Talk:Scotland

"country that is part of" vs. "constituent country of"

Maybe this has already been discussed to death, but I'd like to give my humble opinion. The phrase in the opening line "a country that is part of the United Kingdom" is going to be confusing for people not familiar with British politics, and I think you should change it to "a constituent country of the United Kingdom". Most readers who have not studied the UK will only know the word "country" in the context of sovereign states, but they will be able to intuit the meaning of "constituent country". To be frank, the current wording also seems a bit awkward to me, and I get the impression that it was written more to make a committee of writers happy than to inform the readers. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Your feeling that this subject has been discussed to death was quite correct. Reading that discussion may have saved everyone's time The least that could be done before bringing the subject up again is to read 'Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)' above. This is an encyclopaedia; users should expect to discover information beyond their everyday knowledge. Because some people may be ignorant of a word's usage in other parts of the world is insufficient reason to stop using it. The word country is linked to the article of that name. If a reader is unsure of its meaning they can read the article. There is no reason to change the existing, agreed wording. Daicaregos (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite the FAQ, it seems to me like an attempt to deliberately mislead the readers for political reasons, so for the good of the encyclopedia I thought that it could use another voice of opposition. The word country, while technically correct, is being used in a different context than most readers would expect, and I don't think that we should rely on people clicking the link when there is a more specific term that we could use that would clarify our meaning. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Using things like the FAQ is how we keep things consistant and encyclopedic; if you start bringing personal opinion into things then the result is not a clear, whole and accurate encyclopedia. The fact that "most" people aren't aware of the use of the word "country" in this way isn't a valid reason to change it. If they don't know something then surely an encyclopedia's job is to offer the explanation to people who want it while describing it as accuratly as possible; it is not make it simpler to understand for a wider, and quite frankly, more Americanised audience. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ explains why we don't use a more vague word, like "region", and why we don't use cultural or political terms like "nation" or "principality", but I don't think that it gives a good explanation of why we can't use more specific language. The word "country" can have multiple meanings; Wiktionary gives three definitions of "country" that could apply to geographical areas, but only of "constituent country". I don't think that using a more specific and less ambiguous term that does not use up any more letters means that we are simplifying our content. Why say “a duck is an animal” when we could say “a duck is a bird”? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Arctic Gnome, as you surmised in your opening sentence, yes, it has been discussed to death. After numerous sources being used and discussion by numerous users the consensus was for the words being used. Would you also like to name those who were attempting to "deliberately mislead the readers for political reasons"? Before you even think of doing that, I would like to point out that AGF is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Jack forbes (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right about AFG; I'll take it for granted that everyone who argued for the current wording had good intentions. Nevertheless, I still believe that it is needlessly misleading. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As you agree about AGF, please strike your accusation that the intro "seems to me like an attempt to deliberately mislead the readers for political reasons". Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated before this is suppose to be an encyclopaedia not politics for dummies, we should not cater to those get confused with the term "country"--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree that using more specific language to avoid ambiguity means that we are catering to anyone. If someone else was arguing that an explanatory sentence should be added to the lead paragraph, or wanted to add links and footnotes to explain jargon, then I would agree with you that this article should not try to be politics for dummies. However, I believe that my suggestion clarifies the sentence by being more specific without catering to anyone. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a source based encyclopedia and the vast amount of sources say that Scotland is a country. There is nothing to clarify here. The opening sentence is accurate and in no way confusing. As has been said, the discussion on this has been done to death and I see no reason to go over it again. Jack forbes (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, you do make a good point ArcticGnome but as this has already been "discussed to death" I don't see the need for further discussion since the current wording has already been agreed; it shouldn't be changed simply to cater to people who don't understand and are not willing to find out. Using "constituent country" is not needed here as clicking on the like attached to "a part of" will take the reader to a page explaining Scotland's position within the United Kingdom. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We have beaten this one to death and come up with a form of words that matches the weight of references. All of that is available to any reader to check up on. Country is more referenced that "constituent country" --Snowded ^TALK 11:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess we have to go with the most referenced term. I don't really like phrases like "a part of" to be links, but I can't think of a better place to put it off the top of my head. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"a country that is part of the United Kingdom" Confusing for people not familiar with British politics? I find that hard to believe. Are we also confused by the federal states calling themselves states? For example Texas being the state of Texas and not the Federal State of Texas, and are we confused with the United states if Kentucky, Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are not a states but a Commonwealths, or that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) and not a Commonwealth (U.S. state). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the word "state" is less likely to confuse people, and if it were up to me, I would disambiguate it anyway, but I take your point. Probably the best thing to do is use the term "sovereign state" in the opening of every article about a sovereign state, but I highly doubt that I would get every geographic wikiproject to agree. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The intro is fine, let's leave it that way. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

It seems to me that there has been a lot of vandalism of this page reciently; I think it wouldn't be out of the question to place it under some form of protection for a while. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to. Seems about a normal amount of vandalism for a high profile page. Absolutely no need for protection. Matt J ^User|Talk 17:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a moments panic when I saw that SmackBot edited "Country" to "country"; but I see nobody is taking offense, so no need to protect in my view. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Expanding article

Among the many expansions being made to this article over the past, there is this "The Scots' pragmatic approach to the vagaries of human nature, is evident in everything from the works of David Hume and Adam Ferguson to Robert Louis Stevenson’s Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Homes. Their concern for functionality and practical design can be seen in the architecture of Robert Adam and in the Art Nouveau of Charles Rennie Mackintosh. Their dark sense of humour abounds in the comedy of Billy Connolly and the books of Irvine Welsh. " That is essentially POV amalgam, open to any other set of counter examples; I'm deleting the para but bring it here for potential discussion. AllyD (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Rapid Fire Edits without Summaries - and historical inaccuracy

This article is being subjected to a stream of IP-originated edits, whose common factor is non-use of the Edit Summary, contrary to Good Practice. Can people please use the Edit Summary to explain what they are doing with each edit?

One item that I notice is that the the text and footnote relating to the 1696 Education Act has been ported back 200 years and has become text about the 1496 Education Act. The outcome is that text relating to general parish schools (1696) has now been applied to the 1496 position (not even mentioned in the reference) with an added claim that this represented "general public education". Only if one regards the "sons of barons and freeholders of substance" as the general public. AllyD (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First World War Scottish death toll

The figure of 74,000 Scottish dead in the first world war is quite a bit shy of being the real figure. I remember reading somewhere the death toll was actually 147,000, which is why I had a look around. The Scottish National War Memorial state that they commemorate nearly 150,000 casualties. By casualties they mean dead as memorials don't commemorate the wounded. 86.150.20.117 (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of books here confirm the 147,000 figure.[1] 86.150.20.117 (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is about Scotland, no the millions of people descended from those who left Scotland for England, India, Canada, USA, etc etc. Therefore the count should be just those who enlisted from a residence in Scotland. As for the memorial, its website says that it includes casualties from "from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and many other countries. Some were of direct Scottish descent, their families having emigrated many years before, while others served proudly in Scots Commonwealth units." The 74,000 number is from the standard scholarly New Penguin History of Scotland (2001) edited by Houston and Knox p 426 and does not include the overseas men of Scottish ancestry. Rjensen (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to hunt the book down and read page 426. 86.150.20.117 (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Cabinet photograph

Do any users have access to an up-to-date photograph of the Scottish cabinet? Michael Russell took over from Fiona Hyslop as Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in 2009. Also, should the old photograph be removed? 86.147.204.162 (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. That'll be a no and an I don't know then. Has Scotland shut down for the day? 86.147.204.162 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the old photograph should not be removed. Wikipedia articles deal with the entire span of history of topics. There is nothing whatsoever that stipulates that all photographs must be bang up to date. Just as long as the caption indicates correct date. We do not have the luxury of a vast band of photographers supplying material, with correct copyright, so we use the few materials available to us.

