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.
The only coordinates in the article are those of the capital, Edinburgh, in the infobox, and they are correct. If you have some other error in mind, you'll need to give a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2019
This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
change
"Proportionally, Scotland had more universities in QS' World University Rankings' top 100 in 2012 than any other nation"
to
"Proportionally to population, Scotland had more universities in QS' World University Rankings' top 100 in 2012 than any other nation Lowerphi (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I am aware that I might open old wounds, but as Scotland seems to be a country (the article lead paragraph and FAQ on this talk page) that is part of the United Kingdom (sounds like "Ireland is a country that is part of the European Union"), a question is how shall we use it in various international list articles, which list features and which country they are in, such as of railway electrification systems or List of longest cantilever bridge spans ? By the way it seems that in infoboxes on cities in Scotland, it is usually used "Country:Scotland – Sovereign state:United Kingdom". But list articles use the headline "Country".
Shall we write in international list articles that features belong to Scotland or to the United Kingdom?
If using "United Kingdom", it would in my opinion be kind of strange to use one meaning of the word Country to the article "Scotland" and articles about places there, and another meaning to international list articles having the headline "Country". Because articles should follow a general principle taken from the main article on the subject, so articles don't diverge and we don't have to discuss this in every article mentioning Scotland.
The editor who had twice added an atypically ponderous rendition of Flower of Scotland to this article has done so yet again, failing to respect WP:BRD as requested of them. This is also the case at the song's article (some edits as an IP). Again, having Boldly edited, it has been Reverted, now Discuss it to attain consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
What's more, the copyright status of the file would appear to be questionable as it has been taken from a commercial recording uploaded to YouTube. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Religion
JJNito197 - just to expand on my revert of your edits, the list of religions in the infobox has a couple of sources giving census data, which don't mention paganism or neo-paganism. If you want to add this to the article, you'll need a reliable source discussing it. Cheers GirthSummit (blether)18:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
The UK is a political Union, not a sovereign country as described in the previews
Eh? The UK is a sovereign state and has been since 1707. England and Scotland both ceased to be sovereign states upon their union in 1707. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.79.121 (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a suggestion - the Royal Coat of Arms version applies specifically in Scotland, so like the UK's page, think should be included in the infobox.
Scotland hasn't had a Royal Coat of Arms since the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England were unified in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. Since then, the Royal coat of arms of Great Britain then Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom have continued to have a separate design used in Scotland, but they are the UK Royal Coat of Arms used in Scotland, as opposed to Scotland's Royal Coat of Arms used in the UK. As such, they are not appropriate for this article as they are symbolic of the UK, as opposed to being symbolic of Scotland. 195.171.9.239 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2020
This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Land mass of Scotland is about 30,000 sq miles, while the land mass of UK (93,000) excluding Northern Ireland (5,000) is about 88,000 sq miles. It's far nearer to one third of the total than half. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Elizabeth II's name
One person's choice of name, even if the person is a monarch, is a minute, trivial matter considering the topic of this article is a country. It is trivial even within the section Scotland#Politics and government, which is why (unsurprisingly) it is not mentioned in the articles which are supposed to be "main articles" on the subtopic, i.e. Politics of Scotland, Scottish Parliament, and Scottish Government. What she decided to call herself tells us nothing about Scotland itself. It has had no effect on Scotland. Surtsicna (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. It's most unusual for the first monarch of a certain name to be known as 'the second' - I feel it's worth explaining in the article. GirthSummit (blether)12:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not unusual. Spain's first monarch named Isabel called herself "the Second", Sweden's third monarch named Carl called himself "the Ninth", the UK's first monarch named William called himself "the Fourth", Italy's first monarch named Vittorio Emmanuele called himself "the Second", Denmark's first de jure monarch named Margrethe calls herself "the Second", etc. This article is not the place to explain anything one might find curious or, as WP:PROPORTION states, "give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject"; rather it should "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". What Elizabeth decided to call herself is so trivial that it is not mentioned even in her FA biography or the "main articles" on the subtopic. I am fairly certain that it is not found in any source aspiring to be a thorough authority on Scotland. Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Inclusion of the governmental logic of the numbering of monarchs with the higher numeral of Scotland or England is informative and deals with a common point of contention on this point from Scots who have not read this article. I fail to see how removing this information makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. It is by no means trivial information - as is clear from the parliamentary time taken on it, and the legal time expended on it (MacCormick v Lord Advocate (1953)). The fact that there is current interest in this is shown in newspaper content like [1]. There are plenty of things in Wikipedia that are much more trivial.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
No parliament debated this, and there is no "governmental logic" behind this. What Churchill suggested is just that - a suggestion. The consensus in 1953 was that the regnal name is a monarch's prerogative that has no bearing on the country of Scotland. And indeed it has never had any effect on Scotland and has nothing to do with its "politics and government". Removing this information from this article makes Wikipedia better because it shifts focus from the name of one person to the topic of this article, which is the country of Scotland. We have other articles for such non-essential (to say the least) information and interwiki links to lead to such articles. At the very least this trivia should be cut back to one sentence. Its inclusion into the article about Scotland in general, against the practice of virtually all reliable published material on Scotland as a whole, is "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic" and thus obviously contravenes WP:PROPORTION policy. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Surtsicna, opinions can vary about relevance and weight - I interpret policy, and the significance of this information, differently from you. Put me down as supporting the retention of the content. GirthSummit (blether)15:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The article could do with some work but Pillar Box War shines a light on how non-trivially the matter was viewed, with this just the more extreme end of the scale. It's still an issue that people are aware of. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Opinions about relevance can indeed differ but weight is not so subjective. It is very easy to establish how much weight is given to a particular aspect in sources specializing in the subject (i.e. Scotland). My references to policy have consisted mostly of long quotes, so I do not understand how it is that you interpret it differently from me. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Hopefully this can amount to a compromise: the episode is mentioned but more succinctly. I removed the misleading suggestion that the British Government made a decision on the matter. Churchill said in the interview cited in the article that "neither The Queen nor her advisers could seek to bind their successors in such a matter". Surtsicna (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
You also removed information and a link regarding the overall issue, leaving the signnificance less clear and reducing it to the legal case only. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Frustratingly (or not), in our life times we shall never know if Scotland's higher regnal number will be put into play. Unless, the future Charles III, William V & George VII, have a 'Windsor style' surprise for us. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Kingdom of Alba - Missing History - Scotland - UK
WIKI admin/ editor to add Kingdom of Alba into the History and see also.
