Talk:Scotland/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

RFC: calling Northern Ireland a "country"

An RFC has been opened inviting comment on how to describe Northern Ireland in that article. All comments are welcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Stirling Gold Hoard

A significant gold hord here [[1]], [[2]] at least 2000 years old was discovered in Stirling consisting at the moment of four gold torcs, the find is worth over 1million pounds. More gold may be discovered and is a significant find like the Staffordshire Hoard and several pieces. Should we create a page called the Stirling Hoard as it is a significant find. Also as the find was in Stirling, would the artifacts be classified as Pictish and of the Caledonii Tabhara. (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

More info would be needed to make a page worthwhile and to provide a reasonable name. Info to date says "in Stirlingshire",, "near Stirling" etc., which could cover a wide range of locations. Similar for speculation about original ownership - the Maeatae might be in with a shout if it is really near Stirling. AllyD (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

blabla bla —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.143.4.66 (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BILLY TALENT!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.143.4.66 (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 

Testing the water

A discussion is taking place over the lede of Northern Ireland with some editors objecting to the current wording which is consistent over Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. One possible change which appears acceptable to some of the objectors is to replace "X is a country which is a part of the UK" to "X is one of the four countries of the UK". My purpose here is to test the water and ask what would be the reaction to such a change if it was made consistently on all four articles. --Snowded ^TALK 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Horses for courses. Northern Ireland clearly has a different status from Eng, Sco and Wal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Just out of curiosity, I wonder if there are other examples of articles where a small group of editors with no other apparent interest in the subject attempt to enforce this kind of rigidity of wording? Ben MacDui 10:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would object to such a change on the basis that Scotland is much more than being just 'one of four countries of the United Kingdom': Scotland was an independent country for far longer than it has been in Union with the rest of the United Kingdom, and the only way to fully reflect this is to state that Scotland is a country and then state that it is part of the United Kingdom. The fact that such a description may work for Northern Ireland, which has no history as a country outwith being part of the United Kingdom, is no reason for the Scotland article to adopt it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that while searching for "England is a" or "Scotland is a" on Google books produces "nation" and "country" as the next word fairly often, the same is less true of Northern Ireland. It could be that political scientists and sociologists writing about NI seem to have other things to focus their attention on - how odd is that? - so that the countryness or nationness or otherwise of the place is not much considered. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, those who "objecting to the current wording", "object" it in relation to Northern Ireland only (and want a more nuanced and topic-appropriate approach in relation to that article). A matter was raised that the lede must be consistent across all four articles. That is not necessary in the opinion of those who "object" to it on the Northern Ireland article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"A matter was raised that the lede must be consistent across all four articles." - whoever said that should point the rest of us in the direction of the policy (or even the accepted MOS) that states that. Each article can contain what the editors who wish to participate in building it decide it should contain, subject to following the policies of WP. SFC9394 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one increasingly frustrated with those editors, apparently suffering from a mild form of OCD, who periodically and persistantly attempt to force through a one-size-fits-all approach to the various 'parts' which constitute the UK? E, NI, S & W did not come to form what is now the UK of GB & NI via the same path, nor were they the same entities prior to the UK of GB & NI taking the form we see today. (The only possible exceptions to this being England and Scotland, who despite each kingdom's parliament entering into a joint agreement in the form of the 1707 Act of Union did not walk up the aisle as equals in terms of economic or military might). To deny the separate status and origins of E, NI, S & W and portray them as being equivalent to the States of the USA, Provinces of Canada or Flächenländer of Germany is to attempt to re-write or distort history for the sake of 'neatness'. IMHO, the current lede of this article describes Scotland accurately. If the size which fits Scotland (and England) is not seen to fit Wales or Northern Ireland then the editors of those articles are free to do as they please, and any attempt to force an alternative adjective upon this article without concensus will be resisted. Endrick Shellycoat 20:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting any changes for this article. Just Northern Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings GoodDay. Were your ears burning whilst I typed the above? Given your input at Talk:Northern Ireland#"Country" (no doubt discussed before); "We've already compromised to use 'country' for all 4 articles. There must be consistancy among them. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)" - perhaps you should've added the word "yet" to the end of your first sentence... Although your personal view on the subject of one-size-fits-all may have softened towards becoming "neutral", those of others have not. Endrick Shellycoat 09:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've become less rigid on the matter, as I've grown older. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

recent addition to lead

I removed a recent addition because I felt it was out of place and not sufficiently significant to be in the lead. (It added info about Scotland being a euro-constituency after a sentence describing the geography of Scotland.) I also don't like the phrase 'elective region' - if point is worth making, why not merely state that the whole of Scotland is also a European Constituency? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is in the Wales lead. 2nd sentence. I'm not bothered where it goes or what you call it. I copied it wholesale because there are those who believe the UK country leads should share an element of consistency. Personally I really don't care, but I get annoyed about pointy ownership revert edit summaries like the one here [3]. Leaky Caldron 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See comment in section above - until there is policy on transported consensus you can't insist that something is in place because other articles say it. Discuss it here - that is, after all the point of article talk pages. Your point about OWN is actually mirrored back, because cabals on other talk pages can decide things and then try to "implement" them across a number of articles, with any discussion suppressed with a quick "as per XYZ". This has been attempted on this article in the past and led to nothing but problems. Changes to an article are discussed on the article's talk page, not parachuted in with untouchable status. If it had been "bold, revert, discuss" then I would have done nothing, but it was reverted back, and that is the beginnings of a revert war, hence bud and nip. SFC9394 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Each article can contain what the editors who wish to participate in building it decide it should contain, subject to following the policies of WP. SFC9394 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)" Agreed. The handful of words I copied are so innocuous I'm suprised anyone is bothered and as I've already said I'm not bothered where it goes or what you call it. That it will be included somewhere is a fact - I'll let the article experts agree where. Leaky Caldron 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In case someone wants a better wording, I would suggest "Scotland is one of the electoral regions for the European Parliament". The word "elective" as far as I know means voluntary, discretionary. Sussexonian (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right about "elective". It should be changed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Added to the Country Info Box footnote 3. Leaky Caldron 14:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

God Save The Queen

What is the status of God Save The Queen in Scotland? I ask because the infobox currently states that there is no Scottish national anthem. When I was in school and university in Scotland, and the "national anthem" was called for on the order of ceremony for an assembly or whatever, we all rose for God Save The Queen. Has that changed? If so, when? Irvine22 (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GSTQ doesn't belong in this article's infobox (nor those of England, Northern Ireland & Wales). Besides, there's no consensus to add it, so don't add it. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GStQ is the UKoGB&NI anthem, our very own Kaiserlied, but this is an article about Scotland. Scotland, unlike the UKoGB&NI, does not have an official anthem. See the footnotery at National anthem of Scotland and others such as Times, STV, BBC and Times again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So would the Isle of Man infobox provide us with a workable solution? Is God Save The Queen in fact the "Royal Anthem" of Scotland? Irvine22 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If GSTQ has the same status in England than in Wales/Scotland/NI then why is it in the England infobox GoodDay? --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in there. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It should Goodday, if people look at this article they will think God Save the Queen has no role in Scotland at all but it is used often. Its only really in sporting events where the UK fields its own teams that there is a need for the Scottish anthem Flower of Scotland.BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of GSTQ on those 4 articles. I also disagree with the inclusion of the UK Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of God save the Queen on this articles infobox. It is true that GSTQ is the anthem of the United Kingdom, however the Prime Minister and Queen are "of the United Kingdom" and are rightly listed in the infobox.

The national anthem is played in Scotland for example at the Edinburgh Tattoo [4]

It is important that we mention God save the Queen in the infobox or at the very least in the notes of the infobox so people can clearly see it. God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland just the way the Stars and stripes is the national anthem in Texas. Its true that American states do not need to mention the US anthem, but we are dealing with what we describe as countries, it is there for very important. Canada mentions their Royal anthem of God save the Queen in the information box. Why can we not do the same just put UK Anthem: God save the Queen? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada's infobox uses it, but Nova Scotia, Yukon, Ontario etc, don't. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for GStQ being the anthem for Scotland as opposed to the UK? If not I say leave it out. Our personal preferences have no place in this debate. --John (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for there being a Scotland "as opposed to the UK"? All the sources I've seen say Scotland is an integral part of the U.K. (And for that matter is there a reliable source for the various other wee ditties that are currently refered to in the article as "de facto" national anthems?)Irvine22 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Scotland exists as an entity that can be differentiated from the UK. As does Essex. Neither have anthems, as they are sub-national entities. References for "de facto" anthems is another issue, and I haven't had a chance to have a look at it yet. Fribbler (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the comparison to Essex is spurious. England would the better analog to the situation of Scotland as a constituent country of the U.K. Besides, Essex doesn't have "de facto" anthems. Apparently Scotland does. Lacking reliable sources for the status of these ditties I think we need either to 1) remove all reference to "de facto" anthems from the article or 2) add God Save The Queen as a "de facto" anthem. Irvine22 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Or Wales for that matter. I don't think the comparison with Essex is spurious. County or "constituent country", they are still administrative sub-divisions of the UK. That said, I wouldn't personally object to removing the folk-anthems, but that would best be done by first tackling:National anthem of Scotland. Fribbler (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada's provinces are not described as country's there for the anthem does not need to be listed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland, Nova Scotia, England, Ontario etc, are all 'not independant'. GSTQ should be listed in infoboxes of 'independents'. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are treated a different way to provinces and states. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

They shouldn't be, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a supernational entity made up of four semi-interdependent nations (as the terms "United Kingdom" and "Constituent Country" would imply) and numerous territories and dependencies, and is treated as such; hence Scotland's involvement in ecological organisations that the United Kingdom as a whole has no involvement in. Hanii (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

God save the Queen is the national anthem in the United Kingdom, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. The principle behind listing the Prime Minister and Queen of the United Kingdom applies in the same way to listing the anthem. What is the harm in putting "UK Anthem: God save the Queen"? To leave it out is more problematic. God save the Queen use to be used when a Scottish team competed in certain sports until it was changed, so it has been used "for" Scotland and that deserves recognition. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree & will continue to do so as long as Scotland remains a part of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you oppose the suggestion if we tried "God save the Queen (UK Anthem)" Goodday? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose, as it's an acceptable solution (IMHO). GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me also. Irvine22 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent/ec) Agree with Goodday. Sub-national entities don't have national anthems in their infoboxes. Including the anthem of the state is redundant, whatever about the "country" terminology debate. (i.e. Vojvodina, Catalonia, or even better Socialist Republic of Croatia, a constituent country of SFRY) In addition, including anthems and such can look pointy, as if we were trying to add extra "Britishness" to the articles for the sole reason of pissing some people off rather than informing readers. Fribbler (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So do you favor removing the references to "de facto" anthems from the article? I agree their inclusion is a bit pointy, especially when God Save The Queen seems pointedly excluded. Irvine22 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not about annoying people its about informing the reader. The only real reason not to include it is to avoid annoying a few people, but those same people would be unhappy with the Prime Minister / Queen being listed, yet the majority agreed they do need to remain in the infobox despite being "of the UK". If its clearly labelled as (UK anthem) Where is the harm? Its a bit like Canada listing the royal anthem despite it almost never being used. Whilst at sporting events theres clearly different Scottish anthems, God save the Queen is used as the anthem in Scotland, like at the Edinburgh tattoo as i linked above. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Canada issue is that the Royal anthem is an anomaly and is added out of interest therein. Of course GSTQ is the national anthem in Scotland, but it is not the national anthem of Scotland, therefore inclusion in this article is a redundancy. The article says Scotland is part of the UK straight off the bat, so that is where people will go looking for anthems, currencies, heads of state, foreign relations, defence and so on. It would be like going to the Oregon article and presuming that because no anthem is included that the US anthem is somehow not used there. The infobox is needlessly long as it is and adding more is overkill. Fribbler (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you accept that in the past at some sporting events God save the Queen was used for the national anthem for Scotland?

