This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
What I personally think is the single most embarrassing "consensus" I've seen been told about on Wikipedia: "Scotland is a nation". A cursory glance shows this is still objected to by others fairly frequently (
[1]
[2]). And so, as it also annoys the hell out of me, I'm raising it again: A
nation is a community or group of people (like the
Nation of Islam - ugly example I know), not a division of land. Scotland is a country (or constituent country - whatever's the preference).
I know the Scottish psyke ensures that Scotland is promoted to be nothing less than a country (even Britannica - sorry - reports on this), which is what I think, but can't prove, is part of the issue here. But really, that an odd few bad literaturists said Scotland was/is a nation and then asserting it here as somehow being "verifiable" is... well... not good.
Also, if the Scottish people are a nation (have a look), then how is Scotland a nation too? Seems to be double standards here.... in good faith, of course.
I suppose the question is, where exactly is this consensus? What is it based on? Has it ever been codified? Are there any alternatives we might want to consider? I don't think that the use of "nation" is in the article's best interests. Just my 2p worth. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
“ | After considerable discussion there is an informal consensus amongst Scottish Wikipedians that Scotland is a nation and a country, although clearly not a sovreign nation state. See Archives 1, 2 (twice) 3, 6, 11 (twice), 13 and 14.
“Scotland is a nation, by accordance to most modern definitions of a nation, here is one such example "Nations are essentially cohesive cultural communities with a strong self-identity. Many states contain several nations and, consequently, many nations do not have their own state." Archive 1 (A1). “Although nation, country and state are often used as synonyms, they do in fact all have different meanings: nation is a cultural designation; country is geographical; and state is political (and not necessarily a fully sovereign entity either, eg Idaho).” A6 |
” |
I recently took a break from watching this page and I am now reminded why. The fact is that there are two different views and it is highly unlikely that both will ever be satisfied. The discussion then goes round and round in circles because the minority don't get their way. Is there no protocol we can use to time bar re-iterations to say six-monthly intervals? This is the fourth discussion on this topic since August. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 08:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the reasons above for the inclusion of nation in the opening sentence. Nation is inextricably linked with territory and this article details so much about Scotland's people and its culture that it chimes with the Wikipedia definition of nation - "A nation is a form of self-defined cultural and social community." Yup, Scotland is all of that, as this article makes abundantly clear. However I would be happy with "country" along the lines of the suggestion from User:Fishiehelper2 above ("Scotland is a country in north-west Europe which has been part of the United Kingdom for 300 years") in place of this totally ridiculous "Constituent Country" nonsense, which is something I have a great deal more trouble with as it represents nothing more than a Wikipedia invention. Thanks Globaltraveller ( talk) 12:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And from the same article: "Possibly the most common usage of the word "community" indicates a large group living in close proximity."
Again there is reference to space, place and to territory.
But this is just going round and round in circles and isn't getting anyone far at all. The reasons for "nation" being included in the article have been set out, by others, above. It is absolutely crystal clear. I'm sorry you might not like that, but that is the way it is and has been for a long time. I have absolutely no problem with Scotland being referred to as a nation (palpably it is) but I am entirely agnostic on its use in the article and in the first sentence in particular. My strict preference would be to switch "nation" to "country" (and get rid of this "constituent country" term), but am happy to go with the status quo - for the durability of the term on article, if nothing else. And that, as others have said is a good indication of "worth". Globaltraveller ( talk) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you may wish to read what has been written by many contributors above on the nation, country, state distinction. You may also wish to take a look at the vast talk archives on this very subject. More importantly please don't revert the article again, on what has been a long standing part of the Lead until a consensus of editors determines a way forward. Thanks Globaltraveller ( talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: If we're gonna have nation in this article's lead? we may aswell add the same to Wales, England and Northern Ireland article's lead. It's either all four or none. GoodDay ( talk) 22:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. What the editors of those articles determine on is up to them. I wasn't aware Wikipedia was in the process of creating identikit, paint-by-numbers articles, that have an exact formula to hold to. Globaltraveller ( talk) 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend none, by the way. Afterall, the Nation of Islam, Leafs Nation, various Aboriginal Nations aren't countries. GoodDay ( talk) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comparing Quebec with Scotland is not really adding anything to this debate. Frankly I couldn't really care less about Quebec or Canada, or how the arguments there relate to those here (for very distinct reasons, I don't think they are comparable). What editors on those articles determine is up to them. Globaltraveller ( talk) 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article deserve special treatment, concerning the usage of nation? Why can't those who want 'nation' included, see that it's problematic? PS: I'm not trying to be a party pooper, I just want to understand why it's so important to have nation in the lead. Please note - I'm not going to revert. GoodDay ( talk) 17:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
By saying special treatment? I was wondering why England, Wales & Northern Ireland don't have nation in there articles. Also, I've not accused anyone of being Scottish nationalist or British nationalist or any political profile. GoodDay ( talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've requested that this article have full protection, until this discussion has been resolved. GoodDay ( talk) 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The page has been 'fully' protected. GoodDay ( talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking there needs to be a new UK MOS that deals with these issues. Personally, the 4 constituents of the UK should all have the same opening sentence in my opinion, that's really the only way for this to work. With all respect to Scottish editors here, do you think that perhaps there's just a wee bit of nationalistic pride here (I don't mean the SNP kind)? Ultimately at the end of the day we're writing an encyclopaedia here, and our main concern should be the readers. To that end standardising the UK articles is the most logical choice. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comparing the UK to the EU shows the exact kind of bias that we're dealing with here. The UK is clearly not the same thing, the UK is a sovereign state. The reason this is needed is because otherwise we run a major risk of POV taking over these articles, and we can't have that. If the consensus here was to say 'Scotland is a soon to be independent nation in north-western Europe' would that make it right? Sometimes content needs to be dictated, and I don't favour a blanket MOS for everything, just for referring to how the 4 constituents are referred to, because there has been a lot of controversy here and on the other articles. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Dare I say again (I dare)? Northern Ireland, England, Scotland & Wales are currently constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Their respective peoples are 'nations'. GoodDay ( talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Can all the Scottish editors please try to look at this objectively? Why should Virginia have the same intro as Alaska? Because legally they hold the same status. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Something needs to be done. There are a lot more important issues then what word is used in the opening, why doesn't one of Scottish editors write to their MSP and ask for an official opinion? The editors on the Wales article did it. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by building consensus. Nobody owns any articles here, and the goal is to build consensus. There's no consensus here, is there? Every few months someone brings it up and it goes back and forth from country to nation because neither quite appease everyone. I personally don't see why this article has to be different from England, Wales and NI except for the editors here are strongly against it. I think, like in virtually all things, it's impossible for people close to the situation to make rational judgements. In situations like this it's best to appeal to someone from the outside, an admin with no ties to Scotland or the UK and let them comment. However, I'm sure this solution will also be objected to. The point remains you can't reach consensus so something needs to be done, and yes that means having a solution dictated to you here. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am an outsider to this issue. (I came here to disamb Celtic.) I know you all want the article to be what you feel is right, but please know the harm by keeping out editors. If the edit war is so bad maybe the editors should be the ones under review. Also the text on an attempt to edit is semi not full which is apparently the reality. Dimitrii ( talk) 22:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is my proposal to fix the situation, hopefully it's satisfactory. User:MichiganCharms/Sandbox - MichiganCharms ( talk) 15:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Clicking on country in my proposal links to constituent country, thus killing the possible confusion. I think we have broad consesnus. I think it might be best to standardise them all under 'country'- MichiganCharms ( talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In agreement with Mais. There was a fight over the inclusion of country at Northern Ireland months ago. Again people, the four interlocked articles should use the same terminology. GoodDay ( talk) 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Repeating myself: If we add 'nation' to the lead 'here'? we add 'nation' to the leads of Wales, England and Northern Ireland, there's no other acceptable way. GoodDay ( talk) 16:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Since they've all been sending MPs to the UK Parliament. GoodDay ( talk) 17:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
They're MPs & Lords/Ladies representing Scotland, Wales, England & Northern Ireland in the UK Parliament. Equal Status. GoodDay ( talk) 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Why are you comparing 'regions' with 'constituent countries'? One is within the other. GoodDay ( talk) 17:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
An MP from NEE? is equal to an MP from Glasgow. Why? They're all within the UK. GoodDay ( talk) 17:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What makes Scotland more of a country then England? Why is constituent country acceptable for three quarters of the the UK but not Scotland? - MichiganCharms ( talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This country – constituent country – nation thing is verging on the ridiculous. Scotland is a country, a constituent country, a nation – all three are verifiably correct. There is nothing set in stone that says the UK country articles must use the same description. If a consensus was to be developed for simply country without the constituent, what's the problem? The article itself describes its relationship within the UK. Bill Reid | Talk 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like 'Brits' versus 'nats' again. Either way you are all going around in circles. Scotland is NOT A STATE. We are all agreed on that score. However, as for the rest, none of you are right, and more to the point, none of you are wrong.
Without a written constitution which specifies what Scotland is, short of a State, it can be whatever we see fit to call it. Nobody would be breaking ANY rules if any of the three styles above were used.
What seems to be the basic problem here is that the Scotland article editors have sought to do something which the England, Wales and Northern Ireland editors have not, namely adopt a style of title which has not been adopted on any of these other articles. (Cries of "impudent Scots" and "why should they be different" are heard throughout the realms of Wikiworld).
As the Scotland article is supposedly superior in terms of layout and content to all the others, if the the England article adopted "England is a nation in northwest Europe and one of the four Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom", and the Wales article adopted "Wales is a Principality in northwest Europe and one of the four Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom", and the Northern Ireland article adopted "Northern Ireland is a Province in northwest Europe and one of the four Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom", then there would be no need for any of this nonsense.
The problem here is not what Scotland is styled in the article, but that the article fails to mirror those of the remaining UK constituent countries. Therefore the desire by certain editors to insist upon uniformity is what lies behind this - nothing more. Each to there own I say and leave well alone. Devolution if not outright Independence is alive and well in Wikiworld and nobody should have the right to stifle it. Vive La Différence! and lets concern ourselves with improving the quality of the article instead of sitting around picking flea crap out of pepper! Rab-k ( talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please sign below: —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichiganCharms ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
E -
Traditional unionist (
talk) 18:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
E -
Eddie6705 (
talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
D - "Scotland is a country in North West Europe that has been part of the United Kingdom for over 300 years". Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC):
Comment – C is the most accurate term although A or B could also legitimately be used, however A is
ambiguous and may be confused for
nation state.
Dan1980 (
talk |
stalk) 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
C, Because the other 'three' related article use it.
GoodDay (
talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been talked to death, no reasonable consensus can be reached because every 6 months it comes up again. Further a lot of editors here are in violation of WP:OWN and thus I did advocate bringing in others to build a consensus. But I hardly call this stacking or drumming up support. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a total farce. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 19:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the reason we can't use country? It's worlds less objectionable then nation and it was agreed to when this whole thing was initially started. I don't have a horse in this race, I don't care what word you put in there as long as it's accurate and agreeable and won't cause this same mess to be repeated every few months. Is there any objection to using country? - MichiganCharms ( talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the forementioned books? Those books are about the people of Scotland, they're not soley geography books.
GoodDay (
talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The objection to country here seems to be because of a massive case of WP:OWN - MichiganCharms ( talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
People, is it possible to have nation (or country) in this article's lead, without disrupting the article leads of England, Wales, Northern Ireland & above all United Kingdom? GoodDay ( talk) 22:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I accept nation or country in the lead here. PS- Deacon's got my attention about Wales, aswell. GoodDay ( talk) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Where is the official source that Scotland is a nation? I have several for "country" and "part" but nothing for nation. Statements not supported by a reliable source should be removed per policy. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
D - "country" and "nation" Laurel Bush ( talk) 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
B or C is acceptable. Scotland is clearly a country; whether it is also a nation depends on the exact meaning you attach to the word nation. There's a tendency to use the term nation to mean something different from sovereign state; Canada recently acknowledge Quebec as a nation, but that doesn't mean its a sovereign country. Let's call it a country, which is undeniably true, and leave arguing about nation to the rest of the article. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
C or at least B. This article should follow the norm of similar articles. So far the arguments for C and D are much more convincing. Inge ( talk) 11:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
C - Regardless of what many on wikipedia would like to have us believe people tend understand "nation" to refer to a sovereign state. Scotland, England, Wales etc are not nations. They are regions of the United Kingdom. "Constituent country" is the term which carries the least amount of nationalistic wishful thinking and is thus the best piece of nomenclature for this article. siarach ( talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Are the Scottish people a nation? -- Jza84 · ( talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to admit that having now read 'Scotland: The Story of a Nation' I formally agree that in this case it fits. My desire to make the four pieces of the puzzle that is the UK harmonized will either have to be abandoned or make Scotland the example. I'm leaning toward the former. The proposal: Can we please have the protection removed? - MichiganCharms ( talk) 07:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
To use an American expression; "you guys crack me up". The McCarthyist paranoia of Astrotrain re. nationalist conspirators is laughable. It may disappoint you that the Kingdom of Scotland didn't sink without trace into Magnæ Angliæ, but the distinctions between Scotland, England and the remainder of the UK exist, despite all that has gone on over the past four centuries. To be labelled a "nationalist" simply for pointing out such differences as referenced facts is ludicrous.
