Talk:Scotland/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about Scotland. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Article Map.

Why is shown where Scotland is in Europe? This creates the erroneous impression that Scotland is independant. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The last time I visited Scotland it was in the continent of Europe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that Edinburgh is in Europe too, but we don't have a map at Edinburgh showing its location in Europe, do we? GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland which obviates the need to display it on a European map.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Scotland is within the United Kingdom, which obviates the need to display it on a European map. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the little map in the bottom right corner, that I'm complaining about. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Much discussed in March 2008 (as you may recall, GoodDay, as a participant in that same discussion). As I said then "The geographical role is paramount, but the deficiencies of the alternative options are clear in their privileging of the UK political Union over visible context for Scotland's other trading and political links over the centuries, such as Ireland, Norway, France, Veere, Gdansk". AllyD (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I complaing about the little green insert map. I've no probs with the big map, indeed I was one of its main proponents. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The diddy little World map? Agreed - it's pointless. Leaky Caldron 19:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Its GoodDay's latest little campaign - raising it on other articles in parallel. Suggest its ignored --Snowded ^TALK 19:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, please ignore Snowded. He's merely trying to get me banned from these articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've edited with you both. Both reasonably. Leaky Caldron 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggest the discussion takes place in one place rather than four articles. I have responded to GoodDay's sudden change of position after a provocative opening in the talk page of Wales --Snowded ^TALK 19:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree to centralizing this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous. The map is fine as it is - Scotland acts and reacts on the European/International stage at a level that is decoupled from its sovereign status (e.g. sporting activities). Honestly, if this is the most pressing thing people can find time to argue about then wikipedia is finished. SFC9394 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the inserted World map, that's gotta be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"that's gotta be deleted" Really? Who Says? Isn't the point of consensus that people listen to all sides before deciding on what's "gotta" be done? SFC9394 (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that's why I didn't delete it. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What's up GoodDay, are you bored? Thought you'd go stir things up somewhere? One is supposed to assume good faith, but I'm struggling to believe that you are back here in order to improve the article. Rather, I suspect you're simply trying to goad a few of the weel kent faces here into a pointless political argument, until such time as you head off into the sunset, vowing never to return. You've got form for doing this kind of thing, therefore please stop trying to disrupt what is a stable article for your own amusement and go watch T.V. or something. Endrick Shellycoat 11:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't breach AGF & please don't comment on the contributor. I legitimately brought up my concerns about the inserted World map. My concerns are that it gives the impression that Scotland is a sovereign state. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Please don't breach AGF" ? Your previous for this type of behaviour has exhausted the supply of GF on the part of this contributor, and as for your supposed concern re. the map; not worthy of comment. Endrick Shellycoat 09:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't comment on contributor. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic... The map is perfect - it shows where Scotland is in the UK, in Europe, and in the world. You can't get more encyclopedic than that.
» Cooper Kid (Blether · Contreebs) 01:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The big map is fine. My concern is the little inserted 'green' World map. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

When are the Admins going to get a grip on the increasingly tedious GoodDay campaigns? We understand that he doesn't want Quebec to be independent, but this must be one of the daftest WP:POINT campaigns ever conducted on Wikipedia. He has shown, repeatedly, that he knows absolutely zilch about the United Kingdom and its constitution, and yet he has plagued countless UK-related articles. I consider his to be a test case: Wikipedia must deal with this rogue account. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please AGF & don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFC/USER would be the place to go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Plese AGF. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFC/USER would indeed be the best place to go if GoodDay's pattern of editing appears to be disruptive. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 02:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you support or oppose my proposal for deletion of the inserted World map? GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't share your opinion. It's perhaps not the most aesthetically pleasing map, but it doesn't imply sovereignty. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 02:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It's been 'bout 8 days & there's no consensus for my proposed deletion of the inserted World Map. The proposal is withdrawn. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to get everything off your chest now about the things you don't agree with on this article and the other UK country articles. That way the users who come here to disagree with you on a regular basis won't have to waste their time having to put you right every time you have a bee in your bonnet. Maybe you should ask the question, does this article in any way put forward the idea that Scotland is an independent country? When, as I suspect, the consensus is that it does not, then maybe you will no longer have to waste your own time repeatedly asking the same or similar questions. Carson101 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No consensus was reached on deleting the inserted World map, from this constituent country's article. PS: Please don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm commenting on your contributions to this article talk page, as well you know. Now, is there anything else in this article that you believe makes it appear that Scotland is an independent country? I'm sure other editors would like to clear it up in one go. Carson101 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't comment on the contributor. The World map deletion proposal was defeated, time to move on. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You have already said that and I have told you I'm commenting on your contribution to this article talk page. I take it you won't be answering my question? Carson101 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've concerns with the infobox & the intro of this article & those of England, Wales & Northern Ireland. But, I'm not going to raise them 'today'. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Shame.Carson101 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps he'll return once he has amassed all the evidence from reliable sources to back up his "concerns". Until then, we can sleep easily, knowing that personal opinions carry no weight here, and can safely be ignored. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't comment on the contributor. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop saying that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NPA, that's why I make those requests. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:NPA and WP:AGF, just as I am with WP:DGF, WP:WL and WP:GAME. Thank you. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

3 Saints?

Curious as to why in the infobox under 'Patron Saint we have three listed, only one of which has a ref. I vaguely recall an earlier discussion but should we not stick to that saint which, according to legend, King Angus appointed following his victory over Athelstane? Whilst the others are significant, they're not the only saints associated with the country: St Blane, St Mungo, St Serf, St Ninian, St Ernan, etc. Endrick Shellycoat 15:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall now show my ignorance in this matter. I have never heard of the other saints being lauded today as patron saints of Scotland. If I'm wrong then you may slap me with a trout, but seeing as St Andrew is the only one with a reference would it not be right to only include him? Carson101 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think St Andrew on his own would be more accurate. Endrick Shellycoat 16:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

St Margaret and St Columba are patron saints of Scotland, as per the Catholic church. The others, while associated with Scotland, are not patron saints (St Serf is, however, patron saint of Orkney). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Every day a school day... would you be good enough to stick a couple of refs alongside the links in the infobox? Cheers Endrick Shellycoat 16:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC) (PS I thought St Magnus was Orkney's own.)

Do you think it would be appropriate for Catfish Jim to slap me with the trout? You learn something new every day, thank goodness. Carson101 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No, but it would be appropriate for Kentigern to lamp you with a salmon with a gold ring in its belly. Endrick Shellycoat 16:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've put in references for the three from the Saints database at catholic.org (which should be sufficiently reliable for these purposes). I'm no expert on these things, so I've asked User:Deacon of Pndapetzim if he can clarify the matter at all. No trout slapping from me. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Good. I've never really had the taste for trout. Carson101 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pedant, but the ref for Margaret doesn't actually state she is a "patron Saint of Scotland". A contributor to the page even states "Indeed, quite an interesting saint. The article was somewhat lacking in that it did not reveal what she was patron of, but other than that minor ommitance, quite nicely written and informative. " An alternative reference might be:

"A panegyric on saint Margaret, queen and patroness of Scotland. By James Augustine Stothert, Margaret (st, consort of Malcolm iii, king of Scotland)" At Google Books.

