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.
No consensus seems to have been agreed upon previously. It seems illogical to list Queen, FM and then PM. According to the arguements stated previously, then the monarch should be listed after the FM. It is logical for the listing to be Queen, PM and then FM...this is the correct hierachy in Scotland. Darkieboy236 (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Wales starts with the First Minister and his deputy and then ends with the Queen (which might be an idea here). The article is about Scotland and in that context Scottish leadership should take priority Archive 20 demonstrates the prior consensus (this was pointed out to you in one of the rv comments). Please read comments, check prior discussions and do not edit war.--SnowdedTALK 13:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Reverse order is an option. Because it's done on Wales, does not mean it is correct or logical. It was discussed but no decision appears to have been agreed. Darkieboy236 (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the archive, add the numbers for FM above PM and those for getting rid of PM then it is a majority Also one of those for PM first was a sock puppet and banned shortly afterwards. Wales and Scotland need some consensus here which is why I referenced it. You can of course open the question again, but you should not edit war. --SnowdedTALK 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to favour having only the FM in the box, if you look at American states, Canadian provinces, German lander, Spanish regions or Australian states, they only show the political leaders of that specific entity. It's inconsistent to show the Queen and Gordon Brown in the Scotland box. The text of the article clearly explains that Scotland is (presently) part of the United Kingdom. Somebody scan-reading the infobox may think that Gordon Brown is Prime Minister of Scotland or that the Queen is the Queen of Scotland specifically. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with that and the other precedents make it more objective --SnowdedTALK 14:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of Scotland, and the Queen is Queen of Scotland. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Is George Bush the President of California? There's no such thing as "King/Queen of Scotland" or "Prime Minister of Scotland". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Further to the above, of course there wereKings and Queens of Scotland, and the article doesn't so much as mentionQueen Elizabeth II – who would be plain Queen Elizabeth if there were a separate Scottish monarchy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Brown is PM over Scotland & Elizabeth II is Queen over Scotland. However they are Prime Minister & Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't those other entities show their state's ultimate leaders? I would suggest it is because the California page is about California specifically, and so on. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother showing Elizabeth II & Brown on this article's Infobox or at England, Wales, Northern Ireland & the other parts of the UK. My country's provincial & territorial articles don't show Elizabeth II or Harper at their Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Which would therefore support removing Brown and the Queen from the info box as they both have United Kingdom roles not Scottish ones. Are you in support of that GoodDay? --SnowdedTALK 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, remove Elizabeth II & Gordon Brown (as well as at Eng, Wales, NI etc). GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going near NI and England does not have a "national" government, the UK parliament acts for that so there it is Gordon Brown. Otherwise lets leave it to see if there are any objections, if not the changes can be made to Scotland and Wales referencing this discussion --SnowdedTALK 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
England is tricky. By not removing Elizabeth II & Gordon Brown there? it creats the impression that England is the United Kingdom (superior to Scot, NI, Wales etc). GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Not really, and I will not rise to the superior bait :-) The UK Parliament acts for England in those matters which are the remit of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments
(Pedantic comment) Note that both Canadian provinces and Australian state include the Lieutentant-Governor or Governor in their infobox - these posts representing the Head of State.
I'm not convinced that this should necessarily have any influence here, though.
Are people seriously comparing the governance of Scotland to Canada? Why are people even feeding the trolls? Scotland does not have a Prime Minister/ Queen? Seriously? MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
To a canadian province Mick, read Morrison's point. Scotland does not have a Prime Minster (give a citation if you think otherwise) and the Queen is, post Act of Union Queen of the UK. The last person to call himself King of Scotland was James II and that was deemed to be incorrect. Oh and who are you calling a troll? --SnowdedTALK 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused here. Mick, you prefer Elizabeth II & Brown in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to put the Prime Minister of Canada in the infobox. MickMacNee (talk)
And a picture of Alan Shearer? :-) --SnowdedTALK 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Hell yeah. MickMacNee (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've checked your first posting (should've earlier). Elizabeth II is not the Queen of Scotland; Gordon Brown is not the Prime Minister of Scotland. They're are Queen & PM (respectively) over Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
And this means what exactly? Are you asserting there is some kind of international diplomatic uncertainty to the status of Scotland and who are its rulers? Or is this all just complete semantic bullshit? MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't appreciate that kind of language. Therefore, bye. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
And I don't appreciate patent nonsense being dressed up as fact. MickMacNee (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't appreciate people trying to remove the monarch from the infobox! :S --Cameron* 19:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Is anybody actually going to answer the points made without resorting to swearing or pushing their point of view? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The original point was a question about the order in the infobox. You are the one who decided to steam in and try and claim that Scotland has no Queen or Prime Minister. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
There's several. I'll start with the basic one. Why is the Scotland article inconsistent with the vast majority of other sub-national entities in listing the head of state and head of government of the wider body? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Because Scotland is not a sub-national entity. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The reason is that other, for lack of a better term, sub-national entities do not have the same sort of involvement of central government in their procedures. For example, the Queen appoints members of the Scottish Executive, opens the Scottish Parliament, and assents to Acts of the Scottish Parliament. The UK government can have the courts determine whether an Act is outside of the Scottish Parliament's remit before it takes effect. The differences between Scotland and US or Australian state or a Canadian province or territory are significant enough that the analogising to them is not appropriate. -Rrius (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Since legislation has to be given the Royal Assent and the UK government has the right to refer the bill to the Judicial Committee, shouldn't it list the Queen, FM, and a UK minister? I would argue that the Secretary of State for Scotland, Des Browne, is actually the more reasonable person to list, since his office is the one responsible for any such reference. -Rrius (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The Secretary of State for Scotland job will be abolished if the Northern Ireland policing issue is resolved.[1]Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
That isn't really relevant at the moment. We are discussing the facts as they are here and now. Best, --Cameron* 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
And from what I've seen there would be one Secretary of State for the "regions", which would fill the same role. The name of the office filling the reference role is irrelevant; I'm arguing that a UK minister should be listed, and it should be whichever officer is responsible for reviewing Scottish Parliament bills, and possibly referring them to the Judicial Committee (which will, incidentally, be replaced in this role by the Supreme Court of the UK). -Rrius (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
This is all well and good, but does little to answer the question of order of Government heirachy. I can see no issue with Queen, PM, FM. This is a logical order as the Queen is the ultimate Head of State of the UK (inc Scotland), the PM is the British PM and then the FM is the first minister of Scotland...seems like a reasonable descending order to me. Having Queen, FM and then PM seems illogical as it insinuates that the PM answers to the FM. Darkieboy236 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
If Elizabeth II & Gordon Brown must be included in the Infobox? Then, they should be above the First Minister. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is about Scotland not the United Kingdom and the government in Scotland is the responsbility of the First Minister. Rrius makes a good suggestion, include the member of the UK Government responsible for Scotland (or Wales) underneath the First Minister. Darkieboy is wrong to interpret this in terms of a hierarchy. In some aspects of Scottish Government then the First Minister does have more power than the PM. Also the First Minister does not report to the PM any more than the PM could report to the FM. The FM reports to the Scottish Assembly, the PM to Parliament. There is no reporting hierarchy. In the context of Scotland the FM should come first as they lead the elected Assembly in Scotland. Mention of the PM is OK, but superfluous and not central so best left out of the info box. --SnowdedTALK 22:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The Queen should go first because she is first in precedence, because she appoints the FM, and because all is done in her name. She does have a constitutional role; after all, the Scottish Parliament is not a local council. To the original point, I think substituting the other minister for the PM should get rid of Darkieboy's concerns about the appearance of a false hierarchy. -Rrius (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Does the Queen appoint or give royal assent to Scottish Bills? If so I would agree with your proposal, if not then it would be different. --SnowdedTALK 22:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for prompt response. Given that I agree with you, put the Queen First, then the First and Deputy Minister and finally Des Browne as Secretary of State for Scotland (UK Cabinet). Can we have agreement to that? --SnowdedTALK 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I oppose any removal of Gordon Brown from the infobox as misinformation. MickMacNee (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- "the government in Scotland is the responsbility of the First Minister". No it is not. Parts of it is. The Prime Minister can and does rule on some matters that are only going to affect Scotland. Clearly he belongs in the infobox. MickMacNee (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The British Prime Minister has responsibilities for the UK of GB and NI and acts at that level, not specifically in respect of Scotland. If the Queen is in there, its fairly clear how the whole thing stacks up --SnowdedTALK 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
That still does not mean he does not make decisions that only affect Scotland. He can and he does. He is not barred from doing so. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of any examples that are particular to Scotland, and he can't overule the FM in an area where the Scottish Parliament has authority. Yes a decision as to where to place a defence contract would have consequences for Scotland, but that is a very different thing. Anything specifically in relation to Scotland would be exercised by the Secretary of State hence the attractiveness of Rrius's proposal --SnowdedTALK 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
There are hundreds of things he can rule on that only apply in Scotland. The FM would have nothing to do with it, and the Scottish Secretary most certainly is not the highest authority in those decisions. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Purely out of curiosity (I do not mean to be interpreted as doubting you), what sorts of things are these? -Rrius (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Anything listed here that for all practical purposes would only affect Scotland. The UK Parliament is still perfectly within its rights to pass laws or enact regulations with the (Scotland) qualifier. MickMacNee (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
And all of those would be generic to the UK not specific to Scotland (I doubt we will have a Scottish, English and Welsh versions of treason law). The reserved powers need to be in the government of Scotland section (or Article) but it doesn't advance a case to give the PM more precedent (as we have a clear separation of powers here not a hierarchy) --SnowdedTALK 10:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for Wales, but Scots law on High Treason does differ from England is so much as "the slaying of the Lords of Session and Lords of Justiciary and counterfeiting the Great Seal of Scotland remain treason under sections 11 and 12 of the Treason Act 1708 respectively" (reference). Sorry, not particularly germane to the discussion at hand, just compulsive pedantry...
(outdent) I always find pedantry like this interesting I am afraid (comes of reading Philosophy at University). I assume however that if an English national and resident should indulge in a spot of Seal forgery or choose to shoot a Lord of Justiciary outside their London Club they they too would be hauled off to the Scottish equivalent of the Tower of London or is said personage and seal only safe in Scotland? As you say its not relevant to the point but it is interesting. --SnowdedTALK 10:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
My guess is your Londoner would be on the hook for Treason in Scotland and forgery or homicide in England and Wales, as the case may be. -Rrius (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Aha! I read History (at Strathclyde) - another subject that encourages utter pointlessness in thought ;-) I'd imagine that for all intents and purposes England and Scotland have a de facto extradition policy, and that English forces would arrest in England for Scots' High Treason. I don't honestly know though. I do remember that one of the arguments for the Criminal Justice Act of 1994 was that it would remove offities like the requirement that, in theory, English police needed to (and I kid you not) "carry a burning sod atop a pike, and announce their purpose to the first Scotchman they encountered" when persuing a felon into Scotland. I suspect in practice they simply radioed ahead... However this highlights the discrepencies that arise when there are two legal systems in one country, and I suspect that lawyers and police have long experience of dealing with cross border matters. My sister lives in England - maybe I should try for a test case?!