There is nothing contentious in the Scotland article as far as I and others are concerned. The drive for uniformity amongst the UK Constituent Country articles is the problem here, with some editors using this as an excuse to attack editors who appear to raise the status of Scotland to something above its supposed rightful place of mere Constituent Country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Scotland is not a State but a UK Constituent Country, however it is one whose status, enshrined in the Acts of Union 1707 and Government of Scotland Act 1998, has no equivalent. Even the Monarchy since 1603 has distinguished between Scotland and the remainder by using arms and other heraldic devices and titles specific to Scotland. These differences, in all their many forms, should be celebrated as part of the rich tapestry that makes up the UK and all it's parts - not crammed into a one-size-fits-all for the sake of uniformity.
Whether someone regards themselves as British first, last and always, or alternatively as a Scot whose only British aspect is the Passport which they have been issued, is irrelevant. The UK Constituent Country articles need not, should not and must not be driven by the misplaced need for uniformity for, as the facts outlined in each individual article will confirm, such a thing is in very short supply even within the UK itself. All the UK Constituent Countries differ from each other in their own way, why shouldn't this fact be reflected in the articles themselves? Rab-k ( talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have just picked up on all of this and I haven't really anything to add to what has been so eloquently said by others previously other than to stress my opposition to anything that would be done to shoehorn all of the Wiki articles on England, NI, Scotland and Wales into the same constitutional framework. Scotland was, after all, one of the founding kingdoms of the political union which evolved into the present UK, and that should be reflected. Regardless of which option is chosen, the four constituent partners in the UK are on a different footing and it would seem simply wrong-headed if the appropriate Wiki-articles did not reflect that disparity. Jaygtee ( talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would any patriotic Scotsman want to refer to themselves as a mere nation (which may be a group of people who may or may not have any kind of territorial autonomy - see Quebecois, Acadian nation, Kurdish nation etc.) when they can legitimately call themselves a country, implying at least some degree of territorial autonomy? It's also confusing to readers, who reading that Scotland is a nation may assume that they are a bunch of guys with no territory. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Editors who want to have 'nation' or 'country' in the lead? IMHO, need to first proove that Scotland is an independant Kingdom. GoodDay ( talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You can proove or dis-proove. Does Gord Brown's prime-ministerhsip cover Scotland? Is Elizabeth II seperately 'Queen of Scotland' from her position in England, Wales & Northern Ireland? Again, where's the beef? GoodDay ( talk) 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, nation or country don't apply unless Scotland is independant. Also, it's mild on PEI. GoodDay ( talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Noted, but I think the most NPOV term for this article? is constituent country. GoodDay ( talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In these last 'two days', I've gone from rejecting the usage of nation and/or 'country' to conditional supporting of the nation/country & who know about tommorow. Honestly, I considering departing this discussion for fear of loosing what little sanity I've got. GoodDay ( talk) 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Could this settle all disputes? - MichiganCharms ( talk) 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
... and one of the [[constituent countries]]<ref> The website of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom states that "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". {{cite web|url=http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp|title=Countries within a country|accessdate=2007-09-10|work=10 Downing Street}}</ref> that make up the [[United Kingdom]].
Although the term 'constituent countries' is sometimes used by official government bodies in the UK, such as the [[Office for National Statistics]], it is rarely used otherwise. Far more frequently, they are simply referred to as countries; thus the 2001 British Census asked residents of the UK their "country of birth" with tick box options of: Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland; England; Republic of Ireland and Elsewhere;<ref>[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp 2001 British Census.]</ref> and the [[Office for National Statistics]] states authoritatively in its glossary that "In the context of the UK, each of the four main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country".<ref>[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/glossary/c.asp Office for National Statistics.]</ref> The British Embassy in the [[United States]] uses the word 'countries' on its website, rather than constituent countries: "The United Kingdom is made up of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."<ref>[http://www.britainusa.com/sections/index_nt1.asp?i=41131&L1=41127&L2=41131&L3=41011&d=4 British Embassy in the United States of America.]</ref>
I would like to remind everyone here of Category:Scotland stubs. This talk page has become a gigantic hole in wikipedia's human resource tank. That category is full of useful things everyone can do. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).
But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm rather displeased that this issue is still taking up the time of good editors. As I've said above, I don't think it really is controversial to call Scotland a "nation", not least in Scotland where it is pretty standard, people or land irrespectively. Being Scottish myself, and knowing the spectra of the ideological atmosphere, I know that an objection to this status has a good chance of coming across as mildly offensive, even to Scots who aren't particularly "nationalistic". Among non-Scots and more particularly among people living outside the British Isles, this usage can fall out of line to some extent with what many often expect the term "nation" to mean, i.e. a "sovereign state". This I think is a fair summary of the arguments by GoodDay and others. I think I was right earlier when I perhaps pretentiously described this as tension within the " Discourse community", and this I think rather than "British nationalist" v "Scottish nationalist" accounts for as much if not most of the argumentation here. I think this can be worked out though, and it'd certainly help if we avoided all mention of nationalism, accurate or not, as it is unlikely to do any good beyond polarizing the discussion. I thereby forward an alternative wording. The main concern is to find a line between stating "nation" or "country" as fact and stating it as opinion too strongly, thereby making it appear spurious and thus offensive and perhaps misrepresentative of the majority of usage:
If everyone can tell me what they think of this suggestion, I'd be interested to know. If you see problems, I'd be interested to know too, so I can maybe try again. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW gets my vote. Rab-k ( talk) 14:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, FWIW, I consider the suggestion put forward by Breadandcheese to be an ideal compromise. Rab-k ( talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I support Deacon's proposal. GoodDay ( talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have just updated the archive summary for A15. The discussion that continues here was raised no fewer than five times in that archive. I applaud the ongoing efforts of all who continue to contribute to the debate and attempt to reach a consensus. Nonetheless, to me, the most remarkable feature of the discussion is that whilst many new facts and references were presented, few truly new ideas emerged. In the same vein, it is to be hoped that some form of wording will be found that appeals to most if not all, and I don't want to discourage that process. However, I feel compelled to suggest that whilst one or other of the variants above may be marginally better than the existing phraseology they are all, to my mind, minor re-workings. For example, Globaltraveller queries the use of 'country' twice in quick succession, and he has a point. Presumably one of the reasons the existing phrase lasted so long is that it avoids this problem. There is further small problem with the use of "occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain" in this context. The existing wording cleverly avoids the implication that mainland Scotland is all and the whole, but the variants above suggest that it is by moving the phrase forward. I am not particularly attached, but in all honesty I can't see anything above that I believe to be a significant improvement to the current version (and nor are any significantly worse). Perhaps as a penance for being unhelpful I will try and develop the existing archive summary, which does not do justice the length and complexity of this dialogue. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Scotland still constitutes a distinct jurisdiction in public and in private law
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.
However, Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state and does not have independent membership of either the United Nations or the European Union.
I would agree with you concerning haggis,I love the taste(although their damn difficult to catch),but let's be honest,other than some weddings how many people do you see walking about Glasgow,Dundee or Edinburgh wearing the kilt?-- Jack forbes ( talk) 12:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On a completely different note the sentence in the article which readsThe deposed Jacobite Stuart claimants had remained popular in the highlands and north-east,particularly non-Presbyterians.Were they Roman Catholics or other denominations?I just find it would be more informative to the reader if this was explained in a little more detail?-- Jack forbes ( talk) 15:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's my understanding that some Presbyterians took the side of the Jacobites as well as Episcopalians and catholics,so there was a wide range of different beliefs fighting for the same cause!-- Jack forbes ( talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
To quote the helpful text above this edit box, this page is 135 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance. I'm not well-versed on the question of which label best introduces Scotland to the layman, but I think that the sheer volume of verbiage on this talk page doesn't do much to achieve consensus on the issues. -- SSB ohio 03:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My point for removing the quote that edinburgh is a major Financial center in Europe is that it is an exgeration, the article it cites as reference is in relation to the use of Edinburgh for in managing funds, there are number of reasons I felt uncomfortable with this.
i. The line is leaping to a conclusion drawn from one statement, the website referenced cites Edinburgh as 'Europe's 6th Largest Fund Management Center', Fair enough, it however says nowhere however that Edinburgh is 'one of Europe's largest financial centres' as the article says, this is in my view very misleading given that you simply cannot saying that edinburgh is a leading center from that one line.
ii. The main article sites an article from a clearly promotionary website 'www.edinburghbrand.com' that I feel would be biased and so not in the spirit of an independent encyclopedic entry
iii. A center for managing funds, and placement only in 6th in Europe does not, and im speaking as a proffesional economist employed within Funds here, qualify the city to have recognition as a 'Leading' financial center, simply because of the global, fluid nature of funds, of the money they (funds) make, very little of it would be brought back to Edinburgh itself where it can be argued it is simply a domicile, most likely due to tax incentives, for the fund rather than the actual 'home' if you will of the fund, as for example the substantial number of Funds managed out of Dublin, Ireland does not in anyones mind make it a leading financial center. If nothing else a city 'which ranks as sixth amongst European centres of managing funds, europe initself an over all very distant second to the United States and has no other claims to be in any way influential in finance through perhaps a stock exchange, banking (except for RBC being based there little else of global importance) center or comodities exchange.
iv. If nothing else, in terms of aesthetics, the comment seemed out of place within the opening paragraph and should of at least have been moved to perhaps a paragraph about Edinburgh itself, not in the opening paragraph. Also oddly, despite Edinburgh's supposed prominence as a financial center in Europe I was surprised to see it was not mentioned in the paragraph about Scotland's Economy on the main page, and in the Article about Scotland's economy the statement that Edinburgh is sixth largest financial center in Europe is not referenced at all.
I apologise for not leaving a reason as to why I removed the comment, I haven't edited a page on Wikipedia before i was simply unaware! I hope this justifies the removal of the comment from the page, until at least some stronger evidence is produced to back the statment up. But upon reading the comment it seemed very misleading overly promotional and not at all in keeping with what a great resource like wikipedia should be, unbiased and honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.174.127 ( talk) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
OK I agree Perhaps outright Removal of the reference was rash, but I still feel uncomfortable with the comment as is, especially as it has a paper-thin reference, If more honesty were applied to the comment, something along the lines of 'a regionally important financial center'? or maybe remove the comment from its current location to somewhere Edinburgh specific leaving it out of the introductory paragraphs? where it seems somewhat out of place to my eye even if it were true, because as it is now, as has been pointed out the statement rings untrue, seems overtly promotional (and not educational) and likely to attract further disagreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.174.127 ( talk) 22:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
A country is eather a soverine state or a nation.It's not a soverien state because it's not independent, and its not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 04:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Fishiehelper, my refference is the country article. And Gazzster, england is not a country. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 09:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The government of the UK is biased to wether Scotland is a country. It says what the Scotish want to think. And I've got 2 refferences for Scotland not being a country: Phillip's Great World Atlas and Colin's World Atlas. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Your view is wrong; if France and Germany become dependent on the EU they will no longer be countries. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 06:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Why not simply avoid the word country or nation in respect to Scotland or England before 1707, without prejudice?-- Gazzster ( talk) 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The article's map (at the top) should be fixed. It currently doesn't have the rest of the UK shaded (like the maps at England, Wales and Northern Ireland) articles. GoodDay ( talk) 17:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Scotland is a part of the UK, and that should be reflected in the European map. The current 'lack of shading of the rest of the UK', gives the erroneous impression that Scotland is independant. GoodDay ( talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have boldly made the change, for consistency with other articles, which I hope nobody disputes the importance of. The original map (now replaced) is part of the series at commons:Category:Locator maps of countries of Europe, before the POV fork was made and installed here. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean I don't believe this. Here we go again. This is about a map showing the location of Scotland (yes, just Scotland, not the UK) in Europe. It infers absolutely nothing about the constitutional status of Scotland. It has nothing to do with whether Scotland is independent or not. That is totally irrelevant to a map. Globaltraveller ( talk) 20:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Put quite simply and as has been stated above, the map is for purely identifying where Scotland is located. It is not above showing whether it is in Europe or the UK. It is not about showing whether Scotland is part of the UK or Europe. It is above showing where Scotland (and not Scotland-UK, or Scotland-EU) is located. The principle would be exactly the same whether the larger map was of the Northern Hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere or purely the island of Great Britain alone. It is not about locating Scotland in concert with its constitutional arrangements. Globaltraveller ( talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
While being accused of wanting people to leave, I was in fact elsewhere, writing on GoodDay's ( talk) page. Just to clarify, I don't want anyone to leave, on the contrary, I want to influence and to be be influenced. My earlier comment, (edited), was more frustration at the one-size-must-fit-all mentality exhibited by some who insist that this article must conform to others. GoodDay has advised me that he has left the discussion, but for what its worth, here is my tuppenceworth which forms part of my reply to GoodDay:
Regards Rab-k ( talk) 21:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why dont you enlighten me...I would sincerly like to know what is enlightening about my Userpage/talk page...-- Camaeron ( t/ c) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
What I personally think is the single most embarrassing "consensus" I've seen been told about on Wikipedia: "Scotland is a nation". A cursory glance shows this is still objected to by others fairly frequently (
[1]
[2]). And so, as it also annoys the hell out of me, I'm raising it again: A
nation is a community or group of people (like the
Nation of Islam - ugly example I know), not a division of land. Scotland is a country (or constituent country - whatever's the preference).