That book states on pg 15 "A walk of a few minutes would bring us to the spot, where she murmered her last prayer on earth; whence she passed to her new office of patroness and friend of her adopted country, in heaven". But an additonal official source would be beneficial.Endrick Shellycoat 19:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two links from the same site in that ref... one (list of patronages) states that she's patron saint of Scotland. Not the best, I agree. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

See also here for another candidate or two. I doubt that there is an "official" way to authenticate a patron saint, it is simply custom and practice. By extension if St Foo is one's patron in the 6th century, nobody is going to go about demoting him/her when a better qualified candidate comes along. My sense of this is that Andrew, who gains rank through having a bank holiday in his honour and his low golfing handicap, should be in the infobox, with a short note explaining that there are others, including perhaps my favourite, St John. Ben Mac Dui 19:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrew with a [Note] mentioning the other 4, with the SQPN reference, would suffice I think. Endrick Shellycoat 21:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Some references for the saints: [1], [2] --Bob247 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a sensible proposal. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

IIRC it was Deacon of Pndapetzim who added the other two, so would be nice to get some input from him. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should wait and hear his opinion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The current references are from Catholic online, which I think is an unreliable source considering that the bulk of the text at these references are from Wikipedia, making it a circular reference. --Bob247 (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I'd say that the Vatican refs take care of Andrew and Margaret, but as for the others? Endrick Shellycoat 01:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

NewAdvent, states that Columba is patron of two Scottish dioceses, Argyle and the Isles, and Dunkeld, not of Scotland [3]. No mention of Ninian [4] or Kentigern [5] or the others being named patrons of Scotland, although there is no official list. Also, many saints are named patrons of places that they lived in or were born in, therefore it is entirely plausible that there are many saints attributed to Scotland, including Ninian, Serf, Columba etc. --Bob247 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly some ambiguity about Columba's status. He has certainly been regarded by some as having been a patron saint of Scotland at a particular moment in history (see for example even the title of this: Smith, John (1798), The life of St. Columba: the apostle and patron saint of the ancient Scots and Picts, Edinburgh: Mundell & Sons), but appears to have been venerated particularly by the Dalriadan Gaels and Fortriuan Picts, with the southern Picts taking on Andrew as Patron, under the influence of the Northumbrian Church. If anyone has access to it, I would imagine the following would give as good an answer as anything: Clancy, Thomas Owen (1997), "Columba, Adomnán and the cult of saints in Scotland", Innes Review, 48: 1–26

Discussion seems to have died out somewhat. Can I propose that Andrew and Margaret be mentioned in the info-box, with supporting refs, and the remainder be removed? Endrick Shellycoat 17:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm heading to the library tomorrow and will pick up the reference I mentioned. Can we hold off until then? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs, whenever suits. Endrick Shellycoat 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick flick through the paper and it doesn't appear to explicitly name Columba as "Patron saint of Scotland", although it is implicit that he was regarded as such through to the high middle ages. However, Guiley, Rosemary (2001), The Encyclopedia of Saints, New York: Visionary Living Inc. names him as Patron saint of Scotland. Do we regard this as reliable? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if that book is a reliable source. The authors is well known as an expert on werewolves, vampires and witchcraft, and, for what it is worth, it is a self-published book. However, I have found this: Scottish geographical magazine, Volume 3; Volume 1887 By Scottish Geographical Society. Reliable? I have no idea.--Bob247 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have no objection to Columba being removed... he can always be reinserted if a reliable source can be found. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. I only kicked this off as there was an absence of references where Margaret and Columba were concerned; personally I'm happy irrespective of who appears as long as good references support their inclusion.Endrick Shellycoat 03:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Per the above, I think the solution is not to "remove" saints as to keep the one or perhaps two key ones in the infobox with a note indicating the status of the others. Ben Mac Dui 19:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternated pic

The picture in the Romans sections has been moved to the left by an established editor. It is now the only picture that does not follow the pattern of alternation. Is there some reason for this that I cannot see on my display?--SabreBD (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Scotland population cartogram.

I propose to put File:Scotland population cartogram.png in the Scotland#Demography because my cartogram illustrates very well first paragraphs about where how many people live. Allegedly there is no room for a additional graphics so I propose to exchange Edinburgh picture, which one illustrates only that Edinburgh is a city, for my cartogram. Pawcio (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Might it be better to replace the clan map - which seems to bear no relationship to the text at all?--SabreBD (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Ben Mac Dui 08:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's far more informative. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for delay. The Clan and Lowland families map bear no relationship to the text at all but it is about whole Scotland contrary to the Edinburgh picture. Pawcio (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the clan map's irrelevance there. I also appreciate the effort that has gone into the cartogram, but am not so sure that it conveys information in a meaningful way. I can infer places local to me (e.g. Stirling, Fife) but they are not labelled. And in a way it inverts interesting information, by distending to the point of disappearance the places with large area/low population. So I ask: would a simple table of populations and areas convey the niformation more cleanly? AllyD (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with AllyD' sentiment. This type of map is not very user friendly. A table would be far more cleaner. --Bob247 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've add labels for every council - none has disappeared. Here is a ,,simple" table. Using a table you can't estimate what part of population live in the Central Belt or estimate that in Glasgow City live nearly as many people as in Falkirk, West Lothian and North Lanarkshire together. You can't estimate - you have to calculate. That is why a picture is worth thousand words. Pawcio (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just putting this here to see what it would look like in the article, should consensus be to put it there. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... would it be possible to replace the labeling with numbers in a larger font size, so it's readable in the thumbnail, and place a legend in the caption? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 07:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to label about 20 councils by numbers. Rest is to small to put number readable from a standard 300 px thumbnail. You are free to do it. I can upload a blank map for you. But the caption would be nearly as big as picture, so on the thumb as big as the thumb with the legend in the caption names becoming readable without legend in the caption. Pawcio (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I really like this cartogram and I think its a useful tool for explaining Scotland's demographics. Personally I would be happy for it to repalce the clan map. Even if not used on this page however it almost certainly should be included on both Demography_of_Scotland and Central_Belt Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Agreed. I do however think that here at least that the legend needs to be more brief. "Aberdeen City1-Aberdeenshire, 2-" etc could be relegated to a note easily enough. Ben Mac Dui 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Music" section

I not the appearance of this long new section, almost entirely devoted to popular music. As ever, the trick is to know what to leave out rather than including anything and everything that springs to mind. It could be replaced with a line or two in the existing intro to the Culture section, but perhaps a sub-section at about a quarter the length of the current version would do. There are various other problems due to expansion of the literature section that also need addressing. I'll have a go in due course - comments and suggestions welcome of course. Ben Mac Dui 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC) PS No mention of "Donald Where's Your Troosers?"!

