![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
The unemployment figures need updating, the most recent earticle I could find was http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-18085407.
Any issues with changing this?
Also, can't help feeling that reference 150 includes an unsolicited claim. Issues with changing from
"The Scottish Government's most recent figures (for 2009/10) show Scotland's finances to be in a healthier state than for the UK as a whole. Taking into account a geographical share of revenues from UK oil and gas reserves.."
to
"The Scottish Government's most recent figures (for 2009/10) show that when taking into account a geographical share of revenues.."
Also, the reference seems to be fairly bias. If this is to remain, comments on pursuing a reference for the reverse side of the argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 ( talk) 14:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Bringing to attention the section "Despite only making up 8.4% of the UK population, Scotland generates 9.6% of UK revenues and only receives 9.3% back from Westminster". This claim is very [contentious] as this 9.6% of tax revenues is applicable IF Oil and Gas reserves are split geogrpahically using a median line from the English/Scottish border. Oil and Gas revenues are not officially attributed to the revenue of either substituent country (England or Scotland) so this either needs to be made clear, or this section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 ( talk) 16:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion concerning the above question is ongoing on the Talk:Northern Ireland. Tentatively, I would say that a consensus is emerging there. The consensus is to remove .uk on the basis that it is assigned to the UK (not any part of it specifically). If consistency is going to apply, the same approach should be taken in terms of de-lisgin .uk on the Wales, Scotland and England articles. Do people support this deletion of .uk from the info box. Feel free to participate here (or on the Talk: Northern Ireland page where a lengthy discussion has already taken place. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 23:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that the following section breaches the NPOV ethos of Wikipedia "Scotland currently spends £3.3 billion on defence, under an independent Scotland the costs would be reduced from the current to around £1.8 billion a saving of £1.5 billion." I would suggest the the bit about the reduction of the Defense buget is polemic, and intended to support a pro-independance viewpoint. Also it is incorrect as it presupposes the policy of the putative independant Scottish goverment which is unknown until formulated. Niall McDiarmid. 17.11 9 January 2013 (UTC) 155.192.33.250 ( talk) 17:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed but even that is still contentious. Something like ""...defence. The Scottish National party have proposed plans to reduce spending from the current figure to around £1.8 billion, although they do not currently have the power to do so, as defence spending is under the jurisdiction of Westminster." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that just because Scotland could lower defence spending to such amounts that it would actually do so upon independence. Adding in that it could seems ridiculous, it's like adding in upon independence we could spend more than $3.3 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.193.95 ( talk) 02:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The article states that "Scotland has seven cities". Is there a formal difference between a city and a town in the UK and in Scotland. I've preaviosly thought that "a city" is just another word for "a large town". What's needed to become a city ? 83.249.165.26 ( talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It really doesn't need to be there seeing as only the cross on the flag is white. It makes it look rather messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.148 ( talk) 17:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to the first Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy ( talk) 21:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I believe defining Scotland as a "country" is highly misleading. I understand that it may well be definied as one, however "country" is more widely expressed as Soveriegn State (ie. The United Kingdom/Kingdom of Spain). I know that a large number of people in Scotland would deny that they are British or even acknowledge the United Kingdom is in any form, a country. The beginning of this article does not go into any detail of what the United Kingdom is and suggests Scotland is a soveriegn state ? Can this please be corrected to something which gives readers a better understanding of what Scotland really is ? Italay90 ( talk) 16:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Consensus out the window, this should be a factual piece of literature; not a misleading bit of Nationalistic drivel. I advise you to not to reverse it again. 86.153.187.25 ( talk) 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I am now using this account Samsung2013 ( talk) 11:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
see
Talk:Scotland/Archive_Summary#Scotland_-_A_Nation.3 and Archives
1,
2,
3,
6,
11,
13,
14,
15,
16 and
18. Also see
Archive 20 "Consensus on Intro" and
Archive_23 "Opening paragraph" Yours ever,
Czar Brodie (
talk)
12:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
From here I have added the financial figures to the %'s so it reads "Despite only making up 8.4% of the UK population, Scotland generates 9.6% (£56.9 billion) of UK revenues and receives 9.3% (£64.5 billion) back from the UK Government" as stating the statement without the figures is holly misleading and gives the appearance there is some subsidising going on, I suggest removing the whole statement as it actually illustrates nothing and is at best deceptive with the "despite" and "receives back" without stating that the money received back is close to 10 billion £ more than is paid in.
I have restored the changes made as clearly giving the figures alongside the percentages is quite within wiki rules and giving both avoids any claims of bias, perhaps if you want to show that relative to the rest of the UK, Scotland's public finances are in a healthier state then you should say so rather than using statistics that imply a deficit of well over 7 billion is not there, this is supposed to be a factual site not an opinionated one. You also removed the link to the official government accounts that you use for your percentages that also show the disparity and I believe hiding the evidence of your own claims simply confirms my case that the percentages are there to mislead.
