Talk:Scotland/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 25

Map Straw Poll

This is a straw poll to determine where the community currently stands. Please mark your preference using your signature only. You can vote more then once but mark weather it is your first, second, or third preference. Sign your signature with two 'stars' to indent your signature correctly.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One map options:

  • Option F: One-map: Other

Two-Map options:

  • Option I: Two map: Other

Map Straw Poll Comments

Thank you very much Drachenfyre for this wonderful straw poll (no sarcasm). Even if it would not solve our issue--I hope it will--I find it very interesting to see what all choices are made. Kinda refreshing after such a long discussion. Hope to see even more votes ;-) Tomeasy (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Straw polls & Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The only thing this poll has shown is that there is no consensus, but we knew that already. Thanks/wangi (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
We knew that there was no consensus, right. But personally I find it still interesting to see how the people I was discussing with over the past week specifically rank their preferences. To this end, I think Drachenfyre designed the poll nicely. Nobody claimed that it is a substitute for discussion and I think that you would agree, Wangi, there was abundant discussion as well--nobody tried to skip this credential. Please do not be so negative on everything that is going on here. Surely, nobody is happy with the slow progression, but criticizing everything also does not help. Tomeasy (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we've demonstrated that we have discussed the issue. Actually, a trend is becoming evident. We should let the poll continue for the week before rushing to any conclusions. It is important that we get as wide a cross-section on such an emotive subject as we can.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You may have noticed I have changed my preferences from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd to all of them being equal 1st. now that might seem pretty silly but I did't set the precedent! I have also noticed that many who were talking about compromise are now choosing their original stances as 1st choices whilst I chose mine as a compromise. I'm afraid I don't see this going anywhere!--Jack forbes (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Jack Forbes, I think this is absolutely normal and does not imply any bad faith. Of course, people have their preferences and most of the time they will only slightly change their personal ranking during the discussion process. Exactly for this reason they are compromising when they agree to other proposals as well. Of course, these compromises are then not their first preference but 3rd or 4th. The compromise lies in the fact that they are agreeing to something that they find suboptimal. Please do not just criticize the abstract group of discussing people. What we are observing here is not as abnormal as you put it and I find generally people show good faith in this discussion. I have seen much worse. Unfortunately, you have already left this forum. Well, I will not give up the hope you come back. I remember Drachenfyre also announced his departure at one point ;-) Tomeasy (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I admire you Drachenfyre for doing an excellent mediation job, and I originaly thought the straw poll was an excellent idea but have come to realise that it solves nothing! I am going to drop out of the discussions here and go elsewhere! I wish you luck!--Jack forbes (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am touched by Jack Forbes protest vote, that is removing himself from the process for what he sees as a lack of a genuine spirit for compromise between the two sides. I sympathize with Jack Forbes position in this matter. More contributors will remove themselves form the process of consultative contrabutions here. Again, I too am dissapointed at the lack of compromise. But clearly we are not in a "place" for compromise at present time. Prehaps we will not be until after the consitutional delima of Scotland itself is solved and put to rest.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another proposed guideline for "the British Isles"

I have numerous concerns about the current proposal for a guideline for the use of the term British Isles and have written another proposal. My main concerns were that the proposal as it is written here did not walk the line of WP:NPOV, did not have an adequate grounding in current consensus and practice, and did not offer any concrete guidelines per se that an editor could follow or easily understand (in the broadest sense of the term).

My proposed guidelines are here. --sony-youthpléigh 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rampant Anglocentrism

This addition to the introduction is one of the worst examples of historiographical "recentism" that I have seen on Wikipedia:

Though enbattled for centuries, the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England had been drawing increasingly together since the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century[9] and after 1603, when the two countries became linked by a personal union, being ruled by the same Stuart dynasty.[9] Following a number of attempts to unite the Kingdoms, on 1 May 1707, the Acts of Union, despite protest across Scotland,[10] resulted in a political union between the states creating the Kingdom of Great Britain.

It is a massive error to think that the whole of history has been working towards one point: the present day. Amateur historians often spend all their efforts trying to squeeze history into explaining modern society and politics.

Secondly, it is a very blatantly Anglocentric view of the topic. Scotland must be understood within its wider context. Scotland is not best explained to a global audience from a purely English perspective. The BBC takes that approach, with often laughable consequences.

Thirdly: the introduction is plenty long enough as it is without adding yet more.

Fourthly: why is an article about Scotland morphing in to an article about England and the United Kingdom? For example, until the recent, well-coordinated WP:POINT attacks on this article and its established editors, there was a neutral geographical map showing the location of Scotland. Now the WP:POINTers have imposed a political map of the United Kingdom on the Scotland article. How did that happen? Go figure. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC) --Mais oui! (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

--Linda Colley (the historian used) is Professor of History at Princeton University. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
While factual inaccurate or bias views, even within academic and accredited sources occour within articles they should be avoided and it is good to be pointed out, do you have any accredited sources that say otherwise or you feel would be better? Your opinion about this map situation on the other hand is not helpful. Stating that people came to this article to prove a point only inhibits a dialog between parties and can only inflame the situation at hand. If you want to go with precedent and the established MoS inside of wikipedia then please note that the original map violated that precedent. This article is not to be mistaken with the Kingdom of Scotland or even the Scottish people this is about a vital and distinct subdivision of the United Kingdom. If every other major subdivision on the planet listed in wikipedia can agree to that MoS then why is Scotland the only subdivision that gets special treatment? Please try not to inflame the conversation when people are starting to calm down and converse again. You may be saying your peace believing that you are doing good for the article, this talk page, and the discussion at hand but others might not take your comments in the way you hope they will. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits or de-merits of the proposed changes you need to bear in mind that much of this article has been arrived at through very lengthy discussions. Amending the lead wholesale is not likely to result in unanimous applause, except perhaps from those whose main purpose is to push a particular view rather than think through the issues. I suggest you make the case here rather than stirring up further controversy on the article page. I will enclose an example below. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure what this is about, but it doesn't seem to have the article's best interests at heart. Certanly the additions I made:
a) provide greater context and accuracy
b) use reliable sources
c) is verifiable
d) is NPOV
e) better reflects the content of the main text (as that has grown the lead has not)
f) meets all aspects of WP:MOS and WP:LEAD.
What are the objections here, other than "it has been like that for ages" mentality? Was it mentions of "England"? Was it mentions of the Scottish reformation? The Enlightenment? What is this "Anglocentricsm"? Did these things not happen? Rather than a revert (airbrushing?), wouldn't a tweak have been better? I feel as if when I try to make a change here, WP:SCOTLAND won't let me; can somebody assure me this isn't the case? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Historical teleology is spurious, and should be avoided. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sure no-one objects to the principle of improvements or change. I don't pretend to any historical expertise, but what I think you need to bear in mind is that whilst being bold sometimes works, on pages with such a complex background building consensus may prove more fruitful. It can be painfully tedious I'm afraid. By all means make a case. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, what is it I have to make a case for/against? What are the objections? The lead as it stands is not befitting to Scotland. Reformation? Elightenment? Celtic heritage? Union of Crowns? Historical relationship with England? -- all missing from the lead. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Right OK, 48 hours have passed, I've asked three times for the objections, no reasons or objections were given, several others have changed the lead, but now BenMacDui has just restored it back again under "no discussion" ([1]). Back goes in the bad formatting of references, back goes in the unsourced "Scotland is a group of people". Unbelievable. Seriously, unbelievable. Ben, state your reasons!!! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yet another 24 hours have gone by, so I've restored the version of the lead I'm hoping we can adopt with this edit. It's been reverted again now by someone who hasn't commented here. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Any change that we can just do this:

Scotland' (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by...