Citation for population of Scotland at the 2011 census
The figure cited (5,347,600) is not the same as in the paragraph: This rose to 5,295,400, the highest ever, at the 2011 Census. I think this is because the citation is referring to the mid-2014 estimate which is based on the 2011 census. Could we add a citation to support the actual census result, instead of using a related statistic? --Dollumbnox (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggest we cite figures like this using official statistics. For example I think the latest estimate for Glasgow City is 633,120[2] and the latest estimate for the Greater Glasgow settlement is 985,290.[3]
Although Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, the largest city is Glasgow, which has just over 584,000 inhabitants. The Greater Glasgow conurbation, with a population of almost 1.2 million, is home to nearly a quarter of Scotland's population.
I'd say just change them with the above citations. The actual definition of Greater Glasgow is debatable and currently decided by postcode chains so the likes of Bargeddie and Blantyre are not included but Kilbarchan and Old Kilpatrick are. But the source is the official one so we should use it. Crowsus (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2020
This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
(in 1922, the Irish Free State seceded from the United Kingdom, leading to the latter being officially renamed the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927)
I'm not sure that this is so important to the Scotland article that it needs to appear in the introduction's second paragraph. Also, it's really long for a parenthetical phrase, especially one that comes at the end of the sentence. If you think it ought to stay in the introduction, please convert it into a separate sentence. 108.39.223.134 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not completely clear what you want changing in the article? Do you want that sentence removed? It'd be great if you could be very clear, stating what you want changing in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 18:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it is fine in a parenthetical sentence. It doesn't have a direct relation to Scotland but does explain how the Kingdom has changed with regard to Ireland. Woody (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it's too long as well. How about:
In 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain entered into a political union with the Kingdom of Ireland to create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which then became the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1927 when the Irish Free State seceded from the United Kingdom in 1922.
I'd change the first part to the Irish Free State seceded from the United Kingdom in 1922, but that's all. There's nothing wrong with its length. Crowsus (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Listed on the article as Elizabeth II, however the current monarch is Elizabeth (the first) in Scotland, the second in England. Bjh014 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Bjh014, No, this was discussed to death in the 1950s. Parliament (which decides Scots law) accepted the new queen's styles and titles on her accession, and the Scots courts threw out a case by the National Convention that claimed otherwise, and the Court of Session ruled quite unequivocally that the monarch could call herself whatever she wanted, as royal prerogative. She's also QEII in Canada, Jamaica, etc., where QEI never held sway. This is a long-dead non-issue and the future practice is likely to be the same: using the biggest number of the two. Her grandson will be William V, not William IV or William IV and V. If there's ever a King Robert, he'll be Robert IV not Robert I. GPinkerton (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
There have been several recent instances of large unattributed copy/pastes to this article. Most are evidently wholesale transfers of material from other Wikipedia articles, with no adherence to WP:COPYWITHIN and arguably better served by a link to that article, or at least considerable editing down. On that basis, I would like to know the provenance of this latest sizeable addition. The material may also suffer from dealing with a narrow selection of events in rather excessive detail for this article.
"Foreign is a reserved matter", I would have thought it was obvious, your new wording was poor and added nothing of value -----SnowdedTALK06:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Snowded, Oh right, I didn't notice I missed out "policy"! It was in fact my intention to remove only the extraneous words. Why do we need to say "power and ability" when either word would suffice alone? GPinkerton (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Well the meaning is different and dropping power made the phrase a little weak, especially as I think there is a duty there as well. -----SnowdedTALK09:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
But where does it end? Other articles, such as England do not have such long lists. There are not even any percentages provided to give the section some meaningful information. Unless you can provide any. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I have provided percentages for religion based on the 2011 census, which I feel gives more meaningful information to this section of the infobox. Goodreg3 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Has anyone thought about adding the British Prime Minister to the Infobox below Parliament of the UK? I just find it strange that it’s not there already! The office is the head of the central government of a sovereign state that Scotland is currently part of, so why not add it? What’s everyone views on this? Ciaran.london (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
To paraphrase you "The office is the head of the central government of a sovereign state that Clackmannanshire is currently part of, so why not add it?" Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you, the monarch is listed and they are monarch as Scotland is part of the larger sovereign state, by that principle the UK Prime Minister should be listed as well. Finchley59 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2021
Interesting point - has Betty got the option/used royal prerogative powers to interfere with bills passed by the Scottish Parliament, in the same way she has with the UK Parliament (to stop many things including investigations of her private wealth, check if any valuables in Royal ownership were thieved, ensure her family doesn't pay all taxes etc.)? If so then in a way she is involved in the Scottish democratic process, by acting as an unelected and unaccountable screen on anything passed by Scotland's democratic body that she doesn't like. SFC9394 (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
