![]() | Scots law was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Scots law be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
A summary of this article appears in Scotland. |
The entry for this topics states currently states that "Legislation affecting Scotland may be passed by the Scottish Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament, and the European Union." Is this still true following January 31, 2020? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.32.69.242 ( talk) 21:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if some Users who are experts on this topic could please consider tightening up the introduction. It is of a reasonable quality, but I think a good rethink could turn it into a truly excellent introduction to the topic.
I am particularly thinking about the last paragraph, which looks like it evolved (and it probably did) out of additions higgeldy piggeldy (sp.?) by various contributors. It also lacks what we strive for in terms of a worldwide view (bit too GB comparative, rather than globe comparative). Here is that last para of the intro, at present:
Much obliged if anyone can expend their intellectual juices. (Keep most of the existing links though: some are very good indeed).-- Mais oui! 13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the basis Scots law and English law is very different and do have very different consequences. I don't know what the point of the above paragraph is but it isn't true. Balfron 19:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The above mentioned paragraph is now:
Although there are many substantial differences between Scots law, English law and Northern Ireland law, much of the law is also similar, for example, Commercial law is similar throughout all jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, as is Employment Law. Different terminology is often used for the same concepts, for example, arbiters are called arbitrators in England. Another example would be the third verdict available to judges and juries (which consist of 15 members) in criminal cases: 'not proven'. The age of legal capacity under Scots law is 16, whereas under English law it is 18.[3][4]
The paragraph, although better than the version above, is still confused. The flow from different terminology to the "third verdict" to the age of legal capacity is disjointed... they have very little to do with eachother. Connolly15 ( talk) 01:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the paragraph so it is more fair and outlines the areas of the law that are different in the two jurisdictions and the areas of the law that are similar. I also cite practical differences that the average person may be interested to know about the two systems of law, as well as similarities that are of interest. Connolly15 ( talk) 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The beginning of the article contains sweeping generalisations about Scots law's origins, that aren't really justified. For example, Scots law never took Roman law as an official source of law- it was only ever used as a guiding (but not binding) source of principle where there was no existing or satisfactory rule. Its real sources are in fact English common law (which makes the bulk of Regiam Maiestatem) Canon law, Feudal law, early Scots statutes, and a small amount of Roman law. Roman law's greatest early influence was in procedure, i.e., Romano-canonical procedure (cognitio in Roman law) was adopted very early on.
Scots law of property is completely different from the English, both in terminology, principles and operation, and is almost wholly based on Roman/Civilian principles (Gretton & Steven, Property, Trusts and Succession p1.4) 84.93.9.160 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC).
Does " Dangerous offender" not have a special meaning in the Scottish criminal justice system? There is no mention of Scots law in the Wikipedia article, so I googled it. There seems to be something about a Dangerous Offender Order and Potentially Dangerous Offender; and a ref to "dangerous offender legislation". Does anyone have the requisite knowledge? -- Mais oui! 08:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
An article on solatium would be valued. Thanks. Cutler 20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed a link to a site that discusses the history of slavery in Scotland. There is no mention of slavery in the article. Should this be added? I'm referring to the Knight vs Wedderburn case.
The link I removed is: http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/abolition/
Any thoughts? mdkarazim ( talk) 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just now removed a reference to Ewing's statement being legally inaccurate. I do not think it follows that because the old Scots Parliament had absolute powers, that one cannot say that in one sense it has been "reconvened". I would not say that myself, but I can see why Ewing put it like that. I think it should be understood she was using a degree of rhetoric or romantacism suitable for the occassion. There might be an argument that Ewing's statement, being a bit of a gloss, should be removed. But I don't think it is right to stigmitise it as "inaccurate".
-- A.Bakunin ( talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The old Scots parliament did not enjoy absolute powers (unlike Westminster); the parliamentary doctrines North and South of the border pre-Union were rather different from each other. The new Parliament is, however, rather limited in its powers. "The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law" -- Lord President Cooper, McCormick v the Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396. 84.93.74.78 ( talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Surely this sort of thing belongs in the article dedicated to the Scottish Parliament?