It removes any ambiguity that people have about the sentence and removing this has been adopted in all the other subdivisions of the uk to make a more stable page and to help raise the article to FA status! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's fine by me (and my first preference), but thought the alternative would be a suitable compromise. Eitherway we've got to remove this nation nonsense - it's time has been and gone. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

State of the Union

As a corollary to the map issue I mentioned above the idea of adding "a short section on 'Scotland within the Union' ". Here is a suggestion:

1) Make final sentences of lead:

Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state and does not have independent membership of either the United Nations or the European Union. However, the place of Scotland within the UK continues to give rise to debate.<ref>

2) Add to 'Govt and politics' sub-section 3.2. The following is, with a few minor word re-orderings, taken from Politics of Scotland. I'm not happy with the specific poll number - as noted here somewhere polls are very changeable. However the subject can't be ignored completely. It also needs another reference or two.

Scotland within the UK

The main political debate in Scotland tends to revolve around attitudes to the constitutional question. Under the pressure of growing support for Scottish independence a policy of devolution had been advocated by all three UK-wide parties to some degree during their history (although Labour and the Conservatives have also at times opposed it). This question dominated the Scottish political scene in the latter half of the 20th century. Now that devolution has occurred, the main argument about Scotland's constitutional status is over whether the Scottish Parliament should accrue additional powers (for example over fiscal policy), or seek to obtain full independence. The programmes of legislation enacted by the Scottish Parliament have seen a divergence in the provision of public services compared to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Ultimately the long term question is: should the Scottish parliament continue to be a subsidiary assembly created and potentially abolished by the constitutionally dominant and sovereign parliament of the United Kingdom (as in devolution) or should it have an independent existence as of right, with full sovereign powers (either through independence, a federal United Kingdom or a confederal arrangement)? To clarify these issues, the SNP-led Scottish Executive published Choosing Scotland's Future, a consultation document directed to the electorate under the National Conversation exercise. Opinion polls show that support for Scottish independence with the Scottish people is currently at around 30%.BBC Scotland News Online "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6942352.stm Call for debate on independence]", BBC Scotland News, 2007-08-12. Retrieved on 2007-08-19. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent proposal!!
One niggling, pedantic point: strictly speaking only the Conservative Party is "UK-wide": neither Labour nor the Lib dems operate in N Ireland, therefore they are "GB-wide" but not "UK-wide". --Mais oui! (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I see there has been no objection to a change along these lines and I plan to implement when I can muster the energy. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OBJECTION! Come on Ben, this aint fair. You revert my changes when I've asked three times for your objections, but when none are given you say "no discussion". When you want a change, no discussion is needed!
I object to your proposal. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree. I like the version that Jza84 promotes much more. Apart from the nation, constituent country issue that I try not to indulge in, it is textually and format wise simply of higher quality. Tomeasy (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a little confusion here. First of all, in reply to Tomeasy, the above is not an alternative to any other version I can see being suggested on this page. It's an addition. Secondly, I don't think its relevant to the quality or otherwise of the proposed change to suggest that somehow it might only be acceptable if other changes were allowed elsewhere, as if this was some kind of plea bargaining. Finally, and perhaps most importantly in reply to Jza84 - I am a bit mystified. In the current maelstrom of edits it is genuinely rather difficult to keep up with what is going on, but I honestly don't recall being "asked three times" for my objections. (Are we talking about the 'nation' thing? That's more like thirty than three). The point I'd like to think I was making clearly was that in the absence of any obvious agreement for change I couldn't see any reason to support it. I'm also guessing a little as to which 'change' you are referring to. There were some changes to the lead that occurred in the last few days I didn't touch at all. Can I suggest that:
a) we use this section to discuss the merits of the above suggested change, and that
b) we start a different section to look at other unresolved issues relating to the lead?
I am not opposed to change, I'd just like it to be ordered.Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 07:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot object more strongly to this down-right awful draft. It is littered with peacock terms and factual inaccuracies: "The main political debate in Scotland tends to revolve around attitudes to the constitutional question" - I mean really! Moreover, the section is not remotely 'short' - it takes up a considerable (and enormously undeserved) subsection within the Political area. The polls section simply will not work: there are countless polls, commissioned by various organisations, showing massive disparities; we cannot simply pluck a few out of the air, (mis)contextualise it and call that objective fact. It clarifies nothing, and will simply lead to dispute.
I have also edited the original lead section. Nobody is realistically going to assume Scotland, as part of the UK (already very much clear and with the division of powers spelled out in the political section) is a member of the UN or EU. When we have stated quite clearly what Scotland is, there is no need for clarification as to what it is not.--Breadandcheese (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about fora

