Talk:Scotland/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Infobox country

I've made a first pass at using the standard {{Infobox Country}} in this article following the subst'ing and TfD of {{Scotland infobox}}: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Scotland infobox. But that's me out of time and destined to cook dinner... Can someone fix up anything I've missed (HDI jumps out). Thanks/wangi 18:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"in response to Wangi's request for assistance on Talk: why don't we just "subst" the infobox before it is deleted?"
Because it's a horrid guddle ;) My edit to use the std infobox is 90% there, and it's much better than a user seeing a massive block of rubbish when they try to edit the article. Thanks/wangi 18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Fairy nuff! I was just trying to save ourselves from re-inventing the wheel, but if wheel invention is your forté, then I humbly offer myself as lab assistant :) --Mais oui! 19:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I replaced the code for the infobox as the template infobox country doesn't work for Scotland. For example the size of the coat of arms is off, and some required fields just cannot be applied to Scotland. I will see what I can do in the interim. --Bob 20:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Really the only stand-out fields are the "rank" ones, the idea that the coat of arms is off is a personal call (looks fine to me). I think the page using the standard template is nearly there, plus it is a lot easier on editors to be faced with that rather than a big splodge of esoteric rubbish! Thanks/wangi 20:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I too would prefer it if we could use/adapt the std infobox, but I just cannot suss out how to do that; and I agree Bob that the arms are far too big (and I have tried fixing that in the sandbox, and I cannot). --Mais oui! 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Give me a couple of minutes and I will come back with a better template for use in constituent country articles. --Bob 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Is that a good compromise? --Bob 21:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd go for that, thanks for the quick work! /wangi 21:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

So here's a concern: when I go to edit the top intro of the article, I see all this code which I don't understand. That's my reason for liking the use of templates. So until a template with a wider scope works for us, why don't we just create {{Infobox Scotland}} ? File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 19:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Because single use templates are frowned upon by those up high, and the old {{Infobox Scotland}} has just been deleted. --Bob 15:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert Louis Stevenson-Kailyard???

In the media section Robert Louis Stevenson has been coupled with J. M. Barrie in the 'kailyard' tradition. This is just plain wrong; I cannot be any more direct than that. Kailyard is a literary dead end. Stevenson may have written some historical romance-not among his best fiction-but this no more puts him in the kailyard bracket than Sir Walter Scott. How 'kailyard' is the Beach at Falesa? The point about Stevenson is that he is one of the most significant of Scottish writers, influencing men as diverse as Henry James and Jorge Luis Borges. Rcpaterson 05:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't my field, but surely Macpherson and Scott had huge international influence, inspiring the birth of Romanticism and the historical novel respectively? We seem to be suggesting a bit of a kailyard mentality here by not mentioning them.. dave souza, talk 07:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I would guess that this is just the usual vandalism/cluelessness. Kailyard literature is a very specific genre within Scottish literature as a whole and only three or four late nineteenth century writers (of whom Barrie is the most famous) did any work in it. I doubt that it's worth mentioning at all in an overview article such as this one. Scott, Stevenson, Barrie (and I suppose Macpherson) were much more important. In fact if we are talking international influence I would say that there's a good case for mentioning Conan Doyle, Buchan and Macdonald Fraser too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Food and drink

I just attempted to remove the food and drink section - the revert failed (don't know why) but I assumed the summary was there so I added another saying "whoops..." which didn't explain what I was doing. Anyway it was a quite surreal section only three lines long explaining that Scotland has Flakes, Double Deckers, puddings that aren't desserts and "different sausages" and I just didn't think it was appropriate. --Lo2u (TC) 21:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it was nonsense! Thanks/wangi 21:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

However, every encyclopedia article, in a print encyclopedia, always makes mention of the Food and Drink of a nation. Whiskey should be mentioned somewhere on the page, and I'm rather confident that we could whip up a decent Food & Drink section (perhaps under Culture?, what with Oatcakes, Haggis, Kippers, Oatmeal, and... more Whiskey? Tea, too. Speak up, ye natives o the land. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, with time, even create a full article, Food and Drink in Scotland. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 22:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There already is an article: Scottish cuisine. Though it is currently very brief, and lacking any mention of a number of the foods you mention. No mention of haggis, or whisky (without an E). Could also add Scotch pie, Scotch eggs, cranachan, bannock, shortbread, Scottish beer, Irn-Bru and of course the deep-fried Mars bar. It could do with a lot of expansion, I'll add a bit more to it soon. --Vclaw 23:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well that's nifty. Thanks for pointing it out! It does break the standard of "X in Scotland," which can be confusing. There is a difference between Scottish cuisine and Cuisine in Scotland, for not all Scots live in Scotland. But wonderful, we have an article! File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 03:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to put something in about fish. yerkschmerk
No need to ask permition. If you think something needs added or reworded then edit. That's what the wiki in wikipedia means.Rincewind42 05:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Expanded articles

