed it.91.84.95.129 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Changed to 20th, based on the average from the 4 lists on that page, using the values currently given. EddieHugh (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is from a 2013 Scottish Government report on where Scotland would have ranked in 2011, if it's GDP was measured independently:

When an illustrative geographic share of North Sea (extra regio) output is included in Scottish Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it is estimated that Scotland would be ranked 8th against the 34 OECD member countries, with regards to GDP per capita in 2011.(ref)

I guess someone has taken this report and used it as reference for saying "8th", instead of the current GDP. --Connelly90 11:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

$235 billion? Scotland only gets a per capita share (8.3%) of the UK oil reserves [revenue] (90% of which is located [extracted] in Scotland). The source even states 'Activities on the continental shelf are not classified as occu[r]ring in any particular nation or region' and 'Figures are provided to illustrate the impact of attributing a share of extra-regio activity to Scotland'. This BBC article also states 'Under the present arrangement the oil tax revenues are assigned to an economic region set up by the UK government, which is called the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). This means that oil resources are not officially assigned to Scotland but instead to a region distinct from the British mainland' and '[a] Scottish government report seeks to outline what difference this would make to Scotland's financial position if it were to get a "geographical share" of the revenues instead of a "per capita" slice.' This article is about the country within the UK, not what the country would get if it were independent (of which this figure is entirely speculative, as Scotland's economy could go to shit). Both Scotland and England subsidise Wales and Northern Ireland, however this isn't shown in England's, Wales' or Northern Ireland's GDP so it shouldn't be shown in Scotland's either. You may be keen to abandon the Welsh and Northern Irish, but please wait until you're actually independent, before stating what an independent Scotland's GDP may be, if you're lucky :P. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, the idea of a nation "owning" fossil fuels that haven't been extracted isn't strictly true; as I understand it (using offshore drilling for convenience); the state would grant rights to a company for drilling operations in it's waters, then tax the company quite heavily for extracting it and this tax income is what's quoted as "oil revenue". Whenever a "GDP of Scotland" is quoted, there is nearly always a "With Oil Revenue" and "Without oil Revenue" figure given, since it is a product of Scotland, but the money finds it's way towards Londinium due to the whole "tax/oil revenue" thing.

"Scotland's economy could go to shit"? to "go to shit" you need to be coming from a decent position, and the UK isn't in anything close to a decent position lmao, but that's a discussion for elsewhere (WP:NOTAFORUM). --Connelly90 14:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No shit the SNP want to remind you how much more revenue you would get if you stopped aiding the Welsh and Northern Irish. You're adding revenue Scotland doesn't actually have to it's GDP, because in your view, it's rightfully Scotland's. That's your view though, isn't it? Legally, the oil isn't extracted in Scotland, it's extracted in the 'UK Continental Shelf' region. This article is about a country which doesn't contain that oil. An independent Scotland would, but the Scotland that's part of the UK doesn't. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You could go on all day talking about the legal relationship between Scotland, the UK and the fossil fuels in the north sea (and many people do...); I'm only saying it's a "product of Scotland" since the drilling operations occur using Scotland (mainly Aberdeen) as their kind of "base-of-operations". The independence issue should not come into this right now since, as you say, the result of that is all speculative at this point and delving into that issue is just asking for edit wars and hostility. All I'm saying is that a GDP of Scotland is nearly always quoted as two figures, with and without oil revenue, and that's something that's been done way before the SNP started gaining popularity.

This, and just plain out-of-date figures, is likely the reason there's so many different "GDP" figures for Scotland floating around Wikipedia atm. --Connelly90 09:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Has somebody been fiddling? The GDP figure is now shown as 235 thousand billion dollars! But the reference shows that it cannot be more than £128 billion. Which would mean 212.48 billion dollars at the current exchange rate of 1.66 dollars to the pound. Who's going to change it? Or shall I?Agent0060 11:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)