Jump to content

Talk:Scotland/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32

Head of State

Instead of edit warring, it would be better if the competing views are discussed here. DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The statement that is being footnoted says that Scotland's mode of governance is a "devolved government within a constitutional monarchy". I think it would make sense to briefly state in its footnote what relationship the monarch bears to Scotland and who it currently is. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. I suspect the difficulty is with the phrase "Scotland's head of state is..." which is a little misleading. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It already states who the monarch of the United Kingdom is adjacent to the "Monarch" field. Scotland is not a state so obviously cannot have a head of state.
The monarch of the United Kingdom and Scotland do not have a notable relationship and the monarch plays no role in local government in Scotland. This is because the UK is a unitary state, meaning sovereign powers have only been delegated to the UK Parliament which therefore possesses legislative supremacy.
Also, keep in mind the MOS regarding the purpose of an infobox: "to summarize key facts that appear in the article" and "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose".
Rob984 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
"The monarch of the UK and Scotland do not have a notable relationship". I'm sorry, but that statement shows that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Er, Rob984, under section 45 of the Scotland Act the First Minister of Scotland is one of the handful of direct appointments by the monarch of a significant political office in the UK. Anyway, I don't see how anyone could object to this edit. Hopefully, that's an end to this. DeCausa (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Latin Translation

I have changed the translations in the Etymology section as Scotia dose not translate to (land of the gaels). I suggest the editors go onto something as easy as Google translator, or read a book on Scottish/Roman history. Also the symbol of Scotland is in fact The Lion, our animal of choice is the unicorn, we defend this and the unattainable beast. We base this in our history on the fact the Roman empire could not conquered Scotland including England.

I find it highly offensive that members on Wikipedia who are not Scottish are editing Scottish history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo542 (talk • contribs)

Then you will have to live with the 'offence' there are no restrictions on who can edit. I put a full guide on how to edit wikipedia on your talk page which I suggest you read. In the mean time I have reverting those changes back to referenced material. ----Snowded TALK 11:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I notice you have changed The Etymology again. (Scoti is the Latin name for the Gaels)???

This is incorrect information. Scoti translates to (Scots). The Roman's named different Gaelic tribes across Europe by different names, they did not name (the gaels) as a whole the Scoti!. Scoti was a name given to the Gaelic tribe that resided in lands the Romans named Scotia or (Hibernia).

Hibernia is Latin for Ireland and translates to Ireland.

Incorrect information will be removed from Wikipedia, so says Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo542 (talk • contribs)

If it is that "easy", presumably you will be able to provide a reference. Please note that another Wikipedia article does not count (WP:CIRCULAR). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

OK so, The Romans spoke Latin, in Latin (Scoti) translates to (Scots), (Scotia) translates to (Scotland). Where exactly dose Wikipedia find translations where Scoti translates to (The Gaels) n The land of the gaels?. Gael in Latin is the same in English.

In Italian history you find Romans named the Gaelic tribes across Europe with different names. They claim to have names Scotia after an Egyptian Princess that was a celebrity amongst the Romans, this you can find in any library across Britannia.

Now modern Irish simply do not like the fact they are descendants of Scots, not (The Scottish). There is many books written by Irish People who have claimed Scots came from Irish when in fact it was the other way around. However facts are facts and false or misleading information should not be tolerated on Wikipedia.

This is incorrect >

"Scotland" comes from Scoti, the Latin name for the Gaels. The Late Latin word Scotia ("land of the Gaels") was initially used to refer to Ireland.[29] By the 11th century at the latest, Scotia was being used to refer to (Gaelic-speaking) Scotland north of the river Forth, alongside Albania or Albany, both derived from the Gaelic Alba.[30] The use of the words Scots and Scotland to encompass all of what is now Scotland became common in the Late Middle Ages.[18]

Here is the correct version >

"Scotland" comes from Scoti, the Latin name given by the Romans to name Gaelic tribe living in the land they named SCOTIA.. Land of the Scots. The Late Latin word Scotia ("land of the Scots") was initially used to refer to middle age Ireland, also known in latin as (Hibernia).[29] By the 11th century at the latest, Scotia was being used to refer to (Gaelic-speaking) Scotland north of the river Forth, alongside Albania or Albany, both derived from the Gaelic Alba.[30] The use of the words Scots and Scotland to encompass all of what is now Scotland became common in the Late Middle Ages.[18]


Scotia, land of the Scots was renamed Hibernia land of the Irish.

