![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
The article has too many pictures in places at the moment. MOS:IMAGES indicates that sandwiching of text should be avoided and this happens quite a lot. In other places there are long sections of text with no illustrations. If anyone wants to make some decisions, or suggestions, about which images to keep (or add) that is fine by me. Otherwise I will make some selections and try to find copyright free pics to fill in the big gaps from relevant articles.-- SabreBD ( talk) 09:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Following from the discussion of the appropriateness of the UK Prime Minister being in the infobox, I have boldly removed Elizabeth II from the infobox, as she is Queen of the United Kingdom, not of Scotland (or indeed of Scots), and this is the Scotland article. Also, the style "Elizabeth II" is nonsensical in the context of Scotland. You can't have a second if you've never had a first. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 16:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth's regnal number is a seperate topic, though. GoodDay ( talk) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Aren't secondary sources preferred over primary sources? GoodDay ( talk) 19:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, England had 9 kings named Edward before 1707. ðarkun coll 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I have come to the party a bit late but i will give my opinion. Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom there for the monarch should absolutely be mentioned in the infobox. The Prime Minister of the UK who is responsible for the defence of the UK (which includes Scotland) also clearly needs to remain in the infobox. I strongly oppose these attempts to try and grossly mislead people into thinking Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom.
BritishWatcher (
talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Motto:
In My Defens God Me Defend (
Scots) (often shown abbreviated as IN DEFENS) | |
Anthem:
None (
de jure) Various de facto - see note 1 | |
![]() Location of Scotland/Archive 27 (orange) – in the
European continent (camel & white) | |
Capital |
Edinburgh 55°57′N 3°12′W / 55.950°N 3.200°W |
Largest city | Glasgow |
Official languages | English |
Recognised regional languages | Gaelic, Scots2 |
Ethnic groups | 89% Scottish, 7% English, Irish, Welsh, 4% other [1] |
Demonym(s) | Scots, Scottish3 |
Government | Devolved Government within a unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy4 |
Legislature | Scottish Parliament and United Kingdom Parliament4 |
Establishment
Early Middle Ages; exact date of establishment
unclear or disputed;
traditional 843, by
King Kenneth MacAlpin
[2] | |
Area | |
• Total | 78,772 km2 (30,414 sq mi) |
• Water (%) | 1.9 |
Population | |
• mid-2009 estimate | 5,194,000 [3] |
• 2001 census | 5,062,011 |
• Density | 65.9/km2 (170.7/sq mi) |
GDP ( PPP) | 2006 estimate |
• Total | US$194 billion citation needed |
• Per capita | US$39,680 citation needed |
Currency | Pound sterling ( GBP) |
Time zone | UTC0 (GMT) |
• Summer (
DST) | UTC+1 (BST) |
Driving side | left |
Calling code | 44 |
ISO 3166 code | GB-SCT |
Internet TLD | .uk5 |
|
I introduced changes tonight which were reverted. In my opinion the current fudged compromise creates a mess of a situation not worthy of an article with GA status. Main points:
The principal contributors and watch-keepers of this article need to address these issues or the status of the article itself will be open to challenge; the fudged compromises currently in place being detrimental to the quality of the article itself. 195.171.9.229 ( talk) 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
My proposed infobox is shown to the right. Please do not alter it but rather comment on my changes below. Changes concern:
195.171.9.229 ( talk) 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Being an old hand around here, I think I have a fairly good idea who this (ahem) "mystery" ip address is. Needless to say, it is a banned user. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 11:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed Monarch to Monarch of the United Kingdom, so nobody would mistake the Queen as Monarch of Scotland. GoodDay ( talk) 00:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Her current entry, erroneously appears as Monarch of Scotland. That's a potential for future problems. GoodDay ( talk) 15:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a wee tip: if User:GoodDay managed to contribute just ONE sane, constructive, informed, mature, decently referenced, non-WP:POINT edit to a Scotland-related article, then he might have a leg to stand on. However, after tens of thousands of edits, he has so far failed to acheive this simple assignment. Nuff said. (And as for "An IP's been complaining" -> don't make me larf /barf). Mais oui! ( talk) 15:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to be a genius to simply accept as basic fact the idea that people outside the UK quite often confuse the relationship between the sovereign state of the UK, and it's constituent parts. Given the fact that most of the time this works in England's favour (the "Queen of England" = EIIR etc), you'd think Scottish editors would be interested in making sure the infobox here was actually doing it's intended job of providing accurate information to those who come to find out about their country. As nice as it might make some people feel to believe otherwise, 'who is the Queen of Scotland' is not a question many people outside the UK would be able to answer in a heart-beat. And people who do know a bit about history, are likely to be confused because there is no literal "Queen of Scotland" anymore, just like there is no "Queen of England" anymore. If editors are claiming the infobox just sits there containing obvious facts everybody in the world already knows, then why does it even exist? People asserting there's no issue here, either have a problem escaping their personal world view, or are pushing an agenda. This article is for people who know nothing about Scotland, not the other way around. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hooray! GoodDay to the rescue to fix what isn't broken, AGAIN! -- LiamE ( talk) 04:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Both 'In defens' and 'Nemo me impune lacessit' are used on the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland, so why shouldn't we list both of them as National mottos? Furmonger ( talk) 21:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping to add the Dundee Repertory Theatre to the short sentence on theatres at the culture section but, it seems I am unable to do so at this time. Citizens Theatre is mentioned but it would be nice to include another to let people know of another specific theatre that deals in serious plays in another part of Scotland. If someone could do this for me I would be very grateful. Thanks. Carson101 ( talk) 16:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Re my last edit - nice pictures, but we already have 3 images of the Celestial City and we don't need uncited statements in the captions. Ben Mac Dui 20:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Three sources to state it's part of the UK? I don't think it being part of the UK is under any serious dispute, allot of people would LIKE to see it no longer part of the UK (and it's close but again, irrelevant) however, but that's not the same. Only one reliable source is needed to back up the articles claim that it's part of the UK surely? Let's see - Wales: 1, Northern Ireland: 2, England: Three. Goodness. Let's follow the Welsh Example perhaps, I dislike excessive cites, it's scruffy and not really needed. Goes for NI and England too. Kaiai.-- Τασουλα (Shalom!) ( talk) 20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP added the following sentences to the Etymology section: "A term used to honor Queen Scotia who was a Pharaoh's daughter according to the Four Masters. She was Queen of the invading Milesians or Gaels from northern Spain that conquered the Tuatha Dé Danann in Ireland.." I reverted it - patent nonsense, unreferenced, out of context, ungrammatical, unsupported by anything in the Etymology of Scotland article - but it was then re-inserted by User:Joshuajohnlee (with a {{cn}} tag), on the grounds of WP:NOCITE. That guidance also says "Use your common sense", so I have reverted it again on that basis. Unreferenced nonsense should have no place in a high profile good article like this. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, it has gotten to the point where nearly every day I sign on here, there is an edit to this article which changes "Part of the UK" to "consituant country of the UK" or, more reciently a "region of the UK"; this issue has been done to death and the current wording was decided on multiple times. Do not change it.-- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 09:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure. Two points:
I cannot count up to 2. Tim PF ( talk) 15:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't need edit comments there, not least ones several lines long. Just revert, and direct the editors doing this to the FAQ/archives. This is how its done everywhere else. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why we should have anything political such as Independence in the first few paragraphs, it has nothing to do with the previous paragraph and just jumps in: "They have announced their intention to hold a referendum on independence sometime during the second half of the present five-year parliamentary term". -- 81.147.26.123 ( talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
"Issues surrounding devolution and independence continue to be debated.", I don't see how Independence can come into this part either, Health education and many devolved matters come into it respectively though I don't see us singling out them either. -- 81.147.26.123 ( talk) 18:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Anything in regards to Independence or any party winning an Election should be in the Politics and Government section, not in the first few paragraphs, it does not fit in properly, I have removed it. 81.147.26.123 ( talk) 18:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed two parts of a paragraph as stated above 86.159.173.157 ( talk) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
In this article I read under "education": "The Scottish education system has always remained distinct from education in the rest of United Kingdom, with a characteristic emphasis on a broad education" Maybe, this is history? Martha Nussbaum writes in her book "Not for profit": "Scotland used to have a four-year B.A. degree, with the first year devoted to liberal arts courses. ... The standardization of higher education imposed by the EU's Bologna scheme, however, has made Scotland assimilate to the rest of Europe, rather than vice versa." -- 13Peewit ( talk) 21:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Back in 2009 (see archive 24), in one of those rare episodes of consensus breaking out spontaneously, we all seemed to agree that we should use the Scottish Govt GDP numbers, the ones with oil and gas shared geographically. When I looked today, we weren't, nor had we changed to nominal GDP or to pounds instead of dollars. If anyone wants to put the dollar value in, the IRS say that the average exchange rate during 2006 was 1 USD = 0.544 GBP here. I make it 225 billion, near enough. And if it's per capita you want, a nice round 5.1 million should be near enough for the population in 2006, see here, which works out at £24000/$44000. Since newspapers often tell readers that Scotland's GDP is 96% of the UK average and this article now says ~120% there should probably yet another footnote, as if there weren't too many already, put in the infobox to explain the apparent discrepancy. Then the papers, or those of them lazy enough to use Wikipedia as their fount of knowledge, could get things right. How likely is that? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need the "Lion Rampant" in the infobox? as I don't believe that it should be considered on equal grounds as the Scottish saltire as a flag representing Scotland. -- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 01:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
In the third paragraph of the Law and criminal justice section, it says "Many laws differ between Scotland and the rest of Britain, whereas many terms differ" Since "whereas" normally means "in contrast", what is this actually saying? That:
I would expect it to be the first, and I'm given to understand that in legal documents whereas may mean "it being the fact that", but that doesn't seem right here and this is not a legal document. 94.30.43.69 ( talk) 10:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could have a discussion about the number of enlisted Scots that lost their lives during the First World War? Below is what is already contained in the article:
"With a population of 4.8 million in 1911, Scotland sent 690,000 men to the war, of whom 74,000 died in combat or from disease, and 150,000 were seriously wounded.[72] R. A. Houston and W.W. J. Knox, eds. The New Penguin History of Scotland (2001) p 426"
Unfortunately I can not verify or examine further Houston and Knox's claim, since the links are not online. I do have some other online references.