To quote from our article, Royal assent, Royal assent is the final stage in the legislative process for acts of the Scottish Parliament. The process is governed by sections 28, 32, and 33 of the Scotland Act 1998.[29] After a bill has been passed, the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament submits it to the monarch for royal assent after a four-week period, during which the Advocate General for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, the Attorney General or the Secretary of State for Scotland[30] may refer the bill to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (prior to 1 October 2009, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) for review of its legality. Royal assent is signified by letters patent under the Great Seal of Scotland as set out in The Scottish Parliament (Letters Patent and Proclamations) Order 1999 (SI 1999/737) and of which notice is published in the London, Edinburgh, and Belfast Gazettes. So it is obvious that the Queen has no power to interfere with Scottish legislation but must approve it after the legal officers have signed it off. --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Stepping aside from the arguments above - what would a reader who knows little about Scotland want to know? Remembering that most who consult Wikipedia do not read the whole article, the info box is particularly important. The fact that Scotland is a constitutional monarchy begs the question: "who is the monarch". Not including this in the information box rather devalues the article for a reader. Similarly, one has to make a detailed reading of the article to discover (by inference?) that the Prime Minister of one of the two parliaments that governs Scotland is Boris Johnson. (If you look at (for instance) [2] you see that "Scotland has two governments....".) The info box gives a confusing mention of a Secretary of State at Westminster - there is no mention of a UK Prime Minister. Again, this is something that short-changes the reader who is looking for information. At the very least, the section "Politics and government" should say who the Prime Minister is. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
As I said before, noting the UK prime minister is no more pertinent here than it would be at the Clackmannanshire article or, for that matter Tillicoultry. They are the prime minister of an entity that includes Scotland and includes Clackmannanshire and Tillicoultry but they do not hold a post particular to Scotland or Clackmannanshire or Tillicoultry. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
The Clackmannanshire article illustrates quite well the point I am trying to make. What information would the encyclopaedia reader expect to find out easily from the article? In the info box we find out that Clackmannanshire is in the United Kingdom, and in Scotland. We find out the name of the local council and that there is no overall political control of that council. Then we learn who represents it as (1) an MP and (2) and MSP. This summary of the political information does not swerve away from the fact that Clackmannanshire is in the UK, nor does it avoid mentioning the fact that it is represented in Westminster. This is a quite reasonable summary of the facts - and what a reasonable reader would expect to learn. Mutt Lunker's reductio ad absurdum argument does not conceal the whole purpose of Wikipedia - to be a good encyclopaedia. In meeting this standard, surely the reader would expect, in this article, to see some mention of who leads the parliament to which it elects 59 MPs - and it seems reasonable to include that in the info box. I hesitate to make the accusation (because I may have misunderstood other editors' reasons for their views), but I worry that a bit of nationalist fervour may be degrading the reasonable expectations of information content for this article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I note you haven't advocated noting the UK prime minister in the Clackmannanshire infobox: would that make a good or a baffling encyclopedia? And it is not a reductio ad absurdum, it's a comparable circumstance; they're both political subdivisions of the UK. The very first sentence states that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, so anybody wanting to find out about the latter's government need only click. It's not being hidden. It's perfectly pertinent to mention the Secretary of State for Scotland because their brief is, well, Scotland, the subject of the article. The Scotland infobox also mentions the Westminster MPs, thought not all by name like the Clackmannanshire one for obvious reasons, so that is no illustrative point of difference. Baseless attributions of political motivation only show the deficiencies of your case and I've also been called out as a quisling and a lackey of the unionist state in the past, so maybe your effort evens things up and I'm getting the balance right. Hesitating, to think, would have been your better course. If you want to take matters away from Scotland and the UK, do you think the North Rhine-Westphalia article is impoverished by having no mention of the federal chancellor or president? No doubt due to rampant North Rhine-Westphalian nationalist editors. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2021
This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The infobox has a technical error here (footnote F is technically liked as footnote E, which already exists):
| footnote_f = {{note|footnote_e}} .scot is not a [[ccTLD]], but a [[GeoTLD]], open to use by all people in Scotland and related to Scotland. [[.uk]] as part of the [[United Kingdom]] is also used. [[ISO 3166-1]] is [[Great Britain|GB]], but [[.gb]] is unused.
It should be:
| footnote_f = {{note|footnote_f}} .scot is not a [[ccTLD]], but a [[GeoTLD]], open to use by all people in Scotland and related to Scotland. [[.uk]] as part of the [[United Kingdom]] is also used. [[ISO 3166-1]] is [[Great Britain|GB]], but [[.gb]] is unused.
Infobox under note e) to the section "Government" states that "The head of state of the United Kingdom is the monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II, since 1952)". This fails to reflect the current legal status of the monarch (not a person, but the office of the Crown, the British Crown that is) in Scotland (in an article, dedicated solely to Scotland, not the UK) which, under the legal (not constitutional) principle of divisibility of Crown states that "The Queen is as much the Queen of New South Wales and Mauritius and other territories acknowledging her as head of state as she is of England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom." (Lords of Appeal, Ex parte Quark, 2005)
From that legal principle the next sentence derives: "Scotland has limited self-government within the UK as well as representation in the UK Parliament. Certain executive and legislative powers have been devolved to..." In particular, the article fails to mention that the executive power in Scotland, vested in the Crown "in the right of Scottish Government" retains an undifined number of royal prerogatives as a result of the above mentioned legal principle of divisibility of the Crown (e.g. pardon, appointment of certain officers of state, dissolution of international agreements (prior to the Union)).
The article should read instead that "The head of state in Scotland is the British monarch in right of Scottish Government" to be legally correct.
In light of this changes should be made to the "Politics and government section" in the body of article. In particular this is important for the clarification of this ssentence: "The monarchy of the United Kingdom continues to use a variety of styles, titles and other royal symbols of statehood specific to pre-union Scotland". In light of the above, the use of "variety of styles" in Scotland, including the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland, is not simply a historic, pre-Union fashion, it is a legal requirement, that reflects the divisibility of the Crown of which Scottish part is an inseparable component. The corporation sole (of the Scottish Crown) cannot be dissolved or extinguished, even by virtue of a political Union (as would merely a corporation aggregate) and therefore it continues to exist (same as English crown, which under continuing to be in force Crown of Ireland Act 1542 allows the British Crown to be represented in Northern Ireland) as an inseparable part of a new British Crown.