The selectivity is such as to make this as transient as yesterday's chip papers. Some of the missing: Jimmy Shand, Incredible String Band, Average White Band, Bay City Rollers, Gerry Rafferty, Rezillos, Simple Minds, Big Country, Orange Juice (and Andy Stewart). But we've got Codeine Velvet Club instead. Plenty of undue weight and a list including people who I might be ungenerous enough to think will be lucky to get bookings to open local firework displays in 5 yrs time. Personally I think this content belongs back in Music of Scotland (from whence it came I think). AllyD (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Both sections are problematic. Not least because there are still paragraphs on these subjects in the culture section. There are also particular problems in the music section of balance and chronology (there are far more important musicians missing than those included for example). I have sat and tried to work out how to clean up the music section, but I think it is such a major job that I might as well clean up the main article for the subject first and then post a new summary, but that could take a very long time. The literature section is easier to resolve: this is basically the lead (which I recently rewrote after cleaning up the article), but the edit does not carry over all the necessary sources (which are in the main body of the Scottish Literature article). I think I could construct something that is up to good article standard pretty easily on this sub-section, but again just taking over the lead may be much too long and something more concise may be called for in an article of this nature. So just to be clear here, Ben MacDui if you could let me know if you want to work on all of this, or if you want help with some bits, I will do my best to help.--SabreBD (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the path of least resistance here is to remove the music section in toto, add a phrase after "individual artists in varying styles" something like "including Runrig, Susan Boyle and Texas." or similar and leave you (Sabrebd) to tidy up the literature section if I may. Happy to help. Ben Mac Dui 10:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC) PS Don't mention Rod Stewart.

Sounds like a plan. I will let you sort out the music (without prejudice to posting something better based on a cleaned up Music of Scotland article) and I will come up with a shorter and sourced version on literature. Did I mention Rod Stewart? I may have mentioned him once but I think I got away with it.--SabreBD (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ben Mac Dui 16:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam Smiths The wealth of nations and the foundation of classical economics

I'm currently having a discussion with the user Muleattack on the Scottish inventions and discoveries page over the validity of Adam Smiths the Wealth of Nations. The work was groundbreaking and a publishing first on economics and influenced intellectuals throught the world with his theories. Not only that, books like "On The wealth of Nations books that changed the world" by P. J. O'Rourke Grove Press 2007 states; recognized as the fundamental work of economics, as important to the development of this field as Darwin's The Origin of Species would be for natural history eighty years later. Considering Darwin in included in English inventions and discoveries I think Smiths theories and works should be included in the Scottish inventions and discoveries. Other works like Short Course in International Economics: Understanding the Dynamics of the Global Marketplace by Jeffrey E. Curry p4 world trade press states; Smith was the "founder of classical economics and that the wealth of nations remains a standard text for economics students world wide". The invention of classical economics is attributed to Smith, surly this should be added to the inventions and discoveries page?Uthican (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the issue cannot be successfully resolved at Talk:Scottish inventions and discoveries (and it is only a few hours old at present) a more appropriate place to raise it is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. Good luck. Ben Mac Dui 18:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

info box

I intended to place the Scottish parliament as legislator above the Prime Minister of the UK in the infobox as I'm damned sure that the Scottish parliament takes rather more precedent than the UK PM when it is an article on Scotland. Sadly, no matter how much I tried I found it impossible to do so. I'm going to presume that everyone can see that it is commonsense to do so and would ask if anyone knows how to do this. Carson101 (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Best to leave it as is. The legislatures of Wales & Northern Ireland are placed after the UK Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really, this is an encylopedia, the UK parliament is the primary legislature for all of the UK. The Scotland Act (1998) which created the Scottish Parliament was originated within the Houses of Commons and it's legislative authority is legally derived from that Act. Notwithstanding that, the UK Parliament maintains control over most aspects of taxation, social security, defence and foreign policy. It is POV to suggest otherwise. Joseph1990 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay et al on this one. The "Scottish Parliament" is ultimately not that much more than a glorified County Council and certainly does not take precedence over the Imperial parliament. 86.46.20.20 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate images for page

A sequence of adding-removing-adding images is again developing. See most recently Talk:Scotland/Archive_27#Images_yet_again. Personally, I'm with the view that "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can." (WP:PERTINENCE) and that squeezing any text between two photos is unhelpful. AllyD (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The relevant rubric is at MOS:IMAGES#Location, which states that we should "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and an infobox." This is exactly what the images do and it was quite correct to revert the change that introduced them.--SabreBD (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the overuse of images from Glasgow/Edinburgh and the in appropriate image of Callanish at the foot of the section "Medieval period". There are various other possible issues here and, on the assumption of good faith, I have left a note at User talk:MaybeU1242. Ben Mac Dui 18:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems we are being visited by sock puppets of User:Pioneersbrog - who may be an alias of a persistent abuser of this and many other articles, Nimbley. Further suspected actions should be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pioneersbrog. Ben Mac Dui 19:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, some of the pictures in the page are a little out dated, there are more, up-to-date images, a lot more HD than the ones in usage, and they look better in the article, but as long as they don't squeeze the text. 90.218.233.98 (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

There's been a lot of attempts to remove one referenced chunk of the article text today, mainly coming from one university's IP addresses, and with a pattern of providing no edit summary. Perhaps they can bring their rationale to the Talk page? AllyD (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Vsc12 and associated ip sockpuppet - semi-protection

If the ongoing attempt to circumvent WP:BRD by User:Vsc12 and associated ip address (User talk:84.10.140.247) does not desist, we will seek semi-protection of the article. I have requested that the new User come to Talk to discuss their highly prominent addition to the opening sentence, but they have thus far failed to show up.--Mais oui! (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that this may be the thousandth appearance of incurable numpty User:Nimbley6.--Mais oui! (talk) 06:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Satellite Image

Should we add a satellite image of Scotland somewhere in the article ? There's one on the geography of Scotland page. Think it should have a place in here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.115 (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article pretty much has sufficient images, as can be seen from the thread above this one at "Appropriate images for page". You can make a case for replacing an image, but there is probably no room for new images of this scale.--SabreBD (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree - this page is full to the brim with images. I guess it could be possible to replace one of the images in the geography section with a satellite image but as far as I'm concerned it's fine as it is. Caledones ^{talk softly, please} 21:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Scotlands GDP

Spotting that there is a broken link to Scotlands GDP in the information box I thought I'd search for the info and replace it. As I appear unable to edit I thought that I would give the link to the information anyway. This Scottish Government link gives the GDP as 142 Billion. [6]. If someone would be kind enough to include this data I would appreciate it. Thanks. Clay More47 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Scotland's Universities

According to the text there are 15 Universities in Scotland, yet I have found this] website which states that there are 19. Funnily enough, it's the same website, though different page, that is used as a reference for the 15. I'd rather not go charging in to change this without others opinions. The text I refer to is under the heading Education. Clay More47 (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There are 19 HEIs, but only 15 Universities.--SabreBD (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks Sabrebd. Though their statement that there are 19 Scottish Universities was a bit of a curve ball for me. (-: Clay More47 (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Its a question of whether you include the Open University, Glasgow School of Art, Scottish Agricultural College and Royal Conservatoire of Scotland. The Open University is a university, but is not exactly "in Scotland". Whereas the others do not have university status (though the Royal Conservatoire does have degree-awarding powers). This should probably be explained on List of universities in Scotland. --Vclaw (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Introduction and use of the term country

I have for a long time now supported the introduction saying Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom, something that is also said on the England article and Wales article, all despite initially being against use of the term country altogether. the justification being that sources say there were 4 countries of the UK and all four UK nation articles would say a similar thing. However the Northern Ireland article seems to now dispute the fact that Northern Ireland is a country of the UK, with the term being removed from the introduction.