Of course the UK government have the power to abolish the Scottish parliament, political suicide in Scotland, but another option is to slowly but surely withdraw the decision making powers the parliament currently has! The current parliament are not slow to use these powers whereas the previous parliament more often than not decided not to. Just thought I'd throw that in.--Jack forbes (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum, please. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Just stating some facts pertaining to Scotland!--Jack forbes (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is certainly a forum, Jza84, stated policies to the contrary notwithstanding. What part of this talk page is not a forum? We have wangi noting the purpose of the map, but he clearly isn't on-target to the forum; we have MacDui trying to separate the forum from the article so normal work can proceed, but he clearly isn't on-target to the forum; we have several well-intended efforts towards resolution, but they too clearly are not on-target to the forum.
All of the discourse is in terms of some rationalisation of how things ought to be, but an honest observation (consistent with everything and inconsistent with nothing) is that minds are pre-set and no one believes that any opinions will be changed by anything that is said. And all of it is couched in terms of "assume good faith", another stated policy that is at least as effective as the one against using Wikipedia as a forum.
It's rather like the doctor who tries to dissuade smoking by speaking to the rational mind of the smoker, to no effect because the rational mind is not where the issue truly resides.
Just my 2 cents worth, nothing but an honest opinion from a newcomer who has waded through this and similar talk pages. By the way, the infobox for Edinburgh was changed yesterday, from a map of the city to a UK map. Certainly a good-faith change, but it has all the hallmarks that a mathematician can appreciate: this reduces to a problem that remains unsolved. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry my bad. I misread Jack's comment. However, Wikipedia is not a forum still, it's an encyclopedia. The talk pages sometimes function as forums, but Wikipedia itself does not. I was trying to point to WP:NOT#OR. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  00:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My comment was not aimed at you, Jza84, and I regret that I did not make that clear initially; nor was my comment aimed at anyone else. It was aimed at the assertion that Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia is not a forum only when the issue doesn't matter to anyone. Wikipedia IS a forum otherwise. Why is the article page protected? Why wasn't a discussion initiated before the change that started this particular discussion? Why didn't every experienced editor work against a known-to-be-contentious change to the article without a prior discussion? How does this kind of thing keep happening accidentally, where the same kind of issues arise again and again? Wikipedia is a forum where this article is concerned.
How about (1) place the article back in the condition it was in prior to the map-related change and unprotect it; (2) archive this talk page to get it out of the way; (3) have a go at things on a fresh talk page. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If only one thing is made clear out of the recent Straw Poll no one likes the old map. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No. The only thing that was "made clear" by your multiple, highly disruptive, and totally counter-productive "straw polls" is that no one likes your straw polls. They were largely, and quite rightly, boykotted by the large number of established editors of this article. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
My multiple, highly disruptive, and totally counter-productive "straw polls"? Hate to tell you the poll was organized by Drachenfyre. Someone with differing views to myself. I am still trying to assume good faith with you, but your comments are quite uncivil please read Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. It is not intended to be an insult to you in any way but you are very heavy handed with your fellow editors. Please also read Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles since your discussions seam to be opposing those policies. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No. It was you. In fact one of your highly disruptive straw polls was collapsed by an Admin because it was just becoming Talk page graffitti/vandalism: [2]. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you avoided everything I said. The link you provided said this Old straw poll, largely no participation with the summary of collapse discussion for readability how prey tell is that the admin saying the straw poll was highly disruptive? Please Quit your personal attacks to me and actually discuss the topic at hand. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well then, it looks like we have one proposal on which everyone is in agreement. And that has its virtues, if only for the short term. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I support your proposal Notuncurious: (1) place the article back in the condition it was in prior to the map-related change and unprotect it; (2) archive this talk page to get it out of the way; (3) have a go at things on a fresh talk page. And on no account must we allow the WP:POINTers to hijack the ensuing discussion with bogus "straw polls" and yards and yards of bloody maps on the Talk page. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Why didn't every experienced editor work against a known-to-be-contentious change to the article without a prior discussion?". That is an easy one to answer: we just got tired. The map on the Scotland page has been systematically targetted by sockpuppets and meatpuppets, mostly ip, for years. Again and again and again it was raised at Talk, the overwhelming consensus of the established editors was the non-political map showing Scotland's location in Europe, and the ip-sockpuppets were reverted. But it is the same old story: Wikipedia attracts a certain type of political campaigner who just loves to edit Introductions, and prominent features like maps, without having the slightest clue about the actual topic at hand. The Scotland article was just unlucky enough to be targetted by a co-ordinated crew of ignorant yobs at the same time. However, civilisation always conquers over pubescent disruption. We are patient. --Mais oui! (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Scotland article was just unlucky enough to be targetted by a co-ordinated crew of ignorant yobs at the same time. I hope that is not aimed at current editors. If it isn't I cannot say one way or another as to the past motives of those editors. If it is aimed to those here trying to reach consensus, please assume good faith since those charges are rather uncivil. For myself I believe I have made a solid case of a precedence already existing in wikipedia that is a legitimate call for a change in the old map. That was done with research and evidence presented for all to read. As I am not a pubescent either I think we can talk like adults and not make blanket insults... Right? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mais oui please do not start another edit war. Please read what the admin User:Wangi said when page was unprotected [3] Unprotected Scotland: Trying with no protection; however no map nor country/region/nation changes please until consensus has been reach on the talk page -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin User:Wangi was actually warning YOU to cease disrupting the article with HIGHLY contentious edits, contrary to the long-established consensus at the Talk page. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I had no messages from that admin nor was the admin saying that to any editor in particular, only saying very clearly Unprotected Scotland: Trying with no protection; however no map nor country/region/nation changes please until consensus has been reach on the talk page. How clearer can that be? What other edit can be called HIGHLY contentious that I have done on this page? Change the map from a style that is not found on ANY other page on wikipedia? Isn't that an improvement bringing the article in line with the MoS found.... well everywhere? Please don't be disruptive but work with your editors here. Assume good faith with those willing to put in their free time here in a civil manner and work towards a consensus that will end this silly little question once and for all. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Wangi was referring to utterly disruptive, clearly counter-consensus edits like this. WP:MOS is absolutely nothing to do with this. This is a content dispute. You may think that you can "end this silly little question once and for all", but that is not how Wikipedia, nor the world, works. Reason always conquers in the end. We Scots did invent the Enlightenment after all. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
While being a Scot myself (along with Irish and English) I cannot see how the established MoS is not a valid reason. After all David Hume said A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence and When men are most sure and arrogant, they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities. I believe that you noticed that I didn't make HIGHLY contentious edits (notice the s) Also You will notice that I didn't revert the edit but quickly went to the talk page following the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. That led me to find out about the ongoing discussion on the talk page as noted here. So if you really believe that editing on wikipedia is disruptive, then every page would have to be protected would it not? It's when we start working together that the real healing takes place -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nation v. Country debacle

Why do we have the [dubious-discuss] above nation now? This seems to me, as someone not involved to this point, nitpicking to a ridiculous level. On most definitions of 'nation' or 'country' they are mildly interchangeable. If there is no dispute over "constituent country" then can we not just say:

"Scotland (Gaelic: Alba, Scots: Scotland) is one of the four constituent countries[5] of the United Kingdom"

as per Wales, Northern Ireland and England, with the exception of their little disclaimer about being most populous. This is really a minor point and just makes the very first words of the first sentence ugly and detracts from the opening paragraph. Is there any need for this superscript to continue? PeemJim86 (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I share your preference. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have chosen to stay quiet on this issue since I believe that they are nations and I believe the term to be confusing to most readers. I believe that the proposed solution is the best. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is dumb. It started off useful-and serious- it has degenerated to the point where it cannot be saved. I say we appoint a committee of users to make the relevant edits. Let them do it, and then shut up about it.--Gazzster (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Well I for one have tried to stay on point and be useful and serious. I'll repeat my last concern (above) again here:
From Chambers Dictionary:

nation noun 1. the people living in the same country, or under the same government 2. a race of people: the Jewish nation.

From Oxford Dictionary:

A nation is formed of a large group of people closely associated with one another "by common descent, language, or history, as to form a distinct race or people, usually organized as a separate political state and occupying a definite territory

Again, is Scotland a group of people (like the Scottish nation) or a territory they occupy? Governmental material asserts Scotland is a country and I say, of course, we go for that. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the New Grolier Webster Interntaitonal Dictionary of the English Language:

Nation: A people inhabiting a certin territory and united by common political institutions; the country or territory itself, an aggregation of persons speaking the same or a cognate language, ususally sharing a common ethnic origion; an Indian tribe beloning to a confederation of tribes.

♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I will say my peace and then leave this discussion

Since I do agree that the constituent countries can be called Nations I can understand why people want that added. But I also know that people believe that the term Nation is the same as Country, mistaking it to mean that it is an independent State. So if others have found neutrality and stability using the above then why not Scotland? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's really up to those who object to us following this common usage to show why it is unsuitable. So far, efforts in that direction have mainly involved thumbing through dictionaries and the like. But we've already seen that to write "Scotland is a nation" or "Scotland is a country" is quite conventional and always has been. The nation article seems, on the face of it, to go to some length to explain the ambiguity of the term. For that reason, of the two terms, a link to nation seems more useful to readers than a link to the miserable, myopic country article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's because of the Scottish cultural psyche in my view. Even Britannica (Scotannica - sorry just a joke!) reports on Scotland's definance at being viewed as anything less than a country (see the third paragraph). "Constituent country" or region, part, partner, unit is probably viewed as belittling and nation has been inserted as a substitute (I guess). However, constituent or otherwise, Scotland is a country, and its people a nation, and using standard English would help the article emmensely, in my humble opinion. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
All things being equal, I am unconcerned whether it says nation or country, or some longer and more exhaustive list as I have suggested with an uncertain amount of tongue-in-cheekness before now. All things are not equal. If a reader clicks on country they are told in the first paragraph that "a country is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory, most commonly associated with the notions of state or nation and government", blah. Perhaps they feel they've got the gist of it, so they hit the back button, only to read that Scotland is nothing of the kind. Cognitive dissonance, or, if you prefer, a WTF moment. Some people{{who}} might see this as a bad thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the Wales example someone earlier edited out the word nation, so there is conflict there. Origionally the text read

It was to be readded. I do not think the reader... with the ability to navagate between links... will be confused by the use of nation here. Wales is not a nation-state, or state, those are internationally recognized legal definations, but it is both a nation in its own right and a constituent country of the UK. It is precise and correct to refer to Wales in this context.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No!!!! Wales isn't a group of people! The crux of the matter isn't anything to do with making these countries appear subordinate to the UK (like Britannica does), it's about using proper English! Again, my point is that a nation is a group of people, not a division of land! The Welsh people are the nation! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
But, a nation is both: a group of people traditionally share a common homeland... a land. It is appropriate. Historians Dr John Davies and others have stated this, and in recent Labour Force polls the people of Wales have responded that this is so.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
No they haven't! You've confused the arguement here. Wales is just as much a nation as the UK and Europe! A nation means a group of people. Did Davies and Labour Forces say Wales is a group of people? I think not! Just to make myself clear, I am rooting for something like (in this order of preference):
  1. Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom.
  2. England is the largest contituent country of the United Kingdom
  3. Wales is a country and constituent part of the UK
This mention of "nation" needs to go per proper English. If that means using "country" then fine, that's what sources say. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You overlook the second part of Nation

Almost all nations are associated with a specific territory, the national homeland. Some live in a historical diaspora, that is, mainly outside the national homeland. A state which explicitly identifies as the homeland of a particular nation is a nation-state, and most modern states fall into this category, although there may be violent disputes about their legitimacy. Where territory is disputed between nations, the claims may be based on which nation lived there first. Especially in Canada the term "First Nations" is used for groups which share an aboriginal culture, and have or seek official recognition or autonomy.

♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No! Re-read it Drachenfyre. Think, the Welsh nation (the people) are associated with a specific territory (i.e. Wales), the national homeland! Your source supports my claim, you've just misread it! --Jza84 |  Talk  23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In this context we agree that Nation and Country can be synonymous. However, your example:
  • is a country and constituent part of will not satisfy that wish to see nation as a defining part of Scotland, and this is a valid point.

It is far more precise and correct to say:

  • is a nation and constitient country of... as the way to define the nation in the UN context and defination of nationhood, as well as the constitutional postion the nation inhabits in the UK. The second offers more clarity and offers the broadest possible compromise to prevent further edit wars on this issue.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the New Grolier Webster Interntaitonal Dictionary of the English Language:

Nation: A people inhabiting a certin territory and united by common political institutions; the country or territory itself, an aggregation of persons speaking the same or a cognate language, ususally sharing a common ethnic origion; an Indian tribe beloning to a confederation of tribes.

♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling following your logic sorry. You're alluding to a defintion of "nation" which doesn't exist in law or standard British English. UN context? Do you have a source of their definition of "nationhood" (which itself is something different).
Let's try this from a different angle, as I think people are confused. 1) what is the dictionaty definition of a nation? 2) what do other encyclopedia's say about the four UK con. countries? 3) what does governmental material say?
Remember, the "Welsh" are a nation, whist "Wales" is a country. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever Jzra, your not going to see anyone elses point of view, and you wanted to stand as a neutral judge on Wales? Do as you will. You do not want to even see others points of view.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, well I do want to see other's points of view, that's why I've asked for citation. If you can't cite your sources, then it's hard to verify your position. I don't want to do as I will, I want you on board, which is why I'm discussing this. No need to be so combattative, really. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you were really thinking on the best defination that would have the widest appeal to all sides of the debate, then you would chose the ... is a nation and consitutient country of.... As this offers the widest possible defination regardless of British or American defination of Nation. Furthermore, you admit that nation is synonymous with country earlier. If you narrowly define it ... a country and constiuent... then you will get reversions with further editors changing country to nation over and over and over and over again. This can simply be prevented, lol. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not and do not agree nation is synonymous with a country! They are closely related, but each have specific meaning. Anyway, ultimately WP:V trumps this... official governmental citation that Scotland is a nation? I have one for "country", but not nation. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Do as you will Jza, for you are going to anyway♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I take that as an admission you have no source. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel that it would be a grave error to draw such a conclusion. "Scotland is a nation" appears with tedious regularity in print. Those who have perpetrated this phrase in print, or some similar one which you would exclude, include G. K. Chesterton, Vernon Bogdanor, Augustine Birrell, Tom Wintringham (perhaps), the Arts Council of Great Britain, Neil Gunn, Norman Angell, Ben Pimlott (perhaps), and Christopher Murray Grieve. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I brought this up again is that it's out of sync with the rest of the UK articles. Presumably if the landmass with borders we refer to as Scotland can be considered a nation then the other 3 UK countries can also, which begs the question why aren't they? There has be some reason for this and I feel it's a precedent, if we adopt 'nation' then anybody browsing through the articles thinks that Scotland is somehow distinct from Wales, NI and England in that respect - which I can't see any reason for it being so. If decent sources for 'nation' are provided then I (personally) have no problem but I feel we gain nothing by changing it. It doesn't add to understanding of the article and only serves to open up a huge can of worms as sources should then really be found to refer to the other 3 as 'nation' also. It does really strike me as a rather pointless debate. It saddens me that this has spilled over into an ugly '[dubious – discuss]' marker. Although I note that's no longer there *sigh*. The version at my time of writing: "...is a country which occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom,[5] and shares a land border to the south with England..." is fine from what I can see. I honestly don't see why this has generated all this controversy. PeemJim86 (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I had to take a break for a minute, lol. The debate prompted me to put in my dvd of Braveheart, and it gave me better perspective of the issue. The debate of the constitutional status of Scotland and the Scottish nation is not new, they were debating its status 1k years ago. I am at the section now where Edward I Longshanks joaks to his council "The problem with Scotland is its full of Scots!" Though fictious, its funny because of the overtones in this argument... the problem with the Scottish nation (over 88% according to the latest census), is it inhabits the land of Scots! lol♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 02:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


Which is just another way for the civic nationalist to say that the problem with Scotland is that it is full of Scots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromean (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

May I sin and suggest that we do this:

Scotland' (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by...