Please do, I just feel that the original imply's Scotland is hard done by and gets back less than is paid in when that's not the case as all the UK countries are in deficit and it is the combined union that pays for it all while it is still true Scotland compared to the other three UK countries combined is in better shape, I'm not really sure why out of a union of four countries one would take one country out and compare it to the other three as a block when it would be more credible to compare Scotland's performance with England's and Wales and Northern Ireland's, just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.224.117 ( talk) 20:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
"Scotland contributes a larger proportion of UK tax revenues than the proportion of UK public expenditure it receives:" <- that is still incorrect, Scotland generates more per head in taxes with a full share of geographical oil accounted for and as a consequence receives more per head of population back in expenditure than the rest of the population outside the London accounting area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.249.88 ( talk) 10:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, you admit here there is a higher spend yet you want me to explain why "Scotland contributes a larger proportion of UK tax revenues than the proportion of UK public expenditure it receives:" is misleading, well it's misleading because Scotland receives more per head than the rest of the UK bar London hence the false statement, it's true the spending is linked to some archaic mechanism that has no real meaning in this millennium but that's not changing the fact that more public spending per head happens in Scotland than the rest of the UK as a whole hence the misleading statement, perhaps opinions should be removed altogether along with opinionated conclusions and just a table of figures showing income/expenditure/revenue/population for the UK then the four countries then the readers can make of it what they will? 92.24.239.177 ( talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This article appears to have been edited in a number of quite concerning and inappropriate ways for an encyclopedia. The section seems to state figures being used by one of the sides in the Independence Referendum by way of propaganda to make political points. This article, is no longer balanced and has crossed the line to become a statement of opinion and political argument not an objective analysis of the economy of Scotland. Use of phrases such as 'often wrongly interpreted' show that this is a political polemic to make a point and no longer a discussion of the economy of Scotland. In particular the use of percentages misleads, (even with some of the figures in brackets) as it masks that more money is spent publically in Scotland than is raised in taxation and gives the impression the opporsite is true. Also the actual amount spent on Scotland per head of population compared with elsewhere in the UK has been edited out. This was useful as it gave a full and balanced picture. More money is spent in Scotland than other parts of Scotland but Scotland does give a relatively large proportion of tax compared with the size of population and that is due to oil taxation. This helped understanding. The last four sentences, are inapproriate for an article of this kind and should be deleted. These figures at time of editing appear to suit a political argument. They say nothing about the Scottish economy. The unemployment figures a year ago (2012) showed parity with the UK for example. These numbers change all the time. Furthermore Scottish unemployment numbers relative to the UK are aided in 2013 by the fact that some public sector spending cuts have been delayed a year compared with other areas of the UK. These are statistics without meaning being used in a shallow way to illustrate a political point. This is quite a bad example of political polemics rather than serious or balanced analysis. Use of the phrase 'receives back from Westminster' I believe is used here in a pejorative sense and implies a political point about the constitutional arrangements rather than discussing relative tax and spend figures relating to the Scottish economy. This is quite concerning. I hope there can be agreement that Wikipedia is not the place for running political arguments. I'm not sure how this is best resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.209.162 ( talk) 21:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The previous section was edited out today. It was better before as it ran both the pro Independence and anti Independence point and did not assert which was right. Nor did it cross the line into apparently making a point for a viewpoint. Thearticle before today (29 June) was better and more balanced and more approriate for Wikipedia. This seems quite misleading and inappropriate now. Was it not better and why is it appropriate to express a political group's viewpoint. This section should really be edited and parts deleted. It was better before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.209.162 ( talk) 21:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the Normans in this article? There is mention of certain kings being Scoto-Norman, but nothing about how the Normans were able to ascend to the throne of Scotland. There is mention under Scoto-Norman about intermarriage amongst lowland clans, but nothing in detail about Norman influence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistolpierre ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The Scoto-Norman period is extremely important, and should definitely be in the article. I don't think it would be too problematic to indicate that the monarchy (and the ruling classes in general) became increasingly more Norman through a series of royal marriages to Normans/Anglo Normans (those of David I, Henry of Huntingdon, William I, Alexander II and Alexander III), followed by complete replacement by Norman-descended kings (ie John Balliol and Robert the Bruce). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I see that there is a bit of information on Scoto-Norman under Scotland in the High Middle Ages and Davidian Revolution. I guess I am just looking for more detail on how the Normans became Scottish nobles and eventually Kings of Scotland. Pistolpierre ( talk) 17:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting research shows that Parthelone & 24 couples of Greek Macedonia (Mygdonia) is a forefather of the land of "Skotos," which means "dark" in Greek,and after Parthelone came the Danaans, the "Danai". and the old map of 1560 with Greek-named areas like Argadia (from Gk. Arkardia>Arcadia) and Iona (from Gk. Ionia)existed as well as other Greek cities like: Myrius, Phallius, Gorius, and Findius. That Edinburgh is the "Athens of the North," as its Greek influenced architecture can attest. The bagpipes were brought back from Asia by Alexander the Greats' men and are used by Greece and Scotland. The use of the Macedonian Sarissa in warfare. The fact that both countries wear the "skirt" and that Scottish surnames bear the "mak>mak" from Makedonia>Macedonia. 1.121.178.173 ( talk)
The current image under 'Royal Arms' is the Coat of Arms last used by the Kingdom of Scotland in 1603:
The last used Royal Coat of Arms used by the Kingdom of Scotland was:
The current Royal Coat of Arms used in Scotland representing the United Kingdom is:
The current official Royal Standard used by Scotland is:
Why is a Coat of Arms that was used in Scotland over 400 years ago being presented when two current symbols are present? Regards, Rob ( talk) 19:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with all of the above from the point of view of editors who know little about heraldry (i.e. the vast majority) is that it is assertion based. As far as I can see "the last time around" the discussion was abandoned after it became clear that a notorious sockpuppet was involved. This has been a very convoluted debate (with Archive 21 providing a decent summary of the thinking at that time). It would be very helpful if contributors could make statements linked to reliable sources. I can agree that is easy to observe that "The Royal Standard is .. the second most common symbol of Scotland", but this is not the same as this symbol being the 'Royal Arms' and the rest needs either sourcing or linking. Nor, incidentally, can I see any a priori reason why a 'Royal Arms' has to be in the infobox. We are not going to get anywhere by exchanging personal opinions. On the other hand we might be able to resolve this issue once and for all if those who profess to some knowledge of the subject could present carefully considered arguments backed by sourced and verifiable facts. Ben Mac Dui 08:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Ben, Endrick here (can't log on as long forgot password and have changed ISP/e-mail so can't e-mail reminder to self). Archive 21 shows your own preference for the Royal Standard, which held the majority view and the article was stable for nearly 5 years. (My own preference was for the shield, but I was content to go with the majority). The arguments which were made then still stand and the discussion concluded after much debate with the Standard in the info-box.
I see no reason to open the discussion again for there is nothing new in the debate and it will just develop into a hamster-wheel yet again. Therefore I am restoring the consensus which has existed since 2008, and unless someone comes up with a compelling reason to change the info-box, (which has not been made), then it should stay. Any edit-war will result in protection being requested for the article. Regards Endrick Shellycoat a.k.a 217.43.209.130 ( talk) 08:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Good to know my edits were reverted for absolutely no reason what so ever. It would be appreciated if editors could remember the current consensus, ensure it is not changed without discussion, and avoid reverting edits of editors attempting to ensure it is not changed without discussion. Regards, Rob ( talk) 04:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The unsourcecd claim in this article that Scotland has a surplus of tax over spending was featured in a live TV debate a little earlier today. Since it is both unsourced and now more prominent I have removed that unsourced claim. With a pending vote on Scottish independence we can expect that this article will become highly politicised by supporters of both views, so we need to take particular care to:
There are other unsourced economic claims that I have not removed. If you look at this one, please also provide appropriate sources for them, or remove them until they are sourced, lest we become a source of unsubstantiated political ammunition in other debates as well.