--CitoyenU (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021
This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
MONARCH Queen Elizabeth 2nd is incorrect. It should read Monarch Queen Elizabeth as there has been no previous queen of Scotland named Elizabeth. SCOTSPAT (talk) 14:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
In the "Religion" section, the percentage of Catholics in Scotland is cited as 19% based on a 2009 reference. In the infobox, however, the percentage is given as 15.9%, which matches with the following excerpt from Religion in Scotland: "According to the 2011 UK Census, Catholics comprise 16% of the overall population, making it the second-largest church after the Church of Scotland (32%)."[1]107.127.46.24 (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
^"Census reveals huge rise in number of non-religious Scots," Brian Donnelly, Herald Scotland, 13 September 2013.
Gaelic 'uniting' Scotland as a national language in the 12th-13th centuries?
'In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, with much of Scotland under the control of a single ruler and united by the Gaelic language, a modern nation-state first emerged, as did Scottish national consciousness' ... and yet 'The domination of Gaelic was diminished during the reign of David I (1124–53), during which many English-speaking colonists settled in Scotland.'
How does this make sense? This would mean that Gaelic began its decline in the very beginning of the period when it was supposed to be a 'uniting' and 'national language'. The article on Scottish Gaelic confirms that the decline started during the twelfth century or, taking into account the earlier displacement by Norman French, even the eleventh century, and was completed by the fourteenth century, when Scots had become official.
From the article 'Scottish Gaelic': 'However, during the reigns of Malcolm Canmore's sons, Edgar, Alexander I and David I (their successive reigns lasting 1097–1153), Anglo-Norman names and practices spread throughout Scotland south of the Forth–Clyde line and along the northeastern coastal plain as far north as Moray. Norman French completely displaced Gaelic at court. The establishment of royal burghs throughout the same area, particularly under David I, attracted large numbers of foreigners speaking Old English. This was the beginning of Gaelic's status as a predominantly rural language in Scotland. ... By the mid-14th century what eventually came to be called Scots (at that time termed Inglis) emerged as the official language of government and law.'
Also from that article: 'In 1018, after the conquest of the Lothians by the Kingdom of Scotland, Gaelic reached its social, cultural, political, and geographic zenith. ... In south-eastern Scotland, there is no evidence that Gaelic was ever widely spoken.'--178.249.169.67 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
IP editor, Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, so it is better to quote them, rather than other Wikipedia articles.
Sure, it should be supported by the cited source which is Stringer, Keith (2005). "The Emergence of a Nation-State, 1100–1300". In Wormald, Jenny (ed.). Scotland: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 38. ISBN9780199601646. (t · c) buidhe12:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Page 37 says "Everywhere except Lothian (and even there it was still expanding) Gaelic was the language, not only of everyday life but of the royal court, of learning, and of law" And on page 39 it says that this began to change under the reign of David I (1124–53). However, not all of Scotland was unified at this point. (t · c) buidhe13:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Reading the cited source, I don't see any justification for the words "united by the Gaelic language". This suggests that the language had some special role in creating a sense of national identity. Perhaps one could detune the concept by saying "speaking Gaelic as a common language", but that only seems relevant if you put it in the context of the 5 languages spoken in the 9th century within what is now Scotland. The fact that the origins of the national identity of Scotland is a subject of ongoing research is mentioned in the introduction to the cited source. Wrapping this up in one sentence with the existence of a nation-state seems to go too far – see for instance, in the same source "The kingdom of Scotland and the Scots as it existed in the 1280s was undeniably a recent creation; national consciousness had yet to be tempered in the furnace of sustained English aggression....". So that puts significant national consciousness firmly in the future from the 1280s. It is generally accepted that most mediaeval societies did not have a sense of national identity – if there is something uniquely different about Scotland, it needs to be clearly stated in the sources used. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Looking at a quote from a different source: "the idea that the Scots were a distinct race rather than being a people of Irish origin was first fully articulated only during the crisis of the Wars of Independence." (A. D. M. Barrell. Medieval Scotland (Cambridge Medieval Textbooks)) This (and other discussion on this theme in the same source) further dilutes any justification for the article's current assertion that Scottish national consciousness arose in the 12th and 13th centuries. One might just get away with saying that it started in the last 4 years of the 13th. I suggest this part of the article needs to be thoroughly re-appraised. There is no mention on Gaelic's role in national consciousness in this source, but some discussion of multi-cultural input into the origins of mediaeval Scotland. In passing, it may be worth adding another quote from Barrell: [in discussing the way the wars of independence altered Scots' attitude to themselves] "Paradoxically, increasing animosity towards England was matched by a greater consciousness of the distinction between Highlands and Lowlands and antipathy to the Gaelic language." ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The quote given above Page 37 says "Everywhere except Lothian (and even there it was still expanding) Gaelic was the language, not only of everyday life but of the royal court, of learning, and of law" comes from a section titled "Scotland in 1100". It is in a paragraph that starts: "From the reign of Mac-bethad, and to a greater extent that of Máel-Coluim, incomers from the south, loyal to the king, were being settled in areas where his authority was weak, especially in the south-west and north-east. The full impact of the immigrants’ newly international culture was not felt until the twelfth century, though the ground was laid in the political developments of the second half of the eleventh." So the source is introducing the idea that this is a time of cultural change. This is balanced by the next sentence that says: "Yet this was still a profoundly Gaelic society." It then goes on to say the piece relied upon by User:buidhe, starting "Everywhere except Lothian...."
I don't think the article, as it stands, truly represents the source, since it relies on just one piece cut out of some counterbalanced arguments. Just picking one of those arguments destroys the balance that the article should have. Furthermore, the source talks about "Gaelic society" as well as the language. This is about culture as well as language - and I suggest (from wider reading) with culture being the most important.
Combining the two sources mentioned in this thread, it seems a better distillation of their content would be something like:
"In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, much of Scotland was under the control of a single ruler. Initially, Gaelic culture predominated, but immigrants from France, England and Flanders steadily created a more diverse society, with the Gaelic language starting to be replaced by Scots. Altogether, a modern nation-state emerged from this. At the end of this period, war against England introduced a Scottish national consciousness."