Professor Niall Ferguson in "The Pity of War", the Scotsman newspaper and the Scottish National War memorial list other stats. [5] [6] [7]
Ferguson indicates 557,618 Scots were enlisted. Consequently, 26.4% lost their lives (British figure was 11%), which would make it 147,211 Scots lost their lives. Twice as much as the numbers contained in the existing wiki article. I would appreciate any comments. Newhabitat Newhabitat ( talk) 13:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Referring to it as Gaelic in Scotland is fine but when referring to it in a page that will be read by people from various different continents it must either state that Scottish or Scottish Gaelic is an offical language of Scotland rather than just Gaelic. Agreed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 ( talk) 14:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I suppose your right it's only really referred to as Scottish outside of Scotland. I only meant in the info box where it says official language someone had put just Gaelic. Which could be quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 ( talk) 09:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Right I understand we don't refer to it as Scottish in Scotland I made that clear in my reply. It is actually referred to as Scottish (not always) in America and other places. What we call it is irrelevant. Using Gaelic in the main article is fine however in the info box just simply putting Gaelic could confuse many people from outside Scotland as to wether they are talking about Scottish, Irish or Manx Gaelic. I actually use the term Scottish on it's own. I prefer it to Scot/Scots. I know other people who use it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 ( talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again, this article is turning into a picture gallery, with the text being squeezed between photos. Does the article need more than one photo of the modern Glasgow waterline? Is there any need at all for a large picture of the Glasgow Cineworld, hardly one of the most elegant buildings? AllyD ( talk) 13:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
A recent addition added virtually all of the Architecture of Scotland article. This contained quite a lot of unsourced material and I would suggest had too much detail for this article. I was going to restore this after a revert to sort out the image issues above, but then I realised was going on. It is probably just worth considering the issues here first, given the already considerable length of the article. So, do we need an architecture section; how long should it be and with what emphasis (eg. medieval/modern?).-- SabreBD ( talk) 16:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears to have been added to provide space to introduce the additional photos to the article. Some odd choices... Glasgow Science centre in a section on middle ages and Reformation architecture? Bizarre... no apparent connection between the photos either... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the above talk page in which some contributors have expressed the view that Scotland and Wales should be excluded because they are not "independent sovereign states". Any views one way or the other? -- TraceyR ( talk) 19:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little worried that too much weight is being given to one authors interpretation of the origins of the Dal Riata. One book by Ewan Campbell where he postulates that the Dal Riata came from the islands and lands either side of the Irish sea rather than solely a migration from Ireland does not appear to be a strong enough reason to include this in the etymology section. I could understand it being included if this was a mainstream view amongst scottish historians. If someone can show references that this is now the case then I stand corrected, otherwiswe I don't believe that this book should be given so much weight in what is a very short section. Carson101 ( talk) 17:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Most historians now disregard the migration/invasion theory. There is absolutely no historical or archaeological evidence describing such an event. It was a creationist myth popularised by Gaelic kings in the middle ages to foster closer ties with Ireland. The culture may have spread from Ireland (via Spain) however the people had always been there. Indeed permanent human settlements were established in the Western Isles several thousand years before Ireland was even inhabited. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.194.215.249 (
talk) 10:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the fact is the Dal Riata did not come from Ireland. There language may have came from there although it may just be the older form of celtic language spoken in the British Isles (Brythonic being a Romanised version of it). Unorthodox perhaps but a solid theory none the less. As I said. There is no archaeological evidence to suggest there was a migration/invasion. How could genetic studies prove a migration theory. Scottish and Irish people along with Welsh and English all share very similar gene types. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.194.215.249 (
talk) 11:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't the unorthodox theory. That's the opinion of the majority of modern day historians. My unorthodox theory was the one which questioned wether the goidelic branch of celtic language was merely a more ancient un-romanised form of celtic. And I know the Gaelic language theory would never be put on wikipedia. However the rejection of the migration/invasion of Irish tribes to Western Scotland is a widely accepted fact by as I said most modern day historians. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.104.197.62 (
talk) 16:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know people don't spring up out the ground. I've used that statement many times myself when arguing with so-called Irish-Scots. However it's a scientific fact that Scotland was permanently habitated by humans at least 2,000 years before a permanent human settlement was founded in Ireland (Ireland was also covered in ice you know). Adding this evidence to the fact that the majority of the Kingdom of Dal Riada was in Scotland (as well as it's seat of power) the most logical conclusion to come to is that rather than a migration from Ireland to Scotland it was a cultural conversion. Probably helped by the fact that the Dal Riadans were isolated from the rest of Scotland by the Cairngorm mountains. Hence it would be far easier to trade with Ireland just 30 miles across the sea than to attempt to trade with the expansionist Picts. Naturally as centuries of trade took place cultural values would have been adopted from the Irish as well as their language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 ( talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. That fact alone would prove next to nothing. However as I said Scotland was inhabited first. It's far more likely that Dal Riada was a Scottish kingdom that expanded into Ireland. I believe there is old Irish documents that