Talk:Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scotland article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views. Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.

	Scotland has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 29, 2006 Good article reassessment Kept May 12, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 2, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept January 25, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Scotland, or visit the project page for more details. A This article has been rated as A-Class on its quality. Scotland is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Scotland Portal A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Peer review — general community input. Featured Portal Candidates — our ultimate short-term goal is to achieve Featured status for the portal. Featured Portal Candidate — 23 April 2007; result, Featured Portal Status awarded, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Europe Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia. A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. See comments. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland. A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale. Top This article is on a subject of top-importance within medieval Scottish studies. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article is on a subject of mid-importance in Politics. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. United Kingdom Portal A This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) High This article has been rated as high-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. Scotland is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale. After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping. Add comments

To-do list for Scotland:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Current Main Task: Ensure 'Good Article' status is maintained. Watch this page and help revert vandalism. Contribute to the Talk page where suggested improvements are discussed. Avoid making significant additions or changes without attempting to get support from other editors first. Read the Archive Summary. Use Scottish English spellings.
Priority 1 (top)

Archives

Previous discussions from this Talk page are archived here: Archive Summary Archive: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Scotland is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Please observe official Wikipedia policy on No personal attacks. In particular, please note the clear instruction: "... some types of comments are never acceptable: racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor... or using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Any such personal attacks will be immediately removed from this talk page (see Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks). Using ip sockpuppet or meatpuppet addresses, or edit summaries, to make personal attacks is particularly frowned upon. Please log in to your account.

Contents 1 Just the facts Ma'am 1.1 Just the facts 1.2 References 1.3 Passionate factless comments 2 Slight edit to present intro 2.1 Arbitrary section break 3 Devolution 4 Scots removed 5 Religion 6 Order of First Minister 7 Consensus regarding PM and FM 8 RIP Constituent country 9 References 10 Motto 11 Lead (again) 12 Bias? 13 A new take on the old "country" debate 14 National anthem 15 And now for something completely different! 16 User:Wikipéire 17 Constituent country (again) 18 FAQ? 19 Clans ?

[edit] Just the facts Ma'am

Rules for this section

1. Only facts are to be included, No dialogs or pleads or explanations, FACTS only.
2. There is the caveat to this section, if you do not produce a fact or want to chat you must put them into the Passionate factless comments section
   • If you do not they will be placed there for you.
3. Try to link your views to relevant articles and cite as much as you can. Use the following format for the link <ref>place link here</ref>
4. If a fact is already given do not list it again, it is a fact not a repetition. You can add citations to a poorly sourced fact
5. Facts can be opposed but place the rebuttal fact below the original one. (eg # * )
6. You CAN group these into sections if the list becomes unwieldy
7. Facts can be removed if they have no supporting evidence or are vandalism
8. You cannot remove a true and cited fact from a verifiable source Remember Facts CAN oppose each other; Facts can be given that seam to oppose each other but are talking about minute differences. If agreed by most in play only <s></s> strike out that fact.

[edit] Just the facts

FACTS:

1. Scotland is a part of the UK
2. The UK has no single written constitution. So unlike the United States Constitution the names of the subdivisions of the UK are left constitutionally undefined.
3. Scotland is a former independent kingdom
4. Scotland is called a home nation
5. Scotland is called a constituent country of the UK^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]}
6. Scotland is called a country^{[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]}
7. Scotland is called a nation^{[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]}
8. Scotland is not a Nation state.
9. Scotland is not an independent country^[30]
10. The word country has been known to be misinterpreted to signify an independent state^[30][11]
11. The word nation has been known to be misinterpreted to signify an independent state^[31][32]
12. Scotland is not a nation in the eye of international law, but Scotsmen form a nation.^[33]
13. Scotland is a kingdom within the UK^[34][35]

[edit] References

References
^ Office for National Statistics (2004-09-17). Beginners' Guide to UK Geography: Administrative Geography. statistics.gov.uk. Retrieved on 2008-04-16. ^ Vickers, Dan; Rees, Phil. "Creating the UK National Statistics 2001 output area classification.". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 170 (2): 379(25).  ^ Bramley, Glen. "The Sudden Rediscovery of Housing Supply as a Key Policy Challenge.". Housing Studies 22 (2): 221(21).  ^ Haubrich, Dirk; McLean, Iain. "EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.". Policy Studies 27 (4): 271(23).  ^ Dixon, Tim. "Integrating Sustainability into Brownfield Regeneration: Rhetoric or Reality? – An Analysis of the UK Development Industry.". Journal of Property Research 23 (3): 237(31).  ^ Turner, Karen. "Additional precision provided by region-specific data: The identification of fuel-use and pollution-generation coefficients in the Jersey economy.". Regional Studies 40 (4): 347(18).  ^ Cole, Stuart. "Devolved Government and Transport—Relationships, Process and Policy.". Public Money & Management 25 (3): 179(7).  ^ Wells, Alan. "United Kingdom.". European Environmental Law Review 14 (6): 150(7).  ^ Hartley, Jean. "Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present.". Public Money & Management 25 (1): 27(8).  ^ Hodges, Ron; Macniven, Louise; Mellett, Howard. "Annual General Meetings of NHS Trusts: Devolving Power or Ritualising Accountability?". Financial Accountability & Management 20 (4): 377(23).  ^ a b Country, State, and Nation ^ A publication submitted by the UK to the United Nations Economic and Social Council states Scotland is a "constituent part" and "country", but "should not be considered as a first-order administrative division".United Nations Economic and Social Council (August 2007). Ninth United Nations Conference on the standardization of Geographical Names (PDF). unstats.un.org. Retrieved on 2008-04-14. ^ countries within a country ^ Explanatory Notes to Waste And Emissions Trading Act 2003 ^ Census 2001 - Ethnicity and religion in England and Wales ^ the Office for National Statistics states authoritatively in its glossary that "In the context of the UK, each of the four main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country". see statistics.gov.uk ^ British Embassy in the United States of America ^ House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 28 Feb 2000 (pt 35) ^ Alex Salmond MP MSP, (nationalist) First Minister of Scotland calls Scotland a "country". First Minister Alex Salmond at openscotland.gov.uk ^ Britannica describes Scotland as "the most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom" and later as a "country" four times in its introduction to the topic (nation or subdivision is not used).Scotland at www.britannica.com ^ Encarta describes Scotland as "one of the four national units that make up the United Kingdom" and later as a "country" two times in its introduction to the topic (nation or subdivision is not used).Scotland at encarta.msn.com ^ G. K. Chesterton, "Edward VII. and Scotland" -- I am quite certain that Scotland is a nation; I am quite certain that nationality is the key of Scotland; I am quite certain that all our success with Scotland has been due to the fact that we have in spirit treated it as a nation. ^ David McCrone, Scotland, Small? -- Scotland is a nation which has lived quite happily within a loose confederation, a union, and now finds itself within a bigger union - of Europe. ^ Heald, Geaughan & Robb, "Financial Arrangements for UK Devolution" in Elcock & Keating Remaking the Union -- ... from the recognition that Scotland is a nation within the United Kingdom. ^ Davidson, The Origins of Scottish Nationhood -- Because Scotland is a nation, and not a region or an urban district, opposition took a form which was impossible in most other parts of Britain. ^ Anderson, "Fernand Braudel & National Identity" in Clark, The Annales School -- ... Scotland is a nation that is something like a quasi-state, Britain a state that is at least a quasi-nation. ^ Von Beyme, "Fischer's move towards a European Constitution" in Joerges, Mény & Weiler, What kind of Constitution for what kind of Polity -- In this age of football, one whimsical definition defines the nation by the very existence of a national football team. On this definition Scotland is a nation and Bavaria not. ^ Haesly, "Identifying Scotland and Wales" in Nations and Nationalism, vol. 11, no. 2 -- As they argue, 'Scotland is a nation; therefore, Scotland should become an independent nation state' ... ^ Bultmann, Scottish Rights Vindicated: Identity and Nationalism in Mid-Nineteenth Century Scotland (unpub PhD [?] thesis), quotes one of William Burns' NAVSR tracts of 1854 -- so long as Scotland is a nation - by contract merely forming part of the united Empire - so long the Scottish people have a basis upon which, with consistency, they may rest such things as national demands. ^ a b Scotland Is Not a Country ^ When 'nation' is given five meanings with inconsistent use, that's confusion ^ A State of Confusion: Building a State in Somalia ^ Discrimination Law: Text, Cases and Materials ^ XIX. THAT the Court of Session, or Colledge of Justice, do after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Privileges as before the Union... text from the Act of Union, 1707 ^ "Is Scotland a Country?" "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full name of the country. Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom (UK), and forms part of Britain (the largest island) and Great Britain (which includes the Scottish islands)." Scottish Parliament Website; Your Scotland Questions

[edit] Passionate factless comments

Previous comments archived here.

[edit] Slight edit to present intro

What does the page think of the edit here - I think it should be roundly uncontroversial, tidies up the referencing, groups geography and political status in the same sentences (thus, I believe, clarifying both points) and improves the sentence structure.

As you can see, it has been reverted without justification, so I'm basically seeking some consensus in favour. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is something that others have requested above. I could live with either version though. I suspect, however, others will be opposed or aligned to this along the usual divide. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not really involved myself in the debate or by any means read the entirety of the arguments presented here, but it is simply a reordering of information rather than any change in content. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the version as edited by Breadandcheese. Regrettably I :think ANY edit is probably 'controversial' at this time, in the sense that it will stir up debate. However I wouldn't either take it personally or criticise the reverter. Let's spend a little time testing the water before remaking the edit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a variation of that offered by User:UKPhoenix79 is my preference:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Scotland's capital city is Edinburgh, which is the 2nd largest city in Scotland and the 7th largest city in the UK. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Seems to cover everything, for me anyway. 80.41.216.180 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

yep, nothing wrong with that in my view. Only thing I don't like, and it's not central to the dispute, is "7th largest city", which is unnecessary — article isn't about Edinburgh — and misleading — means of defining city boundaries and of measuring city population are arbitrary and vary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment :0) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.Looks like another edit war on its way, me thinks I'll step back again! --Jack forbes (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just checking that "successor state" is technically accurate/verifiable. To my humble knowledge UKGBNI didn't succeed GB - Ireland joined the union, then part of it seceded. Do please correct me if I'm wrong. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it almost entirely, but taking account of a few points raised here [Emphasis on alterations:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England to the south. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Scotland's capital city is Edinburgh, which is the second largest cityin Scotland and the 7th largest city in the UK. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and subsequently, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As for successor states: I don't believe it is accurate, although I am prepared to be corrected on that. It is a particular legal term which can be easily omitted until accuracy can be demonstrated. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dislike constituent part linking to constituent country its almost an easter egg the link should go to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy also to lose the "7th largest city". The "successor state" to the Kingdom of Great Britian was indeed, as the CIA Factbook confirms, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, given that the current state only came into being in 1927, perhaps the insertion of the word "eventual" or "modern" or "current", or some similar qualification, would provide sufficient clarification, or alternatively:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The above would leave no question as to Scotland's status. The "successor state" is included in the wiki-page (although needless to say not "reliable"), but a definition can be found here and here. 80.41.216.180 (talk)

Nice! It will help this article to be the first UK country to become WP:FA and hits all the major points that we need in an introduction per WP:LEAD. What do others think?

80.41.216.180, 80.41.252.104, 80.41.231.246, 80.41.255.137 your ip keeps on changing any chance that you might register? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We're nearly there. The only slight problem I have is that we need to mention the fact that the UK is a sovereign state. It just needs to be really clear. Some people mightn't know what the UK is and therefore the meaning of the sentence will be lost on them Eg. Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country which is a part of the sovereign state known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Do you see what I'm getting at?Wikipéire (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If others agree to that I'll be ok with it, though I do believe its rather clunky and unnecessary. I would just like to note that there is little precedence I have found for making such a statement. Just look at the examples I have given above. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about something a bit less "clunky":

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Loaded with more compromises than the 'Good Friday Agreement', but hopefully something which will lead to a stable article. 80.41.214.75 (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Loaded with more compromises than the Good Friday Agreement LOL!!! So would that make you Tony Blair? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfect.Wikipéire (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Breadandcheese (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Very happy with that, and preferable to what we have now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Still worried about the sentence beginning "Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland....". UKGBNI isn't a successor state of UKGB, whilst Scotland's former status is mentioned later in the lead. Remember, we have four paragraphs to play with, not one. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The end of the paragraph says "Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." In view of this, do we need "within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. " at the start. Why say that its part of the UK twice? 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

do we need "within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. " at the start. We definiely need that bit at the start. I think its perfect. It removes all confusion. The bit at the end just explains the history behind it all. There's nothing wrong with it. This is all in my opinion of course.Wikipéire (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why Scotland is part of the UK is mentioned twice this is just repetition also country should not link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Sorry, but don't see this as an improvement and think the use of sovereign state is fluff and superfluous. Who would say that "Alberta is one of the sovereign state of Canada's prairie provinces or "California is a state located on the West Coast of the sovereign state of the United States". Why is it necessary for the United Kingdom to have to be described as a sovereign state, everybody knows it is— for pete's sake it is one of the best known countries in the world, permanent member of the security council of the UN, used to have an empire. Let's get realistic here.-Bill Reid | Talk 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we absolutely need the mention of being part of the UK as far upfront as possible, because it is something non-Brits are often confused about. If we think it's repetitious we should drop the second mention, or move it further down the intro. However I think the second link adds to what is said in the first, because it gives some history.

