Talk:Scotland/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Video Game Culture - Culture or commerce?

This section got added today, listing a couple of companies. It doesn't feel like it belongs on the main page - better ported to Economy of Scotland or (better imo) Media of Scotland. Views? AllyD (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I'd add that it seemed (to me) like an excuse to add an external link without all the tedious business of having a dodgy external link reverted as spam. I probably need to be a better person, though. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Intro - a bit short

The first sentence of the Scotland article is a tad short, and it doesn't really fit. I made it less wordy but now it is too short. Ideas? Go ahead and fix it. Plus, should the first sentence be Scotland is a country that is a part of the UK or Scotland is a country of the UK? Scotland User: Hubrid Noxx 12:52, 15 April 2009

Please see multiple prior discussions. The current form of words is common the all four constituent countries. I suggest you read that prior discussion. --Snowded (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That clears things up a bit.Hubrid Noxx (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Prime Minister

I have a serious question here. Does the UK Prime Minister belong in the infobox on Scotland? Scotland do not have a prime Minister, they have a First Minister, and this article is about Scotland. There is no such thing as Prime Minister of Scotland, which looking at the infobox you would think they had. I propose to remove Gordon Browns name unless there is a good enough argument not to. Jack forbes (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been Bold and gone ahead with it. The fact is there is no Prime Minister of Scotland. I have deleted an untruth. Jack forbes (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "Queen of Scotland" either but Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II certainly belongs on there and the Prime minister does as well. Im undoing your bold change as i think some others will oppose this as well. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Although after looking at it, why on earth is the First Minister ABOVE the Prime Minister? This is clearly confusing and it should be in order of rank. Queen, Prime Minister, First Minister. I wont make such a change because we do need consensus on such issues, but i hope those who support the Prime Minister remaining see the current Monarch / First Minister / Prime Minister appears to be in the wrong order? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that some people will support the prime Minister being there means nothing. If you can verify that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of Scotland then do so. Jack forbes (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Scotland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The head of state is our monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, our prime minister is Gordon Brown. I am sorry but if you think Brown doesnt belong on there then please suggest removing the Queen as well because its exactly the same principle. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Again... Seriously? Talk:Scotland/Archive 22#Governmental hierarchy; Talk:Scotland/Archive 20#Order of First Minister; and probably more... Use your energy on something more useful! /wangi (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

All the past consensus back then was for the Prime Minister to be included which is my main concern. Jack should not be removing it from the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You think? Hmmm, only consensus I see is lack of one; or the consensus it's not worth wasting time with. Seriously, there are better things to get het up about. This is just like the NI flag... /wangi (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wangi i am not the one who has made a change to the article. It is Jack Forbes who has suddenly removed the prime minister from the info box without reaching any consensus or getting the opinion of even ONE person. I am not "het up" about the order Monarch / FM / PM although i think its the wrong order and now this issue has been raised thanks to Jack perhaps we can all look at it again. What im concerned about is the removal of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from the Infobox. This is an unacceptable change and breaks with past consensus with no debate at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry if your wrong. We can can all be wrong some times. Gordon Brown is not Prime Minister of Scotland! Go on, give me a reference where it says he is. If not, then it's gone. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain to me why you remove the Prime Minister but keep the monarch on there? There is no "Monarch of Scotland" either. The monarch is Queen of the United Kingdom, just like Brown is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. So why remove only one? This change is unacceptable, and its ashame that after a long period of stability this issue has popped up. Especially at 1am, when most will be asleep :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The world will not end if you leave it overnight. /wangi (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The world would not of ended had Prime Minister remained on there and yet Jack chose to edit the page at 1am when most editors of this page are probably in bed. This could of all waited for the morning. Not a comment on "why is the prime minister there" a 5 minute wait before making the changes himself, then undoing reverts despite the change being disputed by someone else. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right. I've done as you have suggested. Jack forbes (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Scotland does not have a "Constitutional monarchy" either. U might want to remove that as well. Ill start going over the rest of the article and see what else u can shred tonight. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Your always welcome to have a look. Jack forbes (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that this bit must be wrong as well ? It says "Government Constitutional monarchy" in the info box. That is clearly wrong as well isnt it? Scotland does not have a constitutional monarchy, the United Kingdom does. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being sucked into an incredibly pointless argument, I note that England, Northern Ireland, and Wales all have infoboxes with Brown & the Queen in; the latter two also list FMs, deputy FMs (which surprised me), and the relevant Westminster secretaries of state. NI annotates the PM as "of the UK"; Wales annotates both the Queen and the PM that way. Shimgray | talk | 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point Shimgray, the other articles manage. Perhaps Jack Forbes should go over to the England article and remove all the government listings in the infobox all together? England has no government. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think I knew that? They are all wrong. The fact is, Scotland does not have a Prime Minister, therefore it does not belong in the infobox. Even if it's anitoted as Prime Minister of the Uk, this has no relevence to the article called Scotland. Jack forbes (talk)

Just for the record i have no problem with it saying (of the UK) however it should be restored to its previous state before tonights "Bold edits" were done. The fact Jack doesnt even think that this is relevant to Scotland shows how suspect this change was tonight at this time of day. Jack why dont u go to the ENgland article and remove all mention of government from there? England has no government, pls fix that too. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

One step at a time BritishWatcher. You can tell me now what is suspect about it? Jack forbes (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Your actions are suspect because they appear to be political. You support the break up of the United Kingdom, and you are currently trying to remove all traces of the United Kingdom and the fact Scotland is part of it from the info box. The strangest thing is more about the time u suddenly chose to have a problem with this (its been like it for many months) rather than ur motives. U did it at 1 am when most people who edit this article will be in bed.. funny that. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Your actions are obviously political. You want to mention the UK ie, British Prime Minister in the Scottish article when you and I know there is no such thing as a Prime Minister of Scotland. Get your facts right before you start accusing me of anything. Jack forbes (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not the one who has been "bold" and changed this article going against past consensus without even waiting to see what others think. Ohhhh sorry u waited 12 minutes, thanks for that. When i had a problem with the opening paragraph i never was "bold" and changed it myself, i simply debated such a change on this talk page. Again if you are so concerned about it being incorrect why not do whats done on the other artilces where they say (of the UK) but oh wait, u said before u didnt think the UK had anything to do with Scotland. Sorry but i hope u can understand why it might be possible to see the changes u have made as political (even if that wasnt ur intention). BritishWatcher (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Again if this is so important to you please go to the England article and remove EVERYTHING in its info box about government, because England has no government at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

More pointless arguments over sh*t Scotland is currently a devolved area of the UK therefore should only show the FM and Lizzy as the latter appoints the former, if wonky eye is shows on the infobox on this page then salmond should be shown on the infobox on the UK page along with the other FM's Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well thankyou for that most helpful and offensive comment. Im sure ur contribution is welcomed by everyone. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The First Minister of Scotland has ZERO power in England, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has power over the WHOLE United Kingdom, With the ability to remove Salmond and suspend the Scottish parliament if needed. So no the First minister of Scotland wouldnt belong on the UK info Box. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care what you think my intentions where. My changes where factual and nothing else. Are you telling me there is such a thing as a Prime Minister of Scotland? No, I didn't think so. Therefore, I have removed this piece of information that was wrong. I always do what is right for wikipedia, just the kind of guy I am. Jack forbes (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Why have so many editors allowed something incorrect to stay in the article for so many months and why do the other articles do the same? Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and the prime minister is the head of government of that country so such information is vital and should be included. Like i said i dont have a problem with (of the UK being added) to make things even more clearer but removing all such entries on this matter is simply unacceptable and will be undone when more people wake up. The previous version had consensus, from both separatist and unionist so i fail to see why this has suddenly become an issue tonight. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC) -

Lizzy has the power to do what she wants the chances of that happening are absolutely ZERO round about the same as Gordon getting rid of the Scottish Parly, god have some sense :|Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Our Queen has such power and if she chose to use it many would not stand against her, even in Scotland. There are many times when it might be needed to suspend the Scottish parliament, in a time of war or a major state of emergency there can only be ONE government, and that government is Her Majesty's Government led by Gordon Brown. Im sorry if i do not take the advice from a separatist who enjoys insulting someone because of an accident they had decades ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally, I was involved in the argument many months ago concerning the use of the word country, which was a long drawn out and very heated, to say the least, argument. I unfortunately got caught up in it in too much. There was hardly time to even mention this as there was too much going on. Now, I think it is the right time to bring this factually incorrect infobox up for or debate, which is why I was so bold, because it is wrong. Jack forbes (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with u bringing this matter up, i agree it should be made more clearer but we need consensus for such a change and simply removing everything is not the answer. Just for a moment think what we would have on the England article if we followed ur point of view on this matter.. there would be NOTHING in the info box on government because England has none.

Whilst i think we should go back to the version before ur "Bold edits" i think we need to add "of the UK" but also place the Prime minister ABOVE salmond because he clearly out ranks him. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

How did this article manage to have good article status if the basic data in the info box is so inaccurate and incorrect? BritishWatcher (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not going to happen. The PM above the First Minister of Scotland on the Scotland article? Have a look at the Bavaria infobox or Texas or Victoria or numerous others. Let's get it clear, he does not belong in the infobox. Your politics are so obvious. Jack forbes (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a proud supporter of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and my feelings on this matter are in no way hidden. Some people however try to hide their separatist positions though. The Monarch was above the First Minister so i see no reason why the PM shouldnt be as well.

The United States articles are not like the UKs. We describe our parts of the UK as countries there for the government of the United Kingdom (Queen / PM / FM) must be clear on each part of the UK. Just as each country of the United Kingdom clearly says they are a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Government structure must also be clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain to me what we do with the England article if we follow your logic. England has no government, so what would we do please? BritishWatcher (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't have to tell me that you are a proud supporter of the United Kingdom, the old Queen and the rest of her parasites. I knew that. That does not mean you can use your POV to rampage through articles insisting that you can do as you want. Facts are facts, get over it. You should start to learn that you can't push you POV onto everyone, least of all me. Jack forbes (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry but YOU are the one who made a POV edit, you asked people what they thought just before 1 AM, u waited only 8 minutes before making the change. I undid the change because such a thing needed consensus, but u were unprepared to listen and restored ur "Bold edit" despite it being disputed. Any possible conflict of interest i have is made clear on my User page. I notice you removed the fact you support the break up of the United Kingdom some time ago, and now dont declare ur conflict of interest?

Please explain what we do with the England article if we follow ur logic. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have to declare anything. Anyone that's been around here for at least a year knows my politics. I do have to ask you though. You sound familiar, are you sure you have'nt been around here longer than your edit history tells me? I feel I've heard from you before on this and other articles. As`for England, I'll get to that if needs be once we remove permanently the innaccuracies of this one. Jack forbes (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No this is the only username on this website you would know me by as ive not been involved with any of the other Scotland articles before i registered this name. If you can tell me what you think we should do with the England article it would help me see your way of thinking. The problem is its all very well having just the first minister for Scotland, Wales and NI... but there is no such position for England, there is no English government so how would we handle that. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that simple? I thought you would have seen that by now! England don't have a government, they don't have a First Minister. England, like Scotland don't have a Prime Minister. So, guess what, don't include a Prime Minister in an article of a country that doesn't have one. Simple, no? The only country that has a Prime Minister is the UK. Well, thats that solved, but don't thank me. I'll ask you one more time, then I'll let it drop. Are you sure you haven't debated on the Scotland, Wales etc talk pages before? Sorry, I'm just suspicious by nature. Jack forbes (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic yes that is simple but what im asking you is if we follow your logic WHAT do we put on the government section of the England infobox? Should we just leave it blank? And no i have not debated with you or anyone else on this matter in the past with a different username on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You should follow my logic, isn't it faultless? There is no government of England. That is a fact. I'll say it again. There is a government of the UK, devolved governments for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but none for England. There can be no government section in the infobox when there is no English Government. Jack forbes (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what makes ur suggestion totally unacceptable, we can not have an article about a country with the country info box and not say anything about its leadership. The Queen, prime minister need to remain on the England one just as they do on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Your edits will have to be undone when more people wake up, but uve already kept me up a few hours, i was just heading to bed before i saw ur bold edit :). BritishWatcher (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we? It isn't about what we can or can't do, it is about what we will or won't do. I don't see what is wrong with having the Queen, PM, and FM in infobox, and support leaving them all in, but creating a new infobox template including only those parameters thought needful is certainly possible.