(edit conflict)I was wrong about which person in the UK government can refer to the Privy Council; it's actually the Attorney General or Advocate General. The Scottish Secretary can block Scottish legislation if it interferes with foreign policy. He or she also acts as Scottish cheerleader in Cabinet, a liaison between Westminster and Holyrood, and someone responsible for forging a "partnership" between the government and the Scottish Government. I don't think the AGs should be listed—I'm sorry I can't express it better, but it just doesn't feel right to put either in the infobox. As between the Attorney General and Scottish Secretary, the second makes more sense to me. As between the PM and the Scottish Secretary, the latter seems to me to have more connection with Scotland than the former. An alternative would be to say "First Minister (devolved matters)" and "Prime Minister (reserved matters)". It's not a great alternative, but it is an alternative. -Rrius (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes Like This --Rain543 (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
That seems like too much info. Why include the Deputy FM and why include the PM and the Secretary? Also, why is the Queen last and why isn't the Secretary of State called the "Welsh Secretary" or something like that? -Rrius (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The order does not sit right to me...seems jumbled up, illogical and confusing. Perhaps it would be better to split the box into "Sovereign nation (UK)" and the sub-nation (for lack of a better word - no disrespect to anyone) - if anyone know what I mean! Darkieboy236 (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sub-nation is offensive and inaccurate, Scotland and Wales are countries within the UK (whether they are nations is still debated). Its irrelevant anyway this article is about Scotland and makes it clear that Scotland is a part of the UK. There is no need for two information boxes. That means Queen 1, FM 2, DFM 3, SoS for Scotland 4 --SnowdedTALK 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I Havnt a Clue but i think maybe on the artcle it show have the Queen 1st, PM 2nd, First Minister 3rd, & Deputry FM 4th —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rain543 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The terms Welsh and Scottish Secretary were removed with devolution and we got a SofS instead which sort of makes sense. I would see if Mick can come up with some actual examples of Scottish specific decisions reserved to the PM. If he can't the argument falls and your proposal I think would be best here, and also on Wales (where I would have proposed the change but best to resolve it here first). I think there is a very strong argument that for the Scotland and Wales the most relevant data should be the FM and given that there is no hierarchy (different powers) the order does not relate to hierarchy. --SnowdedTALK 23:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Butting in. Alright then, a current affairs topic. The Prime Minister says we need to build a nuclear power station on Ben Nevis. It requires an act of Parliament, the "Ben Nevis Nuclear Reactor Bill 2008", which will affect no other part of the UK. Its drafting of and voting on is not done by the scottish government, and the final decision on it does not fall to the scottish secretary. In fact, a real life recent example is the decision of Trident renewal and keeping the home port in Glasgow. MickMacNee (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Who would give the planning permission for this Nuclear reactor on Ben Nevis? As far as I'm aware Scotland has the authority to give or take away planning permission as shown here. Robert Spiers (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Planning decisions can be over-ruled bu the Home Office when deemed to be in the national (UK) interest. Otherwise Trident replacement would not have succeeded. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If the Scottish parliament refused planning permission for a Nuclear power station to be built in a certain are, can you give me a source whereby the Home Office can overrule this? Robert Spiers (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe planning permission could be overruled in matters of defence, which is a UK wide matter, not Scotland specifically, although they don't appear to find it as simple as they think. Robert Spiers (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I was not intending to be offensive, just trying to say that NI/Scot/Eng/Wales are part of a larger entity (UK). There is an heirachy by default because Scotland is part of a larger nation (UK). As the UK is the sovereign state (like it or not) it is primary. Therefore, Queen/PM/FM is a logical order. I do not think it is necessary to have deputies listed. Furthermore, I was not suggesting having two info boxes, just splitting the current one into two sections - a section related to the UK and a second section related to NI/Wal/Eng/Scot. Darkieboy236 (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point about delegated responsibilities and the non-hierarchical relationship between the PM and the FM. The PM has no legal right to overrule the FM within their area of responsibility (they both in effect take delegated authority from the Queen. The Secretary of State would also act on behalf of the Queen in areas related to Scotland so their name is more relevant than the PM. It is thus misleading to provide the order you suggest. Also in the context of an article on Scotland the DFM is relevant and should be there. If you take the part of a larger entity then maybe we should list the EU as it has authority over the UK in several areas, the International Court in the Hague and elsewhere. It gets to be a nonsense. In terms of the government of Scotland what matters is (i) the Scottish Assembly (ii) it gains it authority from the Queen (iii) it is a part of the UK. the last is handled in the lede, the info box then serves its purpose if it has the Queen, FM, DFM and SOS.
Why refer to the Deputy FM? Other articles do not refer to Deputy PMs, Vice Presidents, and Lieutenant Governors (U.S. states). -Rrius (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to correct myself again. For reasons that defy logic, the almost useless LGs do get mentioned on standard U.S. state infoboxes and the US VP gets mentioned (which makes sense since he is President of the Senate). -Rrius (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Snowded, the office has been called Secretary of State for Scotland since 1926. The term "Scottish Secretary" is an abbreviation exactly like "Home Secretary" or "Defence Secretary". See, e.g., this article, which refers to "Scottish Secretary Des Browne". -Rrius (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
One point I find odd in all the listings of hierarchies is why the The Presidency of the Council of the European Union never mentioned? see link for a basic view of the power structure. yours Czar Brodie (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
If we could possibly find someone the Presidency of the council of the European Union answers to we can add them. What about the ones in between? We could have the biggest infobox on wikipedia. Yes! Let's do it for Scotland! Robert Spiers (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Sanity Check
I've just repaired some vandalism to this section (and other parts of the article); can someone who's more awake than me check I've got the order of Monarch/First Minister/Prime Minister richt, and add/remove anything I've missed?
Cheers, This flag once was red 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Economy/ Curency Picture of Coins to do with scotland
I Have been having a look at the UK Brittish pound coins and notes and i thought that
<Non free image removed>
<Non free image removed> and possibly <Non free image removed> should have been on the article? --Rain543 (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
There's already a section on currency, and a further section in the article on Sterling banknotes. I'm not convinced that the article needs yet more images - it's been inundated with images recently...
I Understand but both Wales & England show a pound coin with something representing there country so i think this idea should go on i think that the rampant coin should be in place in the currency section --Rain543 (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This article doesn't need to copy England and Wales. The England article - in the section on national symbols - discusses the oak tree, and illustrates "oak tree" by using a Pound coin with a picture of an oak. The Wales article uses a pound coin as an icon to represent the Welsh economy. I'm not saying that Scotland's article shouldn't have an image of Scottish currency, merely that there doesn't seem to be quite the need to add yet another image to an article that's been overloaded with images of late. If you want to add an image of a Pound coin, go for it - though please *preview* it first in order to avoid numerous edits to the page.
This flag was once read i understand that this candidate for best article dosnt need to copy the 2 articles all im saying is that someone comes onto the UK Pages sees that it is a country made up of 4 nations clicks on each one, England, Wales & Northern Ireland have a picture of a coin showing there national symbol but then scotland hasn't got one on show and the person may think do they have on. I Would if i could but i cant the page is protected for some odd reason and what is up with that horrible box telling us why its protected --Rain543 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think most people would realise that the images were purely illustrative; the English coin illustrating the Oak Tree, the Welsh coin illustrating the Welsh economy, etc.
The semi-protection is to prevent vandalism; recently this article has been vandalised rather a lot. If you're unable to edit it then you've done the right thing by discussing it here - if other editors agree with you a consensus will develop, and someone will add a picture that most editors are happy with.
Actually, the reason I inserted an image of the 'Welsh' Pound coin in the Wales, Economy section was not to illustrate the Welsh economy as a whole, but the paragraph explaining that 1: although banks in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England are allowed to print their own banknotes, no Welsh bank is authorised; & 2: although coins used to be minted depicting images representing Wales, the only coins currently being minted depict images representing only Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. Not that we're considered a conquered and/or subject nation - we're just not considered. I tried to write it NPOV. Obviously, I succeeded too well. Yours, bitter & twisted of south Wales, Daicaregos (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
(More pedantry - sorry): actually, banks in England *aren't* allowed to print their own bank notes - with the obvious exception of the Bank of England, in its capacity as the UK's central bank.
Good section by the way - I've just re-read it - and my apologies for the generalisation.
Quite so. Thanks, & no need to apologise. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I Did deside to bring it up here as i didnt want (what is known as a Sockpupetry Block) happening i hear they are bad things once i registerted. Well i would think that the Rampant coin should appear --Rain543 (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Do not post non-free images on talk pages, I have removed them. Their use in this article would not be possible as it would fail the minimal use clause of the WP:NFCC. MickMacNee (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
MickMackNee is quite correct. Use of coin images is restricted. It is only allowed 'To establish the ever-changing identity of the £1 coin and differentiate the coin from all the other denominations of British coinage'. So using a coin image to illustrate the Scottish economy as a whole would not be appropriate, but if you mentioned something about a particular coin in the text of the article it probably would. If in doubt, check any restrictions on the image's page. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Guys (and girls?), to stop anyone wasting their time, it may be worth on regulars here brushing up on the Kris Nimbley troll and how to spot him. Bad spelling, obsession with subheadings, flags, Scottish female singers, Kilmarnock, Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre and "Scottish" inventions are all very easy tells. This is a chronic sockpuppeteer, who's not going to stop so long as we don't apply WP:RBI. --Jza84 | Talk 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Can we revert on talk pages? The latest incarnation seemed to limit their actions to this page, with a few (reverted) exceptions.
Well, if there is consensus to, then yes (I think), but it's probably worth keeping this as it serves as a notice to other users looking for evidence IMHO. --Jza84 | Talk 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
National symbols
Now that the Saltire and the Scottish Royal Standard are in the infobox, should we replace the images of them at the bottom of the page with other symbols of Scotland? If so, which are the best to use? -Rrius (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the Royal Standard could go. It's a breach of WP:IMAGE anyway (so far as I can see), by way of it sandwiching text between two images. --Jza84 | Talk 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't think it needs to be in the infobox and here - a portion of the caption text might be usefully added to the main text instead. I see no need for an alternative second image in such as small sub-section. BenMacDui 19:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thistle image inserted. EndrickShellycoat 10:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see they are centred however the two images have slightly different height/width ration so - with them both at the same height one (the Royal Standard) is centred in a slightly wider cell:
<tr>
<td align="center" style="width:130px; vertical-align:middle;">
<a href="/wiki/Image:Flag_of_Scotland.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Scotland">
<img alt="Flag of Scotland"
src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Flag_of_Scotland.svg/125px-Flag_of_Scotland.svg.png"
width="125" height="75" border="0" class="thumbborder" />
</a>
</td>
<td align="center" style="width:auto; vertical-align:middle;">
<a href="/wiki/Image:Lionrampant.svg" class="image" title="Royal Standard of Scotland">
<img alt="Royal Standard of Scotland"
src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Lionrampant.svg/130px-Lionrampant.svg.png"
width="130" height="78" border="0" />
</a>
</td>
</tr>
One solution might be two create a version a version of "Lionrampant.svg" that matches exactly the proportions of "Flag_of_Scotland.svg"? I'm not geared up for SVG editing, though, so I'll leave that to a willing volunteer!
Cheers, This flag once was red 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I replaced the current 1000x600 Saltire image with: , which is closer to the size of the Lion Rampant image, (Saltire 430x260 vs Lion Rampant 392x234), but both still appeared to be justified to the left of their respective cells, giving a rather distorted appearance. Not sure how to solve this one other than by somehow centering the images in their cells, and I wouldn't know how/where to start on that score. (See image ) EndrickShellycoat 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC) P.S.Have posed question to —MJCdetroit(yak)and await response.
Couple of things that might be relevant:
(1) does align="center" apply to images, or just text? (it's been a long time since I used HTML and CSS in anger, so I could be way off here...)
(2) the width of the images are different - 125px vs. 130px - despite both flag_width and symbol_width being set to 130px. I'm not sure where the 125px for the Saltire is coming from? 125px appears in the image filename, but it's a SVG, so should scale? I tried using the same image twice, and the image widths were still 125px vs. 130px.
(Incidentally, I'm posting this here rather than at Template talk:Infobox Country#Flag_width because I'm not sure whether this is an issue with our images, or a general issue. Feel free to move my comments to the infobox talk page if necessary). This flag once was red 20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
UKCOUNTRYREFS - the shortcut of choice for those who accept UK countries
These Reliable Sources tables (and the Countries of the United Kingdom article they are home to) were designed to save valuable time repeating the facts within them, to those who raise again the question of whether the UK's constituent countries can in fact be called 'countries'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
New Map
I created another variant of the locator map to match one that I did for Wales - it is at Image:Europe location SCO2.png. Feel free to use it, or not. Kmusser (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
FWIW (and, incidentally, this was requested by a familiar visitor to Scottish articles) I like Kmusser's map - it shows Scotland clearly within the UK, Europe and globally in a clever way (multiple inset maps). A similar map is already in use of Wales.
Looks good - gets my vote. EndrickShellycoat 05:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool map guys. Hope you decide to keep it, whichever IP added it. (Seems tough keeping track who did what. Are you looking at protection again?). Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This map also has my backing, although I note that this was a contentious issue in the past... if there's consensus though. :) --Jza84 | Talk 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
'Established'
For the 'established' section in the infobox, I think the current date is unrepresentative of the true state of affairs. I would like to include a second 'unification' date when Scotland took in all or at least almost all of its present territory. So far as I can establish, this is best placed on the 20 February 1472, when Scotland acquired the Orkney and Shetland Isles, but this is just from a preliminary look over the appropriate pages rather than any in-depth analysis. I'd also be interested to know when the Northumbria/Lothian parts and Strathclyde became integral and under the effective control of the Kingdom of Scotland.
Nobody says the US was established in 1848, 1867 or 1898. Likewise, nobody would pick 1472 in this case. Lots of old books say 843, so why not stick with that? With appropriate cautions. It's no worse than 872 for Norway, and enormously better than the "prehistoric" given for Sweden. Angus McLellan(Talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Forget 1472, see Island of Rockall Act 1972 and Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999. (Only kidding!) There are plenty of reliable and verifiable sources out there which refer to the date currently in the infobox. This isn't the place for a single POV re-write of history. If you've a reliable and verifiable source for Scotland as an independent, sovereign nation state thingy, being established in 1472, then let's hear it. Otherwise, might I suggest we leave it alone... EndrickShellycoat 05:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. Take a look at the infobox at Kingdom of Scotland for an answer to your question. Cheers.
