Talk:National anthem of Scotland

Comment

"Scotland as a separate entity from its union with England " I believe you meant to say "Scotland as a seperate entity from the United Kingdom", let us not forget our friends in Wales and Northern Ireland, in addition to the English. Rob McDougall 04:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence from "God Save the Queen is not popular in Scotland ..." to "God Save the Queen is not popular in all parts of Scotland." As clearly, the original wasn't NPOV. I like GSTQ! :P Kaenei 14:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the Scottish national anthem "If you hate the effing English clap your hands" ? :-) Lianachan 18:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a contentious issue but it is no place for half-truths, omissions or inaccuracies. God Save the Queen may be disliked because of the 'Rebellious Scots' line, and it may have been understood by many (and the lie perpetuated by some) as 'proof' that Scotland is despised by England. Alas, the facts are less explicit: the 'rebellious Scots' in question were Jacobites (i.e. Catholic supporters of the Stuart dynasty) and as such opposed by just as many Scots as elsewhere.

Further, I have deleted the line that suggests that fewer Scots athletics fans are present at meets than their rugby or football counterparts. Since athletics events generally have fewer spectators, I do not understand how the original contributor could have calculated proportions in order to make that statement. Further the reference cited in support of the statement makes no reference to it.--Stevouk 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV again

I've removed the section talking about GSTQ being popular only with unionists, and changed it -back- to "GSTQ is not popular in all parts of Scotland, partly because ..." I think this is much more neutral than the edit someone's peformed.Kaenei 02:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that in itself is inaccurate, as there is no particularly localised dislike of God Save the Queen. Admittedly some individuals don't like it, but I suppose that fact is true of any national anthem. --Breadandcheese (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I know a single Scottish person who considers it a valid national anthem for Scotland, and most people I know despise it. Lianachan (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is putting it forward particularly as a national anthem for Scotland, however it is relevant in the article by being the national anthem of Scotland as part of the UK. --Breadandcheese (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't officially the anthem of the UK, it is merely accepted as one. There's no official anthem. The fact that it's not used at sporting events where Scotland specifically is represented neatly demonstrates its status up here. Lianachan (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think officially it is the anthem of the UK, insofar as every government mention of the National Anthem and such has referred to it. Indeed, you can go onto Royal.gov.uk and it will tell you that it is so. However, it is not a legally endorsed anthem, that much is correct; personally I'd think it rather debased for the law to regulate songs, but there we go. As for 'status up here' - I don't think the non-use of GSTQ in Home Nations' sporting events gives any valid view as to its status as the national anthem of the United Kingdom. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm Scottish and I consider it a valid anthem for Scotland-in-the-union. I think most Scots do. I also rather like it. The fact that at some point in the 18th century a strophe which was offensive to the Scots was added, and later removed, is not an issue for any of us unless we're looking for reasons to feel downtrodden - you know, that kind of nationalism. After all, there have been DOZENS of other strophes which are no longer used. None of which is relevant for this article, except to counterbalance Lianachan's claims about what the Scots like. That is such a fuzzy area, and I think the article should make no comment on it one way or the other. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the Wade verse, it's just that it's not used as a Scottish anthem. A British one, yes, although not enjoying any official status as such, but not as a Scottish one. Lianachan (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Our personal takes on the merits and de-merits of GStQ are interesting, but not especially relevant. What the article needs is some decent citations. If it is unpopular let's have a reference. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OF COURSE GSTQ has official status as the British National Anthem. Britain doesn't have a written constitution - it's not in our thinking to codify like that, so constitutional status doesn't come that way. It comes through consensus, precedent and established practice. GSTQ has been used as the national anthem for 200 years, and in our system that means it has official status. --Doric Loon (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt very much whether you can call GSVQ the national anthem. What consensus is there when there has never been a choice. It is a song that was forced on the population by the establishment. Even in England it is highly unlikely that this dirge would be chosen as a national anthem if the people had a choice. If your old enough you will remember when GSTQ was played at the end of a movie screening and the rush to escape having to listen to it was paramount Some national anthem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairgo (talk • contribs) 10:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is also no statute which says Britain should have a Prime Minister. Is Gordon Brown the unofficial Head of Government? This article is not the place for discussions of British constitutional philosophy, therefore it should also make no reference to constitutional status of GSTQ. There is no debate about the British National Anthem, and we should not create the illusion that there is one. The only thing this articl should say about GSTQ is that some people think Scotland doesn't need a separate anthem because the anthem of the union is enough; and even that point would not be worth making if we couldn't cite significant people like Donald Dewar who take that view. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RSNO poll

Since it comes to 99% I assume this is due to rounding? The link is dead for the poll on the RSNO's website however the Herald concurs with the figures Panthro (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Flower of Scotland and the pipes

The article says "A minor complication with "Flower of Scotland" is that, when played on the bagpipes, one note in the last line (on the word "think") cannot be played correctly. It should be a C natural (when played in the key of D) but this note is not available on the bagpipes, so a C♯ is substituted. (The bagpipes are playing nominally in the key of D (actually in A Mixolydian)...)." Surely, if the tune were played in the key of A on the bagpipes, the offending note would become a G natural, which would then be playable. Bluewave (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215011908/http://rsno.org.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=119&Itemid=1 to http://rsno.org.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=119&Itemid=1

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605222343/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/petitions/or-04/pu04-1802.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/petitions/or-04/pu04-1802.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)