As to why we shouldn't include the Prime Minister, who certainly exercises executive power with direct application in Scotland, I remain unconvinced. Just because there is a thing called the "Government of Scotland" (which is just a brand used for the Scottish Executive), does not mean that the PM has no role in Scotland's governance. If it is confusing to list "First Minister" and a "Prime Minister", perhaps we can follow the Wales example and add "of the UK". -Rrius (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that all 3 should remain in the info box on this page and on the other UK country pages. I dont have a problem with the "of the UK" bit being added, but the Prime Minister certainly belongs on all 4 articles. My comment about the England infobox is not based on the technical side but the fact it would be the only country info box (ive ever seen) that would state no government / leader information if we followed Jacks logic. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Scotland isn't that unusual re this First Minister/Prime Minister/Monarch issue. Take a look at Alberta or Queensland both of which have a similar sort of relationship to Canada, Australia as Scotland does to the UK. Neither of them bother to put the Queen or the Prime Minister in their infoboxes. Likewise the states of the US or of Nigeria don't bother to mention the heads of state of their Federal governments. Why are the UK articles so far out of step with general Wikipedia practice here ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a federal system like the 50 US states, and Canadas provinces. First of all none of those are countries, they simply form part of a country. Scotland is a country that forms part of another country therefor information on both is needed. Ill ask you what i was trying to ask Jack Forbes. If we followed his logic, the only thing about Scotlands government in the info box would be the First minister, which is very misleading and inaccurate but what would we do about England. As England has no government of its own, would it have to be left blank? Seems unacceptable and unhelpful in my view, considering this whole nights episode was politically motivated. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, American states have sovereignty, something none of the Home Nations have. It was only with the civil war that referring to one's state as one's country became odd (even later in the South). That Americans don't think of their states as countries and don't think of the President and Congress as governing for the state has to do with America's history and with federalism. The latter statement presumably holds true with equal force to Canada, although its history and federal system obviously differ. In the end, drawing parallels between US states or Canadian provinces on the one hand and the Home Nations on the other hand, is not worthwhile. Even taking into account Quebec, the North American countries have far more settled arrangements with their states/provinces than the UK has with the constituent countries and don't have the same heat in separatist and devolution discussions. -Rrius (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

To address Derek Ross's question more directly, the UK Parliament could revoke devolution tomorrow, but the Canadian Parliament and US Congress cannot. The UK Parliament and UK executive make law and regulations on non-devolved topics that only have effect in a given constituent country. The US Congress and Canadian Parliament don't do any such thing. The situations are simply different. As to the Queen, the situation is also not analogous because there is such a thing as the Queen in right of Ontario. Editors have simply chosen not to add a parameter for the sovereign at Template:Infobox Province or territory of Canada. -Rrius (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Scotland forms part of a country, the UK, in very much the same way that Alberta forms part of a country, Canada. The Canadian government assigns some of its powers to the Albertan government just as the UK government assigns some of its powers to Scotland. The UK government could reverse devolution tomorrow if every MP agreed that it should be done but then the US government could declare itself a unitary state tomorrow if every member of Congress agreed that it should be done. I would suggest that the chances of either happening are decidedly low. And that neither has much bearing on how we should be formatting infoboxes. If the situation changes, then we should deal with it but so far it hasn't. So whether the system is federal or not; whether it is easy to return powers to central government or not; and whether the piece of territory is called a country or a province or a county council for that matter doesn't seem to be that important to me as far as this limited question of infoboxes is concerned, however important it may be for other matters outwith Wikipedia. So once again I would suggest that we follow Wikipedia's common practice with regard to other countries with some form of devolution, federal or otherwise.

As for the point about England, again we can turn to other Wikipedia articles on countries which have territories which are directly ruled by the central government in addition to territories which have some form of local government in order to obtain guidance on how to handle the situation. For instance the United States has in addition to its States, some territories that are directly governed by the Federal government, just as England is directly ruled by the UK's central government. American Samoa and District of Columbia show two infobox styles, demonstrating that there's no insuperable problem with handling the "who is the leader of England" question.

Finally, re the opinion that the whole episode is politically motivated, that is probably right. That is why we should be arguing this on the basis of Wikipedia policy and style and parallels with similar situations in other countries. That way we are dealing with Wikipedia issues rather than matters of political opinion. We should all be Wikipedians first and anything else second. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

American Samoa is a great example of how the UK articles should be formed. It shows the head of state / head of government of the United States of America (obama) then the governor. Well that is exactly what we show (Now it has thankfully been restored to the agreed method) all be it in the wrong order in my opinion. We show the head of state (the Queen) then the First minister (whos like a governor) then the PM who is head of government. This is far better than the suggestion that we should remove the Prime Minister and Queen and just leave the First Minister on his own there.

Im sorry but we will be going round and round in circles on this matter, i strongly oppose the removal of the Prime Minister from this articles info box, it goes against the standards set by other country articles. What you are doing is looking at federal states of different countries which is very different to an article on a country itself like Scotland. I would have no problem with every US state saying the president as well.

You say talking about the central government of the UK on the England articles info box will be ok, well im sorry but the only grounds so far raised for the removal of the PM is he is the PM of the UK not the PM of Scotland. Well England has no Prime Minsiter and it has no government, so i fail to see why its ok to treat England a certain way when you dont want Scotland to be? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence on US States - "A U.S. state is any one of the 50 subnational entities of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government". Scotland does not "share" sovereignty with the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom and its parliament has supreme sovereignty over all matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're just wrong. The Congress cannot make the US a unitary state, and Parliament cannot make Canada a unitary state. That is a vital difference. Wyoming has sovereignty derived from the people. British Columbia is a sovereign entity held by the Queen in right of British Columbia. The states and provinces are protected implicitly by the constitutions of each country. Canada, the US, Germany, and Australia are not good models for the Scotland infobox. Your notion that we should follow Wikipedia policy and style is based on a false assumption that there is a Wikipedia policy or style on this. There isn't. Each country (or state or province) article has an infobox that fits its needs. The discussion should be about what the Scotland article needs, not about how since Vermont does it one way, this article should too. -Rrius (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment: much as I hate agreeing with BritishWatcher ;-) the UK's Prime Minister does have executive responsibility for certain aspects of Scottish governance. I'm happy for Prime Minister and Monarch to remain. No time right now, but if necessary I'll expand on my reasoning for this view later. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As I've already stated. Have a look at the infoboxes of Bavaria, Victoria and numerous other article infoboxes. Rrius says we should not look at other article infoboxes, but only at what the Scotland infobox needs. I'll ask the question, why does the infobox need the inclusion of the UK Prime Minister. It is already stated in the article that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, isn't that enough? The United Kingdom is a member of the EU, shouldn't we then include the president of the EU in the infobox? Also, how far down the UK government tiers do we include the PM? Do we include him in all local government articles such as Glasgow City Council? The PM has ultimate responsibility for all government in the UK, yet we have no need to include him in those. Jack forbes (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Because, as at least three of us have said, the PM has a hand in the executive governance of Scotland, and not just in rules applicable generally across the UK. There is Scotland-specific Acts of Parliament and there are Scotland-specific statutory instruments that are generated and enforced by the UK government. The UK manages Scottish affairs in a way that Germany, Canada, Australia, and the US do not with respect to their lander, provinces, or states. -Rrius (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear here just what devolved government is. The Scottish government only came into existence by virtue of an act of the UK parliament and what the UK parliament giveth, the UK parliament can taketh away. Although it has allowed the Scottish parliament to legislate in certain areas, the UK parliament's ability to legislate for Scotland still exists undeminished (section 28(7) of Scotland Act 1998). So, whether it is liked or it is not, the British prime minister is still the most important politician in Scotland and deserves to be in the relevant section in the infobox. Whether he goes in front of the First Minister or after him is for people to decide but logically the FM should come after the PM. -Bill Reid | (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone actually had a look at the infobox? Why in a Scotland article do we have Prime Minister? There is no such thing as a Prime Minister of Scotland. When I removed it I was removing something that just wasn't true. This article is about Scotland, not the UK. Insisting that the UK Prime Minister be included in the infobox when the article already tells us Scotland is part of the UK is pointless. All I hear are comments that the Scottish government is run differently from German/US and Australian states. Well, they are all run differently.

Bill, you say it should be included because the PM is the most important politician in Scotland. If Texas decided to secede from the union do you think the American President would stand by and do nothing? Nope, he would step in and use his authority as President to stop it, making him the most important politician in Texas. Why is he not in their infobox? When the US go to war, can Texas unilateraly decide not to? No, because the President of the United States is the most important politician, whether that's in Texas or any US State. I'll tell you why he is not in the infobox, it's because there is no need to put him there, as the Texas article already tells us it is part of the United States of America, and that article tells us who the President of the US is. There is no reason whatsoever why the Scotland article should be any different. Jack forbes (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack, the point I'm making is that the section in the infobox is about the governance of Scotland. The Westminster government has supreme authority over the whole of the UK and that includes Scotland. It would not be encylopedic nor correct to deny this and the British PM's role within Scotland. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you also say it would be correct to include the United States President in the State infoboxes? If not, why not? Ultimately, there is no difference between Brown and Obama, they both have supreme authority when it comes to the crunch. My examples above demonstrate that. Don't forget Bill, Brown is not an MSP and does not make any day to day decisions in that parliament, just as Obama doesn't in Texas. Jack forbes (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with Bill. While similar, the situations are different. The Prime Minister ought to stay in the infoboxes... ;) --Cameron* 15:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oy! Did you just wink at me?? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The UK isn't comparable with any federated states that you've mentioned. A federation is a state that divides its power among the other sub-national identities and whose individual constitions are upheld in law and can't be messed about by the centre. So the head of the state of Alabama is the governor, not the president. As I said before, Scotland's position is far less powerful than a US state with their position enshrined in law and irrevokable. The countries of the UK have a measure of autonomy granted to it by a central government who can pass laws that affect only that country if it wanted to. It has the power to take delegated control back just like it did with NI. The UK government retains a massive influence over Scotland in a way that the United States does not with its states. So again, I argue that the PM retains a powerful position in Scottish politics and should be in the box. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The deciding factor for me is whether the Prime Minister has any control over Scottish law. In Alabama, the governor and state legislature control state law, and the president and federal legislature control federal law. In Scotland some Scottish law is controlled by Holyrood, and some by Westminster. Which is a long-winded way of saying "I agree", but I promised earlier I'd expand on my support for the current infobox... Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You once again tell me the differences, which is fair enough. I shall once again mention the similarity in that Obama ultimately has the supreme authority in the whole of the United States. Why then is he not in the US State infoboxes? We can talk all day of how much power the Scottish Parliament has compared to others, but it does have more authority and legislative powers over the whole of Scotland than local governments and councils. If your argument is that the PM should be in the infobox because he has the power to set what the Scottish Government can and cannot legislate on, then he should be included in the infoboxes of all those articles. I don't think there would be much agreement on that. Once again, I'll say there is no need for the PM to be in the infobox of any of these because all these articles tell us they are part of the UK, and the Uk article tells us that Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of the UK Jack forbes (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, if there is no backing soon for my proposal then I shall drop it, there would be no point in me arguing over this forever. Now, where did I leave my prozac! Jack forbes (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm for consistancy. If we delete Gordon Brown from the Infobox? we do the same with England, Northern Ireland and Wales. FWIW, the Canadian provinces & territories articles don't have PM Harper in their Infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree to that, after all none of the countries have a Prime Minister (thats the UK) --Snowded (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If we remove the Prime Minister because hes the PM of the UK then we must remove the Queen because she is not the Queen of Scotland, she is the Queen of the United Kingdom. So all we will be left with is the first minister, this doesnt provide much information. And to those who support removing the PM / Queen, please explain what we do with the England article? England has no government, so the info box on Englands government would simply have to be blank? Jack claimed it would be ok to mention central government in Englands case, but its still not "Englands government" so i do not see why Scotland, Wales and NI have to be treated a certain way when England cant? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point there, removing the queen as well is a good idea. I suggest removing the categories from England and just inserting a note on its government. --Snowded (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"just inserting a note on its government." saying what? Why can a note not be inserted after the PM / Queen saying (of the UK) or something like that as is done on the welsh article currently for example. There is no reason to remove useful information from the info box as some people seem to be attempting to do. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The why question is the other way round really. The article acknowledges that Scotland is a part of the UK. However the information box is about Scotland, and Scotland does not have a Prime Minister. Neither does England, so it could be blank. --Snowded (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Prime Minister and the Monarch both have power in Scotland as its part of the United Kingdom, This needs to be clear in the info box and simply having a first minister for Scotland / Wales / Northern Ireland and then a blank space for England seems rather unhelpful. It should be made more clear like on the wales article with the (of the UK) but because we are countries and not just "provinces or states" like in the examples of the USA / Canada / Australia, this matter has to be shown. Its part of Scotlands system of government. Jack had just said he was prepared to accept the current version, so the problem should be resolved now anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The European Union also has power in Scotland, you are making a political statement rather than a factual one. Its a minor issue but a lets not try and fool anyone OK --Snowded (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The Europen Union only has power in Scotland as part of the national Uk government not explicitly for Scotland. The reason for removing the PM or having the PM in the infobox has to be based on reason not consistency and as I said earlier, the reason why the US states don't have the president is because the states have as head of government, the governor. So in a federation such as Canada, the head of government is the PM of the province or territory and these legislatures are constitutionally protected. Not so in Britain. The UK government, and by extension the UK PM, have a legal right to interfere in the governance of the legislatures of Scotland, Wales and NI for which they've already done Bill Reid | (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We have argued back and forth about how much power the PM has and compared Scotland to US States in an attempt to explain why he does or does not belong in the infobox. I believe my explanations for excluding him are right, but the bottom line is, this is an article on Scotland, an article which quite clearly states that Scotland is a part of the UK, so the infobox has no need for the inclusion of the UK PM. Quite frankly, I have no idea why it does. Jack forbes (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its on the article right now because some time ago a majority of people decided it belonged there. 11 people voted for the PM to remain in the info box (including yourself) and only two people voted for the PM to be removed. Thats quite a good majority back then and there is clearly no majority support for making the change now.