I know the Scottish psyke ensures that Scotland is promoted to be nothing less than a country (even Britannica - sorry - reports on this), which is what I think, but can't prove, is part of the issue here. But really, that an odd few bad literaturists said Scotland was/is a nation and then asserting it here as somehow being "verifiable" is... well... not good.
Also, if the Scottish people are a nation (have a look), then how is Scotland a nation too? Seems to be double standards here.... in good faith, of course.
I suppose the question is, where exactly is this consensus? What is it based on? Has it ever been codified? Are there any alternatives we might want to consider? I don't think that the use of "nation" is in the article's best interests. Just my 2p worth. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
“ | After considerable discussion there is an informal consensus amongst Scottish Wikipedians that Scotland is a nation and a country, although clearly not a sovreign nation state. See Archives 1, 2 (twice) 3, 6, 11 (twice), 13 and 14.
“Scotland is a nation, by accordance to most modern definitions of a nation, here is one such example "Nations are essentially cohesive cultural communities with a strong self-identity. Many states contain several nations and, consequently, many nations do not have their own state." Archive 1 (A1). “Although nation, country and state are often used as synonyms, they do in fact all have different meanings: nation is a cultural designation; country is geographical; and state is political (and not necessarily a fully sovereign entity either, eg Idaho).” A6 |
” |
I recently took a break from watching this page and I am now reminded why. The fact is that there are two different views and it is highly unlikely that both will ever be satisfied. The discussion then goes round and round in circles because the minority don't get their way. Is there no protocol we can use to time bar re-iterations to say six-monthly intervals? This is the fourth discussion on this topic since August. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 08:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the reasons above for the inclusion of nation in the opening sentence. Nation is inextricably linked with territory and this article details so much about Scotland's people and its culture that it chimes with the Wikipedia definition of nation - "A nation is a form of self-defined cultural and social community." Yup, Scotland is all of that, as this article makes abundantly clear. However I would be happy with "country" along the lines of the suggestion from User:Fishiehelper2 above ("Scotland is a country in north-west Europe which has been part of the United Kingdom for 300 years") in place of this totally ridiculous "Constituent Country" nonsense, which is something I have a great deal more trouble with as it represents nothing more than a Wikipedia invention. Thanks Globaltraveller ( talk) 12:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And from the same article: "Possibly the most common usage of the word "community" indicates a large group living in close proximity."
Again there is reference to space, place and to territory.
But this is just going round and round in circles and isn't getting anyone far at all. The reasons for "nation" being included in the article have been set out, by others, above. It is absolutely crystal clear. I'm sorry you might not like that, but that is the way it is and has been for a long time. I have absolutely no problem with Scotland being referred to as a nation (palpably it is) but I am entirely agnostic on its use in the article and in the first sentence in particular. My strict preference would be to switch "nation" to "country" (and get rid of this "constituent country" term), but am happy to go with the status quo - for the durability of the term on article, if nothing else. And that, as others have said is a good indication of "worth". Globaltraveller ( talk) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you may wish to read what has been written by many contributors above on the nation, country, state distinction. You may also wish to take a look at the vast talk archives on this very subject. More importantly please don't revert the article again, on what has been a long standing part of the Lead until a consensus of editors determines a way forward. Thanks Globaltraveller ( talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: If we're gonna have nation in this article's lead? we may aswell add the same to Wales, England and Northern Ireland article's lead. It's either all four or none. GoodDay ( talk) 22:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. What the editors of those articles determine on is up to them. I wasn't aware Wikipedia was in the process of creating identikit, paint-by-numbers articles, that have an exact formula to hold to. Globaltraveller ( talk) 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend none, by the way. Afterall, the Nation of Islam, Leafs Nation, various Aboriginal Nations aren't countries. GoodDay ( talk) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comparing Quebec with Scotland is not really adding anything to this debate. Frankly I couldn't really care less about Quebec or Canada, or how the arguments there relate to those here (for very distinct reasons, I don't think they are comparable). What editors on those articles determine is up to them. Globaltraveller ( talk) 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Why does the article deserve special treatment, concerning the usage of nation? Why can't those who want 'nation' included, see that it's problematic? PS: I'm not trying to be a party pooper, I just want to understand why it's so important to have nation in the lead. Please note - I'm not going to revert. GoodDay ( talk) 17:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
By saying special treatment? I was wondering why England, Wales & Northern Ireland don't have nation in there articles. Also, I've not accused anyone of being Scottish nationalist or British nationalist or any political profile. GoodDay ( talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I've requested that this article have full protection, until this discussion has been resolved. GoodDay ( talk) 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The page has been 'fully' protected. GoodDay ( talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking there needs to be a new UK MOS that deals with these issues. Personally, the 4 constituents of the UK should all have the same opening sentence in my opinion, that's really the only way for this to work. With all respect to Scottish editors here, do you think that perhaps there's just a wee bit of nationalistic pride here (I don't mean the SNP kind)? Ultimately at the end of the day we're writing an encyclopaedia here, and our main concern should be the readers. To that end standardising the UK articles is the most logical choice. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Comparing the UK to the EU shows the exact kind of bias that we're dealing with here. The UK is clearly not the same thing, the UK is a sovereign state. The reason this is needed is because otherwise we run a major risk of POV taking over these articles, and we can't have that. If the consensus here was to say 'Scotland is a soon to be independent nation in north-western Europe' would that make it right? Sometimes content needs to be dictated, and I don't favour a blanket MOS for everything, just for referring to how the 4 constituents are referred to, because there has been a lot of controversy here and on the other articles. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Dare I say again (I dare)? Northern Ireland, England, Scotland & Wales are currently constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Their respective peoples are 'nations'. GoodDay ( talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Can all the Scottish editors please try to look at this objectively? Why should Virginia have the same intro as Alaska? Because legally they hold the same status. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Something needs to be done. There are a lot more important issues then what word is used in the opening, why doesn't one of Scottish editors write to their MSP and ask for an official opinion? The editors on the Wales article did it. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia works by building consensus. Nobody owns any articles here, and the goal is to build consensus. There's no consensus here, is there? Every few months someone brings it up and it goes back and forth from country to nation because neither quite appease everyone. I personally don't see why this article has to be different from England, Wales and NI except for the editors here are strongly against it. I think, like in virtually all things, it's impossible for people close to the situation to make rational judgements. In situations like this it's best to appeal to someone from the outside, an admin with no ties to Scotland or the UK and let them comment. However, I'm sure this solution will also be objected to. The point remains you can't reach consensus so something needs to be done, and yes that means having a solution dictated to you here. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am an outsider to this issue. (I came here to disamb Celtic.) I know you all want the article to be what you feel is right, but please know the harm by keeping out editors. If the edit war is so bad maybe the editors should be the ones under review. Also the text on an attempt to edit is semi not full which is apparently the reality. Dimitrii ( talk) 22:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is my proposal to fix the situation, hopefully it's satisfactory. User:MichiganCharms/Sandbox - MichiganCharms ( talk) 15:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Clicking on country in my proposal links to constituent country, thus killing the possible confusion. I think we have broad consesnus. I think it might be best to standardise them all under 'country'- MichiganCharms ( talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In agreement with Mais. There was a fight over the inclusion of country at Northern Ireland months ago. Again people, the four interlocked articles should use the same terminology. GoodDay ( talk) 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Repeating myself: If we add 'nation' to the lead 'here'? we add 'nation' to the leads of Wales, England and Northern Ireland, there's no other acceptable way. GoodDay ( talk) 16:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Since they've all been sending MPs to the UK Parliament. GoodDay ( talk) 17:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