So it looks to me, that Religion in Scotland and Language in Scotland are two logical articles to be created, being the only two sections in the current article which don't have "main article" links. I'm a bit surprised that there isn't already a Religion in Scotland article, actually. An article detailing the current situation of various Languages in Scotland (Gaelic, Scots, Scottish English, Highland English, along with maybe details of various regional dialects and peculiarities, plus some history on the whole lot) seems as though it could also make up a decent article. I'm not sure I have the knowledge/resources to start such articles, but just throwing the idea out there. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 22:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created the Language in Scotland article, with my limited knowledge. The page is split into Celtic and Germanic languages, and I guess you'll find out the rest. It needs loads of expansion, as well as the need to be added to numerous categories. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 23:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hiya folks, here again with another orientation question. Are nearly all the images in the article on the right, in a neat little row, for a reason? I've noticed that the image in the Law section, has stayed to the left, since I moved it some months ago. I'm a big fan of varying which side of the article images are on; it adds style, and just seems to make the article look better. More professional, like a real encyclopedia, which we're aspiring to be. If anyone has any strong objections, I'd love to discuss the matter, though it is somewhat trivial. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Section intros?

So the Demographics section has an introduction, however Neither the History nor Culture sections does (these being the only three sections of the article with sub-sections). I'm making another request here, for there to be one for each of these sections. I'll try my hand at the Culture one, though it'd be much better for one of our wonderous Historians to take a try at the History section. Always open to discussion. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 22:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I modified the culture intro as I found it a little redundant. ie. The culture of Scotland is the national culture of Scotland. Of course the culture of Scotland is the culture of Scotland. Hope you don't mind. I tried to give a lead to what was already there without using speculation or weasel wording (horrible terminology, but I hope you don't take it personally). --Bob 16:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just stole that bit from the main sub article, so no offence taken. Thank you! File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 20:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

good work

i can see a lot of effort has gone in to this page A++ guys great page, came to see if there was any thing i could add, i was wrong lol. Mr Roboto 19:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Europe

OK, Scotland is in Europe. But North-West Europe, Northern Europe or Western Europe?; each term is ambiguous and not clearly defined, legally, geographically, politically or otherwise. Can we please be certain before we put it in the opening sentence as it is actually POV. 86.133.72.79 16:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

--I see the edit history has changed, and thus mentions of Europe have been removed by other editors too. Please be mindful of the various terms for the portions of Europe however. Many thanks, 86.133.72.79 16:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It is a geographical description rather than a POV as the article on NorthWest Europe shows. Please see the above discussion about the introduction before reverting again. Thanks Globaltraveller 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for this? The Marshall Plan states that the UK is in Western Europe, whereas the United Nations Statistics Division places Scotland in Northern Europe [1]... can you see where I'm going with this? Please understand also I have the article's interests at heart here, I like to think I'm not one of these chronic vandals! 86.133.72.79 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I can't see where you're going with this, to be honest and to be honest I think its a bit of a bizarre argument. It's not political, or about the politics of Europe it isn't about the EU, or the Marshall plan, it is about points on a compass. We haven't invented a new political entity, it is just that it is more geographically accurate to place Scotland in the NW portion of Europe, just as it is to place Greece in the SE portion of Europe. That's all and FWIW I cannot for the life of me see how it debases the article. Globaltraveller 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with the word, 86.133. It is just a geographical descriptive to allow those who don't specifically know where Scotland is to get an easy picture in their mind (North EU - is that Scotland or Finland - West EU - is that Scotland or Spain - North West EU - ah, ok, so centred in and around the northern Atlantic, Ireland, UK, Benelux area). Any complaints about the term would be best placed at the actual article talk page itself. Frankly I am not opposed to unlinking the word, because the article is of relatively poor standard, "North-West Europe is not a well defined term" is never the best way to start an encyclopedic entry. SFC9394 20:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've delinked the word as per above Globaltraveller 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. But really, perhaps I didn't make my intentions clear enough... I'm not intending to insult or undermine the article here; I'm actually trying to improve the integrity of the article by a couple of small suggestions!... Yes Scotland is in the direction of NW Europe, but I was challenging the bold use of it, as varying (POV?) references that state it is otherwise. Hope it helps somewhat, however. 86.133.72.79 21:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you are worrying unduly! WP:POV can't really be applied to basic facts. Some sources might say N Europe, some might say W Europe, and some might say NW Europe. Using one over the other 2 isn't POV in this case - we are simply better defining it's location than just broadly saying "North Europe". The issue doesn't have some vast historic baggage, controversy or "issues" attached to it (simple one to look at there would be is Israel a Middle Eastern or European country?) - Word usage in a case like that can lead down POV roads - but we have pretty open and shut case here. Scotland is in the continent of Europe (leave any political EU baggage aside - it is irrelevant to Scotland’s location), and is in the NW quadrant. SFC9394 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold on you guys, Scotland must gotta be a Northern Europe territory,, we can correctly mention Iceland to as a North Western Territory.--Walter Humala 21:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The word territory can't really be applied to Europe as a continent. All the word NW defines is that if you stood in the "middle" of Europe (I am guessing in and around Hungary somewhere) then you can split the continent into four quadrants. Scotland, the UK, Iceland etc are all in the NW quadrant. SFC9394 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! I can't believe the placing of Scotland in Europe could be so controversial, I didn't realise directions could constitute a POV! We've got continental drift to blame for this discussion! So some official sources put us in northern Europe, others in western Europe, surely NW is a combination of the two? Globaltraveller 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Scotland is in the direction of NW Europe (from the centre of Europe), but does it (at a serious academic level) lie within a legally defined, and broadly agreed consensus that is a well known division of Europe? Furthermore, is it inline with Wikipedia:Verifiability-the cornerstone of our Encyclopedia? Mentions of Europe can actually be very controvertial as Europe is a socio-ethno-political construct, rather than a geological continent.
I'm certainly happy with opening sentence as it stands (with the division delinked); it seems a reasonable compromise to me (although others certainly have a right to challenge it on the same basis). There's no harm in challenging any statements in an article; as it should ultimately lead to the improvement of the content, it's part of Critical thinking and if we want this article to be the authority on Scotland, we should continue to do so. 86.133.72.79 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Do the Atlas Mountains which divide Europe and Asia not indicate that the two lands collided at one point? Regardless, we're not linking anything but Europe in that section. We're just saying that Scotland is not in the mediteranean, I think. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean Ural mountains.137.138.46.155 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per WP:MOS-L and WP:CONTEXT.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[1]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[2]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[3]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[4]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • it is claimed
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[5]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 31 additive terms, a bit too much.
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [6]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 01:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The dab header