This issue has been gone over many times yes, the fact remains the Prime Minister and the Monarch have power over the country of Scotland, in fact BOTH have more power than the First minister which is why suggestions of only having the first minister is unacceptable and i think its grossly misleading. There is clearly going to be no consensus for change, so the current data in the info box (which is in line with other UK articles) should remain the same. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary section break... and suggestion

My main interest in this discussion is that Scotland (and England, Wales and Northern Ireland) have fairly unique governmental structures that can't be neatly pigeon-holed. I mentioned above that I (weakly) support the inclusion of PM in the infobox. Part of the reason for that is to indicate that the Prime Minister does have some measure of responsibility for Scotland's laws.

Could I suggest an alternative? Could we add something to the infobox that makes clear that the First Minister and Holyrood do not have sole responsibility for Scotland's laws? I've not fully thought this through, but I'm thinking something like a footnote? This would remove "Monarch" and "Prime Minister" from the infobox, while still noting the role they play within Scotland's executive processes.

Is this a non-starter or worth considering?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the idea of removing the monarch and prime minister from the info box, i fail to see how there can be reasonable compromise on this matter except adding (of the UK) or presenting the information in a better way. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt have a problem with the order being rearranged, i thought it would be better in order of rank.. Queen, PM , FM but i wouldnt have a problem with it being the other way around... FM, PM, Queen. I think its rather odd that the FM is inbetween the Queen and Prime Minister. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I support The flag once was red, its a good suggestion and avoids the factual error of the current wording. --Snowded (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I too support the flag once was red. Jack forbes (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created an example in my sandbox. The footnote text is lifted directly from the article, and could possibly be shortened or improved. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

That simply moves important information to the small notes section so it is completly ignored. We need the major players when it comes to Scotlands government, they are the Monarch, Prime Minister, First Minister, and there really should be the Secretary of State for Scotland like on the Wales article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally attached to the example in my sandbox. An alternative would be to list Monarch, PM, FM but to keep the footnote beside legislature - it's the status of Holyrood that I'm most keen to clarify (I feel that if readers are unsure of the powers of the PM and FM they can easily click on the articles' and learn more). (edit conflict - I see you've made a similar point below). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think its a good idea to have an explanation like that in the notes section, and perhaps the full title could be included next to their names so its even more clear for someone just briefly looking at governmnt structure (first Minister of Scotland at the top), PM of the UK, Monarch of the UK. That way all the information and roles are still mentioned but its clearer so people dont think theres a "PM of Scotland" BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with your solution. It retains information while leaving the infobox to explain what this article is all about. Scotland. Jack forbes (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree its well done has my support --Snowded (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Why can such a notes section like that not be used to help explain the current version showing the monarch, Pm and FMs roles? If its relevant enough for a note in the info box why not include the names and positions in the government section of the info box? I notice all the other articles used to justify the removal of the PM (such as Canadas provinces, Australia / US states) do not need a notes section explaining? Also the proposed wording makes no mention of the Prime Minister at all which ignores someone who is responsible many Scottish issues, like National Security. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's called making a compromise. I would be quite happy removing them altogether but This flag once was red has came up with an excellent and well thought out solution which I am happy to agree with. Jack forbes (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think its enough of a compromise to justify the removal of two vital roles of Prime Minister and the Monarch who are involved in Scottish goverment. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposed wording certainly should mention the PM. That was an oversight on my part, and one that's easily solved. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What are we supposed to be doing here? Is it making an encyclopedia or producing POV driven nonsense. Neither Scotland, Wales, NI nor England have a constitutionally protected system of government that prevents interference from central government but the US, Australia and Canada do. Scotland has, perhaps unfortunately, no rights that allows the parliament of Scotland to disregard what the parliament of the UK may require while the governments of the States of the US, provinces of Canada or the states and territories of Australia manifestly do. Therefore the British parliament and its elected PM in terms of responsibilities in Scotland is hugely influential and can't be disregarded and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. -Bill Reid | (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

POV driven nonsense? That was a bit strong, wasn't it Bill? The compromise that This flag once was red has proposed does not lose any information and leaves the infobox to what this article is all about, Scotland. I don't see any POV driven nonsense. Jack forbes (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Second semi-arbitrary section break

OK, so the proposal above wasn't the consensus magnet that I'd hoped for ;-) As I see it, there are four possibilities for the infobox:

1. Status quo: infobox lists "Monarch" and "Prime Minister" with no footnote.
2. Infobox lists "Monarch" and "Prime Minister" with a footnote clarifying the limits on their authority.
3. Infobox does not list "Monarch" and "Prime Minister", and a footnote clarifies the limits on Holyrood's and the First Minister's authority.
4. Infobox does not list "Monarch" and "Prime Minister", and there is not footnote.

Presumably we can discount at least option 4? Can we also discount option 1? Assuming we can, would it be possible to reach a consensus on either option 2 or 3?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Number two seems like the best solution to me, the people remain listed which is important as they do play a role in Scotlands politics, whilst it is explained so nobody is confused about "Prime Minister of Scotland" etc. With that i dont have a problem with the First Minister being listed first, then the PM then the Queen in that order, i think placing the FM in between the PM / Queen adds confusion. Whilst going off the general push for consensus i really think the Secretary of State for Scotland should be listed, he is responsible for defending devolution and represents Scotland in the British cabinet. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just out of curiosity, what (if any) changes to option 3 would you need before you'd be happy with it? Incidentally, for supporters of option 3 I'd be interested to know what changes they'd need to see to option 2 before being prepared to accept that option. (For the curious, I'm still dithering between 2 and 3). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As previously stated, I support option 3. Jack forbes (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

What can I say. The changes to option 2 should be the removal of the PM and Queen with a footnote explaining their place within Scotland. But that's, erm, option 3. Jack forbes (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

:-) I was thinking more along the lines of how could the footnote be worded, but your suggestion made me laugh! I'm guessing the option 2 advocates would have a similar, albeit reversed position... This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with your footnotes, but if people want to include the PM and Secretary of State for Scotland in the footnotes I'll go along with it. Jack forbes (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was ok with the basic wording in the footnotes except for the fact it didnt mention the PM before and there should be a mention of the Secretary of State. However the problem with number 3 would still be the removal of clear roles involved in governing Scotland which i really do have a problem with, especially as both do out rank the First Minister. I dont understand how its a good thing to remove important positions and people from the main section in the info box on the government of Scotland. The notes section would address the concerns those who seeked change had with the "no prime minister of Scotland" problem. The fact we are even considering a footnote on the matter goes to show the situation is not clear cut unlike all the states / provinces of other countries where they dont need to mention the president / prime minister or monarch at all. The UKs system is very complicated, the fact we use the term country does confuse people which is why the roles and government structure should be as clear as possibe. Just "the first minister" in the info box is not clear and provides less information. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose a fifth option is to remove First Minister as well and add a (footnoted) comment that Scotland's governance is... less that straightforward. I'm not entirely joking: a simple listing of one, some or all positions is going to be unclear at some level. It may well be worth accepting that it's confusing, and simply adding a comment that says "this is complex. To see just how mind-bogglingly complex, see this footnote or read the article's government section". (We'd probably want to word that better, obviously!) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would accept the 5th option but i dont think it should be needed. The First Minister, PM, Queen, and Secretary of State all have clear roles when it comes to the governing of Scotland. The note should link to a more detailed explanation of everything, but i dont see why incuding those positions is so unacceptable to some people. First Minister, Secretary of State, Prime Minister, Queen in that order. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer some variant on options 2 or 3, but I'd settle for 5. I certainly think 1 and 4 are too partisan (or will be seen as such). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can feel myself stretching here trying to agree to a compromise that everyone is happy with (including me). I've thought long and hard over this, and while I'm not entirely happy with the FM being removed to the footnote I shall go along with option 5. PS, I won't be around until late Sunday. Jack forbes (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors obviously, but I'm not in any rush to make the change. There are several editors who participated in the discussion early on who haven't said anything recently - I'd be keen to hear their views. In any event, this has all taken place over the weekend - it might well be best to wait until the week's started so anyone offline over the weekend has a chance to voice their opinions. Cheers (and have a good Sunday!) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, lets wait and see what others have to say on this issue over the next few days. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Option 1. Even with Alex above Gordon. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Option 3 or 4 --Snowded (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How about a sixth option: leave the monarch in (she does have to assent to acts of the Scottish Parliament), and put the PM in a footnote. I prefer option 1, then option 2, but I don't see the point of removing the Queen. I would note that the Canadian province articles, which Jack forbes puts so much stock in, include the lt. govs. There is no viceroy for Scotland, so the roy, or reyne I suppose, should be there. -Rrius (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as the Infoboxes of England, Wales, Northern Ireland & Scotland are consistant, there should be no trouble. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case we should probably move this discussion to a more central location, and then advertise it on Talk:England, Talk:Northern Ireland and Talk:Wales. What's the best central location for this? Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We set up Countries of the United Kingdom to hold the evidence for country - why not there? --Snowded (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about taking this to a central location and involving people from all 4 of the country articles so we can get a consensus on who should and shouldnt appear in the list. It really is better when all 4 have the same thing (like the opening sentence) as it makes them all more stable. I would oppose the removal of the Prime Minister and keeping the Queen.. im sorry but its EXACTLY the same principle Both the Queen / PM are of the United Kingdom, so either they both stay or everyone (including the FM goes) BritishWatcher (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant to say that in your opinion they both stay or everyone including the Fm goes. --Snowded (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is my opinion and that sentence did come after the fact i said "i would oppose". However considering the removal of the Prime Minister is only being justified because hes the PM of the UK and not the "PM of Scotland" i fail to see how anyone that has a problem with the current one can be prepared to accept the removal of just one and not both. It is exactly the same thing.