They're MPs & Lords/Ladies representing Scotland, Wales, England & Northern Ireland in the UK Parliament. Equal Status. GoodDay ( talk) 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Why are you comparing 'regions' with 'constituent countries'? One is within the other. GoodDay ( talk) 17:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
An MP from NEE? is equal to an MP from Glasgow. Why? They're all within the UK. GoodDay ( talk) 17:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What makes Scotland more of a country then England? Why is constituent country acceptable for three quarters of the the UK but not Scotland? - MichiganCharms ( talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This country – constituent country – nation thing is verging on the ridiculous. Scotland is a country, a constituent country, a nation – all three are verifiably correct. There is nothing set in stone that says the UK country articles must use the same description. If a consensus was to be developed for simply country without the constituent, what's the problem? The article itself describes its relationship within the UK. Bill Reid | Talk 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like 'Brits' versus 'nats' again. Either way you are all going around in circles. Scotland is NOT A STATE. We are all agreed on that score. However, as for the rest, none of you are right, and more to the point, none of you are wrong.
Without a written constitution which specifies what Scotland is, short of a State, it can be whatever we see fit to call it. Nobody would be breaking ANY rules if any of the three styles above were used.
What seems to be the basic problem here is that the Scotland article editors have sought to do something which the England, Wales and Northern Ireland editors have not, namely adopt a style of title which has not been adopted on any of these other articles. (Cries of "impudent Scots" and "why should they be different" are heard throughout the realms of Wikiworld).
As the Scotland article is supposedly superior in terms of layout and content to all the others, if the the England article adopted "England is a nation in northwest Europe and one of the four Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom", and the Wales article adopted "Wales is a Principality in northwest Europe and one of the four Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom", and the Northern Ireland article adopted "Northern Ireland is a Province in northwest Europe and one of the four Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom", then there would be no need for any of this nonsense.
The problem here is not what Scotland is styled in the article, but that the article fails to mirror those of the remaining UK constituent countries. Therefore the desire by certain editors to insist upon uniformity is what lies behind this - nothing more. Each to there own I say and leave well alone. Devolution if not outright Independence is alive and well in Wikiworld and nobody should have the right to stifle it. Vive La Différence! and lets concern ourselves with improving the quality of the article instead of sitting around picking flea crap out of pepper! Rab-k ( talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please sign below: —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichiganCharms ( talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
E -
Traditional unionist (
talk) 18:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
E -
Eddie6705 (
talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
D - "Scotland is a country in North West Europe that has been part of the United Kingdom for over 300 years". Cheers Fishiehelper2 ( talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC):
Comment – C is the most accurate term although A or B could also legitimately be used, however A is
ambiguous and may be confused for
nation state.
Dan1980 (
talk |
stalk) 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
C, Because the other 'three' related article use it.
GoodDay (
talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been talked to death, no reasonable consensus can be reached because every 6 months it comes up again. Further a lot of editors here are in violation of WP:OWN and thus I did advocate bringing in others to build a consensus. But I hardly call this stacking or drumming up support. - MichiganCharms ( talk) 19:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a total farce. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 19:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the reason we can't use country? It's worlds less objectionable then nation and it was agreed to when this whole thing was initially started. I don't have a horse in this race, I don't care what word you put in there as long as it's accurate and agreeable and won't cause this same mess to be repeated every few months. Is there any objection to using country? - MichiganCharms ( talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As for the forementioned books? Those books are about the people of Scotland, they're not soley geography books.
GoodDay (
talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The objection to country here seems to be because of a massive case of WP:OWN - MichiganCharms ( talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
People, is it possible to have nation (or country) in this article's lead, without disrupting the article leads of England, Wales, Northern Ireland & above all United Kingdom? GoodDay ( talk) 22:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I accept nation or country in the lead here. PS- Deacon's got my attention about Wales, aswell. GoodDay ( talk) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Where is the official source that Scotland is a nation? I have several for "country" and "part" but nothing for nation. Statements not supported by a reliable source should be removed per policy. -- Jza84 · ( talk) 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
D - "country" and "nation" Laurel Bush ( talk) 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
B or C is acceptable. Scotland is clearly a country; whether it is also a nation depends on the exact meaning you attach to the word nation. There's a tendency to use the term nation to mean something different from sovereign state; Canada recently acknowledge Quebec as a nation, but that doesn't mean its a sovereign country. Let's call it a country, which is undeniably true, and leave arguing about nation to the rest of the article. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
C or at least B. This article should follow the norm of similar articles. So far the arguments for C and D are much more convincing. Inge ( talk) 11:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
C - Regardless of what many on wikipedia would like to have us believe people tend understand "nation" to refer to a sovereign state. Scotland, England, Wales etc are not nations. They are regions of the United Kingdom. "Constituent country" is the term which carries the least amount of nationalistic wishful thinking and is thus the best piece of nomenclature for this article. siarach ( talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Are the Scottish people a nation? -- Jza84 · ( talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to admit that having now read 'Scotland: The Story of a Nation' I formally agree that in this case it fits. My desire to make the four pieces of the puzzle that is the UK harmonized will either have to be abandoned or make Scotland the example. I'm leaning toward the former. The proposal: Can we please have the protection removed? - MichiganCharms ( talk) 07:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
To use an American expression; "you guys crack me up". The McCarthyist paranoia of Astrotrain re. nationalist conspirators is laughable. It may disappoint you that the Kingdom of Scotland didn't sink without trace into Magnæ Angliæ, but the distinctions between Scotland, England and the remainder of the UK exist, despite all that has gone on over the past four centuries. To be labelled a "nationalist" simply for pointing out such differences as referenced facts is ludicrous.