I have reverted the article to include "This article is about the country. For other uses, see Scotland (disambiguation)" rather than the version Deeds-123 (talk · contribs) had added: "For an explanation of terms such as Scottish, Great Britain, British, United Kingdom and Scotland, see British Isles (terminology). For other uses, see Scotland (disambiguation)".

The disambiguation header is there to redirect viewers who have ended up at the wrong page. Somebody is not going to type in "Scotland" (or follow a link) expecting to get to an article about Britain the British Isles.

Please get consensus for any changes, we do not want to continue this edit war. Thanks/wangi 21:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with. Globaltraveller 21:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
It's bad enough having it on the UK article- people are not stupid. Astrotrain 21:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Although this is not the correct forum for discussing the UK article, I agree. That dab header on the UK article is an absolute eyesore, and, even worse, the article it points readers to is utterly appalling. Dab headers are for WP:Disambiguation, nothing else. They are not a repository for "See also" links. --Mais oui! 21:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"The proportionally large amount of military bases in Scotland, when compared to other parts of the UK"

I believe this is incorrect. Using the figures given by the reference [2] I've worked out the ratio of MOD land to total land area for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These are 1.46%, 1.76%, 1.10% and 0.23% respectively. As for number of bases, I doubt there are more in Scotland. To take the RAF for example, there are many more bases in England. [3] Therefore it is wrong to say "large amount of military bases in Scotland, when compared to other parts of the UK". Mark83 13:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that the sentence is predicated on the assumption of population ie from the article Scotland has 31% of the UK's defence estate, despite having 9% of its population, ergo it is disproportionate to population (which is true) and probably what sentence was referring to. Globaltraveller 21:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If that is what is meant, it doesn't make sense. One would expect Scotland to have

military land in rough proportion to area - in fact, since Scotland is less densely populated and has more marginal land, possibly more.

Exile 16:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Latin

Sorry, my computer keeps saving my changes when I am half-way through my edit summary - no idea whether I'm hitting some speed-key by mistake. Anyway, I wanted to say that Latin is not in use in Scotland as a language and therefore should not be under the languages-of-Scotland section. Scots law does use Latin tags, but no more than English law, and there is no reason to highlight these more than technical loan-words in any other field. What might be worth mentioning, though, is that the number of minority languages is growing. A report in the Herald last week said that over 50 languages are used in the playground of Shawlands Academy. --Doric Loon 20:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're like me it's hitting the return or enter keys. The question is, how do they pronounce the school name in 50 languages? A Liverpudlian pal from Thurso was going with a Glasgwegian chum on the blue train to visit that area, and was warned to watch out for the station name and be quick to head for the doors, but they had to rush as he didn't react to the station signs having been looking for ones that said "Shulns". ...dave souza, talk 21:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Gaps

