Talk:Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Scotland has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

References[edit]

Population[edit]

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

Footnotes[edit]

EU Referendum Result in Lede[edit]

Considering the ramifications of Brexit and the EU Referendum result in Scotland, (where almost two-thirds who voted expressed a preference to 'Remain' in the EU), the brief inclusion of both the Independence Referendum and EU Referendum results alerts/informs readers of the complex constitutional issues at play within the body politic in Scotland. To airbrush such out of the lede as being irrelevant, is to do the reader a disservice. An encyclopaedia's content requires to be contemporary, and where situations change, so must their content. Rab-k (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead exists to introduce and summarise the most important contents of the article. The article is "Scotland", not Politics of Scotland, Scottish independence, or any other narrower subject. It therefore has to cover 1000+ years of history, geography, demographics, economy, sports, education, etc etc. The current body politic is complex in any country, but that's not a justification for including the latest updates in the lead of this very broad topic. Expanding the relevant content in the body beyond one sentence would be more useful to the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
To quote your own words..."With a contentious topic such as Brexit, it's best to look at the article's talk page before making changes to the lead (the opening, summarising part). Editors have usually discussed and (largely!) agreed on the wording," The lede in this article has been equally contentious and for you to drive a coach and horses through it in the manner which you have doneis unacceptable. Persist in doing so without consensus will lead to a lock on the article and possible block for you. Bring your proposed changes here to discuss and until consensus is reached leave the lede as I have reverted. Thank you. Rab-k (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I was asked to look in. May I suggest either a compromise (preferable) or an RFC between two different versions of the lead? --John (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Please don't threaten other editors; it's not constructive. Points: a) The Scotland article is not contentious in comparison with Brexit; b) The lead hasn't been discussed on the talk page since 22 July 2016, since when it has been changed numerous times, obviously without discussion (ironically, the first person to edit it after that date was... you, Rab-k! Even more ironically, that discussion, between two editors, concluded that the EU referendum information should not be in the lead. With spectacular irony, then, you, in fact, chose to ignore talk page consensus when you put it back in! I don't really care that you did, but to threaten me with a block for supposedly doing what you definitely did...!!!); c) You omitted the final phrase when quoting me: "especially of the first sentence"; I haven't changed the first sentence. So, if you want to restore the lead to how it was on 22 July 2016, the last time it was discussed, then that would be logical. Changing it to what you want and then insisting that any further changes be proposed and approved in advance is disrespectful of other editors. Neither of these courses of action is advisable or necessary: just discuss as normal. You've jumped from starting a discussion on the talk page (thanks), to threatening blocks and lock downs, all within 24 hours and one talk page reply.
Let's get back to the topic... what do you object to (apart from not mentioning another possible referendum)? This edit moved detail out of the lead into the body (it wasn't in the body, so shouldn't have been in the lead anyway) because it was excessively detailed for the lead, in my view; it also simplified the independence referendum matter to a sentence, appropriately for the lead (the 1979 referendum isn't mentioned at all, for example). The next edit cut "Within Scotland, the monarchy of the United Kingdom has continued to use a variety of styles, titles and other royal symbols of statehood specific to the pre-union Kingdom of Scotland" because that's of trivial interest to all except those interested in what the various elements of the monarchy are called. The following edit was based on the fact that the legal system information was duplicated in the same paragraph, so I removed the highly detailed bit and left in the summary (because it's the lead, which is a summary, not for detail). Then I put what was literally in brackets into a footnote, which is a more appropriate place for detail that's not central, as demonstrated by its parenthetical status. Obviously I think these are improvements. What do others think? EddieHugh (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Trust me, this article is up there with Brexit where disputes are concerned, which is why it is best practice to propose/discuss significant changes here first. But getting back to 'business', no issue with your first edit outlined above, although I'd have chosen slightly different wording re. incorporating the riots into that sentence, but that concerns grammar/tense rather than content.
Your second edit you state being due to the material being "of trivial interest to all except those interested in..." which is your opinion. The inclusion of this one sentence is in an effort to explain (in part and without too much detail) why there is no equivalent to the Royal Banner of Scotland in the other UK constituent country articles' info boxes. (As with the UK as a whole, there is no one-size-fits-all to its constituent parts, and the inclusion of the banner alongside the national flag exists as a result of consensus reached at the time).
Your third edit removes a sentence detailing the legal situation. Certainly it is repeated, therefore the second mention of the legal aspect I'd be happy to see removed, in favour of keeping the first albeit slightly more detailed sentence.
As far as constitutional matters are concerned, mention one, mention them all: 1979, 2014, 2016. Or none at all - which I'd be happy to go with, but that wasn't the consensus reached at the time.
In summary, the paragraphs concerned appear below in a form which I for one would be happy with; the material removed with regard to the riots and the detail concerning the various referendums, incorporated into the relevant sections as suggested. Rab-k (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Scotland emerged as an independent sovereign state in the Early Middle Ages and continued to exist until 1707. By inheritance in 1603, James VI, King of Scots, became King of England and King of Ireland, thus forming a personal union of the three kingdoms. Scotland subsequently entered into a political union with the Kingdom of England on 1 May 1707 to create the new Kingdom of Great Britain.[1][2] The union also created a new Parliament of Great Britain, which succeeded both the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England. (In 1801, Great Britain itself entered into a political union with the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; the Parliament of Ireland merging with that of Great Britain to form the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Since the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, the United Kingdom has comprised Great Britain and Northern Ireland).[3]