If you have sources that support the claims and disclose them and what the numbers include, great, please don't hesitate to add back the figures with those sources and details. Jamesday ( talk) 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That you have added references to an edit does not give you free rein to abuse them by putting on your own spin. When you cite references, you must stick to what they say and not synthesise them to draw conclusions which they do not themselves state (as I have told you). If it's any help to you, idiot's of a different, unionist, bent have accused me of being a nationalist on the basis of reverting their POV pushing. Take your pick. Pay heed or you're likely to find yourself in hot water. Yours aye, Vidkun. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 23:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
"Compulsory schooling" presumably implies that this was for all, or at the very least the majority of children. If the Education Act 1496 only regarded eldest sons of nobles and substantial freeholders, this is very much not the case. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 23:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, I have a letter from Alasdair Allan (the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland's Languages) explaining that the Gaelic Scotland Act of 2005 actually secured Gaelic as an official language. He doesn't go into much more detail than that but if we look at the wording of the act itself we can see where he's coming from. The wording is unclear and rather unhelpful at first, but it stated that Bord na Gaidhlig's aim was to secure Gaelic as an official language "of equal respect" to English. That doesn't meant that the aim was to secure it "as an official language", rather an official language "of equal respect" - that is the goal to work towards. The official language status already being there is implicit. If you would like proof of this letter I can show you an image. -- 86.133.249.101 ( talk) 00:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Clicking on the link for the 'Scottish population by ethnic group - All People' section to the original Scotland census web site here [ [2]] I noticed the term used is Gypsy / Traveller not Gypsy / Irish Traveller. As many Scottish gypsies identify themselves as 'Traveller' and Scotland having an indiginous 'Highland Traveller' community it would be an error to label all people who self identify as Travellers with the Irish label. Considering the census doesn't call these diverse communities as Irish Travellers. It was probaby a misunderstanding that all people who identify as 'Traveller' must be therefore Irish a common mistake though. That would be incorrect as labeling all Irish Travellers as Scottish Travellers. Can someone change it kind regards. Uthican ( talk) 13:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it worth noting in the infobox that it's often a shortened motto (i.e. "In Defens") that's used, as opposed to the full "In My Defens God Me Defend."? -- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Is Scotland the only country in the world without an olympic team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.19.217 ( talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Concurring with SabreBD, I don't see any hint that the continuation of this thread is in any danger of improving the article. Unless I'm missing something, can we draw it to a close please? Mutt Lunker ( talk) 13:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Scotland is "currently" part of the United Kingdom. IMO it should be made patently clear that this may, or may not, be the case in the next year or two in the lede, along with the qualifier of 845-1707? Brendandh ( talk) 20:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been pondering the last half hour about how to put it more simply but can someone else try? I'm struggling to respond further without sounding patronising. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
PLease go some napkin math regarding the overall population of Scotland Vs number who voted for the SNP. Even if you assume every voter voted for the SNP for independence (which they did not, many were protest votes) the figures comes out due to pathetic turnouts to be less than 20%. That is not a mandate for independence, nobody in the SNP has addressed parts of Scotland that have never voted SNP either. I find it quite laughable that people on this talk page are insisting independence will be granted. At least wait and see, but the math seems to suggest it will be a resounding 'No' vote. 135.196.94.75 ( talk) 13:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC) FW
Oh please can we stop diverting into general chit-chat on various threads in this talk page? The page is specifically to facilitate improvement to the article and general discussions (Scotland-related or not) which have no bearing on the text of the article should not go here. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 14:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I’m Andrew Clark and I work at the Office for National Statistics in the UK.
We publish lots of infographics and I wonder if this one on Scotland ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Profile_of_Scotland.png) would be of interest for Scotland
FYI, the full gallery is here < https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_created_by_the_Office_for_National_Statistics>
All the best
Andrew Clark (smanders1982) 10 Dec 2013
Smanders1982 ( talk) 13:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The infographic says "Edingburgh" -- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 11:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
== Very questionable infographic==
In the light of the above points, information on Scotland from UK civil service sources cannot be assumed to be either neutral or factually reliable. 109.155.147.144 ( talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't edit the page, but the sidebar shows GDP Per Capita as $44,378 (8th).
Clicking on 8th takes you to a selection of GDP Per Capita lists, which have 8th place from $52,300 to $67,500. Have the figures been updated elsewhere and not on this page? The highest position I can see Scotland taking based on these figures is 17th. 91.84.93.167 ( talk) 08:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
$235 billion? Scotland only gets a per capita share (8.3%) of the UK oil reserves [revenue] (90% of which is located [extracted] in Scotland). The source even states 'Activities on the continental shelf are not classified as occu[r]ring in any particular nation or region' and 'Figures are provided to illustrate the impact of attributing a share of extra-regio activity to Scotland'.
This BBC article also states 'Under the present arrangement the oil tax revenues are assigned to an economic region set up by the UK government, which is called the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). This means that oil resources are not officially assigned to Scotland but instead to a region distinct from the British mainland' and '[a] Scottish government report seeks to outline what difference this would make to Scotland's financial position if it were to get a "geographical share" of the revenues instead of a "per capita" slice.' This article is about the country within the UK, not what the country would get if it were independent (of which this figure is entirely speculative, as Scotland's economy could go to shit). Both Scotland and England subsidise Wales and Northern Ireland, however this isn't shown in England's, Wales' or Northern Ireland's GDP so it shouldn't be shown in Scotland's either. You may be keen to abandon the Welsh and Northern Irish, but please wait until you're actually independent, before stating what an independent Scotland's GDP may be, if you're lucky :P. Regards,
Rob (
talk |
contribs)
12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Headine-1: Scottish independence poll:Yes on brink of victory
QUOTE: “The extreme negativity of the No campaign is playing into the hands of Alex Salmond. ” [The last sentence of the third paragraph (WP article herein) already talks about the referendum in September.] — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 20:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC) — PS: FYI for future editing.
The Government and Politics section states the following: "Margo MacDonald is the only independent MSP sitting in parliament." This should probably be updated to something like: "Margo MacDonald was the only independent MSP sitting in parliament until her death in April 2014. As she was elected as a Regional List MSP, no by-election will be held, and her seat will remain vacant until the next general election to the Scottish Parliament." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrussellaudio ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 May 2014
shudnt scotland be cald a constituent contry get ur facts right ppl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.138.6 ( talk) 21:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Wrong - Scotland is not a country. The UK is a country. When did Wikipedia get taken over by the SNP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.12.136 ( talk) 11:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Brendandh ( talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Article 1 of the 1706 Treaty expressly states "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN." This confirms the extinction of the two earlier sovereignties and the creation of a single new sovereignty and a single new kingdom 'Great Britain'. Whether or not one can say a single new country was created, or that the two countries remained distinct entities, wholly depends on how one chooses to define a country. For my money I'm happy to call Scotland and England two countries even though they are not two states. Cassandra. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.5.11.168 (
talk)
11:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
While I accept the Wikipedia policy on this I do agree with Royalcourtier's analysis above. That said, I've discussed the issue elsewhere quite recently and it seems there is a disparity between what Scots are taught in school on this matter and what the rest of the UK is taught. Purely anecdotally, I've been told that in Scotland it's taught that there are 'four countries that make up the United Kingdom', while the rest of the UK seems to be taught that there is 'one country made up of four constituent nations'. Clearly it's a purely academic difference that's causing issues. -- Cdfbrown ( talk) 01:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The citation given for stating Scotland's national animal as the unicorn is not credible. It is a piece of journalism that lacks academic rigor. Despite having heraldic and symbolic significance in Scottish history, the unicorn is not in fact an animal and thus cannot be the national animal of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.168.6 ( talk) 17:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Historic and avant-garde, quirky and elegant, rainy and heartwarming - Glasgow is a city of opposites and of inspiration, dear to anyone who's lived here and unforgettable to any visitor.
