Talk:Kingdom of Scotland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why?

What purpose does this serve as a distinct page? If expanded beyond a stub, it would simply duplicate tracts of the History of Scotland. Unless anyone has any material objections, I'll be reverting this to being a redirect. Alai 01:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be separate. It wasn't my intent to duplicate the History of Scotland material, which is a historical narrative. This article will be a description of Scotland, as it existed as an independent state. There is pleanty of information that can be located here, such as the structure of the government, economy, etc. Also, there is some information at Scotland that I think would more logically be put here. --JW1805 01:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

the Kingdom of Scotland was a state and so should have its own page. It is a different entity to modern day Scotland, which is a part of the United Kingdom.

Then isn't it misnamed ? The Kingdom of the Scots surely. This is the term used by Barrow (The Kingdom of the Scots), Duncan (The Kingship of the Scots), as the name of the Regesta Regum Scottorum, and by the curators of the National Museum, to name but the first four I could think of. Given that there is an article Kingdom of England, having one for Scotland seems fair enough, but it should be named correctly. Angus McLellan 11:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, articles should be named by the most common name, not some Wikipedia neologism. The same goes for all the Scottish monarch articles: for example it should be Alexander III of Scots, not Alexander III of Scotland. And while we're on that topic, why on earth are all the Union of the Crowns til Union of the Parliaments monarchs labelled "of England"? For example, he was William III of England, Ireland, Orange and Scots, not William III of England (sic).--Mais oui! 14:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that as well, and take offence to it whenever I come upon such an instance. Perhaps something should be done? Have you brought it up to anyone elsewhere? Perhaps all of the singular titles: 'of England,' 'of Scots,' should be redirected to 'of England, Ireland, Orange and Scots,' relevant to the monarch. That way people could still find the page, and it would be nice and proper. Canaen 09:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

As the guilty part who started the "ruler of country" style of disambiguating rulers, let me explain that the title was never intended to reflect the correct title of the ruler. It was intended to be the correct title of a Wikipedia article. As such it had to be simple to guess at, even for someone who wasn't aware that the title of the Scottish Kings was "King of Scots". Any Wikipedia article that wasn't easy to guess a few years ago tended to be recreated several times by people who missed the existing articles. Hence the one size fits all article naming policy. Even today it makes it much easier to find Wikipedia articles for people who don't already know that they have to look for "Kings of Scots". Once they have found the article Alexander III of Scotland, they can read it to learn that it describes Alexander III, King of Scots. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting that "Kingdom of the Scots" is the most common name? I doubt that. "Kingdom of the Scots" gets about 920 hits on Google, while "Kingdom of Scotland" gets 44,900. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Not common in that sense; common in a historical sense; it was the Kingdom of the Scots for centuries. "Scotland" didn't really exist in the minds of Scots so much as the Land of the Scots; i.e. the people mattered more so than the state. Canaen 09:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The "ruler of country" naming policy predates the "use common names" policy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Scotland means the exact same thing as the land of the Scots.. Honestly that's the most ridiculously pedantic thing I've ever heard anyone mention. If you read any old historic texts Scottish people refer to their country as Scotland (or whatever the spelling was back then).. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Map

The map that User:Astrotrain has just applied is more appropriate than the one which preceded it, but it still looks a bit "odd". The projection used seems to suffer from the same failings as the weather map the BBC recently introduced, making southern areas appear much larger than equal area projections would show them (eg. Spain looks huge). Also, what happened to all of Scotland's islands? The total effect is to make Scotland look like a wee shrivelled pea, rather than the one-third of Great Britain's land-mass for which it accounts.--Mais oui! 17:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• I believe the purpose of these maps is just to show the location of the country in context to the rest of Europe/the world. Thus they are not supposed to be a perfect representation. Of course a specific Kingdom of Scotland map could be created, based on the current CIA map in the main Scotland article. Astrotrain 17:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've had a go and created a Kingdom of Scotland Map. Let me know what you think? Astrotrain 18:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I dont like the new map, I think that it should be the dark green which is the colour used across Wikipedia for national maps, including former states, or at least a deeper blue, that is a kind of sickly computer generated blue. I would say the same of the map in the Kingdom of England article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benson85 (talk • contribs) 20:41, November 24, 2005.
  • I like the blue color for Scotland and the red for England. --JW1805 (Talk) 15:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

AS do I. I also agree that the blue currently used is a poor choice. Perhaps using a proper color or Blue would be more appropriate? For example, Royal Blue, the blue suggested by Parliament in 2003 for the Scottish Flag. Canaen 09:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Capital

Both Stirling and Perth were historical Capitals of Scotland. Edinburgh, as I recall, wasn't the official capital until around the 14th century. However, I've yet to come across any information informing me of when Stirling and Perth served said duties. Should this be noted? How? I think the map should show Perth, as the town was a major Scottish port throughout history. Canaen 09:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Dunkeld, Dundee (the second biggest city up to at least the Act of Union) and Dunfermline were all capitals at one time or another as well, and the first recorded meeting of the Scots Parliament was at Cupar. But as Edinburgh has been the capital since the 14th century onwards it is fair to put it down as capital on the template. I've no objections to noting previous capitals elsewhere in the article though.

I didn't know about that Cupar bit. Since writing that comment, I was informed of a bunch of other places considered the capital throughout history, and that it pretty much just depended on where the Sovereign was staying at the time. Edinburgh works for me, since it seems to have served for the longest single time. Canaen 04:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Edinburgh hasn't been the capital since the fourteenth century, rather the fifteenth of sixteenth centuries. Scone was the ceremonial capital of the Kingdom; otherwise, the monarch was itinerant. Capitals before the modern period are largely an anachronism. - Calgacus 13:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was wrong about the Cupar bit, the first meeting of the Scots parliament may have been at Kirkliston, just outside Edinburgh.