Nah, just kidding, I broadly agree with my esteemed colleagues above. I accept that the "established" date isn't clear cut, but given that adequate references are provided and modern Scotland's history is fully detailed in the article I'm happy with the status quo. If, however, you can provide a reference that states that Scotland was established in the 15th century I'd be happy to reconsider...
Well, the issue I have is that it's not really reflective of Scotland as such. The Scotland of the 9th century was dramatically different. It reminds me a bit about the person who was putting the UK's formation date as the date King Athelstan took the title of 'King of All Britain'. As for the latter editors' concerns, I'm not trying to set this as the date of the establishment of Scotland, but rather put it as a second section in the formation of the state. The infobox often has multiple dates placed in it: for ex-colonies, for example, it usually gives a formation date of the colony, its independence and perhaps its becoming a republic. --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, apologies if my response was bit flippant; it wasn't intended to be dismissive (not that I'm saying that's how you took it - it's just that re-reading my comment I think could have been a wee bit less flippant).
I do understand where you're coming from, it's just that the current text in the infobox does seem to me to cover all bases - it states that 843 is a traditionally used date, and that the exact date is unclear or disputed - which seems reasonable to me, and seems to address your concerns.
Again, I'd have no objection to adding/clarifying/modifying if it can be cited.
(outdent) I previously looked at this and checked Lynch's history of Scotland. Lynch argues that "Between 850 and 1050 Regnum and Gens began to come together. In this period, a federal Pictish kingdom evolved, by accident as much as by design, into Alba, a kingdom expressed in terms of a territory as well as of a group of peoples; kings of Picts became kings of Scots, a new but significant collective name for what was still a collection of separate peoples." The only reference for 843 seems to be a BBC page. I would suggest the range date and citation. --SnowdedTALK 08:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I can find a few other references to 843; Britannia.com and ElectricScotland.com; I'm not sure I'd regard either as hugely reliable, however. 843 seems to be a somewhat "populist" figure. I'm happy with a cited range; I presume Lynch is an authority on the period? (My knowledge of Scottish history tends towards the 19th and early 20th centuries - mostly economic and social history - so this period is outwith my comfort zone).
843 is the date Kenneth MacAlpin became King of the Picts, and as subsequent Scottish Kings traced their ancestry back to him its become as you say the "pub quiz" figure. Its two generations on before "Alba" is used. There was a lot of myth around this created in 16th Century and it carries forward. I think that Lynch should be used and will make the amendment if no one objects. --SnowdedTALK 08:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
2007 estimate
Is their no current estimate? 2008 estimate? Just wondering. RoyalMate1 00:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
How much of UK Population
Shoudnt it say how much % the country takes up in the UK Population. (8%)--78.144.84.224 (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. --Jza84 | Talk 19:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Size of Scotland relative to the rest of mainland Great Britian
The first sentence of the entry suggests that Scotland is only 1/3 of the land mass of Great Britain. If looking at the statistics in the Infoboxes for Scotland, England and Wales, Scotland is 40% of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.169.10 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Scotland a country?
Can someone please verify whether or not Scotland is a "country". On the article it says that it is, although I'm really not sure about this. If it is already a "country", then what are the independence debates about? How are we choosing to define "country". Surely a country is a place which rules itself completely, and as far as I know Scotland is ruled from 10 downing street just like the rest of us. Please could somebody clarify what status Scotland has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.203.60 (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
See above. "Country" seems to be the most widely used term, with "constituent country" and "nation" coming in a distant joint second for Scotland (and barely registering at all for England, Northern Ireland and Wales). Wikipedia prefers verifiability, so the preference is to use the term that is widely cited.
You can also look at prior discussions flagged on this talk page and the evidence assembled on Countries of the United Kingdom --SnowdedTALK 21:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
No, Scotland is not a country. The UN have set out guidelines as to what defines a country, and Scotland does not pass on any of these. Any attempt to try and persuade the nationalists that dominate the writing of this article, and see themselves as protectors, will almost certainly be to no avail. Scotland is a constituent country (the word country seems to confuse a lot of people), not an actual country.
That is your opinion - but Wikipedia is not abour editors opinions, but about verifiable facts. If you can cite any reliable source that directly supports the view you state above that 'Scotland is...not an actual country' I might listen to what you have to say. (Notice I said 'directly' supports that view...) Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Please assume good faith; my political beliefs are irrelevant to this article. For the record, however, in the coming general election I intend to give my electorate vote to Labour and my party vote to either the Progressives or the Greens. As far as I am aware, none of these parties have a policy on Scottish independence. Even when voting in Scotland I have never voted for the SNP.
As Fishiehelper2 has noted, Wikipedia is based on verifiable facts, not our opinions. It could be noted that the UN may not regard Scotland as a country; it could be not stated that Scotland is not a country based on that one reference alone - the UN don't regard the Republic of China as a country, for example.
The UN does not provide the definition of "country" for every eventuality. They define "country" for use by the UN. Whatever definition you are looking at may not even apply for all UN purposes. Your charges of nationalism are not well placed. I am an American with a very small degree of Scottish heritage. I watch the independence debate with curiosity, but without personal interest. There is as much blind unionism as blind nationalism in these discussions, but those with no bias also differ as to whether to use the term. The angry charges back and forth are completely unhelpful, and I wish they would stop. -Rrius (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This question has been asked again and again (only a few weeks ago at Talk:United Kingdom) but always with the same result. There are abundant official and reliable references for the parts of the UK, including Scotland, being called countries. This includes references from the UK government and the UN. See the section headed UKCOUNTRYREFS above. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a very bad idea for wiki to use the term COUNTRY to define England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. They do not fit with the definition of COUNTRY in many people and international organizations eyes. Perhaps this term should atleast be flagged as disputed, because it clearly is. Clearly alot of people on this issue have their own biases, i notice one wiki editor is a supporter of Welsh Independence, and i am sure there are many others. It should be of a concern that people use wiki in an attempt to destroy a country, by the way they choose to word things and mislead people. A good comparison on this issue should be Quebec and Canada. Quebec has a premier, like Scotland has a First Minister and a large % of the population seeking Independence. Yet they do not have the sort of problems in describing the realtionship of Canada / Quebec as there is with England/Scotland/Wales/NI and the United KIngdom. Scotland and England use to be countries, but Northern Ireland has NEVER been a country which really does cast doubt on use of such words. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record i am neither of those people you listed and i am not banned, sorry i did not sign my post before. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Scotland is a Country since Scotland has it`s own Government and Laws , Britian is Also a Country but Wales and England are not countrys anymore, Scotland only has a Union with Britain now unlike England and Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiemaloneyscoreg (talk • contribs) 20:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
More, Better pictures
Shouldnt there be more pictures and better ones in some sections like the Healtcare section maybe the logo of NHS Scotland or a special kind of hospital in scotland. The goverment section maybe a picture of Sir Alex Salmond and the scottish parliment instead of the Deabating chamber. The geography section maybe a better map of scotland. And maybe more pictures of the city but not alot of make the article lose the A-Class European wikipedia article and not to ruin a good article. --The Who Present For Ya (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The semi-protection on this article only expired on the 2nd, and already it's the target of several IP vandals. Would anyone object if I reprotected the page? Nev1 (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. Infact I believe this should be semi-protected outright. Nimbley is resetting his ip every time he's zapped, and is relentless, and so I think the semi-protect tool is suitable here. --Jza84 | Talk 17:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've semi-protected the article for 3 months. I wouldn't want to make it any longer, but considering the persistence of the vandals I believe such a lengthy protect is in order. Nev1 (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I do have a slight concern, namely that when Scotland is unprotected Nimbley6 only seems to target this article, but when it's protected the Nimbley6 targets become more numerous (and the targets are typically less heavily watched). That said, I'm not convinced I can justify "allowing" Nimbley6 to repeatedly vandalize Scotland just to make our reverting easier...
That did cross my mind too. I'm not sure what we can do. We could still do with an expert taking a look at Nimbley and advising us. --Jza84 | Talk 18:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
It may be tempting to leave this article unprotected as (for want of a better word) bait, but the reason Nimbley's other vandalism on lesser watched pages goes unnoticed for longer is because those pages are less important. This is a high traffic page, with up to 250,000 views per month; I'd rather this important article was safeguarded. Nev1 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I agree, it was wishful thinking on my part - one page on my watch-list instead of 200-odd minor Scottish celebrities.
It's frustrating because range-blocking isn't practical, and blocks - even short-term - are ineffective because the troll simply (redacted per WP:BEANS) to get a new IP address. I honestly believe WP:RBI is overkill; the important thing is to revert and ignore.
I'll stick those pages on my watchlist and help how I can. Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we need to compile a list of his targets and get WP:SCOTLAND on board? --Jza84 | Talk 20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
A useful tool in combatting vandals is a project's watchlist. The Yorkshire wikiproject is the only project I know of to have one. Is there any way one could be made up for the Scotland wikiproject? It would be easier to patrol recent changes. Nev1 (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Aside to Jza84: if it can be done I'd also like WP:GM to get its own watchlist. Nev1 (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good; I should probably join WP:SCOTLAND anyway. If Nimbley6 has done anything useful it's make sure I read a lot more about Scotland... Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 07:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, Nev1, that's appreciated. I should maybe add that Nimbley6's targets change frequently - my advice would be to check out the contribs from the last few anon IPs. Thanks again, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 07:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Scotlands national Anthem
i made a few edits earlier regarding Scolands National Anthem.
Scotland has its own patriotic songs regarded as its anthem but i would like to suggest adding God save the Queen as scotlands royal anthem on its page.
as far as im aware REDIRECT God save the Queen is listed as the Royal Anthem of the following UK countries on the articles.
Following on, and noting that what other article may or may not do have no bearing on this article, England notes the following regarding the English national anthem None officially specific to England; the anthem of the United Kingdom is "God Save the Queen". See also De Facto National anthem of England., while Wales and Northern Ireland mention "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau"(English "Land of my fathers") and Londonderry Air respectively.
Coming from someone who makes edits like this your comments are duly devalued. In addition, the phrase "royal anthem" can be viewed as a polemic term - and I would say any use here is specifically in that light. SFC9394 (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Simillarly we don't add the anthem of Europe to the UK page. It probably derserves a mention on England (as it does already) as GSTQ is sometimes used as an anthem for England's national teams (although I think Land of Hope and Glory is a better one for them!... despite it pertaining to the whole of Britain). --Jza84 | Talk 12:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
After a bit more research... GSTQ is the Royal Anthem of, say, Canada and Australia, but it is the National Anthem of the UK. It is not, so far as I can see, the Royal Anthem of either the UK nor its constituent nations. Off-topic, but since I'm a Kiwi I'll slot it in anyway: GSTQ isn't the Royal Anthem of New Zealand; it's one of two National Anthems. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
They adopted Flower of Scotland as the anthem --78.149.58.210 (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
God save the Queen as the UK national anthem should be included under the anthems listed for Scotland. This page includes the fact the Monarch is of the United Kingdom as is the Prime Minister, it should include the UK national anthem aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishWatcher (talk • contribs) 17:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Info box (all country articles)
Is it just the PC I'm on, or are all the flags/CoAs in country info-boxes behaving oddly? EndrickShellycoat 23:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it's the PC. Try pressing F5. Failing that you may need to restart your PC. :S --Jza84 | Talk 23:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - it appears to have been resolved. (Somehow...) EndrickShellycoat 23:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Elizabeth 1st or 2nd, National Anthems and Religion
Just had a look at this article. As with the UK article it does smack of a unionist view and is not as objective as it could be.
1) Is the Queen the second Elizabeth of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland or will this just be reported, (wrongly) as fact because of the Unionist bias and because she is the second Elizabeth of England? To my knowledge there has never been a Queen Elizabeth of Scotland. Therefore is this not factually incorrect. See: [2]
2) As a Scot, (I make no apology for it) I can say without doubt that GSTQ is not my national Anthem. I have never met a Scot in my 42 years that would agree to GSTQ as being their national anthem in a Scottish or UK context. I think this assumption again smacks of a Unionist bias or wish to subjugate the culture of the Scottish nation by not recognising it. I'd be interested to know what any Welsh or Irish readers think and if they have similar issues with their wiki pages?
3) A third of Scotland show no religious affiliation, (according to this article). Yet only what I would consider to be a foot note appears. Should these pages be redesigned to show philosophies and a more detailed account of beliefs rather than using the outdated practice of promoting any country's prominent religion as 'THE' religion?
4) Do you think that the Scottish Government, The Welsh and Irish Assemblies and the Westminster Government should be the ones to be defining these pages, and same for any other country?