Either England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all countries, or none of them are surely? So should this article be altered to reflect the fact there seems to be a dispute over if the UK is made up of countries? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, the Six Counties have somewhat special circumstances, and it it doubtful that these specifics can be generalised. Do you have an alternative proposal to the existing wording? AllyD (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC):

Oh God, not this 'hamsterwheel' again... Irrespective of BW's all or nothing argument, flawed as it is, the WP:RS carry sufficient weight for this article's intro to remain as is. 86.152.74.13 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AllyD's observation that Northern Ireland is a special case. See my observation in the discussion above regarding the popular use of the word country to mean the land of a nation. That definition can't be applied comfortably to what some would describe as a colony. The plantation of Ulster dispossessed the inhabitants of that country and replaced them with settlers. I'm not making a political point here (although it is of course highly political). I'm just trying to explain why a difference exists. From my extensive reading of histories I would say that a people believe that the land they inhabit is a country if they have taken possession of it and spilt blood in the defence of it. That is the powerful psychology behind the possessive phrase "my country" and after three centuries of almost continuous warfare with the English the Scots have every right to use it. I have no doubt that many Protestant Northern Irish share that feeling, but their claim is not recognised by others as having the same force or validity as the claim made by nations like the Scots and the Welsh. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"Six Counties"? I wouldn't even entertain the opinion of someone who can't even call the political entity its actual name as it shows they are of a highly polarised and partisan viewpoint. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Take it to where it should be discussed....not here!217.43.209.177 (talk) 11:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

NUTS in the lead.

Objections have been made to the inclusion of the following sentence in the lead: "Scotland is one of twelve official regions of the United Kingdom at the first level of NUTS for statistical purposes.". I think that is is accurate, verifiable, notable and consistent with every other level 1 region of the Uk, all of which have the sentence in their respective leads. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no faulting the accuracy of the statement, but this is an obscure concept that few people will have heard of. I don't think it has any place in the lead indeed I would seriously question its relevance to the geography section. The categorisation is really all that's needed and I don't see it in the Wales lead or recall seeing it referred to regularly in relevant European articles. Ben Mac Dui 19:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Entering the phrase "Scotland is a level 1 NUTS region of the EU -wikipedia" in Google yields 4.8m hits. THe categorisation on its own, without some context setting in the main article could not be permitted. It would cause lots of head scratching. The only question really is if it should go in the lead or not. It's not in Wales because of similar national sensibilities in that country/region. I'll open a discussion there too. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with national sensibilities, and I resent the suggestion it was. It's not in Wales' lead because it is unimportant trivia. I have set out a full response on the Wales talkpage. It is not notable enough for the lead here either. Daicaregos (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop using "consistent with every other Level 1 region" or arguments like, all the other level 1 article have the NUTS in the lead. The only reason they have them in the lead is that you added them yourself 2 days ago, so there isn't a precedence here, you're using your own edits in a circular argument. And even if it hadn't happened that way, other things exist isn't a valid argument. Canterbury Tail talk 20:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead should comply with WP:Lead, so just putting a sentence such as that in the lead is not really acceptable. If such information is necessary (I'm not expressing an opinion whether it is or is not) it should appear in the body of the article and be summarised in the lead, such that the proportion devoted in the lead to its summary is in the same proportion as its importance in body of the article. As Scotland is a large article, placing "Scotland is one of twelve official regions of the United Kingdom at the first level of NUTS for statistical purposes." in the lead seems to be disproportionate (especially as this topic does not seem to appear in the "body" of the article). Pyrotec (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Within the NUTS you will find Scotland under the category "Country", of which England, (also a "Country"), given her larger population, is subdivided into nine "Regions", ("statistical regions of England"). Whereas England is divided into "regions", Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not, and for statistical purposes remain whole countries which, when combined with England's nine "regions", form a total of twelve "Level 1 Subdivisions". The "region" category is applicable to those nine within the "country" of England and not to the remaining three Countries/NUTS Level 1 Subdivisions.

What on earth is the OP trying to do here other than to prove they have grossly misunderstood what it is they are referencing/refering? Frankly, to include "Scotland is one of twelve subdivisions of the United Kingdom at the first level of Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics within the European Union." is meaningless drivel for most readers and brings absolutely nothing to the table.217.42.118.93 (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

People don't always come to Wiki to find facts that they already know; sometimes they like to find new facts. Some parts of the lead do not lend themselves to repetition in the main body. Having stated that "County X is a metropolitan county", would you really need to explain what a metropolitan county was in the body? Isn't that what links are for? And yes, there is a large share of nationalism involved here. Bad enough that some should doubt that it is a country, but to be relegated to the level of region, well that realy takes the biscuit. No such sensibilities have arisen in those regions in England. Indeed, in the case of the Republic of Ireland, not only does it figure in the lead of level 1, but also in the lead of level 2 and 3 regions. Lastly, it is the way that the govt of the UK uses in making cases to the EU for special funds for disadvantaged areas. It has very real implications for the lives of people in those regions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As this same discussion is occurring in parallel on three different pages, I shall respond in just one place, Talk:Wales#NUTS in the lead. -- Dr Greg talk 20:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean up of article, especially sub-headings

Does anyone else think their is too many sub-headings and the article needs a minor clean? 90.216.108.71 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really - could you be specific about what needs cleaning up?--SabreBD (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think the contents need a bit cleaning cause I think there are too many sub-headings. Also, maybe some more information added into sections such as currency? 90.216.108.71 (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why the gap between heading and text?