refer to the Dal Riada in Ireland as Cruithin (a name they also used to refer to the Caledonians). I also remember that in Irish documents from the middles ages the Dal Riada have no recorded family ties with any of the Irish gaelic tribes. The evidence against an Ireland to Scotland migration is staggering. Frankly I question why you seem so adamant to reject these facts and continue with some popularised myth created as I said in the middle ages to foster closer relations with Ireland. It was also believed for centuries that Kenneth McAlpin was a Gael who conquered Pictland. However ancient documents in Paris proved that to be false. Kenneth McAlpin was in fact a Pict. If there is solid evidence to suggest a migration/invasion then please by all means enlighten me of it. However since there is literally none I question why it is put in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 ( talk) 09:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the language. I'm talking about the people. It claims the Dal Riada migrated from Ireland. That is as un-pheasable to me as North-to-South movement of Goidelic languages is to you. I even said earlier in this debate that a cultural conversion of the Dal Riadans was the most likely conclusion. The language and beliefs the the Irish Gaels spread to the peoples inhabiting the Western Isles of Scotland.
Well how could it be the Antrim ruling class. If the seat of power (and indeed the majority of the kingdom) was in Scotland. Is it not more logical that it was a Scottish ruling class that expanded into Ireland. As I have said the Irish referred to the Dal Riada in Ireland as Cruithin. A term also used for the Caledonians. Isn't it possible that this word was used to describe the people who lived in the land across the sea (Scotland). Just because they shared a cultural similarity with the Irish tribes does not mean the Dal Riadans were in fact an Irish tribe (or indeed ruled by the Irish) themselves. You could go even futher. The term 'foreign gael' was used by Irish scholars to describe people in the Western Isles of Scotland. Historians reckon this was due to the Viking settlement of the isles. However another theory could be that the Irish were in fact referencing the original inhabitants of the Isles (the Dal Riadans). After all they were Gaels but not Irish. And if this term was a reference to the vikings then why was it not used for the Viking settlers in Dublin and other parts of Ireland where Vikings awere simply referred to as Norse and their offspring referred to as Irish/Gaelic in time. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.194.215.249 (
talk) 13:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That still wouldn't explain why descendants of Gaelic/Viking intermarriage in Ireland were not named Gall-Ghaidheal though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 ( talk) 14:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Mr IP, It would really be nice if you would just type ~~~~ after your comments and then your IP number will come up without the bot having to find it. It makes replying to you much easier. Ta Bill Reid | ( talk) 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Really ? I would have thought there were more Norsemen in Ireland due to their settlement of what became major population centres. Sorry about the tilde thing. I would not be able to spot a Norse Gaelic placename I'm afraid Akerbeltz. I'll take you word for it though.
195.194.215.249 (
talk) 08:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Scottish aristocrats have alredy in the 15th century played football under well defined rules, the research found the Museum of Scottish football, according to the daily The Times. Until now it was believed that the earliest forms of football before the game for the 19th century in England was introduced clear rules, reduced to a brutal battle many players around the ball. 78.2.56.67 ( talk) 04:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no 'inventor' of football. Anyone can think of kicking a circular object around, it has probably been done for thousands of years. However the modern game of Association football was invented in England, that is a certifiable fact. Ben200 ( talk) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In the first and second world war section the last paragraph starts with, ""The Second World War brought renewed prosperity—as well as bombing of cities by the Luftwaffe."". I may be missing something and there is a book reference at the end of the paragraph. It is perhaps my fault that maybe I'm not reading it properly but that sentence does not appear to make sense. Does war and bombing by the Luftwaffe = prosperity? Anyone else puzzled by that sentence? Carson101 ( talk) 15:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I assume that, since this is an encyclopedia, that facts are important. I had added the UK legislature to the infobox so that it reads "Legislature: Scottish Parliament, UK Parliament". Can't see anything wrong with that. How bizarre it was that an editor simply undone by edit. I have undone his. Just thought I would write this onto the talk page. Joseph1990 ( talk) 22:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Lynch_359
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
The article has too many pictures in places at the moment. MOS:IMAGES indicates that sandwiching of text should be avoided and this happens quite a lot. In other places there are long sections of text with no illustrations. If anyone wants to make some decisions, or suggestions, about which images to keep (or add) that is fine by me. Otherwise I will make some selections and try to find copyright free pics to fill in the big gaps from relevant articles.-- SabreBD ( talk) 09:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Following from the discussion of the appropriateness of the UK Prime Minister being in the infobox, I have boldly removed Elizabeth II from the infobox, as she is Queen of the United Kingdom, not of Scotland (or indeed of Scots), and this is the Scotland article. Also, the style "Elizabeth II" is nonsensical in the context of Scotland. You can't have a second if you've never had a first. Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 16:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth's regnal number is a seperate topic, though. GoodDay ( talk) 17:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Aren't secondary sources preferred over primary sources? GoodDay ( talk) 19:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, England had 9 kings named Edward before 1707. ðarkun coll 16:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I have come to the party a bit late but i will give my opinion. Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom there for the monarch should absolutely be mentioned in the infobox. The Prime Minister of the UK who is responsible for the defence of the UK (which includes Scotland) also clearly needs to remain in the infobox. I strongly oppose these attempts to try and grossly mislead people into thinking Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom.