"The Flower of Scotland has been used since 1990 as Scotland's unofficial national anthem. It was written by Roy Williamson of the Corries in 1967, and adopted by the SRU to replace God Save the Queen."

The fact these anthems have popped up to "replace" GSTQ suggests it worthy of being in the infobox, especially as there are examples maybe not in sport where God save the Queen is used as the anthem. It should be listed to inform the reader. The fact Scotland is a country within a country means we are in a different situation here in the UK than in an American state. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that GSTQ was used at sporting events doesn't make it the national anthem of Scotland, which is the issue here. Scotland=part of the UK, Anthem of the UK=GSTQ is not in dispute. What we have to decide is whether a sub-national entity requires information inherited from the state entity be in it's infobox. I believe it's redundant, but I'm open to persuasion if it can be shown that a) The inclusion of the anthem is an essential piece of Scotland-specific information and b) Readers would require this information to be presented here rather than the main UK article lest they become misinformed. The "country within a country" terminology is why I cited pre-1990 Croatia above, as it was a similar situation. Fribbler (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The absence of several of the regular editors of this article is noteworthy. Possibly because this has been discussed and resolved before. The existence of Flower of Scotland as a de facto anthem is reasonably well established. There is nothing to say that GSTQ is the anthem of Scotland. The proposed addition of GSTQ with a note that it is the anthem of the UK adds no value to the article and is not relevant. It is clearly not the national anthem of Scotland. --Snowded ^TALK 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the "regulars" just feel they need to step back and let some fresh perspective flow over the question?Irvine22 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A fresh perspective would obviously be welcome. So far I haven't seen one. --Snowded ^TALK 01:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Has there ever been a formal Request for Comment on this issue? --Elonka 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that if you look over the past discussions and the FAQ section above you will find that there are a range of issues, including this one, that have been resolved. Of course anything is open to change, anything can have an RFC but it just drives good editors away when petty issues such as this are raised yet again and with no new argument. --Snowded ^TALK 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to a Request for Comment, it might be helpful but i think its too soon yet we should wait a couple of days and get more feedback here. Snowded the fact this has come up before highlights this is an issue. What harm does listing God save the Queen (UK anthem) underneath the other Scottish anthems do? The fact we have the Queen and Prime Minister in the infobox shows this is not unprecedented, its important that as we call Scotland a country which is part of the UK we treat it in a different way to common states or provinces in other countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Until 20 years ago at Scottish national rugby games God save the Queen was used. It was still that national anthem "of the United Kingdom" then, just used for Scotland as well. So back then would it have been suitable to list God save the Queen in the infobox? If that is the case, why is it only sports that decide this matter? as i have pointed out above, the national anthem is played at the Edinburgh Tattoo and that is God save the Queen. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It was, and it was also booed and whistled in the main by the home fans - however at that time it was de facto the national anthem (note de facto) as it still is in England. That has now changed and its Flower of Scotland. The Edinburgh Tattoo is an international event and I would expect the UK national anthem to be played. We have seen the same thing in Wales when the Queen is present, although the national anthem there is established - Land of my Fathers to use the English title. Mentioning the Queen in the information box is appropriate as she is the Head of State. I have never seen the argument for including the British Prime Minister but some things are simply not worth arguing about. Adding in GSTQ simply adds nothing, it is not (despite the early edit wars and insertion by Irvine) the national anthem of Scotland. Why there is a need to add in the anthem of the UK to a constituent country article I simply can't see. Also its not really an issue. From time to time it comes up, often as a provocation (as happened this time), sometimes for other reasons. We also have de facto changed to official form time to time as the nationalist side counters the unionist one. The majority of editors have taken the view that the current version is fine. I think it is beholden on any editor to look at that prior history and see if they have any new evidence or argument to offer. If not my opinion (for what it is worth) is that they should leave well along and go on to more important matters. --Snowded ^TALK 02:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok so God save the Queen until recently would have been considered one of the de facto anthems of Scotland like it is in England. How come this is not mentioned in this article at all? Sure God save the Queen may have been boooed by some, id expect nothing less however did all the people of Scotland agree with such a change? Is it unreasonable to think that some people in Scotland continue to just think of God save the Queen as their anthem, not what some rugby or Football organisation decides?

You say that adding it adds nothing, but surely providing more information to the reader which is valid is a good thing? It is a national anthem in Scotland and it should be listed as well. Whats wrong with having the De Jure: none, De facto: Flower of Scotland, Scotland the brave and then (UK anthem): God save the Queen" just listed as a 3rd type. This would atleast mention an anthem which you yourself just said was until recently the de facto anthem of Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Scotland not the UK, yes Scotland is an integral part of the UK but it is also its own distinct country, GSTQ is the national anthem of the UK not Scotland it would just be like putting London as the capital in the infobox.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't give them ideas ...

BW, You might want to add more information in the body of the article - if you can find citations. As it is the information box is not appropriate. The de facto use was prior to devolution and that is significant. --Snowded ^TALK 02:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Until recently God save the Queen was used as an anthem for Scotland at certain sporting events like it is used for England and Northern Ireland today. Surely it would make sense to atleast mention that anthem, at the moment it is not mentioned at all. God save the Queen remains the national anthem in Scotland in the same way that the Star spangled banner is the national anthem in Texas. States and Provinces do not need to list the country's national anthem for obvious reasons (although they could), perhaps they have STATE anthems but they do not have their own national anthems. The situation with the Countries of the United Kingdom is different though because they are called countries. If i am in Scotland and it is announced the national anthem will be played, Outside of sporting events God save the Queen would not be out of place and yet it is not mentioned at all at the moment. BritishWatcher (talk)

I agree there is certainly a need for adding some information about the national anthem to the body of the article. However God save the Queen remains a national anthem in Scotland and it does need a mention in the infobox, listing it just as the UK anthem seemed like a good compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, please provide a citation that it is a national anthem in Scotland. The fact that the UK national anthem is played in Scotland is one thing, that does not make it a national anthem in Scotland. --Snowded ^TALK 03:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is more of an issue for the Scotland article than the Wales article because atleast in the case of Wales there is an official national anthem of Wales. This is not the case in Scotland, it just comes down to usage and whilst i accept Flower of Scotland is the most used "anthem of Scotland" because of sports what right do such sporting bodies have to determine Scotlands anthems? God save the Queen is a national anthem in Scotland as well. If you accept that the star spangled banner is the national anthem in Texas, or that O Canada is the national anthem in British Columbia then God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland.

I gave you an example earlier of God save the Queen being used in Scotland at the Edinburgh Tattoo. Would they have to introduce that as the "UK national anthem" or could they just say it was the national anthem despite being in Scotland? BritishWatcher (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the programme for the Edinburgh Tattoo [5] i notice it just says National Anthem. Not British National anthem, or UK national anthem. The national anthem thats played in Scotland at that event every year is God save the Queen, we have the videos to prove it. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tattoo is an international event. Scotland is a part of the UK so it is no great surprise if GSTQ is played there on occasion and if it is played then its name is the National Anthem if played within the UK. Also the Tattoo is a military event, and the army is not the army of Scotland, it is the UK army so the identity is the UK. The Star Spangled Banner is sung in Texas on a regular basis. I heard a rather good rendition at West Point last week, but its not the national anthem of West Point, or Texas for that matter. It is the national anthem of the USA which is also played in parts of the USA. Similarily the Canadian national anthem will be played in the provinces of canada. No national anthems are listed in their information boxes. An anthem is a matter of identity, if its sung in Scotland then it is a part of the UK identity, in a specifically Scottish context it would not be sung --Snowded ^TALK 03:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is there are occasions where the national anthem in Scotland is God save the Queen there for why do we avoid mentioning it at all in the article? It would not be incorrect to list the national anthem of the United States in every US state article, there is just no point because its stating the obvious. The relationship between the Countries of the United Kingdom is not so simple. If i looked at that programme guide i linked before, id see Scotland the brave listed so id presume the national anthem it lists would be Flower of Scotland, but it isnt. Its God save the Queen. If its sung in Scotland as a national anthem it should be listed as such. Putting it in the infobox with "God save the Queen (UK anthem)" would solve this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

⬅No, there are occasions when the national anthem of the United Kingdom is played in its various parts including Scotland. As I pointed out the Tattoo is a military event, they are the UK's military, they swear loyalty to HM so its entirely appropriate for them to sing GSTQ. It does not make it in an sense of the world a national anthem of Scotland. You need a citation, aside from the fact that your argument is wrong its form is also OR. --Snowded ^TALK 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland just as it is throughout the United Kingdom, there for it can accurately be listed with the "God save the Queen (UK Anthem)" in the infobox. You said yourself until recently God save the Queen was a de facto anthem of Scotland, it seems crazy that now we do not even mention it at all. You accept the need for the head of state to be listed despite the Queen being "Of the UK" not "Of Scotland or "Of Wales". The exact same principle applies to the Prime Minister and whilst i view this as less important than those two issues the national anthem is the same. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will repeat the point once more. The national anthem of the UK is obviously sung throughout the UK, that does not make it the national anthem of the constituent countries. In a section on government it is appropriate to include the Queen as that is the ultimate source of constitution authority. In order to justify this you have to find a citation and you can't use OR. --Snowded ^TALK 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland  (English / Scots) Alba  (Scottish Gaelic)
Flag Royal Standard
Motto: In My Defens God Me Defend (Scots) (often shown abbreviated as IN DEFENS)
Anthem: None (de jure) Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave (de facto) God save the Queen (UK anthem)
Location of Scotland/Archive 25 (inset — orange) in the United Kingdom (camel) in the European continent (white)
ISO 3166 code	GB-SCT

Why is a source needed for us to have the infobox show something like this? We know that God save the Queen is used as a national anthem IN Scotland. We know in the past it was the de facto anthem for Scotland as it was used in sporting events, you said that yourself. What harm does this little addition to the infobox do except provide more information to the reader which addresses the fact God save the Queen is a national anthem in Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cause its not the national anthem of Scotland, de facto or de jure. it is sung in Scotland in a UK context not a Scottish one. Find a citation or drop it. --Snowded ^TALK 04:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The example i gave above showed "National anthem" on the programme at the Edinburgh Tattoo in Scotland which was God save the Queen. There is no dispute that God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland as it is throughout the United Kingdom. There for why can we not list the national anthem? It would not be incorrect. The example infobox i showed here does not label it as a De facto or De Jure anthem of Scotland, it describes it as the UK anthem. Its useful to mention there because God save the Queen is played in Scotland as a national anthem. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher I think your example infobox represents the ideal compromise on this issue and - more importantly - conveys the maximum amount of accurate information to the reader. Thanks for that. Let's put it in the article! Irvine22 (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; there is a long-term consensus not to use this and I don't see evidence this has changed. --John (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change and in this case i think a moderate change like the one highlighted in the box above would be a good compromise. There can be no dispute the change is accurate, the point is we need to highlight that God save the Queen is a national anthem in Scotland. As i have shown in the example, in Scotland if the national anthem is played it can be God save the Queen. They do not describe it as the British national anthem or the UK one.. it was just the national anthem. The last time the issue of the Queen / PM being in the infobox was raised the majority supported it, despite those listed being "of the UK" rather than "of Scotland". The same principle applies here. Aslong as we clearly state its (UK anthem) there is no problem, why not provide a little more information for people so they dont have to read the UK article as well? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest finding a good source that GStQ is the national anthem of Scotland (as opposed to the UK). Failing that, we can't use it. --John (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with John for the reasons he states and the many reasons stated above. --Snowded ^TALK 14:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland, this is undisputed fact and has been show in the links i posted above with the programme / video footage. There is nothing incorrect about saying God save the Queen (UK anthem). The Infobox does not have to contain only things "Of Scotland" the fact the PM / Queen are in the infobox highlights this.

