Talk:Scotland/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Scotland (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9 >	19 >>

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Attempt to make this article more modern, topical and fresh
- 1.1 See also
  - 1.1.1 Current events
  - 1.1.2 Future events
2 History Section
3 Prehistory
4 No religion
5 Harp again
6 Magnificent
7 National Anthem?
8 Scottish Banknotes
9 Politics section images: Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland
10 introduction
11 Politics section
12 Arms
13 "Spam links" and <rollback button>
14 Removal of new "Rivers" section
- 14.1 Rivers
15 Shared Culture?

Attempt to make this article more modern, topical and fresh

Further to our recent discussions here regarding history, and especially my preference for more emphasis on modern history, my attention has been attracted to things Scotland-related that are bang up to date. In an attempt to make this article fresher and attractive for readers and repeat visitors, I have initiated this bit under the See also section:

History Section

Apparently this section is too long. The editors, being of their own dispositions, have cut the first have cut away the earlier medieval section and left the long sections on the Norman era, Wars of Independence era, etc. Why has this happened? Now that section is misleading, because editors don't appreciate the subtlety of the period. Mais Oui! has replaced original forms for the early kings for corrupted modern anglicizations, misleading people and going against the current scholarly trend (yeah don't try to say these are the only forms used in English, because the previous forms reflect the forms used by most present scholars of this period for the rulers so named). But who would know that unless they actually read up-to-date material? Well, no-one cares. However, if all that is being cut, there should be no problem reducing the following two paragraphs to a few sentences. If Mais Oui! thinks the history section is too long, maybe he should try shortening it. - Calgacus 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that 2000 years of history are being dealt with I don't see what the problem is where length is concerned. There are plenty of other sections that could be trimmed back. Benarty 20:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Prehistory

Should we not have a very brief bit about the prehistory of Scotland. It seems to be rather POV to just start the history bit at the period when when someone else started documenting the country. Although there are no written sources, we do have other respected sources of information, eg archaeology.--Mais oui! 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there should be. There used to be anyway. An anonymous user recently added a few sentences about it, but I arrogantly reverted it, because it was pretty crude. Restore it if you like. - Calgacus 03:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No religion

From the article:

Scotland has a high proportion of persons who regard themselves as belonging to 'no religion'. Indeed, this was the second most common response in the 2001 census.

Does anybody know the exact percentage of people counted as having no religion? JesseHogan 01:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: 21%. I saw it somewhere not long ago, but can't remember where. Try Demographics of Scotland and its associated category. I have a sneaking suspicion that that table may have been cut. Now, if we only had a Religion in Scotland article... :) --Mais oui! 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just shows how useful off-the-top-of-your-head-statistics can be: I was wrong! It was measured at 28% (and slightly more if the 5% "No answer" people are excluded, as is the norm). See table at the Church of Scotland article.--Mais oui! 13:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Harp again

For all you anti-harpists ;), here's a interesting post recently posted by User:Celtic harper, might be of interest to y'all: Talk:Harp#Historical_fact. Here also is an interesting link, [Gaelic Harps & Harpers] which suggests the "Irish" (i.e. Gaelic) harp originated with the ... wait for it ... Picts! So there's no need to worry about being associated with the those Erse folk. - Calgacus 17:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Magnificent

What a great article.

National Anthem?

Out of curiosity, has this part been edited? I vaguely recall many moons ago God Save the Queen was mentioned as the de-facto anthem of the UK overall, but now it seems there is no mention. Am I just imagining it was once there, and shouldn't it be made mention of, as believe it or not, a number of Scots (Myself included) Actively like said anthem. Just a thought.

Kaenei 16:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that officially the anthem is 'Scotland the Brave', but the populist choice is 'Flower of Scotland'. I also thought that 'God Save the Queen' was the anthem of Great Britain, not the seperate countries that comprise it.Im no authority on the subject, just a Scot who thought he might be helping in some way...