This may need some fine-tuning, but I feel it is a better representation of what the sources say. My preference would be to omit any mention of language – just sticking with "Gaelic culture" – but I get the impression some editors feel the mention of the language spoken is important. It is, of course, particularly difficult to strike the right note within the confines of a high-level article. There is a lot more in the main source about the impact of non-Gaelic speaking clergy in the 12th century – but there is no room for that.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
In absence of comment from the participants in this thread, I have proceeded with the suggested change, with a bit of a tweak to the language. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Another misreading/misunderstanding of a reference
The article currently states: "The Scottish kings rejected English demands to subjugate themselves; and England invaded Scotland several times to prevent Scotland's expansion into northern England." The cited reference is page 45 of Stringer, Keith (2005). "The Emergence of a Nation-State, 1100–1300". In Wormald, Jenny (ed.). Scotland: A History. OUP
Going to the cited ref, we find: "...another diplomatic weapon was the earldom of Huntingdon. Acquired in 1113, it secured their dependence as the English crown’s vassals; conversely, however, it enabled them to rebut the claims of English high-kingship by insisting that homage was due for English lands alone. English armies did invade Lothian (1138, 1173, 1216), but actually to check Scottish expansion into England—a very different story from that of Wales and Ireland." This is in a section the explores the relationship between Scotland and England, or perhaps more between their respective monarchs.
The issue in the quote is about homage in respect of the lands of the Earl of Huntingdon. Homage has a very precise meaning in the context of mediaeval feudalism. It is the acknowledgement of the person from whom one holds land. With it may come various duties, such as service. It is a fundamental part of the process of feudal landholding. The meaning of the word is substantially different from "subjugate", which has implications of being conquered. To confuse the two is a bit like, in the modern world, equating paying your rent to the landlord with having your house repossessed (or even stolen).
What appears to have happened is that an editor has tried to paraphrase "homage" with "subjugate". It's not even as if the replacement word has been picked from a thesaurus, because I cannot find one that makes this error.
Then putting the topic of English invasions in the same sentence rather implies (even though it does not say) that invasion is related to an English ambition to subjugate (i.e. conquer) Scotland. Reading the whole section of the source, it is clear that such an implication is, at best, a serious over-simplification – it would probably be safer to say that it is downright wrong. The reader would take away no understanding that David used Carlisle and Newcastle as his de facto capitals. The source goes on to state: "The final outcome was unbroken peace between the crowns from 1217 to 1296—the longest period of Anglo-Scottish harmony in the entire Middle Ages." This last quote is probably the most relevant thing to be included in the article. It is hard to understand why it is not there.
I do not see why Elizabeth II's ordinal needs be explained here, in a general article about Scotland. Her choice of name hardly defined or shaped Scotland or, indeed, its politics and government. Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Scotland isn't a country, this is a historical hangover from 1707. Scotland is a regional administration area of the United Kingdom
It should be updated to show as such and the additional lines regarding politics and the debate around it's status, be added, just like in the first few paragraphs of the entry for the United Kingdom BobbyBlobby101 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your wisdom. Those absurd stats are taken from the census, so you'll 'of course' probably want to take your observations to them. Crowsus (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Result: Delist Givin the size, scope and number of issues outstanding I feel the best way forward is to delist and allow interested editors to address the concerns without the added pressure of a reassessment. I will add a few comments in this close regarding the identified issues and how they relate to the GA criteria. I would say page numbers in books are required for verifiable. Reviewers and readers should be given all the information they need to find where the information comes from and having a short statement sourced to a large book does not usually meet the spirit of criteria 2. I would also say that going over 78 KB prose is not a reason to cut information in an article this broad. The other points hold and there are a number of outstanding maintenance tags on the article that will need to be dealt with before renominating.AIRcorn(talk)08:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Delist: This is a poorly maintained GA article that no longer meets the criteria. Many statements lack an inline citation, which might be acceptable if there was a "General References" section where readers could verify the information. There isn't, so it fails WP:V. In addition, a partial search of the references identified the following issues (see talk page):
Orkneyjar.com: looks like a WP:SPS. Ref 44 Removed
Kinneil Estate: a wordpress blog. Ref 45 Removed
Rampant Scotland: looks like a WP:SPS. Refs 176 and 352.
Partial citation without enough information to identify the source: 43 (Bryson), 121 (Evans), 122 (Sereny) Fixed this
Many of the book citations are missing page numbers. This isn't necessarily an issue with the GA criteria, but in some cases these references are supporting direct quotes or controversial information, such as "the one internationally recognised Scottish landmark". How are readers supposed to verify that without a page number?
Some citations do not support the content that they purport to, for example the citation in "Scottish Music" supports very little of the content in that section; the paragraph beginning with "Scotland's universities are complemented" is not supported by the ref.
There is overcite in some cases, see cleanup tags on the article.
The coverage in some areas is inadequate: for example, the section on Scottish literature does not mention any Gaelic writers, such as Nobel Prize nominee Sorley MacLean. Added content on MacLean. (Goodreg3 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC))
Also, some areas are too detailed for WP:SUMMARY: an entire paragraph (!) about what titles British monarchs are allowed to use in Scotland. Fixed this, at least.
"Other currently less popular candidates for the National Anthem of Scotland include Scotland the Brave, Highland Cathedral, Scots Wha Hae and A Man's A Man for A' That"—potentially controversial information without a citation. This has been fixed
Direct quote with no source or citation: "largest electrified rail network outside London" Removed
Some of the prose is not NPOV: for example, "unrivalled anywhere in Britain", "Thoughtful Scots pondered their declension, as the main social indicators such as poor health, bad housing, and long-term mass unemployment, pointed to terminal social and economic stagnation at best, or even a downward spiral. Service abroad on behalf of the Empire lost its allure to ambitious young people, who left Scotland permanently." Removed
Another POV issue is the paragraph beginning: "During the Second World War", which omits the fact that German bombers targeted England more because it was closer and therefore easier to get to.
