Talk:Scotland/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Economy and Infrastructure.

The unemployment figures need updating, the most recent earticle I could find was http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-18085407.

Any issues with changing this?

Also, can't help feeling that reference 150 includes an unsolicited claim. Issues with changing from

"The Scottish Government's most recent figures (for 2009/10) show Scotland's finances to be in a healthier state than for the UK as a whole. Taking into account a geographical share of revenues from UK oil and gas reserves.."

to

"The Scottish Government's most recent figures (for 2009/10) show that when taking into account a geographical share of revenues.."

Also, the reference seems to be fairly bias. If this is to remain, comments on pursuing a reference for the reverse side of the argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to the talk page.

1 I would have no issue with updating the unemployment figures to the figures in the BBC reference cited above. Although, I note they are different to those of your recent edit.

2 As for the statement “The Scottish Government's most recent figures (for 2009/10) show Scotland's finances to be in a healthier state than for the UK as a whole. Taking into account a geographical share of revenues from UK oil and gas reserves, Scotland contributed 9.4% of UK taxes, but received 9.3% of public expenditure.”, the STV reference (currently #150) begins “Scotland is in a stronger budget position than the UK as a whole for the fifth consecutive year, according to new figures”. It goes on to say “Government and Expenditure Revenue Scotland 2009-10 figures show that, including a geographical share of UK North Sea oil and gas revenues, Scotland contributed 9.4% of UK public sector revenue and received 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure, including a per capita share of UK debt interest payments.”. Please explain how this could be interpreted as biased. Indeed, excluding any further extracts from the article could lead to accusations of bias in favour of UK government policy, as it goes on to show Scotland's budget and fiscal balances to be stronger than that of the UK as a whole.

3 The statement “Discounting the effects of oil and gas reserves, in the year 2008-09, Scotland received a net subsidy of £10.5bn from the UK Treasury.” has been discussed in the previous talk page section (above). Please make any relevant comments there (to keep it in one place).

Please now self revert and feel free to update Scotland's unemployment figures. Daicaregos (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Bringing to attention the section "Despite only making up 8.4% of the UK population, Scotland generates 9.6% of UK revenues and only receives 9.3% back from Westminster". This claim is very [contentious] as this 9.6% of tax revenues is applicable IF Oil and Gas reserves are split geogrpahically using a median line from the English/Scottish border. Oil and Gas revenues are not officially attributed to the revenue of either substituent country (England or Scotland) so this either needs to be made clear, or this section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Should .uk be listed in the info-box?

A discussion concerning the above question is ongoing on the Talk:Northern Ireland. Tentatively, I would say that a consensus is emerging there. The consensus is to remove .uk on the basis that it is assigned to the UK (not any part of it specifically). If consistency is going to apply, the same approach should be taken in terms of de-lisgin .uk on the Wales, Scotland and England articles. Do people support this deletion of .uk from the info box. Feel free to participate here (or on the Talk: Northern Ireland page where a lengthy discussion has already taken place. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

To update this, the emerging consensus is not to display that field (option) at all, since its purpose is to show the [[ccTLD] (.xx code, ISO 3166 two letter code) that has been assigned to a sovereign state. Consequently Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland should not show anything here (including the table element title). Of course if Scotland achieves full independence, it will certainly qualify. Just a pity that .sc, .sd, .sl, .sa, .as are all gone.--Red King (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

To update this more, consensus has collapsed to be replaced by [expletive deleted]. --Red King (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A further update: the consensus that has now clearly arrived is not one of the two options described above (which happened to coincide with the preferences of those two posters) but to keep the relevant domains in (.uk and .ie). Brocach (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. My current suggestion is that the issue should be taken to a Wiki Project that deals with internet stuff and let them decide on this one. The Roman Candle (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Defence spending

I would suggest that the following section breaches the NPOV ethos of Wikipedia "Scotland currently spends £3.3 billion on defence, under an independent Scotland the costs would be reduced from the current to around £1.8 billion a saving of £1.5 billion." I would suggest the the bit about the reduction of the Defense buget is polemic, and intended to support a pro-independance viewpoint. Also it is incorrect as it presupposes the policy of the putative independant Scottish goverment which is unknown until formulated. Niall McDiarmid. 17.11 9 January 2013 (UTC) 155.192.33.250 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Would" is definitely not in order. Something like "...defence. In an independent Scotland the costs could be reduced from the current figure to around £1.8 billion, assuming a reduced global role and an absence of nuclear weapons." would seem to be cited. Ben MacDui 18:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed but even that is still contentious. Something like ""...defence. The Scottish National party have proposed plans to reduce spending from the current figure to around £1.8 billion, although they do not currently have the power to do so, as defence spending is under the jurisdiction of Westminster." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Your clause about "not currently have the power to do so" is irrelevant as "In an independent Scotland" appears at the beginning of the sentence. The SNP have no proposed plans to reduce spending from the current figure in the absence of that change in affairs for the reason you provide, so the entire sentence makes little sense. Ben MacDui 10:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that just because Scotland could lower defence spending to such amounts that it would actually do so upon independence. Adding in that it could seems ridiculous, it's like adding in upon independence we could spend more than $3.3 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.193.95 (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There is little point in saying that Scotland could or couldn't amend its defence spending, which would be a statement of the obvious. It says that a particular outcome could occur in a specified eventuality.

I've amended the article to the phraseology I proposed above. Ben MacDui 10:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to include this at all, if what you say is correct and there are no plans to reduce the spending by the SNP then what's the point in including it? You could just as easily put "In an independent Scotland a canal could be dug along the English/Scottish border." I move that this section is deleted because the information is unnecessary and it will prevent obvious bias appearing in a supposedly neutral article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

City vs Town

The article states that "Scotland has seven cities". Is there a formal difference between a city and a town in the UK and in Scotland. I've preaviosly thought that "a city" is just another word for "a large town". What's needed to become a city ? 83.249.165.26 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See City status in the United Kingdom. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove the grey box around the flag in info box and elsewhere.

It really doesn't need to be there seeing as only the cross on the flag is white. It makes it look rather messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.148 (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a feature of Template:Infobox country, you'll need to edit the infobox there if you want it changed. -- Jamie ^u_t 06:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

First Glasgow Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the first Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Country/Constituent Country

Hello, I believe defining Scotland as a "country" is highly misleading. I understand that it may well be definied as one, however "country" is more widely expressed as Soveriegn State (ie. The United Kingdom/Kingdom of Spain). I know that a large number of people in Scotland would deny that they are British or even acknowledge the United Kingdom is in any form, a country. The beginning of this article does not go into any detail of what the United Kingdom is and suggests Scotland is a soveriegn state ? Can this please be corrected to something which gives readers a better understanding of what Scotland really is ? Italay90 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence is a catastrophe, imposed upon this article years ago by a disgraceful cabal of now largely blocked, banned, de-adminned and retired anti-Scottish POV merchants. However, most Scottish Wikipedians are so sick of this pathetic dispute that we quite simply cannot be arsed anymore.