On another point, I strongly advise you to register an account. ip addresses have an appalling reputation around here, especially on this particular article. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

To have an appalling reputation after years of living with an untarnished one would be too much. I have dated the photograph. John Hendo (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Burns night

I wouldn't want to upset Rabbie Burns fans but, is his day widely observed? In the national symbols section it does say it is more widely observed than St Andrews day. Even so, is widely observing not an exaggeration when as far as I'm aware, living in Scotland as I've done all my life, observance of his day is few and far between and I don't recall observing it myself or knowing anyone who does. Maybe I'm associating with the wrong people. Thoughts? John Hendo (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

My experience tells me that, inside Scotland St Andrew's day is more widely observed; outside Scotland, Burns night is more widely observed. For instance here in Calgary, Burns night and haggis always get a mention on the TV at this time of year plus the number of Burns suppers that various organisations put on is quite extraordinary. St Andrew's day on the other hand passes yearly without comment. Oh, and you're definitely mixing with the wrong people, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I just needed someone to confirm that for me. About the wrong people I mean. :) Do you think our experiences are enough to tweak the wording to reflect that? John Hendo (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

We could try. The worst that will happen is that it gets reverted. By the way if you're really interested in attending a Burns supper, have a look in the local paper and on the internet. There might be a public one going on in your neighbourhood. They aren't always well advertised but they do exist. I certainly attended a couple while I lived in Angus. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Aye, that might be a good night out. As long as I don't have to address the Haggis! Would you like to do the tweak yourself Derek? John Hendo (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked. I always enjoyed the Burns suppers that I went to. Mind you it depends on the quality of the speakers. When you get someone with a knack for comedy it's great. When you don't... well, at least the food is generally good. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine they would have a good supply of fine Scotch Whisky for all that toasting. John Hendo (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly hope so. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, Burns night is celebrated more by the "protestent community" within Scotland, with the only burns suppers in my area to my recolection being organised by the local masonic lodges etc. and St. Andrew's day is more of a celebration that involves everyone in Scotland. Of course, outside Scotland, I have little idea as to how it is celebrated as I've never lived anywhere else. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I realise that the Masons are big Burns fans. However I'm not a Mason myself and I've never attended a Masonic Burns supper. The ones that I have attended have always been community-based. As for religion, I'll take your word for it, but living in Angus and the Northeast I never noticed it as a factor. Maybe it's just because I'm an unobservant atheist. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever heard anyone criticise or praise him in relation to their religion. You either like him or you don't, right? John Hendo (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard before from a few sources that he was quite a devoted protestant, I could be wrong though; I'll do a bit of digging later on and see if I can find anything. EDIT: also, I live near Glasgow so that's probably a big factor. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't doubt that he was a Presbyterian. After all we are talking about late 18th century Scotland. Even the Episcopalians were keeping their heads down at that point, and Catholics were still on the other side of the Irish Sea for the most part. But a devoted Presbyterian? His womanising and poems like Holy Willie's Prayer, or The Holy Tulzie suggest that his devotion only went so far. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See also similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Missing topic: Relationship between N Irish and Scottish politics. I think we can surmise that there is tendency for the tribal/religious element to be in issue in the west and perhaps Central Belt in general. Elsewhere it receives a lot less emphasis. I have never heard of anyone in this part of the world considering a Burns supper as anything other than simply Scottish. Ben MacDui 19:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're right; I had only heard it from a few people before but I'd never thought much off it, but, I couldn't really find anything that was reliable enough that said Burn's night was a protestant thing. I don't really observe Burn's Night and I think the people who do in my area are the minority. Too many things like this descend into the whole catholics vs. protestants thing; I suppose I'm not really too interested in many of them beyond the Old Firm as I'm an athiest.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Government section of Infobox

The UK Prime Minister needs to be placed in this section of the infobox. Scotland has a devolved government, but, last I checked was still governed from Westminster.Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK PM does not belong in the infobox. I have no idea why you think Scotland having a devolved government should change that. This is an article on Scotland, not the UK. Any argument that readers will somehow be confused into thinking that Scotland is an independent country if he is not in the infobox collapses the second you start reading the article. US and Australian States do not include their President/Prime Minister in the infobox. Is anyone confused into thinking they are independent states? Putting forward the argument that it's because Scotland is referred to as a country (as you did at Wales) does not stand up. Having the UK PM in the infobox just looks odd. John Hendo (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You may also wish to refer to the FAQ above and the various discussions in the archive. Consensus may change of course, but there is background to consider. 14:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It still confuses me why anyone would think having the UK PM in the infobox improves this article. In my opinion it only confuses things. As I said before, this article is about Scotland, not the UK. As you say, consensus may change. John Hendo (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is mentioned in the FAQ:

Q7: Why is the First Minister listed above the Prime Minister?

A7: This article is about Scotland, and the First Minister is the head of the Scottish Government. Many Wikipedia articles about non-sovereign entities (such as US states) do not display the name of the head of state at all, but excluding the Prime Minister has proved to be controversial, so the current compromise was reached some time ago.

It looks like someone has taken it upon themselves to remove the Prime Minister since this compromise consensus was reached... I'll have a look through the archives to see if an a more recent consensus was agreed.

As to why it might improve the article to include the PM? Perhaps because he is the head of government here? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

He is the head of the UK government. There is only one government in Scotland and that's the one in Edinburgh. I'll reiterate, this is an article on Scotland and the UK PM is not the head of the Scottish government. Do you think the UK PM belongs in the infobox at the Scottish Government article? John Hendo (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The UK Prime Minister absolutely is the head of government in Scotland when it comes to reserved and excepted matters of government. The First Minister is the head of a devolved government, not an independent government.