BritishWatcher (
talk) 20:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Motto:
In My Defens God Me Defend (
Scots) (often shown abbreviated as IN DEFENS) | |
Anthem:
None (
de jure) Various de facto - see note 1 | |
![]() Location of Scotland/Archive 27 (orange) – in the
European continent (camel & white) | |
Capital |
Edinburgh 55°57′N 3°12′W / 55.950°N 3.200°W |
Largest city | Glasgow |
Official languages | English |
Recognised regional languages | Gaelic, Scots2 |
Ethnic groups | 89% Scottish, 7% English, Irish, Welsh, 4% other [1] |
Demonym(s) | Scots, Scottish3 |
Government | Devolved Government within a unitary parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy4 |
Legislature | Scottish Parliament and United Kingdom Parliament4 |
Establishment
Early Middle Ages; exact date of establishment
unclear or disputed;
traditional 843, by
King Kenneth MacAlpin
[2] | |
Area | |
• Total | 78,772 km2 (30,414 sq mi) |
• Water (%) | 1.9 |
Population | |
• mid-2009 estimate | 5,194,000 [3] |
• 2001 census | 5,062,011 |
• Density | 65.9/km2 (170.7/sq mi) |
GDP ( PPP) | 2006 estimate |
• Total | US$194 billion citation needed |
• Per capita | US$39,680 citation needed |
Currency | Pound sterling ( GBP) |
Time zone | UTC0 (GMT) |
• Summer (
DST) | UTC+1 (BST) |
Driving side | left |
Calling code | 44 |
ISO 3166 code | GB-SCT |
Internet TLD | .uk5 |
|
I introduced changes tonight which were reverted. In my opinion the current fudged compromise creates a mess of a situation not worthy of an article with GA status. Main points:
The principal contributors and watch-keepers of this article need to address these issues or the status of the article itself will be open to challenge; the fudged compromises currently in place being detrimental to the quality of the article itself. 195.171.9.229 ( talk) 05:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
My proposed infobox is shown to the right. Please do not alter it but rather comment on my changes below. Changes concern:
195.171.9.229 ( talk) 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Being an old hand around here, I think I have a fairly good idea who this (ahem) "mystery" ip address is. Needless to say, it is a banned user. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 11:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed Monarch to Monarch of the United Kingdom, so nobody would mistake the Queen as Monarch of Scotland. GoodDay ( talk) 00:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Her current entry, erroneously appears as Monarch of Scotland. That's a potential for future problems. GoodDay ( talk) 15:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Just a wee tip: if User:GoodDay managed to contribute just ONE sane, constructive, informed, mature, decently referenced, non-WP:POINT edit to a Scotland-related article, then he might have a leg to stand on. However, after tens of thousands of edits, he has so far failed to acheive this simple assignment. Nuff said. (And as for "An IP's been complaining" -> don't make me larf /barf). Mais oui! ( talk) 15:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to be a genius to simply accept as basic fact the idea that people outside the UK quite often confuse the relationship between the sovereign state of the UK, and it's constituent parts. Given the fact that most of the time this works in England's favour (the "Queen of England" = EIIR etc), you'd think Scottish editors would be interested in making sure the infobox here was actually doing it's intended job of providing accurate information to those who come to find out about their country. As nice as it might make some people feel to believe otherwise, 'who is the Queen of Scotland' is not a question many people outside the UK would be able to answer in a heart-beat. And people who do know a bit about history, are likely to be confused because there is no literal "Queen of Scotland" anymore, just like there is no "Queen of England" anymore. If editors are claiming the infobox just sits there containing obvious facts everybody in the world already knows, then why does it even exist? People asserting there's no issue here, either have a problem escaping their personal world view, or are pushing an agenda. This article is for people who know nothing about Scotland, not the other way around. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Hooray! GoodDay to the rescue to fix what isn't broken, AGAIN! -- LiamE ( talk) 04:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Both 'In defens' and 'Nemo me impune lacessit' are used on the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland, so why shouldn't we list both of them as National mottos? Furmonger ( talk) 21:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping to add the Dundee Repertory Theatre to the short sentence on theatres at the culture section but, it seems I am unable to do so at this time. Citizens Theatre is mentioned but it would be nice to include another to let people know of another specific theatre that deals in serious plays in another part of Scotland. If someone could do this for me I would be very grateful. Thanks. Carson101 ( talk) 16:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Re my last edit - nice pictures, but we already have 3 images of the Celestial City and we don't need uncited statements in the captions. Ben Mac Dui 20:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Three sources to state it's part of the UK? I don't think it being part of the UK is under any serious dispute, allot of people would LIKE to see it no longer part of the UK (and it's close but again, irrelevant) however, but that's not the same. Only one reliable source is needed to back up the articles claim that it's part of the UK surely? Let's see - Wales: 1, Northern Ireland: 2, England: Three. Goodness. Let's follow the Welsh Example perhaps, I dislike excessive cites, it's scruffy and not really needed. Goes for NI and England too. Kaiai.