Talk:Second Sturgeon government
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Sturgeon government article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Question about "term" field in ministry charts
editI'm not sure what to use as the start point for the ministry charts. Do we consider that the "term" starts now, alongside the formation of the new government, or do we note when someone's post is being carried over from the previous government? The last article seems to have started with "2014" even when a person served in a post before then. Likewise for Second Salmond government... RGloucester — ☎ 15:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at UK Governments for some comparison, and it wasn't very helpful. Third Thatcher ministry uses 1987 as a start date for all of them (including Thatcher), whereas Second Cameron ministry uses the original appointment date (2010 for several of them). I would tend towards the view that 2016 should be the start date for all of the second Sturgeon government, given that she had to be voted back in by Parliament and reappointed at the Court of Session. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Even if one is appointed to the same post, one is reappointed. One doesn't merely continue in the post, so-to-speak. I suppose we'll have to go back through the articles and fix all the dates, but I haven't time for that now. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I would disagree - if you take the appointments that are being proposed to the Parliament tomorrow, they only mention the appointment of Derek Mackay and Fergus Ewing as Ministers (Cabinet Secretaries under the SNP) and Mark McDonald, Shirley-Anne Somerville, Kevin Stewart and Jeane Freeman as Junior Ministers (Ministers under the SNP). The other members of the government who are staying at their respective levels simply continue as Ministers and Junior Ministers, without being re-appointed.[1]UaineSean (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- The link that you gave does not seem to provide any indication that this is the case. Regardless of that, I think that given that the title of the column is "term", it somewhat makes more sense to divide it per government. All articles prior to First Sturgeon government did this, though I've fixed that one now. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Having now seen the appointments take place, I understand what you'd meant. Indeed, only members who were not ministers in the prior government were "appointed" to be "Scottish Ministers" and "Junior Scottish Ministers" today. However, this particular appointment has nothing to do with their portfolios, only their status as "Scottish Minister" or "Junior Scottish Minister". Therefore, I think it makes perfect sense to consider that their "term" in a particular portfolio starts at the start of the new government, even if they'd had a similar portfolio before. I don't think we should base the "term" field on when a member became a Scottish Minister (regardless of portfolio), as that wouldn't make any sense at all. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- What I mean is legally, Michael Matheson remained the Justice Secretary, for example, from his appointment in the previous term, through dissolution, and now past his re-appointment in the same role. Saying that his term as Justice Secretary started on the 18th May would be misleading. UaineSean (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. Legally, he remained a Scottish Minister, but his portfolio is not specified by law. RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- What I mean is legally, Michael Matheson remained the Justice Secretary, for example, from his appointment in the previous term, through dissolution, and now past his re-appointment in the same role. Saying that his term as Justice Secretary started on the 18th May would be misleading. UaineSean (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Having now seen the appointments take place, I understand what you'd meant. Indeed, only members who were not ministers in the prior government were "appointed" to be "Scottish Ministers" and "Junior Scottish Ministers" today. However, this particular appointment has nothing to do with their portfolios, only their status as "Scottish Minister" or "Junior Scottish Minister". Therefore, I think it makes perfect sense to consider that their "term" in a particular portfolio starts at the start of the new government, even if they'd had a similar portfolio before. I don't think we should base the "term" field on when a member became a Scottish Minister (regardless of portfolio), as that wouldn't make any sense at all. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- The link that you gave does not seem to provide any indication that this is the case. Regardless of that, I think that given that the title of the column is "term", it somewhat makes more sense to divide it per government. All articles prior to First Sturgeon government did this, though I've fixed that one now. RGloucester — ☎ 19:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I would disagree - if you take the appointments that are being proposed to the Parliament tomorrow, they only mention the appointment of Derek Mackay and Fergus Ewing as Ministers (Cabinet Secretaries under the SNP) and Mark McDonald, Shirley-Anne Somerville, Kevin Stewart and Jeane Freeman as Junior Ministers (Ministers under the SNP). The other members of the government who are staying at their respective levels simply continue as Ministers and Junior Ministers, without being re-appointed.[1]UaineSean (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Even if one is appointed to the same post, one is reappointed. One doesn't merely continue in the post, so-to-speak. I suppose we'll have to go back through the articles and fix all the dates, but I haven't time for that now. RGloucester — ☎ 16:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- By the way, have we any indication as to whether the law officers will be reappointed? RGloucester — ☎ 16:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
References
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