It sounds simple but why go through all the grief when removing it makes it encyclopedic and removes any ambiguity that people may fear can mislead the reader. I know that my American friends would understand this much better. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, it's pretty much what I suggested a couple of days ago anyhow. User:PeemJim86 from EdinburghUni IP. 129.215.149.99 (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess great minds think alike :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that since The nation has become one of the most contested concepts of our times. Scholars, politicians and political activists present different definitions of the nation, usually focusing on a variety of cultural, political, psychological, territorial, ethnic and sociological principles. The lack of an agreement on what constitutes the nation suggests there is some difficulty in dealing with such a complex phenomenon. open university 3.1 we should avoid the term if even scholars cannot agree on a definition and just remove the sentence entirely like we proposed above. Wikipedia should not be the source of information when the term itself and its definition is disputed even by experts! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Read this everyone : http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm It explains why Scotland is not a country to those who don't understand why.Wikipéire (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
About.com doesn't over-ride consensus and all other sources. However, that source also states that Scotland isn't a nation here. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly you can't read. It never mentions that Scotland isn't a nation. It says its not a country or state which is correct. A country is an independent soveirgn state which Scotland clearly is not. Scotland is merely a part of the UK. I don't know what sources say Scotland is a country. However I am aware that the Home office or whatever it's called says it is. However thats just propoganda written to hide away from Scottish independence outcrys.Wikipéire (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"I don't know what sources say it is", and "I am aware that the Home office says it is". You either have a very short memory or you are terminally confused. Or trolling of course. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ugly map

Map Image:Uk map scotland.png is really ugly. I changed it to a prettier one representing the same POV with wider geographic perspective. I see UKPhoenix wishes to keep his map, but is it just me that thinks his map looks crude? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, this has been under huge scruentisation and debate above (!). There are many that wish to see that map included, and an admin has requested we keep that until a consensus/compromise is found. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

'representing the same POV with wider geographic perspective.' The Irony♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem, it's the same POV, just isn't ugly. Am I missing something? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec*3 - reply to DoP)Possibly. Please don't extend, prolong, or feed this edit war, it isn't helping. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Deacon is correct. It's a prettier map, and it gives Scotland perspective in relation to Europe. The other is too close on. 78.19.212.22 (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I like the new map, but we have been asked very politely not to change the map under any circumstance or the article gets protected. The admin's pretty clear on that matter. We should only give User:Wangi the ability to change the map. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Well it's a step closer to my preference so I'm happy, but also cautious about what was discussed, and respect that. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course you like it, you did it. Seriously, what ideological issue is at stake here with a map that happens to show Scotland in western Europe generally rather than merely the British Isles? I'm lost. the UK is still shaded, Scotland clearly within it. Same POV unless I've missed something. I'm only interested in the aesthetics here. Maybe someone could explain ... ? Jz? I'm glad Wangi's try to sort things out here, but unless he prettys the map up, I don't see why what he said matters as far as this is concerned. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear I was referring to the NEW map. It needs to be a bit more focused but aside from that I like it. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikid77 did this for us on Wales:♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As stated above and obvious from the article edits, the map I removed was this monstrosity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UT)
Hay come on now! I created something that wasn't available on wikipedia before and what you said is highly disrespectful! I'm glad that people have now taken up the call and created prettier versions but calling anybodys work here a monstrosity especially if they spent a long time doing that is an Insult!!! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I do like your maps Phoenix and plan on using them later on other pages. For the Wales info box I simply wished the style of it to match other nation's map style.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 00:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
They were made to resemble the MoS found on images like Image:Provincia de Buenos Aires, Argentina.png, Image:Map of USA CA.svg, Image:Bretagne map.png and many others found during my research. I do Like the new map and have no objections to a version of it being used. But the reasons that my map was designed the way it was should be self evident now. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say I find the current map a step backward aesthetically. I mean, what happened, did somebody's hand slip while using the crop function? Why are the British Isles squeezed to the bottom, and why is a tip of Iceland shown? The former map at least was centered on the British Isles. Although I must say that if we can show Image:Europe location KOS.png, we can also show Image:Europe location SCO.png for "locator" purposes, no need for an ugly crop job. dab (𒁳) 11:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ dab. I did not do the crop job and I agree with you that it is not perfect. As many others (including myself) stated, it should show more continent and less Atlantic. I also agree with you that, if Kosovo is large enough to be shown in a complete Europe context, then the bigger Scotland is as well. However, there is no consensus on this talk page to this specific question referring to the options B and D in above straw poll. Nevertheless, I am sure that the proponents of either option could agree to the respective other one :-) Since it was not pointed out so far, I would like to explain why (as I think) the author of the map choose this crop frame. It is chosen such that Scotland lies in its center. I am not promoting this rationale, but I am arguing that it was not somebody's hand slip. Tomeasy (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think we're coming closer and closer to a consensus here. Am I right in thinking we all want, or are at least happy with Western Europe, with Scotland within the UK and EU shown? If so, we could approach a Wiki-cartographer to put something bespoke together for us. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As I understand dab, he was just arguing for showing the whole of Europe rather than just a crop of it. That's why he placed Kosovo's map here. For me either way is fine, you can get my exact preference from above. However, I think this is really not the contentious issue. The problem is that some editors wish not to show the UK reference. That's the key question and, unfortunately, I do not see how to solve it. Tomeasy (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The EU? Slip of the keyboard Jza84? Mr Stephen (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the bad crop is the only problem that I have had with this picture and I actually have pointed it out before several times now. And the reason that Kosovo has a EU wide map is because it claims independence since during my research independent states get continent wide maps and subnational entity's get nation wide maps [please don't correct me on the nation thing again :( ]. Though since Kosovos independence is in question so should the map. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right Phoenix. Throwing in the map of Kosovo was not a bit unlucky, since the state of Kosovo itself is ardently disputed and we certainly do not want to indulge in this here.
You have mentioned another point (not for the first time though), which kinda persuades me that a close-up map has it's strong points over the map showing Europe. In deed, the latter kind of maps are commonly used for sovereign states. I think, I switch my 1st and 2nd preference. Of course I know that noone cares about this change ;-) More importantly, what other arguments could we bring on the table to convince the people who are against the UK reference in the first place. Tomeasy (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow thanks, I can change your preference rating if you want *^_^* Yea lets not get into the Kosovo discussion. I think this talk page has enough strife without adding more to the mix... I'm glad that you found my arguments... discussions... comments... persuading :-) All I have for persuasion are the facts, and if people cannot be persuaded by facts then I know not what else to give but passion... for a richous cause! Yes I'm being silly. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Call for Discussion