We have stated why we think GSTQ should be displayed (considering its not even mentioned in the article at all at the moment). There is no reason not to display GSTQ if its labelled as (UK anthem) the way we label the PM (of the UK). BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an undisputed fact that it is the national anthem of the United Kingdom. It is not the national anthem of Scotland and your links only show that it is played in Scotland in the context of the United Kingdom which is really not surprising or notable. --Snowded ^TALK 15:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just butting in here! There seem to me to be two different concepts. The Scottish national anthem (in the sense of "self-identifying musical symbol of a nation") is X. The official national anthem of the sovereign state of which Scotland is a part is Y. Anthem X is used for some purposes on some occasions in Scotland, and anthem Y on others. As this article is predominantly about Scotland as a nation, rather than as a part of a sovereign state, it makes sense to give priority to X over Y. But it seems to me that the outside reader would gain value from both being mentioned, with a clear explanation of the respective roles of each. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ghmyrtle, it's all about the most value to the reader. Which is why BritishWatcher's common sense proposal seems the most sensible way to proceed on this.Irvine22 (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There can't be a "clear explanation of the respective roles" in an infobox. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So, AngusMcLellan, in that case do you favor removing all references to "de facto" anthems from the infobox, as there can't be a clear explanation of their role? Irvine22 (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed I do. I also support the removal of infoboxes altogether. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt the infobox shown here explain the roles? No de jure anthem, 2 de facto anthems and one UK anthem. All 3 have a role in Scotland. We could always add a note to the infobox about it aswell and expand the section on anthem in the body of the article. But at the moment God save the Queen is not mentioned at all, thats clearly a problem. Considering use of Flower of Scotland is a recent thing, replacing God save the Queen at sporting events like the rugby. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I had considered the -UK anthem- compromise as acceptable (last night). But have reverted back to my previous stance; GSTQ doesn't belong in the infobox (nor does 'Gordon Brown' or 'Elizabeth II', IMHO). England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not independant. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay it is the fact they are not Independent countries that we should include such information. This all comes down to "of Scotland" and "In Scotland". The National Anthem in Scotland is God Save the Queen, yet it is not mentioned anywhere in this article at all. I do not see why its wrong to provide more information to the reader if its clearly presented.

We here may all understand this matter, but wikipedia is meant to provide information to people from all over the world. We should not expect that people will read the UK article as well, there for some of the basics like anthem, prime minister and Queen do need to be mentioned here. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

GSTQ can be added somewhere within the content, but not in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We might all want to remember that this started with a deliberately provocative edit to try and state that GSTQ was the national anthem of Scotland. An action which may end up with this article coming under restrictions appropriate to the Troubles. That type if intervention needs to be discouraged. I think that position has now been dropped, however there are continuing confusions. Ghmyrtle has provided an accurate summary. I don't agree with the solution as it clutters the inbox, adds no value overall and there is no confusion to any third party reader. Putting something in the main body of the article per GoodDay makes more sense It is a terribly minor issue and really needs to be put to bed. Why not just let other editors comment and see what comes out of it? --Snowded ^TALK 15:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but i do not see it as provocative. God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland. The infobox does not clearly state that it is to only list the anthem "OF" Scotland. The Countries of the United Kingdom are a special case. Ofcourse the states of America do not need to list the US anthem, but it is still the national anthem in those states. The problem is here we are listing national anthems to do with Scotland but we do not list God save the Queen which is indeed a national anthem in Scotland.

Adding one line saying God save the Queen (UK anthem) does not clutter up the infobox, it provides more information to the reader. As for the bit about the Troubles restrictions applying here, if that happens then it will prove the failure of the admin and the arbcom rulings. This article and the matter we are debating in no way falls within their original rulings. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

BW, the original edit (not by you) was provocative. I think your statement above makes things more difficult to be honest. Saying that GSTQ is the UK national anthem and placing a line to that effect in the information box is an issue of style and relevance - not a big issue, I would keep it out. Saying that GSTQ is the national anthem of Scotland is simply incorrect and a confusion would result. You really have to provide a citation to support that and you haven't. --Snowded ^TALK 15:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Ghmyrtle's summary, and with BritishWatcher's elegant proposed solution. If, as Angus McLellan suggests, the status of these various ditties - Flower of Scotland, Scotland The Brave, God Save The Queen etc -cannot be properly explained in an infobox, then they all should come out and the entire question should be addressed in the body of the article. That should also address Snowded's concern about clutter.Irvine22 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It all comes down to this "of" and "in" God save the Queen is without doubt the national anthem in Scotland. In the recent past when God save the Queen was used at rugby for Scotland it could have been described as a de facto anthem of Scotland and the example of the Edinburgh Tattoo, shows the national anthem in Scotland is still God save the Queen, yet they see no need to describe it as the British one.

What harm does it do telling someone who knows nothing of the UK and Scotland that the UK anthem is God save the Queen. This anthem is used in Scotland to not even mention it seems unhelpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So far you have not answered the arguments put to you. (i) the tattoo is military and that means UK bot Scotland (ii) de facto use preceded devolution and is no longer the case (iii) you have no citations to support your position. The tattoo point even if valid would be OR. --Snowded ^TALK 16:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's OK to note the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the infobox, why is it not OK to note the National Anthem of the United Kingdom in the infobox? Both relate to the sovereign state to which Scotland belongs, rather than to Scotland itself. We should be consistent. Daicaregos (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I might be more inclined to a compromise if we didn't have the false and unsupported claim that it is the national anthem. Get that out of the way and the discussion on inclusion of information about the Sovereign State in the info box can take place. --Snowded ^TALK 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Neat sidestep, Snowded. Daicaregos (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That is why i suggested the "God save the Queen (UK anthem) so its clear we are not describing it as the de jure or de facto anthem "of Scotland". BritishWatcher (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Because this article is about Scotland as it has been repeatably pointed out, the Union Flag is used in Scotland so why not put that in the infobox no seriously I am honestly waiting on that suggestion, its getting ridiculous and the consensus is not to include it.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is about Scotland, but God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland just like the star spangled banner is the anthem in Texas. Because we are talking about countries within a country we do have to be more clear on these matters and thats why theres the PM / Queen in the infobox despite them not being "of Scotland". I would not propose the inclusion of the union flag, the trouble with the anthems is we list them yet we are clearly missing out a national anthem used in Scotland (GSTQ). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

GTSQ is the de facto anthem of Scotland, there is no argument against this. Whether or not you think it belongs in the article is irrelevant. Why? Because that’s your personal POV. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Its no the de-facto its not even de-jure anthem where on earth did you dream that up?--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And no argument? What have so many pixels given their lives for on this page then? ;-) Fribbler (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Even more reason why we should clearly and neatly present the information in the infobox to avoid confusion. Without doubt the national anthem in Scotland is God save the Queen yet it is currently not listed at all or even mentioned in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If instead of "(de facto)" the infobox said "(Scottish anthem)" or "(anthem of Scotland)"- while retaining "GSTQ (UK anthem)" - would that be better, or worse? There would also need to be an explanatory sentence or two in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Again its the anthem of the United Kingdom not Scotland there is no Union Flag in the infobox so why should the UK anthem get included? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The infobox shows the flag of Scotland and the royal standard of Scotland. The problem is we are listing anthems but missing out GSTQ which is a national anthem in Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support a change along those lines Ghmyrtle, if we got rid of the De jure bit saying none which is pretty pointless and perhaps had a note at the bottom of the infobox as well as a more detailed explanation in the article itself we could address all of these matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

May I remind you to remain Civil in these discussions Barryob and to not let your nationalist agenda fuel your arguments.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Misortie, that comment went over the line. Everyone, please keep comments focused on the content, not on the contributors. Also, it is my strong recommendation that future discussions be source-based, and not idea-based. Instead of "it's obvious that" or "I saw such and such on TV", does anyone have any actual reliable sources that discuss this anthem issue? If so, let's see them. Then, if there's a dispute as to whether or not the source is reliable or not, please bring it up at the reliable source noticeboard. --Elonka 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is part of the problem Elonka, there is no single national anthem in Scotland. Some sports may use Flower of Scotland as the Scottish national anthem, other things may use Scotland the brave. But God save the Queen is also the national anthem in Scotland because Scotland is part of the UK. We list the Queen and Prime Minister in the infobox on this article even though they are of the United Kingdom rather than just Scotland. The same principle applies to the national anthem.

Scotland is a Country of the United Kingdom, it is there for not as simple as dealing with American states or Canadian provinces. Ive shown above the national anthem (god save the Queen) being played in Scotland at the Edinburgh Tattoo. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the Queen & PM Brown should also be 'excluded' from the infobox. But, that's a discussion for another time. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Misortie you unfounded attack against me is laughable and is itself a breach of WP:CIVIL, please do not lower yourself because you can't win an argument. And BritishWatcher it has been pointed out that is a military event.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

BW et al, I am still waiting for a reply to the arguments here and to any citation which says that GSTQ is the national anthem of Scotland. --Snowded ^TALK 18:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have said that God save the Queen is the national anthem IN Scotland in the same way the national anthem in Texas is the star spangled banner. However as we mentioned about the rugby anthem last night, it was not that long ago when God save the Queen was used as a de facto anthem for Scotland the same way it is used by Northern Ireland.