It's a city where people like to dress up and have fun, to party all night, to soak up culture and to have a bit of banter with the next person in the queue.
It's a city where you'll see charity-shop hipsters rub shoulders with stylish high-flyers, where indulgence can mean cocktails and designer handbags or a stroll through a Victorian park.
It's a city of underground music venues and architectural jewels, of art and music festivals, and of lazy Sunday morning brunches.
It has a vast cultural offering and it's like no other place in the world.
92.233.171.172 ( talk) 23:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done Copyvio and spamcruftpeacockfroth -
Arjayay (
talk)
07:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
For some reason there are three "patron saints" listed. The links to the Catholic Encyclopedia are not references to support the claim. St. Andrew is the only "patron saint" of scotland. I suggest that this be edited. Acorn897 ( talk) 23:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Is Scotland the only country in Europe which never accepted the Pope authority. Teaksmitty ( talk) 14:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Scotland (/ˈskɒt.lənd/; Scots: [ˈskɔt.lənd]; Scottish Gaelic: Alba [ˈal̪ˠapə] ( listen)) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. 12][13][14] However, the Scotish Independent Party is pushing to cede from the United Kingdom, a decision that will come before Scottish voters in the coming September 18, 2014 election. [2] Kdurfey ( talk) 00:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Kdurfey ( talk) 00:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Scotland may get separated from the UK this year. See the news.
Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 06:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
If someone posts here and the purpose of the post is not comprehensible, asking for clarification is the obvious course and more civil than leaving an obscure post ignored, or making assumptions as to its intent. I did contemplate simply removing it as an apparent forum post but decided to give the editor the benefit of the doubt and ask as to the point they were making. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 13:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added the following hatnote to the article:
on the basis that the vast majority of people looking at this article today (and probably also tomorrow) will be doing so because of interest in that topic, and we might as well find the link front-and-center at the top of the article, instead of making them search for it in the article body. When the votes and counted and result of the referendum is in, we can remove it. -- Impsswoon ( talk) 17:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Now the separatists have been defeated in the referendum, this article is going to need fixing. Why has the fact Scotland is part of the Uk been moved? it use to say Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Someone has changed it to push separatism. its now been defeated. so lets fix this please Scotland2014 ( talk) 22:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The infobox currently implies English, Scots, and Scottish Gaelic are 'official languages'. Is there a source for this? The Scottish Government's Gaelic Language Plan states:
'The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 was passed by the Scottish Parliament with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language.'
Does that imply English is already an official language of Scotland? The article current implies that English is an official language of Scotland because it's an official language of the UK, however that isn't considered at
Northern Ireland's article. Could we use the Gaelic Language Plan as a source for English as an official language? And then bold 'Recognised regional languages' so that it is no longer implied that Scottish Gaelic and Scots are official languages?
Rob (
talk |
contribs)
16:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
26th September - PLEASE. This article needs to be edited with regards to the recent referendum on independence and the issue of Scotland's status as a part of the United Kingdom. At the moment it uses language which is biased in favour of unionism and contains factual inaccuracies and un-sourced assertions.
EXAMPLE 1: "Regarding internal affairs, the Scottish Government had expressed unwillingness to admit the same right to inhabitants of Shetland and Orkney, where the constitutional status of the isles is debated and where parts of the population desire autonomy within the UK, independence of their own or reunification with the Kingdom of Norway." If this is so, please show that there is a movement in the Northern Isles campaigning for reunification or autonomy. It is sloppy just to write that "parts of the population desire" when there is no political movement afoot to achieve these aims.
EXAMPLE 2: "In May 2011, the Scottish National Party won an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament; as a result a referendum on Scottish independence took place on 18 September 2014, in which independence was rejected by a majority of the Scottish electorate." - I would suggest that a reasonable change to this paragraph would be: "...as a result a referendum on Scottish independence took place on September 18th 2014. A 55% majority of participants voted "no" against 45% who voted 'yes' to the question on the ballot: "Should Scotland be an independent country." I feel that this wording is more accurate and less emotive than the word "rejected". It also offers a concise perspective on what the final result was without discriminating for or against either position.
7 December
I agree with the comments above also please correct the following:
"in which independence was rejected by a majority of the Scottish electorate"
Only 46.7% of the electorate voted against independence so this is factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr JM Mackintosh ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of updates needed on Scottish cities and towns in wikitravel.org [3]. Some pages have not been updated there in years. Travelmite ( talk) 11:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello i noticed another mistake in the introduction but it is starting to look like a separatist propaganda site so maybe this is not by mistake? The article claims that 45% voted for independence. That is not true. 44.7% voted for separation. If the specific figures are to be stated in the introduction the correct figure should be used. Please look at the figures on the article at Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Scotty2015 ( talk) 22:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
hello the article introduction is wrong and it will not let me change it. The article says:
" In 1999, a devolved legislature, the Scottish Parliament, was reconvened with authority over many areas of home affairs following a referendum in 1997."
This is a lie. A devolved legislature was not reconvened. it was newly established. Use of the word reconvened suggests that this parliament existed in the past when it never did. Please can someone correct this mistake? thank you. Scotty2015 ( talk) 22:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The National animal of Scotland is not a Unicorn,it is actually a deer.I know this because I know a friend in Scotland that knows that the National animal is a deer. Lengendkebab ( talk) 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of supporting the new .scot TLD and consistency, I want to raise the possibility of changing the website from "scotland.org" to "welcome.scot" in the InfoBox. Both sites are identical and both domains are registered to the Scottish Government, similar sites such as scotland.gov.uk have already redirected to gov.scot, so I figured someone forgot to setup a redirect from scotland.org to welcome.scot. Any thoughts? Aaron McHale ( talk) 12:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as 'countries'.
![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
The unemployment figures need updating, the most recent earticle I could find was http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-18085407.
Any issues with changing this?