This article will never get to FA status with the current opening line, but that's what happens when topics get highjacked for political grandstanding by morons with zero knowledge of the subject at hand. Funnily enough, none of the attack accounts used to "vote" through the first sentence at the Talk page "discussion" had ever added any substantive content to the body of the article. They turned up solely to change the first sentence, and then haven't been seen again since.--Mais oui! (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining :) Italay90 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, a region of the UK. I'm changing it and will continue to do so. 86.153.187.25 (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

And it will continue to be reverted until you obtain consensus for the change. Britmax (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus out the window, this should be a factual piece of literature; not a misleading bit of Nationalistic drivel. I advise you to not to reverse it again. 86.153.187.25 (talk) 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am now using this account Samsung2013 (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• As you appear to be new to Wikipedia you may like to acquaint yourselve with relevant policies such as WP:TALKDONTREVERT. AllyD (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've made my point, the article is very misleading; it totally ignores the fact that Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Highly misleading, Wikipedia is about factual non leading resource - this gives the wrong impression there for "constituent" will have to be added. Samsung2013 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. 'Constituent' means 'part of'. as the sentence already explains that Scotland is 'part of' the UK, adding 'constituent' as you have done is introducing tautology. Therefore, I've reverted it. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, The article suggests that Scotland is a sovereign state, which is not the case. Tautologically phrasing is not the case as "constituent country" is a term that distinguishes a sovereign state and a constituent that is part of a sovereign entity; that being the United Kingdom. The term needs to make it clear, Scotland is a constituent. Samsung2013 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The article does not suggest that Scotland is a sovereign state. It says that it is a country. If you read the article on country, you may learn that the two terms are not necessarily synonymous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

see Talk:Scotland/Archive_Summary#Scotland_-_A_Nation.3 and Archives 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 18. Also see Archive 20 "Consensus on Intro" and Archive_23 "Opening paragraph" Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Economy

From here I have added the financial figures to the %'s so it reads "Despite only making up 8.4% of the UK population, Scotland generates 9.6% (£56.9 billion) of UK revenues and receives 9.3% (£64.5 billion) back from the UK Government" as stating the statement without the figures is holly misleading and gives the appearance there is some subsidising going on, I suggest removing the whole statement as it actually illustrates nothing and is at best deceptive with the "despite" and "receives back" without stating that the money received back is close to 10 billion £ more than is paid in.

The purpose of using percentages is to show that relative to the rest of the UK, Scotland's public finances are in a healthier state. While it is true that Scotland has a public sector deficit at present - as actual figures illustrate - the deficit for the rest of the UK is relatively worse. Therefore, giving percentages helps tackle the unfounded belief (sometimes promoted for political reasons) that Scotland is subsidised by the rest of the UK. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have restored the changes made as clearly giving the figures alongside the percentages is quite within wiki rules and giving both avoids any claims of bias, perhaps if you want to show that relative to the rest of the UK, Scotland's public finances are in a healthier state then you should say so rather than using statistics that imply a deficit of well over 7 billion is not there, this is supposed to be a factual site not an opinionated one. You also removed the link to the official government accounts that you use for your percentages that also show the disparity and I believe hiding the evidence of your own claims simply confirms my case that the percentages are there to mislead.

On the contrary, giving the actual figures without making clear the context of an overall UK deficit gives the false impression that Scotland is subsidised. Perhaps I can reword this in a way that works for both of us. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do, I just feel that the original imply's Scotland is hard done by and gets back less than is paid in when that's not the case as all the UK countries are in deficit and it is the combined union that pays for it all while it is still true Scotland compared to the other three UK countries combined is in better shape, I'm not really sure why out of a union of four countries one would take one country out and compare it to the other three as a block when it would be more credible to compare Scotland's performance with England's and Wales and Northern Ireland's, just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.224.117 (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Scotland contributes a larger proportion of UK tax revenues than the proportion of UK public expenditure it receives:" <- that is still incorrect, Scotland generates more per head in taxes with a full share of geographical oil accounted for and as a consequence receives more per head of population back in expenditure than the rest of the population outside the London accounting area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.249.88 (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Explain please: 9.6% is a larger proportion than 9.3%, so in which sense is the sentence incorrect? By the way, the reason for higher spending per head in Scotland is not linked to its higher contribution per head but to factors such as geography, historic need, Barnett formula etc. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, you admit here there is a higher spend yet you want me to explain why "Scotland contributes a larger proportion of UK tax revenues than the proportion of UK public expenditure it receives:" is misleading, well it's misleading because Scotland receives more per head than the rest of the UK bar London hence the false statement, it's true the spending is linked to some archaic mechanism that has no real meaning in this millennium but that's not changing the fact that more public spending per head happens in Scotland than the rest of the UK as a whole hence the misleading statement, perhaps opinions should be removed altogether along with opinionated conclusions and just a table of figures showing income/expenditure/revenue/population for the UK then the four countries then the readers can make of it what they will? 92.24.239.177 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This article appears to have been edited in a number of quite concerning and inappropriate ways for an encyclopedia. The section seems to state figures being used by one of the sides in the Independence Referendum by way of propaganda to make political points. This article, is no longer balanced and has crossed the line to become a statement of opinion and political argument not an objective analysis of the economy of Scotland. Use of phrases such as 'often wrongly interpreted' show that this is a political polemic to make a point and no longer a discussion of the economy of Scotland. In particular the use of percentages misleads, (even with some of the figures in brackets) as it masks that more money is spent publically in Scotland than is raised in taxation and gives the impression the opporsite is true. Also the actual amount spent on Scotland per head of population compared with elsewhere in the UK has been edited out. This was useful as it gave a full and balanced picture. More money is spent in Scotland than other parts of Scotland but Scotland does give a relatively large proportion of tax compared with the size of population and that is due to oil taxation. This helped understanding. The last four sentences, are inapproriate for an article of this kind and should be deleted. These figures at time of editing appear to suit a political argument. They say nothing about the Scottish economy. The unemployment figures a year ago (2012) showed parity with the UK for example. These numbers change all the time. Furthermore Scottish unemployment numbers relative to the UK are aided in 2013 by the fact that some public sector spending cuts have been delayed a year compared with other areas of the UK. These are statistics without meaning being used in a shallow way to illustrate a political point. This is quite a bad example of political polemics rather than serious or balanced analysis. Use of the phrase 'receives back from Westminster' I believe is used here in a pejorative sense and implies a political point about the constitutional arrangements rather than discussing relative tax and spend figures relating to the Scottish economy. This is quite concerning. I hope there can be agreement that Wikipedia is not the place for running political arguments. I'm not sure how this is best resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.209.162 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The previous section was edited out today. It was better before as it ran both the pro Independence and anti Independence point and did not assert which was right. Nor did it cross the line into apparently making a point for a viewpoint. Thearticle before today (29 June) was better and more balanced and more approriate for Wikipedia. This seems quite misleading and inappropriate now. Was it not better and why is it appropriate to express a political group's viewpoint. This section should really be edited and parts deleted. It was better before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.209.162 (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Normans in Scotland