The admin that unblocked the page wangi suggests that since the discussion has stalled we should ask for outside comments. The admin also suggests that we get an agreed unbiased summary of the situation written up. Any suggestions on how to continue? I can suggest that we at least make this call to:

I cannot think of any other related articles to ask for comments, did I miss anywhere? I also suggest that we tidy up the old discussions and archive them to make this discussion more approachable. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The debate on the map continues? From my observatios in the straw poll it more people voted for the Scotland within the UK within Europe as their first and second choice.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Its pretty clear that most people like choices B and D at the moment, but neither can claim that a consensus is reached. Since others here also believe that the discussion is pointless it would be better to reach out to the larger wikipedia community to seek help and assistance with this issue. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, I think it was the straw poll rather than the discussion they thought was pointless! --Jack forbes (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I really hope that was all. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The first five maybe aren't relevant, but the other WikiProjects and crucially Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries sound good. Of course it does depend on a good unbiased summary being available - you can't ask people to read through the discussion above! Thanks/wangi (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever gets the traffic moving. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Does no one wish to give some input on the call for comments or should I just do it myself? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposal was that an NPOV summary be written first. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hence my call for help! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An NPOV summary of the map issue? Well of course part of the problem is that we can tweak words all day, but with a single map to discuss we are forced between two alternatives both of which are bound to annoy someone. Short of a 'you can have the kids on alternate weekdays and every other Sunday' solution its hard to see how a consensus can be anything other than a grudging stalemate. I am not sure what involving a regiment of third parties is likely to achieve, but if you are wanting a description of the problem I notice that no-one contradicted this summary (from April 6th):

Some of us believe that Scotland's place within the UK is of such importance that any infobox map should show that. The strength of the argument is that there is significant precedent for this elsewhere on Wikipedia. The counter-argument is that as Scotland not only existed as a separate state in the past, but also continues to have a considerable amount of autonomy within the UK and is a country in it's own right, that this is unnecessary.
Some of us believe that the purpose of the infobox is to locate Scotland on the map of the world not make political points and/or wish to downplay the position of Scotland within the UK. The counter argument is that this is POV Scottish nationalism - to which the riposte is of course that the alternate view is POV British nationalism. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow thats rather one sided, I can see that this is going to take some work. Nothing about the evidence that this is the only major subdivision on wikipedia to be shown independent of the country it resides in? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How about:
Inline with WP:3O, this is an invitation for you to join discussion at Talk:Scotland to help contribute to finding a way forwards between (broadly) two choices of maps for the infobox.
I'd keep it as simple as that and omit anything presumtive about people's (assumed) politics. I don't want to see the community split into two polarised sects. Just my opinion. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right. It's crazy that the community should be polarised into a sect that cares passionately which map is used and another which couldn't care less. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Much better :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I know. :D What do you think Ben? Are you OK for this to go out? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Things seemed to move on again (below). Re my 'one sided' description. Obviously I don't think so, but then that's the problem isn't it? Even describing the issues involved won't satisfy some of us, unless the question implies the answer. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 08:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Basis for a description of the dispute

Before I wikify it and add maps is this a basis for a NPOV description of the problem? Can we work on it to all's satisfaction? (Its address isn't gone quite what I though it would be, hope its OK). Mr Stephen (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your efforts Stephen to set up this neutral and informative summary. I really like. Just two points. Are you sure it is necessary to talk about the behavior of the involved people. I mean references to wikipedia policies like good faith, civility, which you claim have not been preserved all the time. I would argue that we could leave this out. Second, and I am sure Phoenix would anyway point on this later, you did not mention the argument that no mayor subdivision has a map like option C. That is my strongest argument for options B and D, and I would like to see it mentioned. Overall, the draft is OK and I think we should use it when everyone can identify with it. Tomeasy (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sure Phoenix would anyway point on this later Am I getting predictable now because that is just what I did :-D -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Stephen, I have made a number of edit to clarify and correct a few bits - but over all looks good. Put a few wikilinks in for you too. Tomeasy's probably right too regarding the mention of behaviour (even though he spells it Yankwise). Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's got this atheists blessing. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. WRT behaviour, I've seen blocks handed out for less, and I'd like to put a stop to it; I'll go with the flow as to whether new contributors are helped by being told about it. As for the pro/anti arguments, by all means fix it - it is a workshop. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nation/Country convo

Two errors of fact in Mr Stephen's summary:

  • "Scotland is styled a "constituent country of the UK". Indeed? Styled by whom exactly? The Office for National Statistics (note: an agency of the UK govt), in its glossary, states clearly that each subdivision of the UK is a country (note: no mention of "constituent"), and the website of the UK Prime Minister (which is the actual reference used both at the Scotland article and the Constituent country article) also makes no use of the word "constituent". Ditto the UK embassy in the USA, the UK census, and many, many other ext refs. So, it would be more accurate to say: Scotland is a country, which is styled by some as a "constituent country".
  • "However, certain powers are devolved to a Scottish Parliament; hence Scotland has some self-governance." No, they are not. It is actually the opposite way round: certain powers are reserved to the Westminster Parliament; ie. the list of Westminter's powers is stated explicitly in the legislation and all powers not explicitly listed as "reserved" are automatically within the competence of the SP. Hence rather than "Scotland has some self-governance" it would be more accurate to say that "Westminister retains a limited amount of central governance".