5) On the subject of country - The Scottish education system teaches that Scotland is a country and Scotland is one of the four countries that signed the act of Union. The Scottish Government believe Scotland is a country within the UK and I believe that is shared by the other political parties. So if the UN wants to limit the use of the word for Admin of their organisation then so be it. It doesn't mean that there aren't four countries in the UK.
The Queen is styled Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom, and that's the way she is always referred to. There are lots of anachronisms to it, but it's the way it's always done.
Scots are citizens of the United Kingdom. GSTQ is the national anthem of the UK. Therefore GSTQ is your national anthem. What's that tune that plays when a Scottish athlete wins an Olympic competition?
A state religion can still be the state religion even if only a tiny number of people actually agree with it. That's the fact, and the facts are what we report.
Governments aren't the only ones with a say in what goes in these pages.
(edit conflict)Not sure if this warrents a reply. It looks like an attempt to stir trouble, but here goes:
1) There's never been a Queen Elizabeth of Lincolnshire, but she is still Queen there, and rules as Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
2) God Save the Queen is the national anthem of the United Kingdom. There is no national anthem of Lincolnshire, but still God Save the Queen is the national anthem of the UK.
3) That's your opinion. But the facts are there, and have references.
4) No. They have alot of weight, of course, but their interpretation is as good as anybody elses. It is us, the editors, who have to work out a consensus.
5) Cite your sources. Although Scotland does say it's a country in the first line. Go figure. Northern Ireland and Wales did not sign the Acts of Union!
Jza84: By comparing Scotland to an English county you are the one that is attempting to "stir up trouble". Johnnypict raises a perfectly reasonable point regarding Elizabeth being styled as "the second" despite the fact that she is the first Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. The kingdom of England ended with the treaty of union in 1707, thus, England has not had a monarch for over 300 years. Thus, the monarchs of the UK should be numbered from 1707 forward. Styling our current monarch Elizabeth "the second" implies that the kingdom of England continued after 1707 and that Scotland was merely incorporated into that Kingdom. This is not the case, as you well know. In other words, this is a very important issue and deserved much more attention than your arrogant and totally illogical dismissal above. Can you provide one good reason why the history and culture of England should be given absolute precedent over Scotland on matters such as this? Can you also explain your "Lincolnshire" analogy, please?--Palefire1983 (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The monarchs title is clear and not disputed by any offical institution of this country. She is Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and no debate on wikipedia is going to change that. I think a similar analogy would be the United States. Bush is the 43rd president of the USA in all 50 states despite them joining at different times.BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Your anology is wrong. There have been 43 presidents of a country called the United States. Only one Elizabeth has been Queen of the United Kingdom. When Scotland joined their crown with England's they were not joining a United Kingdom, they were forming it. In saying that, if there is another King James, he will be known as King James VIII, as of course Scotland had seven kings with that name. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It was an example in the same format of the lincolnshire analogy questioned by Palefire. However i will strike the comment because it has nothing to do with the debate. The monarch of this country is Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. No debate on wikipedia is going to change that and no offical institutions of this country dispute it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not debating it, only questioning the anology. It is correct to call her Queen Elizabeth II, because as I pointed out if there were ever another King James he will be King James VIII due to Scotland already having seven by that name. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a friend who claims to have a passport that says "Nationality- Scottish" on it...I always believed that they only ever said British Citizen, do these new "scottish passports" actually exist and is it notable? Gavin (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be notable if they existed; I'd be extremely surprised if they did, though - it would make the Scottish and even the UK news in a big way. Ask your friend to see their passport - I suspect they're either mistaken or joking.
At one time authentic looking covers were on sale that could be fitted over the real thing. It may have been one of those. BenMacDui 08:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I though that passports with Welsh or Scottish words were available? This press release implies they were going to be. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
See I have seen his passport before and if it had said Scottish I am sure I would have noticed it...however I may have just missed it- have no fear however it is my mission to find out if it is true...Gavin (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a friend who's a very ardent nationalist. He scored out "British" on his passport and wrote "Scottish" in its place. Such is the goodwill afforded to Scots around the world that he so far successfully entered most of the Balkan countries, Australia, and the US on this passport! – Kieran T(talk) 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I presume you mean in his passport. "British" doesn't appear on the cover. He's even removed British on pages 3 and 4 about 60 times, or else scored into the final page which would deface the passport. They'll still get him on biometrics though. :) --Jza84 | Talk 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Outwith v. outside
Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Opportunities_for_commonality: "Use an unambiguous word or phrase in preference to one that is ambiguous because of national differences." This guideline is perfectly clear. In a choice between "outwith" and "outside", "outside" is to be used because it is common to all varieties of English. It is not part of our remit, for example, to use local words lest they die out. And nor is it any argument to claim that it's clear from the context because (a) we can't possibly know this to be the case for all our readers, and (b) it is our job to make the meaning as clear as we can. ðarkuncoll 11:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Pity, I've always rather liked "outwith". Mr Stephen (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The word 'outwith' is hardly ambiguous. Furthermore, your interpretation of the policy suggests that no Scottish word should be used unless the situation demands it, which is not what the policy intends to create. By this token we should always use 'movie' in preference to 'cinema'. BenMacDui 18:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion on its ambiguity is just that - an opinion. The reader should not be forced to guess the meanings of words by context. "Outwith" and "outside" are both perfectly acceptable words in Scottish English. The latter also happens to be common to all varieties of English. Given Wikipedia policy as described at WP:ENGVAR, why is "outwith" used in this article, rather than "outside"? As for "movie" and "cinema" (which are not, incidentally, synonyms), all English speakers understand both of them, so either is fine. ðarkuncoll 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit lost - is "outwith" not standard English, too? I've just spent 18 months in New Zealand cheerfully referring to relatives who "live outwith Auckland", and no one's batted an eyelid. That could just be Kiwi good manners, though, I suppose... I always thought "within" and "outwith" were perfect English, and I didn't live in Scotland until I went to university.
Incidentally, the "to do list for Scotland" at the top of the page says "use Scottish English spellings" - assuming that "outwith" is solely Scottish English and that there's consensus not to use it, should the to do list be updated? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"Outwith" is not standard English in the United States, whereas "outside" is. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It's good style to always prefer the simple word over the complex. 'Outwith' is undoubtedly less well known than 'outside', and adds nothing to the meaning. Let's prefer simplicity. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
"Outwith" isn't standard for us English either... PS (to This Flag...): Note the first image on Scottish English! :) Best, --Cameron* 18:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
That image is entirely outwith the scope of this discussion... :-) Actually, I now need to thank my (Kiwi) colleagues for their efforts to tolerate not just my Glesga accent but my dodgy English too. Dammit!
Let's be absolutely clear: the word "outwith" is not ambiguous in the most commonly meant sense of having more than one meaning. It may be obscure, but that's not what the cited part of the MoS is talking about. If it happened that there was a difference between English and Scottish uses of "without", that would be another matter. On another point, when "outwith" is directly replaced with "outside", isn't it better to say "outside of"? I've not looked into the grammatical rule there, but it tends to scan better. – Kieran T(talk) 18:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Related to this, I mentioned above the "to do list for Scotland" - I'm tending towards requesting MoS guidance on this: is the use of Scottish English spellings acceptable? Under what circumstances? To my mind "outwith" is unambiguous, but I'm clearly basing that purely on personal opinion and observation.
If both outside and outwith are considered standard in Scottish English, why not use the one that is standard throughout the English-speaking world? I would think we would want the most clear sentence to all English speakers. This isn't the case where one word is used and the other is not; they both are used in Scotland. I have never heard outwith myself. Kman543210 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, one possible response is because one policy is to use the relevant English variant. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you (and I note the original post in this thread also cites MoS policy), I'm merely reiterating that it may be worth getting MoS guidance rather than arguing it out here and maybe discovering later that we're incorrect.
Incidentally, like while/whilst and jam/jeelie, outside and outwith have two distinct meanings: you would tell a child to "play outside", but you would then describe the child as being "outwith the house". Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this section, I'm not sure any more that there is even a disagreement. Is there anyone here who thinks that "outwith" is preferable to "outside" in this specific case? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
If there are editors who disagree, then I agree with User talk:This flag once was red that it might be worth it to get MoS guidance on this one. I don't think it's the exact same thing as the while/whilst situation because although whilst may be less common in North American English, it is sometimes used and definitely easily recognisable by all English speakers. Kman543210 (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I prefer 'outwith' to 'outside'. I may be 'splitting hairs', (as the expression goes), but 'outside' is the opposite of 'inside', whereas 'outwith' is the opposite of 'within'. Although outside/outwith and inside/within can be interchangeable in many phrases, I do believe they are not always interchangeable. I am sure the meaning is perfectly clear to readers who come across the article, and for any reader who may find it difficult to make sense of a word like 'outwith', articles are available which are written in 'Simple English' which they might find more straightforward. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Outwith is better - aside from it sounding better, its more appropriate and the meaning is clear. No need to dumb down the language if we don't have to --SnowdedTALK 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both Fishie and Snowded here. I don't think this is a problem. --Jza84 | Talk 23:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Slight misunderstanding about while/whilst - in Scottish English "while" can mean "until", e.g. "I'll wait while you're finished getting dressed". "Whilst" means the same as in other forms of English.
Oh, and add me to the "I prefer outwith"-camp. Outwith and outside are not interchangeable, as noted several times in this thread. This is an encyclopaedia; people use it to expand their knowledge. Learning new expressions, phrases, idioms, etc falls well within that remit.
Another mountain/molehill discussion. The Scotland article must be amazingly good if this is the number one issue that needs fixing. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Why does "outwith" sound better? To most English speakers, it is meaningless, and has to be guessed from the context. It is also potentially very ambiguous - if I said, "I'm out with my friends tonight", this would be how most English speakers would understand the term. We should not have to direct our readers to the Simple English Wikipedia to make sense of what we're saying. And, to correct another point above, the literal pairing of "within" is "without". Can someone please explain the different nuanced meaning of "outwith" and "outside" - especially in relation to the intended meaning of the term in this article? Incidentally, I'm from the West Midlands, but I wouldn't dream of using a term like "bin" in an article, for example, when I could just as easily write "are". What is the reasoning here? We should endeavour to eschew obfuscation, rather than promote it. ðarkuncoll 00:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The Standard Anglo-English (IKYWIM) counterpart of outwith is without, as in "There is a green hill far away, without a city wall ...". I expect that someone will be along in a minute who finds "without Scotland" equally objectionable, and why not? Angus McLellan(Talk) 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
As has been alluded to above, the MoS discussions from over the years do to some extent support using the relevant, local version. Also, to agree with a couple of the other posters, and answer the question from another, I support the position that "outwith" is preferable, because it's the counterpart of "within", whereas "outside" is indeed the counterpart of "inside". It is, yes, a mountain-out-of-a-molehill issue, but I'd argue that it's important to avoid suffocating linguistic variety: where one can use legitimate variety (of real, dictionary words), it aids readability by avoiding dull repetition, and it even encourages non-native speakers to learn and enjoy more of the language. Yes, there is an accessibility issue on the other side of that, and it must be weighed up. But over-simplification is patronising. – Kieran T(talk) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Outwith and out with are pronounced differently; outwith has a softer ending (un-aspirated?) The example you give, "out with my friends", couldn't occur with outwith; indeed, I'm struggling to think of any example where the two phrases could be used ambiguously. "I am outwith my friends" suggests you have been within your friends, which is improbably. Likewise, "I have friends outwith Scotland" is a possible phrase, but "I have friends out with Scotland" is not.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the pronunciation is completely irrelevant in writing. And it's also not true to say that the sentence - "I have friends out with Scotland" is meaningless. Imagine that you and your your friends happen to know a bloke named Scotland, and the sentence becomes imbued with meaning. Whether or not this is likely doesn't matter. For someone who doesn't know the word "outwith", all sorts of incorrect connotations might spring to mind unbidden, and the sentence might even read as gibberish. We cannot know that all our readers will be able to guess the meaning from context, and nor should we require them to. As I said, though a West Midlander, I would never use the local word "bin" instead of "are" in formal writing, and it really seems to me that "outwith" is only here for reasons of parochial regional pride. ðarkuncoll 10:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In writing the difference is even clearer - there's a space between the two words. This isn't a regional variation; it's a standard word in an accepted language without a clear translation in standard English (as noted previously, outwith and outside have distinct and separate meanings).