Why is there no mention of the Normans in this article? There is mention of certain kings being Scoto-Norman, but nothing about how the Normans were able to ascend to the throne of Scotland. There is mention under Scoto-Norman about intermarriage amongst lowland clans, but nothing in detail about Norman influence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistolpierre (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not quite sure to what you are referring, particularly since I cannot see a reference to Scoto-Norman kings. It is also worth bearing in mind that the history part of the article is just a brief introduction, there are plenty of other articles that deal with history in more detail.--SabreBD (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• For example see Scotland in the High Middle Ages and Davidian Revolution where these aspects are covered. AllyD (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Scoto-Norman period is extremely important, and should definitely be in the article. I don't think it would be too problematic to indicate that the monarchy (and the ruling classes in general) became increasingly more Norman through a series of royal marriages to Normans/Anglo Normans (those of David I, Henry of Huntingdon, William I, Alexander II and Alexander III), followed by complete replacement by Norman-descended kings (ie John Balliol and Robert the Bruce). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless, I suppose, some find it politically distasteful that Robert the Bruce was a Norman? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that there is a bit of information on Scoto-Norman under Scotland in the High Middle Ages and Davidian Revolution. I guess I am just looking for more detail on how the Normans became Scottish nobles and eventually Kings of Scotland. Pistolpierre (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting research shows that Parthelone & 24 couples of Greek Macedonia (Mygdonia) is a forefather of the land of "Skotos," which means "dark" in Greek,and after Parthelone came the Danaans, the "Danai". and the old map of 1560 with Greek-named areas like Argadia (from Gk. Arkardia>Arcadia) and Iona (from Gk. Ionia)existed as well as other Greek cities like: Myrius, Phallius, Gorius, and Findius. That Edinburgh is the "Athens of the North," as its Greek influenced architecture can attest. The bagpipes were brought back from Asia by Alexander the Greats' men and are used by Greece and Scotland. The use of the Macedonian Sarissa in warfare. The fact that both countries wear the "skirt" and that Scottish surnames bear the "mak>mak" from Makedonia>Macedonia.1.121.178.173 (talk)

Royal Arms?

The current image under 'Royal Arms' is the Coat of Arms last used by the Kingdom of Scotland in 1603:

The last used Royal Coat of Arms used by the Kingdom of Scotland was:

The current Royal Coat of Arms used in Scotland representing the United Kingdom is:

The current official Royal Standard used by Scotland is:

Why is a Coat of Arms that was used in Scotland over 400 years ago being presented when two current symbols are present? Regards, Rob (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevant past discussions are at:

• Talk:Scotland/Archive 4#Edit war - coats of arms - RfC
• Talk:Scotland/Archive 8#section Politics section images: Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for
• Talk:Scotland/Archive 14#Coat of arms revisted
• Talk:Scotland/Archive 20#Coat of Arms
• Talk:Scotland/Archive 21#Incorrect use of obsolete Royal Coat of Arms
• Talk:Scotland/Archive 22#Royal coat of arms of Scotland show again

--SabreBD (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Royal Standard is clearly the second most common symbol of Scotland, and the Coat of Arms provided is never used to represent the modern day constituent country, and was last used officially over 400 years ago. I have no desire to debate this and I will not pursue my argument, however I would advise editors to re-evaluate this. Regards, Rob (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This issue was done to death months/years ago. Since 1707 Scotland has had NO COAT OF ARMS! Only the UNITED KINGDOM has had a coat of arms of a specific design unique to Scotland which is for use only within Scotland.

The United Kingdom IS NOT represented by the Royal Standard of the King of Scots, but rather it is used by the representatives of the Monarch in Scotland, and at Royal residences within Scotland when no member of the Royal household is in residence.

The Royal Standard of Scotland is the only symbol of the Monarch in official use which is unique to Scotland and is NOT in itself representative of the wider United Kingdom as a whole. (See Royal Standard of the United Kingdom). All other symbols are either those of the UK or those which have had no official use since either 1603 or 1707.

The current info-box depicts on an escutcheon - Or, a lion rampant gules, armed and langued azure, within a double royal tressure flory-counter-flory of the second which has NO OFFICIAL USE IN SCOTLAND. Only the quartered shield showing the red lion rampant of Scotland in the 1st and 4th quarters, the three gold lions/leopards passant guardant of England in the 2nd, and the gold harp of Ireland in the 3rd, has any official status.

The banner/standard depicting the Lion rampant of the King of Scots should be restored to the info-box as all other Royal symbols are either historical, having no contemporary official use, or are symbols (albeit with a Scottish flavour) of the UK. (This article is NOT about the UK, but about Scotland). This was the compromise agreed after lengthy discussion last time around. Please revert to this consensus ASAP. 86.154.73.44 (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If this has been agreed, then why did my edit get reverted? As far as I know, no discussion has been put forth since then so the current position should be to have the Royal Standard. I will once again replace the Coat of Arms from 400 years ago with the current Royal Standard unless someone objects, in which I will give up, and leave the article for someone who cares about its credibility to ensure the Royal Standard is restored. Regards, Rob (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No idea why it was reverted. Standard should be shown - anything else is a symbol of the UK or its use is unofficial/obsolete. 195.171.9.229 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem with all of the above from the point of view of editors who know little about heraldry (i.e. the vast majority) is that it is assertion based. As far as I can see "the last time around" the discussion was abandoned after it became clear that a notorious sockpuppet was involved. This has been a very convoluted debate (with Archive 21 providing a decent summary of the thinking at that time). It would be very helpful if contributors could make statements linked to reliable sources. I can agree that is easy to observe that "The Royal Standard is .. the second most common symbol of Scotland", but this is not the same as this symbol being the 'Royal Arms' and the rest needs either sourcing or linking. Nor, incidentally, can I see any a priori reason why a 'Royal Arms' has to be in the infobox. We are not going to get anywhere by exchanging personal opinions. On the other hand we might be able to resolve this issue once and for all if those who profess to some knowledge of the subject could present carefully considered arguments backed by sourced and verifiable facts. Ben MacDui 08:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not the Royal Standard should be in the infobox is not a reason to use a Coat of Arms that was used over 400 years ago by a predecessor state of the United Kingdom. I don't have to provide a reference to removed unsourced material. If someone wants to include the Coat of Arms from 400 years ago, they must provide a reference that it currently represents Scotland. I would advise removing the Coat of Arms, and then debating whether the Royal Standard should be shown, or nothing at all. Regards, Rob (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If the object had been posted last week I might well be tempted to agree with you, but as:

a) there have been numerous discussions about the topic and (right or wrong) the current image has been there for a while having achieved some kind of consensus, to at least not remove it if not to positively support it, and

b) removing it is simply going to ignite an edit war with all and sundry dropping in whatever their favourite alternate is,

my suggestion is that some serious attempt to gain a new consensus is made first. You seem like someone in a hurry - being bold can sometimes be helpful, but I suspect this is more of an occasion for considered thought. Ben MacDui 14:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there ever has been a consensus, as far as I can tell, it is changed periodically without any discussion. What I know is clear is that the current Coat of Arms has no reference that it represents Scotland and should be removed until reference is provided. I really don't care whether the Royal Standard is included or not and will leave others to discuss that, but as per WP:NOR, the Coat of Arms should be removed. Regards, Rob (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ben, Endrick here (can't log on as long forgot password and have changed ISP/e-mail so can't e-mail reminder to self). Archive 21 shows your own preference for the Royal Standard, which held the majority view and the article was stable for nearly 5 years. (My own preference was for the shield, but I was content to go with the majority). The arguments which were made then still stand and the discussion concluded after much debate with the Standard in the info-box.