What I do not understand is why the admin wants to allow false and misleading information, AND WHY DOSE THE ADMIN CONTINUE TO REVERT CHANGES TO FALSE INFORMATION?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelo542 (talk • contribs)

The people who inhabited what is now Ireland in the early Medieval period were Gaels. Gaels lived in what is now Ireland, Picts in northern Scotland, Britons in southern Scotland, Northern and Western England and Wales, and various Celtic groups including Britons in the south east. The Gaels, so the conventional history goes, spread into Argyll around the 5th century, founding the kingdom of Dál Riata. Prior to this, "Ireland" was the land of the Gaels. This is not controversial.
As far as what Ireland was called in that period... it's a little more complicated than you suggest:
Author Year Name
Rufus Festus Avienus 370 Sacram Insulam Gens. Hibernorum Colit
Claudius Claudianus 400 Ierne / Iernen
Stephanus Byzantinus 490 Ierun
Orosius 5th C Hibernia
St Patrick 5th C Hiberione/Hiberionem/Hiberia
Priscianus Periegeta 6th C Iberus
Pope Gregory I 6th C Hiberniam
Cogitosus 6th C Scotia
Isidorus Hispalensis 600 Scotia / Hibernia
Anon 7th C Hibernia Insula Scotorum
Bede 7th C Hibernia / Scotia
Jonas 7th C Hibernia / Scotia
Adamnan 7th C Scotiam
Laurentius 7th C Scotiam
Coelfrid 8th C Scotiam
Nennius 9th C Hyberniam / Hibernia / Iberniam
Raban Maur 9th C Scotia / Hibernia
Alfred the Great 9th C Scotland
Egilward 9th C Scotia / Hibernia
The Scoti was what these authors called people who lived in Scotia, which was Ireland. They were Gaels. It did not refer to a particular kingdom or tribe (there were several). It referred to all Gaels.
Hope that helps. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Country Status

I don't think Scottland should be refered to as a "Country". This would be like calling a individual state in the USA a country.157.130.97.158 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read Q1 in the FAQ above and the "countries of the United Kingdom" article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I've removed the 'royal coat of arms' from the infobox, because there's no coat of arms shown at the infoboxes at England, Wales & Northern Ireland articles. If I'm in error, please restore it with an explanation, here. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm neither advocating its removal or retention but applying a blanket rule on this basis omits to consider that the Scottish royal coat of arms is used by the monarch, specifically and only in Scotland, whereas the other three entities do not have such a symbol which applies in them alone. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Seeing as among the constituent countries, Scotland is the only one with its own 'royal coat of arms'? then I'll restore it. Thanks for the clarificatoin, Mutt Lunker :) GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Arrange religion section

I cannont, it's protected.

Now it says:

Islam is the largest non-Christian religion (estimated at around 40,000, which is less than 0.9% of the population),[249] and there are also significant Jewish, Hindu and Sikh communities, especially in Glasgow.[249] The Samyé Ling monastery near Eskdalemuir, which celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2007, is the first Buddhist monastery in western Europe.[250]

but the data is from the 2001 census, not the 2011. You can find the current data on the Religion in Scotland page. --46.25.48.186 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Status parameter = Country in infobox

There is a discussion at Talk:Wales#Status parameter in infobox over whether it must just be country or whether it can say country of the UK. Dmcq (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

outrageously biased introduction

the introduction of this article is outrageous. it was clearly written by scottish separatists to push their separatist agenda. Some of the wording in the introduction is shocking, from sentences about the EU referendum ignoring the fact it was a UK wide vote, and to suggestions of statehood based on the monarchys use of flags and titles.

This article is utterly pathetic in its current form and pushing an SNP political agenda. It is not worthy of a good article status. How do i complain about this article to request the good status be reviewed because this article has certainly been vandalised by people with an agenda. Bakkana (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Please WP:AGF. 2. I have removed that content from the lead, but not for the reason you give. At this point, the possibility of a second independence referendum is still theoretical (if not "highly likely") rather than real (i.e. legislated for). The UK voting to leave (and Scotland voting to remain) the EU is a significant constitutional change though, so it deserves mentioning in the relevant section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

PM in infobox

The inclusion of this is ref redundant we do not list the PM in all other infoboxs relating to the UK, the UK gov is covered by the Sec of State Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Updating the Economy figures

The economic data in this article is for 2012. I wondered why it had not been updated. So I followed the link to the Economy section of the Scottish Government website (External Links section of this article.) The most significant data on the Scottish Government web site (I ended up at the section called "Input Output Data" which I take to mean imports and exports) is available only until 2012. Although there is some other data for some more recent information, including for First Quarter of 2016, the relevant global economic data has not been updated by the Scottish Government.

Perhaps the article could include a note relating to the economy that 2012 is the last year for which the Scottish Government has published suitable data.

(I did follow the guidelines and do a search for other posts on the economy before writing this new section. Nothing relevant came up.)

Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Up-to-date data regarding the performance of the Scottish economy (2014-15-16) can be obtained from multiple sources including UK government websites, Scottish Government websites, the IFS, the ITEM Club and the University of Strathclyde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.199.236.86 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Scottish Highlands and Scottish Lowlands.

Scottish Highlands and Scottish Lowlands the distinction of these areas is not defined in this Article. Unless I missed it somewhere.

Topic should be added.