-- Τασουλα (Shalom!) ( talk) 20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP added the following sentences to the Etymology section: "A term used to honor Queen Scotia who was a Pharaoh's daughter according to the Four Masters. She was Queen of the invading Milesians or Gaels from northern Spain that conquered the Tuatha Dé Danann in Ireland.." I reverted it - patent nonsense, unreferenced, out of context, ungrammatical, unsupported by anything in the Etymology of Scotland article - but it was then re-inserted by User:Joshuajohnlee (with a {{cn}} tag), on the grounds of WP:NOCITE. That guidance also says "Use your common sense", so I have reverted it again on that basis. Unreferenced nonsense should have no place in a high profile good article like this. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, it has gotten to the point where nearly every day I sign on here, there is an edit to this article which changes "Part of the UK" to "consituant country of the UK" or, more reciently a "region of the UK"; this issue has been done to death and the current wording was decided on multiple times. Do not change it.-- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 09:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure. Two points:
I cannot count up to 2. Tim PF ( talk) 15:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't need edit comments there, not least ones several lines long. Just revert, and direct the editors doing this to the FAQ/archives. This is how its done everywhere else. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why we should have anything political such as Independence in the first few paragraphs, it has nothing to do with the previous paragraph and just jumps in: "They have announced their intention to hold a referendum on independence sometime during the second half of the present five-year parliamentary term". -- 81.147.26.123 ( talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
"Issues surrounding devolution and independence continue to be debated.", I don't see how Independence can come into this part either, Health education and many devolved matters come into it respectively though I don't see us singling out them either. -- 81.147.26.123 ( talk) 18:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Anything in regards to Independence or any party winning an Election should be in the Politics and Government section, not in the first few paragraphs, it does not fit in properly, I have removed it. 81.147.26.123 ( talk) 18:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I've removed two parts of a paragraph as stated above 86.159.173.157 ( talk) 13:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
In this article I read under "education": "The Scottish education system has always remained distinct from education in the rest of United Kingdom, with a characteristic emphasis on a broad education" Maybe, this is history? Martha Nussbaum writes in her book "Not for profit": "Scotland used to have a four-year B.A. degree, with the first year devoted to liberal arts courses. ... The standardization of higher education imposed by the EU's Bologna scheme, however, has made Scotland assimilate to the rest of Europe, rather than vice versa." -- 13Peewit ( talk) 21:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Back in 2009 (see archive 24), in one of those rare episodes of consensus breaking out spontaneously, we all seemed to agree that we should use the Scottish Govt GDP numbers, the ones with oil and gas shared geographically. When I looked today, we weren't, nor had we changed to nominal GDP or to pounds instead of dollars. If anyone wants to put the dollar value in, the IRS say that the average exchange rate during 2006 was 1 USD = 0.544 GBP here. I make it 225 billion, near enough. And if it's per capita you want, a nice round 5.1 million should be near enough for the population in 2006, see here, which works out at £24000/$44000. Since newspapers often tell readers that Scotland's GDP is 96% of the UK average and this article now says ~120% there should probably yet another footnote, as if there weren't too many already, put in the infobox to explain the apparent discrepancy. Then the papers, or those of them lazy enough to use Wikipedia as their fount of knowledge, could get things right. How likely is that? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need the "Lion Rampant" in the infobox? as I don't believe that it should be considered on equal grounds as the Scottish saltire as a flag representing Scotland. -- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 01:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
In the third paragraph of the Law and criminal justice section, it says "Many laws differ between Scotland and the rest of Britain, whereas many terms differ" Since "whereas" normally means "in contrast", what is this actually saying? That:
I would expect it to be the first, and I'm given to understand that in legal documents whereas may mean "it being the fact that", but that doesn't seem right here and this is not a legal document. 94.30.43.69 ( talk) 10:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if we could have a discussion about the number of enlisted Scots that lost their lives during the First World War? Below is what is already contained in the article:
"With a population of 4.8 million in 1911, Scotland sent 690,000 men to the war, of whom 74,000 died in combat or from disease, and 150,000 were seriously wounded.[72] R. A. Houston and W.W. J. Knox, eds. The New Penguin History of Scotland (2001) p 426"
Unfortunately I can not verify or examine further Houston and Knox's claim, since the links are not online. I do have some other online references.