Within Scotland, the monarchy of the United Kingdom has continued to use a variety of styles, titles and other royal symbols of statehood specific to the pre-union Kingdom of Scotland. The legal system within Scotland has also remained separate from those of England and Wales and Northern Ireland; Scotland constitutes a distinct jurisdiction in both public and private law.[4] The continued existence of educational, religious and other institutions distinct from those in the remainder of the UK have also contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and national identity since the 1707 union with England.[5]

In 1997, a Scottish Parliament was re-established, in the form of a devolved unicameral legislature comprising 129 members, having authority over many areas of domestic policy. Scotland is represented in the UK Parliament by 59 MPs and in the European Parliament by 6 MEPs.[6] Scotland is also a member nation of the British–Irish Council,[7] and the British–Irish Parliamentary Assembly.

Thanks for the reply. "an effort to explain (in part and without too much detail) why there is no equivalent to the Royal Banner of Scotland in the other UK constituent country articles' info boxes"... this is a very niche point (my original objection) and, based on your explanation, looks to be targeted at Wikipedia editors rather than (just) readers, although the latter should be the main focus. Think about what the sentence would be if it stated what was intended: "There is no Royal Banner of Scotland in the infobox for this article, because...": that's not worth including in the lead, is it? (I don't mind if you insist on it being there, though.)
Can we put the parenthetical stuff ("In 1801, Great Britain itself ... comprised Great Britain and Northern Ireland") as a footnote? They're two sentences that don't even mention Scotland; footnotes must have been invented for just such a case.
All or nothing on the referendums. My first instinct was to go for all, but your proposal has the appeal of letting the common obsession with recent events just wash away: mention big changes that have happened, but not things that could have led / could lead to big changes but didn't / haven't (the Jacobite rebellions probably had a greater impact than 1979 or 2014 so far, but they're not worth including in the lead either). Your other suggestions are fine with me. EddieHugh (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for yours, and your comments. Royal retention of pre-1707 styles etc. does appear elsewhere so I'd be content for the removal or reduction of that. Perhaps a reduced form of words as a start and see how that is received...
Within Scotland, the monarchy of the United Kingdom has continued to use symbols of statehood specific to the pre-union Kingdom of Scotland. The legal system within Scotland has also remained separate...
The "In 1801...etc." within parenthesis, I do appreciate your comments. However, residing in the UK we can often take for granted, through familiarity with the subject, that which is not always apparent to readers from elsewhere. The distinction between England, Britain/Great Britain and the UK/UK of GB & NI is one which is often lost on those from, to use an example from my own personal experience, the USA. (Possibly less so in the case of Commonwealth countries). My own take on its inclusion is that it serves to provide a degree of completeness, in that the progression from Kingdom of Scotland to, (a constituent country of), the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is described briefly, in a single paragraph, with links to direct the reader to the relevant articles.
Referendums I'm happy to leave to relevant sections in the article itself. I'll await your comments, and those of any others who may also have a view. Thanks & regards Rab-k (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
On UK/GB/etc: true, but isn't that adequately covered by the current opening sentence ("a country that is part of the United Kingdom and covers the northern third of the island of Great Britain") and its links? EddieHugh (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Only my own personal take, but that opening sentence can cause confusion to some; a "country" within what is regarded by many as a "country". However, as a statement of fact it is entirely correct, as the term "Country" is not synonymous with "State". Again, to be able to progress, via a 'potted history' if you will, the Kingdom of Scotland through the united Kingdom of Great Britain to the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland in a single para' enables the reader, (one would hope), to understand how Scotland, (and for that matter England, Wales & N.Ireland), have combined through regal and political union/dissolution to where we are today. Again, I just feel that it adds more to the lede through its inclusion than by its removal, particularly for readers from outside these isles. Rab-k (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
How about....
The Kingdom of Scotland emerged as an independent sovereign state in the Early Middle Ages and continued to exist until 1707. By inheritance in 1603, James VI, King of Scots, became King of England and King of Ireland, thus forming a personal union of the three kingdoms. Scotland subsequently entered into a political union with the Kingdom of England on 1 May 1707 to create the new Kingdom of Great Britain. The union also created a new Parliament of Great Britain, which succeeded both the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England. (In 1801, Great Britain itself entered into a political union with the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Since the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, the United Kingdom has comprised Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
Thoughts? Rab-k (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
So just use "to create the new Kingdom of Great Britain, which subsequently became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The detail about Ireland/Northern Ireland/1801/1922 is relevant to the UK, but not to the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the (larger) country. Give enough detail to enable understanding, but not so much that it loses relevance and distracts from the narrative. EddieHugh (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. How about:
The Kingdom of Scotland emerged as an independent sovereign state in the Early Middle Ages and continued to exist until 1707. By inheritance in 1603, James VI, King of Scots, became King of England and King of Ireland, thus forming a personal union of the three kingdoms. Scotland subsequently entered into a political union with the Kingdom of England on 1 May 1707 to create the new Kingdom of Great Britain. The union also created a new Parliament of Great Britain, which succeeded both the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England. (The Kingdom of Great Britain now forms part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland").
Personally, that's about as far as I feel I can go without compromising the lede. Rab-k (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Is that correct? "now forms" implies that the Kingdom of GB still exists. Tighter wording and it'll be fine. (Get rid of the brackets, though.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Having spent a good while trying to find a form of words that makes sense, I've come back to something akin the original, but not so comprehensive...
The Kingdom of Scotland emerged as an independent sovereign state in the Early Middle Ages and continued to exist until 1707. By inheritance in 1603, James VI, King of Scots, became King of England and King of Ireland, thus forming a personal union of the three kingdoms. Scotland subsequently entered into a political union with the Kingdom of England on 1 May 1707 to create the new Kingdom of Great Britain. The union also created a new Parliament of Great Britain, which succeeded both the Parliament of Scotland and the Parliament of England. In 1801, Great Britain entered into a political union with the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
Thoughts? Rab-k (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, do it! Your latest suggestion for the history para, and the earlier, agreed on two paras. No other editors have commented over two weeks – that's enough time. EddieHugh (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. Sorry for the delay in response - work keeps getting in the way. I'll get on to the changes ASAP. Thanks for your input. Rgds Rab-k (talk) 09:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Relationship with monarch[edit]