Whilst I understand the arguments, the simple fact is that it is not Wikipedia's job to promote linguistic diversity or local varieties - rather, it is our job to create articles with the maximum possible accesibility. If there was no alternative in Scottish English to "outwith" then the issue would be more complex, but there is - "outside" is a Scottish English word, and has the crucial advantage that it is also common to all other varieties of English. Whether or not its etymological opposite is "inside" as opposed to "within" is irrelevant - in the context of its use in this article, it is a precise match in meaning for "outwith". ðarkuncoll 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
That's well put, and I don't really disagree... but in a frustrating way, I think the MoS partially does, and that's the precedent I use to support me in promoting linguistic diversity. I mean that the MoS does in as much as it prefers the article's "local" English variant (US, Canadian, "British", Australian, Scottish, etc.) In fact, rather than to fight the corner for "outwith", I'm only replying to this at all, this time, to encourage people to engage with improving the MoS. It's a very unsatisfactory arrangement at the moment all around the language variant issue. Where an article doesn't have a natural variant, the first variant visibly used should be carried on; in other words, the first editor to use a variant-specific term gets to choose! Surely this must be the only Wikipedia rule that prioritises the editor above the content? – Kieran T(talk) 01:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The policy specifically refers to terms and spellings for which there are no alternatives common to all varieties of English - aeroplane/airplane, colour/color etc. If there are alternatives common to all varieties, these are to be prefered (see WP:ENGVAR). Since "outside" is perfectly good Scottish English, we should not use a different word that only has local currency. Our job is to inform in the most clear way available to us. ðarkuncoll 02:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is clearly no concensus to change 'outwith' as has been proposed. Let's just leave it as it is and move onto more important tasks. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
By pure co-incidence (and I haven't tampered with this!), I spotted "Outwith" in an "English" article. It appears in the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan page, under the heading Environs. :) --Jza84 | Talk 14:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
According to this, outwith is also used in the north of England. :-) Bill Reid | Talk 15:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Its use is confined to Scotland and Northern England. Since "outside" is also used in those areas, in addition to everywhere else in the English speaking world, it makes no sense whatsoever to use "outwith". If there were no local alternatives the situation would be different, but there are, so its use must be considered the be deliberately parochial. I simply can't understand how it can possibly be justified, except out of a misplaced sense of pride in one's own local dialect. What bin we trying to do here? ðarkuncoll 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, if there's genuinely a feeling that outwith is ambiguous and that readers might be confused then this should presumably be discussed elsewhere - we shouldn't be making a decision here that has repercussions across many other Scottish articles.
FWIW, I didn't know what outwith meant. My reason for not bringing it up in the past? my past experiences on this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
ENGVAR inevitably contains a degree of ambiguity and to an extent its strictures may be in conflict with one another. This discussion is essentially about the relative weight that should be placed on the "Strong national ties to a topic" section vs the "Opportunities for commonality" section. The former states that: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Now, I imagine we can agree that there is no Wikipedia article with stronger ties to the nation of Scotland (and let's not quibble about this phrase please) than the "Scotland" article. It is also likely that there are few if any words in common Scottish English use that do not have a close British or American equivalent. It therefore seems to me that this discussion about a single word, perhaps trivial in itself, is actually about the whole principle.
I don't know the history but I imagine ENGVAR was created in order to defuse tensions created when groups representing a majority or large section of Users attempted to enforce their version of English on all and sundry. It is quite possible that (for example) this involved US Users trying to enforce US spellings on UK articles. I doubt that many would now argue in favour of using US spellings or words on such - even although you could just as reasonably argue that they are a more common currency than the GB versions. The first principle therefore routinely over-rides the second. This seems to me to be a similar case. It is more-or-less inevitable that if colloquial words are used this may result in minor misunderstandings. (I occasionally come across US expressions in reviews that I don't understand. I simply ask if this is a common US expression or an error. No-one seems to mind.) If, however the second principle should over-ride the first in this case then this is in effect a statement that no Scottish English words should be used on Wikipedia - as in no other article can the "strong national ties" principle be greater. This strikes me as being entirely at odds with the intentions of ENGVAR, the opening statement of which is "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others are." BenMacDui 19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you Ben MacDui for elucidating the subtleties of that so well. I have nothing constructive to add to that except my wholehearted agreement! – Kieran T(talk) 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The nub of MacDui's argument is this:
'If, however the second principle should over-ride the first in this case then this is in effect a statement that no Scottish English words should be used on Wikipedia - as in no other article can the "strong national ties" principle be greater.'
This is not a valid inference. No Scottish English word should be used where there is an alternative word recognised in other Englishes and also recognised in Scottish English. This principle is as true for US and English English. Check the Scottish Parliament website, it uses site:scottish.parliament.uk "outside scotland" and site:scottish.parliament.uk "outwith scotland" about equally; so those claiming there is an important difference of meaning seem to be engaged in wishful thinking.
As a matter of interest how many other Scottish English words are in the firing line here? "Outwith" seems to me to be the sole standard-bearer in all debates of this type, like Australians who insist on saying "tomato sauce" instead of "ketchup". jnestorius(talk) 18:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
My (Scottish) family, and other (Scottish) families I know, always call it 'tomato sauce', so it ain't just the Aussies. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
My (English, bit of Welsh, and Chinese) family also call it 'tomato sauce', though they understand 'tomato ketchup' as well. Indeed, it isn't just Australians. DDStretch (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...okay. Anybody care to answer the question? jnestorius(talk) 23:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
On the "wishful thinking" point — that's also an invalid inference ( ;-) ) because the Parliament website cannot be presumed to be always correct, nor the arbiter of correctness, in its usage of the language. On the question of other Scottish English words... I think the answer is "none", in the sense that none are in the firing line right now, and won't be until somebody comes along with some suggestions. How often does somebody find one and be incapable of looking it up in a dictionary and coming away the wiser? I'm not being sarcastic: I think it's a common phenomenon of varieties of English that people check out a word (or more often a phrase) that they're unfamiliar with, learn from the experience, and then use it from time to time when they're trying to make their speech or writing more varied and interesting. I say this because I quite often find myself checking words in the dictionary before using them in Wikipedia, and thinking "oh, I didn't know that was {archaic/chiefly Scottish/chiefly English/chiefly of the US}". It's not the same as words with obvious variation like "boot" and "trunk" or "bonnet" and "hood"; I'm talking about words which are unambiguous in the sense that they have one obvious meaning. It's a fine line but the difference is that whilst it's crucial to use clear language, we can lose the ability to be clear and succinct if we over-simplify. Yes, it's not the job of Wikipedia to improve the usage of the language. But nor does it seek to treat the readership as uneducated or unintelligent. Bear in mind that the "simple English" language variant of Wikipedia also exists. – Kieran T(talk) 23:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
We should always use the clearer and more well-known variations of language on Wikipedia as a matter of course. I think that's part of trying to get and keep an article at Good Article or Featured Article standard, that it has to have internationally intelligible and clear language. We are an encyclopedia and we're here to give people info on a subject clearly, that's our job, any other considerations can go on a relevant wiki. StickyParkin 00:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Therefore (because I fear this point is going to be lost), I look forward to seeing you all over at the Manual of Style discussion page(s), to remove the ambiguity and missing or ill-directed elements from it. (Sincerely.) – Kieran T(talk) 01:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The point is though that "outside" is also perfectly good Scottish English. By using it we are using a variety of English appropriate to the subject of the article. This is not a conflict between Scottish English and some other variety. Rather, it's about choosing the best Scottish English word to convey our meaning. ðarkuncoll 11:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
(Hi Tharky! - long time) I'm fascinated by 'outwith'. I've ne'er heard of it, mon! But it sounds cool. We should keep it for it's coolness! I suppose, though, that if some English speakers like me have never heard of it, it ought not to be used. (That's not to say I don't love the word!) After all, if an Australian editor wrote 'the galah copped one when the sheila took a squizz at the googs', there might rather be a bit of confusion, what? --Gazzster (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The best (as in 'most accurate') English English translation of 'outwith' is not 'outside', but rather 'without', which can of course mean something else entirely (as can outside). The whole reason that Scots use the word 'outwith' is that it is a more elegant solution. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah!Interesting.--Gazzster (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that 'without' can mean "outside", as in the hymn lines "There is a green hill far away; Without a city wall", though this sense tends to get swamped with the meaning "not having" nowadays. DDStretch (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that finding the best Scottish English word is not the thing. The goal is to present the information in a way that is readily understandable to, at the very least, native speakers of English. Using local variations is about spellings and minor points of usage—things that may distract non-locals, but are still readily understandable. I'm an American, but I have no problem understanding "outwith", but I read and listen to a lot of British content. If readers are having trouble with the meaning of the word, we should take that seriously. I tend to think readers can figure it out from the context, so it should be left alone, but that should be the inquiry. -Rrius (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm a 55 year old American and never, ever heard the word "outwith" until a few months ago. I resent the suggestion that that makes me uneducated or unintelligent, and that I should confine myself therefore to the Simple English Wikipedia. Perhaps this was not meant as a disdainful characterization, but please, cut it out.
May I suggest that the offending phrase simply be changed to "particularly in other countries", or maybe even deleted? We don't have to turn this into an argument about policy, do we? --Unconventional (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the implication was that if you do not know the word, you are uneducated or unintelligent. Rather, I think the point is that anyone who can't either figure the word out or find its meaning, you may not even have a basic level of education or intelligence, making the simple English version a better fit. -Rrius (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
A few months ago you learnt something new. As a 50 year old I would be very pleased indeed if I learnt an English word I'd never heard of. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Changing the phrase is a good suggestion, and one I'd be very happy with. Your point about policy is well made, too - I've argued above that an issue that affects multiple articles should not be decided on one article's talk page.
I agree with Rrius that I don't believe the implication was that someone unfamiliar with the word "outwith" is uneducated etc; rather the expectation (which may be faulty) is that someone should be able to understand the word from its context. That's moot, however, if we modify the phrase, rather the word, and decide policy on the relevant policy pages (i.e. should Scottish English be used on Scottish articles and, just as importantly, should the banner at the top of Scottish talk pages be changed so that it does not recommend the use of Scottish English).
Articles should obviously be approachable to native English speakers from all around, but that does not mean draining them of all local colour. Local yet approachable words give us a touch of the flavour of the place without depriving us of the ability to comprehend the topic. It is hard to justify any individual word against the general-accessibility argument, so I would urge editors to look at this not as "outwith" versus "outside", but in the context of the wider argument I have discussed. -Rrius (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely. If you look at my earlier posts in this discussion, I'm very much in favour of "outwith". It's just that it clearly is an issue for some editors, and I'd prefer to find middle ground than drag this debate on and on.
Although I respect your views on the wider argument, I think there are special reasons to keep the focus on outwith vs. outside if this discussion must continue. I don't think anyone who grew up with outwith is really in a position to judge how easily its meaning can be inferred; they can't see it with innocent eyes. Speaking for myself, it was more troublesome than the average word with respect to inferring its meaning, because of interference from several sources: (1) the existence of the common collocation "out with" (I first considered outwith a possible typo), (2) its appearance as a compound of "out" and "with", both prepositions (as is outwith) so that either makes grammatical sense in context, (3) the familiar meaning of "with", which must be disregarded in this instance (as it is in within), and (4) the reluctance to believe that that there's a preposition we've never heard before (most new vocabulary consists of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs—content words, not function words). Also, its symmetry with within is not obvious because of the reversal of its components. And even when I "got it", the interference lingered and made me unsure of myself.
My view is that this particular word is very much the problem. I'd welcome almost any other regionalism as local colo[u]r, as long as it were easily understood from context. But outwith evokes too much analysis while attempting an inference from context. True, it takes only a minijiffy to grok it, but why make our readers stumble and ponder when it's unnecessary? (Yes, that was deliberate.) --Unconventional (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
If 'outwith' can provoke such a lengthy discussion, perhaps it deserves to have its own article - that would solve the 'problem' since we could then link the word to the article! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
There - sort of! - is: Outwith! It's a (soft?) redirect to Wiktionary; it even has its own talk page. I can't believe we didn't think of this sooner...!
I think in the short-term "outwith" should wikilink to Outwith; in the longer-term I'm still open to changing the phrase. I don't believe changing the word alone (i.e. to "outside") is desirable, since the two words have distinct meanings.
If 'outwith' can provoke such a lengthy discussion: Come on, Fishie, you've been to this talk page before; anything can provoke such a lengthy discussion. I'm surprised no one has been called a "nationalist" or "unionist". Cheers! -Rrius (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I blame all you "nationalist" and "unionists" for this. Oops, I've gone and done it. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Possible rewording of the opening paragraph
I know there has been a lot of debate in the past and that debate continues on the use of country to define Scotland and the other parts of the UK, but I have a moderate request which shouldn’t offend anyone on either side of this debate.
On the England wikipage it opens… “England is a country which is part of the United Kingdom” On the Wales page it opens.. “Wales is a country which is part of the United Kingdom” Northern Ireland is worded slightly differently “Northern Ireland is a country within the United Kingdom” All of these are almost identical, and it seems natural that Scotland’s page should start out by saying the same thing, but information is included about its location before mentioning it is part of the United Kingdom which adds to the confusion.