I am the only one to notice the gaps in the history section of this article. It seems to jump from the 1370s to 1603- 300 years which include, among other things, the Scottish Reformation- although admittedly it's included in the Religion section. --Slackbuie 01:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, as I never tire of pointing out, but no-one ever responds, the History section is way too long as it is: that is what we have numerous subarticles for, esp. re. history. It is my opinion that we will never get this article up to FA status while it is miles over the length recommendation, with the key "culprit" being the History section (although Politics could do with a decent trim too). I do not feel sufficiently qualified to trim the History section myself, but the problem is that none of our numerous historians seems to want to tackle it. Summarising many hundreds of years of history into a few paragraphs is extremely hard, but we can do it well, I feel certain. (But I agree with your point: in many ways the pre-Union of the Crowns Stuart era is really the key period when Scotland became Scotland: it would be nice to give a tiny flavour of that to readers here on the main article.) --Mais oui! 06:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
How long should the history section be? It is the tendency of the wiki to expand rather than contract. People feel comfortable adding new information or correcting existing information. It takes a strong conviction to delete sections and cut them out. Someone may feel more at ease making the cut if there was a consensus that the history section should be X many words. Then someone can work on the wording to meet that target. Rincewind42 10:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had a go at shortening the history section. The waffle about the glaciation (as per pear review recommendations) and the bit at the end about post WWII industrial decline got the chop along with much of the wars of Independence. Also the new Parliament of 1998 is historical, but it's not yet history. I also added some missing periods that were neglected so as to make a comprehensive article. (the 16th C and 18th C were woefully poorly covered). The passage is still to heavy on the 13th/14th C. Overall I think I added as much as I cut. Swings and roundabouts, eh! Rincewind42 17:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Size (again)

Leaving history aside, at 67kb this is a huge article and more text and images have been added to it (which is fair enough) but it is on top of an already big article. Apart from the history section what areas still need to be cut down or summarised a bit better? I notice, for example, in the peer review the view was that the Gallery of Images was largely redundant. Bottom line is, I think this is an excellent article and SHOULD absolutely be FA status (it would be a travesty if it didn't get there, soon). What do we still need to do (apart from cutting down some sections) to get there? Globaltraveller 10:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the feedback from the Wangi-requested Peer review was first class, but... we largely ignored it!?! It has been on my vast "to-do" list ever since to go back to it, and go through it line by line, implementing what those guys say. Needless to say: I ain't done it.
I think we could lick this article into shape for a shot at FA within a matter of days, if we all agree on the goal, and an outline plan for getting there. But I am slightly concerned that not everyone is on board for this effort, because:
  1. we all, myself included, ignored the peer review recommendations! That was a very poor indicator. (proviso: there were some minor exceptions, eg. Globaltraveller referenced the "790 islands" bit and others)
  2. every single time I have mentioned the fundamental size issue I have been ignored (up till now) or else contradicted (especially about the History bit, which seems to be a bit of a sacred cow)
So what is the story people? Do we really want to do this thing?
(I hate to see the Gallery of images go, but if it is a hindrance to FA: let's cut it for now, but keep the idea for possible future use, once the whole article has been cut back.) --Mais oui! 12:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we should, I just hope others think so too ;-). I think the article is about 70/80% of the way there, as it stands I'll have a go at finding citations for things and standardising references anyway, but it needs lots of folk in their areas of expertise to help out! Come on people!!!! Globaltraveller 14:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG! This article is getting worse!!! We were so near to FA status, but in the last month we have gone only backwards. The article is now at a laughable 75kB. --Mais oui! 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick ideas:
    • Etymology can be split to its own article and a summary made.
    • History needs Mediaeval section reduced and balance to 19th and 20th C history, each subsection should link to its own main article.
    • Politics - needs to be summarised a lot more
    • Military - given undue attention, needs to be summarised more
    • Education - summarise more
    • Transport - again, summarise more
    • National symbols - could well move this completely to its own article?
/wangi 21:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that every one of your suggestions sounds eminently reasonable and sensible. The main reason that we have all these subsidiary articles ("Politics of ..."; "Economy of ...", "Transport of ..." etc.) is so that we can shuffle off all the detail to them, so that we do not overburden this main article.
Regarding your comment - "... balance to 19th and 20th C history" - I agree. In its coverage of Scottish history I consider that Wikipedia falls into an extremely common historiographical trap: we concentrate far too much on "old" history, and almost ignore "recent" history. There is a wealth of excellent, citable, academic material on Scotland in the 19th and 20th centuries, and yet our coverage of those topics is almost non-existent. Eg. witness the frankly embarrassing redlink: Scotland in the Modern Era, from Template:History of Scotland. --Mais oui! 21:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ See footnote
  5. ^ See footnote
  6. ^ See footnote