Also, can't help feeling that reference 150 includes an unsolicited claim. Issues with changing from
"The Scottish Government's most recent figures (for 2009/10) show Scotland's finances to be in a healthier state than for the UK as a whole. Taking into account a geographical share of revenues from UK oil and gas reserves.."
to
"The Scottish Government's most recent figures (for 2009/10) show that when taking into account a geographical share of revenues.."
Also, the reference seems to be fairly bias. If this is to remain, comments on pursuing a reference for the reverse side of the argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 ( talk) 14:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Bringing to attention the section "Despite only making up 8.4% of the UK population, Scotland generates 9.6% of UK revenues and only receives 9.3% back from Westminster". This claim is very [contentious] as this 9.6% of tax revenues is applicable IF Oil and Gas reserves are split geogrpahically using a median line from the English/Scottish border. Oil and Gas revenues are not officially attributed to the revenue of either substituent country (England or Scotland) so this either needs to be made clear, or this section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 ( talk) 16:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion concerning the above question is ongoing on the Talk:Northern Ireland. Tentatively, I would say that a consensus is emerging there. The consensus is to remove .uk on the basis that it is assigned to the UK (not any part of it specifically). If consistency is going to apply, the same approach should be taken in terms of de-lisgin .uk on the Wales, Scotland and England articles. Do people support this deletion of .uk from the info box. Feel free to participate here (or on the Talk: Northern Ireland page where a lengthy discussion has already taken place. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 23:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that the following section breaches the NPOV ethos of Wikipedia "Scotland currently spends £3.3 billion on defence, under an independent Scotland the costs would be reduced from the current to around £1.8 billion a saving of £1.5 billion." I would suggest the the bit about the reduction of the Defense buget is polemic, and intended to support a pro-independance viewpoint. Also it is incorrect as it presupposes the policy of the putative independant Scottish goverment which is unknown until formulated. Niall McDiarmid. 17.11 9 January 2013 (UTC) 155.192.33.250 ( talk) 17:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed but even that is still contentious. Something like ""...defence. The Scottish National party have proposed plans to reduce spending from the current figure to around £1.8 billion, although they do not currently have the power to do so, as defence spending is under the jurisdiction of Westminster." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 ( talk) 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that just because Scotland could lower defence spending to such amounts that it would actually do so upon independence. Adding in that it could seems ridiculous, it's like adding in upon independence we could spend more than $3.3 billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.193.95 ( talk) 02:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The article states that "Scotland has seven cities". Is there a formal difference between a city and a town in the UK and in Scotland. I've preaviosly thought that "a city" is just another word for "a large town". What's needed to become a city ? 83.249.165.26 ( talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It really doesn't need to be there seeing as only the cross on the flag is white. It makes it look rather messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.148 ( talk) 17:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to the first Glasgow Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Sir John Moore, 260-292 Argyle Street, City of Glasgow G2 8QW on Sunday 12 May 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Scottish topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy ( talk) 21:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I believe defining Scotland as a "country" is highly misleading. I understand that it may well be definied as one, however "country" is more widely expressed as Soveriegn State (ie. The United Kingdom/Kingdom of Spain). I know that a large number of people in Scotland would deny that they are British or even acknowledge the United Kingdom is in any form, a country. The beginning of this article does not go into any detail of what the United Kingdom is and suggests Scotland is a soveriegn state ? Can this please be corrected to something which gives readers a better understanding of what Scotland really is ? Italay90 ( talk) 16:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Consensus out the window, this should be a factual piece of literature; not a misleading bit of Nationalistic drivel. I advise you to not to reverse it again. 86.153.187.25 ( talk) 11:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I am now using this account Samsung2013 ( talk) 11:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
see
Talk:Scotland/Archive_Summary#Scotland_-_A_Nation.3 and Archives
1,
2,
3,
6,
11,
13,
14,
15,
16 and
18. Also see
Archive 20 "Consensus on Intro" and
Archive_23 "Opening paragraph" Yours ever,
Czar Brodie (
talk)
12:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
From here I have added the financial figures to the %'s so it reads "Despite only making up 8.4% of the UK population, Scotland generates 9.6% (£56.9 billion) of UK revenues and receives 9.3% (£64.5 billion) back from the UK Government" as stating the statement without the figures is holly misleading and gives the appearance there is some subsidising going on, I suggest removing the whole statement as it actually illustrates nothing and is at best deceptive with the "despite" and "receives back" without stating that the money received back is close to 10 billion £ more than is paid in.
I have restored the changes made as clearly giving the figures alongside the percentages is quite within wiki rules and giving both avoids any claims of bias, perhaps if you want to show that relative to the rest of the UK, Scotland's public finances are in a healthier state then you should say so rather than using statistics that imply a deficit of well over 7 billion is not there, this is supposed to be a factual site not an opinionated one. You also removed the link to the official government accounts that you use for your percentages that also show the disparity and I believe hiding the evidence of your own claims simply confirms my case that the percentages are there to mislead.