There is no official national anthem of either the UK or Scotland. In practice, the UK uses God Save the Queen and Scotland has no position outside sporting circles where it needs a national anthem. For sport however, both Scotland the Brave and Flower of Scotland are used. --Breadandcheese 03:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, I approve inclusion on the sidepanel of this. Perhaps say Scotland the Brave and Flower of Scotland are de facto, with GSTQ being the one used for official purposes. --Breadandcheese 07:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That dirge Flower of Scotland is de facto and the most popular by far. GSTQ is the UK anthem but im not sure if this necessarily means it should be mentioned in the Scotland article as it is most certainly not thought of as a Scottish anthem by the great majority of the scottish populace and id be stunned to learn of any event where it was used as such. An Siarach

A fair point. The present situation of leaving it empty is rather undesirable though and I'd rather have some mention of something that can be agreed upon. Oh, and incidently, hello from a fellow TSRian. --Breadandcheese 11:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In days of yore (such as then) we had a (probably rather too full) discussion right there in the infobox. I don't have a problem with its not being in the infobox (it was rather verbose) but the discussion above and in that earlier version (a lesser version of which is in the "national symbols" section of the current article) is interesting, encyclopedic, and can be written about neutrally. I propose we create a National anthem of Scotland article, link to it from here and from List of national anthems, and have in that article a discussion about the positions of GStQ, FoS, SWH, StB, and "none". There's a lot to add, too - it'd be interesting to note what was played at (for example) Rugby Internationals before FoS - was it always StB? What was played at the opening of the Scottish Parliament (just GStQ)? Stuff like that... -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I would also prefer a link to National anthem of Scotland in the infobox to detail the different ones used (both historically and currently) and to point out that neither the UK nor any of its constituent countries has an official national anthem. (on another point, A Man's A Man for A' That, by Robert Burns is not mentioned above but was sung at the opening of the Scottish Parliament) Benson85 17:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Banknotes

Removed part of the last edit by Setanta747 as the 'promise to pay' on banknotes (promissory notes).

As the British banknotes article says, these are 'essentially cheques made out from the bank to the bearer' - they are much like any other bank cheque (as in made out on the bank's own account, not a personal cheque), but aren't payable to a specific person.

The three Scottish issuing banks remain private companies, whereas the Bank of England is a government body, so the notes are not entirely equivalent. Indeed, as also noted in the British banknotes article, the 'promise to pay' on the Scottish notes is a promise to convert to Bank of England banknotes.

It has been suggested that amongst the reasons for refusing to accept Scottish notes outside Scotland are a high proportion of forgeries circulating in areas where the notes are less common, banks requiring that the banknotes are processed seperately to Bank of England or local banknotes, and an unwillingness of customers to accept them as change. However, I believe there's not enough data to move this reasoning from being speculative into the article, plus the acceptance of Scottish money elsewhere is rather getting away from the core issues of an article about Scotland!

Finally, there is a press report that can be cited noting that when journalists have tried to use Northern Ireland money in Scottish shops, it was refused in nearly all cases, despite being of equal status to the Scottish notes - suggesting it's less to do with hostility, and more a lack of familiarity with banknotes that are (locally) rarer.

136.2.1.101 14:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept most of what you are saying here, but with a couple of notes (no pun intended!):

Firstly, the notes are entirely equivalent. What you seem to be saying here is that a £10 Bank of England note is not "entirely equivalent" to a £10 Scottish banknote - but they are directly equivalent as they are exchanged for the value they state: £10 sterling in this example.

The "promise to pay" on notes actually comes from the gold standard. The promise was that a bank promised to pay the bearer, on demand, the sum of x pounds in gold. It has nothing to do with promising to "convert" anything.

I think a note to say that Scottish banknotes are not always accepted in other regions of the UK, is quite applicable. I can also tell you from experience that unfamiliarity with non-Bank of England notes is the most common cause for refusal.

I never mentioned Northern Irish notes or hostility, though I find it interesting that you mention it. From personal experience, I have found that most shopkeepers accept NI banknotes in the west of Scotland. Probably due to the fact that there is a (at least) thrice-daily crossing between the regions. The situation is similar in the reverse. However, the further you get from the North Channel, the less likely a shopkeeper is to recognise a Scottish/Northern Irish banknote (depending on location). That is of course, what I have implied in my edit. --Mal 09:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Politics section images: Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland

A piece of heraldry keeps getting placed above the picture of the head of government, Jack McConnell. I find this to be antediluvian, and just a little disrespectful.