I am asking for us to list God save the Queen in the infobox as the UK anthem in the same way we have listed the Prime Minister as of the UK. If the national anthem is played in Scotland, it can be God save the Queen but we do not even mention it once in the entire article. If it should be mentioned in the article then it highlights why its reasonable to place it in the infobox. American states do not need to mention the US anthem in their articles at all but because both Scotland the UK are countries we need to be more clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you are not asserting that GSTQ is the national anthem of Scotland, it would help if you would make that clear as it would distinguish your position from other editors. I'm inclined to say that if its like Texas then follow the Texas precedent. Overall my view is that info boxes should not be cluttered. The article makes it clear that Scotland is a part of the UK so relevant information is at that location. Anthems tend not be discussed in the body of an article but have their own pages so there is no real need to mention it in the article. There might be a curiosity piece on the changes over time but that is it. Personally I would remove the Prime-Minister so I have no inclination to add other material about the UK to an information box on Scotland. Its not done on US States or other non-soverign areas so I can't see any precedent or reason to create one. I'll go with the flow on this one, but my vote goes to keep it out. --Snowded ^TALK 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is it depends on the wording which i think is the reason we do need to highlight this in the infobox to avoid confusion and it certainly needs more detail in the article itself. God save the Queen is the national anthem throughout the United Kingdom, that would include Scotland. God save the Queen is the people of Scotlands national anthem in exactly the same way a Texans national anthem is still the US anthem. I am not saying God save the Queen is used today specifically for Scotland, although that was certainly the case in the recent past when it was used in rugby for example. So if it was used by the Scottish rugby still today it would have to be defined as a de facto anthem, why is it only a few sports that define these de facto anthems? Atleast in the case of Wales there is an official anthem and not different de facto ones.

The reason we have to treat the UK countries different to US states is because the infobox is not claiming that Texas has a national anthem. If it did list an anthem it would clearly be seen as just the state anthem. But in the case of Scotland, if we do not list God save the Queen then its like it has no use in Scotland at all which is not the case as highlighted by the military tattoo and im sure there other occasions where the national anthem is played and it turns out to be God save the Queen, Irvine mentioned about it being used in ceremonies in the past i do not know if thats changed. The fact some may consider it the de facto national anthem of Scotland shows exactly why we need to address this matter in the infobox, something that wouldnt happen in Canada / USA. I would say God save the Queen is motr of a "default anthem", and in some cases like sports organisations have chosen to use different ones. To include the UK anthem in the way i suggested before certainly would not lead to confusion, it would clarify the issue especially if its backed up with more notes in the infobox notes section or the body of the article BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note there is deabate about which anthem with be played at the Commonwealth games to represent Scotland, GSTQ is not even shortlisted [6] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

God save the Queen would not be an option for the Commonwealth Games, even England does not use the anthem there.. thats the whole point because God save the Queen is used as royal anthems in many commonwealth countries.

I notice that in this Scottish TV list of possible Scottish anthems they do include the National Anthem of God save the Queen. [7] BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see evidence coming into play. So why don;t we sit back and wait and see what comes out of those polls? The article has been fine for over a year, it can wait a little longer. --Snowded ^TALK 18:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I want God save the Queen added as the (UK anthem) not as the de jure or de facto Scottish anthem which such a poll is aimed at trying to decide. The fact there is an ongoing debate and no legal national anthem would suggest it may be better to have nothing listed in the infobox and just link to a detailed explanation of the different anthems and their uses but if we just included God save the Queen (UK anthem) then it would resolve the problem also. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with BritishWatcher. The ongoing debate renders the current information in the infobox inaccurate and prone to mislead the reader. Irvine22 (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems you folks are out of step with consensus here and with policy. If you can find a reliable source which backs you up, we could look at it again. But the arguments you are making (such as they are) seem to belong more properly on Talk:United Kingdom. --John (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure you're right about that, John. By my count, most editors commenting here favor either adding God Save The Queen to the infobox, or removing all references to "de facto" anthems from the infobox, or removing the infobox entirely. The misleading and inaccurate status quo is supported only by three editors, if we count yourself. Irvine22 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see previous discussions in Archives 3, 8, 9, 10, 15 (twice), and 20. It would be helpful if those who wish to overturn this long-standing consensus could provide new arguments and citations rather than simply repeating the old ones.

I completely agree with Angus MacL above that "There can't be a 'clear explanation of the respective roles' in an infobox." There is however the option of using a "Note" system to provide a space at the end of the article for a brief introduction to the subject, which would allow for an explanation of GStQ's role relative to the other ditties. See Orkney for an example of this style where the "footnotes" (as opposed to citations) commence as the first sub-section of Orkney#References. The advantages of this system is that it provides space for these asides without cluttering up the article or infobox with sidetracks. I realise that the disadvantage for some us may be that it does not lead to an emphasis of the British POV in the immediately visible sections of the article, but I don't think an infobox is an appropriate place for attempting to disentangle the complex politics of "these islands". Ben MacDui 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I would go with removing all the so-called anthems, de facto, de jure, de mented from the infobox and handling them all and the entire issue in a "Note" as you propose. Irvine22 (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That approach sounds workable to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact this has come up quite a few times in the past it appears highlights this is an issue which must be dealt with. I partly agree that we can not clearly explain everything about the anthems in the infobox, as there is no single legally defined national anthem of Scotland it should left blank and explained in detail within the article itself. We should not restrict this to a small note at the bottom of the article. I would still favour just adding God save the Queen (UK anthem) to the infobox, but if that is not possible then lets removal them all in the way we remove images of the flag of Northern Ireland because theres not an agreed single flag. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please explain why editors have been happy to include the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the infobox, but will not agree to including the National Anthem of the United Kingdom in the infobox? Both relate to the sovereign state to which Scotland belongs, rather than to Scotland itself. Daicaregos (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why this discussion is being treated as part of the above discussion as a whole, if that makes any sense. Wasn't New section used?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken in assuming editors who do not scream and shout and throw their toys out of the pram are necessarily happy. I certainly amn't especially happy that Brown appears; Van Rompuy doesn't appear in the Wallonia or Flanders or Brussels infoboxes. Neither was I pleased that nation disappeared as a result of some original research by dictionary. And I can surely come up with more things I'm not enthused by given a little time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put this into a new section as it was causing me problems. Hope you don't mind.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, the consensus appears to be to note facts that are related to the sovereign state to which Scotland belongs, rather than to Scotland itself. Shouldn't we be consistent? Daicaregos (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We might want to open the wider question. I'm with Angus in thinking that Brown should not be in the information box. Maybe raise it on the other pages as well and reach a general agreement, --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, if that debate is reopened, can we take it as read that all contributors have read the earlier discussions here a few months ago, further up this page - starting at Talk:Scotland#Prime Minister. Secondly, though consistency is desirable it is not a requirement, and given that the four UK countries have very different histories and current administrative arrangements it is not necessarily beneficial to impose it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from previous discussions that the editors of this article want the content to be decided here. What happens on other articles is irrelevant to this discussion. When I mentioned consistency I was referring to being consistent on this article. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is included in the infobox, but the National Anthem of the United Kingdom is not. Both relate to the sovereign state to which Scotland belongs, rather than to Scotland itself, the subject of this article - that is inconsistent. Please advise if that is still unclear. Daicaregos (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment on consistency related to Snowded's point, not yours. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. Daicaregos (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly clear other than the first sentence. Changes on one article also create precedents for others. There are other things that relate to the Sovereign State that do not apply to Scotland so its a question of what is included and what is not. --Snowded ^TALK 14:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree but, as that is your view, if changes here are likely to create precedent elsewhere, the articles that are likely to be effected should be notified. Daicaregos (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well we had disagree one day! Lets see what happens here, its a mixed bag on change at the moment. --Snowded ^TALK 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, part of the issue here is the question of resolving these sort of issues. Like most thing in wikipedia where there is no right answer any final solution will be a compromise. The current one has the UK PM in, but the UK anthem out and the discussions are recorded. However the PM's presence is now been used as a precedent to argue for the anthem. Every now and then we get either a good faith or a provocative edit to change one and these are normally quickly corrected. Stable situations (well over a year) on both this issue and the country one have been destabilised in the last month. The Northern Ireland country debate and now this. It can be argued that the PM position applies to all three, while the anthem is different. Wales does have an official one, Scotland may get one or at least a single de facto one, Northern Ireland probably never will. I would leave the current stable position in place, but if its been challenged then having one subject picked off at a time is a recipe for disruptive editors to play games. --Snowded ^TALK 13:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the suggestion we should mislead people into thinking that the only people responsible for the governing of Scotland is the first minister. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is responsible for many matters relating to Scotland including its internal security. We must treat the PM / Queen in the same way, so if we did remove them both that would just leave the first minister. Totally unacceptable and grossly misleading to the realities of the situation in the Countries of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No one wants to mislead people BW, or to disguise Westminster's role in the government of Scotland. However having the PMs name in the box is only one option and not (some of us think) the best. No one is challenging the Queen here. Personally the sooner the whole of the UK becomes a republic the happier I would be. However the WIkipedia needs to reflect what is the case, not what should be.  :-) --Snowded ^TALK 13:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As a piece of information intrinsically related to the broader political setting into which Scotland fits I cannot see why reference to the UK PM should be avoided. It is an indisputable fact and necessary for complete understanding of the political fabric of Scotland as a nation. But it doesn’t need to be overstated. I would draw the line at that and not, for example, include the eventual President of the European Council. Leaky Caldron 13:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Prince Edward Island (for example), doesn't have Canadian PM Stephen Harper in its infobox. Therefore, Scotland shouldn't have British PM Gordon Brown. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

GD, you know by now that Canada and the UK are constitutionally different. No "therefore", therefore. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland & PEI are both 'not independant'. Scots has a 'first minister', PEI has a 'premier'. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And the similarity between a remote island province in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Scotland is what? Despite it’s interesting history, surely it is now simply a Canadian Province, not unlike Northumberland is a County in England? The issues with Scotland are more complex. Leaky Caldron 16:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

They're both 'not independant'. Stephen Harper is not PM of PEI & Gordon Brown is not PM of Scotland. Harper is PM 'over' PEI, Brown is PM 'over' Scotland. 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not including the indisputable accountability of the PM of the UK does nothing for the thoroughness and accuracy of the article. Leaving comparisons with PEI aside, what good comes of leaving out factually correct information? When the PM represents the UK at the EU, UN, climate change or anywhere else, he represents the whole of the UK & NI. Until there is a border control north of Berwick that’s the way it will be. Leaky Caldron 17:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec, how did we get into the PM stuff? Weren't we discussing the 'national anthem'? GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

They are linked people are trying to justify the inclusion of the UK anthem because the UK PM is there, and looking at some of the above arguments why not put the President of the European Commission in the UK infobox or the Scotland one for that matter seeing as he represents them both at various events. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I still say this Infobox is for Scotland 'only'. Elizabeth II & Gordon Brown should be 'excluded'. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the anthem and UK PM as separate issues. One is certain the other is arguable. Leaky Caldron 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is a big difference although the basic principle about "of the UK" or "Of Scotland" does apply to all 3. I certainly feel far more strongly that the PM / Queen belong in this infobox. Otherwise that would just leave the first minister which would miss out major roles in the governing of Scotland. The fact God save the Queen has no mention at all ia a problem that needs to be solved but its less of a problem than leaving the PM / Queen out would be.