Would anyone have a problem with the opening line being “Scotland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom”? BritishWatcher (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The existing consensus on this and other pages was established after long debate with multiple citations. Unless you can introduce new evidence there is no reason to reopen the issue. --SnowdedTALK 05:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It gives the required information about the United Kingdom in the second sentence. Since I'm neither sure that we should be catering for people with such large deficits in their attention spans that they cannot see that the required information is already present in the first paragraph, nor do I consider that consistency is to be applied in such a rigorous way as to make all articles seem so identical, I see no real pressing reason to change the wording. This is especially the case as you have already seen the article about Northern Ireland does not adhere so closely to the wording chosen for the articles on England and Wales. Of course your reasons for proposing the change may not be the ones I have quoted, in which case, I apologise and invite you to state them if they are different. DDStretch (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand that it is mentioned afterwards, but it does not flow as well compared to the other wiki pages of Nothern Ireland, England and Wales. I accept Northern Irelands opening is slightly different but it is still in the same format as the other two. Considering the amount of people who make comments in the past and still currently on "Is Scotland a country" etc, if it read "Scotland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom" there would be less confusion, and almost certainly less objections. Those two things should surely be a benefit and possibly make it worthwhile to make the alterations. I dont want any information deleted, thats all good stuff. I just think "part of the United Kingdom" should be before describing Scotlands location in Europe and Britain. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
For the change, personally I agree. The only argument for the current situation seems to come from national pride rather than clarity for the reader, or improved accuracy. National pride is all very well, but not Wikipedia's concern. As to the issue of re-opening old debates: it's not always the case that new evidence is the only justification to re-open. Sometimes if long enough has passed, it's worth doing; if for example the previous debate found it hard to reach a consensus and/or had a lot of disruptive comments (not aiming that at anyone, it's just that they often do). – Kieran T(talk) 13:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
e/c At least BritishWatcher's comment here on Scotland's intro is to the point. I personally think that some kind of close-to uniformity across the UK articles would give people less fuel to question them. But its up the editors here, and I've never been one to insist on full uniformity. The intro is still clear, although I personally favour Countries of the United Kingdom over Subdivisions of the United Kingdom (which is linked to). Wales' intro isn't perfect either - but at least they are all understandable, and they use the word 'country' (whether 'constituent' or not), which people clearly expect.
Regarding the comment that previous editors have also questioned the status of UK countries, I've made a new section below. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What's an "e/c", please? 81.178.67.229 (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It means 'edit conflict' (DDStretch posted while I was still writing my comment). I should have removed it really, as I ended up reading his and slighly re-phrasing my comment anyway. It's normally used if you either haven't got time to read the previous commet, or adjust your own to deal with it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Note to (and about) single purpose 'UK country' accounts
To all WP:SPA's on this matter: The UK is a sovereign state, and if the UK says that Scotland (etc) is a country, then you simply must accept that they say it (whatever you yourself feel). If you argue that only the UK is sovereign, you must also accept the UK's direction on what constitutes a country: the UK calls us "countries within a country".
Editors note: Next section remains on Talk:Scotland*
Many, if not most, of those previous editors who sporadically pop up and comment on the UK countries 'country' status, have been 1) prone to trolling, 2) proven as sockpuppets (ie as the same as people), 3) resoundingly disproven and quietened. Why would anybody periodically comment "Wales is a country!"? You will only ever get the opposite from time to time, and for all the hoo-ha, it is very infrequent, and if it ever is a genuine question, it is very often gone in a flash. Persistent editors are a tiny minority, who all fail WP:REDFLAG in Wikipedia’s policy.
Having said all that, despite being such a minority, those people can actually cause quite a lot of disruption, and great deal of wasted time. Nobody likes being made to repeatedly prove themselves when they have done it before, and can fully back themselves up - that partly is why people get genuinely offended by this. The is why there is the UKCOUNTRYREFS section within the Countries of the United Kingdom article - it is intended to save a lot of people's time.
In future, if simultaneous new WP:SPA accounts pop up on the UK countries issue (which is everyone's nightmare regarding this, I think), I'll put it to Arbcom that we need an article (whatever it is) that can be out forward to such editors, and ultimately made to be respected via a ruling. It will stop people going around the same number of articles repeating themselves while flatly ignoring or dismissing the comments of others. I'm not suggesting censorship (and everyone is entitled to their opinion), just somewhere to alert people of - and if necessary, somewhere to rule on people - who carry on effectively disrupting after being pre-warned. Per Arbcom's normal policy, it would be judged on a case by case basis, depending on how each editor has behaved and is behaving. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
*
Matt, first of all i just want to say again i am not the person who has previously posted on this page or caused trouble in the past. This issue concerns me alot but it is not the main reason why I registered and it will not be the only topic i wish to get involved with. I do not seek to stir up trouble, cause endless debate or offend anyone. I respect people have different views on definitions and i do not intend to try and just get my own way, I want compromise that suits the majority.
On the issue of country, i have a specific view of what that means but I fully accept others think differently and I respect a decision has been made and there is a lot of evidence to back it up that Scotland and the other parts of the UK should be called “Country” However I don’t want this to confuse people that Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom (which is why I suggested the moving “is part of the UK” to before all the text on Scotland’s location in Europe / Britain)
There is an ongoing debate on the Subdivision/countries of the UK page, once an outcome is reached on that, there will have to be a further edits to these pages anyway. I don’t have a hate for the term country, it is simply confusion created in relation to the United Kingdom. I agree that “countries of the UK” sounds a lot better and more accurate than the subdivision page.
In my view the best solution to the problem would be to use the term Scotland is a “country of the United Kingdom” (linking to the correct page) rather than “country” which links to the general country page. That would address the concerns of those who disagree with the term country at the same time as making it clear Scotland is a country.
Again I am sorry if I have offended anyone, that was not my intention. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a template at the top of this page that talks about perennial issues raised (though it refers to them by "Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views"). It would probably help considerably if the specific same arguments and views ("perennial arguments" in fact) were summarized in a FAQ page (as noted), and a link placed to them. The template might be better off being more prominent, though I imagine it is almost as prominent as is feasible now without being obtrusive. Such a FAQ could be usefully placed on all the relevant pages and might contain links to UKCOUNTRYREFS and so on. I think Matt's idea of trying to enlist ARBCOM on this if further single purpose accounts arise might be a useful way forward, and I would support such a move under the terms he suggests, because what he wrote about in terms of the time wasted and potential disruption such questions create for all sides concerned can be very tedious. DDStretch (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I would also support enlisting ARBCOM, the sheer number of single purpose accounts is becoming problematic and there are clear links to other related issues (the name of the Irish State, ARBCOM rulings on the Troubles etc) that need to be handled. --SnowdedTALK 14:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll support anyone who wanted to go ahead with it, whenever it would be. I'd probably find it hard to find the time in normal circumstances. I'm desperately trying to focus on one thing at the moment, but country issues keeps pulling me elsewhere. I'll certainly do it we suddenly get inundated with problematic SPAs.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Population & Aera Ranking
Why dont we put a Ranking for Scotland in, The World & the United Kingdom, for the Population & Aera. Like ... --Cyrusmilleyhannana (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The motto clearly shows that it is In My Defens God Me Defend, which is true but isnt the Motto also Nemo Me Inpune Lacessit (No one provokes me with inpurty). --Cyrusmilleyhannana (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Royal coat of arms of Scotland show again
On the Wales & Scotland artices, the coat of arms were removed becuase apparently they were for the Kingdom of Wales & Scotland. England's coat of arms also for the KINGDOM of England were not removed. Currently wales shows nothing bar there flag. Scotland shows there flag & royal standard. That royal standard brings down the Scotland article. I think that the coat of arms should be put back on BOTH Articles to make it fare. If england can have it well so can the other 2. --Cyrusmilleyhannana (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I think they should be removed from all the home nations. That's just my very high value opinion though. :) --Jza84 | Talk 01:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
On Wales we agreed to put it in the government section, but not the information box. I think that makes sense and if there is any controversy I would remove them. --SnowdedTALK 12:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I Think either it is removed from the England page or the coat of arms are put back on Scotland --Cyrusmilleyhannana (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Then you will have to choose which page (or pages) you want to make a reasoned proposal on. Simply offering us your thoughts and implying some bargaining process between two pages is not enough. --SnowdedTALK 14:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well if England can show theres well Wales & Scotland should too. Just put the coat of arms back on to make fair play. Somepepole in Scotland & Wales might feel a bit upset about this --Cyrusmilleyhannana (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop wasting people's time (and learn to indent). If you want to make proposals do them on the relevant page if you feel strongly about it. I can confidently predict the idea will be rejected on Wales given that it has already been discussed. --SnowdedTALK 16:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The basic fact of the matter is that Eng, Scot, Wal and NI do not have identical status within the Union, including unequal status in heraldic terms. Roughly-speaking Scotland has the most autonomy, NI next, Wales next, and England usually has precisely zero autonomy/recognition. This varies however from topic to topic. In terms of flags for example it is NI that has least recognition (officially: no recognition), and in terms of heraldic symbols, Scotland's get the most use/recognition (including official), followed by England's. Arguably neither Wales nor NI have a heraldic device.
Different again when one looks at legal systems, transport, law-making powers, education systems, media, etc, etc, etc, nearly ad infinitum.
I think that it would be more useful if Wikipedia explained the (very complicated) multi-layered, asymetrical nature of the UK's constitution, rather than trying to pretend that the constituent parts are somehow all equal. They are not. I suppose that a table clearly laying out different key areas at the Countries of the UK article might help sort out this non-sensical "levelling" that crops up repeatedly.--Mais oui! (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
well the page is protected so therefore i cant do it. Heres the coat of arms for maybe someone else to do for me. --Cyrusmilleyhannana (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Ya gotta be kiddin me... jeesh! EndrickShellycoat 19:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I know, it's a shocker! Cyrusmilleyhannana is currently blocked, in part for Nimbley6-style editing on Scotland. The user page is interesting, a vision of what this article might quickly become if semi-protection was lifted.
I initiated a Request for Checkuser in order to link Cyrusmilleyhannana with other Nimbley6 socks - no response yet, though.
It has been a couple of days since anybody replied to my request for a possible change to the opening paragraph of the Scotland article, there were no arguments made against the actual idea (from what I could tell) just a fear of opening up old arguments which have clearly plagued this issue for some time. I know it may be easier just to avoid going down this path again, but I think the editors of Wikipedia have a duty to ensure the article is as accurate and understandable as possible and is supported by the majority of people. After reading through some of the archives which dealt with this issue, I am sure my view on this matter is shared by others.
Let me be clear, this request is NOT about if Scotland is a country. My original view, based on my opinion of the term “Country” was wrong and I accept that. After reading the different definitions of the term, reading the sources listed on the Countries of the United Kingdom page and other research. I fully agree that Scotland is a Country and there is no better way of describing Scotland, England and Wales. My concern is simply the way the first paragraphs opening is worded.
“Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom and shares a land border to the south with England.”
My problem is the fact Scotland (whilst being a country) is still part of the United Kingdom and because of this I think the opening line should lead with that explanation to try and avoid any possible confusion that some people may have when reading the article. Here are some of the reasons why I think there is justification for a change.
Reduce confusion and possibly reduce the number of arguments in the future on this issue.
Whilst articles on Wikipedia do not have to be identical there is a uniformed approach on the opening of certain topics. It is standard practice for articles on countries to lead with “France is a country”, “Germany is a country” etc (with the exception of Taiwan for obvious reasons). Because of this and peoples view on the definition of “Country” some will think this refers only to Sovereign States and not everybody clicks the links to read the explanations. It is there for important that the status of Scotland’s sovereignty is dealt with all at once before moving onto geographical information. A good example in my opinion would be Greenland (which I am sure many of the people there view as their country) opens with “Greenland is a self-governing Danish Province” dealing with its status before going onto its location.
It would also be helpful if all 4 parts of the United Kingdom had similar openings, the other 3 do and in my opinion more clearly define the situation to prevent confusion.
Wales is a country which is part of the United Kingdom
England is a country which is part of the United Kingdom
Northern Ireland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom
The wording for the Wales page was decided in a long debate which has been archived. This included the recommendation by Keeper76 during informal mediation that the article should open “Wales is a country within the United Kingdom” After further discussion, consensus was reached that it should open “Wales is a country which is part of the United Kingdom”. found at Talk:Wales/Archive country poll
Talk:Scotland/Archive 20 when a debate took place on the opening paragraph shows support from different people on the fact United Kingdom should be included after calling Scotland a country.
It is for the above reasons I wish to see a change to this article. There are a couple of ways of rewording it in my opinion,
First would be to follow the example of the other 3 parts of the United Kingdom so the opening would read.... “Scotland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom” with “part of” linking to the Subdivisions or countries of the UK page which would be the easiest option.