I've traced the removal of the UK PM from the infobox to an non-consensus edit made by an anonymous IP on the 5th of January: here Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is he the Prime Minister of the Scottish Government? No. His title is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This is an article on Scotland, not the UK. By your reckoning the US President and the Australian Prime Minister should be on every State article infobox. I'll have to log out for quite a while, at least until tomorrow, and we shall see if anyone else has an opinion on this. It goes without saying that if there is no consensus to exclude him I shall accept that. John Hendo (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Scotland is not a federal state, it is a country. The current position, with FM and PM both listed, is the result of consensus reached following long (and arguably tedious) discussions that are preserved in the archives above. It should not be altered unilaterally. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are the relevant discussions from the Archives:

• Order of First Minister
• Consensus regarding PM and FM
• Prime Minister

Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I also see that the discussions took place two or three years ago. Consensus may have changed since then. I'll avoid posting any further comments here and wait and see if anyone else wants to chip in. John Hendo (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really the best person to give thier opinion about anything political, but I'll chip in to the discussion none the less. The way I see it, is that there is no need to include the UK prime minister in the infobox; we already state in the article that Scotland is a part of the UK and this article is specifically about Scotland as a country, so should include the head of government for Scotland. You wouldn't really see many articles including the leader of the EU in their infoboxes and I see this as a similar situation in some way. Westminster may have powers over certain things which concern Scotland (such as defence and international relations) but the vast majority of decisions made as to how Scotland is run are made without any input from Westminster at all and they do not have any control over it; so, putting the Prime Minister in the infobox is kind of placing him in a higher position within Scotland than he really has in my opinion. Also, the head of state in the UK is the current monarch so that would suggest to me that so long as the queen is in the infobox there is no need for the PM. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Point of information: there has never been consensus, or anything even approaching it, regarding adding the UK PM to the infobox on this page. It is self-evidently preposterous, like so much of the infantlie content that passes for "work" here at Wikipedia. It is wee silly things like this that will continue to contribute to preventing Wikipedia ever becoming a proper reference work. But, to a large extent, I have stopped caring, so feel free to add Nick Clegg too if you fancy. I'm sure someone out there will have a good guffaw at our expense.--Mais oui! (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We do tend to get bogged down in the silly little insignificant details a lot here rather than focusing on the bigger issues don't we? --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It may be a very small detail and some may consider it insignificant, but as Mais oui points out above there are probably a few guffaws at our expense. I laughed at the thought of anyone including Nick Clegg in the infobox (as I laugh at the thought of the PM's inclusion) until I realized something. If the majority of people here decided he should be included he would be, no matter how inane that would be. As has been said above, the whole thing is preposterous. John Hendo (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the whole thing is preposterous, but for what will probably be a different reason to most; I really can't understand the idea of any Scottish person wanting to associate their country with the Westminster governement any more than is necessary. It's like a Scotsman choosing flying a union flag as opposed to the Scottish saltire; I'll never understand that, a bit controversial maybe, but that's just me. For that reason (and the fact that the PM isn't actually the head of state, the queen is) I think the idea of mentioning the PM in the infobox for Scotland isn't really needed. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether we want to be associated with a Westminster government is irrelevant for these purposes, but it would make for an interesting Wikipedia article. See this for example. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, wheather or not we want to be associated should be taken into account here; facts are facts and opinions wont change that. I was just explaining where I'm coming from when talking about things like this. It would certainly make a very interesting article as it could delve into the decline of "Britishness" especially among the celtic peoples of the UK and how it has affected certain aspects of how the countries work together as part of the UK. --Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The likely reason for the UK Prime Minister being included in this articles infobox, aswell as the infoboxes of the articles Wales, Northern Ireland and England, is because England doesn't have a devolved government. For an example of other non-independants who don't have their sovereign state's President or Prime Minister in their infoboxes - see the Canadian provinces & territories; the American states & territories. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The above post falls into WP:SOAP, and is completely irrelevant to how this article should be improved. Any objection to its removal? Daicaregos (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not soapy atall, as we're trying to keep the 4 articles as consistant as possible. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Consistency would be having all three heads of the devolved administrations in their associated infoboxs, the UK Prime Minister has no place on the infobox just as the Scottish First Minister has no place on the UK infobox.

All 4 articles must be consistant. If we remove UK PM from all 4? then the infobox gov't section at England would seem a tad odd. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

All 4 articles do not need to be entirely consistent. Their histories and current constitutional positions are quite different, and WP should reflect that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You'd have no probs with deleting UK PM from England's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Its more ambiguous there than at the other country articles, discussion can take place on that page. Otherwise I agree with Ghmyrtle this is not one of those cases where we need consistency --Snowded ^TALK 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as UK PM is kept at England's infobox, I'll oppose its deletion here and at Wales, Northern Ireland's infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus! Is this the kind of people that decides what's on the Scotland article? Take a look at his recent contributions. I've never seen anyone so xenophobic in my life! . John Hendo (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's gotta be deleted from all 4 infoboxes or none atall. GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's your argument! Get yourself an education then come back to me. I've been following your contributions since you stormed off in a huff when I asked you a question on the UK page. Quite frankly, I don't know why anyone puts up with your prejudice. John Hendo (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I need a refresher course (at my talkpage), concerning the UK article. GoodDay (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is your refresher course. John Hendo (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place for that topic. Bring it to my talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You amaze me. You bring up things on article talk pages that don't even try to improve the article, yet you think I should bring this to your talk page! No thanks. I have no interest in your talk page. John Hendo (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Your choice. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with John, your generally disruptive behaviour should be visible on the talk pages of the articles, not confined to your talk page. The bulk of your comments make no contribution to article improvement. --Snowded ^TALK 07:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