Some parts of the article do not meet MOS:IMAGELOC: sandwiching in the "Demographics" section Improved.
I could go on. There's been a little bit of progress in the last week towards resolving these issues, but not nearly enough to bring it up to GA quality. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 17:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
We've made some progress, but there are still no sections for art or architecture. At 78k prose after significant cuts, the article will have to be trimmed to make room for the additions. I suggest that the history and government sections could be cut somewhat. buidhe21:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The verifiability problems are extensive. I just checked more than a dozen references and found that a majority did not support the content. Furthermore, the excessive use of official sources is evident; a close look proves that they are used to support opinion-based statements such as "The MOU lays emphasis on the principles of good communication, consultation and co-operation".Removed. This article is very far from passing the verifiability criterion of the Good Article criteria. buidhe01:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Nominator did not create or even edit the article, which had not been expanded or newly promoted to GA; not a valid DYK candidate
This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"#REDIRECT [[]]" within the infobox for nominal GDP does not seem to serve any purpose and can presumably be deleted(?) Zbaker33 (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Politics and governance section image of Humza Yousaf
Since his appointment as First Minister, there has been a number of new images uploaded of Yousaf which are contenders for usage in the article. Below are some, and perhaps we can reach a consensus on which one is best.
Image 1Image 2Image 3
I believe Image 1 is best, as Yousaf is actually looking at the camera and is captured during his nomination for the office of First Minister, notwithstanding the fact that Image 1 appears to be used as his official First Ministerial portrait as used by the Scottish Government on their website : https://www.gov.scot/about/who-runs-government/first-minister/Goodreg3 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
It dawned on me as soon as I posed the question, having previous experience of your idiosyncratic preferences for perceived neatness and symmetry in photos and in article layouts: it's that he's not square on to the camera that you don't like. That's your thing, not one particularly shared by others and something that may actively make the shot more mundane. For what it's worth, and it's neither a requirement nor necessarily preferable, he is looking at the camera in photie 3. Official does not indicate better, evidently. Stick with 3, for me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
As ever, Mutt, you come across as rude and passive aggressive with your insults and, for what it's worth, is unappreciated. Wikipedia is a community built on common understanding and respect for everyone, yes, we may not always get it right and agree, but try and show some respect as you are not the only one around here with a point of view. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to be warned off from commenting on your customary needless foutering with images and layouts by your repeated excessive touchiness. If I'm in disagreement, I'm going to lay it out plainly. My wording was quite diplomatic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not the fact you are disagreeing with my edits that is the problem, rather it is your choice of words and the perceived attitude you portray that is. Therefore, I disagree that your wording was diplomatic and consider it a personal attack (as you have done countless times in other edits, may I add). Once again, your reply above is directly personal in your usage of words such as "excessive touchiness". I am sure you are aware of the policy on this and would ask you to reflect. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
My 2p's worth: Image 3 is preferable because it has better lighting and exposure, and also benefits from showing Mr Yousaf sporting culturally appropriate attire, rather than the standard issue politician's 3-piece suit. --Cactus.man✍10:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Personally I really like #3; it has the feel of an official portrait even though it wasn't one, and it's definitely one of the nicer pictures I've seen of him. There is a more tightly cropped head-and-shoulders version as well, but it starts feeling a bit noisy at that size.
Of the others, #2 is a bit untidy but to my eye better than #1, where the lighting is a bit off.
Oddly there is a similar-but-different discussion on Talk:Humza Yousaf which doesn't include our #3, but brings in a different third option - his 2021 official portrait, which isn't bad either. It feels a little odd to have a photo from when he wasn't FM, but it was only a couple of years ago. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Questionable section heading changes
I think there was some common ground between the recent mass change of headings with an attempt of a few months ago, this being the reversion but there was certainly a commonality in style. Many or most of the new headings were inaccurate, made reference to matters covered in other sections (partly or in whole) or no longer characterised the full contents of that section. Per above, criticism of editing is not a personal criticism, let alone an attack, so don't pull that one again. Per WP:BRD, don't just reinstall your reverted bold edit; restore the status quo ante and lay out yearyour case here. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
The Scotland article used to be listed as a Good articles, and it's any wonder why it's no longer included. Sections are everywhere when really they could be condensed. A separate economy section with a section for infrastructure and transportation further down the page when the latter two subjects are closely linked with economy so why not have them together? Also, I'm not pulling anything here, but it seems we disagree on the definition of a "personal attack". I stand by my view that some of your previous comments relating to other edits were more personal than professional and relating to edits. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Section headings should be dictated by how historians name these periods specifically for this country. Somthing like "Roman influence" "Middle Ages" " Norman rule" .... I'm just guessing here the real example is histography references? As for what sections where Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections ...FA examples Canada or Japan.Moxy-23:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how it could get much worse if I am honest with you! The article was everywhere. Surely you must agree that it is better to have areas consolidated together with relevant sub-headings for easier navigation, rather than having separate sections for Health and Education when they could be grouped together within a demographics section? See articles such as the United States and even the United Kingdom. To try and avoid information overload on the main article, I have included links to main articles and related articles of further information too. This should hopefully make it easier for users to find the information they wish to seek either within the article or other relevant articles. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kaihsu: I am sure this discussion has already been had, I would appreciate if you could tell me if there was a official WP:RFC, and if so please could you link it. ChefBear01 (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The first two sentences of our article, Country, run as follows: A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. It may be a sovereign state or make up one part of a larger state. That definition is cited to an apparently reliable source, albeit an old one - if more recent scholariship defines countries differently, please let us know, but going from that definition, Scotland seems a good fit, so one could accurately describe it as a country, a nation, or a kingdom. GirthSummit (blether)14:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Girth Summit:, is there a current consensus on the lead statement? “A country that is part of the UK”, I am trying to understand if the current wording has been come to through consensus in a discussion generally or an WP:RFC. ChefBear01 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Has it been changed recently? I don't know whether there has been an RfC in the past, but if it's longstanding text then it would have silent consensus. GirthSummit (blether)15:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I recently tried to change the lead to make the phrasing more eloquent, but the edit was reverted with a note to look through the talk page and archives. I've done that, and I've come across the FAQ, which notes that "constituent country" is also used in other parts of Wikipedia as a phrase that indicates that country X is a constituent part of another (sovereign) country. I'm not exactly sure why the edit was reverted; it doesn't appear to change the meaning at all, but it makes the flow better. I'm bringing it here for further discussion. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I've failed to to find that quote in Talk:United Kingdom/FAQ but it may be an interpretation or paraphrase of A4. If that is the intention, salient points are that "the term (country) has broadly won preference amongst the editing community" and "This phrase (constituent country), however, is not an actual term".