Also, the link to the piece of heraldry (Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland) keeps getting piped, and simultaneously mis-represented: it is far, far more than merely Elizabeth Windsor's personal arms: it is the coat of arms of the United Kingdom. We have been here before with a certain user persistently trying (and failing) to apply highly misleading captions and links to heraldic arms and flag images. Last year he was trying to tell the world that these same Arms were the "Arms of Scotland" (sic)!?! - ha, ha! --Mais oui! 07:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In response:

The page was like this for nearly a year with no complaints
The Queen, as head of state, always takes precedence over the First Minister
The images are aligned with the text to link in with what is being said (ie we talk about the Queen and Scottish Executive first so makes sense to put the arms first and then put the image of Jack next to the text about the First Minister)
It is common to shorten links to fit sentences, particualry in image captions Astrotrain 10:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Subtle untruths and weak distortions are the very worst sort of vandalism here at Wikipedia. Whopping great porkies are dead easy to counter, but the insiduous wee, persistent untruths are far harder to resist. These are not the Arms of Mrs E Windsor: they are the Arms of one of the most powerful states on the planet: the United Kingdom. Do not allow Astrotrain to pull the wool over your, or readers', eyes. --Mais oui! 22:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That comment is uncalled for. Astrotrain is a respected Wikipedian here with proven knowledge in large numbers of articles. He is in no way a vandal. And yes, a head of state always comes before a prime minister, always without exception. Don't use Wikipedia to push a personal agenda. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course if you look at the article itself, it confirms they are the arms of Her Majesty in that part of the United Kingdom known as Scotland. Astrotrain 14:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We will need to clarify that page too. --Mais oui! 14:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Arms are representative of the state of the Unitied Kingdom. The Lion Rampart shown is the Royal Standard of William the Lion, not the Coat of Arms of the nations of Scotland. When did this get confused? Was it for good reason? If not, I plan on changing it back.

As for the politics section: the British Monarch is effectively a figurehead, and everyone knows it. She is a powerful cultural and social leader, but she is not a political leader. The head of government is Jack McConnel, and I think that an image of him would be more suited to a politics section. The Coat of Arms isn't going to change with political changes, but the head of government is. Canaen 10:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Queen's Scottish Arms are used by HM in Scotland; are present on all Acts of Parliament and other statutory instruments; and that a version without the helm is used by the Scottish Executive- then it is only logical they are included in the politics section. Astrotrain 11:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I was speaking in the case that only one were to be used. The arms are ceremonial in nature, whereas Jack McConnel is supposed to serve a practical purpose; to do a job. I'm fine with both being used, but I think that the arms would be better suited in general association with Scotland, rather than simply being confined to the politics section. I'm not saying they aren't important, just that their primary purpose isn't in politics. Canaen 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

... with the correct caption. Why are you so desperate to try to conceal that this is the coat of arms of the United Kingdom? Your behaviour just seems rather odd. --Mais oui! 11:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, your behaviour here and elsewhere leads to the three words coming to mind: pot, kettle and black. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You failed to provide an Edit summary explaining why we should provide a deceitful caption to that image. Neither have you supplied one here at Talk. Just why should we be distorting the true nature of the linked-to article with a downright dishonest abuse of the piping facility? --Mais oui! 14:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I note that Astrotrain is continuing with his beloved Edit warring, with a total failure to provide an explanation for why he is piping this link, nor even an Edit summary. Such behaviour is absolutely typical. --Mais oui! 14:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. And remember you were banned for 3RR violation recently for constant edit warring. There is no justification for trying to prevent the statement that these are Her Majesty's Coat of Arms in Scotland. You only have to go to the article to see that. Indirect links are permitted if used in context to fit situations like this. Astrotrain 14:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are a tremendously accomplished Edit warrior yourself, and the personal abuse you deposited on my Talk page last month was truly impressive, so you certainly know those two topics very, very well. I have attempted (with no great optimism for success) a compromise: both terms included. --Mais oui! 14:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