A minor point GoodDay, you cannot have "consistency" between E,W,NI & S - E doesn't have an equivalent devolved administration to S, W or NI, or didn't you know that? Endrick Shellycoat 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

England must be involved to if we seek a central agreement. The fact is if we follow peoples suggestions of removing the PM (and there for the Queen as well because its exactly the same) there would just be a blank space in the England box on government.. that seems totally unacceptable and stupid from where im sitting. If the PM can be mentioned on the England page (if hes not it has to be totally blank) then i fail to see why the PM cant be on this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like the classic confusion of England with Britain/UK. England is a country, but it does not have a government in the same way as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So there is no first minister or equivalent. All part of the delightful historical legacy that is the UK. A common note about parliament and the assemblies would handle that and avoid any issue over blank spaces. --Snowded (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, we cannot have consistency between E,W,NI&S when England have no devolved powers. The infoboxes can't possibly be the same. Why then do we have to involve all four nations in this discussion? I can understand the case for this when the use of the word country was concerned but the infobox here has no relevance to the England box. Jack forbes (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but this does involve the England article. You two are on here arguing that because there is no "Prime Minister of Scotland" he must be removed from the government section of the info box. Well there is no "Prime Minister of England" so the same argument applies there. Ofcourse England has no devolved administration so it wont be identical to the NI / S / W articles but there can be the same policy on if we show the Prime Minister, Queen and a possible footnote or not. One other thing that does need to be on the NI page and not really the others is the Deputy First Minister, for obvious reasons relating to the power sharing deal. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for us two (which two?) only myself. Yes, I am on here arguing that the Prime Minister should be removed. Tell me something, if you are so intent on keeping the articles in line with each other why was the fact that the Scotland infobox does not point out that the PM is actually the PM of the UK not come to your attention. I'm surprised, as you seem to be a stickler for that kind of thing. Someone changed it, shouldn't it have been brought to the attention of the other articles before it was? It's surprises me how some changes or differences go unnoticed whilst others are picked up so quickly. Jack forbes (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ive said on several occasions since ur attempt to remove the PM i dont have a problem with (of the UK) or something along those lines being added. Note i didnt say i support just keeping the status quo when asked yesterday. However the status quo is better than the suggestion of removing the Queen and Prime Minister from this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that's where we are in disagreement. I have certainly heard no good reason to keep the PM other than him having supreme authority, which every leader of every country has. I also hear the argument that Scotland does not have the same power say as a State of the USA. Tell me, is there a rule book somewhere defining how much or what kind of power a state/Country needs before the PM/President is excluded? Jack forbes (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is meant to be an encylopedia which provides people with information. Alot more people will struggle to understand Scotlands system of government (something people have accepted by saying there should be a footnote on the matter) than when it comes to a state or province of the United States, Canada, or Australia. If there was a rule book about how much power is needed before the PM / President is included well Scotland and the other UK countries would certainly be one. The President of the United States doesnt have the authority our prime minister does and he doesnt have the direct involvement of (state/Country) issues like our PM does. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not if there was a rule book, there is no rule book. How on earth can there be any confusion when the very first words in this article tell us that Scotland is part of the UK. I've got news for you, I'll bet more people throughout the world know our system of Government far better than Australias or even Germany's. Jack forbes (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Devolution has only been around for a decade, theres plenty of people in the United Kingdom itself who do not even understand our system so i wouldnt put money on the rest of the world knowing. A country made up of countries confuses ALOT of people, this is something some people couldnt accept when dealing with the opening sentence and this seems rather the same problem. Anyway we are both not going to change our positions on this matter or each others minds, lets wait and see what others say. The fact remains last time this was put to a vote 11 people voted for the PM to remain (including urself) and only two people voted for it to be removed and there is clearly no consensus for the PM to be removed right now. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And I once voted for one political party before changing to another, but my friends don't continually remind me of it. We will not know if there is consensus for change until more people are involved so, you may be right or not but, please, don't jump the gun. Jack forbes (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I said lets wait and see what others think, but at the moment its clear there is no consensus for the change you want. As for voting for a political party, im sorry but the two things are very differernt. A political party changes, its policies change, its peoples change, the opposition change. What has changed in the past year to mean that the Prime Minister should no longer be included on the Scotland article, when less than 10 months ago u voted for him to remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeez! Your now questioning my right to change my mind? Have I your permission to reply here? If you want to continually mention that I voted differently last time then go ahead, though it may come across as a little petty. For your information, I changed parties not because they changed but because I changed my views. Perhaps you have never changed your view on anything but that's your outlook. Jack forbes (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry i should of included people change as well as the things i listed. Im not saying ur not allowed to change ur mind and i didnt even ask why you have changed your mind. All i said was i fail to see how the situation (Prime Minister of Scotland) issue has changed from back then when 10 others supported the PM remaining. I have changed my view on many things in the past, one thing was on this very article. When i first arrived here i thought it would be better to say "constituent country" rather than just country in the opening sentence, but now i accept and support the current wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there we go then. I suggest we leave this for now until more people are involved, as we seem to be going round in circles. Jack forbes (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Atleast we agree on one thing. Anyway night, will see what others have to say tomorrow. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a consensus! ;) Jack forbes (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's decided, to keep PM Brown in the 4 articles (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) infoboxes? We should of course, show it as PM of the United Kingdom (which is how the articles Wales & Northern Ireland do it). GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is decided yet GoodDay. I would rather have the PM in a footnote. But, as you say, if the consensus turns out to keep him, he should be shown as PM of the UK, which is what it used to say. Jack forbes (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) England is the rough in the diamond. Things would be alot easier, if it had a first minister like the other 3 UK countries. PS: We need a Project page for these 'consistancy' discussions. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is England do not have a government so there should be no government section or they could perhaps have a ref number in the section to a footnote explaining why. This is why consistancy discussions can't work, we can't be consistant with two different circumstances. It's possible to have that discussion with Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I sometimes think that far too much time is spent on these pages seeking consistency when the real world - for reasons of history, and different constitutional and administrative patterns - is simply not consistent. But in this case I think there is a clear case for including both HM and the PM (of the UK) in the infobox, together with the First Minister. Possibly there could be a common footnote to the four country articles, just saying that the constitutional position is very complicated and for clarification people should read the article! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to make myself clear. I have no problem with Gordon Brown or anyone being the Prime Minister of the UK. I just don't think he belongs in the Scotland articles infobox. As I have said before, it cannot be any clearer that Scotland is a part of the UK. For every other country and parts of their countries it seems to work that way. They have no need to do it, why should we? Don't forget, Gordon Brown is not a member of the Scottish Parliament and although he can restrict the parliament to what they can or cannot legislate on he has no day to day power within that parliament. He cannot vote on the legislation that Scotland currently hold. Jack forbes (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was bold & adjusted his entry on all 4 UK countries Infoboxes. I'm not pushing for his inclusion (remember my Canadian examples), but merely proposing a compromise. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodday that looks alot better with the full title like that than the (of the UK) added on the end. I support that change. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So do I. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Havn't you decided to go with my proposal after a good nights sleep? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

lol i could lie and say you almost won me over :) but sadly i still feel strongly that we must include all the major players involved in the governing of Scotland. Wales and Northern Ireland currently include the same people and i think the Northern Ireland article presents the data in the info box very well. It looks neat and tidy and thats what i think Scotlands should look like. Obviously for England there would just be Queen / PM but then a need for a big note explaining England has no devolved admin so UK parliament handles all its business. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I confess my hope for a change of mind was very small. :)

I was thinking of having a straw poll using This flag once was red's options to guage the feeling of our fellow editors. If you all think it's too soon let me know. Jack forbes (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Poll away. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No complaints here. Were you going to do it here or in the central spot discussed earlier? (I'm not dead-set on consistency across articles, but if we have a centralised poll we can always "adjourn" back to this talk page later, if the other articles' editors aren't keen). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have started here for now but it can easily be moved to a centralised location if that's whats wanted. Jack forbes (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) A polls ok with me, although based on the number of contributors to this debate so far theres not going to be one clear winning result with a decent majority unless many more get involved. Just for the record the fact England has no devolved administration whilst important because of the implications for that page its not the main reason why i have a problem with removing the prime minister or monarch. We have devolution not a federal United Kingdom although we may be moving towards that. Devolution is only a decade old and we would be foolish to presume that most people understand our system. The Prime minister of the UK does have far more involvment and responsibilities for Scotland than the Prime minister of Canada has over the provinces or the US president has over the American states. If England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were States or provinces of the United Kingdom, i would have no problem at all with just state government being listed. But we use the term country, which is used in most cases to describe sovereign countries, we should there for try to do all we can to avoid confusion.

The infobox should provide clear information about those who are responsible for governing of Scotland, those people are - The Queen, Prime Minister, Secretary of State, First Minister and we should add deputy first minister (as NI needs it for powersharing, and Wales currently has a coalition). I fail to see how providing all this information in the info box, (aslong as ensuring the UK ones clearly say they are of the UK) can be a bad idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some people love infoboxes and others loath them. I'm kind of ambivalent, I suppose. But given that all country/state/province/territory articles use them then the Scotland infobox should be as clear and as unamibiguous as possible.

All country/state/province/territory articles that I've looked at adopt similar systems, i.e. the infobox section on government give:

1. commonwealth realm countries (eg Canada) - 1. Monarch 2. Governor-General 3. Prime Minister
2. other independent countries (eg France, Belgium)- 1. President/Monarch 2. Prime Minister
3. federal parliamentary democracies (eg India, etc) - 1. President 2. Prime Minister, 3. Chief Justice
4. constituent countries (eg Greenland) - 1. Monarch 2. Prime Minister 3. First Minister
5. state within a federation (eg Western Australia, British Columbia, Goa) - 1. Governor/Lieutenant-Governor 2. Premier/Chief Minister

So no matter what the different systems of government, the articles are consistent in listing those primary government positions that have nominal and real authority in the country/state/province/territory etc. If its the intention to remove some or all of these and relegate them to a footnote then good luck with the other UK countries and the other WP articles. - Bill Reid | (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Section Break

Straw Poll

This is a straw poll on who should or should not remain in the infobox, or placed in a footnote. Would all editors please choose a first and second choice.

1. Status quo: infobox lists "Monarch" and "Prime Minister" with no footnote.
2. Infobox lists "Monarch" and "Prime Minister" with a footnote clarifying the limits on their authority.
3. Infobox does not list "Monarch" and "Prime Minister", and a footnote clarifies the limits on Holyrood's and the First Minister's authority.
4. Infobox does not list "Monarch*, *First Minister* or *Prime Minister*, and a footnote to clarify roles in Scottish Government.
5. Infobox does not list "Monarch" and "Prime Minister", and there is no footnote

• Option 2, then option 3. I don't actually have a hugely strong view here - I could probably live with option 1, too! Quick question: what about First Minister (and Secretary of State, though I'd suggest that that's maybe a secondary issue)? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is clear justification for the Secretary of State being added to the info box and unlike the PM / Monarch who are for the whole UK, the Secretary of State is "for Scotland" there for its a side issue, but he should be added no matter what the outcome. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• 2,4,5 --Snowded (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Option 5 is my preference. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Option 2 is the best, if not then Option 1 as the status quo for some time should remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Options 3,5 Just to throw in a 3rd choice 4 Jack forbes (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I've added another option. I hope that's all right. Jack forbes (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Option 2, then 1, then 3 (assuming that First Minister will also be listed). To me, options 4 and (especially) 5 are non-starters - the point of an infobox is to give info to readers, not to hide or suppress it because that is more comfortable for editors! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• Option 2. I still don't understand why the monarch is being lumped in with the PM. She does assent to Scottish legislation, is commander-in-chief of the military that defends Scotland, etc. -Rrius (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

She does all that as the Queen of the United Kingdom, NOT the "Queen of Scotland". Its exactly the same thing, the Prime Minister is responsible for the national security of the whole United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

She must still assent to legislation, which she does under the devolution act, not as a UK-wide act. -Rrius (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

She still does that as "Queen of the United Kingdom" and not "Queen of Scotland", the only reason people have given for removing the Prime Minister was hes the "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" and not "Prime Minister of Scotland". Thats why both should be treated the same way, but others may disagree. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But there is a difference. When the she assents to an Act of the Scottish Parliament, she does it in the framework of the devolution legislation. -Rrius (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Option 1, then option 2 - It should list by recognized constitutional powers. Currently those in Scotland are the Parliament (which comprises the Crown, the House of Commons & the House of Lords) & the Scottish Parliament. As it stands now the Crown technically holds power and is the recognized head of the country, while the leader of the house of commons is the political leader for the united kingdom. So it should go top two bottom, the Crown, the Commons & the Scottish Parliament. But I don't really care if the First minister goes in front of the Prime minister, even if that is not how they would be seated at any official meetings, dinners or galas :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• 1 Endrick Shellycoat 14:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinions to date

Not sure how many more editors will express an opinion here, but would everyone agree with me that up to to this point option 2 is the most favoured? Jack forbes (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree (naturally!) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, that's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree BritishWatcher (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree Endrick Shellycoat 17:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Option 2 selected, footnote added

I've added a footnote clarifying the role of the monarch and PM, based on the draft I used as an example in my sandbox (above). Feel free to mercilessly edit and/or slap me about. The footnote seems to focus on the monarch; it would be good if someone better at this than me could expad it to cover the PM, too (I simply copied a relevant section from the main body of the article). BritishWatcher, you mentioned SoS - I haven't caught up recently with the outcome of that discussion - was there a consensus, and if so would now be a good time to add SoS?Striking comment: looks like the consensus was against adding Secretary of State.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the edit also restored the "Scotland has no de jure national anthem" claim (removed here) - hence the edit-warring by an IP address that resolves to he-who-shall-not-be-named's ISP, Opal Telecom. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Secretary of State / Deputy First Minister in the infobox

Leaving aside the on going vote above for a moment, its clear that there is no support for removing everybody from the list and just leaving it blank. So would anyone object if we add the Deputy First Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland to the info box? this would bring it into line with the Northern Ireland / Wales article and both positions are clearly FOR Scotland, so theres not the same problem as we face above with the Queen / Prime Minister.