Even if it did "make the phrasing more eloquent" or "(make) the flow better" (not seeing it myself), as it detracts from both neutrality and clarity and it does indeed appear to change the meaning, we're better without it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, I'd assumed you were referring to coming across my mention of the (as applicable) UK/FAQ at the tail end of the related thread immediately above in your "look through the talk page" (this page). The two FAQs are in accordance, as one would expect. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Ref in the first sentence of the lead
This can't seriously be the best source we have, right? [3] It's an opinion article in a Scottish nationalist newspaper, in which the author seems to refer to himself as an "independence campaigner" and the article itself as part of that job.[a] The phrasing of calling Scotland a "country" (with a easter-egg-yWP:PIPE to the proper term, 'constituent country') is also very confusing to people outside the UK, where the countable noun "country" almost invariably refers to a sovereign state. HappyWith (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
A newspaper opinion piece is a poor source and, per MOS:LEADCITE, moot as to whether it should be present. This one not least because of the impression it may give that usage is polarised between supporters of independence and unionists, not to mention those that are neither. Usage of the unqualified term is widespread and normal, across the board.[1][2][3] Not something that can be said of the claimed "proper term".
There is a consensus reflected in the FAQs mentioned above and the talk pages of this and related articles. If people are under misapprehensions about a matter, including the normal use of a term, the active purpose of an encyclopedia is to enlighten them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the ref. It definitely gave me the impression that usage was polarized in the way you described when I saw it in the article. HappyWith (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Notes
^"It is not for a mere history writer to prove those Unionists wrong. That’s the job of every independence campaigner."
At over 16k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. See WP:TOOBIG. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
There are certainly chunks of lengthy text which could do with being devolved to subsidiary articles, and also an amount of recentism. Some suggested candidates for pruning:
The stuff about politicians' inclusions in various occasional Councils from the introduction;
The Kilmarnock Academy paragraph under Education
The two paragraphs on average hourly rates under Economy|Income_and_poverty
Sections which do have subsidiary articles, especially those on Transportation, Music, TV and Sport, tend to over-emphasise the recent; it is debatable how much of a summary vs detail should exist in this article rather than the related articles.
I have attempted to make significant trims in areas on the article. Can the inclusion of this tag be re-examined please? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Additional trimming has taken place this evening. I am now of the view that any further trimming of the article would lead to content either being obsolete or not flowing well. Perhaps now is the time for a review into the length of the article and removal of the tag? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I was going to suggest some areas for pruning. Some are gone now, thanks to Goodreg3's intense pruning effort, and I see Nikkimaria has removed the tag, but other possibilities are still worth wider discussion. Taking the Scottish music section as an example, I have nothing against Cocteau Twins, Garbage or Annie Lennox, but struggle to see their relevance to an article on the entirety of the geo-politico-economic-cultural history of Scotland. Each of these is clearly from Scotland, but I would suggest a relevant distinction for inclusion in this article is something like whether they can be said to have transformed the topic area itself? In this respect, the Literature and media section does better in discussing impact and trajectories (though Conan Doyle and Barrie may fail the test I propose here). AllyD (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Without commenting on the need or otherwise for such a prune, I'm concerned that some of the deletions seem to have been rather blunt ("Removing... less relevant aspects of history such as ... conditions in Highlands") with the time between successive edits often indicating little pause for consideration before the excision of the next sizeable passage. I'm also concerned as to how many additions there have been inserted alongside the removals, difficult to spot in such a wholesale editing and, as far as I can see, not noted in edit summaries. Per AllyD, I have nothing against the Red Hot Chilli Pipers but in an edit noted as a significant "Trim" of the music section, the addition of special mention for them seems unnecessary (and rather recentist and partial as supposed pioneers). Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I struggle to see how the problem arises on this article about modern Scottish music and its contributions. Articles such as the United States, England and Germany mention at least a paragraph about modern music in the wider world and the success of native artists in international markets. With that in mind, I struggle to see why a small paragraph about modern Scottish music and it's standing internationally is a problem here. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The suggestions were about the vastness of information on Scottish artists and whether it warranted such length in the article. Such suggestions, from what I took from them, was about perhaps to re-examine the amount of context which was added about individual artists and providing a shorter summary about modern Scottish music and it's standing internationally. There were no suggestions, from what I could see, about its entire removal. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
If you cherry-pick one aspect only of the suggestions made and, in so doing, actively go against others, to claim your edit is based on those suggestions claims support for the edit that you do not have. That is, at best, sloppy. What you say you have taken from those suggestions has no sound basis in them. As, indeed, nobody has suggested its entire removal, it would seem somewhat loaded to raise the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I see the national motto of Scotland had recently been removed. I wanted to gain some consensus on here as I seem baffled by the removal of the motto. It is pretty much still in use today on arms and still widely regarded as a national symbol of Scotland and it's culture. I have reinstated the motto on the page with the following references to support its current use:
Thank you, your sources are eminently supportive of the reason for my removal of the entry. The issue is not current usage but usage as what. Both refs state clearly that this is the motto of the royal coat arms. "the Royal arms are borne only by the Sovereign". Scotland is not the royal coat of arms. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
A number of reliable sources, notably from books dating after the Treaty of Union in 1707, which refer to the "Scottish motto" or "motto of Scotland" (and not the Kingdom of Scotland) have been included as references, yet the motto had again been removed. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