(Springchickensoup (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC))

Scottish Highlands and Scottish Lowlands are both linked in the article. Specifically in the last sentence of the second to last paragraph of the Scotland#Middle Ages section. It is also in the Template:Scotland topics at the bottom of the article. But that does seem a bit buried. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Springchickensoup has now taken up a campaign of, amongst other problematic edits, changing references to Scotland in articles to Scottish Lowlands and Scottish Highlands, overwhelmingly less appropriate than the original designation. They have not been receptive to disabusing them of this course. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


Mutt Lunker is expressing an OPINION and trying to make it factual. Below is Mutt Lunker's post on my Talkpage.

-

Wikipedia is source of information. If something as basic as Highland and Lowland Scotland is not referenced by Wikipedia. Then Wikipedia is not worth the storage it uses in the cloud. (Springchickensoup (talk) 14:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

No, it's superfluous in a "...Great Britain, UK, Europe, Eurasia, The World, The Solar System, Milky Way, Universe" fashion, and erases the more relevant noting of being in Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


That is your OPINION, Not factual! (Springchickensoup (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

Highland and Lowland Scotland still say/reference Scotland! (Springchickensoup (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

That is a selected edit of my posts, the full dialogue having been linked already in my post above. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


I can keep posting as well. Why are you making this personal? (Springchickensoup (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

I'm not; it's not about you it's about the detrimental effect of your edits on articles. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, THAT IS YOUR OPINION!!!! (Springchickensoup (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC))

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

These are racial groups, not ethnic groups. Why would a black guy from Atlanta moving to Glasgow, be regarded as having the same ethnicity as a black guy from Nigeria moving to Glasgow? Creuzbourg (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A recent update has changed 96% white into 84% Scottish and 12 % other white. This seems to imply that it is not possible to be Scottish and (for example) black. Is this intended? Is this true? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

EU Referendum Result in Lede

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)
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

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

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)

SCOTS IN AMERICA

According to this page, only a miserable 9 million in the US identify as Scottish-American, whereas three times as many, over 27 million, call themselves Scots-Irish (i.e. those 'Scots' who came from that wee province in the north of Ireland). What conclusions can we draw from these highly dubious statistics? If these figures were accurate then one would have to conclude that either these pseudo Scots from Ireland were breeding like rabbits, or the real Scots largely became celibate or infertile when they landed on American soil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.167.50 (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 UK election

The infobox appears to be linking to the 2015 list of MPs elected, but I cannot see how to update this for this month's election. Is this a template issue? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Template issue, fixed with this edit. Woody (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Scotland "politics and governance" edits

I reverted these edits because I believe they do not adhere to WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. The "international diplomacy" section largely details what Nicola Sturgeon has been doing since becoming First Minister (visiting California, New York, Ireland and Germany). That might be relevant to her own article, but I don't think it is relevant in a more general article. It also potentially creates issues of neutrality and bias, because it talks up what an individual politician has been doing. Surely these sort of visits are just the routine activities of any government (state, national or otherwise) in lobbying for business and other interests? The first two paragraphs ("devolved government relations") are only sourced to the governments themselves. Is this notable, worth detailing in what is supposed to be a general article about Scotland as a whole? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Goodreg3: & @SFC9394: Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

  • For me, the Scotland#International_diplomacy section is giving excessive emphasis with its five paragraphs about Ms Sturgeon's visits. It gives a recentist slant, with for example nothing about trips undertaken by Messrs McConnell and Salmond, and unbalances the overall article: compare for example one paragraph on a topic such as Scotland#Post-World_War_II. An overall article on Scotland does not benefit from text proclaiming that a particular meeting between post-holders was "very productive": has any post-meeting statement ever said otherwise? If anything, this material - suitably expanded with the international meetings of previous First Ministers - may be more suitable as a section under First Minister of Scotland. AllyD (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Noted the points regarding a strong emphasis on works undertaken by Sturgeon. I am continuing to work on this section and have since included works of McConnell during his time in office. This has yet to be extended further. Regards Goodreg3 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the volume of sentences detailing various visits by Sturgeon is excessive (given undue weight). The international diplomacy section needs cut severely and the government relations section needs outside sourcing. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on cutting the amount of sentences relating to Sturgeon visits.Goodreg3 (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the level of detail is vastly in excess of what is warranted. This is the article on Scotland, not Scottish diplomacy in the last 20 years. All that's needed on diplomacy is something like the first sentence: "Whilst foreign policy remains a reserved matter, the Scottish Government still has the power and ability to strengthen and develop Scotland, the economy and Scottish interests on the world stage and encourage foreign businesses, international devolved, regional and central governments to invest in Scotland". Devolved government relations could also be cut back to a sentence or two. There are several centuries and lots of topics to cover in this article! Rather than extending these sections, they need to be cut. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Disproportionate weight

Goodreg3 has added almost 500 words on circumstances around Rudolph Hess's flight to Eaglesham. This seems unwieldy: material more suitable for an article on Hessthan for the overview article about Scotland. By comparison the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution have around 120 words, the Religion section around 240 words. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Taken your comments on board and edited the article and removing most content which is not required and irrelevant content relating to Hess. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

International diplomacy

In 2017, the Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau visited Edinburgh, where he received an honorary degree from the University of Edinburgh and held private audiences with the Queen, the First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon and the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament Ken Mackintosh.[233]

The link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40498757) reads:

"The Queen is in Edinburgh for the royal family's traditional Holyrood Week events. She met First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and Ken Macintosh, the presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament, during private audiences at the palace on Tuesday."