Connolly15 (
talk)
01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This article's very low standard reflects two things. Firstly an author cannot do any justice to a subject of this size in an article as small as that. This should be a cover page linking to articles of all the different branches of Scots law. Also the way this has been written is very much structured around what the creator of the page wants to say. I think this talk page should be used in order to properly structure this article and give it the respectablility it deserves. S0673253 ( talk) 15:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion on the origins of the Scottish legal system is taking place at WikiProject Scotland. Editors of this article may be able to throw light on the topic. To contribute to the discussion, please click here. References, per WP:VERIFY, would be especially welcome! Thank you in advance. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If you'll forgive an Englishman from posting here at all, it strikes me that to say that "Equity does not exist in Scots law" is something of an oversimplification. True, unlike in England there isn't a jurisdictional split, with one set of technical rules of Scots law labelled "equity" and another labelled "common law". But surely that isn't to say that the courts do not exercise any kind of equitable jurisdiction: what about the nobile officium? And Lord Kames thought it worth his while to write his Principles of Equity, even if he concluded that "In Scotland... equity and common law are united in one court" [3rd edn (1778)at 26].
Why does the "Equity does not exist" phrase link to a French book on Google books Poland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.49.105 ( talk) 19:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this merely illustrates the problem of tackling an enormously-complex subject by means of an article in Wikipedia! Kranf ( talk) 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has a number of issues but I think that the main problems are that it lacks any real referencing and that it goes into too much detail for such a broad subject. I would suggest that a recast of the article is in order and that the new article should contain links to sub-articles that can go into more detail. For example, the current article goes into great detail about the history of the law of Scotland (without any sources though). Much of this should be moved to a sub-article on the topic.
To this end, I have started working on a recast here and I would appreciate any help, suggestions or comments. ( Connolly15 ( talk) 10:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
I have made numerous changes to the article which I have detailed and tried to justify below. Please be aware that a lot of the change are not adding or removing anything from the article, but are structural. I plan to do more, but I thought best to take a pause at this point and wait for comments / edits. ( Connolly15 ( talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
Comments? ( Connolly15 ( talk) 14:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
"Scots law is a combination of statute, common law, academic writings and custom based on a historically mixed grouping of sources, which makes it a hybrid or mixed legal system.[1][2]
The Parliament of the United Kingdom has authority to create, amend or revoke the law of Scotland, with the Scottish Parliament, since 1999, also having devolved powers to legislate within its legislative competence.[3] A large body of the law is also determined by judicial precedent with the most authoritative sources being the Court of Session and Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for civil law[4] and the High Court of Justiciary for criminal law.[5] Appeals to the European Court of Human Rights are possible where a legal dispute involves the infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights[6] or the Court of Justice of the European Union where European law is at issue.[7] The publications of the institutional writers, who were a group of distinguished jurists, are recognised as a legitimate source of law in Scotland as well.[8] Customary law is the final recognised source; however, its importance is largely historic with the last court ruling to cite customary law being decided in 1890.[9]
Scots law attempts to balance the need for conformity in the United Kingdom in certain legal fields, often for practical commercial reasons, while recognising the traditional uniqueness of the legal system in other areas. For example, laws concerning consumer rights, data protection, employment and immigration are reserved matters under the Scotland Act 1998, meaning that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has sole jurisdiction in these areas.[3] The law of Scotland, however, is unique in the United Kingdom in a number of other fields, especially property and succession laws[10] and court actions, where the involvement of a Scottish solicitor is normally required.[11]"
Thoughts? ( Connolly15 ( talk) 14:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC))
Executive
Legislature
Judiciary
Legal profession
Comments?
Legislation
Common Law
Institutional Writers
Custom
Comments?
Comments?
Comments?
I've created an article History of Scots law and would appreciate a review/critique/feedback if possible. My thought was to replace the current text (which is 99% unsourced) of this article with a summary from the new article incorporating its sources. The weakness of the new History of Scots law article is that it relies on two sources (the main one is available for viewing on Google Books and is linked, from very reputable authors, the other source is Stair). If anyone can add further information or sources it would be great! I don't have any at the moment, but will have more access to sources in a couple of months. ( Connolly15 ( talk) 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC))
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk · contribs) 10:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I normally read the article briefly from start to finish; and then afterwards, I work my way through the article, in more depth, section by section, over several days, but leaving the WP:Lede until last. After this initial read through, I make a decision whether the article is likely to gain GA during this nomination, with or without additional work, in a reasonable time frame. If I conclude that it can't, I might/would Quick fail it. The final decision on GA or not is, of course, made at the end of this review.
I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting with "Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction".
The nominator, or anyone else is welcome to add comments, questions, suggestions as I go though the article, but the acceptance criteria is WP:WIAGA, and that's what I'm be assessing it against.