I still do not see the harm in just adding God save the Queen (UK anthem). It clearly presents the information which can be expanded in more detail in the article itself. If that option is so impossible then we should just leave the anthems blank and refer to a note where it can be explained in detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind another Welsh editor weighing in, why not add a sentence such as the following in the article, whilst omitting any mention in the infobox: Scotland qua Scotland has no official national anthem; however God Save the Queen, being the national anthem of the United Kingdom, is sung in Scotland. Ham 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly needs a mention in the article text although one extra line just listing the UK anthem would not take up alot of space or clutter the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland  (English / Scots) Alba  (Scottish Gaelic)
Flag Royal Standard
Motto: In My Defens God Me Defend (Scots) (often shown abbreviated as IN DEFENS)
Anthem: None (de jure) Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave (de facto) God save the Queen (UK anthem)
ISO 3166 code	GB-SCT

Well there has been no comments over the past 48 hours. Are there people still strongly against adding the mention of God Save the Queen to the infobox?, clearly showing it just as the (UK anthem) to avoid any possible confusion. If there is no further debate on this i will add it in the next few days. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

GSTQ shouldn't be included. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And that, was the end of that. He hopes. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it will be safe to assume that those who disagreed only a few days ago still disagree unless you hear otherwise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

They went silent and several people agreed there is a need for some form of change, be it adding the UK anthem, removing all the anthems, adding notes etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher's proposal at this juncture - seems the fairest, quickest fix of what is clearly a problem with the article. The current infobox is simply misleading. Irvine22 (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the sake of making some progress I'll presume that you're right in thinking that editors who disagreed with you earlier in a discussion need to post their continuing disagreement every day or two and that they can be assumed to have changed their minds if they don't do so. Out of the choices listed you decided that adding the UKoGB&NI anthem was the right solution, even when it isn't mentioned at all in the article text? I think this is the wrong answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Angus --Snowded ^TALK 01:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Angus and Snowded. I could live with no mention of the de facto anthems though as they are a little unencyclopedic too, just leaving it as None. That seems the most descriptive. Infoboxes should be minimalist, that's their whole point. --John (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My proposal (as suggested a few days ago) is to say in the infobox: Anthems: Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave (anthems of Scotland), God save the Queen (UK national anthem) - with no mention of "de facto" or "de jure", and an explanatory sentence re GSTQ in the text (para 9.2), such as "GSTQ, the official UK national anthem, is used on some formal occasions". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin here, I have no preference on what the Scottish anthem is or isn't. I am neutral on this matter. However, I am concerned with what seems to be a circular discussion in this thread, and difficulty finding an acceptable compromise. Over a dozen editors have commented now, so it might be best to have an uninvolved administrator review the discussion, and then make an official determination of "consensus", much as an administrator may review some other discussion on Wikipedia, such as an AfD. Or, the parties here may choose to follow another step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, such as to file a Request for comment, or request mediation. The only unacceptable path here is for everyone to continue repeating their same positions over and over. So, which shall it be? Administrator consensus determination, or another step in WP:DR? If the latter, someone needs to file an RfC or RfM request. If no one does that reasonably soon, then we'll try the administrator consensus path instead. --Elonka 05:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this come up many times before so if someone is going to review it, maybe they can also review the prior discussions which were referenced above. --Snowded ^TALK 06:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Angus, my position was and remains that GtSQ has no place in the infobox any more than the Anthem of Europe does. However, I can't agree that its reasonable to presume that "editors who disagreed ... earlier in a discussion need to post their continuing disagreement every day or two and that they can be assumed to have changed their minds if they don't do so". This simply plays into the hands of those whose strategy it is to bore everyone into submission by raising the same issues at tiresome length over and over again. This page has a large number of watchers but very few who actually contribute the article's development, which has been much reduced since this pattern of behaviour first emerged in March 2008.

I have no difficulty at all with an uninvolved admin attempting to create "consensus" (or perhaps more likely, a temporary cessation of hostilities before yet another attempt to UK-ify the lead/infobox is made). I do wonder Elonka, as I know you have experience of these national issues elsewhere, if these discussions are typical or not. If this were an ongoing war of attrition between editors who cared passionately about Scotland and Scottish subjects I could understand it, but rather almost all of the dialogue seems to be created by editors whose interest in this seems to be confined to the lead/infobox of this article. (Compare the edit history stats of the article and this talk page for a snapshot.) I fully understand that we are free to act as we see fit, but the end result seems to be that few with a genuine interest in "Scotland" participate any more. Perhaps, who knows?, that is the intention. Ben MacDui 10:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact this has come up several times in the past highlights that this is a genuine issue that needs to be addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but to compare the national anthem of the United Kingdom to the anthem of Europe is not a fair comparison even if that is what some people would like the situation to be. The United Kingdom's national anthem is God save the Queen, Scotland is part of the UK and there for God save the Queen is the people of Scotlands national anthem in the same way a Texans national anthem is still the Star Spangled Banner. It was only 2 decades ago that God save the Queen was used to represent Scotland at the rugby in the way its used for England still today. Yet for some reason years after this article was created there is no mention of GSTQ.

I never said that just because everyone fell silent it meant they suddenly agreed with change, that is why i posted a comment saying i will add it in a few days time if theres no further debate, rather than just adding it last night. Its true some people disagreed with adding GSTQ to the infobox, but there is clearly support for some form of change. Removing the anthems from the infobox and explaining the situation in detail in the article or notes, adding the UK anthem to the infobox are all options and id support either. God Save the Queen certainly needs to be mentioned in the article text but the issue with the infobox needs addressing to avoid confusing people or leaving out information.

I would also support an uninvolved admin taking a look at the problem, aslong as we can continue to engage to put our points of view rather than just an external ruling saying "do this and end of story". It may also be helpful if the univolved editor was not from the United Kingdom, so they can decide what would be the most useful option to those less aware of the setup of Scotland / UK and their anthems. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we also include the fact that London is the capital and the largest city in the UK? Shouldn't the Union flag be added to the infobox as well, as Scotland is part of the UK. I also propose the name of the article be changed to Scotland (UK). There must be many other instances in this article where it could be pointed out to the reader (in case they haven't yet picked up on it) that Scotland is only a region of the United Kingdom. I reckon that's the way to go. We could also include the Anthem of Europe in the infobox. Shall we do that? I propose having a straw poll on my suggestions. Jack forbes (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No-one here is suggesting that Scotland "is only a region of the United Kingdom." But it is a country that is part of the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The national anthem for people in the United Kingdom which includes Scotland is God save the Queen. The anthem of Europe has never been used to represent Scotland or described as "the national anthem" in Scotland. God save the Queen, without any question of doubt has and still is, i gave an example previously showing the Edinburgh Tattoo Programme saying "National anthem" and the anthem played was God save the Queen. Now us Brits may understand our setup (UK anthem always used for military etc) although not all do, but people from outside the United Kingdom could do with extra information.

We are listing the anthems, but leave out a very important one which is still the national anthem in Scotland. We do not list the flags in and of Scotland, we just display the flag of Scotland and the Royal Standard... theres a difference.

It is because Scotland is a country and described as one in the article that we have to be more clear about these sorts of things. Thats why mentioning the Queen and Prime Minister "Of" the United Kingdom in the infobox is important, where as for a state or region or province of a country like America or Canada it is not required. Scotland is a country, the infobox currently says there are two de facto anthems of Scotland yet fails to mention that God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland like it is throughout the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this national anthem in Scotland you keep referring to? I've heard of a national anthem of Scotland, but this in Scotland thing is a term I'm not familiar with. Could you give me a reference for this? LOL, you gave an example of God Save The Queen being played in Scotland. Well done! Who would have thought it. As has been pointed out, it is the national anthem of the UK, not Scotland. These discussions get sillier every time and this person won't be drawn into it any further. Jack forbes (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Well done! Who would have thought it." Well not many people if they only read this article. We should not expect that every person who reads this article will also read the United Kingdom article. There is no single anthem of Scotland, some would consider only God save the Queen their national anthem. Its not that long ago that the Scottish Rugby team stopped using God save the Queen as the anthem at their internationals yet GSTQ has no mention at all.

The national anthem in Texas is the Star Spangled Banner. The national anthems of Texans is the Star Spangled Banner. Now this may not need to be shown in the Texas article because it is clearly just a state of the USA. The United Kingdoms setup is more complicated because we are dealing with Countries within a country. God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland and it is Scottish peoples national anthem in exactly the same way as the Texan example. But here we list national anthems and missout God save the Queen. It is a great shame that simply stating God save the Queen (UK anthem) in the infobox is seen as controversial. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Waste

Why are such large expenditures of time and effort being wasted on a very minor issue? Consensus is borne out of agreement, not by wearing everyone down until they submit. I have to say observing this from a distance I am struck by a level of persistence from a few that simply will not accept what has commonly been agreed. Up to a certain level that is a fair method to validate the consensus - but beyond a certain point (and after hundreds of thousands of words we are way beyond it now) it could be considered attempting to undermine the results of consensus building. Without wanting to ABF, I am going to be bold and state that nothing anyone is saying here hasn't been said before - so instead perhaps people should move on and find something constructive to do elsewhere on wikipedia - the alternative is something I would collate as SPA activity. SFC9394 (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with SFC. Jack forbes (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Its clear this issue has come up in the past. Its clear that several people here agree there could do with some form of change although the debate is still ongoing about which would be the best change.

It has been clearly explained in detail why there is a case for the national anthem to be included or to remove all anthems and explain it in more detail within the article or notes section. What i still am unclear on is why some have such opposition to providing the reader with more information and clearly explaining that God save the Queen is a national anthem in Scotland and in the past it has been used to represent Scotland at sporting events. This may seem like a minor issue but it is infact quite a serious matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an ideologically driven issue, like some of the other regular issues. In this case I'd guess that English nationalists and pro-British Scottish users are outraged that Scotland's Britishness isn't stressed enough, and are prepared to devote a lot of energy to the matter. It's the Britishness or non-Britishness of Scotland which is really at stake; no-one would otherwise care. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to start questioning the motives of those supporting some form of change, should we look at the stance many of those opposing change have when it comes to the independence question? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, it takes two to tango. I take it you agree with my assertion then? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If it was just me pushing for some form of change then you may have more of a case on this matter, but several agree there needs to be some form of change there is just no agreement on what the change should involve. I openly declare my support for the union and i can not describe how strongly i opppose the attempted break up of the United Kingdom. However this is not about my POV. It is fact that the national anthem in Scotland is God save the Queen, It is fact that in the past God save the Queen was the national anthem used by Scotland at a sport like Rugby.

Because of the above reasons i think it is worthy of inclusion in this articles infobox and certainly within the article itself. I fail to see why informing the reader about more information is a bad thing. I would rather we just stay focused on the issue than questioning peoples motives. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's important for outsiders -- in this case Elonka -- to know what's going on, to understand the underlying tensions. It is difficult to resolve them unless this is understood.

Whatever happened in the past, when Northern Ireland and England have played in Scotland, their anthem (God Save the Queen) has been played and has been barely audible because of the Scottish boos.[8][9]. And even in rugby God Save the Queen was eventually booed in Edinburgh (even in the Queen's presence![10]). Alright, that's just sport, but sport is primarily what national anthems are for in modern Europe. GStQ is undeniably NOT a national anthem of Scotland. Of course, you are right that GStQ is also the anthem of the UK, of which Scotland is a part, and thus a national anthem in Scotland. But I think your opponents above believe that the box indicates of Scotland rather than in Scotland. If the solution above is unacceptable to them, would an infobox footnote (saying something "God Save the Queen is used as a national anthem in Scotland for the whole of the United Kingdom") be acceptable? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am open to changes that address the problem both in the infobox and the article itself. That is the reason i suggested God save the Queen (UK anthem) to clearly point out its use in the same way as your note suggests. One of the suggestions above is to have no anthem listed and simply explain the situation in the notes mentioning flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave and God save the Queen. For some months it did say "many unofficial anthems" in the infobox, rather than listing the anthems in the way we do now but that was changed some time in 2008.