Please do, I just feel that the original imply's Scotland is hard done by and gets back less than is paid in when that's not the case as all the UK countries are in deficit and it is the combined union that pays for it all while it is still true Scotland compared to the other three UK countries combined is in better shape, I'm not really sure why out of a union of four countries one would take one country out and compare it to the other three as a block when it would be more credible to compare Scotland's performance with England's and Wales and Northern Ireland's, just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.224.117 ( talk) 20:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
"Scotland contributes a larger proportion of UK tax revenues than the proportion of UK public expenditure it receives:" <- that is still incorrect, Scotland generates more per head in taxes with a full share of geographical oil accounted for and as a consequence receives more per head of population back in expenditure than the rest of the population outside the London accounting area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.249.88 ( talk) 10:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, you admit here there is a higher spend yet you want me to explain why "Scotland contributes a larger proportion of UK tax revenues than the proportion of UK public expenditure it receives:" is misleading, well it's misleading because Scotland receives more per head than the rest of the UK bar London hence the false statement, it's true the spending is linked to some archaic mechanism that has no real meaning in this millennium but that's not changing the fact that more public spending per head happens in Scotland than the rest of the UK as a whole hence the misleading statement, perhaps opinions should be removed altogether along with opinionated conclusions and just a table of figures showing income/expenditure/revenue/population for the UK then the four countries then the readers can make of it what they will? 92.24.239.177 ( talk) 12:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This article appears to have been edited in a number of quite concerning and inappropriate ways for an encyclopedia. The section seems to state figures being used by one of the sides in the Independence Referendum by way of propaganda to make political points. This article, is no longer balanced and has crossed the line to become a statement of opinion and political argument not an objective analysis of the economy of Scotland. Use of phrases such as 'often wrongly interpreted' show that this is a political polemic to make a point and no longer a discussion of the economy of Scotland. In particular the use of percentages misleads, (even with some of the figures in brackets) as it masks that more money is spent publically in Scotland than is raised in taxation and gives the impression the opporsite is true. Also the actual amount spent on Scotland per head of population compared with elsewhere in the UK has been edited out. This was useful as it gave a full and balanced picture. More money is spent in Scotland than other parts of Scotland but Scotland does give a relatively large proportion of tax compared with the size of population and that is due to oil taxation. This helped understanding. The last four sentences, are inapproriate for an article of this kind and should be deleted. These figures at time of editing appear to suit a political argument. They say nothing about the Scottish economy. The unemployment figures a year ago (2012) showed parity with the UK for example. These numbers change all the time. Furthermore Scottish unemployment numbers relative to the UK are aided in 2013 by the fact that some public sector spending cuts have been delayed a year compared with other areas of the UK. These are statistics without meaning being used in a shallow way to illustrate a political point. This is quite a bad example of political polemics rather than serious or balanced analysis. Use of the phrase 'receives back from Westminster' I believe is used here in a pejorative sense and implies a political point about the constitutional arrangements rather than discussing relative tax and spend figures relating to the Scottish economy. This is quite concerning. I hope there can be agreement that Wikipedia is not the place for running political arguments. I'm not sure how this is best resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.209.162 ( talk) 21:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The previous section was edited out today. It was better before as it ran both the pro Independence and anti Independence point and did not assert which was right. Nor did it cross the line into apparently making a point for a viewpoint. Thearticle before today (29 June) was better and more balanced and more approriate for Wikipedia. This seems quite misleading and inappropriate now. Was it not better and why is it appropriate to express a political group's viewpoint. This section should really be edited and parts deleted. It was better before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.209.162 ( talk) 21:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the Normans in this article? There is mention of certain kings being Scoto-Norman, but nothing about how the Normans were able to ascend to the throne of Scotland. There is mention under Scoto-Norman about intermarriage amongst lowland clans, but nothing in detail about Norman influence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pistolpierre ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The Scoto-Norman period is extremely important, and should definitely be in the article. I don't think it would be too problematic to indicate that the monarchy (and the ruling classes in general) became increasingly more Norman through a series of royal marriages to Normans/Anglo Normans (those of David I, Henry of Huntingdon, William I, Alexander II and Alexander III), followed by complete replacement by Norman-descended kings (ie John Balliol and Robert the Bruce). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I see that there is a bit of information on Scoto-Norman under Scotland in the High Middle Ages and Davidian Revolution. I guess I am just looking for more detail on how the Normans became Scottish nobles and eventually Kings of Scotland. Pistolpierre ( talk) 17:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Interesting research shows that Parthelone & 24 couples of Greek Macedonia (Mygdonia) is a forefather of the land of "Skotos," which means "dark" in Greek,and after Parthelone came the Danaans, the "Danai". and the old map of 1560 with Greek-named areas like Argadia (from Gk. Arkardia>Arcadia) and Iona (from Gk. Ionia)existed as well as other Greek cities like: Myrius, Phallius, Gorius, and Findius. That Edinburgh is the "Athens of the North," as its Greek influenced architecture can attest. The bagpipes were brought back from Asia by Alexander the Greats' men and are used by Greece and Scotland. The use of the Macedonian Sarissa in warfare. The fact that both countries wear the "skirt" and that Scottish surnames bear the "mak>mak" from Makedonia>Macedonia. 1.121.178.173 ( talk)
The current image under 'Royal Arms' is the Coat of Arms last used by the Kingdom of Scotland in 1603:
The last used Royal Coat of Arms used by the Kingdom of Scotland was:
The current Royal Coat of Arms used in Scotland representing the United Kingdom is:
The current official Royal Standard used by Scotland is:
Why is a Coat of Arms that was used in Scotland over 400 years ago being presented when two current symbols are present? Regards, Rob ( talk) 19:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with all of the above from the point of view of editors who know little about heraldry (i.e. the vast majority) is that it is assertion based. As far as I can see "the last time around" the discussion was abandoned after it became clear that a notorious sockpuppet was involved. This has been a very convoluted debate (with Archive 21 providing a decent summary of the thinking at that time). It would be very helpful if contributors could make statements linked to reliable sources. I can agree that is easy to observe that "The Royal Standard is .. the second most common symbol of Scotland", but this is not the same as this symbol being the 'Royal Arms' and the rest needs either sourcing or linking. Nor, incidentally, can I see any a priori reason why a 'Royal Arms' has to be in the infobox. We are not going to get anywhere by exchanging personal opinions. On the other hand we might be able to resolve this issue once and for all if those who profess to some knowledge of the subject could present carefully considered arguments backed by sourced and verifiable facts. Ben Mac Dui 08:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Ben, Endrick here (can't log on as long forgot password and have changed ISP/e-mail so can't e-mail reminder to self). Archive 21 shows your own preference for the Royal Standard, which held the majority view and the article was stable for nearly 5 years. (My own preference was for the shield, but I was content to go with the majority). The arguments which were made then still stand and the discussion concluded after much debate with the Standard in the info-box.
I see no reason to open the discussion again for there is nothing new in the debate and it will just develop into a hamster-wheel yet again. Therefore I am restoring the consensus which has existed since 2008, and unless someone comes up with a compelling reason to change the info-box, (which has not been made), then it should stay. Any edit-war will result in protection being requested for the article. Regards Endrick Shellycoat a.k.a 217.43.209.130 ( talk) 08:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Good to know my edits were reverted for absolutely no reason what so ever. It would be appreciated if editors could remember the current consensus, ensure it is not changed without discussion, and avoid reverting edits of editors attempting to ensure it is not changed without discussion. Regards, Rob ( talk) 04:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The unsourcecd claim in this article that Scotland has a surplus of tax over spending was featured in a live TV debate a little earlier today. Since it is both unsourced and now more prominent I have removed that unsourced claim. With a pending vote on Scottish independence we can expect that this article will become highly politicised by supporters of both views, so we need to take particular care to:
There are other unsourced economic claims that I have not removed. If you look at this one, please also provide appropriate sources for them, or remove them until they are sourced, lest we become a source of unsubstantiated political ammunition in other debates as well.