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 13:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 08:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Scots law |
---|
![]() |
Interestingly, quite a few articles on Scots laws have a "CourtsScotland template", whereas this article uses the "PoliticsScotland" template. The "CourtsScotland template" is quite informative and I therefore intend to review the scope of this article against that template.
Having looked at the template, there are institutions that are not covered. For instance there is no coverage of the Procurator Fiscal, nor of the Scottish Law Commission or the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 08:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Review put On Hold at 09:50, 17 May 2012 (see [3]). Pyrotec ( talk)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
As no progress has been made in one month, I'm closing this review. I would like to see this article gaining GA-status and I suspect that if the improvements listed above were made this article could make GA. I wish the article well. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scots law/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Lacks references, per WP:CITE. -- Mais oui! 13:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 13:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 05:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The UK is not a Federal system. ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 14:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC))
Act of Parliament | |
![]() | |
Long title | An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision, in accordance with paragraph 5A of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, for the holding of a referendum in Scotland on a question about the independence of Scotland. |
---|---|
Citation | 2013 asp 14 |
Introduced by | Nicola Sturgeon |
Territorial extent | Scotland |
Dates | |
Royal assent | 17 December 2013 |
Status:
Spent | |
Text of statute as originally enacted |
Why is the infobox UK legislation displaying the wrong coat of arms for all Scottish Legislation using the info box from the Independence referendum Act 2013 as an example when it doesn't even appear on the text of the legislation?
This is the correct coat of arms so please can this be corrected. ( 2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:6CAB:D16E:4BE3:E085 ( talk) 21:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC))
This is proof of this so why is the wrong coat of arms being displayed on the legislation infobox for the Scottish Parliament? ( MOTORAL1987 ( talk) 10:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC))
Just bringing this discussion to this article. ( 2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:A857:CE18:88E:793B ( talk) 10:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC))
In the third sentence: "Together with English law and Northern Irish law, it is one of the four legal systems of the United Kingdom"
Clearly, listing three legal systems then saying there's four is contradictory. The status of Welsh law as a separate legal system is somewhat unclear, but either the sentence should include Welsh law, or it should be changed to read "one of the three legal systems". 84.71.179.180 ( talk) 13:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Scots law was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Scots law be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
A summary of this article appears in Scotland. |
The entry for this topics states currently states that "Legislation affecting Scotland may be passed by the Scottish Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament, and the European Union." Is this still true following January 31, 2020? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.32.69.242 ( talk) 21:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if some Users who are experts on this topic could please consider tightening up the introduction. It is of a reasonable quality, but I think a good rethink could turn it into a truly excellent introduction to the topic.
I am particularly thinking about the last paragraph, which looks like it evolved (and it probably did) out of additions higgeldy piggeldy (sp.?) by various contributors. It also lacks what we strive for in terms of a worldwide view (bit too GB comparative, rather than globe comparative). Here is that last para of the intro, at present:
Much obliged if anyone can expend their intellectual juices. (Keep most of the existing links though: some are very good indeed).-- Mais oui! 13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the basis Scots law and English law is very different and do have very different consequences. I don't know what the point of the above paragraph is but it isn't true. Balfron 19:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The above mentioned paragraph is now:
Although there are many substantial differences between Scots law, English law and Northern Ireland law, much of the law is also similar, for example, Commercial law is similar throughout all jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, as is Employment Law. Different terminology is often used for the same concepts, for example, arbiters are called arbitrators in England. Another example would be the third verdict available to judges and juries (which consist of 15 members) in criminal cases: 'not proven'. The age of legal capacity under Scots law is 16, whereas under English law it is 18.[3][4]
The paragraph, although better than the version above, is still confused. The flow from different terminology to the "third verdict" to the age of legal capacity is disjointed... they have very little to do with eachother. Connolly15 ( talk) 01:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the paragraph so it is more fair and outlines the areas of the law that are different in the two jurisdictions and the areas of the law that are similar. I also cite practical differences that the average person may be interested to know about the two systems of law, as well as similarities that are of interest. Connolly15 ( talk) 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The beginning of the article contains sweeping generalisations about Scots law's origins, that aren't really justified. For example, Scots law never took Roman law as an official source of law- it was only ever used as a guiding (but not binding) source of principle where there was no existing or satisfactory rule. Its real sources are in fact English common law (which makes the bulk of Regiam Maiestatem) Canon law, Feudal law, early Scots statutes, and a small amount of Roman law. Roman law's greatest early influence was in procedure, i.e., Romano-canonical procedure (cognitio in Roman law) was adopted very early on.