There appears to be an overly long gap between the heading Roman Influence and the start of the text. Is this normal? I haven't noticed this at any other articles. I thought of fiddling about with it to try and correct it but wouldn't want a slap on the wrist for any botch up I may have made. I hope I don't sound picky but it did catch my eye. Clay More47 (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see it.--SabreBD (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Could it be the type of screen that's used? I wonder if anyone else can see it? If not then I guess I can live with it. :) Clay More47 (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It could be width of display. I am on a narrow one at the moment. I notice the last edit made a change to the picture at the top of that section, which I have reverted, so may want to look again now and see if that also solves the problem.--SabreBD (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It still shows a wide gap between heading and text on my screen. It doesn't affect the reading of the article but it is quite obvious to me. Thanks for listening and trying to resolve it. Clay More47 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead section is long

I'm not overly bothered, but as a passing visitor, the lead section of 399 words strikes me as a bit long. Technically it is within the Manual of Style recommendation of "no more than four paragraphs", but does it really need two paragraphs on the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK? (Chorleypie (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC))

I dont really think " Scotland's legal system continues to be separate from those of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and Scotland constitutes a distinctjurisdiction in public and in private law." is needed in the intro when the next paragraph mentions legal again briefly. But i think the rest is important, one paragraph handles the formation of the UK etc the other deals with current significant matters. Once the separatists are defeated the introduction will of course need an overhaul. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks about the right length to me, but I agree that the double mention of separate legal systems could be better or more concisely explained.--SabreBD (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you (Britishwatcher) should go off and start a blog to enable you to give an opinion on whether the "seperatists" will be defeated or not. It's my understanding that this is not the place for such comments. Clay More47 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My comment about separatists losing was simply mentioning the fact the introduction will need changing at that time, as it would no matter which way the referendum result goes. It was relevant to the discussion on if the introduction needs trimming and altering. What should be put once the referendum has taken place is probably something that will need significant discussions on in the run up to the big day so that we have reasonable alternatives to put in the introduction. Rather than seeing edit wars and potentially outdated information being on the article for too long. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If I were born yesterday I just might believe that your last sentence in your previous post was not a statement of your belief and hope. That's fine to have that opinion but it doesn't improve the article reading other peoples opinions. If you had put it in the same manner as your post above that would have been more in the spirit of wikipedia. Clay More47 (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also part of the "spirit of Wikipedia" not to make general nasty remarks about individuals, as in "I think you (Britishwatcher) should go off and start a blog" - can you please dial back the tone Clay More47? It would appear to be yourself who is having strong opinions in this instance. For what it's worth, I agree with the other editors above on this point, but that's not why I'm raising this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

" Once the separatists are defeated " is baiting on the part of BW, pure and simple, and he knows it. Any reasonable individual wishing to keep their own political persuasion from clouding the discussion would have simply said after the referendum. But no, BW couldn't help himself. Try to confine and direct your criticism to the most appropriate place Jamesin... 81.135.131.138 (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree and have often seen a need to suggest mods to his conduct (although people shouldn't rise and the nasty response from Clay More47 remains against Wikiquette) - and sorry, but I didn't spot that last sentence of his in my speed-read of the issue when issuing my first reprimand. :) So both, please cool it. We don't need these talk pages to be a battle-ground and they aren't. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the separatists will be defeated in the referendum which is why i worded the comment in the way i did, im not going to reword every single comment i make incase someone may dislike it to ensure it provides the balance everybody would be happy with, if we all did that almost nothing would get said im afraid. I was not trying to spark a debate on if that will happen or not, merely pointing to the fact that at some point before the referendum takes place, there will need to be a discussion on what is put for when we know the outcome, obviously just not implementing a change until the result. Wikipedia policies say the articles have to be neutral, ive not suggested we put in the article when the separatists lose. Its not my fault if someone gets worked up about a perfectly reasonable comment. Getting worked up about a few words at the end of a sentence is pointless and picking on peoples words in such a way is far more likely to turn this talk page into a forum.

To get back to the point, there is no need for the large sentence on the legal differences in the introduction, and at some point in the coming year or so, a discussion on what changes will need to be made to ensure consensus and prevent potential mass edit warring or an out of date article being stuck once the result comes in. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading your latest diatribe doesn't make me think of you as a reliable source for proposals BW - endlessly repeating the word "separatist" because someone pulled you up on it is not going to make it so - it isn't an accurate depiction of the realities of the SNP proposals, regardless of how one personally feels about them. On the legal sentences, they can stay as far as I'm concerned, they read quite well in the intro context, they are well-written and don't at this stage need mods. When we see the outcome of the current political process, we can identify areas that need re-writing, but on the strength of your reaction to this, I won't be coming to you for advice on how best to write it up in an NPOV manner. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And considering your comments you can be sure i wont be taking your advice either. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And there we must rest! So long as you realise you have nil chance of changing intros to major articles via political point-scoring, all is fine. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

PM or SoS in infobox?

Edit made yesterday introduced Secretary of State (SoS) for Scotland into infobox, beneath the PM. No real preference as to which, but I'd suggest either or is sufficent, but both is unnecessary. If one forced to make a choice, I'd say the PM was more appropriate as they are the head of (UK) Govt., as opposed to the SoS who is the head of a (UK) Govt. Dept. 81.135.131.138 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

GDP ?

Are we certain that GDP figure is NOMINAL and not PPP ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.88 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Scotland a "Country"?

In what senses is/isn't Scotland a "Country"? The Wikipedia article on Country indicates that the common use of "Country" refers to a sovereign nation. If this is correct, the top of the article shouldn't refer to Scotland as a Country.--Nogburt (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times and the consensus each time was that Scotland is a country. Type "country" into the archive search feature above. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Scotland is not a real country. They are Englishmen with dresses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.30.132 (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And Australian's are merely Englishmen with a drink problem and poor personal hygiene.81.154.110.67 (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Scotland IS NOT a country! A country MUST have sovereignty - no other State should have power over the country's territory. The UK Parliament (i.e. England, Scotland Wales and N. Ireland combined) have "control" over Scotland's land etc. Thus, not a country. Also, Scotland does not have external recognition nor does Scotland have its own embassies in other independent countries. The UK has embassies, but Scotland, England, Wales and N. Ireland do not. That's why the UK is a country, but Scotland is not. Scotland IS a "Nation", however. Arossmorrison (talk) 08:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but that isn't what the entry for country says, and shouting won't alter it. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Arossmorrison, incorrect. UK is a nation, Scotland is a country - you have your definitions mixed up. Anjwalker ^Talk 09:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

agree with Anjwalker, the UN is the United Nations, not the United Countries for the simple reasons that Nations (e.g. United Kingdom) are sovereign but countries (e.g. Greenland) are not. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all saying Scotland is a country. It's an ambiguous term, but within the context of the United Kingdom, "country" generally refers to one of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. In an article on sovereign states, it would be inappropriate to call Scotland a "country", but here it is not.--DrewMek (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It is simply wrong to claim that nations must be sovereign by definition, or that countries must not be. In fact, it is inconsistent with the definitions given on Wikipedia. It is also logically unsound to claim that because it is called the "United Nations" that means that all members are nations, and non-members aren't (Switzerland was a nation long before it joined in 2010). I think the main problem with calling Scotland a country is that the UK is also called a country on its page, and people don't generally consider it a possibility for one country to be part of and controlled by another (unless maybe by force). Personally I think it's kind of awkward, but not necessarily wrong. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 17:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've no wish to get involved in a lengthy discussion on this subject, but I have just noticed a recent edit in the article's View history which maintains that the Kingdom of Scotland no longer exists. Let me put the record absolutely straight. The Scottish kingdom is still a legal entity. That's the whole point behind calling the British state the United Kingdom. It is a union of the English and Scottish kingdoms, whatever else is added in, e.g. Northern Ireland. The word 'country' is a layman's non-technical term. Originally, it just meant a piece of land, as in West Country. If for most people it loosely means the land inhabited by a nation, then Scotland is a country. However Scotland is not a state, but part of the British state which comprises four home nations (the UK is not a nation, as someone has stated above). I would certainly call Scotland a country and Wales a country (never a principality) in my everyday speech. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Scotland maybe defined as a "Constituent country" (along with England) and as stated in the wikipedia page "Constituent country is a phrase sometimes used in contexts in which a country makes up a part of a larger entity". It has no political meaning - it simply means a "country" which is part of (or a constituent of) something else. There for Scotland is defined as a country (but not in political terms). The United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northren Ireland however is a sovereign state which is what we would BELIEVE a country is. However a country is simply a geographical region which maybe occupied by a sovereign state or may infact be a soveriegn state. "Countries" may also be defined as a non-soveriegn political division (Scotland). Therefore Scotland is a country (as it is a political division) however the United Kingdom is also a country (as it is a soveriegn state). However, in the each state in the United States of America is in their own right a country!