If you have sources that support the claims and disclose them and what the numbers include, great, please don't hesitate to add back the figures with those sources and details. Jamesday ( talk) 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
That you have added references to an edit does not give you free rein to abuse them by putting on your own spin. When you cite references, you must stick to what they say and not synthesise them to draw conclusions which they do not themselves state (as I have told you). If it's any help to you, idiot's of a different, unionist, bent have accused me of being a nationalist on the basis of reverting their POV pushing. Take your pick. Pay heed or you're likely to find yourself in hot water. Yours aye, Vidkun. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 23:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
"Compulsory schooling" presumably implies that this was for all, or at the very least the majority of children. If the Education Act 1496 only regarded eldest sons of nobles and substantial freeholders, this is very much not the case. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 23:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, I have a letter from Alasdair Allan (the Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland's Languages) explaining that the Gaelic Scotland Act of 2005 actually secured Gaelic as an official language. He doesn't go into much more detail than that but if we look at the wording of the act itself we can see where he's coming from. The wording is unclear and rather unhelpful at first, but it stated that Bord na Gaidhlig's aim was to secure Gaelic as an official language "of equal respect" to English. That doesn't meant that the aim was to secure it "as an official language", rather an official language "of equal respect" - that is the goal to work towards. The official language status already being there is implicit. If you would like proof of this letter I can show you an image. -- 86.133.249.101 ( talk) 00:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Clicking on the link for the 'Scottish population by ethnic group - All People' section to the original Scotland census web site here [ [2]] I noticed the term used is Gypsy / Traveller not Gypsy / Irish Traveller. As many Scottish gypsies identify themselves as 'Traveller' and Scotland having an indiginous 'Highland Traveller' community it would be an error to label all people who self identify as Travellers with the Irish label. Considering the census doesn't call these diverse communities as Irish Travellers. It was probaby a misunderstanding that all people who identify as 'Traveller' must be therefore Irish a common mistake though. That would be incorrect as labeling all Irish Travellers as Scottish Travellers. Can someone change it kind regards. Uthican ( talk) 13:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Is it worth noting in the infobox that it's often a shortened motto (i.e. "In Defens") that's used, as opposed to the full "In My Defens God Me Defend."? -- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Is Scotland the only country in the world without an olympic team? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.19.217 ( talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Concurring with SabreBD, I don't see any hint that the continuation of this thread is in any danger of improving the article. Unless I'm missing something, can we draw it to a close please? Mutt Lunker ( talk) 13:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Scotland is "currently" part of the United Kingdom. IMO it should be made patently clear that this may, or may not, be the case in the next year or two in the lede, along with the qualifier of 845-1707? Brendandh ( talk) 20:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been pondering the last half hour about how to put it more simply but can someone else try? I'm struggling to respond further without sounding patronising. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 22:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
PLease go some napkin math regarding the overall population of Scotland Vs number who voted for the SNP. Even if you assume every voter voted for the SNP for independence (which they did not, many were protest votes) the figures comes out due to pathetic turnouts to be less than 20%. That is not a mandate for independence, nobody in the SNP has addressed parts of Scotland that have never voted SNP either. I find it quite laughable that people on this talk page are insisting independence will be granted. At least wait and see, but the math seems to suggest it will be a resounding 'No' vote. 135.196.94.75 ( talk) 13:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC) FW
Oh please can we stop diverting into general chit-chat on various threads in this talk page? The page is specifically to facilitate improvement to the article and general discussions (Scotland-related or not) which have no bearing on the text of the article should not go here. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 14:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I’m Andrew Clark and I work at the Office for National Statistics in the UK.
We publish lots of infographics and I wonder if this one on Scotland ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Profile_of_Scotland.png) would be of interest for Scotland
FYI, the full gallery is here < https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_created_by_the_Office_for_National_Statistics>
All the best
Andrew Clark (smanders1982) 10 Dec 2013
Smanders1982 ( talk) 13:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The infographic says "Edingburgh" -- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 11:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
== Very questionable infographic==
In the light of the above points, information on Scotland from UK civil service sources cannot be assumed to be either neutral or factually reliable. 109.155.147.144 ( talk) 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't edit the page, but the sidebar shows GDP Per Capita as $44,378 (8th).
Clicking on 8th takes you to a selection of GDP Per Capita lists, which have 8th place from $52,300 to $67,500. Have the figures been updated elsewhere and not on this page? The highest position I can see Scotland taking based on these figures is 17th. 91.84.93.167 ( talk) 08:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
$235 billion? Scotland only gets a per capita share (8.3%) of the UK oil reserves [revenue] (90% of which is located [extracted] in Scotland). The source even states 'Activities on the continental shelf are not classified as occu[r]ring in any particular nation or region' and 'Figures are provided to illustrate the impact of attributing a share of extra-regio activity to Scotland'.
This BBC article also states 'Under the present arrangement the oil tax revenues are assigned to an economic region set up by the UK government, which is called the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). This means that oil resources are not officially assigned to Scotland but instead to a region distinct from the British mainland' and '[a] Scottish government report seeks to outline what difference this would make to Scotland's financial position if it were to get a "geographical share" of the revenues instead of a "per capita" slice.' This article is about the country within the UK, not what the country would get if it were independent (of which this figure is entirely speculative, as Scotland's economy could go to shit). Both Scotland and England subsidise Wales and Northern Ireland, however this isn't shown in England's, Wales' or Northern Ireland's GDP so it shouldn't be shown in Scotland's either. You may be keen to abandon the Welsh and Northern Irish, but please wait until you're actually independent, before stating what an independent Scotland's GDP may be, if you're lucky :P. Regards,
Rob (
talk |
contribs)
12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Headine-1: Scottish independence poll:Yes on brink of victory
QUOTE: “The extreme negativity of the No campaign is playing into the hands of Alex Salmond. ” [The last sentence of the third paragraph (WP article herein) already talks about the referendum in September.] — Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 20:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC) — PS: FYI for future editing.
The Government and Politics section states the following: "Margo MacDonald is the only independent MSP sitting in parliament." This should probably be updated to something like: "Margo MacDonald was the only independent MSP sitting in parliament until her death in April 2014. As she was elected as a Regional List MSP, no by-election will be held, and her seat will remain vacant until the next general election to the Scottish Parliament." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajrussellaudio ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 21 May 2014
shudnt scotland be cald a constituent contry get ur facts right ppl — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.138.6 ( talk) 21:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Wrong - Scotland is not a country. The UK is a country. When did Wikipedia get taken over by the SNP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.12.136 ( talk) 11:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Brendandh ( talk) 22:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Article 1 of the 1706 Treaty expressly states "That the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England, shall upon the 1st May next ensuing the date hereof, and forever after, be United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN." This confirms the extinction of the two earlier sovereignties and the creation of a single new sovereignty and a single new kingdom 'Great Britain'. Whether or not one can say a single new country was created, or that the two countries remained distinct entities, wholly depends on how one chooses to define a country. For my money I'm happy to call Scotland and England two countries even though they are not two states. Cassandra. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.5.11.168 (
talk)
11:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
While I accept the Wikipedia policy on this I do agree with Royalcourtier's analysis above. That said, I've discussed the issue elsewhere quite recently and it seems there is a disparity between what Scots are taught in school on this matter and what the rest of the UK is taught. Purely anecdotally, I've been told that in Scotland it's taught that there are 'four countries that make up the United Kingdom', while the rest of the UK seems to be taught that there is 'one country made up of four constituent nations'. Clearly it's a purely academic difference that's causing issues. -- Cdfbrown ( talk) 01:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
The citation given for stating Scotland's national animal as the unicorn is not credible. It is a piece of journalism that lacks academic rigor. Despite having heraldic and symbolic significance in Scottish history, the unicorn is not in fact an animal and thus cannot be the national animal of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.168.6 ( talk) 17:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Historic and avant-garde, quirky and elegant, rainy and heartwarming - Glasgow is a city of opposites and of inspiration, dear to anyone who's lived here and unforgettable to any visitor.