Ah. That's more like what I remember. Canaen 07:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But it has met at Cupar, my point was that it shifted about too much for a while but has been in Edinburgh has held it pretty consistly for a long time, it stays on the template.

Goodness gracious, the Kingdom of Scotland was nearly 8 centuries old before Edinburgh became a capital. If that stays on the map unmodified, this article will need either a disputed tag or poor quality tag It's just absurd. - Calgacus 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a vote on this, and I would also like to know what else should be in the map?

When was Stirling capital?

When was Perth capital? I assume it is intended to mean Scone? If so thats really not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.117.25 (talk • contribs)

Well, the distinction is no greater than, say, Stirling and Cambuskenneth, Edinburgh and Holyrood, London and Westminster, etc. I imagine it would be less ambiguous if Perth had grown like some other cities to incorporate Old Scone, which it kinda has anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that Edinburgh proper and Holyrood were separated by the entirely independent Royal Burgh of Cannongate until into the modern period (I can't remember the date off hand), it actually does matter. Also, people have actually heard of Scone (and the stone of). I would suggest that given that the aim in creating an encyclopaedia is to give accurate information that Scone could be entered as "Scone, near Perth" for clarity? Emo mz (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Flag

I realise that the modern Saltire is Royal Blue, but there's an image uploaded labeled as the "traditional" flag in sky blue. Does anyone know about this? If it's true, should we use it in this article instead of the modern color? Canaen 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've swapped it over - lets see what other folk say to the change. Thanks/wangi 10:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the saltire has always been blue but the exact shade has never been officially specified (although a recommendation has been made recently). People generally used whatever shade of blue dye was cheapest/easiest to get hold of. That means that historically the saltire has been sky blue, royal blue, navy blue and all shades in between. So although we are used to seeing a fairly dark blue for the saltire in modern times, it hasn't always been like that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense, and sounds much more Scottish. Canaen 07:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

This article needs cleaned up, and referenced. I perhaps wouldn't have put the cleanup tag in if it weren't removed from being a stub. The Kingdom of Scotland did not only exist in the 16th century, but had 8 centuries according to the article's reckoning before that. I'm temped to break the history section into parts to illustrate this. So the history section is messed up. Moreover, the map implies that Edinburgh was the capital throughout history; this is not true, only in the last century or so of its existence did it actually become anything like a "capital"; the map is just awful as it currently is; before the thirteenth century (i.e for about half of the history of the Kingdom), the area Edinburgh was in was not even considered the Kingdom of Scotland. - Calgacus 14:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about the map, I'm trying to work on maps that will hopefully better illustrate things. I'm not as enthusiastic about my objections to Edinburgh being called the capital in the infobox, "the area Edinburgh" was secured in around 1018 by King Malcolm II, so I'm not convinced about the thirteenth century bit. The infobox also says that the currency was Pound Scots which wasn't introduced until early-mid 1100s, so that ignores the third of the history of the kingdom. One of the main reasons I don't mind Edinburgh being cited as the capital is the absence of an alternative, unless, perhaps it should say something along the lines of "Various, laterly Edinburgh" or list every place that has been considered the capital. My other reason is that I'm actually unsure as to what you define as a "capital", for example Wikipedia's article on Capital states "medieval capitals, which were declared wherever a monarch held his or her court". I'm unsure of your claims re Edinburgh not being the capital until circa 1607, for example when the Curch of Scotland was established it was based in Edinburgh. I understand your point about the article perhaps concentrating too much on the 16th century, but do not agree with it. When putting the article together I tried to give a synopsis, with information on key points (territorial gains, etc.), of which I'm sure anybody who knows the history of Scotland would agree, the Reformation is one. I agree that the article is still a stub though, and have added the tag accordingly.

Not sure why you think the Pound-Scots dates to the early-mid 1100s. The first coins were introduced in the reign of David I, but don't see any reason to call those "Pound-Scots", since it certainly wasn't the term used. Like I said before, the medieval kingdom of Scotland had no capital; Scotland had nothing like a mediterranean city, the king was itinerant, and the chief residence varied according to reign; David I's favorite residence was Roxburgh (and Carlisle), the kings before Máel Coluim I seemed to have had a very close approximation to a capital at Forres (with Dunkeld); I don't know if the "Edinburgh area" was secured in 1018, that's the usual thing said, but I think it's nonsense; the Scots were very lucky to keep Lothian. But like I said, it wasn't even within the legal Kingdom of Scotland until the 13th, and more securely, the 14th century. Before you go on quoting popular works saying Máel Coluim II secured it at Carham, it should be obvious that I'm referring to the Kingdom of the Scots, not the territories ruled by the King of Scots (you could include Huntingdomshire and parts of Normandy on that basis). The article is bad and needs to be cleaned up because it purports to cover something that it doesn't really cover. See Dauvit Broun's entry on the "Scots, Kingdom of", in the Oxford Companion to British History, in which he devotes the entire article to the period before 1300. Somehow, making the last century, a century in which it belonged to the English monarch, of an 8 century old kingdom the focus of the article doesn't cut very much historical ice with me. - Calgacus 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Calgacus 23:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"I agree that the article is still a stub" and have no objections to anybody expanding on it. As said above, the article tries to cover a some important points in history, with links to the Wars of Independence etc. which should certainly be expanded within the article. As for the legal kingdom of scotland, you may know more about that than myself, im from the school that puts the rise of the nation state well after the 13th century. I didn't know that David I's favourite residence was at Roxburgh, but I think that shows that part of what was formerly part of Northumbria was quite secure. But i take what you say on board and hope to work towards making this a better article. p.s your mention of pound scots proves my point, it wasn't the currency for a long time, but as it was the currency before the kingdom ended it is mentioned, like edinburgh being the capital.