I see no reason to open the discussion again for there is nothing new in the debate and it will just develop into a hamster-wheel yet again. Therefore I am restoring the consensus which has existed since 2008, and unless someone comes up with a compelling reason to change the info-box, (which has not been made), then it should stay. Any edit-war will result in protection being requested for the article. Regards Endrick Shellycoat a.k.a 217.43.209.130 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Good to know my edits were reverted for absolutely no reason what so ever. It would be appreciated if editors could remember the current consensus, ensure it is not changed without discussion, and avoid reverting edits of editors attempting to ensure it is not changed without discussion. Regards, Rob (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced economic claim removed after use in TV debate

The unsourcecd claim in this article that Scotland has a surplus of tax over spending was featured in a live TV debate a little earlier today. Since it is both unsourced and now more prominent I have removed that unsourced claim. With a pending vote on Scottish independence we can expect that this article will become highly politicised by supporters of both views, so we need to take particular care to:

1. Provide sources.
2. Say who is providing the information.
3. Say what the numbers include. The tax revenue claim assumed geographic split because that produces the higher number, the spending may not have included defence spending.

There are other unsourced economic claims that I have not removed. If you look at this one, please also provide appropriate sources for them, or remove them until they are sourced, lest we become a source of unsubstantiated political ammunition in other debates as well.

If you have sources that support the claims and disclose them and what the numbers include, great, please don't hesitate to add back the figures with those sources and details. Jamesday (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I did have to laugh when the wikipedia article was mentioned in that debate a few days ago and it is right unsourced information was removed. This article is crawling with separatist bias, parts of it reek of "pre referendum day" statements designed to encourage a yes vote, and it is going to need to be looked into in detail over the coming months. The final paragraph going out of its way to try suggest Scotland has separate representation and positions in international organisations is shocking. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop trolling BW and keep your subversive British Nationalist agenda off this site.195.59.114.70 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Use of the word "separatist" again hoping to provoke a response. Perhaps British Boy should take himself here; Independence Day (United States) and argue that the name of the article should be change to "Separation Day (United States)". I know what response he'd get...81.154.176.241 (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am inclined to agree with you regarding that final paragraph above the Table of Contents, though not I suspect from your perspective. The reference on the Common Travel Area does not separately specify Scotland and immigration is a power retained by the UK govt. My view is that the paragraph's placement amounts to undue emphasis, and it would be better relegated to the end of the Government and Politics section and with the Common Travel Area clause deleted altogether. Views? AllyD (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Common Travel Area not relevant - remove.195.59.114.70 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Why do quislings keep reverting this referenced edit back?"

That you have added references to an edit does not give you free rein to abuse them by putting on your own spin. When you cite references, you must stick to what they say and not synthesise them to draw conclusions which they do not themselves state (as I have told you). If it's any help to you, idiot's of a different, unionist, bent have accused me of being a nationalist on the basis of reverting their POV pushing. Take your pick. Pay heed or you're likely to find yourself in hot water. Yours aye, Vidkun. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Compulsory schooling from 1496?

"Compulsory schooling" presumably implies that this was for all, or at the very least the majority of children. If the Education Act 1496 only regarded eldest sons of nobles and substantial freeholders, this is very much not the case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• See Talk:Scotland/Archive_19#Education_in_Scotland.2C_History_of for some previous discussion on this. I would be in favour of the current overstatement being edited for example to become "Schooling was made compulsory for the eldest sons and heirs of barons and substantial freeholders in Scotland...". AllyD (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Now resolved by a thorough set of improvements by User:Sabrebd. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this discussion before I made an attempt to fix this, which turns out to be on the lines suggested above. Great claims are made for the Scottish school system, but the truth is a bit more prosaic - it was slow progress. Nevertheless it was an achievement to have a pretty complete system in the Lowlands by about 1700.--SabreBD (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Think articles on the ancient Scottish Grammar Schools would be good ones to get going, Haddington, in especial with John Knox, John Major, et.al. (not noblemen!) amongst its alumni. Brendandh (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Gaelic is apparently already an "Official Language", not just Regional

Excuse me, I have a letter from Alasdair Allan (the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland's Languages) explaining that the Gaelic Scotland Act of 2005 actually secured Gaelic as an official language. He doesn't go into much more detail than that but if we look at the wording of the act itself we can see where he's coming from. The wording is unclear and rather unhelpful at first, but it stated that Bord na Gaidhlig's aim was to secure Gaelic as an official language "of equal respect" to English. That doesn't meant that the aim was to secure it "as an official language", rather an official language "of equal respect" - that is the goal to work towards. The official language status already being there is implicit. If you would like proof of this letter I can show you an image. --86.133.249.101 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please provide the source. Rob (talk) 11:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Will a photograph of the letter do? --86.133.249.101 (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No - because anyone using a scanner and a bit of creative editing can produce such a (forged) letter. It would be better if the Scottish Govt. website could specify Gaelic as having such recognition for then the website could be cited in the article. Perhaps Alasdair Allan might be able to initiate such a change to the SG website?86.154.72.233 (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This [1], clearly states that Gaelic is an official language. From the Horse's mouth! Brendandh (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Mislabeling on the Scottish population by ethnic group - All People section

Clicking on the link for the 'Scottish population by ethnic group - All People' section to the original Scotland census web site here [[2]] I noticed the term used is Gypsy / Traveller not Gypsy / Irish Traveller. As many Scottish gypsies identify themselves as 'Traveller' and Scotland having an indiginous 'Highland Traveller' community it would be an error to label all people who self identify as Travellers with the Irish label. Considering the census doesn't call these diverse communities as Irish Travellers. It was probaby a misunderstanding that all people who identify as 'Traveller' must be therefore Irish a common mistake though. That would be incorrect as labeling all Irish Travellers as Scottish Travellers. Can someone change it kind regards. Uthican (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done.Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Motto

Is it worth noting in the infobox that it's often a shortened motto (i.e. "In Defens") that's used, as opposed to the full "In My Defens God Me Defend."? --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have removed it when I was tidying up formatting. It could be listed below the full motto, or in a note ref. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 17:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Olympic Team

Is Scotland the only country in the world without an olympic team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.19.217 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No. England, Wales and Northern Ireland to name but a few. --Connelly90 07:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Add a few more: Kurdistan, Catalunya, Quebec, Greenland....Brendandh (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tibet, Gibraltar, Macau...--Connelly90 16:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to tease the OP guys. To answer your query, many territories share teams. Great Britain is shared between the UK's countries (of which Scotland is one of), some of its overseas territories, and the Crown dependencies. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