Scotland - is basically like a state. The United Kingdom - is defined as a soveriegn state (like Spain)

To put this simply - The United Kingdom is a country (a soveriegn state) as said on the wikipedia page; "A sovereign state is classically defined as a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states." Which is most people's Idea of what a country is. Scotland is defined as a country as it is a political division of the United Kingdom. However each state (ie Maine) in the United States of America would also be defined as countries.

-- Italay90 (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

BY THE WAY-- Can I please have a vote - I wish to put this on the page itself Italay90 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The agreed consensus at present is to describe it as a country that is part of the United Kingdom, and there is a detailed article at Countries of the United Kingdom. This is not ideal and has almost no international comparison, however the sources do justify the current usage and there is unlikely to be any support to change it at present. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't wikipedia offer a more truthful option to pure lazyness. What is the United Kingdom then? The united kingdom is recognised as a country by the UN, EU and other countries...? Why isn't New York (state) called a "country" then, if Scotland is described as one for the same reason it is described as a state... 81.154.106.193 (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country, nation and sovereign state. Scotland is a country, nation and former sovereign state that is now part of the United Kingdom. My primary view of what is a "country" is certainly the UK, USA and other sovereign states, rather than nations that form part of the United Kingdom. But we have to accept that many sources do describe Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland as countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I split the baby. You can have your non-sovereign and you can have your country. Khimaris (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no idea what that means, but your change to a longstanding, agreed introduction has been reverted. Please gain agreement here before making such controversial changes. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the baby is "... form[ing] of simple compromise solutions which 'split the difference'[..]" Am I missing something? I fail to see the controversy in the matter. Scotland is by definition a non-sovereign nation.

Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so.
— Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Adding_information_to_Wikipedia

I don't have to ask your permission to edit. However, in accordance with the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, we can have this discussion. What is objectionable with the idea that Scotland is a non-sovereign country?Khimaris (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See the box at the top of this page that says "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated", which is specifically about this topic. Typing "country" into the search box will return the (many) Talk page archives where to-and-fro edits on the wording for this article's first paragraph have been debated, taken through mediation processes, etc. AllyD (talk) 06:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

or perhaps a possible alternative to your suggestion Khimaris might be.. "Scotland is a country that is part of the sovereign United Kingdom". At the very least i do believe it would be more appropriate to have the "country" in the current intro pipelink to non sovereign nation, which far better explains the situation and may cause slightly less confusion for when people see the word country there. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Scotland is not a state as someone above claimed. Scotland is a country in a similar way that the Basque Country is a country - it is a region of a sovereign state with a small degree of self-governance. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh goody...the Hamsterwheel cranks up again... During the last three centuries there have been many independent, sovereign states which voluntarily, as in the case of Scotland and England, or otherwise, merged with other independent sovereign states to form greater/single independent sovereign states. What distinguishes most other examples from Scotland/England is that they have a "title" specified in the written constitution of their respective independent sovereign states which defines them as a specific entity. For example Texas and California are "States", Bavaria is one of the "Länder", the former Czechoslovakia comprised the Czech Socialist Republic and Slovak Socialist Republic, and so on.

The problem with Scotland and England is that the nearest thing to a written constitution is the Acts and Articles of Union 1707, which refer to each as "Kingdoms". I think we can all agree that Kingdoms is not a term which has applied to either post-1 May 1707. Neither though are they Regions, Provinces, States, Cantons, Länder, Territories, etc. etc. etc. The most accurate definition remians that which can be found under Country (see intro). The use of this term is also supported by WP:RS, including the ISO. (Those who advocate "Constituent Country" will find that contemporary WP:RS are thin on the ground; this term seeming to have fallen out of favour).

Therefore Country is the boot that fits and as such should be used. Anything else is merely POV unless supported by WP:RS. 217.43.209.177 (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting debate everyone, but with regards to the Act of the Union - why isn't Scotland considered a "Kingdom"? I realise that in practice, there is no Kingdom - which is causing me great confusion. If Scotland is a country, (Which I'm not trying to disagree with or undermine anyone here) - then what is the UK? As pointed out this issue can be highly opinionated and personal to some people, but doesn't this make Scotland really just a "semi self governing entity" or something? I know it sounds clinical and such, but labelling Scotland the same way you label any other "country" is confusing and arguably not correct. Anyone reading the article is given the impression that Scotland is totally sovereign and that the UK is something like the EU or NATO, where as we are in fact UK Nationals. To further add to the confusion (for some) people from across the UK are British Citizens, and not labelled according to their individual regions! I think in practice Scotland is basically similar to a State in the USA, but it doesn't have that kind of official title. Therefore I find labelling it as a "country" is misleading, because Scotland is to the United Kingdom what Texas is to the United States, in practice. Anyway any input would be great from anyone, I'm not trying to make any kind of political statement, I'm just worried the article is a bit misleading and doesn't make the distinction from country and "region" clear enough. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.126.19 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You are as entitled to your opinion, as you are to be confused. Scotland isn't a Kingdom (any more) because Article 1 of the Acts of Union changed the status of Scotland (and England):

"That the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the First day of May which shall be in the year One thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain"

The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is also a country, but crucially is also a sovereign state. Scotland (and England) however is not a sovereign state but does remain a country. Whilst it may be commonly misunderstood, as you have demonstrated, that in order to be a country a political/geographic entity must also be sovereign, the facts support Scotland (and England) being defined as a country. Wikipedia exists to promote greater understanding, not to reinforce misunderstanding.

Scotland is not to the UK what Texas is to the USA. Scotland is more akin to what Slovakia was to Czechoslovakia. The USA existed before Texas became a member state. The Kingdom of Scotland did not join the Kingdom of Great Britain - it established it, together with the Kingdom of England. In turn the Kingdom of Great Britain did not join the United Kingdom - it established it, together with Kingdom of Ireland.

The constitutional arrangement of the sovereign state which is now the UK of GB & NI cannot, nor should not, be skewed nor cropped to suit a model which applies to sovereign states elsewhere; simply because on the surface they may appear similar, nor indeed for the sake of neatness and conformity in this project.