Bill, you would be surprised how many non-Brits don't know whether England or Scotland or the UK or whoever are the 'sovereign state'. I have talked to many educated North Americans who don't know what countries are what in Britain. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point William, and indeed I do sympathise with your views but the problem here is all the people who think Scotland is a part of England! I myself recently had guests from Scotland to our house on the continent. They mentioned many Europeans and Americans thinking Scotland to be part of England! Totally ridiculous of course but nevertheless an important fact. --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is well known, but internationally the UK is widely known as Britain or even England so the fact that its a part of the UK needs to emphaised as well as the fact that is a sovereign state and it's not some state called England or Britain that Scotlands a part of.Wikipéire (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia not geography for idiots, if people think Scotland is part of England reading the article will prove them wrong. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I think the article makes this quite clear. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you there. It doesn't say anywhere that the UK is actually a state. It only hints at it. Considering it Scotland is a part of the Uk this fact is very important. This newer version only adds four words to the first sentence and it adds a huge amount of clarity. There is absolutely no confusion with the newest version which is want you want for the article to progress.Wikipéire (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please check out every other country's entry; how many are described as "sovereign state". Bill Reid | Talk 18:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of this consensus building is that Scotland and the UK is very different from anything else! If it weren't loads of other things wouldn't be mentioned either such as the fact that it is a 'country'. Anyway an answer. First ccountry I looked up was Ireland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland It says sovereign state.Wikipéire (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree very much with Wikipéire. Republic_of_Ireland says that because a) it is true and b) there is a certain amount of confusion over what 'Ireland' is, just as there is over UK, Britain, Scotland etc. We should keep the statement in for exactly the same reasons.

Barryob you are underestimating the amount of explanation required. The people who don't know about Scotland are not idiots, it's just something they don't know (can you name the states of India?). Because it's a widespread confusion it needs to be cleared up early in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again I must agree with DJ Clayworth...the explanation ought to be in the first part of the intro for minimum confusion. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No I dont know the states in India and the wikipeida article on the subject States and territories of India does not list them in the intro, neither does over-explaining Scotland's relationship with the UK in the intro the Government and politics section explains this --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, I should have said federated country. Ireland in no way is a comparable state. Scotland is described as a country because .... that's what it is. My point here is that using superfluous terms adds nothing to the article. If people come to the article and read Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom, what is confusing about that— if they are still confused they just follow the link and they find out; that's what links are for.-Bill Reid | Talk 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, perhaps we could cram the whole article into the first paragraph, that would avoid confusion! :) --Jack forbes (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) When comparing like entities you must not compare the topic with unlike entities. Scotland is not a Sovereign State as declared in Talk:Scotland#Just the Facts Ma'am so using the Republic of Ireland is a false comparison. One must compare with Subdivisions of a Sovereign State like Quebec to see if the comparison would be accurate. So far I have not seen any subdivisions that says the country it resides in is a sovereign state, it only states that it is a part of that country and links to the countries article. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The similarity with Republic of Ireland is not in the their status, but in the level of misunderstanding about the names. Many people don't understand the difference between Ireland the state, Ireland the island and Northern Ireland the consitituent country. Likewise many people don't understand the relationship between Scotland, England and the UK. That's why both of them get the status mentioned early. There is not the same level of misunderstanding over France or Australia, which is why they don't get their status mentioned early. It's all about serving our readers. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: It's an extra four words. This newest introduction seems to be closest we have come to a consensus. The reasons for having it there (ie there is a lot of confusion about the UK outside Britain and Ireland) outweigh the argument that it 'over clarifies'

UKPhoenix79 I never compared Scotland with Ireland I compared Ireland with the UK. Your have contradicted yourself by comparing it with Quebec. That's not a country. Scotland is unique. There are no other 'countries' outside the UK that reside in a sovereign state so it needs to be clarified.Wikipéire (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No not contradiction just facts we must compare with like entities. If you feel that Quebec is not similar many in that nation would be very angry with you and throw their begets in your general direction (not quite monty python I know) But I'm sure that there are many other examples such as Bavaria or the Flemish Region. But I have not really bothered to research for other former kingdoms inside a modern state. So when comparing please compare entities at the same level internationally. An independent State gets compared to an independent State, a subdivision of a State gets compared to another subdivision of a State. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, don't mean to be boring, but what is wrong with the way it is now.Sorry for shouting, must be getting to me. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with what is there now, but I think the new version is better. Unfortunately with passions running high even tiny improvements require huge amounts of discussion. That's the way things work on pages like this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That all sounds fine, but as I'm sure you know not everyone agrees with your " tiny improvement. " As you say there is nothing wrong with the way it is now so why don't people use a little bit of commonsense and avoid another edit war. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I say we use it now and fiddle with it in the talk page for later :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said you can't compare Ireland with the UK. However Quebec is a component bit of Canada but it doesn't need repeating that Canada is a sovereign state. Bill Reid | Talk 19:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again there isn't the same level of misunderstanding (except possibly among members of the Parti Quebecois :-) ). But even in Quebec everyone knows that Canada is a sovereign state - I hate to say it but that's not always known about the UK - many people think the sovereign state is called England. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I'm also a Canadian citizen and may I add that Quebec has never been discussed as a country nor as Bavaria of which I have spent many weeks in. The UK constituent countries are unique so mentioning the UK as a sovereign state is necessary to avoid confusion of how a country can be in a country. You are backing up your opinions with articles that are very different. You will need proper reasons why not to mention these four words.Wikipéire (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I say that Quebec was a country? But somebody else used Quebec and i followed up on it but as a federated country Canada is comparable to the UK; so are the United States and Australia. Are you saying that the general mass of people who come to WP are incapable of following links to the main article? Putting "sovereign state" in front of the United Kingdom is just unnecessary -Bill Reid | Talk 20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but Uk is the only place in the world where there is a 'country' within a country!! There is no confusion about the status of those other countries you mentioned but there is plenty of confusion around the world with the UK. They don't know what is is so simply adding four bloody words removes ALL the possible confusion.Wikipéire (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And you don't think saying Scotland is part of the UK does that?--Jack forbes (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't as saying the word country instantly causes confusion. Again as lots of people don't know what the UK is so we need to establish what it is while talking about Scotland. Also people may just read country and assume it to be an independent country (none of the independent country pages say independent country just country) and read the UK as some kingdom witout realising its a state. Just adding the four words saying that the Uk is the sovereign state while Scotland is a country inside it removes all confusion.Wikipéire (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From my experience living in Australia for a number of years it is actually Britain they are confused about, not United Kingdom! --Jack forbes (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Woooooaaaaahhhh there!!! We're in danger of descending into the same quagmire that surrounded the map issue. There is NO repeat NO version with which we will all be 100% satisfied, but for the sake of the article and the readers, can we not agree on the version proposed here? There are things within it which if it were down to me alone I would strip out, but there would only be arguments put forward by others for their reinsertion. I am happy that what is in the proposed version, and although not my first choice, it is something which I could live with in the hope that the Scotland article becomes a stable article and FA candidate. If you ask 50 people their view you'll get 50 responses, however we can't have 50 articles or have one article changed 50 times over. We're going for clarity and accuracy as opposed to brevity here in order to achieve the Holy Grail that is concensus. The one point I feel I must comment on is the use of "modern successor state". This isn't a newly created phrase, (a Google check nets in excess of 500 hits), but as Jza84 pointed out the UKofGB&NI is not the "successor state" to the KofGB, but it is the modern successor state, which is why I feel it should be included. For the sake of a sentence or two either way, I think it reads well and contains facts, whole facts and nothing but facts, which is pretty well what it should contain. (Even if repeated in one instance). To remind all without trawling back up the page what is being proposed:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Perhaps it would be easier to ask those who, despite their no doubt justifiable misgivings, are not able to live with this version to make their objections known, with a brief explanation as to why they find this version unacceptable under any circumstances. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets see, United Kingdom a few times, Great Britain, constituant part, sovereign state, United Kingdom Of Great Britain and N Ireland........my god, how did you manage to fit Scotland in???? --Jack forbes (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all the points raised by jack horrible intro--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your criticism is there, Jack (or Barry). Are you saying it's too detailed? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

First things first, user 80.41.246.79, if I have made a mistake point it out to me, do not call me a liar. I would appreciate an apology from you. --Jack forbes (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

?????? Either someone has hijacked my IP Address, I've got amnesia or Jack, you've been on the sauce! What (can anyone tell me) do I owe you an apology for, exactly? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC) PS I'll be logging off at 2300BST/2200UTC - if you can reply by then...

A thousand apologies, I jumped in to quick, it was actually ip 78.16.212.101. Sorry again, I think I should go on the sauce! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Accepted. My sanity having been restored, I'm off. G'night all. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm feeling a little bit foolish right now, so I'm off too. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO The current first paragraph is better than the above proposal. There is no need to say twice that Scotland is part of the UK . The Acts of Union are mentioned in the third paragraph and do not need to be in the first as well. The discussion of successor state is too technical and contains more detail than is appropriate to the opening para of this article. If required, this should be in the body of the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely.-Bill Reid | Talk 07:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As do I. I am afraid the above version reads a little as if it might have been extracted from a Conservative Party election leaflet circa 1950 something. On the other hand 80.41.246.79, despite your inexperience, you seem to have grasped many of the fundamentals of Wikipedia. I have no doubt you will go far. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 07:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

May I add that there's been huge discussion on why the current opening is unsatisfatory to a lot of people and current proposal has been the closest version to getting a consensus. Whatever opening is used it certainly won't be the current one.Wikipéire (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

80.41.246.79 asked that anyone who objected to the proposed change should give their reason(s). A number of people have done so. Can I ask that those who object to the current intro give their reasons (again if necessary). Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're taking the piss, there has been loads of discussion above. Read it. My personal main issue along with a good few others is that declaring Scotland a country was horribly misleading. There were many other problems with it too. You can read it all above. All the objections to the current one is about facts and that the its inaccurate. 80.41.246.79 says who can't live with it? You and 1 or 2 others moan on how its too factual and is too detailed. Well its not really longer in terms of words and it satisfies all the discussion which you can read above. Can you honestly say you can't live with it?Wikipéire (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't moan. 80.41.246.79 asked why we couldn't live with the the proposed changes and I answered as clearly as I could. The only objection to the current intro specifically mentioned by Wikipéire is to the description of Scotland as a country. But that is also in the proposed change. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I compromised!!!! I said if the word country is used then within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom should follow as people would be horribly confused to how a country can be another country or they might think Scotland is independent or something. This is all about compromise. I've done it. What about you?Wikipéire (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone asked me about Scotland and I replied it was a country within the United Kingdom where would the confusion be? I think you massively underestimate the intelligence of our readers. If they read just another paragraph or two they will find all the information that you think is so necessary. As for compromise, if you remember, many people preferred the term nation (including myself) but this was dropped in favour of country because people came to a compromise!! --86.147.38.250 (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to sign on!--Jack forbes (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Among the problems with the proposed change (IMO) is that it makes the relationship between Scotland and the UK more difficult to understand. Introducing concepts such as sovereignty and successor states which are technical terms in public international law complicates things. For example, there are those who argue that the current relationship with the EU means that the UK is not a sovereign state anymore. Saying "Scotland is part of the United Kingdom" is simple, clear and understandable. The final paragraph of the current introduction already says "Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state".

If you would like an alternative compromise, how about adding "and is no longer a separate sovereign state after United Kingdom and making the final sentence of the 3rd paragraph read "The place of Scotland within the UK continues to give rise to debate.

The first paragraph would become Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country^[1] that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom^[1], and is no longer a separate sovereign state. It shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands^[2] including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides.