If nobody objects then we could add them tomorrow. Deputy under the First Minsiter, and Secretary of State right at the bottom like on NI / Wales. Theres no reason why those two couldnt be added whilst the ongoing vote continues above. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've no objections. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No objection to Secretary of State, but why Deputy First Minister? I can see the logic for Deputy on Northern Ireland (power sharing, keep both sides happy) but on the Deputy First Minister in Scotland is simply the FM's deputy. Note that this isn't a strong objection to adding Deputy First Minister, more curiosity. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes its clearly needed on NI and at the moment its probably a good idea on the Wales one as its a coalition government. I dont feel strongly about the deputy first minister and if people dont think its needed thats ok with me, although in the future if theres a coalition government its probably needed. Would just seem good if they all had the same people listed i think. Main person i think definetly should be added is the Secretary of State so up to others if we leave off the Deputy. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Got it, cheers. All that sounds reasonable. In passing, though, I'm not as sold on the idea of consistency between articles - England, for example, won't have many of the posts that the other countries do. That said, I've no objection to Secretary of State or even Deputy First Minister on Scotland. My possible objection to Deputy here is that the list is growing ever longer, and I don't feel Deputy has the constitutional importance it does in, say, Northern Ireland. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I for one would object to SoS. Unlike PM and FM, who are the elected heads of political parties which are themselves elected to govern the UK and Scotland respectively, the SoS is an appointed, not elected, head of a British Government Department. The Scotland Office, for which the SOS takes responsibility, is a department of the civil service, not a legislative body which governs. The SoS, unlike the FM, is answerable to and appointed by the PM. The FM, as is the case with the PM, is answerable to their respective parliaments, electorates, political parties and, not forgetting, sovereign. The SoS and DFM are unecessary additions IMHO. Endrick Shellycoat 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC) PS To give some indication as to the degree of import attached to the job of SoS for Scotland, the last incumbent only did it on a part-time basis - hardly equivalent to the roles and responsibilities of PM and FM me thinks...

So far as the infobox is concerned, the relevant people to include, in order to inform readers, are the people with power. The source of that power - whether it's by election or appointment - is interesting in the context of the whole article, but irrelevant to the infobox itself. I support the inclusion of the SoS, but don't have a strong view about Deputy FM. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why stop at SOS for Scotland in that case, Ghmyrtle, shall we included SoS for Defence, SoS for Work and Pensions, Chancellor of the Exchequer, etc. etc. The ultimate authority for those policies pursued by all these appointees whose decisions impact directly the governance of Scotland lies with the PM - if he/she says "no", it don't happen, simple. The PM and FM are all that is required, no need for appointee departmental heads, whatever "power" they supposedly wield. (Power which actually lies with the parliaments and not the individual, a point with which the Rt Hon. A Salmond, MP MSP, would no doubt concur). Endrick Shellycoat 23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Your previous comment stated that you opposed the inclusion of the SoS because he was unelected. The last comment states it's because he has no real power. If the last point is valid, I'd accept it. It's your earlier (unrelated) point that is irrelevant, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Secretary of State for Scotland has clear responsibilities for Scotland there for i didnt think anyone would object to him being added. If some are too worried about the list getting too long then i dont mind leaving the Deputy First minister off, but i think its important the minister who represents Scotland in the cabinet and the person charged with defending the Scotland Act and devolution is included. Hes an important link between the UK government and Scotland on reserved matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Endrick Shellycoat makes a good point. The Secretary of State for Scotland carries out instructions set out by the policies of the PM. He does not make any policies himself, so I would have to agree that he does not belong in the infobox. If the final decision is that the PM remains then there is no need for the SOS for Scotland. He also makes a good point when saying that the last SOS was a part time post. Jack forbes (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In fairness BritishWatcher does make a valid point in that the SoS, like the FM, "has clear responsibilities for Scotland". The PM on the other hand, does not. Jack forbes also makes a valid point in his counter-argument, therefore I'd like to propose that the PM be replaced by the SoS, which alongside the FM and sovereign will be a more concise list, which for the consistency buffs out there can be readily mirrored on the NI and W articles also, with the proviso that DFM be included where coalition administrations exist. I see little benefit in multiple Offices of State being reproduced in the info-box; no other articles concerning the national sub-entities of sovereign states include such an extensive breakdown. There are two principal legislative bodies responsible for the governance of Scotland, (not counting the European Parliament), a principal representative of each body is sufficient for the info-box. Further detail can be readily found in the relevant section of the article. Endrick Shellycoat 10:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If there was a footnote we could clarify the status of the Secretary of State...? (I'm not totally on board with the need to list SoS in the infobox, but I'm tending towards "it's a good idea" based on recent events and a belief that readers may look for the SoS in the infobox as a result). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please clarify This flag once was red, is that in addition to or in place of the PM? Endrick Shellycoat 10:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition to. I do see your point, though, in that they both represent the cabinet and/or Westminster. My thinking is that the PM represents Westminster (i.e. laws affecting reserved matters) and the SoS represents Scotland in the UK cabinet. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I likewise see your point, but given that the "PM represents Westminster" and the SoS represents Scotland at Westminster, with the common link being Westminster, do we really need two representatives from the same body? Endrick Shellycoat 10:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's more a case of "PM represents Westminster (in as much as Westminster legislates for Scotland)" and "SoS represents the UK cabinet (in as much as the UK cabinet has executive authority over Scotland)" - i.e. there are legislative and executive components. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel a Paxmanesque "yessss" coming on, but this is the info-box we're discussing - there are also legislative and executive components elsewhere, but I wouldn't for a moment think of including the Leader of the House of Lords or listing all Scotland's 7 MEPs. I'm happy to go with whatever concensus is found, if one can be found, but would prefer to simply list sovereign, FM and A.N Other; either PM or SoS, but not both. Endrick Shellycoat 10:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose to a degree I might be guilty of "recentism" - given the role our beloved Secretary of State played in recent events. As I said earlier, I'm not dead-set on including SoS, and I am mindful of the list growing ever-longer. For what it's worth I certainly don't think we should include all 7 MEPs - maybe just 4 of them ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Its very true that the role the Secretary of State for Scotland now plays is very limited compared to the past, however he is far more involved in Scottish affairs than the monarch who doesnt have that much legislation to give royal accent to. The SOS still has clear responsibilities when it comes to Scotland there for i really think he should be added. I do not think that he should replace the Prime Minister, i think theres justification for both staying on there. Ofcourse we dont need to include the house of lords, ministers of departments, MEPs, the legal top guy in Scotland etc. But the PM, Queen, FM, and SOS are all important roles. If we look at the Northern Ireland article, it really doesnt look like a huge list. It fits in nicely and is presented well. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Off topic question: doesn't the monarch need to give her assent to all legislation affecting Scotland, whether it came from Holyrood or Westminster? It's not like Wales, where the Assembley's resolutions are "orders-in-council" and don't require Royal assent (but are subject to veto from the SoS or Westminster). Or have I misunderstood your point? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Theres only so much legislation that goes through the Scottish parliament each year. The SoS deals with Scottish matters every day, thats all i meant. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just incase anyone is interested, the role of the SOS is gone into in some detail here - http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/devolution/secretary-of-state.html . It makes clear the secretary has some executive power and is the one who can basically veto any legislation passed by the Scottish parliament if it goes against reserved matters such as national security and defense. That seems like a pretty important role to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

From your link BritishWatcher:

• "The Secretary of State may also make an Order under section 35 if he reasonably believes that the Scottish Parliament Bill makes modifications to, and would have an adverse effect on, the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters. These powers have not yet been exercised, which means that no Orders have been made by the Secretary of State under section 35 of the Scotland Act."

That may seem a "a pretty important role" to you, but doesn't seem a very busy one to me. PM or SoS, one or t'other, not bothered either way, but not both. (Nice userpage BTW - v.patriotic!) Endrick Shellycoat 12:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well thats ur choice, but its clear from the above vote there is no clear majority support for removing the prime minister so he must remain. So we should address the issue of adding the SOS or not adding him. Its true that his "veto" power has not been used but its still there and is there for an important part of Scotlands system of government. That page lays out clearly he has more roles and duties, including executive ones on issues of finance between the UK / Scotland governments. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If it came down to a choice between the SOS or the PM i would support the PM remaining, however we would simply be trying to hide an important role in Scotlands government by not including the SOS and i see no justification for that. The position on not adding the Deputy FM is fine as its not coalition government like in Wales / Northern Ireland, but not including the person who sits in Cabinet representing Scotland seems pretty strange. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

looking at the options chosen up to this point I would say option 2 (not my choice) seems to be the most popular. If it remains that way then obviously that would be the the consensus. As for the Secretary of state, if the PM remains then I see no need to include him. Jack forbes (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think its not so much a case of "trying to hide an important role in Scotlands government" as you put it, but rather that Scotland's defence and macro-economic strategies for example are far more important than keeping tabs on whether Holyrood treads on any Westminster toes, however, these other ministers, with their far more important UK-wide portfolios, are not mentioned in the info-box. Perhaps Scotland's info-box entry for "Government" should be kept short'n'sweet and refer to the Monarch and, being under the jurisdiction of two legislative parliaments, the leaders of the executives of both these parliaments listed as PM and FM respectively; what more does one need to say in the in the info-box which can't be found in the relevant section of the article? Seems a needless attempt to clutter the info-box just because its been done elsewhere. The SoS for NI has far more responsibilities than the SoS for W, who in turn has far more responsibilities than the SoS for S. If the NI and W editors feel the need to list the relevant SoS because of the enhanced roles these ministers take with regard to the government of these places then so be it. I don't feel it adds anything here however to have both PM and SoS. The head of state and heads of governments are listed, does it need head of state, heads of governments and a cabinet minister with a much reduced role in comparisson to equivalents elsewhere, to the extent that less than six months ago it was a part-time post? (Probably still would be if the fall-out from the last attempt at combined-ops hadn't been so great). I don't think so. Endrick Shellycoat 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Was interested in BritishWatcher's statement which intrigued me, ...who doesnt have that much legislation to give royal accent to.... So I scurried off to the Scottish Parliament website and got a link to here [1] and in fact they've been very busy: 178 Bills and 5296 Statutory Instruments over the last 10 years. When you think about it they have to mirror a lot of what the UK parliament does plus indigenous legislation so I think the Queen is kept going.

The Sec. of State for Scotland IMO isn't an important figure these days and I wouldn't be unhappy if he's omitted. Bill Reid | (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I honestly didnt think there would be objections to including the Secretary of State, its an important position despite it being far more limited since devolution. Anyway as several people object lets not add him and focus on the outcome of the vote above, sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

FGS, don't apologise for simply having an opinion; knowing this place come back in three hours it'll probably be one shared by the majority. :) Endrick Shellycoat 14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been having second thoughts on the SOS being.....Nah, just kidding! :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive?

It seems the archiving process is a bit involved here, and I don't want to do anything wrong. As a result, I'm not going to do it myself, and certainly not unilaterally, so I'll simply ask whether others agree that it is time and whether anyone is willing to take it on. So asked. -Rrius (talk) 03:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think everything should be archived up to the Prime Minister issue which happened a few days ago. I think the issues with the opening sentence are over for the time being so theres no need for it to remain on the page. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No objection - though I might be inclined to keep the opening sentence discussion as it's relatively recent? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Done/wangi (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of my browser and my long-suffering ISP, I thank you! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou yes that is sooooooooo much better. Although its pretty amazing how much text we have all entered in just the past 3 days. sheeesh BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You should have been around for the country discussion. Compared to that this is just a small note on a talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Economy and infrastructure - time for change?

The first paragraph looks threadbare: neither expressing the long-run, nor the current position, but rather emphasising a now imploded position. The final sentence needs heavy pruning from Edinburgh is the financial services centre of Scotland and the sixth largest financial centre in Europe in terms of funds under management, behind London, Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich and Amsterdam, with many large finance firms based there, including: the Royal Bank of Scotland (the second largest bank in Europe); HBOS (owners of the Bank of Scotland); and Standard Life. An edit could be as little as taking the last part down to ...including Standard Life, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Bank of Scotland. or losing the examples altogether? Does anyone have access to a more recent FUM by financial centres? AllyD (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Was Marconi Scottish?