introduction

Pursuant to a removed addition I made on the preamble to the Portal:Scotland page, I guess I should discuss this here. The intro in this article mentions that the parliaments were united in 1707, that Scotland is a "constituent country" of the UK and that Scotland has enjoyed distinct status since, but does not mention that the Scottish Parliament was established and Scotland now has some legislative powers. A sentence reading something like "A popular referendum on devolution lead to the inauguration of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. The Parliament has legislative power over several areas of state including justice, health and transport." As this is about "Scotland" and not the history of Scotland I feel it is very important to mention contemporary rather than just historical political upheavals. The fact that Scottish education system is mentioned and bluelinked in the intro but Scottish Parliament is not is at best illogical. Deizio 12:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Politics section

The politics section was seriously, indeed monumentally, flawed in a range of areas.

Executive power is not co-vested in the UK and Scottish parliaments. It is in neither. Under the British system of government (as in most parliamentary democracies) executive power is vested in the head of state, the British case what is called the Queen-in-Council. Parliament's only role is in either directly or indirectly shaping who the head of state appoints to exercise their executive power. First year undergrads would get failed in an exam if they wrote that executive power was vested in a parliament. (I hope none of them used this article for their essays!)
Nothing is vested jointly in the UK and Scottish parliaments. That implies co-equal constitutional status. Legislative power is vested in the Queen-in-Parliament (to use the technical term), or in reality (as the Queen no longer has much of an activist role in legislation, except in one area) in parliament. The UK Parliament devolved some of its powers to the Scottish parliament, but they can be undevolved at any stage by a simple Act of Parliament. In reality a British parliament would have to be completely hairbrained to do it without consulting first with the Scottish people, but in theory they could today pass an Act abolishing the Scottish parliament and executive and there is nothing the Scottish parliament could do legally about it. (The result, politically, would be UDI which is why the British parliament would be hairbrained to do it, but that is political practice, not constitutional reality.)

As the British parliament is sovereign, it has to have its role described first, and then describe how a devolved administration and assembly has taken over some of its roles. To do otherwise is to imply that the Scottish parliament is a national parliament, not a regional assembly subject to a national parliament. Personally I believe Scotland should have a national parliament, but we have to cover reality, not wishes.

The whole section was littered with substandard understandings of terminology and constitutional structures. If the section as written was replicated in a political science essay it would have been lucky to get a pass mark. Encyclopaedias have to do better than that. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work, massive improvement on the previous version Astrotrain 15:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Arms

In both the Kingdom of Scotland article, and the Royal coat of arms of Scotland, different Arms are given (Sort of). The UK article uses the combined Anglo-Scottish Royal Coat of Arms, as does the KoS article. The difference seems to be that the Lion Rampant is the Arms of Scotland, while the full Unicron-supported Coat or Arms is the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. What's with the difference in which arms used between these articles? Canaen 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No difference, the supporters are part of the full achievement of arms yet the shield itself is often used in heraldry also simply as a scaled-down version. The only difference which is generally used today (although with a lot of exceptions) is that the helmet is used below the crest when symbolising the personal arms of the monarch and just the crown when symbolising the kingdom. I may have missed the point of your question a bit though, I fear. --Breadandcheese 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Spam links" and <rollback button>

It's not evident to me from the above edit summaries why links to material from the Royal Scottish Geographical Society (not notorious spammers, as far as I know) are being deleted. Anyone care to elucidate? Alai 23:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Beats me. Looks like kneejerkism. --Mais oui! 23:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a depository for external website links. I removed some spam links to commerical geneology websites, and also decided to remove this link as well. Only significant, relevant external links should be included. Astrotrain 14:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I see why I was unable to conclude anything from the edit summaries, then. Can you expand on why you "decided" this, and why they're not "significant" or "relevant"? Alai 14:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of new "Rivers" section

I have removed the new sub-section added today:

Rivers

The ten major rivers of Scotland, in order of length, are:

River Tay 193 km (120 miles)
River Spey 172 km (107 miles)
River Clyde 171 km (106 miles)
River Tweed 156 km (97 miles)
River Dee 137 km (85 miles)
River Don 132 km (82 miles)
River Forth 105 km (65 miles)
River Findhorn 101 km (63 miles)
River Deveron 98 km (61 miles)
River Annan 79 km (49 miles)

See main article List of rivers in Scotland

The "Geography" section is already quite long, and we link prominently to the main Geography of Scotland article at the top of the section, which links to all the other articles: rivers, mountains, lochs etc.