(I think the current intro is better than this proposal, but in a spirit of compromise ..." Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Most definitely not. The use of the word country suggests that Scotland is independent. It only says its not about 6 lines down. Not good enough really. Either use the word nation that is part of the United Kingdom or a country within the sovereign state of the UK.Wikipéire (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely the statement "is no longer a separate sovereign state" does just that? --Jack forbes (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It does but its 6 lines down. You can't say its a country and then a couple lines down - oh by the way its not a sovereign state. What Scotland is should be clarified in the first sentence.Wikipéire (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would'nt exactly call it a by the way! Its the sentence immediately after. --Jack forbes (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Still as the term country 99.9% of the times means independent country Scotlands status needs to br clarified immedialtely after if the term country is used. Somthing like switching round the 'northern part of GB' bit and 'is no longer a s state' bit would do the job for me.Wikipéire (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, let's see your version. Bill Reid | Talk 10:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My version?? Scotland is a nation within the sovereign state of the United Kingdom would be my version. It's all very factually correct, but somehow I know you disagree.Wikipéire (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Bill meant if you were switching things around as you mention above how would it read.(if you did'nt mean that Bill let me know). --Jack forbes (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. I am asking Wikipéire if he would provide his interpretation of the opening paragraph. - Bill Reid | Talk 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that Wikipéire needs to understand the difference between the terms "country" and "independent country" - they're not the same thing - it's really not that difficult! Most readers are intelligent and English-fluent enough to know the difference. Scotland's status as a country really isn't debatable. Changing the intro just to appease the less-educated who think that the word "country" automatically means an independent sovereign state is just plain silly. Also, could someone remind me where I can find the "debate" which led to the "consensus" being reached to remove the reference to Europe in the first sentence??? I would be most grateful, as for some inexplicable reason, I seem not to be able to find any discussion on this much-debated and mutually-agreed removal of a descriptor which has been part of the article for a very long time. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I accept that there is no reason to say 'Scotland is not a sovereign state' - there is no misconception on this front, and it is our duty to report what something is, rather than what something is not - the latter very often compromises NPOV in my experience. I am happy with the present 'country within the United Kingdom' (I don't even think 'sovereign state' needs mentioned) but also if there is to be clarification, I would suggest it returns to 'constituent country of the United Kingdom' or 'constitutent country in the United Kingdom'. But yes, generally I don't think such clarification is needed.--Breadandcheese (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe we're still arguing about the word country. There are literally hundreds of good references, from 10 Downing Street to the UN, saying that Scotland is a country. You may not like it, and you may find it confusing but you cannot shy away from the fact that Scotland is a country. Surely this is a done deal. Let's move on and consider how we are going to present this fact to our readers. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Em, who is arguing about the word country? -Bill Reid | Talk 14:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked him to present his version of the opening paragraph so I could try and understand what he was saying but he seems to have gone FTM. -Bill Reid | Talk 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clear he doesn't think Scotland should be called a country, but we need to knock that notion on the head. Country is massively documented and well accepted. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland isn't a country in the political sense so don't get all uptight as if the whole world agrees that Scotland is a country. In most ways its not. Other than the politically biased downing street source there isn't a whole lot of sources out there that say it is.

The definition of a country: In political geography and international politics, a country is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation and government.

Scotland fails. Look at this article entitled 'Scotland is not a country' http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm It doesn't say 'Scotland is not an independent country' but 'Scotland is not a country'

More: Note the lack of saying 'independent countries' but just 'country'

http://www.guavastudios.com/country-list.htm

http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/howmany.html

This last one says this: In the UK most of the population consider England and Scotland to be different countries, and Wales to be a principality. However, when it comes to international relations, they are all represented by the UK government, so according to many definitions they aren't countries or even nation states.

Getting the idea yet? Where does it say that a country doesn't have to be independent to be a country and ignoring the biased UK web page sourced and mislead British people where is Scotland called a country?

This UK government site certainly doesn't http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/index.htm : The full title of this country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Great Britain (or just Britain) does not include Northern Ireland. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the UK.

The Wikipedia list of countries says this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries :::This list of countries, arranged alphabetically, gives an overview of countries of the world. It includes territories that are independent states (both those that are internationally recognized and generally unrecognized), inhabited dependent territories, and areas of special sovereignty.

Such inclusion criteria means the list does not treat the word "country" as synonymous with "sovereign state," as one may often find in colloquial usage.

This says that the countries in the list don't have to independent countries at all. And guess what Scotland isnt there!!!!

All I was looking for was a compromise about its status within the UK. Clearly now with all this evidence the term country cannot be used.Wikipéire (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out sites that call Scotland something other than a country, or fail to list it as a country is irrelevant. If a site says "DJ Clayworth is a Wikipedia editor" and doesn't mention that I'm Canadian does that make me not Canadian? The "geography about" contributor is expressing his own personal opinion, and using his own definition of 'country'. He's entitled to his opinion but it certainly isn't binding on us.

We have, as I said, many authoritative sites calling Scotland a country. Please can we move on to something else. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No. If you show a few respective (not blogs by some idiot or anything) non British websites that say Scotland is a country I will back down.Wikipéire (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should you want a website as verification when you can have loads of published books as sources? - Bill Reid | Talk 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

...and why on earth should you want to look at non-British sources? Are the British somehow incompetent to decide what their own country's geography is?

Anyway, I've already posted such sources, including one from the United Nations and one from the UK government. I posted the UN one on 14th April, on this page, and the Downing Street one a few lines above it. So are you going to back down now? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I'm sorry Wikipéire but I do have to agree with the majority on this one. Adding that extra line is rather repetitive and unnecessary. As for the other points please read Talk:Scotland#Just the facts Ma'am it might help you on your quest for facts.

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh is the second largest city in Scotland, and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I personally think that this is a great improvement on the original and helps this article on its way to the WP:FA Status we all want. We have to keep that goal in mind and I am happy that people are actually trying to cooperate with this task. So I think we should put it up. What say you all shall we start the improvement and the drive to make Scotland the First article to become a Featured Article or what? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipiere would be interested in this: Our own article on country states that "Definitions may vary. It is sometimes used to refer to both states and some other political entities." It is also sourced (see the page) by a Commonwealth Act (foreign was on your checklist, was it not?) stating that: "Foreign country means any country (whether or not an independent sovereign state) outside Australia and the external Territories". There are also multiple other sources, citing thus...you may wish to read through all of them. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read that and in the list it provides Scotland isn't there!!In other words it says Scotland isn't a country independent or not. It says there are two methods of determining what a country is. The BBC uses one way: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/country_profiles/default.stm Under country profiles Scotland isn't there, but it is under territory!! You can't just pick and choose to say Scotland is a country just because it suits you when there are thousands of instances when it is clearly not applicable. If you want to use the term country the article has to clarify damn well that Scotland is not sovereign. If it doesn't then you can't use the wrod country. We had a perfect intro except people thought it was too detailed. The word within doesn't help either.Wikipéire (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And America calls their subdivisions states but they are not States... Think of Shakespeare "A Rose by any other name" Well everybody calls their subdivisions different names but they all mean that they are a part of a larger unit. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire, nobody denies that we have to explain carefully that while Scotland is a country it is not a sovereign state. Are you going to stop arguing that Scotland is not a country if we do that? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. Regarding the current "international" version with multiple references; we've got the breakfast, now can someone provide the dog... The reason I kicked this whole thing off was to try to provide a more suitable intro to complement the map which, by a de-facto concensus, (and contrary to my own personal choice I might add), changed to that showing Scotland's place within the UK. Fine, if that's what the majority want, I'd like to think of myself as a Democrat. Now, given the visual reference to the UK, I thought the opening paragraph might benefit from a makeover to describe, in one sentence, Scotland's relationship with the UK, for the benefit of the reader. Now we've ended up with another edit war which, if truth be told, if I'd realised would be the end result, I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. The reason, as was asked previously, that I don't like the recent, (as opposed to current), edit was that it was about as well written and informative as the instructions for flat-pack furniture from IKEA. What I had hoped to have in place of it was something more informative which tied in with the map, in that it set out clearly and concisely what, where and why Scotland is what it is and how the UK, which is after all shown on the map, fits in. Therrefore my preference is for this:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh, and in addition to the mainland Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

This, IMHO, ticks all the boxes. I'm aware the very mention of the UK strikes terror in to the hearts of some, but if I/we must now live with the map showing Scotland in a UK context, it makes sense to me, (with my wiki-editor hat on as opposed to my political hat), to tie both together for the sake of clarity. I'm trying to keep my politics for the bar, the canteen at work and for any poor soul who is prepared to listen to me spout forth, (or should that be froth), about Scotland. Is it too much to ask others to do likewise? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly ticks all the boxes for me, but you will be surprised, or maybe not, the amount of people who will have some reason to disagree with it --Jack forbes (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And Idon't think the argument over the the map is over with! Its an argument or discussion for another time!! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well my box is decidedly unticked. I feel the last sentence is not required in an opening paragraph. I believe that it should try to describe the country, as precisely as possible, what it is today. IMO, the rest of the lead section is the place for historical snippets. In fact, can anyone tell me what precisely is the problem with the existing lead? -Bill Reid | Talk 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading and uninformative.Wikipéire (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For example? -Bill Reid | Talk 18:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just try and read this whole talk page mate. That thing at the top that says the same stuff is discussed over and over again wasn't lying.Wikipéire (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that the intro does need to be worked on so that we can work towards WP:FA. Right now I think everybody can agree it can be worked upon since wikipedia is an evolving encyclopedia it is natural that improvements are suggested and work to help articles accept other policies in wikipedia like WP:LEAD are implemented. Can we include the intro now so that we can have the editors who briefly visit the article make improvements as they naturally edit? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What intro there are umpteen different suggestions on the talk page each more half baked than the one before it. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mate? What exactly is misleading and uninformative. Please point these out so they can be addressed. Bill Reid | Talk 07:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I also don't understand Wikipeire's objections, unless he is referring to the ones that he has already raised and have already been countered. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

This one Mr O'B:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. The capital city is Edinburgh, and in addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Okay with you and Mr Reid to try it out for a period to guage reaction? As with the map, if there is a majority against then I'll be happy to concede. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, my feedback is I still don't like it. I feel this version is, editorially speaking, a retrograde step. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nor I. -Bill Reid | Talk 07:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted on both counts. Your feelings towards the proposed revised first paragraph mirror my own with regard to the current map. However, in the same spirit of the map proposal, (which according to some is an as yet unresolved issue and yet the 'rv' edit war has thankfully ceased for the time being), would you be prepared to allow the paragraph, as detailed above, to be placed on the article for say a week or two, with editors invited to place comment here? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps before it is placed in the article, it might be a good idea to ask those editors who feel it is a backward step to point out the deficiencys in the proposed paragraph. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is no need to say that Scotland is part of the UK twice in the opening paragraph. The rather arcane sentence about the various kingdoms is better in the third paragraph of the intro. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country within the United Kingdom. It is located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest.

Scottish waters consist of a large sector^[3] of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves in the European Union. Edinburgh, the capital and second largest city of Scotland, is one of Europe's largest financial centres.^[4] Scotland's largest city is Glasgow, what was once one of the world's leading industrial metropolises, and now lies at the centre of the Greater Glasgow conurbation which dominates the Scottish Lowlands.

The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent state until May 1, 1707, when the Acts of Union, despite widespread protest across Scotland,^[5][6] resulted in Scotland becoming a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its modern successor state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.^[7][8] Though Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, the constitutional future of Scotland continues to give rise to debate. The Scotland Act 1998 established a Scottish Parliament with devolved powers, the first elections to which were held on 6 May 1999 with Parliament sitting for the first time on 12 May that year. There are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs), elected by the additional member system. The Scottish Government is led by a First Minister who appoints ministers with devolved portfolios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipéire (talk • contribs)

Main points I disagree with country should link to country nothing else, constituent part should link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing the latter link should be fine, but country should really to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom. With the alternative use of the word 'country' the link clarfies that it is a country but not an independent one. That link clarifies Scotlands position and removes confusion. It is better for all parties than 'within the sovereign state of the UK' that was suggest earlier don't you think?Wikipéire (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm finished with this thread. Nothing I'm seeing here remotely improves the article and have better things to do with my time. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I see nothing that really takes this article forwards. I'm decidedly against this proposal and any of its simillar guises. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, try again:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country and a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, Scotland's only land border is with England. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands, including the Hebrides and Northern Isles. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. Scottish waters consist of a large sector of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves within the European Union.

Edinburgh, Scotland's capital and second largest city, is the seat of the Scottish Parliament and one of Europe's largest financial centres. Glasgow, "second city of the British Empire" and largest city in Scotland, lies at the heart of the Greater Glasgow conurbation, which dominates the densely populated Central Belt.

A former independent state, the Kingdom of Scotland was united, despite widespread protest, with the Kingdom of England in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Despite having ceased to be a separate sovereign state as a result, Scotland's constitutional future within the Kingdom of Great Britain's modern successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, continues to give rise to debate.

References to be reinserted, needless to say. 80.41.246.79 (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The "land border" bit shouldn't be there, its a bit overkill. 'Bordered by England to the South' would be much more appropriate. Also country shouldn't link to country. Had we not established that the use of the word was similar to word 'state' used in Amercia and didn't actually mean country rather it was just the name of the subdivision?Wikipéire (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the border bit. However, following the comment by Barryob, I read the link to Country and it includes in the intro the mention of "dozens of non-sovereign territories (subnational entities, another form of political division or administrative division within the expanse [realm or scope] of a larger nation-state) which constitute cohesive geographical entities, some of which are former countries, but which are not sovereign states. Most of these nowadays even have a great deal of autonomy and local governments but such do not constitute a nation as they are possessions of such states". Therefore the link to Country seemed altogether appropriate in Scotland's case, particularly with the constituent part link in the same sentence. (A link to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom might open up the Nation not Country argument again).