It was the Queen who met Nicola Sturgeon and Ken MacIntosh, not Justin Trudeau. 2001:8B0:1296:386A:3156:D00:C378:D307 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 4 December 2017

Hello! Please update the following:

by which fishing boats helped Norwegians fled the Nazis,

to read

by which fishing boats helped Norwegians flee the Nazis,

Thank you!

Apologies if this is incorrectly formatted, this is my first request.

Done Minor edit only to correct grammar. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

Fjdskfjdskf (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
  • You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

Scotland is a constituent unit part of the United Kingdom 90.218.112.27 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. That Scotland is part of the UK is already referenced repeatedly throughout the article in multiple contexts. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

History: 18th century

I question the accuracy of the statement about the aftermath of Culloden:

This defeat paved the way for large-scale removals of the indigenous populations of the Highlands and Islands, known as the Highland Clearances.

The consensus of recent historians who have written about the Highland Clearances is that there was a process of social and economic change in the Highlands before Culloden. Whilst there is some variation in opinion on the extent to which this battle had an accelerating effect on the process of change, the simple sentence in this article is entirely misleading. (I could mischievously suggest that the enlightenment provided an impetus to the clearances, as many landlords and their factors followed the work of Adam Smith and others.)

A proper explanation would probably unbalance the article by taking too much space - so I suggest that the quoted sentence is simply deleted.

The historians who go out of their way to avoid the concept of Culloden being an important precursor to the Highland Clearances are:
Devine, T M (1994). Clanship to Crofters' War: The social transformation of the Scottish Highlands (2013 ed.). Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-9076-9. Here Devine has chapters on (among other things) Jacobitism and the '45, The Transformation of Gaeldom (i.e. the economic and social changes of which the clearances were part). Devine is probably one of the stronger adherents to the idea that the clearances had economic and social origins, rather than being the result of a military defeat.
Lynch, Michael (1991). Scotland, a New History (1992 ed.). London: Pimlico. ISBN 9780712698931. He discusses both the Jacobite rebellions and the Highland Clearances, but makes no link between the two.
Richards, Eric (2000). The Highland Clearances People, Landlords and Rural Turmoil (2013 ed.). Edinburgh: Birlinn Limited. ISBN 978-1-78027-165-1. This is probably the main work on the subject, and there is no claim that Culloden had any sort of causative effect on the clearances (though there is discussion of some of the management of the forfeited estates).
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Deleting it outright would be bad, because it would remove all mention of the clearances from that section. It is also mentioned in the 19th Century section, but the clearances happened across both centuries and in two distinct phases in either one. I would suggest moving a mention of the clearances to the previous paragraph (which talks about the divergence between Highland and Lowland) and thus removing the direct link between Culloden and the clearances, which is dubious. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I followed your suggestion. It seemed to make sense to put it in a paragraph of its own. I think the 19th century cover of the clearances needs some attention too - made some tweaks there, but will come back to later.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018

In the section relative to ROMAN INFLUENCE, reference is made to the battle of Mons Graupius as below,

In AD 83–84, the General Gnaeus Julius Agricola defeated the Caledonians at the Battle of Mons Graupius. Tacitus wrote that, before the battle, the Caledonian leader, Calgacus, gave a rousing speech in which he called his people the "last of the free" and accused the Romans of "making the world a desert and calling it peace" (freely translated).[43] After the Roman victory,

No archeological record can be found of this and there is only one source i.e. Tacitus. In the absence of any corroborating evidence as the battle may have simply been invented to justify the cost, both monetary and lives to a Roman audience. I would suggest that it reads,

In AD 83–84, the General Gnaeus Julius Agricola is said to have defeated the Caledonians at the Battle of Mons Graupius. Tacitus, who had never visited Britain, wrote 20 years later that, before the battle, the Caledonian leader, Calgacus, gave a rousing speech in which he called his people the "last of the free" and accused the Romans of "making the world a desert and calling it peace" (freely translated).[43] There is no current corroboration of this event and may have been invented or embellished to paint Agricola in a better light and justify the invasion of Scotland. 90.253.5.121 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018

Please update this sentence in the Climate subsection.