Scots law of property is completely different from the English, both in terminology, principles and operation, and is almost wholly based on Roman/Civilian principles (Gretton & Steven, Property, Trusts and Succession p1.4) 84.93.9.160 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC).
Does " Dangerous offender" not have a special meaning in the Scottish criminal justice system? There is no mention of Scots law in the Wikipedia article, so I googled it. There seems to be something about a Dangerous Offender Order and Potentially Dangerous Offender; and a ref to "dangerous offender legislation". Does anyone have the requisite knowledge? -- Mais oui! 08:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
An article on solatium would be valued. Thanks. Cutler 20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed a link to a site that discusses the history of slavery in Scotland. There is no mention of slavery in the article. Should this be added? I'm referring to the Knight vs Wedderburn case.
The link I removed is: http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/abolition/
Any thoughts? mdkarazim ( talk) 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just now removed a reference to Ewing's statement being legally inaccurate. I do not think it follows that because the old Scots Parliament had absolute powers, that one cannot say that in one sense it has been "reconvened". I would not say that myself, but I can see why Ewing put it like that. I think it should be understood she was using a degree of rhetoric or romantacism suitable for the occassion. There might be an argument that Ewing's statement, being a bit of a gloss, should be removed. But I don't think it is right to stigmitise it as "inaccurate".
-- A.Bakunin ( talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The old Scots parliament did not enjoy absolute powers (unlike Westminster); the parliamentary doctrines North and South of the border pre-Union were rather different from each other. The new Parliament is, however, rather limited in its powers. "The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law" -- Lord President Cooper, McCormick v the Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396. 84.93.74.78 ( talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Surely this sort of thing belongs in the article dedicated to the Scottish Parliament?
Connolly15 (
talk)
01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This article's very low standard reflects two things. Firstly an author cannot do any justice to a subject of this size in an article as small as that. This should be a cover page linking to articles of all the different branches of Scots law. Also the way this has been written is very much structured around what the creator of the page wants to say. I think this talk page should be used in order to properly structure this article and give it the respectablility it deserves. S0673253 ( talk) 15:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
A discussion on the origins of the Scottish legal system is taking place at WikiProject Scotland. Editors of this article may be able to throw light on the topic. To contribute to the discussion, please click here. References, per WP:VERIFY, would be especially welcome! Thank you in advance. -- Mais oui! ( talk) 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If you'll forgive an Englishman from posting here at all, it strikes me that to say that "Equity does not exist in Scots law" is something of an oversimplification. True, unlike in England there isn't a jurisdictional split, with one set of technical rules of Scots law labelled "equity" and another labelled "common law". But surely that isn't to say that the courts do not exercise any kind of equitable jurisdiction: what about the nobile officium? And Lord Kames thought it worth his while to write his Principles of Equity, even if he concluded that "In Scotland... equity and common law are united in one court" [3rd edn (1778)at 26].
Why does the "Equity does not exist" phrase link to a French book on Google books Poland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.49.105 ( talk) 19:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this merely illustrates the problem of tackling an enormously-complex subject by means of an article in Wikipedia! Kranf ( talk) 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This article has a number of issues but I think that the main problems are that it lacks any real referencing and that it goes into too much detail for such a broad subject. I would suggest that a recast of the article is in order and that the new article should contain links to sub-articles that can go into more detail. For example, the current article goes into great detail about the history of the law of Scotland (without any sources though). Much of this should be moved to a sub-article on the topic.