Or second, “Scotland is a Country of the United Kingdom" I believe this second version would be more accurate but I accept this would be more controversial
I would be happy with either of the above if a consensus could be reached or other suggestions that people have on how to reword the opening paragraph. I strongly believe the current version does need to be a change, so I look forward to reading peoples opinions on this issue. If consensus is reached then this should be put to a vote within the next few days and if no serious objections are made, I would hope a change can take place. I accept that I am new to Wikipedia but this is not a valid argument simply to dismiss my suggestion. If consensus can not be reached then informal mediation or referring this to the Arbitration Committee as mentioned before by Matt is the only option. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry can you tell me what i did wrong? Phoenix agreed with my concerns on this issue over on the talk page for Countries of the UK. Did i break a rule? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
More not bothering to read - look at the comments from DDstretch BW, read it, think about it. --SnowdedTALK 14:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou Mr Stephen for the link. Just to clarify i sent one message to one person as we had been talking about this issue on the Countries of the UK talk page not that long ago. I did not even ask for them to come on post on here, i simply asked them to take a look and let me know what they think. Snowded, i reject the claim that i have not read previous comments on this page by DDstretch and others. The fact there has been no further posts on this talk page for over 2 days led me to make the above post explaining the problem in more detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
⬅ My proposal, given that no new evidence has been raised and the matter has been discussed many time before, there is no reason to reopen the debate. --SnowdedTALK 15:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the most reasonable contribution from BritishWatcher I have read yet. Could I suggest as a compromise, (and as a way to prevent this debate rolling on and on), that the first two lines could be changed from “Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom and shares a land border to the south with England.” to “Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that is part of the United Kingdom. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, sharing a land border to the south with England.” Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wouldn't object to that (its the same as elsewhere), but neither would I object if the various editors on this page simply wanted to leave the lede as it is. Too many "new" editors raising variations of this theme on all the country pages. --SnowdedTALK 17:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou for the comment and suggestion Fishie, that compromise would satisfy me as all the information would then still be in the first line. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It is an interesting feature of the article that of late so many comments on this page have been about the lead and infobox. We must all bring whatever strengths we have to the discussions, but personally, I would have a lot more time for these interpolations if they were being made by editors who have a history of making positive contributions to the content as a whole. Personally, I can see no value in tinkering with the lead - I doubt that any solution is going to completely satisfy every reader, and there are much higher priorities in my book. BenMacDui 17:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It matters not at all if an editor is a long-term contributor to an article, if their suggestion is a good one; it's all about the content. The only time it matters is when the editor seems deliberately disruptive, which isn't the case here. I completely agree, though, that there are more pressing matters. But since this one has arisen again, why not get it right? Personally I find Fishiehelper2's suggestion to be really neat, and support changing to it. – Kieran T(talk) 17:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
If there are readers out there who can't read beyond the first sentence then wikipedia, or any book/pamphlet, is not for them. I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but is there anyone reading this second sentence? I'm trying to prove a point that not all the information needs to be crammed in. I believe the lede is fine as it is. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There are all sorts of arguments coming out here, but they're straying from the point. To stay on-topic: is anybody actually arguing that the existing text is better than the new proposal? If so, in what ways, please? – Kieran T(talk) 18:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It is those who wish to change the text that have to argue that the new proposal is better. If the argument is that it makes it clearer that Scotland is part of the UK, then I refer you to my previous post. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not answering the question. I'm not disputing how to raise consensus. So, again, on the actual topic in hand, have you an opinion? On what's wrong with the new one, if you prefer that to what's right with the old one. I'm asking if there is any content-based (rather than procedure-based) reason not to go ahead and be bold and make the change. Your previous post appears to be about the concentration-span of readers, not the position of Scotland in the UK. (The fact that readers should read more than one sentence, to reiterate a previous point of mine, does not justify an unclear opening sentence.) – Kieran T(talk) 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Broadly agree - I'm happy with the lede as it currently stands and see no reason to change it. However, much of the fascination with the infobox (and the lede?) recently has been from the page's resident troll. I do not believe that BritishWatcher is an incarnation of the troll.
(I've just woken up, and am playing catch up - I'll give BritishWatcher and Fishiehelper2's proposals more thought before commenting further).
I too have a proposal to make concerning the opening section. Whenever a change has been made to it which has agreement, there should be an interval of at least 6 days (I'd prefer 6 months but that appears to be wishing for the moon) before any more changes are made to it. This will have the benefit of allowing the article to improve rather than being stuck in an endless rut of trivial tweaking. Who's in favour ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Derek, you are being mischievious. You know fine well that the type of User and associated socks that makes these "suggestions" regarding the infobox or introduction have not got the slightest interest in the actual topic or the substantive body of the article. Certain types of User and associated socks are only interested in f***ing about with the lead sentence of key Wikipedia articles. They are best ignored and sidelined by the community.
We established editors know the Users who have brought the actual body of the article up to its present high standard. Funnily enough, whenever these established, trusted, knowlegable Users contribute to these pathetic Talk page tussles over the lead paragraph they are shouted down as "nationalists". Ho hum. Let's just ask ourselves which type of "nationalist" is doing most harm/good to Wikipedia? British nationalists or Scottish ones? (No reply required: that is a rhetorical question.) --Mais oui! (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Mischievous? Chalk it up to old age, exasperation and a natural urge to comment on the ridiculous. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Note to Admins: this type of behaviourinspires confidence. Mais oui!as you see I actually asked to be kept informed and BritishWatcher was being nice and respecting my request. Nothing wrong with that and it was actually very helpful of him/her. As for Fishiehelper2's counter proposal I don't know why we cant just say “Scotland is a country in the United Kingdom located in northwest Europe. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, sharing a land border to the south with England.” but if people prefer “Scotland is a country in northwest Europe that is part of the United Kingdom. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain, sharing a land border to the south with England.” that is better than what is currently shown and I would agree to that change :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with your suggestion. But there's nothing wrong with what's there at the moment either. In fact there was nothing wrong with the last few suggestions which we agreed on. And I'm sure there's nothing wrong with many other suggestions that could be made (and almost certainly will be made sooner or later). However there is something very wrong if we keep changing to someone else's pet suggestion every five minutes just because they're new to Wikipedia and didn't take part in the last pointless multi-page discussion over the words used in the opening. So let's just leave it alone, please. If you want to work on the article, pick one of the other sections. I'm sure that they can do with some work too. And you'll receive our grateful thanks instead of making us roll our eyeballs to the heavens. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well said, and the same applies to the same issue on Wales and England as well. --SnowdedTALK 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I have been involved in pointless discussions on this page before (and the last one forced me to take a rather long wiki break just to recover) but what I cannot understand is, if it is obviously something that's brought up time and time again then why shouldn't we change it? It may change in minute details but it always seams to say "Scotland... country in europe... near the sea... (a few paragraphs later) oh yea its in the UK". Why can we never just state the fact that "Scotland is in the UK" all in the same intro sentence? It's a simple change and if you agree then why not get this solved quickly and move on to the more pressing matters that you mentioned? I'd be happy to help, just lets get the simple task solved first. -- Phoenix (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Phoenix, "Scotland is in the UK" is not mentioned a few paragraphs later, its mentioned in the second sentence. You are the second editor who has missrepresented this fact. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe because once an issue has been debated and a solution agreed, having the subject re-introduced every few months is considered by many editors to be a waste of time, or evidence of an agenda (either unionist or nationalist depending on the minority position reasserted). --SnowdedTALK 05:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You may not believe me but my argument is not nationalistic nor unionistic (?). The intro is offensive due to its illogical nature and not complying with standards that any and all would agree are sensible for an encyclopedia and are even present on other pages in wikipedia. I know these are strong words but it is easy to show.
encyclopedia britannica : most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom, occupying about one-third of the island of Great Britain. The name Scotland derives from the Latin Scotia, land of the Scots, a Celtic people from Ireland who settled on the west coast of Great Britain...
encarta : Scotland, one of the four national units that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The other units are England, Northern Ireland, and Wales. Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, and Glasgow is...
encyclopedia.comScotland [L Scotti, Irish]. Constituent country of the United Kingdom, occupying 30,405 square miles in northern Great Britain. Slightly smaller than Ireland, it has the largest population of all...
citizendium.orgScotland is a nation of 5 million people that comprises one of the four countries of the United Kingdom.[1] Located in the north west of Europe, Scotland occupies the northern third...
If other encyclopedias agree to this simple standard and if inside wikipedia we use similar standards to describe sub national entities (I have given examples before) then why is this article not following the encyclopedic and academic standard put forth? -- Phoenix (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Its your opinion that the introduction is "offensive" and "illogical". This type of pejorative language which is unjustified by the text really does not help. The current text is accurate, does not mis-represent Scotland as anything other than a part of the UK. It does not contradict the citations you give, indeed it uses elements of them. What your citations show is there are several ways in which the countries of the UK can be described. I think you are illustrating the concern of other editors of these every 1-3 month debates that occur in which editors come in with agendas to emphasis the UK (or sometimes to de-emphasise it) and make extreme statements about a previous consensus based position with little support. --SnowdedTALK 11:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I'm sympathetic to editors who are aggrieved by constant interference in their articles (...) this is still being turned into a debate about editing the article, rather than the content. The only soapbox being espoused here is that some nameless people have hidden agendas like nationalism. No hidden agenda itself has been demonstrated on this occasion. Surely one should either debate the content or stand back if bored of it, and not criticise other people who are interested in the discussion; presume good faith. If both are equally valid opening sentences, then why not let those who want to, change them — in doing so, the argument would fizzle out. – Kieran T(talk) 13:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Personally I'd love to just let anyone tweak the opening sentences without comment. Unfortunately experience has shown that this leads to revert after revert by the easily offended. Which doesn't please anyone. That's why we're currently going down the discussion route one more time. But the discussion route is only really worth going down if it leads to a resolution to the problem. And so far (4 years and counting) it doesn't seem to have. So we've tried "anything goes" and that hasn't worked. We've tried "agreement on the content" and that hasn't worked. That's why I'm suggesting that we try "occasional changes". In other words we resolve not to discuss this more than once a year (or whatever). Let's see if that works. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been here for just over a month, so that means I've discussed it on average, erm, let me see now, yep, that would be once a month. I now promise not to discuss it for at least a year, see you all then. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Good man, Titch ! Your barnstar is in the post! -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The whole reason I have made any comments in the least is because it does not follow a logical standard that is used for encyclopedias. You wont believe me, thats fine, but if you can see that there is an inconsistency that I have proven above, and if the new version is actually ok as you have said before then why the argument? You wished for evidence I have given evidence from actual peer reviewed encyclopedias, is that not evidence? I would say it is. So lets make this great article better and use the logical encyclopedic standard set forth having the first sentence essentially saying "Scotland is the most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom" or variation therein. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Shall I assume that due to evidence of encyclopedic inconsistencies and since even those that challenged to the idea did not oppose the suggestion, that we can bring the intro section to the standard shown by the other countries in the UK? -- Phoenix (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Please do! – Kieran T(talk) 22:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The language of the current lede does not contradict the other Encyclopaedia entries you quote, indeed it contains all the information if in a different order. This has already been pointed out. I have no objections to conformity with Wales and Scotland but you do not yet have any consensus for that change on this page. You have now (for the first time) made a new proposal which removes country completely (four parts) and that I oppose. Overall I think its best left alone, it took a long time to agree the current words and its only you and one other editor who are pushing for a change. You can of course propose a specific wording and see what support you get on a quick poll. However for the avoidance of doubt you do NOT yet have agreement for a change. --SnowdedTALK 00:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The argument is specific and not general. It is not to make a new proposal which removes country completely (four parts) and that I oppose I have no clue where you got that suggestion. It is to follow encyclopedic standards pointed above and follow the standards followed in other UK subdivisions i.e. Name is a country which is part of the United Kingdom. (Notable geographic & political borderings)
Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann, Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann) is a country which is part of the United Kingdom, lying in the northeast of Ireland, covering 5,459 square miles (14,139 km²), about a sixth of the island's total area. It shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. At the time of the UK Census in April 2001, its population...
Personally I think that Wales has the best version. So why does this article not follow that standard? Why does it not use the encyclopedic standard that says that Scotland is a part of the UK within the first sentence? That is the Crux of this issue and the reason that I am involved in this debate. I have provided encyclopedic evidence of this inconsistency can we now correct this and follow the standard provided above? -- Phoenix (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I think so. You make a good case. It's not political, its best practice where I'm standing. --Jza84 | Talk 01:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you. At least someone realizes that I have no hidden motive and actually reads what I am saying and showing for what it actually is. Thanks Jza. -- Phoenix (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Your motives hidden or otherwise are yours. I have no objection to the same form as Wales but I would object to your ""Scotland is the most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom". I would equally support a consensus of editors who wanted no change given the amount of work which went into the current version, which is accurate. Issuing judgements that other people are failing to be encyclopedic does not help your cause. --SnowdedTALK 06:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It has now been 5 days since i outlined the reasons why i think a change is justified. I have followed the above debate closely and would now like to put this to the vote. I agree with the suggestion made by FishieHelper on the possible wording and from what i could tell nobody had an objection to the actual wording proposed.