Old sentence: The highest temperature recorded was 32.9 °C (91.2 °F) at Greycrook, Scottish Borders on 9 August 2003.[149]

New sentence: The highest temperature recorded was 33.2 °C (91.8 °F) at Motherwell, North Lanarkshire on 28 June 2018. [8]

Thanks, 70.67.222.124 (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC) 70.67.222.124 (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  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. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ "Scotland / Alba". British-Irish Council. Retrieved 4 May 2013.
  8. ^ "Scotland 'breaks temperature record'". BBC News. 2 July 2018. Retrieved 2 August 2018.

 Not done

Sorry, the new record was declared invalid because a car was parked too close. [2] Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I am glad you had heard that! Thanks for the heads up, and I have reverted the other pages where I made the change. Cheers 70.67.222.124 (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Image cleanup

For a GA article we have some minor image problem. The first being sandwich of text in a few places and secondly a one off image gallery causing some inappropriate High lighting to a sub section that has room to follow WP:Gallery. Also some sourcing problem....but won't have any revert when adding sources will I☺.--Moxy (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sandwich of text fixed.....moved images below "See also" links.....just see if I can get the implementer of the gallery here for the second time.--Moxy (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Can we get some clarity on this from other users? As in my opinion the new layout just makes the article appear to be overcrowded with images. I'd rather see some of them removed entirely than the new format. Goodreg3 (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Can you elaborate. ....no images added...in fact two removed . All that was done was moving of images below Main see also links and fixing of sandwich of text all as per our MOS. .--Moxy (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware no images have been added, but what I was meaning was the images that have been moved are making the article look incredibly crowded and cramped together, which doesn't look too pleasing and encouraging viewers to read the article. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't get it... all that was done was fixing of WP:SANDWICH between to images and see also links.... that is a real accessibility concern and part of our MOS. Also removed one WP:Gallery that was out of place with the format of the rest of the article causing WP:UNDUE problem in the food section.- As GA level article we are supposed to follow basics guidelines unless there is a compelling reason not.--Moxy (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Number of images and placement seems absolutely fine to me. SFC9394 (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Nova Scotia connection

Is it somehow related into this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.100.67.82 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The only connection between Scotland and Nova Scotia is that Nova Scotia means New Scotland. The province of Nova Scotia was first named in the 1621 Royal Charter issued by King James I.
ICE77 (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments and questions

I read the article with interest, made several corrections and improvements. I have some comments and some questions.

1. The "map of Scottish highland clans and lowland families" should be associated to a date. Clans took over different territories over the centuries and placing a single image without is inappropriate, misleading and anachronistic.

2. "The golden eagle is something of a national icon."

The word "something" does not sound like a good expression. A better expression should be used.

3. "A legal action, MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396), was brought in Scotland to contest the right of the Queen to entitle herself "Elizabeth II" within Scotland, but the Crown won the case."

On what grounds did the Queen win?

4. The image of Jean-Claude Juncker and Nicola Sturgeon is almost ridiculous. It looks like the image of a telenovela.

5. "At the same time, McConnell and the then Scottish Executive pioneered the way forward to launch what would become the Scotland Malawi Partnership which co-ordinates Scottish activities to strengthen existing links with Malawi.[229] During McConnell's time as First Minister, several relations with Scotland, including Scottish and Russian relations strengthened following a visit by President of Russia Vladimir Putin to Edinburgh. McConnell, speaking at the end, highlighted that the visit by Putin was a "post-devolution" step towards "Scotland regaining it's international identity".[230]"

These two paragraphs are unnecessary and not important in the article. They should be removed.

6. "(£53.1bn; this included a geographical share of North Sea oil revenue – without it, the figures were 8.2% and £47.6bn)".

This note is unnecessary and should be removed.

7. I find it shocking that the culture section does not have anything on tartans.

8. I shall say that Scotland the Brave is definitely the most popular candidate for national anthem.

9. Is "dailies" a noun? It sounds like the plural of an adjective.

10. "The Scottish Government owns Glasgow Prestwick, having purchased the airport from Infratil for a nominal sum."

What's the meaning of "nominal"?

11. I am also shocked that this article does not have a language section with some information on Scottish English, Scottish Gaelic and Scots languages.

ICE77 (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Article is POV

Was this article submitted by the SNP or copied from their literature?

'In 1997, a Scottish Parliament was re-established, in the form of a devolved ' No. That was a different parliament abolished hundreds of years ago. The present 'parliament' is a completely different, new body, set up as a temporary agent of the British state and servant of the Crown. This is a well known matter of law. This blatent politics pushing has no place in an encyclopedia article and should be deleted.109.144.217.140 (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