His choice. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the issue of the UK PM's removal on the talk:England page.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 00:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? Do we need permission from the England article? No change there then! John Hendo (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of Infoboxes, and they are especially poor as locations for the expression of any form of complexity. Nor have I felt that the periodic to-and-fro skirmishes here on the Infobox content have contributed much to the improvement of the article and its general level of information. But on a specific here, if we just try to anchor this in some real examples, in the past fortnight there have been news stories about the potential closures of some airbases and economic repercussions on people in these areas of Scotland. And so what do we find? Petitions being delivered to 10 Downing Street; Fife Council sending submissions to Liam Fox; Westminster debates on consequences for Scottish people's jobs. It may not reflect how we want Scotland to be governed, but there's a level of current reality represented in there. If there's going to be an Infobox, it has to reflect that reality. AllyD (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In 2009 there was a Taxpayer March on Washington to protest against big government, health care reform, federal taxation, and the presidents federaL spending. The US Presidents decisions on all these things affect all Americans in whatever state they live in. Does wikipedia see the need to include the president in the state articles? [2][3][4][5] John Hendo (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Mais, don't delete the UK PM from the infobox again. There's no consensus here for its deletion. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is blatantly obvious from the above discussion that there is no support whatsoever for the frankly bizarre inclusion of the UK PM in the infobox. The editors of this article will not allow you to continue your well-known routine. You have been warned. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no consensus for deleting the UK PM from this article's infobox, which is reflected in this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There was never any consensus for adding the UK PM, and it is clear that there is a consensus for removing that line from the Infobox. We know your record of highly disruptive, unconstructive behaviour on British/Irish topics. We will not allow that behaviour to continue here. You have received fair warning. Now desist immediately. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Save it for my talkpage, cuz I'm not discussing that topic here. GoodDay (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet again you refuse to discuss the substantive points here at Talk. (Because you do not have any substantive points to make.) And you throw your standard smokescreen about taking it to your own Talk page. A failed tactic you have already used just up-page. If you have anything useful to say, you must say it here. We are not holding our breath.--Mais oui! (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we discuss this a few years ago either here or at one of the four other relevant articles (UK, NI, and Wales)? It might be worth checking what drove consensus the last time before coming to a decision this time. Also, it would be nice if people left the article at the status quo ante until the discussion is completed. -Rrius (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing "drove consensus" last time, because there never was any consensus to add the UK PM to the infobox of this article. The "status quo" for several years (since Wikipedia started up) was not to show the UK PM in the infobox, so that is the status quo ante. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's how I remember it too, Rrius. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You "remember" a non-existent event? A most remarkable feat. One hardly knows whether to congratulate or commiserate. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I've restored it. An infobox is there to summarise the pertinant points of article. Removing it from the infobox is tantamount to deleting every part of this article that discusses issues still reserved to Westminster. To pretend that the only two people that are relevant to to that section are the (completely powerless) Queen and Alex Salmond (in charge of hospitals and roads and anything else he is not specifically told to keep his nose out of by Westminster), is frankly laughable. To give that impression to readers who might not know otherwise, for an encyclopoedia rather than an SNP pamphlet, is simply inexcusable. MickMacNee (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mick that is your opinion, others have pointed to precedents on other articles and no one is arguing that there are not matters reserved to Westminster. I don't think its the biggest issue around, but whatever it does not justify the invective in your post. I seem to remember that you agreed elsewhere to tone the language down a bit. As it is arguments had been advanced and there is no absolute right or wrong. Given that so far all the editors in the straw poll have said remove it seems reasonable to argue that this is the consensus--Snowded ^TALK 20:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You remember wrong, as usual, so you can stop that tedious and well trodden game before you even start it, if your intention here is to actually discuss anything with me. On an issue so ripe for POV pushing like this, polls are utterly irrelevant, worthless infact. If you are so desperate for a poll, we can put it to a site wide poll, to ensure we get plenty of completely neutral opinions, from people who have no agenda to push here. The only thing that consensus is derived from is making an actual, sensible, intellectual argument, on whether or not it is completely and utterly misleading and disingenuous for uninformed readers, to exclude the UK PM from this infobox. If that has been made above, point it out. Arguments of the like of pretending that this article is just like that of a US state (which actually have far more constitutional independence that Scotland ever will while still remaining in the UK) are completely and utterly irrelevant. Given the context, do you really think arguments that compare the Scotland infobox to a simple sub-country subdivision are remotely relevant? Do you think it is remotely plausible for anyone to pretend that for basic information such as 'who controls the armed forces', is not something that should be uniform across all four UK country articles? If people think this is information that would really be included in for example, the Essex infobox, and that's the example we should be following, then by all means, run us all through how that logic works. If you want to pretend that the discussion above came to some sort of supportable conclusion, you could start by pointing out where points made such as that by Ally D were responded to, if responding to what I've said is too taxing. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see the points Ally D made were responded to over the next few responses. Other than that the rest of your point seems to be a pretty standard Mick diatribe. I suppose I should be grateful there are no swear words. However I don't see any new arguments that have not been covered. You have a valid point of view, so do those who oppose you. This is not a major issue of policy not is it one where there is a definitive right answer. If you have a substantial point to make and can make it without invective in a WP:CIVIL: civil manner then I'll happily respond. Another post like that I will just ignore, life is too short to put up with editors who can't engage in a civil conversation. --Snowded ^TALK 21:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do me a favour, you don't even realise you are being incivil in posts like the above where you carry on your tedious game of pretending smearing me is somehow a civil way of answering my post, or buying into this nonsense that the only way you can be incivil is if you swear. That's how much you know about civil behavour tbh, and therefore, I really could care less who or what you ignore, especially if that's all you have to say here. And as regards what you do have to say here that isn't a tedious smear, Ally D has not actually been answered in the manner I described, and no, this issue is not a free for all where people can make up any old point as if they were remotely equal. Prevention of POV pushing through poor argumentation, or self-interested votes, is infact a core policy. MickMacNee (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Snowded is right, there are valid opinions on both sides. I find Mick's argument that US States "have far more constitutional independence that Scotland ever will" to be quite counter-factual. US States are in some ways pretty similar to Scotland in some important ways (state legislature, multi-tier government, considerable spending autonomy) and it would be illuminating to see a comparison by a constitutional expert of the relative powers of a US state governor and the First Minister. I suspect the latter actually has more power in some ways, but not others. It is in no way as clear cut as Mick proposes. A relatively short piece by Mick, I assume a much longer diatribe will now ensue? :) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, there are not valid opinions on both sides, there are opinions, that's all. How much weight they have depends on how much sense they make, particularly with regard to whether a reader who knows nothing about Scotland is going to be intentionally misled or not by accepting some of those opinions as remotely plausible. And if people don't even know the difference in the constitutional status of a US state and the UK countries, why are they even using them as a comparison? MickMacNee (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No "straw polls" - Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion

Perhaps I'm mis-reading the above discussion in claiming there's no consensus for deletion; I'm simply not sure. For clarifiction sake, can we have atleast a straw poll on inclusion/exclusion of the UK Prime Minister? GoodDay (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No. This is not a forum for your tedious teenage pranks. Discuss the issue like an adult, or take the high road. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well he should have done the work to check numbers rather than taking the lazy way out with a straw poll, and yes his previous comments have been trivial at best (part of a disturbing pattern with GoodDay). However I think we need to be careful here. Having reviewed the discussion we have three editors for inclusion, two (Catfish and AllyD0 advancing arguments, one (GoodDay) opining as is his way without argument. Then there are four for removal (Hendo, Connelly, Daicaregos, Mais oui) and four who have commented but not taken a formal position (Ghymrtle, Snowden, Rrius & Barryob). Now that does not really establish a consensus for change. If pushed on what I think is a minor matter I would favour exclusion which would make it five-three which is marginal to change a long standing position. So overall I think a straw poll is not a bad way to test opinion and its a normal wikipedia process. Mais oui, I get as frustrated by GoodDay treating Wikipedia as a private play pen as you do but we shouldn't let that blind us to proper process. Given that I am opening the poll below --Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A straw poll is fine if those taking part in it have given a legitimate reason for their stance. Ally D and catfish have at least given an argument for their stance, though I disagree with them. The only argument from one user that it's because we must have consistency between articles doesn't really cut it as far as I'm concerned. John Hendo (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a "stance", or a strong opinion, on the substantive issue, so doubt if I'll want to make a comment. (Unless people raise the "consistency" issue, which I reject.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I just raised the "consistency" issue. GoodDay (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if some evidence of use outside of Albion could be provided. I had a quick look at the infoboxes of various constituent parts of the US, Canada, Australia and Russia, plus Tibet and I could see no evidence of the head of of the sovereign state appearing there. There may well be examples.... Ben MacDui 10:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• My position is not quite as summarised above. It is that Infoboxes (if they have a place) should only express clear facts that can stand alone, without dubiety or need of supporting lawyering. Anything more complex than plain fact belongs in the article text. So instead of juggling leader_name and legislature parameter numbers to either omit one or balance precedence of Edinburgh & Westminster roles, I'd prefer to omit all. AllyD (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(resp to Ben Mac), That's why I've leaned towards remove, in the straw poll. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ben MacDui raises a sensible point above, which is comparison with similar devolved entities. Of course, this is another case of the usual problem that the "constituent countries" of the UK represent an almost unique case in their make-up; historic countries, with a common monarch as head of state and recent, but variably empowered, devolved national administrations. Not just that, but the most populous entity, England, is also effectively undevolved in a wierd semi-federalised system with no seperate powers for the largest member. Other large federal entities like Germany and the US for example have their own wikipedia conventions. Nothing else really like these islands. I do question though why we have Scotland not showing the PM and Wales showing it. Is the difference between the two really so great? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wales question is a current topic of conversation, the outcome of which will likely be informed by this debate. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Jamesinderbyshire). I don't want to put words into your keyboard, but would it be reasonable to interpret what you are saying as something like: "There appear to be no or very few Wikipedia articles outside of the UK where the national sub-division of sovereign states have infoboxes that display the sovereign state premier. Scotland, whilst having an historically different background to many of them has a status which is currently similar to most of those sub-divisions. England on the other hand, has an anomalous position"? I wonder if this is the nub of this whole discussion. It is easy to fantasise that it is somehow an "Nationalist vs Unionist" debate, but I wonder if a major reason for its recurring nature is that:

1. The occcupant of No 10 has to be in the England infobox for sure.
2. Editors who are more focused on parts of the UK that are not Scotland and Wales sometimes jump to the conclusion that attempts to avoid this usage in Scotland are somehow an egregious expression of national sentiment (and in some cases they may be right), but
3. Some editors who are more focused on Scotland wonder why this article is being treated differently from just about all similar articles except England, but find themselves cast as card-carrying members of the SNP when they get involved.

In short, the question may boil down to - should Scotland follow English usage or more general Wikipedia usage? Ben MacDui 09:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A good analysis. There are probably lots of ways we mistake each others' preoccupations and primary interests for "nationalist" or "domineering English" or whatever. We are all struggling with the ambiguities. Painted on top of this are all the Ireland / NI issues and the smaller islands. Oviously we all need to take a regular chill-pill around here and be careful about assuming the worst of each other. The other problem is that often we don't understand aspects of national characteristics, long-held assumptions or beliefs that operate in the "other parts" of the islands from our own and those misunderstandings land us in trouble. So the Wikipedia maxim to not bite is well thought out and applies here as much as anywhere. I do wonder a little bit if we shouldn't start from scratch with the infoboxes and set up infoboxes that are purely templated for the special situation of the UK though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I should add that in a way Wikipedia (as it often does) blazes a trail on this issue - there aren't any other forums (fora?) I know of that analyse these issues in as much detail as we do here and expose the intricate ambiguities and confusions for what they are. Wikipedia is not a debating society, but these talk pages do show up a lot of interesting points that aren't regularly featured in the news media and which our politicians seem hopelessly ignorant of in many cases. Useful to remind ourselves of the power and intelligence of this activity, even though it is also often frustrating and feels foolish. Just passed my 3,000th edit on this, so it must matter to me presumably. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Open Poll

Please indicate "remove" or "keep" in respect of the UK's PM being in the information box.

• Remove --Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove - There is a footnote that explains Scotland's position within the United Kingdom, and the inclusion of Alex Salmond as government head is informative to readers as well as correct being that Scotland does have a devolved government.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove Per my argument above. John Hendo (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove as per Autonomous communities of Spain all of which have devolved powers yet do no list the Spain PM in the respective infoboxes. (add signing) Barryob (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove - this is the Scotland article, not the United Kingdom article. Daicaregos (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Remove, per the infoboxes at Prince Edward Island & California (for examples), which don't have the Canadian Prime Minister or the American President within them. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Totally irrelevant. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Article protection