See National Olympic Committee, which lists the states with olympic teams, and the criteria for recognition. As it says "Following an amendment to the Olympic Charter in 1996, NOC recognition can only be granted after recognition as an independent country by the UN." Though there are a few territories which have been recognised from before then, and still have their own teams. Also see Campaign for a Scottish Olympic Team. --Vclaw (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Team GB is also something of a misnomer, for it includes athletes from Northern Ireland, which is not part of Great Britain but is part of the United Kingdom. Quite why this persists is a mystery and one which N.Irish participants must find rather irritating.86.154.133.74 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It is actually called the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic team and as much fun as this is - is there some point that relates to improving the article, which is what this page is for?--SabreBD (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The IOC refers to it as Great Britain and recognizes Team GB as an alternate name; it's the BOA that uses Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team officially, but still uses Team GB almost exclusively these days (except a few times during the London Olympics where the BOA themselves referred to the team as "England"...but that's another story). If Scotland was the only country in the world without an Olympic team, then it would improve the article to include it. --Connelly90 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Concurring with SabreBD, I don't see any hint that the continuation of this thread is in any danger of improving the article. Unless I'm missing something, can we draw it to a close please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but I can draw a pretty decent dog... --Connelly90 13:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Currently

Scotland is "currently" part of the United Kingdom. IMO it should be made patently clear that this may, or may not, be the case in the next year or two in the lede, along with the qualifier of 845-1707? Brendandh (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The lede does state "In May 2011, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won an overall majority in parliament and intends to hold a referendum on independence on 18 September 2014.". Perfectly clear. Additionally altering the leading sentence to "Scotland is a country that is currently part of the United Kingdom" implies that this situation will change. Per WP:CRYSTAL "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.". Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

But it will undoubtedly. Notwithstanding 2014's outcome, there's change afoot, so this is grey at the mo, and not crystal. Brendandh (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

And notable! Brendandh (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

No dispute about the notability, it's that "it will undoubtedly...there's change afoot" that is patently false. As you put it, "grey...and WP:NOTCRYSTAL"; it stays out. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

False? Hmm'mm! It's happening, and it's grey, and 'undoubtably' it ain't going to be the same as per priori, whatever the outcome of the 2014 plebiscite. This needs to be reflected in the article properly. Brendandh (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

A referendum's happening. Adding "currently" makes it sound like Scotland is about to leave the UK. Chances are it's not. 5.81.139.184 (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Mutt Lunker. "currently" adds nothing that benefits the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been pondering the last half hour about how to put it more simply but can someone else try? I'm struggling to respond further without sounding patronising. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Like you say, it suggests that this situation will change. Its not necessary, and there is a significant reason not to include it. Rob (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think adding "currently" might not be too constructive, but I also think that we do need to reflect the fact that there are real question marks hanging over Scotland's future in the UK. Scotland's current position is definitely notable; saying "Scotland is currently a member of the UK" isn't like saying "Poland is currently a member of the EU" or "Texas is currently a state in the United States of America", as there is a real chance Scotland's position could change in the near future, whereas safe money is on the others staying the same...but maybe look for a better way of reflecting this. I'll ponder on it myself.

(You also can't rely on saying "it's unlikely to change" or "it IS likely to change" as there are polls pointing the outcome strongly to both sides, as well as straight down the middle.)--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

PLease go some napkin math regarding the overall population of Scotland Vs number who voted for the SNP. Even if you assume every voter voted for the SNP for independence (which they did not, many were protest votes) the figures comes out due to pathetic turnouts to be less than 20%. That is not a mandate for independence, nobody in the SNP has addressed parts of Scotland that have never voted SNP either. I find it quite laughable that people on this talk page are insisting independence will be granted. At least wait and see, but the math seems to suggest it will be a resounding 'No' vote. 135.196.94.75 (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC) FW

"Napkin math" isn't exactly robust...There are supporters of independence who didn't vote SNP or Green, common (deliberate) misconception is to consider a Yes vote a vote for a permanent SNP government. 2011 numbers are out-of-date anyway, people have swung round, changed their minds or moved from yes/no to "undecided". Regardless; I reiterate that "there are polls pointing the outcome strongly to both sides, as well as straight down the middle" so we can't make any assumptions based on polls or faulty "napkin math". --Connelly90 13:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

Oh please can we stop diverting into general chit-chat on various threads in this talk page? The page is specifically to facilitate improvement to the article and general discussions (Scotland-related or not) which have no bearing on the text of the article should not go here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Infographic?

Hi, I’m Andrew Clark and I work at the Office for National Statistics in the UK.

We publish lots of infographics and I wonder if this one on Scotland (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Profile_of_Scotland.png) would be of interest for Scotland

FYI, the full gallery is here <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_created_by_the_Office_for_National_Statistics>

All the best

Andrew Clark (smanders1982) 10 Dec 2013

Smanders1982 (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrew. Nice graphics! I'm sure that we can use them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The infographic says "Edingburgh" --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

== Very questionable infographic==

Firstly: In the same week this infographic was offered to wiki, the Office of National statistics was found by the Financial Times http://archive.is/CTdWs to have grossly miscalucluated Scotland's productivity over a number of years, in an importsant publication - a radical under-calculation of the basic historical position of the entire Scottish economy. The ONS subsequently admitted to this -- but given the date, it is doubtful whether the information in this infographic has been corrected. Perhaps some of the other statistical information in the article should be reviewed in that light.

Secondly, I'm shocked if you're willing to accept this infographic in any circumstances. It's a strange mishmash of cherry-picked statistics with no coherent time-frame, much of it out of date, some of it representing a single quarter in one particular year, sometimes well out of date, some of it on the other hand, for no clear reason, representing trends: some of it comparing Scotland with England (a population ten times its size in a landmass twice the size) plus Wales (comparable for region & population) -- but excluding one UK region, Northern Ireland, which is also comparable. For the purposes of economic statistics the UK Treasury uses twelve economic zones: nine of England, plus the three other countries. Another graphic, the expectancy, arbitrarily compares Scotland to Wales alone: for something compiled by even student statisticians, this is illiterate.

Thirdly, please also not that the British Prime Minister David Cameron explicitly, in a public speech, urged all UKK civil servants (which would include the ONS) to help the anti-independence campaign. (I recall listening to this speech, but can't remember when. I'm sure reference can be found.) Also see National Collective page regarding both the reulst of their Freedom of Information request and a Tass News agency report of UK civil servants engaged in lobbying foreign governments to exert influence on the referendum campaign for the anti-independence side.

In the light of the above points, information on Scotland from UK civil service sources cannot be assumed to be either neutral or factually reliable. 109.155.147.144 (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes but that graphic is not in the article.--SabreBD (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

GDP per capita

I can't edit the page, but the sidebar shows GDP Per Capita as $44,378 (8th).