Battles, Alliances and other Matters.

I've edited this article chiefly in the light of changes I've made elsewhere in relating and overlaping subjects. My task, as always, is to eliminate errors and misconceptions.

1. To state that the Battle of Largs 'proved a success' for the Scots is a very old fashioned view; and drawing a link between this alleged success and the Treaty of Perth is quite wrong. Largs is now generally reckoned to have been a series of minor skirmishes, rather than a major battle. Haakon IV's whole campaign failed because he could not draw the Scots into a descisive battle, nor could he force King Alexander to recognize his authority. The Isles were too far away from Norway to make control meaningful against an aggressive and expansionist Kingdom of Scotland. The Treaty of Perth was no more than the recognition of simple geographical and political facts.

2. Once again (see the talk page of the Auld Alliance) I've removed the highly misleading reference to Norway in relation to the Auld Alliance. This term only applies to the relationship between the kingdoms of France and Scotland from 1295 to 1560. It should hardly need saying that it only became 'auld' with the passage of time. I personally find the reference to the colonisation of Normandy incomprehensible. The alliance, I stress once again, came to a formal end with the Treaty of Edinburgh in 1560. It is quite irrelevant to mention the later French support for Jacobite claims to the British throne, which had absolutely nothing to do with the Auld Alliance.

The claim that this was the first recorded treaty of this type is simply nonsense. Alliances, both offensive and defensive, between nations and city states have an ancient provenance.

3. The dubious, judgemental and highly inaccurate statements about Cromwell and Scottish prisoners of war has been removed for the same reasons set out elsewhere (see 'Cromwell and the Scots' in the Oliver Cromwell talk page.) The chief point is that prisoners at this time, wherever they were from, did not fare very well because the seventeenth century state was too primitive to provide for large numbers of captive soldiers. Transportation was often the only solution to an akward problem. There is absolutely no evidence that Cromwell personally treated his prisoners badly. Many of the Scots taken at Dunbar-those considered less dangerous-were simply allowed to go home.

Do not attempt to make too much out of the 'sack' of Dundee. Monck's assault differed little from those on other defended strongholds at this time.

4. The Jacobite army was not 'leaderless' at Dunkeld. It was under the very ineffective leadership of Alexander Cannon.

5. It is, I believe, quite erroneous, to assert that the Union of the Crowns left Scotland as a 'sovereign' and 'independent' state: sovereignty inevitably moved to London, and James was famously to boast that he was able to rule Scotland 'by pen.' Scotland was administratively separate from England, but had no control over crucial areas of policy, which remained the prerogative of the monarch. The most notable of these was, of course, the whole area of foreign relations. Foreign policy was largely determined, first and foremost, by the interests of England. Charles II took Scotland to war with the Dutch in 1665, although no Scottish interest was served and none threatened. Just the contrary: whereas Holland was England's leading commercial rival, she was Scotland's most important trading partner. The Darien disaster, moreover, was in part due to the conflict between the commercial interests of Scotland and the foreign policy aims of King William.

I have to say, as a general reaction, that I find this article breathless and not especially well written. I suspect that this is the trouble with the whole Wikipedia project-too many edits, too many editors, not enough care for language and overall sense. If anyone doubts this please read the last few sentences of the section headed 'History' by way of example.

Rcpaterson 01:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

National Coat of Arms and National Flag

Maybe some consensus should form as to the proper coat of arms and flag which represents the entity in this article. If Scotland continued with the Stuarts, then those emblems such as the Union flag and Stuart arms should be represented. This would cause conflict with the Kingdom of England article, for them to both use them and not be the same country. If Scotland ended with the Stewarts and England ended with the Tudors, then the present symbols may remain. See Talk:Kingdom_of_Great_Britain#1603-1707 for the background discussion on this. Lord Loxley 15:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Dates

Not so long ago, I made an effort to make the Kingdom of Scotland's infobox a bit more accurate by including the dates of its original abolition (under the Crowellian occupation and subsequent Commonwealth) and its restoration (with the restoration of the Stuarts). The very next edit by Barryob was to undo this under the summary of "fix dates", which wasn't really fixing dates so much as removing them. Now, Barryob and any other editors who may be interested...is it not true that there was no King of Scotland nor any Kingdom of Scotland from 1652 to 1660 (except in exile)? And why shouldn't this be included in the infobox? Cromwell and the Commonwealth are a part of Scottish history as well and the wikipedia's infoboxes for historical states have been nicely upgraded to allow such information to be included, so users may move between various historical states such as Scotland and the Commonwealth and Scotland the United Kingdom, or the French Second Republic and the French Second Empire and so on. Is there a wikipedia policy that only one date set can be shown per historical state?208.138.38.187 09:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The only successor to the Kingdom of Scotland is the Kingdom of Great Britain the Commonwealth was nothing more than a military occupation. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 13:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the topinfobox dates. James VI became King in 1567 (not 1587) - he succeeded his mother upon her abdication (1567), not her execution (1587). GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Scotland, A past Country?