Because of the repeated changes and reversions on the same point I have put a one day protection on the article, in line with the recent protection of the Wales article. This protection may be renewed if necessary. (And yes I know I've protected The Wrong Version.) Please a) discuss things on here first and establish a clear consensus rather than changing back and forth; and b) if it's disputed if consensus has been reached then get a neutral party to determine what is the consensus. Thank you. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see a consensus for the removal of the UK PM from the infobox. Should it not be reverted back to that version? John Hendo (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm withdrawing from this debate. Clearly I'm a troll/educationally subnormal teenager who knows nothing about Scotland and her society, history and civil life ([6]). Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Struck following clarification from User:Mais oui... Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus here - see WP:CON. In NPOV disputes like this, polls are worthless, not least when they have not been advertised to the wider community to benefit from the truly neutral viewpoint (and I hope we aren't going to get the same tedious accusations as we do in Irish polls, that the whole community are British imperialist bastards, as one notorious Irish POV pushing editor always asserts when they don't get their way in such polls). Given the basic facts, I cannot see how a site wide poll would agree that the change makes any sense at all. As far as the discussion phase of CON on this issue, the opposing viewpoints have not been rebutted in any meaningfull way at all, certainly not with any reference to a core policy like NPOV. This page has nothing in common with any of the examples cited above that do not include such higher information in their infoboxes, and it's pretty obvious that pretending to uninformed readers of this article that the only people who govern Scotland are Alex Salmond or 'Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland', are rather obvious examples of presenting an improper POV of the subject. Scotland has not been an independent country for 300 years, Westminster is very much still a core part of its governance, and while Scotland has devolution, it most certainly does not have a federal or constitutional status that is in any way comparable to a US state or a German state, and it's also pretty obvious that the levels of awareness of the status of those entities in the uninformed reader (which this article is here to inform, it is not the sole preserve of Scottish editors familiar with the subject) is a hundred times greater than compared to Scotland (in a world where some can't even distinguish England from Britain, this should be blindingly obvious to anyone not here to POV push). It's not called the Federal Republic of Germany for nothing, and the average Yank doesn't get into a lather when you deny his statehood for for nothing either. The status and world knowledge of Scotland by comparison? The comparative history of its own pseudo self-government stretches all the way back to the ancient times of 1997 (and was not originally called the Scottish Executive for nothing either). So putting aside the lack of a passport or any kind of meaningfull 'statehood', if people want to suggest that Scotland is merely an administrative sub-division of the UK, like Essex is to England, such that various things only relevant to the larger entity can be removed from the infobox, then we can see what else fits that criteria too and remove the whole lot, although I very much doubt that is the overall intention of this proposed change. And yes, as a final point, if the argument is that this is simply a sensible matter of organisation, consistency between the UK infoboxes is very much a relevant point to be addressed properly, if this is the particular argument to be made. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to point out, the straw poll was requested by me as clarification on its preceding discussion. At that time, I was claiming there was no consensus to delete the UK Prime Minister & then was concerned I wasn't reading the discussion properly. With the commencement of the straw poll, we agreed (as Mais' stated), it wasn't binding. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I could argue that the US president should be in the state infoboxes. Yes, they are federal states, but it is also a fact that that the presidents policies have an affect on every citizen of those United States. His exclusion may fool some people into thinking that is not the case. I would not argue for that of course, because reading a very small part of the article would disavow them of that notion and is any case an article on the individual state, not the United States. The infobox of this article informs us that Scotland has a devolved government and the reader would expect to find the identity of the leader of that government in the infobox. Why they would expect the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to be there escapes me, and how the reader would be confused over the status of Scotland and it's government when they can clearly see that it is devolved and the first sentence of this article explicitly says that it is part of the United Kingdom also escapes me. The infobox does not need the UK PM and having him there does not add any additional useful information, and quite frankly looks odd with him there when this is an article on Scotland. At the moment there is a consensus for his removal, but if you think that there is a lack of neutrality here then you can put it to a wider audience. How that should be done I don't know, but if you decide to do so I shall step back and let a consensus evolve from there. John Hendo (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Have to disagree there, John--the states of the US are not federal states; it is the United States itself that is the federal state. In a way there is probably a greater case for the inclusion of the UK prime minister in the Scotland box than the president in the US states articles. The UK government can in theory legislate in every single bit of devolved areas but that is not the case in the US--no UK powers have been given up in this. In a sense, the Scottish government is the UK government's proxy for handling UK responsibilities in Scotland. In practice, the UK government does not exercise its powers (so far) and allows the Scottish government to legislate without interference. In the US, some areas of the individual states can absolutely not be interfered with by the federal government. --Bill Reid | (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Given its basic purpose, an infobox looks decidedly odd to any normal person if it is missing very basic information about the topic, not least if that information is considered so important, it appears in the first line of the article. And it's not a requirement to read the article before reading the infobox makes any sense, that would be mad. If the UK PM is removed, unsurprisingly, and in contrast to US state infoboxes, the infobox retrievable contextual reference to the UK becomes completely and utterly obscured. Which is probably quite intentional I think, given as it does, in a completely opposite fashion to US state infoboxes, a rather passable impression to the reader that this page is about a completely independent country. Again, no surprise there I don't think. I've actually no objection to removing the line about the PM, if the sentence about devolved government that prefaces that whole section, actually stated in clear language, where the devolved powers come from, namely the Westminster Parliament. But again, I'm not sure that sort of clarity and reader benefit is what is being pushed for here. And no, there is no argument at all that you could give for including the US President that would have any relevance here - as Bill Reid points out, the nature of that power structure is almost completely reversed, if we are going to start pretending that the concept of a US President is as well known around the world as Scottish devolution that the situations are even worth comparing - an absurd idea in of itself. MickMacNee (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the Catalonia comparison? The politics section of the infobox there says simply the government type ("devolved government in a constitutional monarchy"), the name of the Catalan minister-president (Artur Mas), and the name of the devolved administration(Generalitat de Catalunya). It doesn't name check either the King of Spain or Prime Minister Zapatero. Why would something similar be innapropriate for Scotland? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The situation is quite distinct. Aside its far greater level of autonomy, Scotland is regarded to be a country in its own right rather than simply a region within a country. The Scotland article needs to be able to be viewed in that light and its infobox has to be comparable with those of other countries. Catalonia is, on the other hand, simply regarded as a region of Spain with limited devolved powers.Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, and what I think Catfish Jim is saying, if people want to downgrade this infobox to that of an administrative region of the UK (which is what Catalonia's infobox (Template:Infobox settlement) is in relation to Spain), so we can remove information you can easily assume in that case, like where 'devolved powers' come from, then we can do that, but I rather think that the logical outcome of that, in what other changes it would prompt, is not what people are after. Taking the Catalonia example, that would require for example, the inclusion in Scotland's infobox (Template:Infobox country) a special 'country parameter', to denote which sovereign state that Scotland belongs to, i.e the UK (currently, this piece of basic info, included in the opening sentence, is only vaguely hinted at using the map). As I said above, I'd be more than happy to remove the UK PM if that was done. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be the way to go then. Much clearer than the present situation. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

To have an infobox on the Scotland article that says "Country: United Kingdom"? Does anybody seriously believe this will improve the article's stability? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't have to say "Country: United Kingdom". If you look at Catalonia's template you will see that the parameter showing "Country: Spain" is a pipelink: [[List of sovereign states|Country]]. It could just as easily say [[List of sovereign states|Sovereign state]], giving "Sovereign state: United Kingdom".Daicaregos (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I could go with that. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Scotland isn't independant, just like Ontario & Nebraska. We don't need the UK PM in the former, just like we don't have the Canadian PM & US President in the latter 'respectively'. There's no need to complicate something so easily fixed. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And that statement is intended to improve this article how exactly? Daicaregos (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You know where my talkpage is, if you've a problem with why I'm supporting exclusion of the UK PM. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That might seem logical, but the situations are not analogous. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Queen

Following from the discussion of the appropriateness of the UK Prime Minister being in the infobox, I have boldly removed Elizabeth II from the infobox, as she is Queen of the United Kingdom, not of Scotland (or indeed of Scots), and this is the Scotland article. Also, the style "Elizabeth II" is nonsensical in the context of Scotland. You can't have a second if you've never had a first. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that will stand. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it has already been reverted. But it seems quite clear that every argument that applies to omitting the UK PM also applies to the UK monarch. Including the example of the infoboxes of autonomous communes of Spain, such as Catalonia, wherein it states that it is a constitutional monarchy, but does not namecheck Juan Carlos I. 16:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Stoughton (talk • contribs)