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country and a constituent part of the United Kingdom. Located in Northern Europe and occupying the northern third of the island of Great Britain, it is bordered by England. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands, including the Hebrides and Northern Isles. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. Scottish waters consist of a large sector of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves within the European Union.

Edinburgh, Scotland's capital and second largest city, is the seat of the Scottish Parliament and one of Europe's largest financial centres. Glasgow, "second city of the British Empire" and largest city in Scotland, lies at the heart of the Greater Glasgow conurbation, which dominates the densely populated Central Belt.

A former independent state, the Kingdom of Scotland was united, despite widespread protest, with the Kingdom of England in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Despite having ceased to be a separate sovereign state as a result, Scotland's constitutional future within the Kingdom of Great Britain's modern successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, continues to give rise to debate.

Thoughts? 80.41.246.79 (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not agreed that any comparison to a US state is pertinent, and it is certainly spurious. A state (US) is an explicitly arbitrary creation of the US government, and is subordinate to the US government in all forms and forever, and has little or nothing else relevant to itself apart from its relationship with the US government (such as history, a popular memory, a heritage, a future, or anything else). Exceptions of no great consequence include a few "older" states such as Virginia (remembering its colonial heritage), those with a pre-US history (eg, Texas and Hawaii were once separate entities), and the circumstances surrounding the US Civil War. In point of fact, this every-state-is-just-like-the-others attitude reflects the intent that there is no state that will ever be different from the others.

Moving from one state to another means having to fill out a bureaucratically different tax form next year, and little else. Even moving between places with different common law and heritage (eg, from Texas/SouthernUS to Louisiana/French/Napoleonic) means virtually nothing. One is more conscious of moving between urban and rural places (there are some lifestyle differences), regardless of whether a different state is relevant to the move.

That hardly applies to the issues surrounding this talk page. I would suggest (with respect) that comparing Scotland to a US state implies a lack of understanding, either of Scotland by some, or of the US by others.

Also, please keep in mind that there are others who are interested in the main article besides the debaters, and the (merciful) cessation of arguments on one word does not imply consensus. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Glasgow, second city in the British Empire" Don't you think this belong in the history section, ie: The victorian era. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that 80.41.202.188 has changed the text of its signatures above to imply that its contributions were made by 80.41.246.79. I have no idea why they would want to do this but it should be taken into account when looking at the edit history for these IPs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done so to enable those others who are contributing to realise they're dealing with the same individual. No conspiracy, just contributing from PC's at home and at work. Anyone would think I was trying to hack into the Pentagon the way you've worded that. Jeeze, paranoia anyone?

"comparing Scotland to a US state" is something I was unaware either I, or the passage I quoted, was doing. Where is the link I apparently missed?

Fair point Jack forbes, just thought it might explain why on the face of it, and without a reader knowing the whole story, Edinburgh had bucked the usual trend of largest city being the capital city. 80.41.242.49 (talk) - usually 80.41.246.79 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a good healthy dose of paranoia. Sometimes they really are out to get you, <grin>. Particularly when they start editing their sigs. But in this case, fair enough. Best way of making sure that people know that it's all the same person is to register a "throwaway" account, though. Editing sigs will always look dodgy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This may have been suggested before, (theres been so many I'm not sure where I am) but would replacing country with Country be any help and leaving the rest of the paragraph as it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack forbes (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC) --Jack forbes (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is only one thing that should be clear by checking every other subdivision listed on wikipedia and that is this one thing, every subdivision whatever it was called, that name is linked to a Country specific topic about those subdivisions. That one simple fact is self evident and thusly the word country which is used to signify the subdivisions found in the UK would need to be linked to a UK subdivision specific article. If people do not believe that this is true I will be willing to pool up evidence just like I have in the past... but do I really need to do that? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that country followed by constituent part works well and puts everything into context. Other comments? 80.41.202.47 (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) usually 80.41.246.79 (talk)

Not quite what I meant. If you check Talk:Scotland#Intro Comparisons you will see that each one goes to a Country Specific topic when the subdivisions name is used, not to the name of the subdivision. So state ≠ state, parish ≠ parish, region ≠ region, etc.

v • d • e Types of administrative country subdivision Boldface indicates a type used by ten or more countries. Current English terms Autonomous area · Bailiwick · Banner (Autonomous banner) · Block · Borough (County borough · Metropolitan borough) · Cadastral division · Capital (Federal capital) · Canton · Circle · Circuit · City (Autonomous city · Chartered city · Independent city) · Colony · Commune · Community (Autonomous community · Residential community) · Condominium · Constituency · County (Administrative county · Autonomous county · Metropolitan county) · Council · Department · District (Autonomous district · Capital district · City district · Federal district · Metropolitan district · Municipal district · Subdistrict) · Division · Duchy · Eldership · Federal dependency · Governorate · Hamlet · Hundred · Insular area · Local administrative unit · Local government area · Municipality (District municipality · Regional municipality · Regional county municipality · Rural municipality) · Neighbourhood · Parish (Civil parish) · Periphery · Prefecture (Autonomous prefecture · Subprefecture) · Principality (Co-principality) · Protectorate · Province (Autonomous province) · Quarter · Regency · Region (Autonomous region · Capital region · Special administrative region) · Republic (Autonomous republic) · Reservation (Reserve) · Shire · State · Suzerainty · Territory (Autonomous territorial unit · Capital territory · Dependent territory · National territory · Union Territory) · Town · Townland · Township (Township (Scotland) · Civil township) · Urban (urbanized) area · Village · Ward Current non-English and loanword terms Amt · Arrondissement · Bakhsh · Baladiyah · Barangay · Bairro · Bezirk / Regierungsbezirk · Comarca · Comune · Daïra · Frazione · Freguesia · Gmina · Judeţ · Kommun · Liwa · Località · Oblast · Okrug · Ostān · Plasa · Powiat · Ranchería · Shabiyah · Shahr · Shahrestān · Sýsla · Taluka · Tehsil · Vingtaine · Voivodeship · Wilayah · Woreda Defunct and historical English terms Agency · Barony · Diocese · Free imperial city · Imperial Circle · March · Praetorian prefecture · Presidency · Residency · Riding · Rural district · Sanitary district · Theme · Urban district · Viscountcy (Viscounty) Defunct and historical non-English terms Burgh · Deme · Commote · Heerlijkheid · Naucrary · Nome · Pargana · Satrapy See also Political division · Census division · Electoral division

Each country has its own specific name for its subdivision as shown by the template above. So a country specific article describing the unique properties of these subdivisions are essential that is why it should link to either constituent country or Subdivisions of the United Kingdom either one would fulfill the necessary criteria. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Right I was thinking of making a very small change to the current first two lines. As they are now:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country[5] that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom,[5] and shares a land border to the south with England.

These two lines mix up political term with geographical term in the first sentence as well as in the second sentence. Restructering them so that its a political defintion followed by a geographical term I think is a good idea. It will not change in anyway what the sentence say. No words will be changed or removed. New version:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country[5] that is part of the United Kingdom.[5] It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and shares a land border to the south with England.

Anyone disagree that it is better? Again nothing has changed with the wording at all just moving geo and political descriptions together so that more clarity can be had instantly.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 23:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough an anon IP had the same idea and then left a message on my talk page [1] complaining that I had reverted his or her edit. Just out of curiosity, have you give up using socks? Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope he/she has. --Jza84 |  Talk  08:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

God you guys like avoiding the question asked of you. The person came my way too and I noticed the edit as at the time it was actually on the page before it was reverted. The ip editor appears to have disappeared so I suggested the same edits. Now your opinions on the actual matter at hand?WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 10:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, myself and others have already stated that we don't want this change. As I've said before, the preference you seek is, editorially speaking, a retrograde step. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly? How is it editorially speaking, a retrograde step There's no change at all in what it says.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can convince others that this is the right way forwards then that's fine. Personally I'm out. I've said my piece, and their's little point discussing this over and over, particularly with a user who's used sockpuppetry in votes and circumventing 3RR. This discussion needs closing asap so we can concentrate on other aspects of the page and project. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The original IP is still here, but was not here, so to speak. Having initiated the whole thing, it may come as no surprise that I still think the first paragraph, as was, needed improving. However, there doesn't seem to have been a huge number in favour of change, except on the part of myself and one or two others, with about the same number of editors opposing. Happy to let discussion run however, there is no timer on such discussion after all. 80.41.201.61 (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC) usually 80.41.246.79 (talk)

Completely agree with Jza84's comments above. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So what your saying is you have nothing against it but you aren't going to contribute your opinions on what exactly is wrong with it? That's very helpful.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is in the current for it leads to confusion with non-brits and this needs to be addressed. Since this is a global encyclopedia this confusion has been solved before by many other Countries (big s) inside this encyclopedia by linking the name of the subdivision with a country specific article dedicated to those subdivisions. This is what needs to be done here and I am at a loss as to why others think that this would be a step back instead of a step forward to FA status... Is there a reason that this should not be done? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Devolution

The lead section needs a sentence or two on the devolved government. Anyone? -Bill Reid | Talk 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No I don't believe it does. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What?? You don't think the biggest thing to happen in Scottish politics in a couple of hundred years is important enough to be in the lead section? --Jack forbes (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed it wasnt in the first paragraph of, says, Bavaria. --Cameron (t|p|c) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that maybe that was because its government wasn't devolved? --Bill Reid | Talk 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is more or less, William. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that more or less, Cameron? --Jack forbes (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me Cameron, have you actually read the Bavaria article? -Bill Reid | Talk 07:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I really dont wish to argue but what exactly do you two understand under the term devolution? --Cameron (t|p|c) 09:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavaria like other German states was always an autonomous region (except under the Nazis). Its recreation after the last war was with its areas of responsibility already defined. Scotland lost its autonomy at the Union so the powers it got in 1999 were devolved from Westminster to Hollrood. -Bill Reid | Talk 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bavaria does not have any devolved powers, Germany is a federal republic Bavaria's powers are guaranteed by the German constitution --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 12:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that a short sentence on the devolution structure would be positive.

--Breadandcheese (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scots removed

I recently added "Scots:Scotland" behind the gaelic word for Scotland. I was just wondering what consensus was like on this issue. Surely as a widely spoken language a mention ought to be kept even if the word is the same? --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The infobox gives the info that they are the same; repeating the name "Scotland" for what is after all a non-standardized variety/ies is pointless. If it was different, like Albanie or Schotland, that'd be different maybe. Why not Scotland (Scottish Gaelic: Alba; Scots: Scotland; Scottish English: Scotland; Orcadian: Scotland; Shetlandic: Scotland)? If the point of a wiki article is to give information, then that's enough. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the Scots name for Scotland is definitely "Scotland", but isn't the English name for Scotland, "North Britain" ? Perhaps we should retitle the article, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please , don't even joke about that! :) --Jack forbes (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Scottish English is irrelevant as it is a form of English. I dont think this is being taken seriously enough. Scots is an official recognised language after all. --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a scots language other than Gaelic and every insistence that there is is simply a ('canaanite') chauvanism against any nationless people in Scotland (that does seem to freak people out) as the dismissal of the English spoken in Scotland - the language everyone speaks - also shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromean (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as a scots language" - couldn't agree more. Next thing they'll be trying to tell people the world isn't flat! I ask you, some people these days... 80.41.213.40 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scots" is not a language; it is a dialect of English, just like American English. I certainly see no point in listing the name Scotland separately, especially when the name is the same. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Scots is not a language" "like American English". LOL! Forgive me, but what is it then, other than a brand of porridge oats? Perhaps I can help you here, try reading the following, as I get the distinct impression you are confusing Scots with Scottish English:

Council of Europe

(You will note that the document in the link concerns the "European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages" and NOT the "European Charter for Regional or Minority Dialects").