There are two problems with the 'Politics and government' section. Firstly, it incorrectly states "Scotland's head of state is the monarch of the United Kingdom". As defined by the Head of state article

A head of state (or chief of state) is the public persona that officially represents the national unity and legitimacy of a sovereign state. (My emphasis)

Scotland is not a sovereign state (as claimed by Goodreg3) therefore it cannot have its own head of state. The monarch is the head of state for the UK not its constituent countries.

The inclusion of the discusion of Scotland's relationship with the monarch is also given undue prominance. The monarch is not part of the Scottish government. Its own website makes no reference to QEII in the desciption of itself[1]. So to have the first two paragraphs devoted to an individual who's only role is the ceremonial appointment of 3 of the government's members seriously downplays the role of the scottish parliament and executive. This part would be better served in its own subsection. Eckerslike (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

science, god and golf[edit]

david cameron, the light of our hill mountain, our lord understands, the ancient complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.199.95 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Keay was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mackie was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Parliament and Ireland". London: The Houses of Parliament. Retrieved 26 December 2016. 
  4. ^ Collier, J. G. (2001) Conflict of Laws (Third edition)(pdf) Cambridge University Press. "For the purposes of the English conflict of laws, every country in the world which is not part of England and Wales is a foreign country and its foreign laws. This means that not only totally foreign independent countries such as France or Russia ... are foreign countries but also British Colonies such as the Falkland Islands. Moreover, the other parts of the United Kingdom – Scotland and Northern Ireland – are foreign countries for present purposes, as are the other British Islands, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey."
  5. ^ Devine, T. M. (1999), The Scottish Nation 1700–2000, P.288–289, ISBN 0-14-023004-1 "created a new and powerful local state run by the Scottish bourgeoisie and reflecting their political and religious values. It was this local state, rather than a distant and usually indifferent Westminster authority, that in effect routinely governed Scotland"
  6. ^ "Scottish MEPs". Europarl.org.uk. Archived from the original on 1 May 2014. Retrieved 26 May 2014. 
  7. ^ "Scotland / Alba". British-Irish Council. Retrieved 4 May 2013.