The Scotland article is already 52 kilobytes, and that section pushed it up to 53 kilobytes.

Also seems a bit unbalanced to list major rivers without listing other major geographical features, and we can't go down that road because we would just end up duplicating the Geography of Scotland article here at the main article, which kind of defeats the purpose of having these subsidiary articles. Sorry to the IP User who created the new bit! --Mais oui! 10:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Shared Culture?

Ive noticed a bit of small scale edit war going on over the statement: "Scotland shares many aspects of culture with the rest of UK/Europe and the wider Western world." And i think it makes more sense having the UK rather than Europe in there. Our closest cultural relations are obviously the other British nations and the more distantly related Europe is already covered in "the wider Western World" - and are we really more closely related to Europe than Canada,USA,NZ or Australia? Because these countries are effectively the "wider Western world" mentioned if Europe is named instead of the UK. An Siarach

Agree 100%- Scottish culture is closely linked with the rest of the UK, and then the other Anglo-Saxon countries and the links should reflect that. Astrotrain 22:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Putting the UK is extremely parochial: European culture has a heritage of thousands of years; the UK is a spring chicken, barely out of its nappies in the wider scheme of things, and any "UK culture" (if there even is such a thing: where is the source for that?) is purely derived from mainstream European culture. --Mais oui! 22:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, when exactly did Scotland become an "Anglo-Saxon" country? --Mais oui! 22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Scotland's culture, government etc was influenced greatly by the Anglo-Saxons, as was England to a somewhat greater degree. If you're speaking racially, then I imagine there's not much difference between Scotland and England on that concern. --Breadandcheese 03:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was certainly not speaking "racially", and it is hard to fathom what Astrotrain is trying to say with his reference to "Anglo-Saxon" (a medieval ethnic group by the way, certainly not a "race"). Scotland is a civic nation, not an ethnically- or linguistically-defined nation. Race and culture are not synonyms. (Incidentally, if you are speaking "racially", then the vast majority of all Europeans are the same race, let alone the majority of English people and Scottish people.) --Mais oui! 05:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The UK has a rich cultural heritage, of which Scotland is clearly a part of. There is very little that Scottish culture has in common with Europe. I see you are also deleting another valid link to the UK politics article. Astrotrain 22:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"The UK has a rich cultural heritage" - what is your source for that? England has a very rich cultural heritage, Wales has one too, so does Ireland and Scotland, but the UK? Hardly. The UK is a state. The only things that states have is an administrative and political culture: real culture is a property of communities, nations and countries. "There is very little that Scottish culture has in common with Europe" ha, ha, ha: you should be on the stage. This article is about Scotland: all the Scotland articles link to all the relevant UK articles: there is no need to clutter this page with duplicate links. --Mais oui! 22:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Scotland has most in common with Ireland, not with England or the USA; I know some don't like that, but this applies whatever way you look at it - history, language (Gaelic or Scots), religion, landscape, cultural image, etc, etc. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the first two sentences after the culture header as necessary in either form. Either way it is subjective, and it is redundant to boot. Wales and Ireland make do without any preamble. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Angus McLellan; just remove the two sentences. --Craig Stuntz 00:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely Canada and Ireland, given the huge Scottish influences on the former and the intimate relationship spanning over a millenium with the latter, should be highlighted before any vague idea of "Europe" and the "rest of the Western World"? An Siarach