The Kingdom of Scotland is not a past country, it is a modern, wealthy and oil rich Kingdom which is under administration by the UK. Scotland will soon become an independant country, so we would like to revive our identity as a Kingdom. I propose that information which is currently on the Scotland article should be transferred to this article (in some cases replace outdated information) allowing this to become the main Wikipedia page on Scotland. I need consensus to continue with this move as each attempt is reverted by other users. what shall I do? 81.79.221.243 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Oil rich" ....bwahahaha! England is oil-rich. Scotland merely has the oil in its territory. Leushenko (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is a country but it is not a Kingdom. It maybe in the future, even with independence it could equally be a republic. Whatever you have no citable source to state that Scotland is a Kingdom and you edits cannot stand. You have also not helped your case by multiple reverts without discussion matters here first. I note that your IP address has only just been established and this is your first series of edits. It might be an idea for you to explore the Wikipedia a bit first before making controversial edits (I am making a good faith assumption here that you have not previously edited the Wikipedia under any other identity). --Snowded TALK 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

'Scotch'

Why would a flag be referred to as 'Scotch'? It isn't an alcoholic drink product of Scotland.

'Scotch' Union Flag

Should this not be "Scots" or "Scottish"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.28.218 (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the article Scotch for an explanation. It has been used to mean "of Scotland" for many years by both the Scots themselves and the rest of the world (The Scotch Education Department was a committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom) so it was probably the term used at the time the source was written. Though it is now considered offensive by many Scots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scroggie (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Scotch was used by many Scottish writers, as well as non-Scots, up until the early twentieth century to refer to Scots and Scottish things. I have occasionally heard the term "Scotch flag", though this might be just a miss-said version of "Scots flag". For clarity, if nothing else, using Scotch in the old fashioned sense is probably not appropriate. Emo mz (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, the use of the word "Scotch" as an demonym is akin to using the word "Chinaman" as a demonym for the Chinese. That is to say, not only is it technically inaccurate, it can also have pejorative connotations. At any rate, it is clearly an archaic term, and I think "Scots" would be a far more suitable replacement. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

education system

How much of the Scottish education system as it existed in 1707 really continues to exist today? There's the four universities, but that hardly seems like enough basis to say that the Kingdom's education system "still exists to this day." john k (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

See Education in Scotland. Scotland has an entirely separate curriculum (at all levels of education) from the rest of the UK. By the way Scotland has 14 universities. Scroggie (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it has a separate educational system. That's not what the article says. It says that the education system established before 1707 continues to exist today. john k (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

None really. The parish and burgh schools (and dame schools and the like in larger towns and cities), which had formed the basis of an educational system pre-1707, disappeared from the 1870s. There's a rather rose-tinted view on offer at History of education in Scotland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts for how to reword? john k (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

1468

Though I am ignorant in Scottish history, why is there a separate section for 1468 when it is simply part of the overall history prior to consolidation in the early 18th century? Mathpianist93 (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Some one has added some rather odd titles. I have replaced the two date ones by something better. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Languages

This is the explanation promised on the edit summary. On the Auld Alliance page it states in the 'wider influence' section and I quote, "At the height of the alliance, French was widely spoken in Scotland and French still has an influence on the Scots language." Obviously it is completely contradictory and counterproductive for two of the most important articles on Scottish history to not be consistent, so naturally the added extract should feature. RS 07/02/2011 86.165.114.255 (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but should not Norn language and Galwegian Gaelic be included if Pictish and Cumbric are too? Brendandh (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

' deliberately sabotaged '

' deliberately sabotaged by the combined efforts of the East India Company, the international financial markets at Amsterdam and King William '

why does this article make this claim that the Darian scheme was ' deliberately sabotaged ', without even providing a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.142.253 (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom's Coat of Arms

Why is the Scottish coat of arms post-union of the crowns used here as the kingdoms coat of arms ? That would only apply for the last hundered or so years of the Kingdom of Scotland's existence. If it must be used then it should be alongside the traidtional Scottish coat of arms (two unicorns/scottish flags) and should clearly state that the post-union one was only used after the union of the crowns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It might just be a mistake. Perhaps you could fix it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I would if I knew how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to change it that would be fantastic. The coat of arms that should be added is the one with two unicorns and a saltire and royal standard of Scotland flag. I tried uploading it but I need an account to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. You tried. I'll fix it for you if there are no objections from anyone else. Speak within the next week or forever hold your peace, everyone. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be great thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

History section

All a bit odd. Why "Scots" Header for the Killing times? Needs to be sorted out. Brendandh (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Language ?