'Scotland is represented in the United Kingdom Parliament by 59 MPs and in the European Parliament by 6 MEPs.' No. The constituencies involved are represented. Scotland has no representation as an area on the bodies named. Either it's intenional Scottish nationalist campaigning or due to ignorance of basic matters. In either case it should be removed.109.144.217.140 (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You are showing your own (British nationalist) POV here. Scotland is distinctly represented in the UK Parliament, as none of the constituencies straddle the Anglo-Scottish border and the constituencies are drawn and calculated separately (by the Boundary Commission for Scotland). As for the European Parliament, Scotland is a constituency! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the original points raised above have some merit. UK Parliament constituencies generally do not even cross county boundaries, so I do not see the relevance of there being no cross-border constituencies. For Scotland to be "distinctly represented in the UK Parliament" I think one has to look for a better differentiation than this. Bearing in mind that the Mid-Lothian question remains unresolved, and that Scottish MPs are free to vote on English and Welsh matters, I think the evidence is that these Scottish MPs are members of the UK parliament on an identical basis with all the other MPs in Westminster .
It also seems to me that the current Scottish Parliament is entirely different in nature than the one that existed at the beginning of the 18th century, having much more limited powers. So the first point raised is valid. It is not really a case of POV - more of accuracy.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The only clear distinction in the number of Westminster MPs is the allocation to each home nation. The boundaries are then drawn by separate Boundary Commissions for each nation. The West Lothian question and the way it has been addressed means that MPs for Scottish constituencies now have different powers in the UK Parliament than MPs from other constituencies (they cannot be members of the Legislative Grand Committees). Pre-devolution, MPs for Scottish constituencies sat on the Scottish Grand Committee. As for the Scottish Parliament, when it was (re)opened in 1999 the first speaker said it was "hereby reconvened". This was not disputed by anybody and was widely reported. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional information. Reading up on the Legislative Grand Committees, it appears that they have only had minimal activity and appear only a partial solution to the West Lothian question. Do you have any references for the "hereby reconvened" statement? Though it immediately occurs to me that the speaker may not have had an impartial view of the constitutional law on the matter.
I think this reveals the complexity of the whole issue.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The original comment said the Scottish Parliament is "a temporary agent of the British state and servant of the Crown". Per the Scotland Act 2016, "The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements" and "In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The Old Scottish Parliament is now the UK parliament (the original seats from the Kingdom of Scotland are now in Westminster). The new 1999 parliament exists on a fresh level (that of the London Assembly etc) quite in addition to the UK parliament (formerly known as the parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland - and Kingdom of England). Nothing was 're-established'. The speaker was being cute when he said it was 'reconvened'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.117.88.98 (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any supporting evidence for this? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I do not feel there is an issue with the wording in the article. Relating to devolution in particular, I would agree with the first poster if the page said that the Scottish parliament" was re-established, this clearly wouldn't be accurate as it was abolished in 1707. However, the wording says a Scottish parliament was re-established, and then specifically states this is devolved. This is accurate, as devolution did re-establish a parliament in Scotland in some form, and the article makes clear it is not an independent one. VUOP (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

motto

the correct motto is Nemo me impune lacessit Glasgowman1991 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't- read the relevant articles my friend. :) 195.171.9.239 (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

The term "country" is used in talking about nations like Scotland. Scotland is not a sovereign power, it is part of a larger country and therefore can not be called a country. Scotland can be considered a nation because they have a history together and share a common ethnicity. Emma5202 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest to read over Countries of the United Kingdom before reopening any requests.--Moxy (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Almost all countries in the world recognises Scotland as a country and actually Scotland is considered a nation too. Scotland is more like state and it also has its own government so that might have something to do with it. Breakroute (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Specialized monographs

This is a very general topic, so may not be the best place to list "Specialized monographs" in further reading. Most of these seem of only tangential interest to someone looking for Scotland in general and would be better off in the further reading section of History of Scotland. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Education

This section needs updating; standard grades and intermediate exams are no longer offered By the SQA. Since the article is protected, I cannot make this edit. Argosgold (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Argo is correct, see this source. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

References added

@Jmorrison230582: Thank you for trying to add references to this article. However, the two sources don't actually prove the facts. The first, which purports to support the entire paragraph that begins with "In the 2016 election" actually only supports the last sentence. The second one supports that Mundell was elected in 2015 but not that he is the incumbent. If you are going to remove "citation needed" tags, you have to make sure that the provided references actually support all of the content.

Furthermore, this article is already at 87kb readable prose and could use trimming for readability. The "Politics and Government" section could probably stand to be trimmed a bit. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 09:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I have added a reference for the election results and re-written the Mundell sentence. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Good article criteria