There is nothing contentious in the Scotland article as far as I and others are concerned. The drive for uniformity amongst the UK Constituent Country articles is the problem here, with some editors using this as an excuse to attack editors who appear to raise the status of Scotland to something above its supposed rightful place of mere Constituent Country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Scotland is not a State but a UK Constituent Country, however it is one whose status, enshrined in the Acts of Union 1707 and Government of Scotland Act 1998, has no equivalent. Even the Monarchy since 1603 has distinguished between Scotland and the remainder by using arms and other heraldic devices and titles specific to Scotland. These differences, in all their many forms, should be celebrated as part of the rich tapestry that makes up the UK and all it's parts - not crammed into a one-size-fits-all for the sake of uniformity.
Whether someone regards themselves as British first, last and always, or alternatively as a Scot whose only British aspect is the Passport which they have been issued, is irrelevant. The UK Constituent Country articles need not, should not and must not be driven by the misplaced need for uniformity for, as the facts outlined in each individual article will confirm, such a thing is in very short supply even within the UK itself. All the UK Constituent Countries differ from each other in their own way, why shouldn't this fact be reflected in the articles themselves? Rab-k ( talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have just picked up on all of this and I haven't really anything to add to what has been so eloquently said by others previously other than to stress my opposition to anything that would be done to shoehorn all of the Wiki articles on England, NI, Scotland and Wales into the same constitutional framework. Scotland was, after all, one of the founding kingdoms of the political union which evolved into the present UK, and that should be reflected. Regardless of which option is chosen, the four constituent partners in the UK are on a different footing and it would seem simply wrong-headed if the appropriate Wiki-articles did not reflect that disparity. Jaygtee ( talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would any patriotic Scotsman want to refer to themselves as a mere nation (which may be a group of people who may or may not have any kind of territorial autonomy - see Quebecois, Acadian nation, Kurdish nation etc.) when they can legitimately call themselves a country, implying at least some degree of territorial autonomy? It's also confusing to readers, who reading that Scotland is a nation may assume that they are a bunch of guys with no territory. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 22:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Editors who want to have 'nation' or 'country' in the lead? IMHO, need to first proove that Scotland is an independant Kingdom. GoodDay ( talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You can proove or dis-proove. Does Gord Brown's prime-ministerhsip cover Scotland? Is Elizabeth II seperately 'Queen of Scotland' from her position in England, Wales & Northern Ireland? Again, where's the beef? GoodDay ( talk) 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, nation or country don't apply unless Scotland is independant. Also, it's mild on PEI. GoodDay ( talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Noted, but I think the most NPOV term for this article? is constituent country. GoodDay ( talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In these last 'two days', I've gone from rejecting the usage of nation and/or 'country' to conditional supporting of the nation/country & who know about tommorow. Honestly, I considering departing this discussion for fear of loosing what little sanity I've got. GoodDay ( talk) 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Could this settle all disputes? - MichiganCharms ( talk) 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
... and one of the [[constituent countries]]<ref> The website of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom states that "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". {{cite web|url=http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp|title=Countries within a country|accessdate=2007-09-10|work=10 Downing Street}}</ref> that make up the [[United Kingdom]].
Although the term 'constituent countries' is sometimes used by official government bodies in the UK, such as the [[Office for National Statistics]], it is rarely used otherwise. Far more frequently, they are simply referred to as countries; thus the 2001 British Census asked residents of the UK their "country of birth" with tick box options of: Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland; England; Republic of Ireland and Elsewhere;<ref>[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp 2001 British Census.]</ref> and the [[Office for National Statistics]] states authoritatively in its glossary that "In the context of the UK, each of the four main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country".<ref>[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/glossary/c.asp Office for National Statistics.]</ref> The British Embassy in the [[United States]] uses the word 'countries' on its website, rather than constituent countries: "The United Kingdom is made up of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."<ref>[http://www.britainusa.com/sections/index_nt1.asp?i=41131&L1=41127&L2=41131&L3=41011&d=4 British Embassy in the United States of America.]</ref>
I would like to remind everyone here of Category:Scotland stubs. This talk page has become a gigantic hole in wikipedia's human resource tank. That category is full of useful things everyone can do. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).
But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 23:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm rather displeased that this issue is still taking up the time of good editors. As I've said above, I don't think it really is controversial to call Scotland a "nation", not least in Scotland where it is pretty standard, people or land irrespectively. Being Scottish myself, and knowing the spectra of the ideological atmosphere, I know that an objection to this status has a good chance of coming across as mildly offensive, even to Scots who aren't particularly "nationalistic". Among non-Scots and more particularly among people living outside the British Isles, this usage can fall out of line to some extent with what many often expect the term "nation" to mean, i.e. a "sovereign state". This I think is a fair summary of the arguments by GoodDay and others. I think I was right earlier when I perhaps pretentiously described this as tension within the " Discourse community", and this I think rather than "British nationalist" v "Scottish nationalist" accounts for as much if not most of the argumentation here. I think this can be worked out though, and it'd certainly help if we avoided all mention of nationalism, accurate or not, as it is unlikely to do any good beyond polarizing the discussion. I thereby forward an alternative wording. The main concern is to find a line between stating "nation" or "country" as fact and stating it as opinion too strongly, thereby making it appear spurious and thus offensive and perhaps misrepresentative of the majority of usage:
If everyone can tell me what they think of this suggestion, I'd be interested to know. If you see problems, I'd be interested to know too, so I can maybe try again. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 05:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW gets my vote. Rab-k ( talk) 14:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, FWIW, I consider the suggestion put forward by Breadandcheese to be an ideal compromise. Rab-k ( talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I support Deacon's proposal. GoodDay ( talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I have just updated the archive summary for A15. The discussion that continues here was raised no fewer than five times in that archive. I applaud the ongoing efforts of all who continue to contribute to the debate and attempt to reach a consensus. Nonetheless, to me, the most remarkable feature of the discussion is that whilst many new facts and references were presented, few truly new ideas emerged. In the same vein, it is to be hoped that some form of wording will be found that appeals to most if not all, and I don't want to discourage that process. However, I feel compelled to suggest that whilst one or other of the variants above may be marginally better than the existing phraseology they are all, to my mind, minor re-workings. For example, Globaltraveller queries the use of 'country' twice in quick succession, and he has a point. Presumably one of the reasons the existing phrase lasted so long is that it avoids this problem. There is further small problem with the use of "occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain" in this context. The existing wording cleverly avoids the implication that mainland Scotland is all and the whole, but the variants above suggest that it is by moving the phrase forward. I am not particularly attached, but in all honesty I can't see anything above that I believe to be a significant improvement to the current version (and nor are any significantly worse). Perhaps as a penance for being unhelpful I will try and develop the existing archive summary, which does not do justice the length and complexity of this dialogue. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Scotland still constitutes a distinct jurisdiction in public and in private law
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.
However, Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state and does not have independent membership of either the United Nations or the European Union.
I would agree with you concerning haggis,I love the taste(although their damn difficult to catch),but let's be honest,other than some weddings how many people do you see walking about Glasgow,Dundee or Edinburgh wearing the kilt?-- Jack forbes ( talk) 12:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On a completely different note the sentence in the article which readsThe deposed Jacobite Stuart claimants had remained popular in the highlands and north-east,particularly non-Presbyterians.Were they Roman Catholics or other denominations?I just find it would be more informative to the reader if this was explained in a little more detail?-- Jack forbes ( talk) 15:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It's my understanding that some Presbyterians took the side of the Jacobites as well as Episcopalians and catholics,so there was a wide range of different beliefs fighting for the same cause!-- Jack forbes ( talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
To quote the helpful text above this edit box, this page is 135 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance. I'm not well-versed on the question of which label best introduces Scotland to the layman, but I think that the sheer volume of verbiage on this talk page doesn't do much to achieve consensus on the issues. -- SSB ohio 03:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
My point for removing the quote that edinburgh is a major Financial center in Europe is that it is an exgeration, the article it cites as reference is in relation to the use of Edinburgh for in managing funds, there are number of reasons I felt uncomfortable with this.
i. The line is leaping to a conclusion drawn from one statement, the website referenced cites Edinburgh as 'Europe's 6th Largest Fund Management Center', Fair enough, it however says nowhere however that Edinburgh is 'one of Europe's largest financial centres' as the article says, this is in my view very misleading given that you simply cannot saying that edinburgh is a leading center from that one line.
ii. The main article sites an article from a clearly promotionary website 'www.edinburghbrand.com' that I feel would be biased and so not in the spirit of an independent encyclopedic entry
iii. A center for managing funds, and placement only in 6th in Europe does not, and im speaking as a proffesional economist employed within Funds here, qualify the city to have recognition as a 'Leading' financial center, simply because of the global, fluid nature of funds, of the money they (funds) make, very little of it would be brought back to Edinburgh itself where it can be argued it is simply a domicile, most likely due to tax incentives, for the fund rather than the actual 'home' if you will of the fund, as for example the substantial number of Funds managed out of Dublin, Ireland does not in anyones mind make it a leading financial center. If nothing else a city 'which ranks as sixth amongst European centres of managing funds, europe initself an over all very distant second to the United States and has no other claims to be in any way influential in finance through perhaps a stock exchange, banking (except for RBC being based there little else of global importance) center or comodities exchange.
iv. If nothing else, in terms of aesthetics, the comment seemed out of place within the opening paragraph and should of at least have been moved to perhaps a paragraph about Edinburgh itself, not in the opening paragraph. Also oddly, despite Edinburgh's supposed prominence as a financial center in Europe I was surprised to see it was not mentioned in the paragraph about Scotland's Economy on the main page, and in the Article about Scotland's economy the statement that Edinburgh is sixth largest financial center in Europe is not referenced at all.
I apologise for not leaving a reason as to why I removed the comment, I haven't edited a page on Wikipedia before i was simply unaware! I hope this justifies the removal of the comment from the page, until at least some stronger evidence is produced to back the statment up. But upon reading the comment it seemed very misleading overly promotional and not at all in keeping with what a great resource like wikipedia should be, unbiased and honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.174.127 ( talk) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
OK I agree Perhaps outright Removal of the reference was rash, but I still feel uncomfortable with the comment as is, especially as it has a paper-thin reference, If more honesty were applied to the comment, something along the lines of 'a regionally important financial center'? or maybe remove the comment from its current location to somewhere Edinburgh specific leaving it out of the introductory paragraphs? where it seems somewhat out of place to my eye even if it were true, because as it is now, as has been pointed out the statement rings untrue, seems overtly promotional (and not educational) and likely to attract further disagreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.174.127 ( talk) 22:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
A country is eather a soverine state or a nation.It's not a soverien state because it's not independent, and its not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 04:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Fishiehelper, my refference is the country article. And Gazzster, england is not a country. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 09:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The government of the UK is biased to wether Scotland is a country. It says what the Scotish want to think. And I've got 2 refferences for Scotland not being a country: Phillip's Great World Atlas and Colin's World Atlas. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Your view is wrong; if France and Germany become dependent on the EU they will no longer be countries. 122.105.217.71 ( talk) 06:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Why not simply avoid the word country or nation in respect to Scotland or England before 1707, without prejudice?-- Gazzster ( talk) 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The article's map (at the top) should be fixed. It currently doesn't have the rest of the UK shaded (like the maps at England, Wales and Northern Ireland) articles. GoodDay ( talk) 17:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Scotland is a part of the UK, and that should be reflected in the European map. The current 'lack of shading of the rest of the UK', gives the erroneous impression that Scotland is independant. GoodDay ( talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have boldly made the change, for consistency with other articles, which I hope nobody disputes the importance of. The original map (now replaced) is part of the series at commons:Category:Locator maps of countries of Europe, before the POV fork was made and installed here. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean I don't believe this. Here we go again. This is about a map showing the location of Scotland (yes, just Scotland, not the UK) in Europe. It infers absolutely nothing about the constitutional status of Scotland. It has nothing to do with whether Scotland is independent or not. That is totally irrelevant to a map. Globaltraveller ( talk) 20:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Put quite simply and as has been stated above, the map is for purely identifying where Scotland is located. It is not above showing whether it is in Europe or the UK. It is not about showing whether Scotland is part of the UK or Europe. It is above showing where Scotland (and not Scotland-UK, or Scotland-EU) is located. The principle would be exactly the same whether the larger map was of the Northern Hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere or purely the island of Great Britain alone. It is not about locating Scotland in concert with its constitutional arrangements. Globaltraveller ( talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
While being accused of wanting people to leave, I was in fact elsewhere, writing on GoodDay's ( talk) page. Just to clarify, I don't want anyone to leave, on the contrary, I want to influence and to be be influenced. My earlier comment, (edited), was more frustration at the one-size-must-fit-all mentality exhibited by some who insist that this article must conform to others. GoodDay has advised me that he has left the discussion, but for what its worth, here is my tuppenceworth which forms part of my reply to GoodDay:
Regards Rab-k ( talk) 21:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Why dont you enlighten me...I would sincerly like to know what is enlightening about my Userpage/talk page...-- Camaeron ( t/ c) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)