Please note the title of this article: Scotland. Not Scotland (since 1707), Scotland (constituent country), or The Parish of Scotlandshire (province of the Britannic Empire), just Scotland. Scotland is one of the oldest countries in Europe, if not actually the oldest. It existed long, long before the invention of the Yookay in the Modern period. It is sheer unadulterated POV, and historiographical amateurism, to define Scotland only in terms of its membership of the Union, whether it be visual definitions (eg. maps) or written.--Mais oui! (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted this before but I think it got missed. Since I don't have time to do the research right now I'll give you a link and an excerpt taken from the very first link I found [4]
There are eight accepted criteria used to determine whether an entity is an independent country (also known as a State with a capital "s") or not. A country need only fail on one of the eight criteria to not meet the definition of independent country status. Scotland does not meet all eight criteria; it fails on six of the eight criteria...
1. Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
Yes, Scotland does have internationally recognized boundaries. Scotland is 78,133 square kilometers in area.
2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
Yes, according to the 2001 census, Scotland's population is 5,062,011.
3. Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
Somewhat. Scotland certainly has economic activity and an organized economy; Scotland even has its own GDP (over 62 billion pounds as of 1998). However, Scotland does not regulate foreign or domestic trade, the Scottish Parliament is not authorized to do so. Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament is able to pass laws on a range of issues known as "devolved issues." The United Kingdom Parliament is able to act on "reserved issues." Reserved issues include a variety of economic issues: fiscal, economic and monetary system; energy; common markets; and trade and industry. The Bank of Scotland does issue money but it prints the British pound on behalf of the central government.
4. Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
Somewhat. The Scottish Parliament is able to control education, training, and social work (but not social security). However, this power was granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament.
5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
Somewhat. Scotland itself has a transportation system but the system is not fully under Scottish control. The Scottish Parliament controls some aspects of transportation, including the Scottish road network, bus policy and ports and harbors while the UK Parliament controls railways, transport safety and regulation. Again, Scotland's power was granted by the UK Parliament.
6. Has a government that provides public services and police power.
Somewhat. The Scottish Parliament has the ability to control law and home affairs (including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts) as well as the police and fire services. The UK Parliament controls defense and national security across the United Kingdom. Again, Scotland's power was granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament.
7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
No. The United Kingdom Parliament definitely has power over Scotland's territory.
8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.
No. Scotland does not have external recognition nor does Scotland have its own embassies in other independent countries.
Thus, as you can plainly see, Scotland (nor Wales, nor Northern Ireland, nor England itself) is not an independent country nor is it a State. However, Scotland is most certainly a nation of people living in an internal division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Also check out Unitary state#Devolved state. I hope that answers some questions. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Err... so are you saying that Mr Matt Rosenberg, who "has published two books about geography, The Handy Geography Answer Book and The Geography Bee Complete Preparation Handbook" is a more authoritative external source, per WP:VERIFY, than the Office of the UK Prime Minister, the ONS, the UK census, the UK Embassy in the USA, thousands of other external sources, and every respected dictionary of the English language? Puhrleeese...
Also, as you should know by now, you can never cite Wikipedia itself as a source. And also note that the Unitary state article, which you link to to support your argument, is totally uncited.
I really do not know why we even bother counter-arguing with people like you. However many respected external resources we cite, you seem determined not to read them, and instead cite laughable, lightweight opinion pieces to support your own POV. It is just so tedious. Either do some proper research or hold your own counsel. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
How often do you believe a politician over a published author talking in his field of expertise? People in Texas still call Texas their state a country. Are they correct? Those are the facts, unless you are claiming that Scotland is an independent country... I didn't think so. Just because people don't really know what to call this subdivision of the UK and default to its historical name of country (note the lower case c) is actually similar to what happened in the united states and took independent States and made them into states (note the lower case s).
For published works how about I point you to Decentralizing the Civil Service: From Unitary State to Differentiated Polity in the United Kingdom or Changing Patterns of Governance in the United Kingdom or Open University - UK & Unitary state and Open University - Devolution in Scotland
Prey tell what you mean by people like you That is neither Wikipedia:Assume good faith nor Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It is insulting especially when I have done a good job of trying to respect your views and give honest answers to them. You are not dealing with a kid that you can bully around but someone that is here to give his honest free time! So please stop this petty name calling and get back to the topic at hand! -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean "people like you" as in the many recent "contributors" to this Talk page who simply 'refuse to get the point' - "When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point." --Mais oui! (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
When have I not been reasonable or willing to discuss issues or provide verifiable facts backing my points? I have not been disruptive neither, just because you cannot except evidence and facts does not make me unreasonable. Since I am also an experienced editor, other independent editors agreed with my points, and the administrator has been rather nice to everyone involved including to myself, I believe that your point is invalid. I would have to say that if you truly and sincerely believe that your point is correct then this is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black my friend! Oh and please do your research before you let your passions cloud your views on the obvious and verifiable facts at hand. Just because people call New York a state does not mean that it is a State... right? Take the next mental leap on that point then I believe you will understand :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s. you forgot the 1st part of that quote In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point. and quite importantly Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing, and consensus. So Please remember those two points also :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"historiographical amateurism, to define Scotland only in terms of its membership of the Union, whether it be visual definitions (eg. maps) or written". Like Britannica and Encarta? I guess we'll just re-invent Scotland as a group of people in a non-statutory region instead. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between primary sources and tertiary ones, no? Encyclopedias like Wikipedia should always take Academic sources first before taking evidence from other established Encyclopedias. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Though there is guidance somewhere on Wikipedia that outlines that one can see how other encyclopedia's tackle issues. Britannica and Encarta are each based on their own primary and secondary evidence, and certainly are not "historiographically amateurish". They tackle these issues rather objectively in my view. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't meant that their infallible, I believe that academic sourced material would always have a higher weight then an encyclopedia. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Mais Oui. The ONS does indeed use the term "constituent country", here at the beginners' guide to UK geography for example. Devolution is described here. Not sure how it differs significantly from what I wrote. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's surely just as miserable a source as the pronouncements from Ten Downing Street that Mais oui! has fixed on. Can anyone remind me how it is said that you tell when a politician is lying? Continuing with my list of blue-linked persons who have seemingly perpetrated the claim that Scotland is a something, today it's country. Among others Hugh Chisholm, Lucy Aikin, A. A. Gill, Meir Yaari, Hannah More, Theobald Mathew, Rajani Palme Dutt, Edwin Muir, Cicely Hamilton, Thomas Carlyle, T. S. Eliot, Andy Rooney and Arnold Henry Guyot (or his translator more likely) seem to be guilty. The list of those who wrote "Scotland is a constituent country..." remains empty. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of going off topic here, why then, are we still saying Scotland is a group of people when there's such a wealth of evidence against it? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have more than once given examples of writers happy to call Scotland a nation. Some are still on this page. I don't think Wikipedia should be relying upon you or me as a source for what Scotland is or isn't. It could rely on some of these or these though, or some of the myriad books and papers not on google. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
<edit conflict> Saying country is analogous to the Americans calling their subdivision a state. Neither are referring to an independent version of that name (S or C would be in capitals) only harking back to historical names for that region. So I'm not surprised people say that.... what else would people call them? But just because people call it that doesn't reason to conclude that it has the independent meaning that some people believe it does. The facts oppose this. Until one of these subdivisions have the ability to have independent foreign treaties & trade, UN membership & ambassadors from that specific area not representing the UK (or all 8 items checked off here) then I'd say its a Country (capital c) until then its whatever you want to call the subdivision. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that your about.com source is very much better than amateur lexicography in terms of quality. Is the writer an expert? Obviously not given his publications. Do the phrases "Scotland is a nation" and "Scotland is a country" appear in numbers on Google books or Google scholar? Yes for both. If your problem is with the country or nation articles, you are in the wrong place. If you want to exclude the words nation and country from this article, you'll need to do much better in terms of evidence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well let me ask is it incorrect? Is Scotland an independent country? I surmise you said no because it just isn't true. You can easily find many scholarly works talking about the Country of Scotland because it actually was one for about 1,000 years. The problem is people don't really know what else to call it! So they default to its historical name of country (note the lower case c) this is actually similar to what happened in the united states and when independent States merged into one Country and they retained their old name of states (note the lower case s).
For published works how about I point you to Decentralizing the Civil Service: From Unitary State to Differentiated Polity in the United Kingdom or Changing Patterns of Governance in the United Kingdom or Open University - UK & Unitary state and Open University - Devolution in Scotland -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Scotland could be, and has been, called a country, a nation, a stateless nation, a formerly independent state, a part of the United Kingdom and more things besides. Constructing a definition of country and deciding that Scotland does not meet that definition, or an arbitrary definition of a nation likewise, counts for little when it is so very easy to find academics and journalists writing that Scotland is a nation and a country. A few minutes with Google news will show that in the last week newspapers from Los Angeles to Lerwick have referred to Scotland as a country. The OU course notes describe Scotland as a nation. [3.2] "A2: Although Scotland and Wales are recognisable nations in the terms set out above, they are presently sub-units of the larger nation-state of Britain. ..." But perhaps there's the smallest of mistakes in that sample answer? Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Angus, I missed your comment. Which of those two sources are miserable? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Both. Anything which presents the position of the UK state apparatus, HMG of the day, the Scottish Government of the day, or any politician or political party, is hardly an ideal source. All are very much non-neutral, set on telling a particular story for partisan political ends. The idea that the Civil Service is neutral was shot in the head long ago: if Yes, Minister wasn't enough, this sort of thing should do. Why use sources which we know to be subject to manipulation when there's a slew of books on the subject by academics. Scottish academics in particular seem to can find nothing else to write about but "Scottish national identity" and matters connected to it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah. It is possible that we are talking at cross purposes. I am not seeking to provide WP:RSs for the article. I gave two weblinks here in response to MO's comments here His comments were about this page which was intended to be an NPOV description of the dispute. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Mainly Mais oui! and his love affair with Gordon and Tony's spin machine, who'd have thought it? But that's not something which should be argued by recourse to other government spin. The ONS will surely be "on message" too these days. Anyway, I'm not sure there is agreement that "Scotland is a country...". It said "Scotland is a nation..." for long enough. Obviously there's been substantial opposition to that, so perhaps we should go with "Scotland is a stateless nation..." lest anyone be confused. No, I'm not expecting deafening roars of approval to meet that suggestion, but Scotland is often given as an a example of the stateless nation. "Scotland is a country..." will never do; endless reverting from country to country and back. Since the article devotes next to no space to Scotland's constitutional position, I'm at a loss to see why it is given so much space in the lead. That's not what WP:LEAD recommends. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