It's a city where people like to dress up and have fun, to party all night, to soak up culture and to have a bit of banter with the next person in the queue.
It's a city where you'll see charity-shop hipsters rub shoulders with stylish high-flyers, where indulgence can mean cocktails and designer handbags or a stroll through a Victorian park.
It's a city of underground music venues and architectural jewels, of art and music festivals, and of lazy Sunday morning brunches.
It has a vast cultural offering and it's like no other place in the world.
92.233.171.172 ( talk) 23:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done Copyvio and spamcruftpeacockfroth -
Arjayay (
talk)
07:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
For some reason there are three "patron saints" listed. The links to the Catholic Encyclopedia are not references to support the claim. St. Andrew is the only "patron saint" of scotland. I suggest that this be edited. Acorn897 ( talk) 23:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Is Scotland the only country in Europe which never accepted the Pope authority. Teaksmitty ( talk) 14:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Scotland (/ˈskɒt.lənd/; Scots: [ˈskɔt.lənd]; Scottish Gaelic: Alba [ˈal̪ˠapə] ( listen)) is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. 12][13][14] However, the Scotish Independent Party is pushing to cede from the United Kingdom, a decision that will come before Scottish voters in the coming September 18, 2014 election. [2] Kdurfey ( talk) 00:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Kdurfey ( talk) 00:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Scotland may get separated from the UK this year. See the news.
Qwertyxp2000 ( talk) 06:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
If someone posts here and the purpose of the post is not comprehensible, asking for clarification is the obvious course and more civil than leaving an obscure post ignored, or making assumptions as to its intent. I did contemplate simply removing it as an apparent forum post but decided to give the editor the benefit of the doubt and ask as to the point they were making. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 13:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added the following hatnote to the article:
on the basis that the vast majority of people looking at this article today (and probably also tomorrow) will be doing so because of interest in that topic, and we might as well find the link front-and-center at the top of the article, instead of making them search for it in the article body. When the votes and counted and result of the referendum is in, we can remove it. -- Impsswoon ( talk) 17:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Now the separatists have been defeated in the referendum, this article is going to need fixing. Why has the fact Scotland is part of the Uk been moved? it use to say Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Someone has changed it to push separatism. its now been defeated. so lets fix this please Scotland2014 ( talk) 22:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The infobox currently implies English, Scots, and Scottish Gaelic are 'official languages'. Is there a source for this? The Scottish Government's Gaelic Language Plan states:
'The Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005 was passed by the Scottish Parliament with a view to securing the status of the Gaelic language as an official language of Scotland commanding equal respect to the English language.'
Does that imply English is already an official language of Scotland? The article current implies that English is an official language of Scotland because it's an official language of the UK, however that isn't considered at
Northern Ireland's article. Could we use the Gaelic Language Plan as a source for English as an official language? And then bold 'Recognised regional languages' so that it is no longer implied that Scottish Gaelic and Scots are official languages?
Rob (
talk |
contribs)
16:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
26th September - PLEASE. This article needs to be edited with regards to the recent referendum on independence and the issue of Scotland's status as a part of the United Kingdom. At the moment it uses language which is biased in favour of unionism and contains factual inaccuracies and un-sourced assertions.
EXAMPLE 1: "Regarding internal affairs, the Scottish Government had expressed unwillingness to admit the same right to inhabitants of Shetland and Orkney, where the constitutional status of the isles is debated and where parts of the population desire autonomy within the UK, independence of their own or reunification with the Kingdom of Norway." If this is so, please show that there is a movement in the Northern Isles campaigning for reunification or autonomy. It is sloppy just to write that "parts of the population desire" when there is no political movement afoot to achieve these aims.
EXAMPLE 2: "In May 2011, the Scottish National Party won an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament; as a result a referendum on Scottish independence took place on 18 September 2014, in which independence was rejected by a majority of the Scottish electorate." - I would suggest that a reasonable change to this paragraph would be: "...as a result a referendum on Scottish independence took place on September 18th 2014. A 55% majority of participants voted "no" against 45% who voted 'yes' to the question on the ballot: "Should Scotland be an independent country." I feel that this wording is more accurate and less emotive than the word "rejected". It also offers a concise perspective on what the final result was without discriminating for or against either position.
7 December
I agree with the comments above also please correct the following:
"in which independence was rejected by a majority of the Scottish electorate"
Only 46.7% of the electorate voted against independence so this is factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr JM Mackintosh ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of updates needed on Scottish cities and towns in wikitravel.org [3]. Some pages have not been updated there in years. Travelmite ( talk) 11:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello i noticed another mistake in the introduction but it is starting to look like a separatist propaganda site so maybe this is not by mistake? The article claims that 45% voted for independence. That is not true. 44.7% voted for separation. If the specific figures are to be stated in the introduction the correct figure should be used. Please look at the figures on the article at Scottish independence referendum, 2014. Scotty2015 ( talk) 22:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
hello the article introduction is wrong and it will not let me change it. The article says:
" In 1999, a devolved legislature, the Scottish Parliament, was reconvened with authority over many areas of home affairs following a referendum in 1997."
This is a lie. A devolved legislature was not reconvened. it was newly established. Use of the word reconvened suggests that this parliament existed in the past when it never did. Please can someone correct this mistake? thank you. Scotty2015 ( talk) 22:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The National animal of Scotland is not a Unicorn,it is actually a deer.I know this because I know a friend in Scotland that knows that the National animal is a deer. Lengendkebab ( talk) 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of supporting the new .scot TLD and consistency, I want to raise the possibility of changing the website from "scotland.org" to "welcome.scot" in the InfoBox. Both sites are identical and both domains are registered to the Scottish Government, similar sites such as scotland.gov.uk have already redirected to gov.scot, so I figured someone forgot to setup a redirect from scotland.org to welcome.scot. Any thoughts? Aaron McHale ( talk) 12:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as 'countries'.