Clicking on 8th takes you to a selection of GDP Per Capita lists, which have 8th place from $52,300 to $67,500. Have the figures been updated elsewhere and not on this page? The highest position I can see Scotland taking based on these figures is 17th. 91.84.93.167 (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess those numbers have been updated on the GDP per capita page and it's not been caught on this Scotland page. Economy of Scotland states that it's $46,887(?) so there's something not right here. --Connelly90 09:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI-Using the latest Scottish Government numbers, it works out to be $45,583 (I think) --Connelly90 09:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

So still a long way below 8th. Since the highest possible based on that is still 17th, I would hazard a guess that at some point someone typoed 18th and nobody fixed it.91.84.95.129 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Changed to 20th, based on the average from the 4 lists on that page, using the values currently given. EddieHugh (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is from a 2013 Scottish Government report on where Scotland would have ranked in 2011, if it's GDP was measured independently:

When an illustrative geographic share of North Sea (extra regio) output is included in Scottish Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it is estimated that Scotland would be ranked 8th against the 34 OECD member countries, with regards to GDP per capita in 2011.(ref)

I guess someone has taken this report and used it as reference for saying "8th", instead of the current GDP. --Connelly90 11:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

$235 billion? Scotland only gets a per capita share (8.3%) of the UK oil reserves [revenue] (90% of which is located [extracted] in Scotland). The source even states 'Activities on the continental shelf are not classified as occu[r]ring in any particular nation or region' and 'Figures are provided to illustrate the impact of attributing a share of extra-regio activity to Scotland'. This BBC article also states 'Under the present arrangement the oil tax revenues are assigned to an economic region set up by the UK government, which is called the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). This means that oil resources are not officially assigned to Scotland but instead to a region distinct from the British mainland' and '[a] Scottish government report seeks to outline what difference this would make to Scotland's financial position if it were to get a "geographical share" of the revenues instead of a "per capita" slice.' This article is about the country within the UK, not what the country would get if it were independent (of which this figure is entirely speculative, as Scotland's economy could go to shit). Both Scotland and England subsidise Wales and Northern Ireland, however this isn't shown in England's, Wales' or Northern Ireland's GDP so it shouldn't be shown in Scotland's either. You may be keen to abandon the Welsh and Northern Irish, but please wait until you're actually independent, before stating what an independent Scotland's GDP may be, if you're lucky :P. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, the idea of a nation "owning" fossil fuels that haven't been extracted isn't strictly true; as I understand it (using offshore drilling for convenience); the state would grant rights to a company for drilling operations in it's waters, then tax the company quite heavily for extracting it and this tax income is what's quoted as "oil revenue". Whenever a "GDP of Scotland" is quoted, there is nearly always a "With Oil Revenue" and "Without oil Revenue" figure given, since it is a product of Scotland, but the money finds it's way towards Londinium due to the whole "tax/oil revenue" thing.

"Scotland's economy could go to shit"? to "go to shit" you need to be coming from a decent position, and the UK isn't in anything close to a decent position lmao, but that's a discussion for elsewhere (WP:NOTAFORUM). --Connelly90 14:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

No shit the SNP want to remind you how much more revenue you would get if you stopped aiding the Welsh and Northern Irish. You're adding revenue Scotland doesn't actually have to it's GDP, because in your view, it's rightfully Scotland's. That's your view though, isn't it? Legally, the oil isn't extracted in Scotland, it's extracted in the 'UK Continental Shelf' region. This article is about a country which doesn't contain that oil. An independent Scotland would, but the Scotland that's part of the UK doesn't. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You could go on all day talking about the legal relationship between Scotland, the UK and the fossil fuels in the north sea (and many people do...); I'm only saying it's a "product of Scotland" since the drilling operations occur using Scotland (mainly Aberdeen) as their kind of "base-of-operations". The independence issue should not come into this right now since, as you say, the result of that is all speculative at this point and delving into that issue is just asking for edit wars and hostility. All I'm saying is that a GDP of Scotland is nearly always quoted as two figures, with and without oil revenue, and that's something that's been done way before the SNP started gaining popularity.

This, and just plain out-of-date figures, is likely the reason there's so many different "GDP" figures for Scotland floating around Wikipedia atm. --Connelly90 09:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Has somebody been fiddling? The GDP figure is now shown as 235 thousand billion dollars! But the reference shows that it cannot be more than £128 billion. Which would mean 212.48 billion dollars at the current exchange rate of 1.66 dollars to the pound. Who's going to change it? Or shall I?Agent0060 11:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

It's probably correct. I assume it's a decimal point before the zeros, which incorrectly suggests the figure is accurate to 3 decimals, which it obviously is isn't. I'll correct it. Using the current exchange rate would be incorrect. I would assume whoever added the figure used the exchange rate in 2012. Someone can confirm this is they want. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Current new News

Headine-1: Scottish independence poll:Yes on brink of victory

• http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-poll-yes-on-brink-of-victory-1-3382125

QUOTE: “The extreme negativity of the No campaign is playing into the hands of Alex Salmond. ” [The last sentence of the third paragraph (WP article herein) already talks about the referendum in September.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC) — PS: FYI for future editing.

Not really relevant. This article takes a broad overview of Scotland, covering a couple of thousand years. And we don't describe those years day-by-day. Events like this poll are far too minor to be of any importance for the article. The only independence poll with any real relevance for it will be the one in September.-- Derek Ross | Talk 21:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I said, "for future editing" meaning in September, and then, only if 'independence' changes. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Margo MacDonald

The Government and Politics section states the following: "Margo MacDonald is the only independent MSP sitting in parliament." This should probably be updated to something like: "Margo MacDonald was the only independent MSP sitting in parliament until her death in April 2014. As she was elected as a Regional List MSP, no by-election will be held, and her seat will remain vacant until the next general election to the Scottish Parliament." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrussellaudio (talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 May 2014‎

Now updated, without going into unnecessary detail about the lack of need for a by-election. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There are now 2 other independent MSPs - Jean Urquhart and John Finnie (though both were elected as SNP candidates).--Vclaw (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Is scotland a country?

shudnt scotland be cald a constituent contry get ur facts right ppl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.138.6 (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Learn to spell, then come back. Britmax (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources support the view that Scotland is a country—see for example the article entitled Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table of references at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. This view is shared with other reputable encyclopedias. There has been a long-standing consensus to describe Scotland in this way.

This is one of the most frequent questions raised by visitors to this talk page. However, in the absence of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Wales and the UK itself. Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries", and this term has broadly won preference amongst the editing community. Note however, that a country is not the same as a "sovereign state", and that "constituent country" is also used in other parts of Wikipedia. The community endeavours to achieve an atmosphere of neutrality, compromise, and camaraderie on this issue.

Rob (talk | contribs) 16:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the FAQs at the top of the page before posting; this question is answered directly. The short answer is "Scotland is a country". A "constituent" country is still a country. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong - Scotland is not a country. The UK is a country. When did Wikipedia get taken over by the SNP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.12.136 (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you will find that "the SNP" are quite busy with other matters at present. We may all be able to agree that the terminology of British Isles related matters is complex, but as Connelly90 suggests above you may find the FAQ at the top of this page helpful. Ben MacDui 12:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The UK is a "Sovereign State" and England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are countries, but they aren't sovereign states. (WP:NOTSOAPBOX) --Connelly90 14:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you will find that a false analysis. There was no extinction of the sovereignty of the two kingdoms on the island of Great Britain (Ireland being a totally different kettle of fish), merely a merging in 1707 (Whatever nonsense has been spouted since). Have a look at the clauses of the acts? Im afraid Wales doen't get a look in by virtue of being taken by conquest (however unfair that may be!)