I was wondering if Marconi the inventor of the radio was Scottish and should be included on the scottish listings. I just saw on wikipedia Marconis mothers name was Ann Jameson from Dublin, but her grandfather John Jameson. according to the Jameson website John founded the Jameson Whiskey distillery was born in Scotland in 1740's. I always wondered why their was a saltire on the Jamesons bottle. [[2]] It says not only was John Jameson Scottish but he also was the first to triple distil whisky characterised by modern Irish whisky. So could Marconi be included in the Scottish list as his g.grandfather was Scottish. Saying that he's on the Irish list as his mother was born Dublin even though he was born in Blogna italy? Also should we create a John Jameson page as he was an infuential Scottish whisky maker in Ireland? AussieScottishpride (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Marconi was born in Italy, therefore he was Italian. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I noticed that before you changed it to the fact that he was born in Italy you said that he was British because he was born post 1707. I hope that wasn't supposed to be as provocative as it came across. I can assure you that after 1707 you can still be born Scottish, just as you still get Yorkshiremen and Prince Edward Islanders. Scroggie (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with describing post-1707 births in United Kingdom, as being English, Scottish, Welsh & Irish. I also disagree with describing people born in Northern Ireland (post Irish partition) as Irish. Anyways, I wasn't trying to be provocative. GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. I'm surprised by your view as it throws up loads of issues: for example, do you really believe that Mary McAleese, the President of Ireland (born in Belfast in 1951) should be described as British? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Born in one place & living in another? McAleese has the distinction of being British-Irish. My country has had British-Canadians serve as our Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that someone objects to the term English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish being used to describe a person. Being Scottish and a citizen of the United Kingdom are two different things. Are you saying being Welsh etc, is of secondary importance? You should actually come here and ask people what they are with the inevetable answers being Welsh, English, Scottish and Irish with some exceptions in N.Ireland who will say they are British. Tumblin Tom (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not true of many people in England (and some in Wales and N Ireland), who define themselves as "British" for a whole variety of reasons, among them the fact that they come from a mixture of ancestries (in my case, Welsh, English, Ulster Scots; born in England; live in Wales; usually self-define as British). The term "British" does not necessarily have the negative connotations that it obviously does for some people in Scotland and Ireland, and it is misleading to give the impression that it always does. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I personaly always define myself as Scottish and have never described myself as British. When abroad I always hear English people describe themselves as just that, English. I'm Scottish, my heritage is Scottish going back hundreds of years at least, so calling myself Scottish has far more meaning for me than British and I believe the vast majority of people in the countries of the UK think the same way. You may call yourself British first, I do believe you are in the minority. Tumblin Tom (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I always call myself British and consider myself British first. I dont have a problem with peoples articles on wikipedia saying they are English, Scottish or Welsh however UK citizens info boxes should also include the fact they are British citizens, you may not like it but we are all British nationals. So ofcourse someone like Alex Salmond should be called Scottish, but he is still a British citizen and the info box should say that.

The real problem i have is for example we cant say Gordon Brown is Scottish in his info box because clearly he also identifies as being British. So Salmond is described as Scottish but Brown isnt despite them both being as Scottish as each other and i find that rather misleading. Having the extra field to enter citizenship "British" would take that problem away but i cant see any real change happening on that policy sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The extra field to include citizenship is actually quite a good idea. I'm Scottish but can't deny my British citizenship. Like I said, good idea! Tumblin Tom (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

...and also neatly deals with what the SNP call "New Scots" - foreign nationals who have lived in Scotland on a long-term basis. Although I don't consider myself Scottish (and I'm quite happy with my Kiwi passport, thankyouverymuch), there are people in a similar position to me who do consider themselves Scottish, even though they're not British. A slightly better example might be, say, a refugee from Darfur living in Glasgow - their nationality is strictly Sudanese, but they've been here long enough to consider themselves Scottish. Does that make sense, or is it drifting into WP:OR, or searching for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist to any great extent? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense when it comes to those living in Scotland who consider themselves Scottish but dont hold British citizenship although i wouldnt want it applying to those who dont live / never have lived in Scotland before who are not British citizens. I dont see the harm including citizenship information would do as theres a clear reason to provide more information when it comes to British citizens which doesnt apply for other nationalities. Dunno if its possible to add such a field on certain templates but im sure i saw it as an option on one. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you also look at articles on football players they are always described as English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. Yesterday I changed Sean Connerys article to describe him as Scottish rather than British. Just because he did not represent Scotland in sport does not make him less of a Scotsman than someone who did. There has to be consistency over all these articles whether they are sportmen or movie stars, which is why stating there nationality in the lede, ie Welsh, Scottish etc, and having that extra field in the infobox to include their citizenship is a good idea. Tumblin Tom (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A bit late in the day but in general sportsmen & women are described on the basis of what country they play for internationally. So in football it's the individual Home Nation but for tennis it's the United Kingdom. (Of course this does not always satisfy some who edit war to death on this.) Timrollpickering (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Marconi was born in Italy to a mother who wasn't Scottish and a father who wasn't Scottish. I'd humbly suggest that anything else would be better off discussed on users' talk pages ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Striking, as the thread seems to be fairly relevant to the article, and you all ignored me anyway ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I recommend this Marconi discussion be archived, as it doesn't suggest adding or deleting anything from the article. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. Tumblin Tom (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bring back the Coat of Arms of Scotland

i've read extensively on the issue of the coat of arms extensively over & over and I couldn't help the feeling dismay at all the pettyness that was going on in there.
Therefore I call to Bring back the Coat of Arms of Scotland!!!
It doesn't matter if it called a Great Seal, Royal Emblem or Lizzy's Scottish drawing in Pastel. It is the symbol of Scotland and that is how it is known in the whole wide world. putting both the Scottish flag and the Scottish royal banner is pure redundancy, and ignoring the Scottish coat of Arms is just Stupid! so please Give us back the Coat of Arms of Scotland!!! --Jjulio Milagros Ccesar (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

i agree that the coat of arms was a good edition to the article. it brings a bit more history into it. Hubrid Noxx 12:48, 15 April 2009

either the coat of arms should be brought back. Yes the previous arguments are valid, but if you do not bring back the CORRECT coat of arms, at least recognize the CORRECT motto of Scotland. It is not IN DEFENS, it is the latin Nemo Me Impune Laecessit. Which means no one insults me (my country is implied) with impunity. I think this motto is much more appropriate for the "zest" scots have for their homeland.-Jonbobsmith 17:02, 16 April 2009

Army

"Atholl Highlanders, Europe's only legal private army"

Um, no its not, what about the French Foreign Legion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Really? The Atholl Highlanders belong to the private individual, the Duke of Atholl. Who does the French Foreign Legion belong to? Oh yes, that well known not-so-private organisation, the French Government. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not A Country

Hi. I notice that all of the pages for England, Scotland, and Wales list these places as countries. As does the GB and UK pages. This is, in fact, an error. The Times Atlas of 2007 (the latest one I have in my house) lists them as "constituent countries" (i.e. they don't have sovereignty nor do they have embassies in other countries). I think this is a serious error, but I don't have time to convince all the live-ins here that you should change it, so I'll leave it to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.64.70 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

See Countries of the United Kingdom for the citations. If you checked this history of this talk page you would have been directed there --Snowded (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

a) The Times Atlas is not the definitive source for questions of countryhood. b) Country =/= sovereign state anyway. c) Live-ins are live-ins precisely because they have discussed these issues ad nauseam. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Recommend archiving, as this goes under FAQ. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Contributions to Science/Engineering/Medicine

I was wanting to put in a section that mentions the contributions that Scotland has made to these area. However, I wasn't sure if it should go in a new section, be written under a already existing title or not go in at all. It seems to me like a good section to be in an article, perhaps under culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anterior1 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge

I've suggested Etymology of Scotland should be merged with this article on its talk page. Please have your say on this merging idea. Ross Rhodes (T C) ^Sign! 19:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Law and criminal justice section

This seems clunky at the moment. It tells us that "Manslaughter, in England and Wales, becomes culpable homocide in Scotland, and arson becomes wilful fireraising." Aside from the misspelling of homicide, this "becomes" is incorrect, suggesting a deliberate naming transformation rather than a distinct tradition. I'm personally for deleting this altogether, but before doing so wonder if others see value in this comparative approach? AllyD (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the Scottish legal system with others seems like a good idea if it can be done without going into too much detail. I agree the "becomes"... is certainly the wrong word to use there, it needs rephrasing if its to remain.

Im not clear on this bit either.. "For many decades the Scots legal system was unique for a period in being the only legal system without a parliament. This ended with the advent of the Scottish Parliament which legislates for Scotland." Shouldnt that be centuries rather than decades if its just talking about no Scottish parliament from 1707 to 1999 and is "for a period" needed? Also Unique in what, the world?? Perhaps that could be reworded too BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, decades is not the right word. As to the idea of a unique legislature / legal system gap, my recollection is that this assertion appeared in the 1988 "Claim of Right for Scotland" but I've mislaid my copy and the text doesn't seem to be online (surprisingly perhaps, for a piece of recent history). But if the assertion stays, it needs supported by a ref. AllyD (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

One way is to clarify in passing, without giving a verbose distinction ... eg, "pursuer (ie, the plaintiff)" ... so perhaps in the example at hand, "culpable homicide (ie, manslaughter)" and "wilful fireraising (ie, arson)", with wiki-links as needed ... that uses the Scots legal term in an article about Scots law (which seems appropriate), with the term probably known to the widest audience in parentheses ... and it doesn't give undue weight to differences in nomenclature when the substance is largely the same; and when there is some nuance of difference, perhaps we can let it pass for purposes of the article. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably worth mentioning "Trespass" as well, which is rather different from its Common Law namesake, much to the chagrin of many outsiders buying property in Scotland. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish legal system needn't constantly be compared to the English one, as if this were the only other system in the world. Most of the readers will not be English, probably they'll be from the US, so if we have comparisons it should be explicitly with US law. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is every need to compare the 'Victorian' Scottish Legal System to that enjoyed within the rest of the United Kingdom. Non Briitish readers for the most part have no idea that such a difference exists which now brings into play many Human Rights violations which the judiciary in Scotland have failed as such to address. --De Unionist (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a separate article on Scots Law - comparisons with different legal systems should probably be made there. That said, US law "was originally largely derived from the common law system of English law", so a comparison with common law is probably most useful. Speculating about possible human rights violations is probably unhelpful, unless cited, and even then more useful at Scots law than here. (For the unfamiliar, one example of this is the recent case in Turkey where a defendant was interviewed without a lawyer present - this also happens in Scotland, and is calling into question the legality of the subsequent convictions. With one parliament concentrating on UK law, Scots law remained fairly static for several centuries - feudalism was abolished in Scotland only in 2000, for example - but with a dedicated parliament in Scotland this is now changing). Disclosure: I have a slight interest in this since I received a demand for money from my "former feudal superior" a few years back... oh, and I was once interviewed by police without having a lawyer present - but the Procurator Fiscal decided that it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute me for flyposting ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who is involved in the Law in Scotland knows that Scotland has much work to do if they are to catch up with the rest of the United Kingdom in the field of Human Rights. Just a few examples of this [3] [4] [5] De Unionist (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your first link makes clear ("Scotland has been experiencing what could be about the hit the rest of the UK, the reality of introducing the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law") that Human Rights are front and centre for Scotland; there certainly are issues (slopping out, and the issues I mentioned above), but again I feel this is better suited for Scots Law than Scotland. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree, just making the point as there are some editors like some Scottish Politicians I could mention who think that there are no Human Rights abuses in Scotland, naive or what? --De Unionist (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Gross Domestic Product