I've already restored your edit, as I mistakenly thought you'd restored the UK Prime Minister to the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with Ivor. Elizabeth II isn't Queen of Scotland but rather Queen over Scotland/Queen in Scotland. I note that the Head of State isn't included in the infoboxes at the American states/territories & Canadian provinces/territories. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Authority in the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies is still derived from the monarch. It is not the same as the UK PM --Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's covered by the reference to constitutional monarchy. No need to name the monarch, especially when the regnal number is not accurate in the context of Scotland. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Excluding the Queen from the infobox makes Scotland's inclusion in the United Kingdom redundant. It needs to stay for the sake of the readers and accuracy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The numbering issue and conventions have been extensively discussed elsewhere and the convention is to use II. Personally I would get rid of the whole royal family, but for the moment the authority for the assemblies is derived from the Queen so if the head of the assembly is listed then so should the monarch. I'm not sure how much this proposal is serious, or is an indirect attack on the proposed removal of the PM; whatever the two are not linked.--Snowded ^TALK 17:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Snowded is absulutely right. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you regard the Catalonia article as misleading, in that case? Also, when did an Elizabeth I reign in Scotland? And surely the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly derive their authority from Acts of the UK Parliament, or the exercise of the authority of "Crown in Parliament". The Parliament in question being Westminster. Doesn't mean we need to include the UK PM, or the UK monarch in the Scotland article. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since when did an Elizabeth I reign in the United Kingdom?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the style is utterly misleading, except in regard to England & Wales and Northen Ireland, all of which were reigned over by a prior Elizabeth. Scotland, and the UK, never were. And this is the Scotland article. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth's regnal number is a seperate topic, though. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's relevant in that this is the Scotland article, and Scotland is the only part of the UK which was not reigned over by the prior Elizabeth. Thus the style "Elizabeth II" is uniquely wrong in this context. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Queen is responsible for ceremonial duties and for granting royal assent to acts of the assemblies; this is 101 constitutional law. The convention in both England and Scotland is to use II for I for Elizabeth, see countless discussions on her article. --Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't her article. This is the Scotland article, and the style is uniquely inaccurate in a Scottish context. 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Stoughton (talk • contribs)

We're getting off track. This is a discussion about her inclusion/exclusion from the infobox. Not about her British monarchial regnal number. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We're on track. The cipher EiiR is not in official use in Scotland for this very reason. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Its a valid question GoodDay. Ivor, if my memory is correct there was a court challenge to the use of II in Scotland which failed, however it is common in Scotland to omit the ordinal. I think it would be acceptable to do that--Snowded ^TALK 17:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If the Queen is kept in the infobox (and it appears as though it will be), then the proper regnal number should be used. She's Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom not Elizabeth II of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Elizabeth of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why not just use the example of the Catalonia infobox: mention the constitutional monarchy, but omit the name of the monarch? This deals with the constitutional concerns of derivation of authority, and accomodates concerns about the appropriateness/accuracy of the style and title in a Scottish context. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Its an option, but it is also the case that it is commonly omitted in Government circles in Scotland. The argument is therefore stronger to omit the ordinal. Now aside from stating your opinion, do you have an argument? If the common government use in Scotland is to omit it then what argument would you put in favour? Arguments GoodDay, not opinion please. --Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

She's Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (which Scotland is a part of), she's not Elizabeth II of England, Wales, Northern Ireland; Elizabeth of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the United Kingdom article. This issue comes up uniquely in a Scottish context. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You are making a statement not engaging with the argument (yet again) GoodDay. She is the "II" of the UK, the issue is omission of the ordinal in the context of Scotland. If you are too lazy to do a bit of research or think about the subject fine, but in that case have the decency to shut up --Snowded ^TALK 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No comment. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Snowded, why not leave Elizabeth II as it stands, but add a footnote explaining that there was never an Elizabeth I of Scotland?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A pipelink would achieve the same result, no need for a footnote. I am happy to have the ordinal or not, when I did a quick bit of research the ommission of the ordinal came up as an option and its attractive if other editors agree. GoodDay I see is either not willing or unable to take up the challenge to do more than sprinkle this page with his opinions--Snowded ^TALK 18:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Snowded are you suggesting that the Queen be in the box simply as "Elizabeth", pipelinked to the Elizabeth II of the UK article? Because that would be very acceptable to me. 18:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Stoughton (talk • contribs)

Yep, seems like a good compromise to me and conforms with use --Snowded ^TALK 18:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just been doing some scouring of official Scottish governmental and media websites to see how they describe her. The Scottish government and parliament nearly always use the form "Her Majesty the Queen", so not much help to our debate there. [7] Interestingly, Scottish MSPs seem to be able to take office without directly swearing an oath to the Queen. I found a great many mentions in Scottish media outlets of Queen Elizabeth II. The Scotsman for example often uses the term and recently. [8] I am not convinced that it is not a common usage in Scotland, at least to some. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Scotsman" could as well be renamed "The Brecqhou Twins". Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it owned by the Barclays? Not sure that affect the basic issue. The "remove the II" case is I assume based on local commonname arguments? If lots and lots of media in Scotland and other things freely use it, then the argument falls, or is at least more tendentious. There seems to be a belief above that the commonname usage is a closed story. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The Scottish Government and Parliament do not use "II", as far as I can tell. And since the 1950s, the Royal Cypher (EiiR) has not been used in Scotland, because of sensitivities around this issue. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already pointed that out. Going back to media, the Glasgow Daily Herald is also surprisingly fond of the term, most recently using it as her official title for the transcript of the biggest state occasion in recent years in Scotland, the greeting of Pope Benedict. [9] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Government outweighs media I think, and its a neat solution--Snowded ^TALK 19:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't secondary sources preferred over primary sources? GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The key thing is that it's commonmame that prevails in Wikipedia. The local linguistic uses are an example. The names of national articles are another example. The issue here is to determine what is the common name for the Queen (1) and for the way the Queen is named in Scotland (2). In the infobox, we can add a dash of "officiality" to our wikiness as we try to be all posh over there. So there is some weight to what Snowded says about governmental usages, but, as I pointed out, the official govt sites in Scotland ignore the conflict by calling her something else entirely. So we are back to other sources. It isn't the closed book some are suggesting is the point. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

COMMONNAME applies to page titles, it does not allow the invention of completey bogus titles in infoboxes. She is Queen Elizabeth II in Scotland. That is a simple, verifiable, fact. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It is also dealt with in FAQ at the top. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The FAQ offers a dead link to a supposed agreement on the question. It doesn't help us here at all. To be clear - I don't dispute that the Queen is correctly styled Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. The question is whether it is necessary to refer to her in that style and title in the infobox of the Scotland article. It appears to be the consensus that Prime Minister David Cameron need not be included simply by virtue of his UK office. Why shouldn't the same hold true of the Queen? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Kittybrewster is referring to if a British monarch is named James, he'd be James VIII of the United Kingdom (as Scotland had 7, England 2) or if named David, he'd be David III of the United Kingdom (as Scotland had 3, England 0), such a scheme wouldn't effect British monarchs retroactivley. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