Yep, I must admit that three years of living in Calgary has only confirmed for me the enormous amount that Scotland and Canada have in common. Most Scots fit in over here without missing a beat (as do the vast majority of Canadians who move to Scotland). -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Middle class Scots maybe. Working class Scots (particularly from the West of Scotland) do not fit in so easily because there is a definite language and cultural barrier to be crossed. Benarty 11:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it mind-boggling that we are trying to divorce Scottish culture from European culture: they are 99% the same thing! Culture is about how and what you eat, how you obtain nourishment and income, settlement patterns, transport, what your daily routines are, types of entertainment, patterns of family relationships, norms of politeness, courtesy, rudeness, manners, profanity usage, courting, marriage, mechanisms for dealing with death, grief, love, disappointment and frivolity; political systems and conventions, morality, faith, genres of literature and music, attitudes to crime and criminals, attitudes towards animal welfare, cleanliness, hygiene, aesthetics, fashion, jewellery, definitions of beauty and ugliness; pity, sport, communications, laughter .... Culture is fundamentally about day-to-day things which nobody even stops to analyse usually. In all of these respects and many, many more, Scottish cultural trends are identical with European norms, and wider Western norms. In fact I would go further and say that all human beings share 99% of the same cultural atrributes and Europeans share 99.99% of the same cultural attributes. What is fascinating is how tremendously important the 0.01% of difference is to us all! Please, please, please look up the word "culture" in several dictionaries and encyclopaedias before reverting for the umpteenth time. Fundamentally, culture is definitely not about wearing a kilt, eating haggis, or the language you speak: those are just the tiny surface variations - but variety is the spice of life! --Mais oui! 10:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Anybody wanting a crash-course in human culture may want to have a wee keek at Maslow's hierarchy of needs. A somewhat flawed and criticised model, but nevertheless tremendously informative... and compelling, because it pretty much sums up 99% of what you need to know about human "culture" in one small triangle. ~~(Scottish culture, to a Scottish person, may be the tiny little point at the very top of Self-actualisation: so small in the wider scheme of things that it is barely visible... but it is still there.)~~ [... upon re-considering the model it is pretty clear that there are aspects of "Scottishness" pretty much throughout the whole spectrum of needs, so Scottish culture could certainly not be confined to just one node.] --Mais oui! 10:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No one can sensibly dispute that Scottish (or English) culture is not European. However when using the word, "European", one should bear in mind that European culture is not just confined to Europe. It has spread to the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. These countries can in many ways be said to be culturally even more European than those in Europe itself as a result of the mixture of European cultures which has taken place in them making it more difficult to identify with a specific national origin. When you have grandparents and family customs from each of four different European countries, it makes it difficult to identify one's background as anything more than European. This "European" identity is hidden to some extent by calling it "American", or whatever, but it is very real. In Europe itself such intra-European cross-cultural mixing is far less common, so people are likely to feel less "European" and more "national". Certainly when viewed in this light Scottish culture has most in common with the European cultures of England and Ireland and the cultures of those countries settled and/or governed by European colonists from Scotland, Ireland and England than it does with, say, the European culture of Greece. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Scotland shares a very similar economy (the environment is similar also) with Norway. IP Address 19:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oil- very similar. Financial services, Scotch whisky, textiles, electronics, sheep farming, tourism....- not similar. Astrotrain 19:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Norse goat farming is not much removed from sheep farming--which is in and of itself a very English thing, as is textiles, btw. How is the tourism so different? Actually, Norway is becoming a service-based country, but not as reliant upon that as natural resources just yet. Nobody would argue on the matter of finances, neither is whiskey particularly relevant--each nation has their own national drink to some extent. IP Address 19:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but Scotch whiskey can only be manufactured in Scotland. Of course perhaps the most significant point of difference is that Norway is far more prosperous and successful than Scotland!!!! Astrotrain 19:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so down on yourself. IP Address 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to deny that Scotland shares a lot more in common culturally with the rest of the UK than it does with continental Europe are probably driven by constitutional politics as much as anything else but looking at it objectively how can it be otherwise? 300 years of incorporating union have inevitably left their mark so Scotland and England share a strong shared British character on that basis. Acknowledging that reality does not automatically imply that Scotland would be better off in future as a constitutional region rather than a full EU member state. Benarty 11:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

Talk:Scotland/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Attempt to make this article more modern, topical and fresh

See also

Current events

Future events