Because of the generally woeful estimates of Scottish GDP from Government and the statistical stramash that underlines the reporting and accounting of Scottish economic statistics, it is difficult to come by good estimates of GDP for Scotland. With the publication yesterday of Scotland's putatative fiscal position, the Scottish Government have kindly provided estimates of Scotland's GDP at market prices, and in Sterling that seem pretty reliable and on a comparative basis with other countries in the world - Box 3.2 here However, they provide three estimates of Scotland's GDP - without North Sea Oil included, with a per capita share of North Sea activity and, finally, with a geographical share of such activity. It would be good to have a more up-to-date and referenced estimate of Scotland's GDP, even for the infobox, but I'd be very hesitant for Scotland to be the only country in the world where three versions were quoted, or where there are caveats applied. How do we proceed? Thoughts? Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Global, how u doing? :). I would say put the GDP estimate with Scotlands geographical share, just pointing out it does include North sea oil in the notes section. The fact energy isnt a devolved matter / the government only looks at is as a UK resource shouldnt matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I agree with BritishWatcher that the only valid measure is to include the geographical share. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Scotlands GDP should be stated minus the North Sea oil element as this goes directly to the Westminster coffers. --De Unionist (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Where a particular element might go isn't relevant. It's still forms part of Scotland's domestic output. The geographical share is the figure to use. Dalliance (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A GDP is to tell you the wealth of the country and to allow you to compare it to another. Doesn't make any sense to arbitrarily exclude one factor, just because one section of its government doesn't get the revenue.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly, the oil taken from the North Sea does not add to the wealth of Scotland. Scotland gets a payment from England irrespective of the oil. If the oil ran out tomorrow, would Scotland cease to get its share...I think not. --De Unionist (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Does Scotland get a payment from "England"? A bit of precision needed? AllyD (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Scotland gets payments from the UK government, not England. --Snowded ^TALK 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I thought the UK Government was in England? --De Unionist (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The mint is located in Wales, does that mean the Welsh supply money to everyone else? I assume you are being provocative? --Snowded ^TALK 15:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The mint could be in Timbuktu for all it matters. I was stating a fact acually although you seem to have misinterpretated it as something else. The UK Government is in England!...as is the UK Parliament. The money which the Scots get comes from England. I thought that was a really easy one. --De Unionist (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

THe money is an allocation from the UK Government, it does not come from England. Unless of course you conflate the UK with England? --Snowded ^TALK 15:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

So where does the UK Government get it from? --De Unionist (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

UK residents, companies, bonds etc. etc. etc. I'm making a good faith assumption in assuming that question was serious. --Snowded ^TALK 15:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

GDP may be used as an indicator of national wealth but its purpose, and definition, is in providing a measure of production. Dalliance (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comng back to the point about economic statistics appropriate to this article, I'd say the big problem with this and the economy article is that the banking bubble distorts the quoted figures, and the figures to 2007-8 in the cited Scottish Govt article will still do so. There is a need for texts which free themselves of the supposed past glories of RBS etc. AllyD (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite agree, I have tried to edit some of them out or update others but it takes a while. --De Unionist (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean like this "Content with its block grant of £33 billion from the Treasury in London.." [6] --De Unionist (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The Block Grant is a transfer of funds from the UK exchequer to the Scottish Parliament. The size of this figure is not based on Scotland's GDP and not related to the amount of taxation paid to the UK exchequer from 'Scottish' taxation. The evidence as to whether Scotland enjoys more public spending than it contributes to the UK exchequer is at best uncertain as it is based on estimates and assumptions, but in no way is there compelling evidence to suggest that Scotland is subsidised by England as would be implied by stating 'Scotland gets a payment from England irrespective of the oil'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway leaving aside the debate about funding which has nothing to do with if the GDP should or shouldnt include north sea oil, as long as the source is the Scottish government website and not some 3rd party website like "its our oil" or what ever its called, i dont see the problem. Just needs the mention in the notes its from Scottish government and includes oil. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, can we cut the political stuff out of this? The point of GDP is to compare Scotland's wealth with other countries. That includes its resources, because such resources are included in the calculations of other countries. The figure won't be useful without it. And Scotland is not run entirely by the Scottish government. The Westminster government runs Scotland too. So it doesn't matter who gets what at this point in time. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy to agree, though I should point out that GDP is a measure of the rate of the generation of wealth (per year) rather than a measure of the absolute level of wealth in a country. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The only uptodate GDP figures on the Scottish government website ive seen is nominal GDP rather than PPP. Anyone have a problem with that calculation being used rather than the PPP method? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

SFA is the oldest football association

{{editsemiprotected}} The scotland page (sport) claims that the SFA is the second oldest football association in the world, but it is the oldest, founded 2 years previous to the EFA in England

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. The current statement has this cite: "Soccer in South Asia: Empire, Nation, Diaspora. By James Mills, Paul Dimeo: Page 18 - Oldest Football Association is England's FA, then Scotland and third oldest is the Indian FA." That reference may be misquoted or incorrect, but we should have a few references that agree SFA is older than EFA before we change a cited claim. Can you find two or three references for this fact? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I find that I can view that book on Amazon and the supporting quote is "...third oldest football tournament in the world after the FA cups in England and Scotland." That is fairly weak support for the statement ordering those two associations. If you will provide a single reference, I can remove the claim. If you want to substitute something about it being the oldest, please provide the wording as well. Thanks again, Celestra (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki currently says the Scottish FA was formed in 1873, according to the FA [7] Englands Football Association was formed in 1863, so if both are correct clearly one was 10 years ahead. I cant find details on the Scottish FA website about when it was formed, the previous linked sources for the history no longer work. But the fact England had the first FA is widely known and mentioned in the media all the time so i doubt everything is wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

THE FA IS 10 YEARS OLDER THAN SFA, get your facts right before you come on here wum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtbob7 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Template

I noticed a question asked by a user on the talk Ireland page wondering if a Template called Life in Ireland could be created as there are other such Templates [8]. I wonder if one could be done for Scotland, although I do notice that it does say sovereign states. Ps, I'm not even sure what the purpose of a Template is so if any kind person out there could briefly explain it to me I would be grateful. Coll Mac (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have checked out the explanations for templates (as I should have before asking here). On reflection I understand that Scotland can not be included on the template mentioned. What are the possibilities of having a template for non sovereign countries? Coll Mac (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Life in Europe templates look a bit empty of non-red links? And Template:Scotland topics already seems to provide adequate navigation on Scotland-oriented topics? AllyD (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. There seems to be an over-abundance of these type of templates. Not sure what the need is for Template:United Kingdom topics and the life in template. Anyway, thanks for the reply. Coll Mac (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

scotland is awesome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.169.127 (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Modern History text

The current text covering the period from the Jacobites to World War Two was deleted today on grounds of "Removing bias, un-Encyclopedic material". To me that's a step too far, denuding the article of a rather significant event-set without which history looks like the story of kings and administration. I've restored, but taking this positively, it does seem reasonable to review the text: "The Scottish Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution made Scotland into an intellectual, commercial and industrial powerhouse." - at the least to offer a citation (though that is easy enough - Devine, Fry, Lynch etc - almost too many), But enhance and improve? AllyD (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Scottish Enlightenment should be mentioned separately (perhaps in a little more detail?). The Scottish enlightenment was particular to Scotland, whilst the industrial revolution spread from Britain as a whole. Jack forbes (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole enlightenment thing needs to be expanded, rather than just be in one line. And why the hell is there a cite tag there? Shouldn’t it be something more about expansion? The wording does come across as bias, go check the article on England and you will find no such wording... (-: --Frank Fontaine (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why the sentence appears to you as bias as long as there is a citation found to back up the wording. Jack forbes (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Then find a citation. But that citation must be neutral (Aka not written by some nationalist) and factual/Reliable. The whole sentence sounds like it’s been written by a Scottish Nationalist! That’s my main point. I find it rather odd that no such praises exists for England? Even though I’m pretty sure England has had many “Enlightenments”.

I’m sorry, but this whole article reads like a peace of pro-Scottish propaganda.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the Neutral Point of View Policy. The point of NPOV is not to remove biased statements. Rather it is to attribute them. So Wikipedia doesn't accept a sentence like "Scotland is great." (which violates NPOV because we don't all think that Scotland is great) but it does accept a sentence like "According to the Scottish Tourist Board, Scotland is great." which does not violate NPOV because we do all agree that the Tourist Board said that-- and if anyone doesn't agree that they said it then we use a citation to prove that they did. It doesn't matter whether they are biased, or indeed whether what they said was true. What actually matters is that they said it, we can prove that they said it with a citation, and thus that we can all agree that they said it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok...But that bit about the Enlightenment is practically repeated twice in the Article (The "Powerhouse" bit), First in the second paragraph of the opener and then in the Modern history again, only slightly different wording? Perhaps one of them should be re-worded to make it sound less like repetition? --Frank Fontaine (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The opening paras (according to another WP policy) are supposed to be a quick summary of the rest of the article, so a bit of repetition is unavoidable. But as you say it shouldn't be word-for-word, so a rewording or even some expansion of the second occurrence would probably be in order. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible royal tomb

Has anyone picked up on this recent discovery? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ancient-royal-tomb-found-in-scotland-1771875.html It certainly puts a whole new perspective on Scotland and its history. Jack forbes (talk) 10:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Archaeologists are certainly in the news at present. See also Talk:Heart of Neolithic Orkney. Ben MacDui 12:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Urban bias

Back in the old days, when there was regular discussion about improving this article, it was noted that there was a tendency for most of the images to concentrate on the Central Belt, at the expense of Tayside, the North East, Moray Firth, Borders etc. The removal of Marischal College has a certain logic, but once again the urban images are exclusively M8 corridor. Where is Robbie the Pict when you need him? Ben MacDui 07:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would check it out and the breakdown of the relevant images, of which there are nineteen, are as follows:

6 images-Edinburgh

3 images-Glasgow

1 image-Orkney, Easter Ross, Stirling, Perth and Kinross, Skye, Tiree, Barra, Scottish Highlands, Iona and Fife.

A suggestion that perhaps dropping one or two Edinburgh images to make way for a couple of good images from some of the places you suggest may be appropriate? Jack forbes (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

England has recently had an overhaul of both its images and prose, and is gearing up for GA status. It may be worth having a look at Wikimedia Commons and finding "featured pictures" relating to Scotland, as it would be nice to use the highest quality pictures possible, as well as reflecting regional diversity. I would support an overhaul of the images - for example, where are the images of Glen Coe and Ben Nevis? The Northern Isles? Lochs Lomand and Ness? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Image bias is one of the most common yet overlooked problems on Wikipedia. I can't believe there isn’t a single image of Aberdeen! Hello? Third most populous city? But on a further note, there are not many good images on the Aberdeen article, the best one just so happens to be a photochrom... --Frank Fontaine (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest someone uploads some images from Geograph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Add Europe to lead sentence

I suggest the first sentence have "in North-West Europe" added to it so that the first sentence would be: Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in northwest Europe that is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. The same should go for the articles England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Munci (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion, consensus has been reached across the 4 countries of the United Kingdom articles to maintain the current stable lead. It is vital to avoid confusion that we not bog the first sentence down with geography, and cover what England,Scotland etc are first. They are countries that are part of the United Kingdom. Their location on the planet is of secondary importance. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The current wording took some considerable time to gain common consensus over four articles. That included gathering a lot of material in citation tables to see the most common usage. Personally I don; see any benefit in the proposed change and I see considerable dangers in opening up a series of debates all over again. --Snowded ^TALK 13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I too oppose this. No conventional source, introduction or guide to Scotland, children's textbook or reputable educational publication describes Scotland in this way. No consensus = no change. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose aswell. Let's not upset the balance between the 4 UK constituent countries articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the majority here. It adds too much ambiguity, possible confusion, reduces stability on the article & is not necessary. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto - leave as is IMHO. Endrick Shellycoat 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

I have undone a recent change to the lead which covers constitutional / political matters. I think the introduction should mention devolution, however the bit i felt strongly against in the change was " the first ever pro-independence Scottish Government was elected in 2007" . This does not go into enough detail, if the sentences are to be expanded it needs to be pointing out over 60% of the votes / seats went to unionist parties.

Whilst i support a mention of devolution vote / parliament created, i think "its constitutional future continues to give rise to debate" should remain rather than going into politics more considering how stable this article has been in recent months. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish Government is pro-independence, and its not true to say that all other parties are unionist, they have varying attitudes (collectively and individually) --Snowded ^TALK 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

They all strongly oppose the break up of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Also we are talking about a devolved parliament, that has no constitutional powers on this matter at all. To just say it elected a pro independence government in 2007" is very open to ones own interpretation, and very misleading as far as im concerned. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if that statement was correct (and its too strong) it would not alter the fact that a pro-independence government was elected. You are seeking to "explain away" facts that you don't like. Its a bad habit on many a controversial page of wikipedia. --Snowded ^TALK 19:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not want people grossly misled by having that in the introduction. I can not understate just how offensive and strongly i oppose that sentence in the introduction. Im fine with "issues surrounding devolution and independence continue to be debated." But that last sentence does not belong in the introduction, if it does it needs to go into MUCH more detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this right. You reverted it because you were offended? Please! Jack forbes (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No the point about me being offended was to highlight that i was not simply going to put up with that change now my 3 reverts are up. I oppose this change very strongly and i have stated way. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If a mention of the SNPs victory is to be included in the introduction it should point out..