You might also like to look at the Scottish Parliament Language Policy:

Scottish Parliament (Version in English if you prefer)

And finally, and with particular reference to pages 8, 14 and 19, may I refer you to this:

UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Enjoy! 80.41.213.40 (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Does anyone else feel giving the percentage of people who say they are affiliated to the Church of Scotland should be edited out considering the other major religions are not given any? Personaly speaking I would hardly give religion a mention if at all (maybe an effect from growing up in the west of Scotland). Perhaps a mention that the Church of Scotland has the largest affiliation would do with further mentions of Catholics and other religions. --Jack forbes (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a strong case that religion has been formative of Scotland and its culture, in a way that is unique. You can trace a route through which religion has touched and driven the politics - from John Knox via the Bishops' Wars to the Claim of Right; then from Thomas Aikenhead to Scottish Enlightenment, then from figures like Ebenezer Erskine or John Witherspoon through to the Disruption of 1843; then into the 20th century political and religious establishment with John Wheatley and beyond to Claim of Right 1989 - again prominently involving religious establishments. We may not be comfortable with all this stuff (I'm a staunch atheist myself) but it is probably as formative and relevant as anything in the endless to-and-fro about Kingdoms and countries which has dominated this article over recent weeks. AllyD (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. You can't make a study of the culture of any nation without considering its religion(s). And you can't understand the history of Scotland without understanding Knox, Roman Catholicism, the Covenant, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know,Sigh, the both of you are right! Can't change history I suppose. I guess I've just got a hangover from remembering people being defined by their religion, although it's changing over the years. Living abroad as I did for a number of years gives you a different perspective. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the 2001 census statistics for affiliation are CoS 42.4%, Roman Catholic 15.88%, Other Christian 6.81% with no other religion gaining over 1%. There is a case to be made for mentioning the Catholic %age, although I don't think it's necessary myself.Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And 28% stated they have no religion [2] which may be one of the highest proportions in the world? (Certainly something which visitors from other countries (e.g. USA) have remarked on.) Possibly something heading for notability? AllyD (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a Jedi myself, I consider this to be a lamentable state of affairs. Nonetheless, if you look at the pdf provided in Religion in Europe#No religion, although it is higher than the UK average (perhaps many Scottish respondents think it is a question about football?) and is on the high end for northern Europe, it is not so unusual. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually think you have to question the percentages given for religion in Scotland. If you stood outside Ibrox or parkhead and asked what religion they were you would'nt have to be a genius to figure out what answers you were going to receive. Now, ask them if they attended Church/Chapel and you would see a different picture. Asking people if they feel an affiliation for a certain religion is entirely different from being religious! I know we can only give official figures(what other type are there?) but I question the validity of the questionaires. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would add perspective to take a quick look at one of the Demographics sections that seem to be appearing in many US-related articles, with "race" and "ethnicity" replacing "religion" (these occupy a place in US history similar to what you describe for religion in Scotland) ... eg, Braidwood and its county of Will. The data is based on the self-descriptions of those who chose to fill in something on optional US census questions, and is unreliable for a variety of reasons. I think that it adds nothing (certainly not to an understanding of race and ethnicity in US history), but then it doesn't seem to take away anything, either. What can one infer from the assertion that of the 5,203 people in Braidwood, 1.04% (ie, 54) are classified as being multi-racial? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone disagrees with taking percentages away from religious affiliations in Scotland I will do so. I will wait for a week and if I see no disagreement I will change it --Jack forbes (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of First Minister

I would like to propose to the editors of wikipedia to put First minister Alex Salmond's name before Gordon Brown's on the right hand table. This is because the First Minister is a more significant figure in Scottish society than Gordon Brown. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. In my counrty (Canada) our provinces & territories have their premiers listed, not the Prime Minister of Canada. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a different situation, though. The way Canadian federalism is set up, the provinces are separate and equal jurisdictions to the federal one; in other words, there's no real heirarchy between a provincial premier and his/her federal counterpart. I don't believe that's the case with the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. --G2bambino (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay for understanding my situation! You seem like a very real wikipedian Thanks again for supporting me! --Duckie for broadway (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There might be a little problem though; while there's a First Minister for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales? there's none for England. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Better get one quick then, hadn't they... 195.27.13.214 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to cause any severe arguements so I only am proposing First Minister Alex Salmond to be above Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the Scotland page not anywhere else or for any other country. Just the Scotland page. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your concerns, I cannot see this happening in the near future. The PM (who is incidentally also Scottish!) remains the head government throughout the United Kingdom and is thus placed at the top of the infobox! --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the PM should be removed from the infobox only the Her maj and the first minister should be there as the former appoints the latter who practially runs Scotland, I unerstand about the how devolved/reserved but using that logic the Welsh Northern Ireland and Sottish head of governments should appear in the UK article infobox. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 10:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really mind here, but would've thought that keeping the PM here would add value and information to the article, rather than take it away. I don't think it does any harm staying. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing the PM implies that the FM is the highest authority in Scotland. The (IMO) ought to remain!--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He is the highest authority in the Scottish parliament. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If the support here is to keep the PM then the heads of the devolved government should be added to the UK infobox --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

At the very least the FM should be shown above the PM. After all, the article is about Scotland. --Jack forbes (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, that would confuse the hierarchy. The PM is above the FM. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps Barryob has a point when he says the FM's of the devolved parliaments be added to the UK infobox? --Jack forbes (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I remain neutral as to that. But that is beside the point here anyway; Such a change would be discussed at the Uk talk page. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just a matter of jurisdiction, is it not? The UK Cabinet - and therefore the PM - has jurisdiction over Scotland, whereas the Scottish Cabinet - and therefore FM - does not have jurisdiction over the UK. I suppose the constituent country FMs could be added to the UK infobox, though I don't know why; they have nothing to do with UK governance and it begs the question: why not then list mayors or council heads? Anyway, as Cameron says, that's a matter for the UK talk page. As for here, there just doesn't seem to be any getting around the point that the Scottish FM is subordinate to the UK PM, and the latter does have influence over Scotland that overrides the FM's - as far as I know. --G2bambino (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The First Minister does indeed have jurisdiction over part of the UK. Its called Scotland. The Prime minister as you say does have influence over Scotland but cannot always override the decisions made in the Scottish Parliament, as was shown when the UK treasury tried to stop them implementing their own local income tax. --Jack forbes (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You avoided, or missed, my point. If the setup is such that the there are limitations on the UK Cabinet's ability to legislate for Scotland, that doesn't eliminate the point that the UK Cabinet still has authority over Scotland. The limitations could be removed or overridden by the UK Cabinet, but the Scottish Cabinet could most certainly not create legislation that binds the UK. --G2bambino (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking you are correct, but having the power to do something and being able to do it, as strange as it might seem, are two different things.--Jack forbes (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mmm.. I'm not sure I see the difference. The rules are the rules, and, like it or not, the Scottish Cabinet is within the jurisdiction of the UK Cabinet. The Scottish government is not sovereign (not even co-sovereign like the Canadian provinces), so it remains subordinate to Westminster, which means that, ultimately, the PM of the UK has the ultimate say over Scottish affairs. --G2bambino (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am only proposing Salmond to be above Brown in the table. I am not proposing to remove Brown, he is after all the prime minister. I agree with Jack Forbes on this point --Duckie for broadway (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that cause confusion around precedence? After all, the uninitiated reader might deduce from such that the FM of Scotland has greater authority than the UK PM, whether only in Scotland or otherwise. --G2bambino (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This page is about Scotland not the UK. The First Minister has more powers over Scotland than the Prime Minister in most cases. The First Minister is more important and therefore should preceed Brown. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But that's just a POV, wheras the UK PM having status/power over the Scottish FM is not. --G2bambino (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a !vote would be called for!Would somebody like to list the options?--Cameron (t|p|c) 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to calmly say that Alex Salmond has more power and There fore should be above Brown. Others may say differently but this is the facts in Scottish society today. Brown possibly could be kept but I urge the editors to contemplate carefully. --Duckie for broadway (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Since England doesn't have it's own First Minister? I'm supporting keeping the Infobox as is (UK PM above Scottish FM). GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually suprised they never came up with a better name! First Minister and Prime Minister essentially means exactly the same thing!--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alex Salmond has more power? Not what I hear, and not borne out by looking at the facts. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What kind of power does Gordon Brown have to create policy within the Scottish parliament? Even if you disagree with me over that I notice that in the infoboxes on US states there is no mention of the President. Do you not think the US President has more power than say the governor of Texas or any other state? --Jack forbes (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You should also check out Bavaria and the Australian states. I'm sure there are plenty more examples. I'm not even suggesting that Browns name be omitted from the infobox (although if I did it would not be an unreasonable suggestion). --Jack forbes (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But, again, those examples would only be valid here if the situation of the UK constitutent countries was the same as those of US states or Canadian provinces, which I really don't think it is. --G2bambino (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you not agree there would be no confusion to the reader over who was Prime Minister, it does actually give you that information directly below his name. Still trying to think of an alternative name to First Minister, our leader does'nt sound quite right. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, on second thought I'm not really bothered in which order they go. Just as long as the PM isnt left out completely and their position (ie of UK/Scotland) is noted (as it is at the moment)...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased you could see the compromise in this. I won't immediately jump in and change it but wait for the others opinons and hope they see it as you do. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unitl England has it's own First Minister? I'll have to continue to 'oppose' removing Brown and/or putting him below the FM. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what England not having a first Minister has to do with this discussion! --Jack forbes (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain to me what the connection is? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

'Tis a dirty word, but here goes, Consistancy across the 4 articles (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland & England); though I admit, that's an increasing impossibility. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotland has a parliament, England does'nt. How can you have consistancy over two completely different situations? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

'Tis a shame, that England lacks a Devolved Parliament. But, as long as Scotland remains within the UK? Prime Minister Brown gets the prominant spot (in the infobox). GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

'Tis a shame indeed! I ask again, how can you have consistancy over two completely different situations? --Jack forbes (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll never get consitancy on those 4 articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain you did'nt mean to, but you hav'nt actually answered my question. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

IF England had it's own First Minister? Then I'd call for the removal of Brown from the infoboxes of the 4 articles. Since in my country, we don't have Prime Minister Harper in the infoboxes of our provinces & territories. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I find the logic here curious. If Scotland is a region that needs a map that shows the UK per other examples why then does Scotland also need UK figures in the infobox, although it is clear that Texas, British Columbia, Bavaria, and Catalonia don't? This is surely a greater inconsistency. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 07:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the map was an issue of geo-politics. The FM/PM issue seems to be more one of heirarcy, though also based on governmental structures. As I've said above: if the situation of the UK's consituent countries was the same as that of Canada's provinces or the US's states, then I'd support a similar formula for the infobox being used here. But, I remain unconvinced that there is much parallel between those examples; the constitutional situation of Scotland within the UK is not the same as that of British Columbia within Canada. To be honest, though, I don't know about Bavaria or Catalonia. --G2bambino (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The situation in Bavaria is almost exactly the same. They have a sub-parliament that of their own that is inferior to the federal parliament. They have a Ministerpresident who is listed alone in the Bavaria infobox...there is no mention of Chancellor Merkel...That is one of the things that made me change my mind...--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The situaion with Catalonia is almost the exact same a region with devloved powers from the central government and no mention of the Spanish Prime Minister, Brown has to go for the sake of consistency for the love god please think of the consistency . --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see that the relative 'importance' of the governments is relevant; on that view George Bush should be in the infobox. The London article gives the name of the mayor, not the PM: because it's an article about London. This is an article about Scotland. ariwara (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But those areas don't state that it's a country and has its own government in the opening paragraphs. The removal of the PM would be ridiculuousl misleading that Scotland was some independent state! Both have to be there. The PM has more authority than the first minister! You can't ignore that fact in the article!WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 14:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why would omitting the UK PM be misleading? The article itself makes the constitutional position of Scotland within the UK abundantly clear. Does anyone actually read an infobox, anyway? BTW, WP doesn't like images built into signatures, [3]. Bill Reid | Talk 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make the constitutional position clear at all. Anyway I see the change has already been made by putting the FM infront of the PM. I am fine with it. The Queen should be last though. I will remove the picture shortly. I was not aware of that as I saw other editors using pics.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty ought to remain where she is...--Cameron (t|p|c) 18:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It was I who put the FM above PM, although I did say during the discussions that it would not be unreasonable for me to ask for the PMs name be taken out. If the discussions led to a consensus to take him out I would not object. --Jack forbes (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good move. Seeing as there was no consensus for it. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What was'nt a good move? --Jack forbes (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Placeing the FM above the UK PM. But, I see it's been done at Wales, so it doesn't matter now; I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So if something is done on the Scotland article that has not been reflected on any other 'UK' country article, then that's unacceptable. Yet if another 'UK' country article does it, only then does it become acceptable for the Scotland article to do likewise? What is with this 'can't be done on the Scotland article unless and until someone else has done it elsewhere' attitude??? 80.41.198.87 (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The straw poll (below) suggests a majority in favour of 'UK PM above Scottish FM'. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire now says he is fine with FM on top and Cameron is also now ok with it. --Jack forbes (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:HRH-Ryan

Id like to ask why since the option to have pm over fm one in the poll why it is not that way on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HRH-Ryan (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus regarding PM and FM

• Feel free to also take part in the above discussion!

• Option 1: Remove Prime Minister from infobox.

1. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
2. ariwara (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Option 2: First Minister shown above Prime Minister.