"The motto" has not "again been removed" because you are now promoting a different one to that previously disputed (you presumably now agree the previous one should have been removed). What's more you warred to restore your bold new contention after it was reverted it, without enagaing to gain consensus, per WP:BRD. It's still there so please revert until this is resolved. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
There does seem to be some confusion about the motto as two appear to exist, the former had long been on this article as the motto and that is where the confusion lay. However, after extensive research and browsing through online books and academic sources, the Nemo... motto appears to still be is usage and associated with modern day Scotland. Some sources provided date to the 1800s and 1900s, long after the Treaty of Union and the abolition of the former independent Kingdom of Scotland, refer to the motto as "Scotland's motto" or the "Scottish motto" and not the Kingdom of Scotland's motto, therefore, suggesting that modern day Scotland's motto is indeed that. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, please be advised that I did not remove the sources above from the initial discussion posted a few weeks ago because they were "inconvenient to me", but rather because they were in the way and from a debate and discussion on this talk page that no one had engaged with. Just thought I would clarify that one for you. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
"they were in the way"! By removing them the context of the discussion, not least my response to you, is misrepresented. Never refactor your talk page comments like this, particularly after they have been responded to. See WP:REDACTED. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, a quick search of books on academic websites or even Google Books will provide you with a number of extracts from books or academic papers which refer to the motto and it's association with Scotland. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Re the refs: The Scotsman "Nemo me impune lacessit’ is the national motto of the Kingdom of Scotland". As above Scotland is neither the royal coat of arms, nor the Kingdom of Scotland. The Literature of Scotland link refers to it being the motto of the thistle itself. Otherwise there are passing refs to it being a Scottish motto, which it is but if it were so clearly, actively the motto of modern Scotland, it would surely be possible to find refs, and contemporary ones, which lay out the fact definitively. From what you present it seems moot at best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
There are a number of various sources, albeit not many, that would suggest that the motto of Scotland is indeed the one that has been included in the article. However, Mutt Lunker appears to have some obsession over the claim that "Scotland is not the royal coat of arms" which in my opinion is somewhat confusing and does not make much sense. There are a number of valid and reliable sources, why the constant reversal? Goodreg3 (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Your behaviour on this matter and others is chronically disruptive. If there is a dispute about your edits, particularly one that has been discussed on a talk page with no consensus for your change, lurking about until some time has passed to restore your edit is disruptive, not to say sleekit. To restore it when reverted again, without discussion, is downright inflammatory. At the very least, if something has transpired to move the debate on, re-engage in the discussion to gain consensus first. Do you really struggle to tell that the emblem of an individual is not the same as a country? A.D.Hope introduced some sources that may indicate support for the notion, contradictory as they may be to others, but you return in typical slapdash fashion to reintroduce a source that does no such thing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
With these brief refs in Collins and Merriam-Webster to "motto of Scotland"/"motto of Scotland and of the Order of the Thistle", it would may seem likely their intention that NMIL is "the..." rather than "a..." motto of Scotland and that they would spot the ambiguity and clarify if it were the latter. That said, per above and per further investigation, we have to ask ourselves why more specific and expansive sources covering the matter refer to it being the motto of the Order of the Thistle, the royal coat of arms, all Scottish regiments but evade the most obvious opportunity to state it is the motto of the country itself, were that the case. This must cast the matter in grave doubt. (The only mention I can find in Britannica is in the entry for the Order "The motto of the order, “Nemo me impune lacessit” (“No one provokes me with impunity”), is also the motto of all Scottish regiments, although more popularly rendered as “Wha daur meddle wi’ me?”". In the Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland at THISTLE "the motto nemo impune lacessit (loosely translated...) is usually associated with the Scottish thistle badge", then at the article for the Order, that it is their motto. Not a mention of being the motto of the country itself.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I think its a bit inaccurate to say that Highland Scots are descended from Celtic peoples while Lowlanders are germanic. This is very black and white and it isnt binary like this. In fact, the fact that at one point most of Scotland was Gaelic speaking should totally put this false notion to rest. Language doesn't equal ancestry and languages have shifted over time. There is no genetic proof that the two populations are markedly different. I think this should be examined and possibly removed as it is inaccurate 2001:FB1:11A:E21:9509:BCCB:28A6:38E7 (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
On the Union of the crowns heading under the History heading of Coat of arms of Scotland, there is an infobox that shows the primary version of the coat of arms to have the Lion Rampant on the shield, with unicorns on both the sides. The one currently in the infobox of this article is the mentioned as an alternate version.
Can someone explain which one will be correct to be displayed here, and what significance should the other two hold? And if possible, can the explanation somehow be accomodated on the article itself too? Pur 0 0 (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Royal Banner of Scotland As a general note for other confused editors, the Royal Banner of Scotland, which is the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Scotland in flag form, is a current Scottish flag. Its official use is restricted to certain high-ranking Scottish officials and the royal palaces when the monarch isn't there, but it's widely used unofficially and is often seen at events like football matches and on souvenirs.
Partly done. Changed to "per capita" instead to make it a cleaner statement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Not done: it's not completely clear what you want changing in the article? Do you want that sentence removed? It'd be great if you could be very clear, stating what you want changing in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks. Seagull123 Φ 18:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Done —Belwine (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Done - thanks for pointing it out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
No expansion or the like, and the user has not contributed significantly to the article. Juxlos (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
_(cropped_2).jpg)
23:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}