Hello just wondering if it was wise to include so many languages in the info box the way they are just now. Wouldn't it be better to add Scots and Scottish Gaelic as two official languages while putting the others as regional or miniority languages spoken at one point ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Though 'Scots'is named as an official language in Scotland, it is a political posture rather than a linguistic fact (despite the existance of a Wiki page on the 'Scots language'). The inhabitants of today's Scotland speak English, and most have been doing so for 1500 years ever since the Anglo-saxons settled the subsequently-'Scottish' lowlands at the same time as the Gaelic-speaking Scots tribe from Ireland were establishing their kingdom in the highland North West. Ironically when the Kingdom of the Scots eventually annexed the Anglic lowlands, the country became in essence, despite the continuance of the name Scotland, de facto the Kingdom of the Northern English. As a language 'Scots' is not and never has been any less English than 'American' or 'Australian'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.12.6 (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There are more differences between Scots and English than there are between Danish and Norwegian, so don't spout your bile here. It's widely considered a distinct Germanic language and has been since the 15th century, although you always get the occasional nutter trying to turn it into a dialect of English. Also the Dalriadans didn't come from Ireland, the language MAY have spread from Ireland through cultural conversion but the people themselves certainly didn't, archaeological evidence shows us this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.203.57 (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not an official language of Scotland today, it was during the time of the Kingdom of Scotland though, only after the union did the persecution of the Scots language come about, mostly from Scottish people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.203.57 (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Broad claims such as 'there are more differences between Scots and English than Danish and Norwegian' are difficult to objectively confirm. Who has checked? And How? And when? It would be tricky if applied to say the 16th century when there were over 40 dialects of English in England and several more variants and/or dialects in Scotland. Which dialects/variants should one compare when there was the neither a Standard English nor a Standard Scots? And it's certainly not true today surely? Similarly though it's often written that Scots was the 'official language of Scotland' at some time in the past it's not quite clear what that actually means. Our modern concepts of nationhood and 'official' national languages didn't really evolve until the 18th century. Probably it just means that the vernacular (whether named Scots/Inglis/English) was being used for official documents and for official purposes rather than the Latin or French which had previously been used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.47 (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaking Scots with Scottish English. Having studied the Norwegian and Danish languages and the Scots and English languages I can guarantee you there are more differences between Scots and English than Norwegian and Danish. But research it for yourself if you wish. Not to mention Serbian and Croatian and a whole host of other seperate languages which are near identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.206.133 (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Today it's a contentious issue. None the less, despite many modern assertions to the contrary, there is no period in Scottish history when Scots themselves did not record that the name of their (Lowland) language was English, the same language as that spoken in England. “...hope that 'this famous Ile may be as conjoined in hearts as it is in continent with one sea, uniformity of language, manners and conditions” - The Privy Council to the Lords of the Congregation 28th July 1559 Calendar of Scottish Papers p235. Writers who claim that 'Scots' was historically regarded as a separate language simply choose to ignore the vast, overwhelming, and perfectly explicit contemporary evidence to the contrary. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Scots or Scotland?

Weren't the early kings known as Kings of the Scots rather than Kings of Scotland? In which case was there a Kingdom of Scotland in the early period, or was there rather a Kingdom of the Scots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.6.150 (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Scotland means land of the Scottish, It's the same thing. The country WAS referred to as the Kingdom of Scotland back in those times you know.

I think the distiction could be important, and it is mentioned elsewhere in Wiki. 'Scotland' was originaly where the gaelic Scots lived, whilst the Kingdom of Scotland referered to the whole Scots' 'empire' which included all the other non-scottish kingdoms and areas of 'scotland' which got annexed later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.47 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You're clearly confusing the modern English meaning of Scottish with the archaic Latin term. Scottish means from Scotland, the geographical region we know of today. Thus the Picts were Scottish, the Dalriadans were Scottish as were the people of Strathlclyde and Lothian as well as Shetland and Orkney and the Hebrides ever when they weren't parts of the Kingdom of Scotland. The people you incorrectly refer to as Scottish are actually more correctly termed Dalriadans. Calling them Scottish is vastly inaccurate in this day and age and greatly confuses the situation for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.88 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Language section is a complete mess.

The language section is atrociously inaccurate. Old Irish was far from the sole language spoken in Scotland at this time, in fact by the 700's I very much doubt it was even anywhere near being the dominant one in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think French and English deserve a mention in the language box. English was barely spoken at all until after the union and French was a miniority language at best used mainly by nobles as well as recent immigrants from France.

The main languages of the Kingdom of Scotland were Scots, Scottish Gaelic and Norn. These were the three major linguistic divisions for much of it's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.88 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Not so. The Highland Scots spoke Gaelic. The historic common language of the Lowands however was Northern English - from the 7th century onwards brought by the Anglo-Saxons who arrived in Caledonia at almost exactly the same time as the Scots. It continued to be called English (often spelled Inglis and other variants) until the very end of the 15th century when some Scots, correctly or incorrectly, began calling their northern variant(s) of English 'Scots'. They had previously called Gaelic 'Scots'. Scots-English (in addition to Scots) was certainly commonplace by the Act of Union in 1707 - and indeed was already commonplace by the time of the King James bible in 1611. Historic spelling sometimes gives a quite false impression of difference, but there was no real standard spelling anywhere in Britain, in England or Scotland, until the 18th century. Today some believe that Scots was and is a different language from English, others that Scots is simply the collective name for the historic variants of English found in Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.19.88 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what this contributes as to which languages are included in the list in the article; all the languages you mention are already included. Or is it soapboxing about the status/existence of Scots, without any bearing on the article?

Again, not sure what difference it makes to this part of the article but for what its worth, Gaelic was in no way restricted to the Highlands as, at its furthest extents, pretty much the whole of mainland Scotland, other than the Lothians, had it as a first or at least major language for a significant period. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

My point is English and French would have been minority languages at best. Scots and Scottish Gaelic were major languages throughout the Kingdom of Scotland's existence. Norn as well was spoken beyond 1707 in Shetland and Orkney (relatively significant percentage of the Scottish population at the time). These were the three major linguistic divides in Scotland when it entered the union and had been for some time before it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.203.0 (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