Professor Niall Ferguson in "The Pity of War", the Scotsman newspaper and the Scottish National War memorial list other stats. [5] [6] [7]
Ferguson indicates 557,618 Scots were enlisted. Consequently, 26.4% lost their lives (British figure was 11%), which would make it 147,211 Scots lost their lives. Twice as much as the numbers contained in the existing wiki article. I would appreciate any comments. Newhabitat Newhabitat ( talk) 13:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Referring to it as Gaelic in Scotland is fine but when referring to it in a page that will be read by people from various different continents it must either state that Scottish or Scottish Gaelic is an offical language of Scotland rather than just Gaelic. Agreed ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 ( talk) 14:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I suppose your right it's only really referred to as Scottish outside of Scotland. I only meant in the info box where it says official language someone had put just Gaelic. Which could be quite misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 ( talk) 09:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Right I understand we don't refer to it as Scottish in Scotland I made that clear in my reply. It is actually referred to as Scottish (not always) in America and other places. What we call it is irrelevant. Using Gaelic in the main article is fine however in the info box just simply putting Gaelic could confuse many people from outside Scotland as to wether they are talking about Scottish, Irish or Manx Gaelic. I actually use the term Scottish on it's own. I prefer it to Scot/Scots. I know other people who use it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 ( talk) 22:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Once again, this article is turning into a picture gallery, with the text being squeezed between photos. Does the article need more than one photo of the modern Glasgow waterline? Is there any need at all for a large picture of the Glasgow Cineworld, hardly one of the most elegant buildings? AllyD ( talk) 13:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
A recent addition added virtually all of the Architecture of Scotland article. This contained quite a lot of unsourced material and I would suggest had too much detail for this article. I was going to restore this after a revert to sort out the image issues above, but then I realised was going on. It is probably just worth considering the issues here first, given the already considerable length of the article. So, do we need an architecture section; how long should it be and with what emphasis (eg. medieval/modern?).-- SabreBD ( talk) 16:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears to have been added to provide space to introduce the additional photos to the article. Some odd choices... Glasgow Science centre in a section on middle ages and Reformation architecture? Bizarre... no apparent connection between the photos either... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the above talk page in which some contributors have expressed the view that Scotland and Wales should be excluded because they are not "independent sovereign states". Any views one way or the other? -- TraceyR ( talk) 19:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little worried that too much weight is being given to one authors interpretation of the origins of the Dal Riata. One book by Ewan Campbell where he postulates that the Dal Riata came from the islands and lands either side of the Irish sea rather than solely a migration from Ireland does not appear to be a strong enough reason to include this in the etymology section. I could understand it being included if this was a mainstream view amongst scottish historians. If someone can show references that this is now the case then I stand corrected, otherwiswe I don't believe that this book should be given so much weight in what is a very short section. Carson101 ( talk) 17:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Most historians now disregard the migration/invasion theory. There is absolutely no historical or archaeological evidence describing such an event. It was a creationist myth popularised by Gaelic kings in the middle ages to foster closer ties with Ireland. The culture may have spread from Ireland (via Spain) however the people had always been there. Indeed permanent human settlements were established in the Western Isles several thousand years before Ireland was even inhabited. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.194.215.249 (
talk) 10:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the fact is the Dal Riata did not come from Ireland. There language may have came from there although it may just be the older form of celtic language spoken in the British Isles (Brythonic being a Romanised version of it). Unorthodox perhaps but a solid theory none the less. As I said. There is no archaeological evidence to suggest there was a migration/invasion. How could genetic studies prove a migration theory. Scottish and Irish people along with Welsh and English all share very similar gene types. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.194.215.249 (
talk) 11:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
That wasn't the unorthodox theory. That's the opinion of the majority of modern day historians. My unorthodox theory was the one which questioned wether the goidelic branch of celtic language was merely a more ancient un-romanised form of celtic. And I know the Gaelic language theory would never be put on wikipedia. However the rejection of the migration/invasion of Irish tribes to Western Scotland is a widely accepted fact by as I said most modern day historians. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.104.197.62 (