This article, unfortunately, does not meet the Good Article criteria. First of all, there are many unsourced statements and some valid inline cleanup tags. In addition, some references are duplicated or are bare urls (for example, 353–359) books without a page number (for example, 159–160, 161) or shortened citations without the full reference anywhere (43, 121, 122). (Edit: Further investigation revealed that some citations do not support the content that they purport to, for example the citation in "Scottish Music" supports very little of the content in that section. I have doubts about coverage as well; the section on Scottish literature does not mention any Gaelic writers, such as Nobel Prize nominee Sorley MacLean). Numbering from this version. Is anyone willing to clean up or should I start a good article reassessment? buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who is working on this. I'm now attempting to go more thoroughly through references and find issues. I think the biggest problem will be page numbers for offline sources, finding those will be so difficult that it might be better to find alternate sources. Numbering now from this version. I will cross off things as they are fixed.
  • Potentially unreliable sources:
  • Catholic.org: a WP:SPS. See this RSN discussion. Refs 2–5.
  • Orkneyjar.com: looks like a WP:SPS. Ref 44
  • Kinneil Estate: a wordpress blog. Ref 45
  • Rampant Scotland: looks like a WP:SPS. Refs 176 and 352.
  • Dead links: 13 ("European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages"), 67 & 83 (Learning Scotland), 77 ("Why did the Scottish parliament accept the Treaty of Union?")
  • No page numbers: 20 (Keay, J. & Keay, J.), 21 (Mackie, J.D.), 23 (Collier), 32 (Gwynn), 33 (Ayto), 47 (Hanson), 48 (Snyder), 49 (Robertson), 58 (Foster), 59 (Withers—too long a range), 60 (Barrow), 65 (Grant—too long a range), 66 (Wormald), 74 & 85 (Devine)
  • Mal-formatted refs: 24 (Devine), 31 (Freeman), 33 (Ayto—missing publisher), 46 (BBC history Romans—needs additional info), 62–63, 69–72 (need additional info), 69 (need author or editor/s), 75 (Showalter)
  • Full citation needed: 43 (Bryson), 121 (Evans), 122 (Sereny)
That's just the first 85 refs. There could be many dead links in that that I didn't notice. As you can see, the issues are pretty significant and I'm not optimistic that this can be fixed in a few weeks. As an aside, it would be great if someone who knew how to archive stuff could go through and rescue all these websites so the links don't die. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 19:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019

Some of the most popular Scottish youtubers: Chil Alchemy Miller Chil12345678910 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Goodreg3: Could you explain what you find so "atrocious" about the edits to the economy section? I don't have strong preferences for using the chart that you dislike so much, but my concern is that the section doesn't put the emphasis where the highest quality overview sources do. For instance, the version you restored focuses on whisky, which just gets a passing mention in the sources I consulted. There's also a paragraph discussing Scotland's relative contribution of tax revenue to the UK, a subject that has been in the news due to pro- and anti-independence activists but not one that sources focus on, and it doesn't seem particularly important to the economy as a whole. Another paragraph focuses on exact statistics 2016–2018, which date quickly and are not something I'm seeing in any of the featured articles dealing with individual countries (Bulgaria, Canada, Chad, Madagascar, and Rwanda). In addition to this, the section has significant drawbacks, such as not describing services (besides finance), agriculture, forestry or fishing, housing/construction, high-tech industry, or the public sector. buidhe 05:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019

At the end of the "Cuisine" paragraph, add the phrase, "The national dish of Scotland is haggis, which is a type of pudding composed of the liver, heart, and lungs of a sheep or other animal, and packed into a sheep's stomach and boiled. [1] Brownjac002 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done But I changed the wording as the original was too close of a paraphrasing to your source. See WP:PARAPHRASE. I also split it off into its own paragraph to include something about Irn Bru that someone else had previously added.  DiscantX 00:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

Highest recorded temperature in Scotland has since changed (Now 33.2C Degrees, June 28th 2018, Motherwell, North Lanarkshire). 79.75.160.83 (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.britannica.com/topic/haggis

 Not done

Sorry, the new record was declared invalid because a car was parked too close. [4] Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: per User:Catfish Jim. NiciVampireHeart 06:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages

The section is still touting the long, and pretty thoroughly, debunked notion that Dal Riata was created though some large scale invasion/migration from Ireland to western Scotland. This has been thoroughly disproven and the vast majority of articles on Scotland dealing with it at least acknowledge that the traditional view of an Irish migration/invasion is just that, the product of later Medieval myth fueled by an expansionist royal dynasty of Scotland, if including anything about it at all. There is zero evidence whatsoever to support this, there is no contemporary historical evidence and there is no archaeological evidence.

You're also implying a Dal Riatan takeover of the Kingdom of the Picts through Cináed mac Ailpin, which has also been thoroughly, thoroughly debunked (far more significantly so than the former has been). Dal Riata did not take over or 'subsume' the Pictish kingdom, in fact it didn't even merge with it. The concept they even unionized or merged is again fantasist tier history based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Almost all contemporary historical/archaeological sources that exist dealing with it pretty emphatically show that Pictland utterly dominated Dal Riata and reduced it to some kind of vassal-like state before presumably destroying it/annexing it entirely (since it disappears from Irish records after).