1. Jack forbes
2. Duckie for broadway

• Option 3: leave infobox as it is. (ie PM above FM)

1. Cameron
2. GoodDay
3. DJ Clayworth (talk)
4. Wikipéire
5. UKPhoenix79
6. User:HRH-Ryan —Preceding comment was added at 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RIP Constituent country

Sniff sniff. I see constituent country was removed from this article (days ago). GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I objected to the intro change but eh my objections were criticized to put it midly. Any change I've suggested has been decided to be a 'retrogade step'. I would very much like the cc term to be reinstated into the intro.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You may have objected to it, but there was a long discussion over it. I hope you don't just change it, well I'm sure you won't! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I won't! I only make changes if theres an inaccuracy or if there's consensus for something.WikipÉIRE\^(caint) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but one persons inaccuracy is anothers accuracy, so we all have to be careful. Sorry, I'm sure you know that anyway. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It seems a bit harsh of SFC9394 to accuse Malarious of vandalism for suggesting the use of country. The display is "country" and the link is to a page which is accurate in its description. Constituent country looks likely to be accepted on Wales and England as a way of ending interminable debates to the satisfaction of all parties. I don't want to intrude into a prior debate here and accept the current wording. However I think the reversal could have been more gentle. --Snowded (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

They've been 'trashed', for want of a better description. Would some willing and able samaritan fix them please. Thanks. 80.41.196.64 (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC) (I wouldn't know where/how to start)

[edit] Motto

I am confused. The motto for Scotland is Nemo me impune lacessit, or so it says on the info-box. However, the motto which appears above the crest, (in keeping with the Scottish armorial style), on the Royal coat of arms of Scotland, and Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom used in Scotland, is the Scots motto In Defens; an abbrevited form of the motto In My Defens God Me Defend. (See: Clan Scrimgeour heraldry)

All Crown bodies in Scotland also use this motto, e.g. Procurator Fiscal Service,etc.

The motto Nemo me impune lacessit is the motto of the Order of the Thistle, Royal Regiment of Scotland and Scots Guards. It first appeared on the Royal arms of the Kingdom of Scotland during the reign of Charles II, being absent from the arms of previous monarchs, including those of Mary, Queen of Scots, (See here: Wood carving showing Royal arms of Mary Queen of Scots), and James IV. (See image of arms at Stirling Castle).

Why then is the motto of Scotland listed as Nemo me impune lacessit and not In Defens?

In a sense, the equivalent would be to claim that the motto of England is not Dieu et mon droit but Honi soit qui mal y pense, which is of course motto of the Order of the Garter, and not the motto of England. 86.158.68.35 (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources as to why you think this is so? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My modest library has long since filled the shelves of many a charity shop. However, on-line sources with regard to the motto IN MY DEFENS GOD ME DEFEND being the motto of the Royal arms of Scotland are as follows:

• "The motto In DEFENCE (Sometimes IN DEFENS; possibly a contraction of ‘In my defence God me defend’) is invariably placed above the crest."
• "Below the shield is the additional motto: NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT (trans: ‘No-one provokes me with impunity’). This was incorporated into the arms by Charles II and is associated with the Order of the Thistle."
  • Public Sculpture of Glasgow by Ray McKenzie, Gary Nisbet

• "The Royal Motto, "In Defens", has been shortened from "In My Defence God Me Defend". The Royal Arms also display below the shield the motto of the Order of the Thistle: "Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
  • Heraldry – The Arms of the Earl of Dundee (taken from a book "Scottish Heraldry" by MD Dennis, published in 1999 by the Heraldic Society of Scotland: ISBN 0-9525258-2-8)

• "The ancient motto of the King of England is, God and my right (intelligitur) shall me defend. Of the King of Scotland, In my defence, God me defend."
  • The Fourth part of the Institutes of Laws of England: Concerning the Jurisdiction of Courts, by Edward Coke

• "The stamp bears the royal arms of James VI before his accession to the English throne. The Latin inscription reads: 'In Defence, Iacobus Rex 6'. This was in use to around 1603. 'In Defence' is an abbreviated version of 'In my defence, God me defend'."
  • National Museums of Scotland – Book stamp associated with James VI

• "The arms of Scotland crowned, with I.R. on the sides, encircled with a ribbon of the Order of the Thistle, having the motto, IN MY DEFENCE GOD ME DEFEND. Edinburgh Printed by Rob V Valde-grau Printer to the Kings Majesty. Anno Dom . 1597"
  • Typographical antiquities: an historical account of printing in England, by Joseph Ames

• "The word of the arms of Scotland was this, “In my defence God me defend"
  • The Progress and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, by John Nichols

• "and beneath the shield of Scotland the motto ”In my defence God me defend"
  • Historic notices in reference to Fotheringhay, by Henry Kaye Bonney

• "adorned upon one side with the Arms and supporters of Scotland upon a plate of gold, crowned, surrounded by the collar and jewel of St Andrew, with this motto below, IN MY DEFENCE GOD ME DEFEND."
  • Original Letters, Illustrative of English History; Including numerous Royal letters, by Henry Ellis

• Image: Arms on publication showing full motto

• Image: Wood carving of arms of Mary I showing full motto

• Organisations incorporating the motto in their logo:
  • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
  • General Register Office for Scotland

With regard to mottoes in Scottish heraldry appearing above the crest:

• "The motto appears above the crest as is the custom of Scotland."
  • The Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of Canada

• "The Scottish Royal motto appears above the crest, and the motto of the Order of the Thistle below the shield"
  • International Civic Heraldry

• "the Scottish matriculation of arms and differ from an English grant in that the motto is above the crest"
  • Cheshire-Heraldry

• "THE SLUGHORN (or slogan or cri de guerre) is the warcry used by the clan or family to which the owner of the achievement belongs. Its appearance above the crest is typical of Scottish heraldry, but it will be found elsewhere. Scottish achievements with no warcry usually feature the motto here. In England, where the motto is traditionally placed beneath the shield, a second motto may appear above the crest. Warcries are short, meaningful and easy to distinguish aurally. Mottoes can be relatively long."
  • Baronage

• "The Motto and its scroll may be of any colour, and may be shown either below the shield, English style, or above the crest, Scottish fashion."
  • Cayman Islands Govt.

• "When displayed, the motto normally appears on a scroll or ribbon beneath the escutcheon (and any supporter compartment/base). The exception is for Scottish Armorials where it usually appears in an escroll above the top of the crest. In rare instances where more than one motto has been adopted, they are often both displayed above the crest, or one above the crest and one below the escutcheon."
  • Modar University

• "In Scottish heraldry where the motto is granted as part of the blazon, it is usually shown on a scroll above the crest. A motto may be in any language."
  • Scottish Flag

• "The motto Escrol is positioned above the crest in Scottish Armorials."
  • The Arms of the Baron of Kilmarnock

Origin and associations with Nemo me impune lacessit':

• "The motto ‘Nemo Me Impune Lacessit’ is inextricably linked with the Order of the Thistle and has been designated by the Statutes of the Order as the motto of that Order since at least the 17th Century. The older Royal motto of Scotland is ‘In Defens’ and this appears on the Royal Arms from an earlier period."
  • Royal Regiment of Scotland

• "NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT. The motto of the Order of the Thistle (no one shall harm me with impunity) is borne at the centre of the standard."
  • Royal Scots Dragoon Guards

• Image: Badge of the Scots Guards

• Motto of the Order of the Thistle: "Nemo me impune lacessit (no one harms me with impunity)"
  • The Monarchy Today

• "The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle represents the highest honour in Scotland. Revived by James VII (James II of England), the Order has a complement of 16 Knights (KT). In 1987, The Queen decided that Ladies should be eligible for the Thistle in the same way as men. The Motto of the Order is Nemo me impune lacessit ("No one provokes me with impunity")."
  • British Monarchy web site

• Other sources:
  • Scots History on line
  • The Royal Collection
  • UK Govt.

To summarise:

The motto of the Royal arms of Scotland is IN MY DEFENS GOD ME DEFEND, abbreviated to IN MY DEFENS, (as in the case of the arms of James IV), or usually IN DEFENS. This was the original and only motto of the Royal arms until the inclusion of the motto of the Order of the Thistle, by Charles II, whose inclusion could simply have reflected a desire to apply an equivalent chivalrous motto to the Scottish arms to that of Honi soit qui mal y pense on the English arms.

British Army regiments who continue to use the motto of the Order of the Thistle, Nemo me impune lacessit, include the Scots Guards, the Royal Regiment of Scotland and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. However, other regiments continue to use the motto of the Order of the Garter, Honi soit qui mal y pense, including, for example, the Grenadier Guards, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, Life Guards and the Blues and Royals.

It may well be the case, particularly without an understanding of Scottish armorial traditions, that persons wrongly assume that the motto of the Order of the Thistle, appearing as it does beneath the escutcheon, is the motto of both the Royal arms of Scotland and the Royal arms of the UK as used in Scotland. As a result, this chivalrous motto is wrongly considered to be the Royal motto of Scotland itself, whereas the position in relation to the crest of the original motto IN DEFENS, and the fact that its use predates that of the motto of Order of the Thistle by several centuries, would suggest that IN DEFENS should be regarded as both the original and the correct motto of the Royal arms and by default of the country itself.

Furthermore, IN MY DEFENS GOD ME DEFEND is not, as has been wrongly suggested on the basis of rules governing English armorials where mottoes appear above the crest, a 'War Cry', but appears as the first line of an old Scots prayer:

In my defence God me defend

And bring my sawl to ane good end

ane vertuous lyf procureth ane happie death...

(ref.Electric Scotland)

Alternatively:

In my defence God me defend

And bring my soul to ane good end

When I am sick and like to die

Father of Heaven have mercy on me

(ref.Annals of Banff: Index to old cemetry)

It would not be unreasonable to liken the true status of Nemo me impune lacessit to that of Honi soit qui mal y pense, and in turn IN DEFENS to that of Dieu et mon droit.

I have yet to find a source which states categorically that Nemo me impune lacessit is the motto of Scotland, other than those sources which make absolutely no reference whatsoever to the motto IN DEFENS and which I therefore suspect are making an assumption that the position on the Royal arms of the motto Nemo me impune lacessit confers a status upon that motto which is not afforded under the conventions of Scottish heraldry, nor is such a status supported historically. The tradition of English heraldry may also account for IN DEFENS being mistaken for a "warcry" as opposed to being regarded as the principal motto of the arms.

Should it not simply be a case of English rules of heraldry being mistakenly applied in the interpretation of Scottish armorials, then I remain throughly confused as to how it has come about that in Scotland, the motto of the chivalric Order of the Thistle has become regarded as the motto of the country itself, as opposed to the motto of the Royal arms, as is the case in respect of England. Any light anyone might be able to shed on this would be appreciated. 86.158.218.187 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No takers then??? Shouldn't the motto on the Scotland page be changed accordingly??? 80.41.211.115 (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User 86.158.218.187 has certainly put an excellent case for changing it. No arguments here! --Jack forbes (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Scotland article now refers to In my defens God me defend. By rights, the correct motto should be reflected in the Scotland article also. 80.41.239.225 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead (again)

The lead's been reshuffled again tonight. I'm aware that consensus can change, but I'm not aware that is has changed. Any comments? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the consensus was 'I don't care'?

It's hardly a controversial edit now is it? Barely changes a word.WikipÉire ^♣ 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus certainly isn't "I don't care". That doesn't help a great deal. I'm not saying I'm necessarily against the change, but I am conscious that we had a major lengthy discussion about it and I for one respect that. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, the lengthy discussion was about what words to include and exclude in the lead, not the specific order in which they were placed. My edit was a copyedit, not a major edit; I was only trying to improve the flow of the opening sentences currently broken up by an excess of periods. --G2bambino (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the work you did was in good faith, absolutely. I'm even happy to agree to the change (I didn't revert it), but I was just concerned (very concerned) that several others would oppose it. We have enjoyed a period of stability, and wouldn't want to disrupt that for the world. If there's no objections made soon, I guess that's an all clear... for now. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one, much prefer the existing version. Let us recall that this is primarily a geography article and most country articles that I am familiar with begin by locating the country concerned, not be defining its role in the geo-political universe. You will notice, for example, that the UK article lead provides a lengthy description of its attributes and only at the end mentions membership of larger groupings. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks fine as it is! --Jack forbes (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and, as a subnational entity, Scotland's geography is defined by its larger container. The lead already says the country is in the UK, just in another sentence, when it need not be. As my edit was so minimal, one can only wonder if it's the same old pro-Scottish independence bias that's driving opposition. --G2bambino (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, the same old pro-British unionist bias that's driving the change. ;) 80.41.211.115 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is one automatically biased if they admit the existence of something that exists? --G2bambino (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does the present version deny the existence of the UK? You can't keep throwing accusations of Pro-Scottish independence bias everytime someone disagrees with your edit. As shown, it can easily be turned around as Pro-British unionist bias on your part. --Jack forbes (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't throw any accusations; I postulated on the possibility of biases over-complicating a simple edit, based on the observation that it only seems to have been the moving of the words "United Kingdom" to before "Great Britain" that caused any ruffles amongst certain individuals with publicly well known personal stances on certain matters. It's all rather a tempest in a tea pot; but why would anyone make it such? It's certainly a good possibility that it's a form of territory marking, done in order to deter others from making even the most innocuous edits here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

This article seems to be written with a strong bias for Scotland. While I don't disagree with the sentiment I think the article should be changed have a more neutral tone. It just doesn't seem fitting for an encyclopædia article. 82.41.10.26 (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of bias please? Jack forbes (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict): It would help if you could quote some concrete examples. I would be happy to help provided they really are biassed. --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A new take on the old "country" debate

Reading through the extensive discussions, above, regarding Scotland's status as a country, I note that there is actually considerable agreement. This is reflected in the following agreed facts from the "Just the facts" section at the top of the page:

"5. Scotland is called a constituent country of the UK

6. Scotland is called a country"

It seems that any disagreement has been over how best to describe this in the lead. I note that most of the variants proposed above included both of these facts. Many, if not most, editors agreed with the most recent of these proposals, but some had particular objections (e.g., comparing Scotland to a U.S. state, etc). However, it seems to me that the current version of the lead does not pick up these two facts. I thus find it less than satisfactory. Here's how the first two sentences currently read:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country^[1] that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom,^[1] and shares a land border to the south with England...