Sport is one of the main areas when it comes to an anthem an i accept that today GSTQ is not used for Scotland in sports the way it is in Northern Ireland and England although it was the case in the recent past. But sport is not the only thing that defines a national anthem, this is part of the problem. With no legally defined anthem at the moment the only verdict has been sporting fans or bodies, they do not represent the whole of Scotland. God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland, at the moment that anthem is mentioned nowhere in the article. Thats a problem. I do not think we should tuck the GSTQ away in the notes section to hide it from the sort of people who show disrespect by boooing anthems at sports games however that would certainly be an improvement from the current version. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult, in Scotland's example, to think of any other significant purpose for a national anthem (as it's not a sovereign state). Otherwise, this is just stating previous arguments. What's important is whether you can accept the proposal I made, 'cause reaching agreement is the priority here (and everyone needs to be realistic about what everyone else will accept).

Just out of curiosity, on what basis do you hold God Save the Queen to be "legally defined"? As far as I understood it, it's just as non-de jure for the UK as FoS is for Scotland. Am I wrong on that? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Its true that God save the Queen is not legally defined as the national anthem of the UK although it is without doubt the defacto one. I was thinking more of the fact that in Wales they have a legally defined National anthem of Wales which makes it rather different to a sporting body deciding an anthem and us declaring that it is the only anthem of Scotland.

Interesting to note the wording in this BBC news report. [11]

"The Scottish Greens have already called for Robert Burns song A Man's A Man For A' That to replace God Save the Queen."

Basically the attempts to have God save the Queen replaced were rejected. After two years of a separatist executive in Scotland there has still been no legislative movement on this matter. As for your proposal, i think GSTQ should be in the infobox clearly next to the other anthems listed but described as (UK anthem), or we simply put none and explain it within the article or within the notes section. I would not object to the UK anthem being mentioned in the notes section in the way you suggested, although i dont think thats the best solution to just hide this issue away into a small note which likely will not get read or would be missed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm i thought the Welsh assembly had declared their national anthem, looking at the article it doesnt look like they have. Although in Wales case there is just one anthem, not several like in the case of Scotland where Flower of Scotland is not always used. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless & until Scotland (and England, Wales, Northern Ireland) become independant, the UK anthem shouldn't be included. If independant? 'include' GSTQ, if not? 'exclude' GSTQ. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If the separatists win there would be less reason for the inclusion of the anthem unless just listing it as a royal anthem like on the Canada article. God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland the article should inform the reader of this fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland's future political status is irrelevant here (it could become a republic, for all we know). GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is irrelevant but its likely that in an independent Scotland the national anthem of God save the Queen would be less used. Right now Scotland is a country of the United Kingdom, the national anthem in Scotland is God save the Queen. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not indepedenant, no GSTQ in the infobox. PEI doesn't have O'Canada or GSTQ, NY doesn't have Star Spangled Banner. Dependant country, province, state, department etc, etc; makes no differance as all are dependancies. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a country and a state. If the Texas article said anthem it would clearly be a state anthem not considerd a national anthem which is exactly what the Scotland infobox is listing. God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland. To say so is not biased and its not inaccurate, its providing the reader with information they currently can not get on this article. The fact there is no mention at all even in the text is concerning. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion in the text is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That would certainly be a good start yes, if anyone has suggestions on how it should be worded both to point out its previous use in sports for Scotland like the Rugby and its current use in Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It can legitimately be called the Royal Anthem which avoids that nasty "national" word! Leaky Caldron 16:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The anthem question

In order to help settle this issue, it would be helpful if each editor in this discussion (and any uninvolved watchers are welcome to participate as well), posts a single note below. The note should cover not your personal desires about how the anthem issue should be handled, but what you believe is the consensus opinion on how this should be handled, based on the above discussion. For example, if you were an admin reviewing an AfD discussion, where several people were disagreeing on the best way to proceed, but it was your job to understand the policies involved and to review the entire discussion and make a formal statement of "consensus", what would you say? Let's do this in a "one editor, one comment" format, and hopefully this will bring clarity to the issue. --Elonka 16:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of how to deal with the question of anthem in this article's infobox, what do you believe is the consensus of the above discussions? Not your personal opinion of how you'd like the article to be written, but what do you think the group consensus is at this point?

• I think there is consensus that some form of change is needed. God save the Queen is the national anthem of the United Kingdom used within Scotland and in the past has been an anthem used to represent Scotland at sporting events. There appears to be consensus the article should reflect this, although opinions are divided on how it should be included and if it belongs in the infobox or not. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is consensus that the infobox should reflect and summarise points in the main text - noting that, at present, GSTQ is not mentioned in para. 9.2. Beyond that, the disagreement is over how the ref to the anthem in the infobox should reflect the first sentence of the article - "Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom." That is, should the anthem relate to "...is a country..." (in which case the Scottish anthems should be listed); or whether it should relate to both "a country..." and "...part of the United Kingdom" (in which case there is a case for GSTQ to be additionally listed in the infobox and referenced in the text, as the undisputed anthem of the UK). There is consensus that this should not be seen as a major issue in itself, although the issue is probably symptomatic of deeper views about the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is no consensus to include GSTQ in the infobox and there never has been. Can anyone point out any other articles that have National Anthem in included in the infobox? The argument that it's because Scotland is called a country and therefore readers somehow won't understand that GSTQ is the national anthem of the four countries of the UK combined does not stand up. Anyway, if readers want to know what the national anthem of the UK is they can always read the United Kingdom article. Read the Scotland article (there's a novel idea) and that should put an end to any argument that readers won't know that Scotland is one of the countries of the UK. Jack forbes (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is no concensus to include GSTQ in the infobox. There is a consistency argument to include GSTQ in the infobox on the basis that other information relating to the UK, rather than to Scotland, is included in the infobox already (namely the Prime Minister of the UK). But that could as easily be an argument to exclude the Prime Minister of the UK from the infobox as it could be to include GSTQ. A straw poll should be held on whether to exclude the Prime Minister of the UK from the infobox too. Daicaregos (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• The only clear consensus that exists is by virtue of the use of the country info box containing the (mandatory) cell “Anthem”. The cell itself is full of POV (the listed anthems or unlisted anthems) and is weasely protected by incorrectly used Latin expressions “de jure” and “de facto”. (the entire anthem content should simply be referenced out thus: “see National anthem of Scotland” where the entire saga is developed in full. Haggling over the anthem entry in the infobox is pointless when a fully developed article is only a click away)Leaky Caldron 20:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• From what I can read, most don't want GSTQ or GSTQ (UK anthem) in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Weighing the opinions expressed by persons participating (rather than the volume of words expressed pro or con, which would be a quite different result) I obtain the following. 4 definitely in favour of GStQ in the infobox and 10 opposed. I note 8 expressed a possible interest in an explanatory footnote of some kind, although the discussions were not especially clear-cut as varying assumptions were made as to whether the subject would be omitted from the infobox completely, or the current wording would remain, with the footnote added. In my view this is a consensus in favour of omitting GStQ from the infobox. Were I to be running the process I might ask (at some possible risk to sanity and patience) if, given this result, there were any strong objection to a note of some kind explaining the role of GStQ. It's been a long day and I have not double-checked these results, and there were some folk who had input whose view on this specific issue did not seem clear to me, but perhaps I missed something. No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong. Ben MacDui 20:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• I don't see a consensus to include GSTQ in the infobox. Dalliance (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• I share Ben MacDui's perception. There may be a feeling that something needs done - in which case I lean towards Leaky Caldron's solution, but I don't think this is so popular with others right now - but it isn't adding GStQ. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• No new arguments have been raised over previous discussion. The original change was provocative (see summary text). Constantly reopening items like this should not be encouraged unless there is genuine new evidence. Adding GSTQ to the information box adds nothing of significance to the naive reader. No reason to change. --Snowded ^TALK 00:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Consensus: good when it consists of all participants agreeing that a certain solution is the best; bad when it consist of one or two vocal participants who will accept nothing but their own solution and a larger group who dislike the solution but agree to go along with it for the sake of preventing an edit war. I find it particularly galling that only those who took part in the current discussion will have their opinions taken into account. Many of us think that these discussions are pointless and so have not taken part in them for years. I personally don't think that the promotion or prevention of the minor changes made are worth the major discussions which inevitably precede them. So despite the fact that I disagree with the addition of UK-level info to articles on subdivisions of the UK, I let it go on the basis that it's less harmful to Wikipedia than the time wasted on arguing about it. Furthermore some of the participants in the above discussion (and its predecessors over the years) add reams of argument to the talk page on these silly political points but little or nothing of any substance to the actual article. And yet these people's opinions will apparently have more weight because of their talk page contributions than than those who have edited the actual article significantly but decided not to rehash the same trivial arguments on the talk page for the umpteenth time. That is the measure of the consensus on the anthem (and to be frank on the PM's/HM's inclusion). -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with everything Derek Ross just said. But, I would like to know when Admins are intending to come down like a ton of bricks on the Users that ceaselessly attack this article and the people who actually wrote it? We all know what has gone on here over the last two years or so, and it is a total disgrace. It started with the removal of the geographical map and its replacement with a (point-making) political map; it continued with the vicious, well-coordinated attacks on the opening sentence; and it continues on the Infobox and other high-visibility features. Well, now it is time for Admins to stand up on behalf of all the decent editors at Wikipedia: restore the intro and the infobox to the format they were in before the plague descended. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• GSTQ is not the national anthem of Scotland, in much the same way as the Union Flag is not the national flag of Scotland. The argument for the inclusion of one could be equally applied to the other. Unless someone produces reliable sources stating categorically that GSTQ is the anthem of Scotland then it stays out IMHO. We don't live in a one-size-fits-all State and those who through either a lack of appreciation or a lack of understanding remain blind to the reality of that situation would do well to go elsewhere and open their eyes through a process of extensive reading. Endrick Shellycoat 11:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion about the anthem question

(comments moved down from above section)

• Comment on Daicaregos' response. The question of including the PM (and Queen) in the infobox is a separate issue, and relates to the fact that they have substantial constitutional responsibilities over Scotland - which is not directly relevant in relation to the anthem, but related. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment on Ghmyrtle's comment (did you not notice Elonka's request that this should be a "one editor, one comment" format?). The relevance of my comment is related to BritishWatcher comment that "there is consensus that some form of change is needed.". There may well be consensus that some form of change is needed, but it is not that GSTQ be included in the infobox. Daicaregos (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• To Ghmyrtle, Agreed, this is a very different issue and comparing GSTQ the PM/Queen is like comparing oranges to apples. Let’s not lose sight of the real issue here.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to say i am deeply offended by the attack launched at editors my Mais Oui above.