HM The Queen is referred to as Elizabeth II in Scotland. Because she is Elizabeth II of the nation State which is UK, of which Scotland is a part. Scotland is not a nation state, hence eg it is DEFRA which negotiates with Europe, although the money for Scotland goes straight to Scotland. To avoid this discussion, the Royal Family will not name their children James or David, or if they were to, then they would be known as George or whatever (see Edward VIII known as David but regnally named Edward; Albert was regnally named George VI). The EC wants no subdivision of the nation state. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A monarch can chose whichever regal name they prefer, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to reply "Up to a point, Lord Copper". Instead let me ask how your response is a remotely constructive contribution to the debate? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We've gotten off track here, concerning future British monarchs. See my talkpage, if you wish to continue. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't read the whole mountain of discussion concerning this and what I have to say has probably been said before, but; we have had this discussion a million times and it is always explained that the naming convention of British monarchs is that they take the number after the previous Scottish or English monarch with the same name, which ever is highest; so, calling the current queen Elizibeth II still makes sense in Scotland. I'm not great with royal history but I'm sure this has happened before where a British king had taken their number from the last Scottish king of the same name as it was the highest.--Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It's never happened yet, concerning a Scottish name. Before the 1707 unification of the kingdoms England & Scotland, there were 3 English, 2 Scottish monarchs named William; 6 9 English, 0 Scottish named Edward; 1 English, 0 Scottish named Elizabeth. Both England & Scotland had an Anne, neither had a George or Victoria. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, England had 9 kings named Edward before 1707. ðarkuncoll 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, 9 Edwards. I forgot about the 'the Elder', 'the Martyr' & 'the Confessor'. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Which rather makes the point that ordinal numbers need have no real bearing on fact. ðarkuncoll 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatcha mean? GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That they needn't correspond to the actual number of monarchs with that particular name. ðarkuncoll 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Darn those plantagenets. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Were they all kings of "England" though? Historians debate this. Edward the Elder for example was most probably just ruler of Wessex plus some other bits - not York or Northumbria. There are others like that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

He was King of the Anglo-Saxons, the northern part of England still being under Danish occupation. And in any case, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor were certainly kings of all England. To this day the main royal crown is still called St. Edward's Crown, after the latter. ðarkuncoll 17:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This is all OFF-TOPIC. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really - we were discussing the appropriate regnal number for the Queen. Background to that is historical usage. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The point being that a monarch's number in no way has to reflect how many monarchs of that name have reigned over a particular place. Just look at Australia. (I might have used Canada as an example there, but the Elizabethan attempted colony in Newfoundland might have clouded the issue.) ðarkuncoll 18:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have come to the party a bit late but i will give my opinion. Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom there for the monarch should absolutely be mentioned in the infobox. The Prime Minister of the UK who is responsible for the defence of the UK (which includes Scotland) also clearly needs to remain in the infobox. I strongly oppose these attempts to try and grossly mislead people into thinking Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Secretary of State

If the UK Prime Minister is to be removed from the infobox (and he's still there at this writing) how would people feel about replacing him with the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not have both? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm neutral about that. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

He's part of the UK parliament rather than the Scottish parliament. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

The article has too many pictures in places at the moment. MOS:IMAGES indicates that sandwiching of text should be avoided and this happens quite a lot. In other places there are long sections of text with no illustrations. If anyone wants to make some decisions, or suggestions, about which images to keep (or add) that is fine by me. Otherwise I will make some selections and try to find copyright free pics to fill in the big gaps from relevant articles.--SabreBD (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

INFO BOX ISSUES REDUX

I introduced changes tonight which were reverted. In my opinion the current fudged compromise creates a mess of a situation not worthy of an article with GA status. Main points:

• The Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom used in Scotland were removed some time ago and replaced by the Royal Standard of Scotland. The reason for this was that the UK CoA was deemed a UK symbol, not that of Scotland, and was therefore inappropriate for this article. How then can the Monarch, as Head of State, appear in the info-box? Scotland ceased being a State over three centuries ago and therefore as such has no "Head of State". It is the UK which has a Head of State therefore why does QEII appear at all? All I did was to emphasise HM status by repacing "Elizabeth II" with "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom"; but this was reverted. Why? My own preference would be that QEII does not appear at all in the info-box as opposed to how HM appears now; leading the reader to the wrong assumption/conclusion that "Elizabeth II" is the Monarch of Scotland whereas the last individual to hold that title went by the name of Anne!

• I also included within "Legislature" the "United Kingdom Parliament". This too was reverted. Why? The UK Parliament is a legislature of Scotland as despite the creation of the parliament at Holyrood, Westminster continues to deal with legislation specifically unique to Scotland. For example, the legislation governing the process of electing members to the Scottish Parliament is a reserved matter determined by Westminster; despite its having no effect whatsoever on the wider UK. How can Cameron appear without reference to the UK Parliament as a legislature?

• The portrayal of First Minister and Prime Minister in the info box lacked continuity; with explanatory additions linked to the relevant article for one but not for the other. I introduced a degree of continuity by treating both equally, yet again this was reverted. Why does inconsistency appear the norm here?

• As with other info boxes, most noteably USA, I included the political party of the relevant office holders in brackets after the individual's name; this again was reverted. Is factual information really so controversial?

The principal contributors and watch-keepers of this article need to address these issues or the status of the article itself will be open to challenge; the fudged compromises currently in place being detrimental to the quality of the article itself.195.171.9.229 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Having done as suggested and brought up the issues here, I'll leave it for a few days and unless arguments to the contrary appear I'll remove the monarch reference and insert UK Parliament.195.171.9.229 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is not Beth's official title or even the WP article name. If we include the UK parliament should we then also include the EU which also has legislature powers over Scotland to some degree? As for adding political parties this is not the norm at other UK related articles. One question for you: Why did you inform user:BritishWatcher about your edits and not first this talkpage? BW has not edited this article since Sept 2010. What took a new IP editor to this talkpage? One final thing, WP works by consensus not by waiting a couple of days and changing an article cos no-one can be bothered getting involved in your pointless discussion. Bjmullan (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Points as follows:

• I informed BW on his page of my changes as he was last to contribute to the previous discussion and I was canvassing his opinion specifically on what I had changed. As it is you reverted those changes before he or anyone else could form an opinion, but that is by-the-by.
• The EU only has legislative powers in as much as they are enacted by those sovereign parliaments within the EU, therefore although the European Parliament does indeed legislate, in the case of Scotland such EU legislation comes via either Holyrood or Westminster and not directly from Brussels; therefore there is no need to mention it in the info-box, whereas there is indeed a need to mention Westminster.
• The info-box currently gives the reader the impression that Elizabeth II is the monarch of Scotland, which is not the case as she is Head of State to, amongst others, the UK. Scotland, not being a State since 1707, has had no Head of State since Queen Anne. The 'note 4' gives a dubious statement not supported by a WP:RS when it states that "Scotland's head of state is the monarch of the United Kingdom". As stated previously, Scotland has no Head of State therefore note 4 is misleading.
• Entries for Salmond and Cameron did not give equal information to the reader as to their specific role therefore my changes treated both equally in regard to this. You sought to revert that (along with everything else) without justifying why one should be treated differently from the other. I await your response to this with interest.
• "If you can improve it further, please do so" states the GA box at the top of this page. Including political parties was in order to do so; your "not the norm at other UK articles" smacks of the continuity between UK articles nonsense others spout here. How is anything to be improved if that attitude is taken? Never heard of the phrase "taking the lead"???

195.171.9.229 (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC) PS On a personal note, I go to whatever article I choose and rest assured there are others who find my contributions far from "pointless". If I said you'd be better off concentrating upon racing cars and E-list celebs from NI then I'm sure you'd find those remarks about as acceptable as I do yours, therefore please keep it civil and to the point; nobody appointed you IC anything on these pages.195.27.17.6 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)