The legal foundations and composition of what is now the UK of GB & NI, in all its forms since the Laws in Wales Acts 1535, is as far as I can gather unique amongst modern sovereign states. The sooner editors here accept that a 'one size fits all' approach is not possible and cease trying to pigeon-hole Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland into entites which they are clearly not, the better in my opinion. (This is not, I hasten to add, an attempt to stifle discussion, but a response to points raised above). 81.154.110.106 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Those having the time might care to read the articles

to the right. Having done so, it will hopefully become

clear why the most appropriate description to attach

to Scotland is that of "country". Might I suggest

this discussion be brought to a conclusion. Having

studied the articles to the right, any more discussion

should take place in a new section on this page.

81.154.110.67 (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for entitling us to be confused, because as an outsider here, I came here to figure out if it's a country or not and I'm still confused as hell. You can't have a country inside a country, unless it's separate like Vatican City. If Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom, common sense says it's not it's own country. I'm not saying I know all about this stuff, but I do know what the common definition of country is, which tells me that Scotland is not one. I don't think this discussion should be closed until it's more clear. What about saying something like, "It's a country in the historical sense, but does not have its own sovereignty and therefore many consider it not a country." This at least shows that it is a debate instead of acting like it's not. Go on any page on the internet and people argue back and forth because it really does seem to be a matter of opinion on your definition of "country". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookeky (talk • contribs) 01:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not about "matters of opinion" as you put it, but about reliable sources, and there are plenty of these which confirm Scotland is a country within a state. Wiki is a place to become enlightened; go read the WP:RS referenced in the article itself and the articles linked to in the box above, together with their own WP:RS, and you will be! Happy reading! 217.42.118.93 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion - and disagreement - on this subject will continue ... so why not include some of this energy in the description within the article. Put both opinions in the first paragraph - that there is disagreement over its status as a country which is at an inferior level to the Nation of the United Kingdom, or that the Acts of Union 1707 joined the tow kingdoms together, etc. But to deny one argument in favour of the other is clearly misleading. It is a question that people who are not familiar with the subject frequently ask. Eg. do I need a visa to travel to Scotland? (er, the same as the rest of the UK) Who is the Queen of Scotland? (er, the same as the rest of the UK) What is the currency? (er, the same as the rest of the UK) Francis Hannaway (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason Scotland shouldn't be referred to as a state? In normal use the term "country" denotes a sovereign state. Scotland does not have its own sovereignty (nor does England, Northern Ireland or Wales). So: take away "sovereign" from "sovereign state" and you're left with "state", which is surely a neutral and accurate term. I find "country" to be a political rather than a descriptive term when talking about the parts of the UK. Generally, when "country" is used to describe Scotland it is used with nationalist bias, or it is used to appease nationalist sentiments (at least as far as I can tell - I am a Scot, for the record). With regard to the list of treaties etc. I'm sure if you consider the historical and political context of each you would at least see a hint of what I am getting at. Nonetheless, words change with time and I don't think historical documents are conclusive evidence of anything in a debate over semantics. Mnealon (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Scotland should be described as a "State", "Province" or even "Kingdom" as these terms to not imply that Scotland is a soveriegn state, "country" is rather misleading as it implies that Scotland and England are soveriegn states which they are not. The meaning of country varies widely, but, it is generally used to define soveriegn states, ie France/Spain/Germany etc. are countries. Ofcourse the meaning maybe applied to Scotland, but it maybe applied to virtually anywhere to some degree, ie Florida (United States), Quebec (Canada) however, in the united states article for example, the United States is defined as a country. Even counties maybe defined as countries, ie "Midlothian" maybe defined as a country - like Scotland it is "an area distinguished by its poeple, culture, lanuage or government" so virtually anywhere maybe described as a country!?!?!?! The only reason this term is used for the Scotland article is because many Nationalists believe Scotland is a country; but so is CALIFORNIA for example!!!! --Italay90 (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The West Country is neither a nation nor a state but it is a country. California may be a state but it is not a country. Scotland is both a nation and a country but it has not been a state -- let alone a sovereign state -- since 1707. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Primary language?

What would be the language(s) primarily used in Scotland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.251.28 (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

English is the primary language used in Scotland - though some enthusiasts like to call it 'Scots', especially when spoken or written in a strongly accented or dialect form. English in its historic forms has in fact probably been the primary language of most of what is now lowland Scotland for some 1,500 years ever since Anglo-saxon settlers/invaders first established their kingdom of Bernicia there, round about the same time that the Gaelic speaking Scots settlers/invaders from Ireland first established their own small kingdom in the north west of what was then 'Caledonia' or more simply 'northern Britain'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.113 (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Twaddle (above). Standard Scottish English (SSE) is the language most widely used in Scotland; it being a mixture of both standard English and spoken Scots. In the North and West, where Gaelic was once dominant, Scots words appear less frequently, if at all. It was an old claim that the purest form of Queen's English was to be found in Inverness; it being unpolluted by Scots words found in either the Lowlands or North East Scotland. The Scots language has a common origin with English, but is quite distinct and was a mainly spoken rather than written language; spellings of words varying widely between areas where it was once common. Today, it is likely to be used by Scots language enthusiasts/scholars/academics but can be found in use in those mostly rural, fishing and farming communities in both the Scottish Borders (Lallans Scots) and North East Scotland, (Doric Scots). Gaelic as a living language is confined in the main to the Hebrides (Inner & Outer) with enthusiasts/scholars/academics barely keeping a toe-hold for the language on the mainland. The Northern Isles continue to have a Norse feel to them with their dialect being a mixture of Scottish English, Scots and Norn; distinct from anything found on the mainland. However, the language primarily used in Scotland today is SSE. 81.135.131.228 (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No offence intended, but SSE and English-in-England are surely so close that for all practical purposes they are in truth almost exactly the same - certainly in their written form only an expert could tell them apart, and probably not always then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.4.99 (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Oil and gas reserves

The recently changed sentence “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.” (in the section "Economy and infrastructure") is problematic. The effects of oil and gas reserves have not been discounted. They have been removed from Scotland's figures and added to the UK's. Also, the source does not use the word subsidy, which could be considered contentious, it uses the word deficit, presumably in the context of a balance of payments between Scotland the (rest of the?) UK. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daicaregos (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 November 2012‎

I'm happy for someone else to improve the wording. "Discounting" may well be inaccurate, but not as inaccurate as "Negating", which was the previous wording. Would "Disregarding..." be better? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As the oil and gas reserves are included in the figures, Disregarding is similarly inaccurate. I propose the sentence be removed until an accurate and uncontentious summary of the source is provided here for agreement – perhaps by its original author. Any objections? Daicaregos (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No objections ... so text removed. Daicaregos (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Rather than simply presenting the argument given, both sides need to be presented for the sake neutrality. There are plenty of credible sources (perhaps even more credible than the one given) that would paint an entirely different picture than that which is given by this article.

May I suggest that this article is used as reference instead "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990".

This would mean substainial alteration to this portion of text, however.