The problem with this, IMO, is that it is misleading. As has been clearly established, above, Scotland is not an ISO 3166 country. It is a constituent country. I therefore propose the following modification to the lead:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a constituent country of the United Kingdom.^[1] It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain and shares a land border to the south with England...

Footnote

1. Countries within a country. 10 Downing Street "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."

I like the symmetry between the wiki link to "constituent country" and the reference given. However, another reference could be used, if deemed necessary. What do you think of this proposed revision? Sunray (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I will make the change. Sunray (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed in the past and it was agreed that country should be used! Also, if you want further discussion on it please give time for other editors to come to the discussion. Jack forbes (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just while were on the topic again, may I just quickly suggest for editing of the intro, as the source says country in a country then so to should the line. ie Scotland is a country in the uk etc. Selective picking of what the source says like there is now that will lead to people wanting to change it.WikipÉire ^♣ 14:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It says just that! Scotland is a country....It is part of the United Kingdom. Is the United Kingdom not a country? Jack forbes (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats my whole point. You had to cut out a sentence to match it with the source! A slight tinkering of the sentence structures would solve that.WikipÉire ^♣ 15:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to quote a source word for word. All the information from the source is there for all to see. Jack forbes (talk) 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The original observation is inaccurate: there is not considerable agreement. And there are inconsistencies thoughout. For example, some who likened Scotland to a Canadian province or a US state (and not something distinct within the UK) also objected to infobox contents which were like those of a Canadian province or US state (which lists the local executive without mentioning the national executive), on the grounds that Scotland was not like a Canadian province or US state. As for citing facts, this is no more than cherry-picking selected factoids for the purpose of argument, wrapped up in a claim of rational thinking. Who lists facts that effectively rebut the pre-conceived notions of the lister? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see—as expressed by many on this page—is that the statement "Scotland is a country" needs to be explained. Scotland is not a country according to ISO 3166. So we need to be clear on this. "Constituent country" is one way of saying it, "country within a country" is another. Would those who do not favour my suggestion, above please suggest an alternative? Sunray (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

How about keeping the current introduction as an alternative? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You got there before me! Jack forbes (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that ISO 3166 has been mentioned previously as someone's fact (in support of the mentioner's POV, of course). With all due respect, the problem that exists here is not one of facts, nor one of a perception of the facts; it is more a question of agenda (we all have a POV, right?). No one is going to cite a fact that others will look at, and then say "Ah! Of course! I see that you are right!" As a suggested alternative, why not let those who have made substantial contributions to this article lead, and the rest of us can live with it for awhile? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sunray. A very slight adjustment needs to be made. Not the mass change that was discussed before, just a slight tinkering to make whats being said more concrete. For example no other UK con country article says just country. It may be confusing. Not that I object to the term country as that was accepted through consensus. What is wrong with the whole with saying its a country in a country all in one line?WikipÉire ^♣ 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipeire, You said exactly the same thing just a few hours ago, repeating it won't suddenly change peoples minds. Jack forbes (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The current lead (which I don't necessarily agree with) was decided upon after extensive wide-reaching discussion, with only Wikipeire being the only real vocal opposition. Even if the lead is changed from a discussion here, another discussion will likely return it to something similliar not long later. There's a whole article out there that needs work, please lets leave the lead as the consensus settled on, and work on the rest of the page. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well actually there wasn't consensus on the wording of the intro, just whether country or con country was used. On the contrary I feel a small change in rearraning sentences could stop this being brought back up rather than the other way around. Sure what are we doing right now?WikipÉire ^♣ 23:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jza84 is one of the people who contributes substantially to this and this kind of article, so I hope that Jza84's preference carries greater weight. There are several others. Can we agree to let only them sort it out for the time being? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For the good of the article (this is why we are here!) I agree with Notuncurious to leave the seasoned editors of this article to sort it out! Jack forbes (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edi conflict)Seasoned editors? Good grief! No one's personal opinion is better than anyone else's. Wikipedia works by consensus. At the moment nothing will change as there is no consensus, but other editors may have an opinion too. You have to respect that. You can't just do what one person says, they don't own an article.WikipÉire ^♣ 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Its not about ownership. Its about leaving an article stable for a while where there has been concensus and allow people to improve the article where it needs improving! Jack forbes (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about major changes or making all this unstable again. This isn't some huge debate whether one fact is right or wrong or defining whats beings said. Its just merely a suggestion to slight lingustic changes which may stop future problems. Other editors may appreciate that themselves and see it as improving the article as its an area that needs improving. I'm not trying to win anyone over.WikipÉire ^♣ 00:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that if you're (Wikipeire) going to persue this matter, then you need to involve WP:SCOTLAND and WP:UKGEO at very least. That said, this time, you need to abide by the outcome, and not repeat the debate a week or two later with no concession or additional source material. However, I'm really not interested in yet another wasteful dead-end debate. Neither the weight of opinion or source material has altered in the last few months. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change anything, just suggesting that restructing the exact words that are there, might be less confusing and might stop problems happening in the future!WikipÉire ^♣ 23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Jza84, I really like your reason: "There's a whole article out there that needs work, please lets leave the lead as the consensus settled on, and work on the rest of the page." Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's no use Wikipéire, the seasoned editors of this article (some who have been here for all of three months) have spoken. Sunray (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is me you are referring to, I made no claims to being a seasoned editor. Jack forbes (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My real concern is with the level of discourse on this page. After weeks of discussion, characterized by irrelevancies, ad hominems and straw-man arguments, (causing many serious editors to flee), this article still has a sub-standard lead (more on this below). Only my love for Scotland (my POV) keeps me here. Sunray (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Several people have stated that the article needs a great deal of work. It does. But it is hard to get past the first line: "Scotland is a country..." This, from a *serious* encyclopedia? Hardly. Scotland is not seen as a country by many people the world over. The assertion needs to be explained.

Consider this statement: "I think that ISO 3166 has been mentioned previously as someone's fact (in support of the mentioner's POV, of course)." Whether ISO 3166 represents a POV is irrelevant. ISO 3166 is a fact. It is the reality of much of humanity. In light of that FACT, simply stating: "Scotland is a country" is arguable (at best). We have a chance to educate and inform the reader here, but we do not. The article will not be taken seriously until we address this. Sunray (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither your love for Scotland nor your integrity have been impeached, Sunray. And Jack forbes need not think that your comment above was aimed at him. As for your dispassionate words, that much is to the good. However, it sounds like you want a specific POV (your own) to be considered pre-eminent, along with others who do not make substantial contributions to this and similar articles, and this article will suffer until you get your way (I hope I'm wrong about this). Speaking for myself, I find myself privately disagreeing with much of Jza84's POV, but reasonable people may disagree. Jza84 does not agree with the current version of the lead, but is willing to live with it until things settle down, and the article can be elsewhere improved in the meantime. Please support Jza84's suggested course. Please. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with some of what you say, you miss my main point: It matters not what my POV is. I do not simply wish my view to be pre-eminent. I'm used to controlling for bias. What matters is that the statement in the first sentence of this article is itself POV And that is shabby. Sunray (talk)

I'm not sure what ISO 3166 has to do with this article? ISO 3166 is a list of abbreviations for territories not all of which are countries e.g French Guiana is listed but it is very much a part of France. ISO 3166 isn't relevant to proving Scotland's country status. Countries that are not independent are still well recognised as legitimate entities. Just Google for non-independent countries and see—official US government and UN sites use the term among 125,000 others. Bill Reid | Talk 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC

Yes that's right. Scotland has a claim here. We don't support that, however. We simply lump it under the heading of "country." Sunray (talk)

Agree with what Bill Reid says, Scotland is not an ISO 3166 and so what ? this does not mean that Scotland is not a country. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course not! Right now Scotland is a constituent country or a country within a country. That is what we need to say in the intro. And its not a POV, just a simple fact that the reader will likely benefit from knowing. Sunray (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now, there seems to be considerable opposition to this, for whatever reason you may think! To me, sure, Scotland is in Britain; a consistuent country, and that's the truth. Trouble is, Scotland is verifiably a country, and this is a sticking point for people. How do you propose to obtain consensus Sunray? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get it! The article tells us that Scotland is part of the UK. Does that not say what you are looking for Sunray? Jack forbes (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's say I'm a reader who doesn't know much about the UK. I'm curious about Scotland. I go to the WP article and read that Scotland is a country. I follow the link and look for Scotland on the List of countries. It isn't there. Now I'm confused. I might look at the footnote, or I might not. Many would move on to something else instead. This could easily be prevented by a link to constituent country (which actually gives the example of the UK. Sunray (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

ISO 3166 is a goner, good. The opening of the article says Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom,. Nothing could be more explicit than that. Footnotes is the place you look for positive verification of the facts. No-one has written List of non-independent countries (yet) but please, read the article including the citations and forget the red herrings. Bill Reid | Talk 19:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"ISO 3166 is a goner..." Hardly. ISO 3166 is the reality we have to deal with. Most people have some degree of familiarity with the UN's designation of countries. We have to address that.

You are quite right that the lead is explicit. However, it is not sufficient. That is the problem I am raising.

"Forget the red herrings." This statement leads me to believe that you have not yet understood my point. I have not used any red herrings. My point is simple and I have merely expressed it in different ways. Sunray (talk)

No one has yet dealt with the concerns I've raised. Would someone please try to do that? Sunray (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Maybe a few more sources to back up what your saying might help. The way the article is written currently, with the word country being there by itself misleading suggests that it an independent country. As seen in the 'fact only' section above, the word country can be seen as meaning that. So therefore a small change is needed to reflect this.WikipÉire ^♣ 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of reopening old debates, wounds, etc, but for the sake of completeness: it seems that ISO 3166-2:1998, Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions — Part 2: Country subdivision code. does regard England and Scotland as countries, see Newsletter, p9 p11. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National anthem

I'm curious as to why there is no national anthem in the infobox. Has this been missed out for any particular reason? I would say the de facto anthem would be Flower of Scotland, although other's might say Scotland the Brave. Here are just some refs confirming they are considered unofficial or de facto [4] [5] [6] [7]. Any thoughts? Jack forbes (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The National anthem of Scotland itself states that Scotland has no national anthem 1, 2, 3, 4. That is why none is listed. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It does'nt actually say there is no anthem, it says there is no official anthem! Anyway, I'm sure I sing the Scottish national anthem at the Scotland international football games. Jack forbes (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But it would have to be official to be added to the infobox. Many people call the Germans krauts but it isn't listed as a demonym in the infobox because it isn't official. = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I will have to go over to the UK article and remove English as the official language from the infobox! Jack forbes (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention God Save the Queen as the official anthem! Jack forbes (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As to the first one:go ahead = )! But I have sources proving the latter...= )--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If something's official through de facto means, it can be included. The US doesn't have an 'official' language but its there.WikipÉire ^♣ 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But there are multiple anthems which makes it hard to determine which is the anthem...--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you lived here you would know there are only two candidates for national anthem, flower of Scotland and Scotland the Brave, and if you asked people in the street I'm fairly sure they would say the former. Jack forbes (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know I don't? Surely my name is as Scottish as names get? = )I agree that most people would say the former (although there is still confusion). One of the links I provided above was of a poll to see which is the preferred anthem and Flower of Scotland won.--Cameron (T|C) 12:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you can't get much more Scottish than Cameron. Let's sing Flower of Scotland together! :> Jack forbes (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

With pleasure...: "O Flower of Scotland, when will we see..." = ) --Cameron (T|C) 12:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bravo!! Aye, it fairly stirs the heart. :> Jack forbes (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The United Kingdom has an anthem God save the Queen. That covers the entire sovereign state (including Scotland). GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

But as I'm sure you know, the UK is made up of countries within countries and we all have our national anthems. That's why when Scotland play football and rugby internationaly the announcer asks everyone to stand up for the national anthem. Jack forbes (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy smokers - if ever there was a sovereign state with multiple identities, the UK is it. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, but it's fun! :) Jack forbes (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:HRH-Ryan

Just to say my peice:

Flower of Scotland has never been declared my by act of parliament or by Royal Warrant as the anthem of Scotland -so how can it be de facto. It may be the popular anthem -but in political correctness the anthem of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom would be God Save the Queen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.132.60 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

De facto is what you call something when it is generally accepted to be the case but has never been officially defined. Thus English is the de facto language of the US but not de jure, which is what you call it when something is officially defined. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but "generally accepted" is massively question-begging in an encyclopedia context. More so in this instance, because there is at least one significant other: "Scotland the Brave". I think the current single entry is therefore misleading. --Stevouk (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And now for something completely different!