King/Kingdom of the Scots is confusing

The frequent use of "Kingdom of the Scots" in this article is rather unhelpful. Today we know it as the Kingdom of Scotland informally known as Scotland. We don't call it Scots. So the term Kingdom of the Scots strikes me as inaccurate in this day and age. I think it's best to simply stick to the one name, Kingdom of Scotland, throughout the article. King of Scots is also rather archaic, King of Scotland would be more accurate in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.88 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A Scot is a person who lives in Scotland. Does this clarify the matter for you? -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know what a Scot is. My point is people don't refer to the Kingdom of England as the Kingdom of the Angles or to the Kingdom of Denmark as the Kingdom of the Danes. The articles on these past and present countries do not switch between two different names. Stick to the one name, Kingdom/King of Scotland much simpler and tidier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.198.208 (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be rude but reading back I can see that I probably came across that way. I just meant that the Scottish king was generally referred to as king of the Scottish people rather than of the Scottish land. We have used the term "Kingdom of Scotland" as the title of the article to keep it in line with general usage and make it easy to find but I think we would be doing our readers a disservice if we didn't draw attention to the fact that the normal title was "Kingdom/King of the Scots". -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The important word being WAS. Scotland was also once referred to as Caledonia, Alba (I know they still are sometimes used in English in a poetic way) and various other names in many different languages including English. Today we commonly know the entity as the Kingdom of Scotland, the Kingdom/King of the Scots may have been used back then but like I said the English language itself was completely different back then. It's no big deal I guess, I just prefer the one name for things. It's like referring to the Dalriadans in this day and age as Scots. It's really inaccurate and confusing considering the modern meaning of Scottish is someone or thing from Scotland. Whereas the Dalriadans were simply one tribe in the West of the country. Yes they used to be called this in the far past but today the term I find misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.206.133 (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish, The Kingdom of the Scots is still commonly used in reference to the historic polity. Kingdom of Scotland is a later term, generally by continental European peeps and post Victorians. 'Rex Scottorum etc'......

Alba used as an English term, really? I'd look at the Scots usage before one went south in that ballpark....Brendandh (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It is confusing. Not least because the words 'Scots', 'Scottish' and 'Scotland' have meant different things at different points in history. The answer thus cannot be to use the same terms for each period. The problem is well illustrated by the reign of King David who was nominally King of the Scots, but whose rule barely extended into Scot-land (i.e. the Highlands) but who ruled from the Lowlands inhabited by English people. His kingdom, mostly in reality the 'Kingdom of Northern England', might thus be called 'the Kingdom of the King of the Scots'. Only later could the whole be called 'the Kingdom of Scotland' an entity quite different from the earlier 'Kingdom of Scot-land'. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Location Map

How about a light green for territory that was under the control of the Kingdom of Scotland at certain periods of it's existence ? Such as the Isle of Man and Northern England. Scotland controlled Northern England (as far South as the Humber) for a good few decades so I believe this should be included on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.198.208 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe for significant periods like a few centuries but it hardly seems worthwhile for periods of a few decades. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there should be. David I, William the Lion, the Earls of Huntingdon etc. held those lands, and not necessarily from the English crown. Cumbria especially being a predecessor part to the kingdom of Strathclyde. Brendandh (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Well looking at the Commonwealth of England article they've included the entire British Isles in the state's location map. Despite the Commonwealth only ruling Scotland for a short period of time. I think the annexation of Northern England is quite a significant event in Scottish history and deserves to be included in the location map, in light green to signify it was territory that was at one point a part of the Kingdom of Scotland. The Isle of Man as well of course in light green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.206.133 (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

king Edgar of England granted Lothian to King Alexander???

Does the second half of this extract follow logically from the first?

"According to William of Malmesbury, king Edgar of England granted Lothian to King Alexander of Scotland in exchange for a renewed oath of feudal fealty for it,[4] expanding the Kingdom of Scotland as far south as the River Tweed."

Wasn't this simply a personal feudal grant by Edgar to Alexander of a parcel of northern English land, not a gift to, nor an extension of, the Kingdom of Scotland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.19.88 (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Another clean up

I am planning a clean up of this article in the near future. This will be basically follow the current shape of the article in a reliably sourced version, but perhaps focusing less on general events than on those things that had a major impact on the shape or nature of the kingdom (and thus cutting down the similarity to other articles). The sections on the nature of the kingdom would probably be expanded. If anyone has ideas about that, or other suggestions, then now would be a good time to make your point.--SabreBD (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What else should be here?

I have cleaned up some sections, removed and combined others and added a few more that seemed relevant, but is there anything else that is obviously missing from this article? I am conscious that it should not just be a repeat of say History of Scotland. I am open to suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If we compare this article to the well-developed one on the Roman Empire, some missing aspects become apparent:

• No legacy section. The one in the Roman article attempts to cover the survival of linguistic and political aspects of the empire following its demise. Did the languages of the Kingdom survive the union with England? Are they still spoken. Has the kingdom left a political legacy to later states?
• No society section and barely a mention to social stratification. At least a basic mention of social classes and occupations could be useful.
• No section on the legal status, and social role of women.
• No section on slaves, indentured servants, or other populations with unfree status. The relevant article Slavery in the British Isles seems to mostly ignore Scotland.
• The section "government" makes reference to Scots law but does not actually mention specific examples. What made the legal system distinct from the rest of the British Isles? Perhaps a link to main article History of Scots law should be added.
• No section on taxation, or covering the economy. There are articles on the subject: Economic history of Scotland, Economy of Scotland in the Middle Ages, Economy of Scotland in the High Middle Ages, Economy of Scotland in the early modern era.
• Scottish coinage is mentioned in the infobox but not covered in the article.
• No section on roads, land transport, and maritime trade.
• No section on architecture, engineering, or technology. There are at least two articles on the subject: Architecture of Scotland in the Middle Ages, and Architecture in early modern Scotland.
• No specific section on culture, literacy, or written works created in this centuries-long era. The article Culture of Scotland in the High Middle Ages has some basic information on at least part of the period covered here.
• No section on Scottish cuisine, of food resources in general. By comparison, the Roman article covers the main grains, vegetables, and meats available to the average person of the Roman Empire. And specifies that the lower classes had access to prepared food through taverns and food stalls. Did the Kingdom of Scotland had its own tradition of inns and taverns?
• No mention on recreational aspects of life. The people of this Kingdom probably had no equivalent to the public spectacles of the Roman Empire, but didn't thet have their own festivals? Religious or secular.
• No reference to clothing habits, though the article on Highland dress claims it already existed in the 17th century.
• No reference to Scottish art of this period. . There is an articles which partly covers the subject: Art in Medieval Scotland.
• No reference to the education available in the Kingdom of Scotland. The List of universities in Scotland mentions that the Kingdom had its own universities from the 15th century onwards, and presumably there were highly-educated scolars and graduates associated with them.
• No reference to the education available to women, or professions available to them. The Roman article mentions female calligraphers and scribes. Any Scottish equivalenrs?
• No section on Religion in Scotland. There are articles which partly cover the subject: History of Christianity in Scotland, Christianity in Medieval Scotland, Scottish Reformation. The article on the Early Middle Ages in Scotland indicates that at least part of the early population held cultural influences by Celtic polytheism and Norse religion. Any legacy of these to later Christian religious life?

See if you want to include any relevant material. I am just pointing that there is room for expansion, not saying that you "must" expand. Dimadick (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a long list with plenty to think about. I am aware of most of these articles because, well I did write a few of them. A lot of topics would fit well here (I think law could definitely be pulled out into a separate section; coinage is important and legacy is a very good idea too, as all of these are clearly related to the kingdom), but I am not sure about some of the other aspects not directly related to the state, such as the social and artistic topics. I am not sure the analogy to the Roman Empire is exact, since that covers a now completely defunct institution, meaning that there will not be period based articles about it. I suggest that if this just becomes a shorter version of History of Scotland or an aggregate of Scotland in the Middle Ages and Scotland in the early modern era, then it becomes a little pointless. Education is also possibly a case, as there is clearly a distinctive system set up by the state. Religion is a bit tricky in terms of relevance, but since some historians have argued that the Reformation creates a "state-church" hybrid it is probably a bit hard to understand the kingdom without it. I can definitely see a case for tax, but I would be reluctant to include a description of the economy as this seems more appropriate to general articles on Scotland, but I think all this is open to discussion in the future. In any case thanks again, that gives me quite a bit to work on.--SabreBD (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

First Glasgow Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I'm guessing the Coat of Arms used between 1565–1603 is shown because this was before the Union of the crowns however the Kingdom did continue to exist up until 1707 therefore shouldn't the 1702-1707 Coat of Arms be used instead? Regards, Rob (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Northumbria

Hi Brendandh. I don't think Northumbria should be listed as a predecessor of Scotland, here or at it's article. Around 950, before Northumbria was annexed into England, territory in the north of the kingdom was transferred to the Scottish kingdom after an invasion by Malcolm I. This was however, simply a transfer of territory, which was highly common at the time. The borders between kingdoms varied significantly, and therefore I would advise not listing a change of territory from one kingdom to another, as the latter "seceding" the former, if the former continued to exist (as in this case, for another 4 years approx.), otherwise, infobox's of historical kingdoms would be full of preceding/succeeding states due to these events, which really is not clear, or helpful to the reader. Currently, as this is not widespread across articles of historical kingdoms, it's just misleading. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 18:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A murky area indeed, but the Scottish Earls of Dunbar and March (de facto viceroys of South eastern Scotland) were really the successors to the Ealdormanry of Bamburgh (ie the rulers of rump Northumbria), following the Harrying of the North and Gospatric's exile etc. Further, Northumbrian culture was massively important, insofar as the development of the Scots language, Scots law and Scots land usage is concerned, and still to be encountered today with the Lowland/Highland divide. (To paraphrase the Pythons: What did the (northern) English ever do for us?!) Brendandh (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The article covers Northumbria until 954, when it was fully annexed into the English kingdom. That the Earl of Dunbar descended from the Earl of Northumbria in the early 12th century, definitely does not make Northumbria a predecessor of Scotland. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Brendandh, care to justify that revision? Rob (talk | contribs)