"Well, now it is time for Admins to stand up on behalf of all the decent editors at Wikipedia: restore the intro and the infobox to the format they were in before the plague descended"

Its rather rude to describe people as a plague or even just their involvement here as a plague. On the issue of the map that was before my time but there were understandable concerns about the first sentence, i pushed for a reasonable change it was rejected at first despite going into extensive detail about why i thought change was justified. However shortly after, the request for change was started up again by others and that time consensus was reached to change the introduction to the current wording. It has been almost a year now and i think the wording has been very stable (with the exception of Northern Ireland which flared up recentely) and all 4 articles wording has been defended by people on all sides including myself. Despite my original concerns about the use of the term country i have spent quite a bit of my time explaining to those who question such usage as to why its a valid sentence and that its not part of some separatist plot.

On the issue of God save the Queen being a national anthem in Scotland, i do not consider this being an "attack on the article". I think there is a very strong and valid case for the article itself to atleast mention the fact God save the Queen was used to represent Scotland at sporting events like Rugby before they adopted Flower of Scotland and to point out as the anthem of the UK it is still used in Scotland today. If it deserves to be in the infobox is a different matter, i think there is justification for it to be there atleast in the form of a note. But at the moment this article completely fails to mention GSTQ despite Flower of Scotland only being adopted 20 years ago. Scotland was around for some time before that. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"consensus was reached to change the introduction to the current wording" = total poppycock. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but take a wee word of advice: Ben MacDui, Derek Ross, Angus McLellan and other Admins are not fools, so just lay off the blatant untruths. --Mais oui! (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but separatists and unionists alike have defended the current wording in the introduction and it has remained stable on this article for almost a year now. You may not like it but most accepted the change back then in the end (although it wasnt on the occasion when i raised it). People can review the debate that took place back then if they so wish. I notice you did not clarify your "plague" comment you simply made another comment suggesting i am telling untruths. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Debate"?!? Don't make me laugh. It was a mugging. Nothing more, nothing less. And any sane, objective person reviewing the disgraceful events will dismiss your bizarre "consensus" claim out of hand. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

lmao yes it was a debate, i am sorry you did not like the outcome. I fail to see how people disagreeing with wording in the article, seeking to have it changed and the people coming to a consensus on the talk page can be considered "disgraceful events". Disgraceful would have been to engage in an edit war over the wording, i never did that over this matter, from day one i stuck to the talk page proposing and pushing for the change i thought was justified and would improve the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In the clear absence of a consensus on the substantive content of the infobox, I support the proposal by User:Leaky caldron - that "the entire anthem content should simply be referenced thus: “see National anthem of Scotland”." Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Better to make it a link to the current entry --Snowded ^TALK 12:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we be hiding this information behind a link? No one can deny that Flower of Scotland and Scotland the Brave are national anthems of Scotland, de jure or not. Why have the reader go to the trouble, and I'm quite sure many wouldn't, of having to link to another article. If we want them to read that article we could still give them a link without losing the information already there. Jack forbes (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they are anthems, the question is whether they are the only anthems - and there is no consensus that they are. The proposal by Leaky caldron sidesteps the issue in relation to this article, by linking to a much more comprehensive explanation than could be placed either in the infobox, in the article text, or in a footnote. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a change would restore things to the way they were for some months last year before it was changed to the current listing of Flower of Scotland / Scotland the Brave. Id support it linking to that article although a more detailed explanation would be useful in this article too. There certain needs to be a mention of GSTQ in this articles text, even if its just to say GSTQ was previous used at things like Rugby until it was changed to Flower of Scotland in the 1990s and that as the UK anthem it remains in use in Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree they should stay --Snowded ^TALK 12:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave as is... on the world stage both anthems currently shown are used where Scotland appears in her own right: for over two decades the SRU has used 'Flower of Scotland', and this is now also the case for the SFA, despite nearly three decades of the SFA previously having used 'Scotland the Brave'; which itself continues to be used by the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland. Funnily enough, on 14 November, the CGCS began the process of formally choosing an anthem for the 2014 Games in Glasgow from a short leet of four songs - GTSQ wasn't one of them. Whichever anthem is chosen, at least it won't be drowned out by booing, jeering and whistling home crowds, as used to be the case in the 60's and 70's when GSTQ was played! Endrick Shellycoat 13:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that this article does not only relate to Scotland "where [it] appears in her own right", such as at the Commonwealth Games; it relates to Scotland in all circumstances, including those in which it is relevant that Scotland is constitutionally part of the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not even England uses God save the Queen at the commonwealth of nations because its associated with several commonwealth countries as a royal anthem like in Canada and Australia. Yes its ashame about the booing, although when you see celtic supporters singing IRA songs during a minutes silence it clearly highlights some of the problems faced in Scotland. Perhaps the minutes silence should be scrapped to appease those people. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if you do not think it belongs in the infobox, why should this article not clearly explain GSTQ was used as an anthem by the SRU before it adopted the Flower of Scotland in the 1990s? BritishWatcher (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try and keeps discussions to the subject matter--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of my post was on the subject matter of use of anthems, i only went onto the IRA bit because of the mention some boooed their national anthem. Talk about rewording bad behaviour. Anyway the second post was clearly on the specific issue, even if people think GSTQ does not belong in the infobox, surely it should be mentioned in the article itself to talk about its use before the Flower of Scotland was introduced. We miss out a rather long part of Scottish history by just starting with the Flower of Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Barryob. Perhaps I can draw the attention of BritishWatcher to my post in the preceding section...

• GSTQ is not the national anthem of Scotland, in much the same way as the Union Flag is not the national flag of Scotland. The argument for the inclusion of one could be equally applied to the other. Unless someone produces reliable sources stating categorically that GSTQ is the anthem of Scotland then it stays out IMHO. We don't live in a one-size-fits-all State and those who through either a lack of appreciation or a lack of understanding remain blind to the reality of that situation would do well to go elsewhere and open their eyes through a process of extensive reading.

The very existence of this article may drive some to try to couch every aspect of it in a UK context. However, the article pertains to Scotland, not the UK, and where distinctions exist between these entities they should be recognised. There is no need to qualify every aspect of Scotland which distinguishes it from the remainder of the UK, or other individual parts of the UK, in the manner of "'a' is used only in Scotland, 'b' is used elsewhere, but 'c' only in Scotland when as part of the UK, otherwise 'd'". The whole thing becomes ridiculous and unworkable. BritishWatcher, I respect your opinions, I don't necessarily agree with them, but the article is the object here and you have not persuaded me that a problem exists nor that your proposed solution enhances the quality of the article in aany way for the benefit of the reader. Endrick Shellycoat 14:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand this is an article on Scotland but the problem is God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland. In the past God save the Queen was used as the national anthem "for" Scotland in a sport like rugby the same way it is still used in England today but the article itself fails to mention GSTQ at all. It does not mention when Flower of Scotland started to be used and what was used before it. The issue of the union flag is very different. We do not list flags used to represent Scotland or used in Scotland, it just shows the Flag of Scotland and the Royal Standard. We list anthems but make no recognition at all anywhere in the article that God save the Queen is still used in Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland" - wp:cite required - that is one problem. (Nothing should be added to this article unless wp:verify applies). Historical use is only part of the argument; in the past the Jacobite anthem was sung, but I wouldn't argue that it should be included also. GTSQ is indeed used in Scotland, no argument from me on that one. However, GTSQ is not currently "used to represent Scotland", that's the problem I have with your suggestion: GSTQ is not used to represent Scotland; on that basis it I say no to its inclusion. Endrick Shellycoat 14:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You say GSTQ is indeed used in Scotland and that you have no arugment with that yet you then ask me to cite that GSTQ is the national anthem in Scotland. You said urself it is, and i highlighted an example previously of National anthem being used in the Edinburgh Tattoo but that anthem being GSTQ not the Scottish national anthems listed in the infobox currently.

The problem is the infobox does not clearly explain that which is why for some months until 2008 it just linked to the article on the national anthem of Scotland where it was explained in detail. The fact GSTQ was used in the past to represent Scotland at sporting events should be highlighted in the article, explaining it was changed to Flower of Scotland and yes we can mention the booing and perhaps the reasons for that boooing. Sports are not the only time national anthems are used. If the national anthem is played in Scotland it is not always going to be either Flower of Scotland or Scotland the Brave, it could as an the example i mentioned before be God save the Queen. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"You say GSTQ is indeed used in Scotland and that you have no arugment with that yet you then ask me to cite that GSTQ is the national anthem in Scotland." Correct: GSTQ is used, but it is not used as the "National Anthem of Scotland". If you can find a statement from a reliable source to the contrary, then please cite it.

The flag situation is relevant as it is an example of a similar situation. Which of the flags depicted, all legitimately used in Scotland, (here outside the Scottish Parliament), represents Scotland? Simply because the UK and EU flags are used in Scotland, it does not follow therefore that they also represent Scotland. The same principle applies with regard to anthems. Is the distinction any clearer, or should I throw Ode to Joy into the mix also?

Endrick Shellycoat 20:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BW, how many times do we have to point out that the Edinburgh Tattoo is a military one, that Scotland does not have an Army, that the Army is a UK institution and therefore will play GSTQ. --Snowded ^TALK 20:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And just to make the point again read the very first sentence of our article Edinburgh Military Tattoo which tells us; The Edinburgh Military Tattoo is an annual series of Military tattoos performed by British Armed Forces. Note it's the 'British Armed Forces', not Scottish. Jack forbes (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead para 3

This is really busy and a difficult read. Too many links and too many "Scottishes".

I would like to suggest a 4th paragraph break here:

The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union. 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 when the Scottish National Party formed a minority administration after talks of a coalition with other parties broke down.

with a reduction in the references to Scottish but maintaining the links thus:

The continued independence of Scottish law, the education system, and the church have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and national identity since the Union. 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 government was elected in 2007 when the Scottish National Party formed a minority administration after talks of a coalition with other parties broke down.

Lots of issues with this simple proposal no doubt! Leaky Caldron 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• While I see that readability could be an issue here, the problem with the rewording is that it is removing terms with specific meaning: "Scots law", "Church of Scotland" (althought admittedly the latter might be better referring to churches since the Disruption) and "Scottish Government". AllyD (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I would not oppose that change except the pro independence Government needs to say Scottish government. I still have concerns about the final sentence in that paragraph promoting a political party and it smacks of WP:Recentism but i cant see any support for changing that wording so i acccept it. However when the separatists are no longer in power it will be time to look at that final sentence again. There will be no justification at all for a mention of the SNP victory in 2007 when they are no longer in power although the fact independence continues to be debated will likely need to remain then. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)But the blue links remain unchanged and apart from Church the minor changes are not proper nouns, so why the need to say Scots or Scottish 5 times in a sentence? It seems parochial to wish to keep 5 when 2 would do and aid readability. Leaky Caldron 20:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To B-W - I concede the point about Government - which is all the more reason to reduce from 5 to 2 in the previous sentence. Leaky Caldron 20:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Surely "Scots law" is a specific term? My son's copy of "Scots Law" (Butterworths LexisNexis) is in the next room, with the words in 3cm high letters on the cover. AllyD (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Ally, but we are profuse with Scottish and it looks a bit pointy to have 5 in a sentence. Leaky Caldron 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thinking further about the Church of Scotland reference, I think the article would be enhanced by replacing it with "religious institutions" and a link to Religion in Scotland? (That would be one less for you!) AllyD (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fine, but I'm not sure what it takes to make simple changes on this article. I'm not Scottish so I feel disqualified - that's just the way some editors make non-partisan editors feel I regret to say! WP:Bold is bollocks here. Leaky Caldron 21:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be Scottish Bollocks? ;) I'll throw this in as a suggestion, though I'm not sure if it will get agreement.