Cináed mac Ailpin was only ever a King of the Picts and it is this exact same Pictish kingdom that eventually just starts being listed as 'Alba' in Irish sources, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that is not what Picts simply always called their land. 'Pictland' literally just gradually came to be called Scotland in English/Latin, or somewhat unclear reasons. Nothing changes about it whatosever, its seats of power remain stagnant for hundreds of years, its heartlands remain stagnant, the veneration of Saint Andrew remains from early Pictish times straight through, its list of kings remain from early Pictish records straight through to Scotland pre-Union.

So if we assume the Picts did, for whatever reason, "start" speaking Goidelic/Q Celtic at some point, even this does not alter things drastically as we see clearly Pictish kings with Goidelic names, Goidelic inscriptions on Pictish stones, heavily dispersal of Goidelic placenames in Pictish heartlands and contemporary sources pretty heavily confirming that Goidelic was heavily present in Pictish areas not only LONG before 'Alba' first appears in Irish sources (900), not only long before Cináed mac Ailpin came to power (843) but also long before Oengus I of the 'Picts' (roughly 730s) even came to power.

Pictland literally was just Scotland. But anyway I'm not going to go as far as to suggest we start calling Pictland Scotland and the Picts Scotish from the 5-700s onwards. But you definitely need to remove the ahistorical statements about Dal Riata's origins and the progression from 'Pictland' to Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.16.225 (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Saint Margaret of Scotland

Can anyone account for her removal from the infobox? 217.163.51.137 (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

She was removed by this edit : [5] Ian Dalziel (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019

185.58.164.44 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


The page makes reference to Elizabeth II as Scoltands Monarch - She is in fact Elizabeth I of Scotland (and Elizabeth the II of England) Scotland has had not other Elizabeth as their Monarch  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

No, Elizabeth II is correct usage in Scotland as well as England. See MacCormick v Lord Advocate and [6] -Cactus.man ✍ 17:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2019

Please correct this link in the image caption: "View of the Cullin...". It is supposed to be Cuillin. Thanks. 148.252.24.230 (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

English-speaking colonists?

"The domination of Gaelic was cracked during the reign of David I (1124–53), during which many English-speaking colonists settled in Scotland"

This sentence seems rather misleading. The Wiki pages on King David are more illuminating.

David and his Norman French-speaking followers might be correctly described as 'colonists' or even 'conquerors'. But it is not clear that the English who then moved north to populate the new towns, the Royal Burghs, established by David were 'colonists' in the same sense. Describing them as English-speaking is superfluous since they were simply English. How and why they moved is more complicated. The general impression one gets is that they were mostly moved from the English estates of Scotland and England's Norman overlords without having much choice in the matter. The use of the word 'colonists' I think suggests a quite false sense of English colonialism - not least since Lothian and other parts of 'Scot-land' were actually Anglic and not Gaelic anyway. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.163.219 (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Of interest is what the cited source says:
"Crucial to this story are major shifts in Scotland’s predominantly Gaelic culture and norms, processes accelerated by the arrival of ambitious colonists from as far afield as Normandy, Brittany, and Flanders. Thus, Scotland was increasingly affected by that broad expansionary and unifying phenomenon recently characterized as the ‘Europeanization of Europe’, and thereby shared more completely in the decisive political, religious, and socioeconomic changes that moulded the dominant Western kingdoms from the 1060s onwards. Unsurprisingly, however, its chief source of new European ideas and technologies was Norman and Angevin England, the most ‘advanced’ European state. It was no accident that systematic change began in the pivotal reign of David I (1124–53), himself a leader of England’s political elite as earl of Huntingdon and brother-in-law of King Henry I. Furthermore, most of the knights, clergy, and townsfolk who flocked northwards were not Norman-French, but represented a second migratory incoming of English-speakers, albeit with more wide-ranging consequences than those of its sixth- and seventh-century forerunner." (Jenny Wormald. Scotland: A History (Oxford Illustrated History) . OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.)
I would first highlight that there is no talk of "English-speaking colonists" (though one can argue that there is an inference). Secondly the source makes clear that this is a second arrival of English speakers. It addresses "Anglian Scotland" in an earlier chapter. It states that the origins of the present-day Scots language are in these earlier settlers.
An additional source would be welcome.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Aitken accepts, in the Introduction to The Concise Scots Dictionary, that:

This Scandinavianized Northern English – or Anglo-Danish – was certainly the principal, though probably not the only, language of the early Scottish burghs and its contribution to the formation of the language later known as Scots is probably even greater than that of the original Old English of south-eastern and southern Scotland. (p.ix) - the quote is taken from the Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.163.219 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Dal Riata's Origins

It's really dubious by this point whether Dal Riata was ever the result of an invasion/migration/colonization from Ireland, what we know as fact is that at this point a Goidelic speaking kingdom existed in western Scotland. Its origins are hazy at best and origin stories composed centuries after the supposed movement of people by an expansionist royal dynasty is not a reliable source of history, especially considering that same origin story contains accounts of Trojans invading Great Britain and slaying the native giants who inhabited it before dividing the land between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.16.225 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scotland/Archive_30&oldid=1142320560"