Brendandh (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Article 1 of the 1706 Treaty expressly states "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN." This confirms the extinction of the two earlier sovereignties and the creation of a single new sovereignty and a single new kingdom 'Great Britain'. Whether or not one can say a single new country was created, or that the two countries remained distinct entities, wholly depends on how one chooses to define a country. For my money I'm happy to call Scotland and England two countries even though they are not two states. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.11.168 (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be called a reliable source. The English and Scottish Crowns were in a personal union of two separate countries after 1603. However after 1707 the Act of Union was the amalgamation of the governments and for most purposes the administration of England and Scotland. The Act referred to the two kingdoms becoming one. The term country was not used in those days, and kingdom was the equivalent. In the absence of a legal definition of "country", I would suggest that it requires that the entity be independent. A degree of internal self-administration is not sufficient. Otherwise US states and colonies could be called countries, which I think most people would see as incorrect.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

While I accept the Wikipedia policy on this I do agree with Royalcourtier's analysis above. That said, I've discussed the issue elsewhere quite recently and it seems there is a disparity between what Scots are taught in school on this matter and what the rest of the UK is taught. Purely anecdotally, I've been told that in Scotland it's taught that there are 'four countries that make up the United Kingdom', while the rest of the UK seems to be taught that there is 'one country made up of four constituent nations'. Clearly it's a purely academic difference that's causing issues. --Cdfbrown (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

'Country' is very misleading as it is frequently mistaken as being a sovereign state. I see no reason why consensus must be met on the talk page considering it is fact and more precise than simply labelling Scotland as a 'country' with no pre-text as to what this is. Why, under any circumstances, should we not refer to it as a 'constituent' country - to dumb the article down? To nationalise it? It makes no sense! All it does is contradict the United Kingdom article, in-which the UK is described as a sovereign state as opposed to a country. The opening statement as to what Scotland is must be concise and unambiguous. This special exception is not the case elsewhere, and so works to confuse the reader. See: Greenland. Italay90 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page: "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives and review the FAQ before commenting." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

National Animal

The citation given for stating Scotland's national animal as the unicorn is not credible. It is a piece of journalism that lacks academic rigor. Despite having heraldic and symbolic significance in Scottish history, the unicorn is not in fact an animal and thus cannot be the national animal of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.168.6 (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I was intending to agree, but there are plenty of other sources as well, like this and this. However, this takes a different view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

Historic and avant-garde, quirky and elegant, rainy and heartwarming - Glasgow is a city of opposites and of inspiration, dear to anyone who's lived here and unforgettable to any visitor.

It's a city where people like to dress up and have fun, to party all night, to soak up culture and to have a bit of banter with the next person in the queue.

It's a city where you'll see charity-shop hipsters rub shoulders with stylish high-flyers, where indulgence can mean cocktails and designer handbags or a stroll through a Victorian park.

It's a city of underground music venues and architectural jewels, of art and music festivals, and of lazy Sunday morning brunches.

It has a vast cultural offering and it's like no other place in the world.

92.233.171.172 (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Precisely what is your request? HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• That text would be a WP:COPYVIO of this page. As well as being the purest of PR froth. AllyD (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Copyvio and spamcruftpeacockfroth - Arjayay (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Patron Saint

For some reason there are three "patron saints" listed. The links to the Catholic Encyclopedia are not references to support the claim. St. Andrew is the only "patron saint" of scotland. I suggest that this be edited. Acorn897 (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Scotland and Pope

Is Scotland the only country in Europe which never accepted the Pope authority. Teaksmitty (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Scotland accepted the Pope's authority from the time of the Synod of Whitby until the reign of Mary, Queen of Scots, a period of almost a thousand years. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2014

Scotland (/ˈskɒt.lənd/; Scots: [ˈskɔt.lənd]; Scottish Gaelic: Alba [ˈal̪ˠapə] ( listen)) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. 12][13][14] However, the Scotish Independent Party is pushing to cede from the United Kingdom, a decision that will come before Scottish voters in the coming September 18, 2014 election. Kdurfey (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi Protection Request

Kdurfey (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• A clear argument for semi-protection there: almost every second word in that proposed change is misstated (no "Scotish Independent Party", movement broader than the SNP, referendum not election, etc.). The introduction to this article should remain as it is until the situation becomes clearer. AllyD (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: That's something that certainly should not go in the lede at this time. Cannolis (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

News about Scotland separation

Scotland may get separated from the UK this year. See the news.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What is your point in regard to improvements to the article (the purpose of this page)? Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the editor is saying we should include this information into the articles lede. While the user should have extended this by using more words, I do not think the retort was needed WP:CIVIL--Inayity (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The referendum is already in the lead, so that's not it. I think Matt Lunker's question is a fair one. DeCausa (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone posts here and the purpose of the post is not comprehensible, asking for clarification is the obvious course and more civil than leaving an obscure post ignored, or making assumptions as to its intent. I did contemplate simply removing it as an apparent forum post but decided to give the editor the benefit of the doubt and ask as to the point they were making. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hatnote for today/tomorrow only

I've added the following hatnote to the article:

For today's referendum, see Scottish independence referendum, 2014.

on the basis that the vast majority of people looking at this article today (and probably also tomorrow) will be doing so because of interest in that topic, and we might as well find the link front-and-center at the top of the article, instead of making them search for it in the article body. When the votes and counted and result of the referendum is in, we can remove it. -- Impsswoon (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

fixing this article following the referendum

Now the separatists have been defeated in the referendum, this article is going to need fixing. Why has the fact Scotland is part of the Uk been moved? it use to say Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Someone has changed it to push separatism. its now been defeated. so lets fix this please Scotland2014 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You know this? The result will be announced tomorrow morning. Britmax (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's in the first sentence. Someone changed it, others changed it back. Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. NebY (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Official languages

The infobox currently implies English, Scots, and Scottish Gaelic are 'official languages'. Is there a source for this? The Scottish Government's Gaelic Language Plan states:

'The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 was passed by the Scottish Parliament with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language.'

Does that imply English is already an official language of Scotland? The article current implies that English is an official language of Scotland because it's an official language of the UK, however that isn't considered at Northern Ireland's article. Could we use the Gaelic Language Plan as a source for English as an official language? And then bold 'Recognised regional languages' so that it is no longer implied that Scottish Gaelic and Scots are official languages?
Rob (talk | contribs) 16:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible bias?

26th September - PLEASE. This article needs to be edited with regards to the recent referendum on independence and the issue of Scotland's status as a part of the United Kingdom. At the moment it uses language which is biased in favour of unionism and contains factual inaccuracies and un-sourced assertions.