Support as proposer for the reasons stated in my previous posts, i feel its important that "part of the United Kingdom" is mentioned in the opening sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I don't feel that Scotland is defined by it's position within an entity that has existed for a fraction of the time that Scotland has existed. Scotland's position in the UK is of interest, but not of primary interest compared to, say, geographic location, population or pronunciation. I'm happy with the current wording. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose - not only the proposed politicisation of the opening (in common with the recent imposition of a political, rather than a geographical, map in the Infobox), but also this pathetic voting nonsense. For a "new" User BritishWatcher's edit record is rather remarkable. You would gain far more respect if you were upfront about your record at Wikipedia. I strongly suspect that this is a sock-/meatpuppet of a banned (or highly discredited) user. Several Users spring to mind, mostly Ulster-associated.--Mais oui! (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Question: If this proposal achieves consensus will the proposer stop wasting his/her time and everyone else's and actually contribute to, and improve, this and other articles? Daicaregos (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If the proposed change takes place, i will have no disagreement with the opening paragraph of this page or the openings of the other pages linked with the United Kingdom and i will defend the article and its wording, because it will be clear to all readers. I want to get on and improve other articles and contribute in any way i can. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
When I asked if you would actually contribute to, and improve, this and other articles, I meant things like, creating article, expanding stubs, finding references/citations, improving spelling & grammar, correcting Wikilinks, researching subjects like geography, science & economics, etc. I didn't mean will you be able to "get on and improve other articles and contribute in any way i can" by continuing to create political conflict on the talk pages or by doing things like trying to remove the Scottish flag from List of flags by country, or trying to keep Scotland from being represented as a country on List of Countries. Daicaregos (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The list of countries page has reached consensus and its going to be redirected to another page anyway. I did not see the need for a list of flags by country page as all flags are available on a similiar page as well. I have no problem with the Scotland flag or other flags of the United Kingdom, my main concern was it be under the UK flag or atleast mention they were part of the United Kingdom to avoid confusion of others who do not know the setup of the United Kingdom. The issue of the United Kingdom and country pages has not been the only thing i have been commenting on or making edits to over the past two weeks, but i accept its one of the main issues i have focused on which is why i wanted to see these things resolved so i can move on to other things. I doubt there is much i could add or contribute to on this Scotland page as the people here know alot more about Scotland than myself, but yes i will certainly be doing the things you mention on other pages. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that BritishWatcher is indeed another user (I haven't read the past discussions to find out who he/she is speculated to be)... Does it really matter? As WP:SOCK#LEGIT shows it is perfectly fine for another user to create an account and people have the right to a Clean start under a new name, as long as they don't abuse this right as far as wikipedia is concerned it is ok. Not trying to open up a debate just mentioning that :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose for reasons stated above. I am also suspicious of our new editor who is refusing (claiming lack of memory) to disclose his/her previous user name but has become instantly active on many many pages. --SnowdedTALK 10:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong support: A consistent approach across the home nations, as well as mirroring the content in most other encyclopedias, gazetteers and textbooks, and will be the approach most familliar and expected by our readers. Remember, as stated in MOS, "consistency promotes professionalism". Do we actually have a source that "Scotland is a country in northwest Europe", as is being touted?? Because, I think not, and that's important really. On a more personal note, I'd be much more keen to engage with this article if it got to grips with what it is; to me it reads as if it is compromised. The status quo is based on no source material, no real world practice, and, it seems, no real logic or arguement beyond diminishing/increasing the status of certain places with weasely type wording and grammar. The proposal is a clear, familliar, professional, properly tiered soloution to what is a recurring problem. --Jza84 | Talk 12:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong support: Per Jza84 above and points I have made before. One note, I would rather it say: "Scotland is a country which is part of the United Kingdom..." (by removing the in northwest Europe comment and placing it later in the paragraph) This would be consistent and it keep in line with the MOS used in the other articles. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
weak oppose. It is not a terrible idea, but my main objection for that actual line is due to the fact that it was a compromise at Wales after mediation, and always temporary as far as I was concerned - which I made clear when I voted in the small sock-ridden vote. It brought in the idea of a piped-'UK countries' article (a very good idea from DDStretch via the mediating admin), but simply appeases the sock puppets (esp Wikipeire) and a known contentious editor, who I won't mention, but who comes to Wales from 'Scotland' (if you know what I mean) to 3RR over it when it suits him. I'm just not accepting that - sorry. The line didn't come out of anything actually 'positive' (by which I mean in a positive creative sense), and I do not wish to see the format made stronger at Wales by seeing it being used at Scotland as well. I personally would support the "is a country of the United Kingdom format". Or "is a country of the United Kingdom", if the former is objected to here. I not one for imposing on Scotland particularly, but I'm not having this effect Wales. Will change ot strong oppose if I have to.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Support with amendment per Phoenix — though as has been pointed out by Mais Oui!, this is a straw poll and not an officially significant vote. All I can usefully add here, given the suspicion that's flying around, is that anybody is welcome to check my contribution history to see I'm a genuine editor in a wide range of fields, and no sockpuppet. There may or may not be any consensus, but it's cheap to try to make gains for either point of view by tarring the majority of the opponents with that brush. – Kieran T(talk) 14:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. As with many others, I'm not against the wording of the proposal. It is the fact of the proposal I oppose. The proposer thinks that s/he has demonstrated "...the reasons why i think a change is justified.", but I'm not convinced that any change is justified so soon after the hard fought compromise agreement to the opening paragraph. If this proposal is accepted it is highly likely that further changes will be proposed in next to no time. We should leave it as it is. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
"hard fought compromise". That would be an understatement, with quite literally hundreds of thousands of words of debate archived on this subject over the previous 6 months. I don't know why anybody is bothering with the "vote", given that 1. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and 2. It is driven by a textbook case of an SPA. SFC9394 (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Good enough is good enough. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Many of us have made our positions clear over the last few years of debating this issue. So please do not ignore the opinions of those who have contributed to the debate but not to this vote if using it to determine whether there is consensus for this change. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment - If I am correct the general surmise of this opposition is not against the wording of the proposal but most either are suspicious of our new editor, find the fact of the proposal [to] oppose, while others feel Good enough is good enough... How is that encyclopedia behaviour? Evidence from actual encyclopedias have been shown supporting the proposal. MOS from other articles in wikipedia both sub national entities within the UK and within other sovereign states have been given. If we are to treat this article like a serious academic work. Should we not use standards followed and set forth by the best the English language has to offer? -- Phoenix (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
You keep asserting this "encyclopaedia evidence argument Phoenix, and I'm afraid its just not accurate. Different ones use different words none of which are incompatible with the current wording. This judgemental statements (serious academic work) really don't help you know nor the assumptions of other people's motivations above. The might respect the fact that for a lot of editors having this subject being brought up again and again with no new arguments is tiresome to say the least. --SnowdedTALK 13:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that that's the basis of my (weak) opposition; I'm neither suspicious of any editors participating in this !vote, nor do I feel that "good enough is good enough". I believe there's nothing wrong with the current wording, and I have concerns (noted above) about the proposed new wording. I'm also unconvinced by arguments about other encyclopaedias; while we shouldn't necessarily ignore the different approaches employed by other encyclopaedia I do believe we should slavishly follow a perceived common approach - and I don't necessarily acknowledge a common approach by the 4 encyclopaedias listed, in any case. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Well the encyclopedia evidence that I have shown is this Sub National entity's name (some information) (some words signifying within) sovereign-states name. This all occurs within the same sentence. It is the WP:MOS also followed within wikipedia and there is a set standard currently in use with all the other UK articles, thus the current proposal to bring in line with the other UK MOS' shown. Snowded I hope that answers your questions. Was Red I am glad that you don't believe that we should just ignore evidence shown. But I do hope that both of you can see the evidence I have brought up does show a consistent approach to the intro section. This being an encyclopedia, I know that we are doing our best to avoid WP:SYN and that we're trying to make this Scotland article the best it can be :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
p.s. are there some other encyclopedias (passing WP:V & WP:RS) sources supporting the current use? i.e. UK mentioned later in another sentence? -- Phoenix (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think you're overstating the similarities between the 4 different encyclopaedias you listed. The manual of style - so far as I can see - advocates internal consistency, not consistency across 4 articles on similar topics. I don't see the current wording as being any less - or any more - consistent with the 4 encyclopaedias you listed: for example, the current wording here, and on encyclopedia.com, has the pronunciation first - the other three don't. Encarta has no mention of Scotland's (physical) geographic location; the other four do. I'm unconvinced that there's any "standard" across encyclopaedias, nor that we should be unduly concerned about the current wording being inconsistent. I see nothing in the Manual of Style to suggest that we should copy, say, Wales, still less Encarta. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
(indent) you really don't wish to concede a point do you? Do you really think that Every encyclopedia will have the same wordings throughout the article? That would be plagiarism as I am sure you are aware. But there is a running consistency within these different publications that every encyclopedia does when talking about a sub national entity within a sovereign state... The sovereign states name is listed within the first sentence.
encyclopedia britannica : most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom, occupying about one-third of the island of Great Britain.
encarta : Scotland, one of the four national units that make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
encyclopedia.comScotland [L Scotti, Irish]. Constituent country of the United Kingdom, occupying 30,405 square miles in northern Great Britain.
citizendium.orgScotland is a nation of 5 million people that comprises one of the four countries of the United Kingdom.
These are valid quotes showing what is the standard, not only for other sub-national entities but what they have done regarding Scotland specifically. Also if you are to read MOS:BEGIN you will see that is states.
The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?"
This is what the article misses. As of right now it states that Scotland is a country in northwest Europe. Well that does not remove ambiguity only adds them in. Would I say that Stuttgart is a city in Western Europe? While that is factually correct it leads too much ambiguity. What should be said is Stuttgart (IPA:[ˈʃtʊtgaɐ̯t]) is the capital of the state of Baden-Württemberg in southern Germany. and that is exactly what is written. Please lets remove ambiguity and get this article back on track, because if this article fails on the first sentence how can we possibly get this article to FA status? -- Phoenix (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The vote is fairly split with 6 opposes (a couple of weak ones) and 5 supports including my own. This clearly shows there is no consensus for it to stay the same. So as wikipedia is not a democracy as was pointed out to me when i made this poll i feel we have no choice but to seek 3rd party help on this matter. Should we call for informal mediation or will that achieve nothing and need to be formal straight away? If someone else who is more neutral on this matter could request it on this issue that might be more helpful and less counter productive than if i did it, but i am prepared to if needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
In cases of "no consensus", the standard WP thing to do is "nothing". So that is what we should do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
That would explain why there are disputes ongoing for years like on other issues such as the title of the ireland page. However is it not possible to get some feedback from 3rd parties even if we didnt go down the mediation path. There isnt a strong majority for keeping it the way it is, several of those were weak opposes and some were basically just plain attacks on me rather than actual problems with the suggestion i made. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I assume that was addressed to me? Do [I] really think that Every encyclopedia will have the same wordings throughout the article? Of couse not, and completely irrelevant - and slightly bizarre. My point was, and is, that not every example you listed appeared to support your claim of consistency, and it is entirely reasonable for Wikipedia, too, to differ in some areas. Simply because those four examples do state Scotland's relationship to the UK in the first sentence is no reason why Wikipedia should; by the same token there's no reason for Encarta to state Scotland's physical location simply because the others (including Wikipedia) do so.
The article starts "Scotland /ˈskɒtlənd/ (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in northwest Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain." This seems to me to a straightforward, declarative, unambiguous sentence. I concede that it does not directly address notability, beyond the implied notability that derives from being a country. While I question your comparison to Stuttgart (since cities and countries are different beasts entirely) the Stuttgart lede seems to me to closely follow the format used by ths article already - what it is, where it is (with an additional point that Stuttgart is the capital of the state of Baden-Württemberg, a point that does not seem to apply in Scotland's case).
I initially stated weak opposition; I was (and am) open to compelling arguments for change. To date I have not heard any, and my opposition is hardening.
, which is closer to the size of the Lion Rampant image, (Saltire 430x260 vs Lion Rampant 392x234), but both still appeared to be justified to the left of their respective cells, giving a rather distorted appearance. Not sure how to solve this one other than by somehow centering the images in their cells, and I wouldn't know how/where to start on that score. (See image 
) Endrick Shellycoat 14:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. Have posed question to —MJCdetroit (yak) and await response.