I notice that the article says Scoti rather than Scotti! I always thought the latter spelling was correct so I checked the article on wiki and Scoti was used as the article name but stangely Scotti was used in the article. Seems there is a bit of confusion here. Anyone know enough to clear it up? Jack forbes (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Both ways are used. The first reference to 'Scoti' or 'Scotti' is by the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who used 2 t's (their marauding in Roman Britain in 360 and 364, and their defeat in 368). Among those who used 1 't' was the Irish historian Charles O'Conor, such as in his 1775 Oygygia Vindicated, where he pressed the argument of Irish origins. There doesn't seem to be any agreement (or dispute) about which is acceptable. The Scoti article notes that it can be either way; it looks like the article itself has been massaged into a list of sections that refer to Irish topics. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says "The name Scotland derives from the Latin Scoti" If the original Latin was Scotti, do you think 2 t's should be used in the article? I know its no big deal, I'm just wondering why we don't go with the original latin spelling, as surely the name Scotland came from the first reference! Jack forbes (talk) 11:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't put much faith in what the article says ... it's one those that appears to be someone's personal take on history, and it lacks merit. Changing the name between 'Scoti' and 'Scotti' wouldn't be a worthwhile improvement, I think, considering the article content; but it wouldn't do any harm, either. If you're thinking of writing a real article, it wouldn't take much research, as there isn't much to be said; but there are pitfalls.

I recall that the next tangible reference to 'Scot(t)i' (after Ammianus) is about 580 by a Spanish cleric, who was the first to refer to Ireland as 'Scotia'. The first known reference to 'Scotland' is 100 or 200 after MacAlpin, before Stratclyde and the Lothians were incorporated. There is a good case for Irish origins, but it's expressed as a one-way transfer of power and culture, which is unlikely; and it abuts the (sometimes contentious) subjects of Pictish origins and Celtic Christianity. There seems to have been "agreement" that the origin of the word 'Scot' is derived from ancient opinions that the Scythians were from the north, and that Scot is this same word, inaccurately applied.

Virtually every Irish, Scottish, and English history related to ancient Britain was tainted by the fiction of De Situ Britanniae, which was the prime authority on Roman-era history between 1750 and the late 19th century (for northern England and Scotland, it was virtually the only authority). Its relics can still be found in modern speculations and theories. The Irish preferred their (legitimate) manuscripts over De Situ Britanniae when there was conflict, so their accounts are "less tainted" regarding ancient British history, but the false accounts were accepted when there was no conflicting manuscript. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you really do learn something new every day! I may pop down to the library and look in to it more closely. You seem to be well informed on the subject, and I'm sure if you had the time or the inclination you could make a good job on the 'Scot(t)i' article. Thanks again for your reply! Jack forbes (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The first reference to Scotland as "Scotland" is 75 years after "MacAlpin" (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Manuscript A, sub anno 933: "Her for Æþelstan cyning in on Scotland ..."). Ireland is being called "Irland" slightly earlier, sub anno 914. The Irish are "scottas" in 891 (the three men in a boat), but not after that as far as I know. The first "Scottish" king to learn that he was "Scottish" could have been Constantín mac Áeda at one of his various meetings with English rulers. If he understood Old English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotia does, obviously, derive from Scoti. Scotland is an English exonym derived from Latin (presumably) and attested from the 10th century onwards. In Gaelic it is called Alba, attested earlier. Alba emerged in Gaelic as the word for what was also and previously known in Latin as Pictavia, possibly from the 8th century or earlier, but definitely from the 9th century. Hence the story changes depending on whether one focuses on the signifier or the signified, and for the former depending on language. As for Scotti versus Scoti ... it isn't a meaningful difference, as both are used in Latin throughout the Middle Ages. Regarding Scotia and Scythia, it was a similarity that had effects on medieval writers (may even have given Scotland its later patron saint), but the two words do not appear to be connected in etymology. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikipéire

I'm not really sure where to hold a centralised discussion about this, but I thought it worth mentioning that User:Wikipéire was blocked indefinately today for sockpuppetry. OK you may think, but could there be a correlation between that Malarious (talk · contribs) and 213.202.143.73 (talk · contribs), which seem to share comparable sentiments? --Jza84 |  Talk  00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me if it was a sock, indeed I was going to post just such a suggestion last night based on my revert. The editing practises of the user are highly suggestive of socking. Might be worth getting a CU done. SFC9394 (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I had some suspicions a while ago, but IIRC I couldn't see any evidence of misuse of second accounts (good hand/bad hand, 3RR or multiple contributions to debates), so I let AGF rule. I see Wikipéire strenuously denies (at his talk page) any wrongdoing, but he certainly uses at least one IP not listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wikipéire, see this diff. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constituent country (again)

Just letting ya'll know. The articles England, Wales & Northern Ireland use constituent country (just pointing out the inconsistancy). GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

and consistency on what is an accurate statement would help us fend of those trying to remove country or make us areas. Much as I hope Wales and Scotland will be countries, the fact is that at the moment they are constituent ones. --Snowded (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Just letting ya'll know, you should take a good look at talk:Scotland#Just the facts: #2, #4, #5, #6, #7 & #13. Like it or not, and irrespective of E,W & NI, this article has been stable for quite some time; I'd suggest leaving it alone. For those desiring consistency, try addressing the info box map issue; the E & NI maps are way too big IMO, and quite why Wales should need two of them God only knows. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is not independant, from the rest of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Never! (sic). "It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England". How could that possibly indicate that it is "independant, from the rest of the UK"? What is this, a Web-based "Encyclopaedia" or an 'idiot's guide' to the world and everything in it? If the reader cannot glean from that one sentence in the introduction precisely what Scotland's status is then we may as well forget the whole bally exercise and start giving out free subscriptions to the National Enquirer!

Again, am I missing something here with regard to the repetitive grinding of this one particular axe? One person's climbing back on their own particular hobby-horse of consistency across UK articles and their constant regurgitation of old arguments which have been thrashed out time after time is simply not what this page should be about. Repeated POV pushing should be stamped out IMO. We have been here time and time again and yet again out comes the same tired arguments. I for one, if you haven't guessed, am getting a tad fed up with it all. Please, make it stop... 80.41.195.209 (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:So this article continues to get special treatment eh? What a terrible thing I did, suggesting this article line-up with the other 3 (heresy on my part, I guess?). Ya'll may as well restore nation to the lead & restore the Scotland only Map too. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks. As I'm a consistancy buff, this article tends to 'try my patients'. As a result, I'll drop this topic (and go back to keeping my distants). Again, my apologies. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we just use country and constituent country? For instance,

“

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom and shares a land border to the south with England.

”

(References omitted) -Rrius (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is my final comment on the issue Scotland is verifiabley a country not an independent one but still a country this has been pointed out several dozen times, this is an encyclopaedia not geography for idiots the intro should not be altered for those who think country automatically means independent country and even then the second sentence states stands political status and GoodDay you everlasting quest for consistency where there is none is now borderline trolling --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to you labelling User:GoodDay as a troll! Such actions do not comply with WP:AGF. If you think he actions are bordering on trolling, I suggest you go and re-read the what is a troll? essay. --Cameron (T|C) 16:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I did read it see Pestering GoodDay has raised this issue numerous times as seen below the consensus is to call Scotland a country which is also verifiable, GoodDay just isn't letting go.. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless GoodDay's edits are always polite and good faith. A simple comment would have suficed, there was no need for a such an accusation. --Cameron (T|C) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, sometimes "a simple comment" might not get the message across, particularly where an individual feels that simply having failed to find support for their own POV is evidence of them having been "bullied out, again", (Special:contributions/GoodDay 18:07, 28 May 2008), and who openly admits to having "been claiming 'group ownership'" on this article. (User_talk:G2bambino#Scotland). "Some trolls are critical of the project, its policies, its users, its administration, or its goals. Often, this criticism comes in the form of accusations of cabals, ilks, or campaigns that are typically invested in a particular POV, invested in maligning a specific user, and other similar claims." (From: What is a troll? Misplaced criticism). Cameron, your loyalty to your friend is admirable, however I feel on this occasion it may be somewhat misplaced. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said GoodDay was my friend? Loyal to someone I don't know? I don't think any of the above quoted essay applies to GoodDay. He is a wonderful contributer. But let us end this conversation, it is not the right place. --Cameron (T|C) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But to finally put the consistency issue to bed, probably the most independent and authoritative source connected with the debate surrounding the use of "country" is the International Organisation for Standardisation, which in the reference now included in the Scotland article pertaining to the ISO 3166-2 Newsletter I-9 (2007-11-28), uses the following classifications on page 11:

• "ENG England country"
• "NIR Northern Ireland province"
• "SCT Scotland country"
• "WLS Wales principality"

The UK Govt. has stated on a web page that the "United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland", much in the same way as the Scottish Govt. has stated on a web page that "Scotland is a kingdom within the United Kingdom (UK)", however IMO, the ISO classifications carry greater weight than either of the other sources. On this basis, and with regard to consistency between UK articles, the only consistency would appear to be between the Scotland and England ISO classifications. Perhaps those with a preference for such should take their case to the Talk:England page and argue their case there for the England article intro to mirror that of the Scotland article intro, for the Scotland article intro is in fact correct in as much as it corresponds to the ISO classification. The England, Wales and Northern Ireland articles however do not correspond with the ISO, and are arguably incorrect. Good luck! 195.27.13.214 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I already said, I'm not gonna press the issue anymore. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is stable; Scotland is effectively described, whatever word we wish to use; the issue is a molehill.--Gazzster (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So glad to learn that the list of discussions you initiated in order to "press the issue":

• Talk:Scotland/Archive_15#Scotland in the UK
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_16#Special Treatment
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_16#Is it possible?
• Talk:Scotland/Archive_16#Where's the beef?
• Talk:Scotland#RIP Constituent country
• Talk:Scotland#Constituent country (again)

will not get any longer... 80.41.195.209 (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay is not a troll. If he feels strongly about an issue, he may raise it time and time again, as often as he wishes. I see no problem with this, for he is always courteous, avoids rancour, respects reason and abides by consensus. If anyone who raised an objection frequently could be labelled a troll, three quarters of Wikiusers, including myself, would be a troll.--Gazzster (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothwithstanding your assertions, the individual concerned might do well to curb their enthusiasm where this article is concerned, so as not to lead myself and others to jump to such conclusions in the first instance. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I should have thought we as individuals are responsible for the conclusions we jump to. If we are unsure of what a user is inferring, we ask them outright.--Gazzster (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I sense a 'Hamster wheel' developing here. Let us agree to disagree. 195.27.13.214 (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAQ?

Anyone agree this page could use an FAQ like the one on Talk:United States covering the various issues we see ad nauseum? - MichiganCharms (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it needs a FAQ. I've been here quite a few times, raising old concerns & restarting old discussions (much to the displeasure of others). So sure, an FAQ would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it could use an FAQ? Jack forbes (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Because of me; I've already worn out the why not consistancy question. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought everything had been stable for a while, other than one or two small debates! Jack forbes (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been stable (no edit wars). GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clans ?

I am intrigued; why no mention of clans in the entire history of Scotland? Did the Romans really have an influence in Scotland to deserve about 200 words, yet the Scottish clans not a single word? Some may say that the clan system ended in 1745, others in the clearances, yet reading the wikipedia page on Scotland one seriously wonders if it ever existed at all. there is a mention of clans at the end of the article: under the heading National symbols: ...the textile pattern tartan that often signifies a particular Scottish clan.... This statement may reflect what some consider the present state of the clans to be, but was it always so? Czar Brodie (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Your Czarness! Even now, the clan system is an important cultural aspect of Scottish life. Perhaps popular non-Scottish culture views it as something of a superficial icon, like haggis, caber and thistle jokes.Anyone like to help out here?--Gazzster (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact is that clans are more a fun thing than an important part of Scottish life nowadays. They were certainly far more important historically than they are now. I suppose that we should have something under the culture heading though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I don't live in Scotland, but in one of the the 'colonies'. And overseas, I think, the clans are more important as a means of identifying with the ancestral country (sorry-should that be 'constituent state' lol). My grandfather, God rest him, who never saw a sod of Scottish soil, spent hours trying to figure out which specific clan our family came from. And it is often the case that traditional elements of a country are far more important to the diaspora than to the indigenous population itself.Perhaps this could be noted in reference to the Scottish diaspora.--Gazzster (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with you, Gazzster. Even native Scots tend to get more interested in Clan societies, etc., after they emigrate than they ever were while living in Scotland. Although there are exceptions of course. But the importance to the diaspora could certainly be noted. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)