EXAMPLE 1: "Regarding internal affairs, the Scottish Government had expressed unwillingness to admit the same right to inhabitants of Shetland and Orkney, where the constitutional status of the isles is debated and where parts of the population desire autonomy within the UK, independence of their own or reunification with the Kingdom of Norway." If this is so, please show that there is a movement in the Northern Isles campaigning for reunification or autonomy. It is sloppy just to write that "parts of the population desire" when there is no political movement afoot to achieve these aims.

EXAMPLE 2: "In May 2011, the Scottish National Party won an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament; as a result a referendum on Scottish independence took place on 18 September 2014, in which independence was rejected by a majority of the Scottish electorate." - I would suggest that a reasonable change to this paragraph would be: "...as a result a referendum on Scottish independence took place on September 18th 2014. A 55% majority of participants voted "no" against 45% who voted 'yes' to the question on the ballot: "Should Scotland be an independent country." I feel that this wording is more accurate and less emotive than the word "rejected". It also offers a concise perspective on what the final result was without discriminating for or against either position.

Example 1 could certainly use a reference. Example two seems correct to me - this article is about Scotland, and Scotland did indeed reject independence. "Reject" is accurate and the correct word to use here, it has negative connotations but the result was "no", which is by it's very definition, negative. We need to be careful not to blur the lines between "negative as opposed to positive" and "negative as opposed to affirmative".

Similarly the detail of the result should be kept to the Referendum article, the important fact for this article is to state that there was a referendum which led to Scotland remaining in the UK... any inclusion of the breakdown of the result adds emotion rather than removing it, as we can see in the debates raging since, and risks a reduction of clarity/conciseness. Audigex (talk) 09:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your wording doesn't make any sense. The current version seems clear and unbiased. For example, it already mentions the fact that "The referendum rejected independence by a majority of 55% to 45%". Italay90 (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

7 December I agree with the comments above also please correct the following:

"in which independence was rejected by a majority of the Scottish electorate"

Only 46.7% of the electorate voted against independence so this is factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr JM Mackintosh (talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added the voter turnout figure, replaced the ref link with a better (IMHO) one and made the language 'neutral'. Trust this does the job. Rab-k (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikitravel.org

There are a lot of updates needed on Scottish cities and towns in wikitravel.org [3]. Some pages have not been updated there in years. Travelmite (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Before anyone gets confused, Wikivoyage [4] is the free-content travel guide wiki which is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikivoyage therefore helps collaboration by making good use of WP:CC BY-SA. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not know of some sort of competition between Wikivoyage and Wikitravel. Did not know about Wikivoyage. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Wikitravel needs a lot of updates. Wikivoyage appears to have a lot of the same content, so maybe it is also out of date. Travelmite (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Per above, Wikivoyage is the project related to this project so if that is important to you, efforts are best made there. (Wikitravel, amongst other things, has different criteria regarding original research etc. which you may be fine with but best to be aware. There are further details at the Wikitravel article.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

45% did not vote for separation

Hello i noticed another mistake in the introduction but it is starting to look like a separatist propaganda site so maybe this is not by mistake? The article claims that 45% voted for independence. That is not true. 44.7% voted for separation. If the specific figures are to be stated in the introduction the correct figure should be used. Please look at the figures on the article at Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Scotty2015 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no reason to see conspiracy around every corner. By the same token your figure expressed to one decimal place of 44.7% is "incorrect" derived from a figure expressed to two decimal places, 44.70%, or 44.697% to three decimal places. Expressed to whole numbers it is quite correctly 45%. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

article intro is wrong

hello the article introduction is wrong and it will not let me change it. The article says:

" In 1999, a devolved legislature, the Scottish Parliament, was reconvened with authority over many areas of home affairs following a referendum in 1997."

This is a lie. A devolved legislature was not reconvened. it was newly established. Use of the word reconvened suggests that this parliament existed in the past when it never did. Please can someone correct this mistake? thank you. Scotty2015 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The lead of any article has so few words to work with, and so many objectives to satisfy. However, I can see why there may be issues with describing the arrangements as "reconvened". The Scottish Parliament article describes the situation very well. The current parliament was established under the Scotland Act 1998. It may be reasonable to say that "In 1999, a devolved legislature, the Scottish Parliament, was convened..." Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think "convened" is good. Unless there are strong objections from elsewhere.--SabreBD (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I object to this proposed change of language. The Scottish Parliament existed before 1707 and was reconvened (as a devolved legislature) in 1999. The terminology was first used by Winnie Ewing, who chaired the first meeting in 1999 (as a Presiding Officer had not yet been elected) BBC footage. Nobody objected at the time and the term has been widely used since. Sources using the word "reconvened" include the Daily Telegraph, a Scottish Government education page, the British / Irish Council and The Herald. As you can see this term is not just used by nationalist sources. I think this is unionist revisionism to say that this term is now invalid. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I too object to removing reconvened. I was watching proceedings that day and everyone was very clear that the parliament was being reconvened. Footnotes and context can make the details clear if necessary but at the time there was widespread agreement across the political spectrum that the Scottish Parliament represented a continuation of the historic parliament.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a particular axe to grind here, but the Scottish Parliament website refers to a "new Parliament". Is a form of words that explains that the terminology of "reconvening" was used (in 1999) possible - without too much clutter?--SabreBD (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, other words are available. For example, we could say that following the 1997 referendum, a Scottish Parliament was re-established as a devolved legislature with authority over many areas of home affairs. (Arguably, the first (re)convening was dramatic but the re-establishment was more important.) NebY (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Scottish Parliament was not re-established as a devolved legislature, as it was not previously devolved. Perhaps: "Following the 1997 referendum, a Scottish Parliament convened for the first time since 1707" (or whenever). Daicaregos (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. I could salvage my example as "a Scottish Parliament was re-established, this time as a devolved legislature...." This has the small virtue that changing "a Scottish Parliament" to "the Scottish Parliament" - which I bet some editor would do, some day - wouldn't matter much. NebY (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It also flows better than the current text. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy with NebY's suggestion of how to word this and agree with the accompanying reasoning that has been presented. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me.--SabreBD (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy with that too. Daicaregos (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done - thanks, everyone. NebY (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015

The National animal of Scotland is not a Unicorn,it is actually a deer.I know this because I know a friend in Scotland that knows that the National animal is a deer. Lengendkebab (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Website

In the interest of supporting the new .scot TLD and consistency, I want to raise the possibility of changing the website from "scotland.org" to "welcome.scot" in the InfoBox. Both sites are identical and both domains are registered to the Scottish Government, similar sites such as scotland.gov.uk have already redirected to gov.scot, so I figured someone forgot to setup a redirect from scotland.org to welcome.scot. Any thoughts? Aaron McHale (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason why Wikipedia should be concerned with "supporting the new .scot TLD". http://www.scotland.org/contact-us/ still refers to "scotland.org". The email is still stated as "info@scotland.org". Unless that changes, "scotland.org" should remain. FYI, domains aren't websites; both domains direct to the hostname/s of the website. Rob984 (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't but as the page about and representing Scotland and Scottish Culture on Wikipedia we should be, but I do see you're point about references to "Scotland.org", so until that changes then yes I agree. FYI, I do know how websites and domains work, I happen to run a company that provides these services. Aaron McHale (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)