talk) 16:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes I know people don't spring up out the ground. I've used that statement many times myself when arguing with so-called Irish-Scots. However it's a scientific fact that Scotland was permanently habitated by humans at least 2,000 years before a permanent human settlement was founded in Ireland (Ireland was also covered in ice you know). Adding this evidence to the fact that the majority of the Kingdom of Dal Riada was in Scotland (as well as it's seat of power) the most logical conclusion to come to is that rather than a migration from Ireland to Scotland it was a cultural conversion. Probably helped by the fact that the Dal Riadans were isolated from the rest of Scotland by the Cairngorm mountains. Hence it would be far easier to trade with Ireland just 30 miles across the sea than to attempt to trade with the expansionist Picts. Naturally as centuries of trade took place cultural values would have been adopted from the Irish as well as their language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.197.62 ( talk) 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. That fact alone would prove next to nothing. However as I said Scotland was inhabited first. It's far more likely that Dal Riada was a Scottish kingdom that expanded into Ireland. I believe there is old Irish documents that refer to the Dal Riada in Ireland as Cruithin (a name they also used to refer to the Caledonians). I also remember that in Irish documents from the middles ages the Dal Riada have no recorded family ties with any of the Irish gaelic tribes. The evidence against an Ireland to Scotland migration is staggering. Frankly I question why you seem so adamant to reject these facts and continue with some popularised myth created as I said in the middle ages to foster closer relations with Ireland. It was also believed for centuries that Kenneth McAlpin was a Gael who conquered Pictland. However ancient documents in Paris proved that to be false. Kenneth McAlpin was in fact a Pict. If there is solid evidence to suggest a migration/invasion then please by all means enlighten me of it. However since there is literally none I question why it is put in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 ( talk) 09:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the language. I'm talking about the people. It claims the Dal Riada migrated from Ireland. That is as un-pheasable to me as North-to-South movement of Goidelic languages is to you. I even said earlier in this debate that a cultural conversion of the Dal Riadans was the most likely conclusion. The language and beliefs the the Irish Gaels spread to the peoples inhabiting the Western Isles of Scotland.
Well how could it be the Antrim ruling class. If the seat of power (and indeed the majority of the kingdom) was in Scotland. Is it not more logical that it was a Scottish ruling class that expanded into Ireland. As I have said the Irish referred to the Dal Riada in Ireland as Cruithin. A term also used for the Caledonians. Isn't it possible that this word was used to describe the people who lived in the land across the sea (Scotland). Just because they shared a cultural similarity with the Irish tribes does not mean the Dal Riadans were in fact an Irish tribe (or indeed ruled by the Irish) themselves. You could go even futher. The term 'foreign gael' was used by Irish scholars to describe people in the Western Isles of Scotland. Historians reckon this was due to the Viking settlement of the isles. However another theory could be that the Irish were in fact referencing the original inhabitants of the Isles (the Dal Riadans). After all they were Gaels but not Irish. And if this term was a reference to the vikings then why was it not used for the Viking settlers in Dublin and other parts of Ireland where Vikings awere simply referred to as Norse and their offspring referred to as Irish/Gaelic in time. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.194.215.249 (
talk) 13:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That still wouldn't explain why descendants of Gaelic/Viking intermarriage in Ireland were not named Gall-Ghaidheal though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 ( talk) 14:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Mr IP, It would really be nice if you would just type ~~~~ after your comments and then your IP number will come up without the bot having to find it. It makes replying to you much easier. Ta Bill Reid | ( talk) 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Really ? I would have thought there were more Norsemen in Ireland due to their settlement of what became major population centres. Sorry about the tilde thing. I would not be able to spot a Norse Gaelic placename I'm afraid Akerbeltz. I'll take you word for it though.
195.194.215.249 (
talk) 08:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Scottish aristocrats have alredy in the 15th century played football under well defined rules, the research found the Museum of Scottish football, according to the daily The Times. Until now it was believed that the earliest forms of football before the game for the 19th century in England was introduced clear rules, reduced to a brutal battle many players around the ball. 78.2.56.67 ( talk) 04:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no 'inventor' of football. Anyone can think of kicking a circular object around, it has probably been done for thousands of years. However the modern game of Association football was invented in England, that is a certifiable fact. Ben200 ( talk) 15:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In the first and second world war section the last paragraph starts with, ""The Second World War brought renewed prosperity—as well as bombing of cities by the Luftwaffe."". I may be missing something and there is a book reference at the end of the paragraph. It is perhaps my fault that maybe I'm not reading it properly but that sentence does not appear to make sense. Does war and bombing by the Luftwaffe = prosperity? Anyone else puzzled by that sentence? Carson101 ( talk) 15:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I assume that, since this is an encyclopedia, that facts are important. I had added the UK legislature to the infobox so that it reads "Legislature: Scottish Parliament, UK Parliament". Can't see anything wrong with that. How bizarre it was that an editor simply undone by edit. I have undone his. Just thought I would write this onto the talk page. Joseph1990 ( talk) 22:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Lynch_359
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).