• Its a minority government with only 37%
• 60% of the votes and seats went to parties which oppose the break up of the United Kingdom.
• The Scottish parliament has no constitutional powers on this matter
• Possibly a mention of the potential referendum (which wont happen because its opposed by the Scottish parliament)

Without going into more details it does not provide the reader with an accurate understanding of the current siuation, there for it misleads them. Which is unacceptable BritishWatcher (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well at the moment its three for the change one against. What you are proposing above is called original research, you are explaining away a simple fact. You also know the nature of the British system and the way that votes and seats create government. --Snowded ^TALK 19:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I know the system and the truth, sadly most people who read this article may not. Without putting things into context, someone who knows nothing about our system or the election would read that and think something quite different to the reality, there for they may accidently be misled unless that sentence is changed to address the points raised. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(2 e/c) Meh. I only added it because it seems to be a logical thing to mention after "Although Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, issues surrounding devolution and independence continue to be debated". Being the WP:LEDE, I don't think we have to get into the minutia of the exact nature of the government, although for clarity I suppose minority government could be stuck in there somewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Although Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, issues surrounding devolution and independence continue to be debated" that bit is good, i have no problem with that at all. Just saying in 2007 an independence party was elected for the first time, fails to highlight several very important points which i have mentioned which drastically changes the implications of that election. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The SNP were the first truly pro-independence party to be elected in Scotland, and there election has been significant in Scottish devolution since then. But it shouldn’t be undermined that the SNP have not just been the only political force supporting independence too. But, as snow points out, this is rather varying among parties in Scotland. But…BritishWatcher is right in saying these recent edits could be misleading in not giving the whole picture i.e. unionist support in Scotland. Remember, the lead is meant to be a brief introduction into the articles subject. And BritishWatcher, I really don’t think you should be offended by something that is clearly not intended to offend. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Offended was probably the wrong word, i just wanted to highlight how strongly i feel against that one sentence in its current form. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The strength of any editors feelings are not relevant to a decision on fact. --Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The current sentence is misleading without putting it into context by mentioning all or some of the points i listed above. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ie explain it away. I'm book marking this argument to remind you of your position in a future debate BW --Snowded ^TALK 20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mentioninng the SNP goverment's goal in the lead, isn't too problematic. If others feel the contrary? then it won't hurt to keep in the Government section 'only'. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning the separatists got elected in 2007 may be justified, but not putting it into context by pointing out they are only a minority government, that most votes and seats went to parties that strongly oppose a break up of the United Kingdom, and to not mention the fact they have NO constitutional power on this matter are all unhelpful and could mislead people.BritishWatcher (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to mention any of your points in the lead. Going into detail of percentage votes does not belong there. I don't even understand your third point. The Scottish government has no constitutional powers on what matter? Why is that relevant to the sentence? Anyway, the sentence already states it is a devolved government. Your fourth point has no merit as I see you are looking into your crystal ball and giving us your political view. Jack forbes (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Why is that relevant to the sentence?"??? You do not think that saying the Scottish parliament / governmnent have no constitutional powers on this matter is not relevant to an independence party formed the Scottish government for the first time????? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read all of the lead? Although Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, issues surrounding devolution and independence continue to be debated. After the creation of the devolved Scottish Parliament in 1999, the first ever pro-independence Scottish Government was elected in 2007. Point out where it's confusing for you and I'll try to help. Jack forbes (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Without reading the Scottish parliament or Scottish government or Devolution article how is someone expected to know that this Scottish government has NO constitutional powers? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know this is not called simple wikipedia. Do you know what devolved means? Should we explain the meaning of every word in the article? Jack forbes (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what it means in the context of the United Kingdom. It means the Scottish Parliament has no constitutional authority what so ever and the United Kingdom Parliament remains sovereign over the entire United Kingdom. The trouble is Jack, not everyone does. To not mention that it has no constitutional powers seems to leave alot of questions open to the reader of that sentence. Whilst we shouldnt get into %s different parties get, but the fact its a minority government that won just ONE more seat than another party seems pretty important stuff which helps puts things into context. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Percentages and in-depth analysis of elections/votes certainly does not belong in the lead. This debate is a tricky one, no doubt being fuelled by self political beliefs, which instantly nullifies any comments made in such a way because it violates NPOV. Keep a cool head guys. (in my opinion, these sort of debates is what makes Wikipedia great!) --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) FWIW, Quebec had 2 pro-independance majority governments & is still within Canada. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you making some kind of political point there GoodDay? Why do you mention that? Jack forbes (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, what does the current status of Quebec got to do with this? Completely irrelevant.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Merely pointing out that Mic's change in the lead, is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Id be ok with something like... "Although Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, following a referendum a devolved Scottish Parliament was established in 1999 responsible for (sum up the powers). Then state in 2007 a pro independence party came to power, but for it to be in context it needs to point out the majority of seats went to different parties which oppose their plans and as a minority government they can be blocked on any bill. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

I suggest we revert to the version before Mic's addition to the lead. 'Tis best to discuss such additions 'first'. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your right, as per guidelines this should always be the case in these instances. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no, it looks like there a clear majority of editors in favour of the change and only one against. Under those circumstances the change should stand. No editor has a right of veto on the basis of the strength of their feelings. --Snowded ^TALK 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. I have never heard of a reversion taking place due to someones strong feelings. Jack forbes (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps we could have a formal vote of support and non support? Just a suggestion folks. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I support most of the change, its just that last sentence i strongly oppose unless its put into context. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The context is already there. As I have already said, this place is not called simple wikipedia. I really hope it's not because you want to hammer home a point that you disagree with it. Jack forbes (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The two people who reverted my actions both support the break up of the United Kingdom, so do not try to pretend i am the only one with strong feelings on this matter. I have not said it cant mention the independence party win at all, all i have said is it should put it into context. Im sorry but its not "simple" for everyone reading that introduction what powers the Scottish parliament has in its current form. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You were the only one wanting to revert a factual statement because you were offended and felt strongly about it. I shall say this once more only. It is in context. Jack forbes (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not in context for the above reasons stated. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the statement is made in context. Daicaregos (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering when you would get here Dai! --Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How is it made in context when all it says is a pro independence Scottish government was elected. It does not point out they are a minority government, that the majority of votes/seats went to parties that strongly oppose the core SNP policy. It does not point out that it has no constitutional power or authority on this matter, and if its worth noting an independence party forming the government, its worth mentioning its unlikely they will be able hold a referendum, because the majority of the Scottish parliament, elected by the Scottish people oppose it.

As people are being so unreasonable here, i guess i will just have to add a further sentence to the introduction myself, just as the change to the previously stable version of this article was made with no prior agreement or consultation. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that minority government could probably be added for context, but to put anything else in is just writing the article in the lede, which is not acceptable. Everything you want clarified or expanded upon is stated in numerous places around the wiki, not least this very article. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added Minority government. MickMacNee (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There is also the possibility of adding a couple of words explaining reserved matters after the 1999 statement, but that is about it as far as I'm concerned for giving proper context in a lede. MickMacNee (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for making that change, when i talked of people being unreasonable i was refering to those simply dismissing everything. Snowded, Dai and Jack Forbes, funny enough all 3 of them support the break up of the United Kingdom. I accept the information is available in other locations including in the article itself, but reading that one sentence sounds as though the majority of people elected a pro independence party. Saying minority government helps, although i still feel it could go further. Not talking about a paragraph, just atleast a single sentence saying something about it not having powers over constitutional matters would inform the reader more i think and help put it into the context i was mentioning before. I made a suggestion just above this edit war heading for a sentence explaining a referendum led to creation of the parliament in 1999 which is responsible for non reserved matters. Then mentioning the minority independence government elected in 2007 but explaining it has no constitutional powers on the matter BritishWatcher (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagee with Saxonded's position. Though I'm not sure that such information is relevent enough for the lede anyway, in either form (currently there is far too much weight on separatist agenda, yet doesn't even give a summary of their king James' accession to the complete thrones of the British Isles in general, a real event of importance). If it must stay, its probably best to mention the explicit statistic of how many Scottish votes the scessionist party actually have presently; namely 32.9%. That neutralises the issue. Otherwise it looks very ambigious and is perhaps intentionally so. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the lead to include the important fact that it is the SNP who are the minority government. Stating percentages of votes to each party has no place in the lead. @Yorkshirian. "32.9% neutralises the issue". What? Neutralises what issue. The fact that the SNP have a minority government in the Scottish Parliament? It now states it is a minority government. Adding voting figures to the lead is not something that should be there unless an obscure political point is trying to be made. PS, I'll be gone from wiki for a week or two. I'll be interested to see when I get back which factual statements are removed to appease those who are offended by it. Jack forbes (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the last part of your message. If mentioning parties and governments has a place in the lede then so does their explicit voting perecentage. Unless somebody would wish to create a false illusion that SNP has attained more support than they have, due to an advocation of a separtist agenda. 32.9% is the percentage, lets be neutral by citing it and throwing it in. Afterall this isn't simple wikipedia. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is why it is called a minority government. Or do we have to explain to our readers what minority means just as BW thought people wouldn't understand what devolved meant. Jack forbes (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We should explain how much of a minority government it is. I fail to see the harm in adding onto the sentence you added something like "after winning ** of the *** seats" or "vote %" or "after failing to form a coalition with one of the unionst parties" something along those lines would provde people with more detail and it still doesnt point out it has no constitutional powers. Some people unwisely vote for the SNP in the Scottish parliament but would not vote for them to the UK parliament, which is the parliament responsible for constitutional matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that change, the sentence looks better than it did and is far less problematic now it mentions its a minority administration. Although i still think it should point out its got no constitutional powers or authority on this matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made one last edit before my break. I hope people can see I've gone the extra mile here. Minority government takes away the need to include percentages which shouldn't belong in the lead anyway. The whole sentence also spells out there is no constitutional power in the Scottish Government so no need to expand on that. I'll be off now. Cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorted then...I hope. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This has gone way overboard, that is way too much recentist information for a lede section. I would prefer the whole sentence were removed rather than have it like this, it is totally unbalanced now. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also rather that sentence on the specific election in 2007 removed if we can not go into alot more detail about the circumstances so its more balanced. The other sentences added before we very good though and i fully support them. Perhaps they could be merged slightly, the "issues surrounding devolution and independence continue to be debated." is good but it belongs after the mention of the Scottish parliament being created in my opinion. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Although Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state, in 1999 a devolved Scottish parliament was established and issues surrounding devolution and independence continue to be debated." Something along those lines or it split into two sentences would be good and are clearly neutral / factual without getting into the political issues which must be handled with care. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom.[6][7][8]

Are the refs here for Scotland being a country or for it being part of the United Kingdom(And a country?) --Frank Fontaine (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Theres the No10 website which states Scotland is a country that is within the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Page being watched like a Hawk.

Well, I (Everyone) would suggest partial protection if this vandalism continues. The natural coarse of these articles is that they get unlocked (For the sake of the slogan - “The encyclopaedia that anyone can edit!) and then after a short time they get locked again. And having a slow internet connection means I almost never get to revert vandalism here. *Cries*. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Country categories

There have been several recent changes to the categories to which the countries of the United Kingdom belong. Discussion is being coordinated on Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom. Editors are invited to participate. Daicaregos (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

I'd just like to raise a small query - it says in the FAQ section that Queen Elizabeth II is the first Queen Elizabeth to reign over Scotland, but I was under the impression that Elizabeth de Burgh, second wife of Robert I, was crowned Queen Elizabeth of Scots and ruled Scotland alongside her husband. 81.23.49.215 (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it’s because she was queen consort…Or it could be to do with Scotland as part of the union. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Queen consort is definitely the best explanation. The point is that Elizabeth de Burgh never ruled in her right; she was just wife of the king. The current queen on the other hand has no king to be second monkey to. Munci (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Map

I see the map on the page here is Mercator's projection, which makes Scotland (and Iceland, etc.) look disproportionately large. Perhaps someone who knows about these things could find a map picture which is truer to the scale of the actual world. JamesMcGuiggan (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The map only serves to indicate to the reader the geo-political location of Scotland, which it achieves nicely. The cartographic projection used is somewhat irrelevant in this respect. Besides, the version of map used on this article is one which was agreed following a prolonged period of debate on these pages, and has been stable for some time. Gerardus Mercator can't be accused of any bias in respect of Scotland, or ineed anywhere else, with regard to how countries are portrayed on maps, therefore I don't feel this is an issue of much import to be honest. Keep as is IMHO Endrick Shellycoat 05:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)