From my window I am presently looking out at the Merse (cf Mercia), 8 miles to the NNE is Coldingham, 20 miles west is Old Melrose, of which St Cuthbert was abbot (the Northumbrian par excellence!), a couple of miles south is Swinton, (home to arguably the oldest recorded family in these islands, and of Anglian stock), Berwick that way, Dunbar, the other, the list goes on, Battle of Carham, Bernicia, William I of Scotland, David I of Scotland, Honour of Huntingdonetc. ...oh, and let's not forget the Scots language. Justification enough? Brendandh (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No. I will repeat my initial point. The borders between kingdoms varied significantly, and therefore we should not list a change of territory from one kingdom to another, as the former preceding the latter, if the former continued to exist (as in this case, for another 4 years approx.), otherwise, infobox's of historical kingdoms would be full of preceding/succeeding states due to these events, which really is not clear, or helpful to the reader. Scotland never succeeded Northumbria, it invaded and annexed land from the kingdom. Do you have any evidence it was any more than this? Rob (talk | contribs) 12:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think any more is needed than the current Scots language (and the usage of Modern Scots English, to a degree), and the historic Earldom of Dunbar, and the fact that successive kings of Scots held the Earldom of Northumbria. I trust that you would concur that Navarre was a predecessor state to both modern France and Spain; or the Counties of Flanders and Brabant, to modern Belgium? So, as the before mentioned do not hold their historic boundaries, so not Northumbria either, and in the same boat. Brendandh (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you can compare, Northumbria, loosing a few of it's north most settlements due to Scottish invasions as comparable to Navarre, which was essentially divided between France and Spain. Admittedly, the annexation of Northumbria's north most settlements was probably quite significant to Scotland, but to Northumbria it was little more then a loss of territory. Considering this, I'm okay with leaving Northumbria as a preceding state here, but not listing it as a succeeding state at Northumbria. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"A few of its north most settlements"??? Half the Kingdom of Bernicia more like! Ida's patrimony. The only similar modern example I can think of, off the top of my head, is the six counties of Northern Ireland (which ain't all of Ulster!) being partitioned from the rest of the territory of Ireland. Is Antrim less Irish than Cork? Or is Kosovo not part of the Serbian psyche also, even though it falls under a different jurisdiction now?......Brendandh (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Brendandh, your usage of metaphors is remarkable. The Northumbrian kingdom was, at one time, the most powerful kingdom in the British Isles. The Norse kingdoms (which appear to lack individual articles) annexed most of the Northumbrian kingdom before the Scots annexed north Bernicia, but nonetheless, we should still list Scotland as one, of two succeeding states of the kingdom?

For the meantime, I wont contend you adding Scotland to Northumbria's article; as my views are based on speculation and not sources, and I'm not currently willing to research into the topic.

What is known of the Northumbrian kingdom is very vague, and it's coverage here is far from satisfactory in my opinion.

– Rob (talk | contribs) 14:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The historic Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria was once the largest and most powerful kingdom in Britain. It stretched from the Humber to the Firth of Forth. Following the Danish invasion of Britain the Kingdom's nothern half came under the control of the King of the Scots. The circumstances are obscure, but the geographical territory became known as Lothian, which was clearly described at the time as being distinct from 'Scotland' or 'Scotland proper. These events were to be of supreme importance to the shape of the future Kingdom of Scotland. In later times these annexed lowland 'Nortumbrian' territories of the Scots Kingdom eventually came to dominate the Gaelic-speaking original, and highland, 'Scot-land' - hence, for example, Scotland became an English speaking country. Thus one could make out a fair case that it was Northumbria not the original Scotland which was the main precursor of the later 'Scottish' state. Though I'll leave it to others to argue the point. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.178.225 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal Unions

The repeated addition by various IPs of "In a Personal Union with Kingdom of England (1603-1707)" to the status field in the info box ought to be discussed by them here by now, particularly after repeated reversion with reasons given. The instructions for this field in this template are here and "personal union" is not a pertinent addition to that field. Personal unions may be of some note in the article but they do not affect the status of the country, i.e. its independent government. Even were that not the case, to give this comparatively short period such prominence in this field for the status of an entity lasting almost a millenium seems undue. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And it's already noted in the history section of the infobox. It isn't Scotland's only personal union either. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

My re addition of it was more of reducing the prior over-egging of the 1603 UotCs further up. I agree, we were in personal union with France also. Brendandh (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Lord of the Isles

This articles states: "From the final capture of the Royal Burgh of Berwick by the Kingdom of England in 1482 (following the annexation of the Northern Isles from the Kingdom of Norway in 1472) the territory of the Kingdom of Scotland corresponded to that of modern-day Scotland..."

However, the Lord of the Isles did not forfeit his lands until 1493. Although there was overlordship and support of the King of Scotland at various times, the reason for said forfeiture rather suggests that this had lapsed by that point. Anyway, does this not mean that date of 1482 is too early to support the claim of territorial equivalence to the present day?

Even if someone with far more expertise than me can adequately argue to the contrary, I find it a little bit odd that (unless I have missed it) there is no reference to this event, which is far more significant (from a territorial perspective) than the loss of the town of Berwick (as fine a town as it is).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Kingdom 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scan.org.uk/knowledgebase/topics/education_box1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310021914/http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom/KingsandQueensoftheUnitedKingdom.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228092409/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/RoyalStandard.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/Symbols/RoyalStandard.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130916085046/http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/051124.asp to http://www.nas.gov.uk/about/051124.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109055700/http://www.flaginstitute.org/images/page10_large.gif to http://www.flaginstitute.org/images/page10_large.gif

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) 09:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Middle Scots was ALWAYS simply called English

"In the Late Middle Ages, Middle Scots, often simply called English, became the dominant language of the kingdom"

I'm not sure I understand the above sentence. Does 'often' mean 'often then' or 'often now'?

Factually the language was often called Scots after the end of the Middle Ages in c.1500, but before then the historical record is clear that it was invariably called English, and subsequently was still called English quite as often as Scots.

Might I suggest changing the line to read:

"In the Late Middle Ages, Middle Scots, then simply called English, became the dominant language of the kingdom"

Cassandra .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.166.252 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC) 

Either:

"In the Late Middle Ages, Early Scots, then called English, became the dominant spoken language of the kingdom, aside from in the Highlands and Islands and Galloway"

or possibly:

"In the Early Modern Period, Middle Scots, often simply called English, became the dominant language of the kingdom"

but from the context, the former is presumably intended. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Flag Color

Sure it's been mentioned before but any reason for the strangely light shade of blue in the flag? I'm aware there was no official shade of blue decreed by the Parliament of Scotland during its existence but since there is no official shade are we not better just making it a similar shade to the one shown in the coat of arms right next to it in the infobox, which is a lot closer to the modern official pantone 300 color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.16.225 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)