Propose adjustment of

"The Scottish Government's most recent figures (for 2009/10) show that when 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.[150] 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.[151]

to "Scotland accounts for 9.2% of total UK public spending, but 8.3% of the UK's non-oil tax revenues. When a geographical share of UK Oil and Gas reserves is included, Scotland accounts for 9.4% of UK tax-revenues."

Comments?

no comments, so I shall change it unless there are any objections?

I see the change has been made. This source is an improvement on the Guardian reference, as it relates to the most recent figures available (2009/10). However, presenting the figures as including/excluding oil, without explaining why that has been done, is problematic. Perhaps it would be better to explain the two views explicitly, and why (and to mention that spending for the UK as a whole is higher than its tax revenue). The entire Economy section needs to be coherent, which currently, it is not. Other views would be welcome. Daicaregos (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

please see the most recent adjustment to "Economy and Infrastructure" I move for a complete removal of the data to do with "tax revenues and expenidture" because it is a fairly controversial subject and there is no official data, merely speculation that comes with inherant bias and vested interests. I will delete this section unless there are any qualms?

GDP

Why is the GDP given in Pound Sterling? Even the UK article has it's GDP given in US Dollars. I recommend changing it to US Dollars as is the case for most country related articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.32 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Population

Sorry I tried to update the population figure but I mucked it up. Here's the new figure and the reference. 5,295,000 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-20754750 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.207.71 (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicities

I propose changing the ethnicity section simply to 89% Scottish, 11% Other. The vast majority of people in Scotland do not refer to themselves as British, even if they do most don't consider it an ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite possibly. As long as you have a reliable source for those stats it should be fine (the current citation ref for ethnicity in the infobox is a deadlink). Daicaregos (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, with a sourced table. --Bob247 (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading this properly then it has not been done yet. [7] Jonty Monty (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the information in the top box to reflect the source. Jonty Monty (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had a search for the 2011 census figures but have been unable to locate them. Does anyone know if they're available? Jonty Monty (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. See the 2011 census prospectus here : [8] The first release is due December 2012, which will have population data. The second release is due "from early Spring 2013", which will have more statistics, including details of ethnic groups. --Vclaw (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's surprising how long it takes them to publish. Thanks Vclaw Jonty Monty (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There's still a "other white British" ethnicity given. Personally an English, Welsh or Northern Irish person is as foreign to me as a Spaniard or a German. And to try and group the English, Welsh and Northern Irish ethnicities together like this is slightly inaccurate in my view and the views of many others. 88.09% Scottish, 11.91% Other is what it should read.

It could be that the majority of Scots feel the same way but unless the source agrees with you we have to stick with what it says. Jonty Monty (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP's comments come across as partisan in regards to this issue. Due to the vast amount of inter-migration over the past 2 millennia within the British Isles, the term British in a way is a far more accurate way to describe the ethnicity of people in the United Kingdom than terms like English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish which refer to the region of the UK someone is from. Nationalists will likely disagree with that viewpoint but it has contains a very valid point. There is no such thing as a homogeneous Scot, Welsh, English or Irish person and hasn't been for over a millennia. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

We can then say that there is no such thing as a homogeneous anything as humans have migrated over the whole globe since early man decided to pack his/her suitcase to discover what was over the horizon. I wouldn't say that though as there are no sources to back it up. ;) Jonty Monty (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah exactly, it's like saying we're all just Europeans due to all the mass and minor migrations that have taken place in Europe throughout the ages. There IS no such thing as a homogenous (in your sense of the word) ethnicity. A German is still German despite the fact that he COULD trace his ancestry to many surrounding European countries and all the way back to Southeastern Africa. Same with Scottish and all other people. My point is few people in the UK really consider British an ethnicity, at least not in this day and age anyway. It's become more of a supranational term really denoting a citizen of the UK the UK being viewed more and more as an EU style union by people within it (as uneducated as that opinion might be). The ethnicities are Scottish, English and Welsh. Northern Ireland is a slightly different situation of course. Your comments strike me as being politically and personally motivated Mabuska not to mention inaccurate. But I understand a source is needed for any changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.88 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd also point out the "white" Scottish ethnicity given. As far as I'm aware Scottish ethnicity (at least the modern notion of Scottish ethnicity) is more akin to that of Danish, wherein ethnicity is more to do with an allegiance to Denmark than actual ethnic origins. Basically if you're born in Scotland and consider the country your own you're Scottish regardless of where your parents, grandparents etc. came from (which is the most logical ideology as well given we all come from somewhere else originally). It also greatly benefits in the assimilation of immigrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.88 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll definitely need sources for all that. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What is in the infobox now does not match the source. It now says "88.09% white Scottish, 7.38% other White British, 2.52% other white, 2.01% other". The source has "White Irish" separate from "Other white", and it lists Indian, Pakistani, Chinese etc separately. It is an arbitrary decision to list "other white British" separate from "other white" or separate from "other". --Vclaw (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. What would your preference be? To list it as 88.09% white Scottish 11.91% other or list all of them individually per the source? Jonty Monty (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This "88.09% White Scottish, 11.91% Other". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.88 (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Best to wait for a reply from Vclaw and others if they wish. Jonty Monty (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I had originally broken it down by White Scottish, other white, other ethnicities. I thought that that was the best break down. Another would be White, Other for conciseness sake. Note that the UK page has white, then a list of 4 others, then an "other" heading. --Bob247 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Cam I point out Bob that when you finished editing the info box it actually read 95.47% white British, 2.52% other white, 2.01% other before I changed it to the present figures [9] Jonty Monty (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to simply a White ethnicity figure followed by an Other figure either although I still prefer the White Scottish, Other. I'd ideally just prefer 88.09% Scottish as I don't necessarily think Scottish ethnicity is limited to skin colour (already explained my reasons for this earlier in the conversation) but I understand that isn't what the source states it clearly says White Scottish.

I'm looking at various other surrounding countries articles; Norway, Ireland, Iceland and they generally have "88% Norwegian/Irish/Icelandic, 12% Other. Norway has obviously added in the Sami group and Iceland has added in Polish numbers.

Well looks like everyone that was planning on answering has. Can we have it changed now ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. That'll be my last edit on the ethnic figures. Who knows, a host of people could now appear and say that it's wrong. :) Jonty Monty (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Because it is wrong. I've updated it to also state "Other White British". Regardless of what the Scottish nationalist IP desires, Scotland is British for now and as such "Other White British" should be listed separately. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll go along with that. It does after all say that in the source. Jonty Monty (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

[tired sigh].. Another very poor decision on Scotland related articles on Wikipedia. I do have to chuckle at Mabuska implying my proposed changes are politically motivated however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.195.110 (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe word your statements a little differently and you wouldn't put out the image that you are. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As opposed to your statements ?

"Scotland is British for now and as such "Other White British" should be listed separately."

For the record Scotland is also part of the EU at the moment. White European should then be listed seperately should it not... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.195.110 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This sounds an awful lot like "ethnicity" is being confused with "national identity" by some people. Why "White Scottish"? As was said above, the Scots aren't a different race from the English or other whites. Why not simply say "white"? 78.86.61.94 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)