Talk:First Minister of Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

This article strays far away from NPOV and blatently editorialises in assessing the contributions of the various First Ministers. It needs severe culling of the editorialising. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 15:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think comments about MCconnell's "contribution" should be on his own page as this is more about the office than the incumbent. (StudentSteve 04:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

THE ARTICLE NEEDS a section about Salmond's constant breaking of the law since taking 'office'. It won't get it of course because wikipedia is garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:HenryMcLeish.jpg[edit]

The image Image:HenryMcLeish.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FM's appointer[edit]

This article is about the office and not about an individual who holds this office. Thus it should be the same for the appointer of this office. GoodDay (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show where policy has changed on this. The established version is the normal one --Snowded TALK 13:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy? What policy? GoodDay (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thanks for responding. Secondly, having Elizabeth II in the appointer section of the individual FMs makes sense. But why have her in the FM article itself? In otherwords: Elizabeth II appoints Alex Salmond is correct, so why isn't Monach of the United Kingdom appoints First Minister of Scotland? GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever bothered to check rather than going on random editing sprees, the Monarch always acts in their own name --Snowded TALK 14:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright for articles like Alex Salmond, but this article is about the office itself, not individuals who hold it. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In these office articles, it's "What appoints" not "Who appoints", that's called for. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, where's the policy you speak of? GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the First Minister, GoodDay, not the First Ministry, which is what the office is.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's about the office & so we should mention the office that appoints it. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misread what I said. The article is about the First Minister indicating the office holder, not the office itself which is the ministry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still say Monarch of the United Kingdom 'only', belongs in the appointer section. But, I not gonna push this anymore, as I don't appreciate the attitude of the other editors at Snowy's talkpage. It's just not worth the 'bleeping' hassle. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the fudge of compromise is frankly horrendous. The FM is appointed by the Sovereign; whoever happens to hold either office at the time the appointment is made. Endrick Shellycoat 09:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my position, The Scotland Act (1998) states "The First Minister shall be appointed by Her Majesty from among the members of the Parliament and shall hold office at Her Majesty’s pleasure."
It makes little difference whether the "Appointer" in the info-box appears as "Elizabeth II", "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" or "Monarch of the United Kingdom" as they are currently all one and the same. However, it would seem ludicrous to think this situation will alter when the Duke of Rothesay ascends to the throne, despite the wording of the Act referring to "Her Majesty", therefore simply refering to the "Monarch of the United Kingdom" will negate any future requirement to change the article when the current Sovereign dies. If you want to be absolutely correct, as per the Act, the "Appointer" should appear as "Her Majesty The Queen", but given the situation re. appointments will not change following the death of Elizabeth II and the subsequent coronation of Charles III or George VII or whatever style and title the current Duke of Rothesay prefers, we may as well use "Monarch of the United Kingdom".
Just my own brand of logic being applied.Endrick Shellycoat 11:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to be corrected but my understanding is that the monarch acts in their own name, not as an "office", hence the reference to "Her Majesty" not to The monarch of the United Kingdom. I think we can manage the changes every sixty years or so --Snowded TALK 11:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I share that understanding. Dewar, McLeish, McConnell and Salmond were/are Her Majesty's First Minister, not "The Crown's" First Minister, nor "The Monarch's" First Minister. Bizarre as it may sound to most of jock public, Messrs Salmond, McAskill, Swinney el al are there to serve as ministers of (ie. representatives of) Elizabeth. De jure (although not, obviously, de facto). Mais oui! (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It must be the office 'only'. If Elizabeth II weren't the British monarch, she couldn't have appointed Salmond & his predecessors. She was able to appoint them, not because of who she is, but because of the office she holds. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why "must", remember the British Crown is always personal in the execution of power. That said I think the appointed line is best deleted. Its clear in the text and adds nothing in the information box --Snowded TALK 04:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Elizabeth II abdicated, she'd still be the same person. But, she wouldn't be able to appoint government officials anymore. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And her successor would appoint people in his or her own name. Its convention GoodDay, the way things are done over here. You are making some of the same errors you made on the Australian Governor General. Arguing a position from what you see as the logic, rather than from how things are --Snowded TALK 06:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, like Elizabeth II, her successor wouldn't be a permanent monarch. The monarchy itself remains, but its occupants change. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. North Korea has an Eternal President who has been dead for some time. In the Australian Constitution, Queen Victoria lives on. Perhaps the UK will find it simpler to retain the current Queen in perpetuity. Jeremy Bentham should be contacted for comment. --Pete (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the present statement is overly wordy. Why not simply "Her Majesty The Queen", end of... Endrick Shellycoat 07:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the content of the article, it says the FM's appointer is the Queen. It's not a problem for the content, so it shouldn't be a problem for the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 11[edit]

The article includes, in the second paragraph of the Election and term section, the curious sentence, Given the nature of the mixed member proportional representation system that is used to elected Members of the Scottish Parliament, it is not usual for a single party to gain an overall majority of seats in Parliament;[8] this did however occur in the 2011. The 2011 what, Mister Heinz? I'm not full bottle on Scottish affairs, so if someone can work out what is meant and fix it, that would be a huge improvement in the flow of the prose. --Pete (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. How about.... Given the mixed member proportional representation system used to elect its members, it is difficult for a single party to gain an overall majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament.[8] However, the SNP did gain an overall majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament general election, 2011. ??? Endrick Shellycoat 09:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. The mystery solved. Very nicely crafted. Thanks! --Pete (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PM/FM of Scotland[edit]

Was there a PM of the Kingdom of Scotland? (prior to James Stuart) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most senior position in the Privy Council of Scotland was Lord Chancellor of Scotland, but there was no Prime Minister. The same applies to England as well - the office evolved slowly during the Eighteenth Century, after the Act of Union. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new section but not sure of Wikipedia to make it look nice.[edit]

I've added a section showing the candidates and votes for each candidate in each election for the post so far, I needed this for something else and spent ages trying to find the articles with numbers so I thought I may as well put it here in case someone in the future needs the same, that said I haven't a clue how to make it look nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamnotacylon (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Minister of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scots title[edit]

Where does "Heid Meinister o Scotland" come from? Official Scots government material ([1]) lists the Scots title as First Meenister CiphriusKane (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Minister_of_Scotland&oldid=1202019400"