To this end, I have started working on a recast here and I would appreciate any help, suggestions or comments. ( Connolly15 ( talk) 10:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
I have made numerous changes to the article which I have detailed and tried to justify below. Please be aware that a lot of the change are not adding or removing anything from the article, but are structural. I plan to do more, but I thought best to take a pause at this point and wait for comments / edits. ( Connolly15 ( talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
Comments? ( Connolly15 ( talk) 14:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
"Scots law is a combination of statute, common law, academic writings and custom based on a historically mixed grouping of sources, which makes it a hybrid or mixed legal system.[1][2]
The Parliament of the United Kingdom has authority to create, amend or revoke the law of Scotland, with the Scottish Parliament, since 1999, also having devolved powers to legislate within its legislative competence.[3] A large body of the law is also determined by judicial precedent with the most authoritative sources being the Court of Session and Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for civil law[4] and the High Court of Justiciary for criminal law.[5] Appeals to the European Court of Human Rights are possible where a legal dispute involves the infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights[6] or the Court of Justice of the European Union where European law is at issue.[7] The publications of the institutional writers, who were a group of distinguished jurists, are recognised as a legitimate source of law in Scotland as well.[8] Customary law is the final recognised source; however, its importance is largely historic with the last court ruling to cite customary law being decided in 1890.[9]
Scots law attempts to balance the need for conformity in the United Kingdom in certain legal fields, often for practical commercial reasons, while recognising the traditional uniqueness of the legal system in other areas. For example, laws concerning consumer rights, data protection, employment and immigration are reserved matters under the Scotland Act 1998, meaning that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has sole jurisdiction in these areas.[3] The law of Scotland, however, is unique in the United Kingdom in a number of other fields, especially property and succession laws[10] and court actions, where the involvement of a Scottish solicitor is normally required.[11]"
Thoughts? ( Connolly15 ( talk) 14:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC))
Executive
Legislature
Judiciary
Legal profession
Comments?
Legislation
Common Law
Institutional Writers
Custom
Comments?
Comments?
Comments?
I've created an article History of Scots law and would appreciate a review/critique/feedback if possible. My thought was to replace the current text (which is 99% unsourced) of this article with a summary from the new article incorporating its sources. The weakness of the new History of Scots law article is that it relies on two sources (the main one is available for viewing on Google Books and is linked, from very reputable authors, the other source is Stair). If anyone can add further information or sources it would be great! I don't have any at the moment, but will have more access to sources in a couple of months. ( Connolly15 ( talk) 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC))
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Pyrotec ( talk · contribs) 10:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I normally read the article briefly from start to finish; and then afterwards, I work my way through the article, in more depth, section by section, over several days, but leaving the WP:Lede until last. After this initial read through, I make a decision whether the article is likely to gain GA during this nomination, with or without additional work, in a reasonable time frame. If I conclude that it can't, I might/would Quick fail it. The final decision on GA or not is, of course, made at the end of this review.
I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting with "Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction".
The nominator, or anyone else is welcome to add comments, questions, suggestions as I go though the article, but the acceptance criteria is WP:WIAGA, and that's what I'm be assessing it against.
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 13:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 08:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Part of a series on |
Scots law |
---|
![]() |
Interestingly, quite a few articles on Scots laws have a "CourtsScotland template", whereas this article uses the "PoliticsScotland" template. The "CourtsScotland template" is quite informative and I therefore intend to review the scope of this article against that template.
Having looked at the template, there are institutions that are not covered. For instance there is no coverage of the Procurator Fiscal, nor of the Scottish Law Commission or the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
...to be continued. Pyrotec ( talk) 08:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Review put On Hold at 09:50, 17 May 2012 (see [3]). Pyrotec ( talk)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
As no progress has been made in one month, I'm closing this review. I would like to see this article gaining GA-status and I suspect that if the improvements listed above were made this article could make GA. I wish the article well. Pyrotec ( talk) 11:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scots law/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Lacks references, per WP:CITE. -- Mais oui! 13:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 13:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 05:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The UK is not a Federal system. ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 14:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC))
Act of Parliament | |
![]() | |
Long title | An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision, in accordance with paragraph 5A of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, for the holding of a referendum in Scotland on a question about the independence of Scotland. |
---|---|
Citation | 2013 asp 14 |
Introduced by | Nicola Sturgeon |
Territorial extent | Scotland |
Dates | |
Royal assent | 17 December 2013 |
Status:
Spent | |
Text of statute as originally enacted |
Why is the infobox UK legislation displaying the wrong coat of arms for all Scottish Legislation using the info box from the Independence referendum Act 2013 as an example when it doesn't even appear on the text of the legislation?
This is the correct coat of arms so please can this be corrected. ( 2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:6CAB:D16E:4BE3:E085 ( talk) 21:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC))
This is proof of this so why is the wrong coat of arms being displayed on the legislation infobox for the Scottish Parliament? ( MOTORAL1987 ( talk) 10:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC))
Just bringing this discussion to this article. ( 2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:A857:CE18:88E:793B ( talk) 10:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC))
In the third sentence: "Together with English law and Northern Irish law, it is one of the four legal systems of the United Kingdom"
Clearly, listing three legal systems then saying there's four is contradictory. The status of Welsh law as a separate legal system is somewhat unclear, but either the sentence should include Welsh law, or it should be changed to read "one of the three legal systems". 84.71.179.180 ( talk) 13:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)