The continued independence of Scots law, education, and religious institutions have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and national identity since the Union. 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 when the Scottish National Party formed a minority administration after talks of a coalition with other parties broke down. Jack forbes (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good BritishWatcher (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

...and looks better! Leaky Caldron 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

One point. Religious institutions in general did not play much of a part. It was specifically The Church of Scotland, its struggle against Parliament's desire to impose state control upon it (of which the disruption and the churches which came out of it were merely a symptom) and its all-pervasive influence on everyday life prior to the 1960s that played a part, so removal of the Kirk's name from the para in favour of some wishy-washy generalisation is not a good idea. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As an atheist, the topic's well to the edge of my competence/interest, but my rationale for moving from just CofS was to recognise the Free Church of Scotland (1843–1900) position in Scotland's complex mesh of religious politicking. AllyD (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion has always been that we atheists need to keep informed on what these religious types are/have been up to if we're to keep a step ahead, so I have always interested myself in religious history. Be that as it may I understand what you're saying, Ally, but the term, "religious institutions", implies rather more than just the Presbyterians. And it's very much Presbyterianism that has defined the Scottish experience for the last couple of hundred years. By comparison, the Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Orthodox, Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc. were nowhere. The CoS may have split into various factions during the 19thC but each of them would have said it was the true CoS; each of them had much the same basic policy on daily life (although their tolerance levels differed); and most them had rejoined the main body by 1929, once Parliament finally acknowledged the Kirk's sovereignty. That's why I think that the term, "Church of Scotland", should stay. If we are to replace the term, "Church of Scotland", we need to replace it by "The Kirk", or "Presbyterian churches", or something similar. "Religious institutions" is just so broad that it's misleading. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There were only talks with ONE other party (the Scottish Liberal Democrats), so that plural "parties" must go. And the talks did not "break down": the SNP and SLDs simply agreed to disagree. Talks cannot "break down" when it was crystal clear from the start that one party (SLD) had not the slightest intention of entering into a coalition government (in fact, they had been saying exactly that - explicitly and publicly - for months prior to the election.) All major media ext refs describe events as the SLDs walking off in an almighty huff (from which they have still not emerged), and Alex Salmond looking like the cat that got the cream. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentence on the separatists coming to power should be removed from the introduction then. The original wording which simply ended with the bit about the question of independence continuing to give rise to debate was far more reasonable and not promoting a single political party in the introduction of an article on a country. When the SNP are no longer "in power" that sentence will have to be changed, its debatable if its worthy enough for the intro now considering the Scottish parliament and Scottish executive have no authority on constitutional matters related to the status of Scotland in the United Kingdom.

We should atleast point out just how much of a minority government they are by saying they won ONE more seat than the Scottish Labour Party. We can leave out the fact they won that extra seat by just 48 votes, but its an interesting little fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BW, your argument sound a little bit too political to me. Mais oui, I think we could drop the information that coalition talks broke down as the Lib Dems would only go into talks if the SNP had dropped their proposal for an independence referendum, which was never going to happen. [12]. This would leave the last sentence looking like this. After the creation of the devolved Scottish Parliament in 1999, the first ever pro-independence Scottish Government was elected in 2007 when the Scottish National Party formed a minority administration.

As for the question of the Churches part in Scottish culture etc I don't feel I know enough about it to give an informed opinion here. Jack forbes (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My tuppenceworth...

• The continued existance of legal, educational and religious institutions distinct from those in the remainder of the UK have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and national identity since the Union. 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 when the Scottish National Party formed a minority administration.

Endrick Shellycoat 11:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If the fact the SNP won the election in 2007 is worthy enough for the article introduction which is debatable as it was only added a couple of months ago not in 2007, it should atleast point out the implications / realities of this rather than leaving the reader guessing about "what next". It should point out that they will not be able to get their referendum bill through the Scottish parliament because most MSPs are against the break up of the United Kingdom and the Scottish administration has no constitutional powers on this matter. This should be clearly pointed out BritishWatcher (talk) 13:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we go through this one as well a month or so? --Snowded ^TALK 13:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Jack forbes (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes we did go through it when it was first added but the problems remain the same. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem? No, BW. I believe it to be your problem as I don't see anyone else bringing it up. Jack forbes (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No the problem is with the article, its not "my problem". This article currently promotes a single political party in the introduction, it overplays the situation considering the Scottish government has no authority on issues relating to the constitutional setup of the UK and Scotland. It fails to highlight just how much of a minority administration it is (just one more seat than the labour party) and it fails to point out that the Scottish parliament will block the upcoming attempt at a referendum bill. The intro is meant to sum up the article, not tell half the story. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If an issue has been raised and a consensus reached then I think (i) if there is no new evidence it should not be raised again or (ii) if it is then the editor should reference the prior discussion and (iii) a lack of response by other editors to such actions should not be taken as consent to the change. --Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is the best method.(PS why the hell aren’t you all at work and if you are then why are you on Wikipedia lol)--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the 3rd paragraph came up i did not raise it again, i have simply highlighted my continued concerns about that final sentence. There is nothing wrong with that considering it was only added a couple of months ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. This hamster-wheel of a discussion page is at times frustrating beyond words. (Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ - Some of us work shifts!) Endrick Shellycoat 13:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn’t the fact it’s labelled as a minority administration pretty much makes it obvious that it isn’t the only major political entity within Scotland? I really don’t see the problem here (After reading the comments). I'm also slightly confused as to how the thread ended up as a discussion about this. I think BritishWatcher is letting his personal opinions get in the way. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Highlighting the SNP won in 2007 maybe justified although from what ive seen nobody saw the need to add that until a couple of months ago so it could hardly be described as a pressing matter for the introduction. The trouble is it does not give a full picture about the reality of the Scottish governments power on this matter and just how much of a minority government they are. Id just like to point the original wording added did not mention it was a "minority administration" until i raised it on this talk page and it got changed, i got abuse for moaning back then too. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get to back to the point, do we have concensus with this...

• The continued existance of legal, educational and religious institutions distinct from those in the remainder of the UK have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and national identity since the Union. 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 when the Scottish National Party formed a minority administration.

Aye or nay... Endrick Shellycoat 13:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Aye, I would say that the SNP victory deserves a mention due to the fall out from it, National Conversation,Calman Commission ect--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Aye! Jack forbes (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Aye. Endrick Shellycoat 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Hai!--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Barryob, but that is part of my point. The article says the SNP came to power in 2007 as the first ever pro independence party but it does not explain the fall out or what it actually means. Its a nice little fact but people are lefting guessing about what it means. The introduction is meant to sum up the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cant you have one of those votes were people Use *Oppose or *Support to any suggested changes?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Frank, Aye and Nay are the equivalent of support and oppose. Of course, if your a stickler we could always add * :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

*<------------------- -.- /Slaps Jack Ok that's all in order...--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Aye. Daicaregos (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Aye. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• (Quick everyone all sign into your sock puppets and vote again to piss BritishWatcher off!!!!)--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Why Aye Man Leaky Caldron 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Aye: nice simplification -as long as the spelling of existence is fixed! AllyD (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It’s Scots English of course! --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an overwhelming consensus for the suggested paragraph. Shall we implement it? Jack forbes (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! Leaky Caldron 18:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jack forbes (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Q5/A5

Scots is spoken by 30% of the Scottish population (approximately 1.5 million individuals) according to the 1996 estimate of the General Register Office for Scotland.

• Any up-to-date data available for this? (Edit:Yes, I am an up-to-date data freak lol)--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The 2001 Census did not include a question on this [13]. As for the 2006 test questions, the data is at [14]. What's up with all the "missing" responses? Strange. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the 'missing responses' Angus? Jack forbes (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That’s some interesting data. (Get a load of the 80% who states their nationality as Scottish BritishWatcher Woooohooo!). Not sure about the missing responses either...--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought most respondents would know if they could speak/read/write/understand English or Punjabi or Gaelic or ... Perhaps this is one of those "it depends what you mean by ..." things? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the missing responses as those who refused to answer some questions whilst answering others. Religion for example, I remember thinking my religion is my business, perhaps a typical West of Scotland reaction. Jack forbes (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

19.9% speak Scots but only 19.7% can read it? Lolwut? Do you speak Punjabi…? Urrr…dunno….--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well. Some people probably don't have the concentration necessary to fill out a whole form. Jack forbes (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Royal motto

I see that someone has added an unsourced "royal motto" to the infobox.[15] I have warned the editor who added that information. If someone has a reliable source which can verify the new addition, please feel free to add it. Otherwise, anyone who wishes to remove the unsourced information, may do so per WP:V. --Elonka 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems a provocative edit to be honest. A glance at Nemo me impune lacessit shows that has relevance for Scotland, but it is not a national motto. It may have a place in the main body relating to military history or the role of the Queen. --Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is in fact a royal motto of Scotland (a status it shares with In defens, which is likewise not sourced in the infobox, but rather linked to the Wikipedia article - a wee bit inconsstent there, Elonka, no?). However, only Nemo Me Impune Lacessit features on pound coins minted for Scotland. I will restore the information, and add sources. Irvine22 (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat that which I posted on at User talk:Irvine22#Scotland_2 as the individual concerned apparently didn't take the time to go to the link and check the sources.

• the following link may be of interest re. In My Defens God Me Defend - Talk:Scotland/Archive_20#Motto. Your equivalent to including Nemo Me Impune Lacessit is not akin to 'E Pluribus Unum', but rather Honi soit qui mal y pense, as they are both the motto of an Order of chivalry and both appear on separate versions of the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. However, they are not 'Royal Mottos' as you claim, but simply the motto of the Order of the Thistle and Order of the Garter respectively, which together with a representation of the Garter and also the Badge and Collar of the Order of the Thistle, are included in the blazon of the Royal arms.

Instead, Irvine22 seems to rely upon arguing his case by stating that as Nemo Me Impune Lacessit appears on a coin it must be a "Royal Motto". Not sure quite how that holds up, given that Decus Et Tutamen does likewise, but is not considered a "Royal Motto", nor is Pleidiol Wyf I'm Gwlad the "Royal motto" of Wales . Neither is Honi soit qui mal y pense afforded the same status as Dieu Et Mon Droit although both appear on the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom used ouside Scotland. The ref. to a book by Mr Magnusson can't be accessed fully on the link, and I'd venture to suggest that the evidence from the talk archive establishes pretty clearly the status of each motto.

I've no intention of getting into an edit war and won't revert the edit today, but I strongly suggest a look at Talk:Scotland/Archive_20#Motto and the also the sources in the articles themselves before forming an opinion. Endrick Shellycoat 16:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Its the IRVINE22 pattern, make a controversial edit and refuse to abide by WP:BRD. Irvine has been warned about this edit on his/talk page already by an admin. Reverting to it to create an edit war then accepting whatever block comes (normally a few days or a week) then coming back to start all over again. Its been the pattern on Irish articles for some time, but the behaviour is now known so s/he has moved across to Scotland. I'll report it and revert per WP:BRD --Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

When fixing the infobox, instead of BRD, just link to the talkpage discussion that shows that the edit is against existing consensus. --Elonka 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This crossed in the post with me asking the same question on your talk page. Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)