A nation is a people. Scotland is not a nation. Scotland is not a stateless nation. Scotland will not be a nation. Scotland is a territorial identification. Civic 'nationalists', if that describes those who might be identitfiable by institutions and territories alone, have no necessary connection with Scottish nationality but only with those institutions and territories (perhaps that is where they shop?). This being so all that can honestly be said is that most, but not all, 'Scots' are nationless. Many people in Scotland do have a nationality many do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromean (talk • contribs) 09:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please people, stop the edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talk pages of everyone involved today. Guys, leave the page with the map that I protected/unprotected it with - yes, perhaps it's the wrong version but it is not the end of the world. I do not want to protect the article again and prevent the edits it really needs to improve it, or resort to blocking normally constructive editors - but I will if need be. Lets get busy moving the issue forward constructively. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
As you require Obewan. I trust my recent edits will be taken in good heart. I have no idea whose changes I was altering (although I can guess in a few cases), but I am prone to outbursts of conservatism. If I see changes that are either controversial and have not been discussed or agreed, or I think are sufficiently daft or annoying out they go.
I sympathise with your frustration M. GoodDay and I too wish it were otherwise. However, as I fear you are beginning to understand, the "long brawl" of Scottish history shows no sign of coming to an end just yet. A Good Night to you all. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Education in Scotland, History of

My excuses for bringing up something related to the content of the article. At present the Education section includes:

Scotland was the first country since Sparta in classical Greece to implement a system of general public education.[fn 95] Schooling was made compulsory for the first time in Scotland with the Education Act of 1496, then, in 1561, the Church of Scotland set out a national programme for spiritual reform, including a school in every parish. Education continued to be a matter for the church rather than the state until the Education Act of 1872.[fn 96]

The 1496 act was ignored: there is no record that anyone was ever fined for breaking it. The educational proposals - fortunately never enacted - of the Book of Discipline are another irrelevance. Without a great deal of equivocation and qualification this is more than a little misleading. Perhaps it could be omitted? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be omitted as it still shows the direction of intention, but I agree that the information should be 'clarified'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree there - lets flesh out the paragraph with detail and references. I always thought the Education Act of 1496 only made schooling compulsory for the sons of nobles? Certainly our article there could do with fleshing out too. Ta/wangi (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant existing articles are Education Act 1496, School Establishment Act 1616, Education Act 1633, Education Act 1646, and Education Act 1696.
The 1496 act referred to the heirs of "barons and wealthy freeholders" and is genuinely a compulsory education act (though enforcement was not strict, as was noted earlier). The 1616 act (of Privy Council) is the basis of the later ones, and mandated school establishment. The 1646 act was meaningless because of an Act Recissitory. According to a 19th century book of Scots law that I came upon, some of these plus an early 19th century act (updating wording and particularly increasing schoolmaster salaries) are the governing acts regarding schools in Scotland until the 1872 act (also relevant are several acts regarding the Kirk, which indirectly affected implementation of the acts).
A read of the provisions of the 1616 act regarding Gaelic (it includes the reason for the provision) will likely disavow anyone from being too exhuberant about government intentions. Also, the Book of Discipline is not irrelevant, as it was quoted almost directly in the 1616 act.
In any event, the paragraph quoted above could do with some modification.
Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I vaguely remember having once edited the paragraph in question regarding the 1496 act, but chose not to address the rest of it, with mention of Sparta and the 16th century Church and the effervescent approach ... perhaps include something about Scottish respect for knowledge and its pursuit; and there are scraps of information from history regarding efforts to promote the parish schools (? one from about 1596, and there were others); affection for the establishment of schools was genuine, and 17th century acts did in fact promote education ... it ought to be done by someone closer to the system than myself, though. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Open University

Found some interesting Reading on Open University that might have some golden nuggets of information helpful to this article & the disputes in it.

The politics of devolution
1 introduction
2 The making of the UK
2.1 England
2.2 Scotland
2.3 Wales
2.4 Northern Ireland
2.5 Summary of Section 1
3 Nation, state and nation-state
3.1 What makes a nation, a state or a nation-state?
3.2 Sub-state forms of nationalism
4 Defining centre and periphery
4.1 National identities and UK politics
5 Governance beyond Westminster: the politics of devolution
5.1 The UK model of devolution
5.2 Devolution in Scotland
5.3 How devolution in Scotland differs from devolution in Wales
5.4 Devolution in Northern Ireland: a particular case
5.5 Devolution in outline
5.6 Summary of Section 5
6 Elected regional assemblies in England
6.1 London
6.2 English regions
6.3 What is the main requirement for regional government? Is it a shared identity?
6.4 Summary of Section 6
7 When was Britain?
7.1 History
7.2 On Britishness
7.3 Summary of Section 7
8 Governance beyond the UK: The EU
References
Acknowledgements

I think this type of reference might be good for this page and all that dwell in it :-) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


"This also helped contribute to the rise of an incipient Welsh nationalism, particularly as the desire to protect Welsh native culture from progressive Anglicisation rose in the eighteenth century." Wow, this artical is not biased! No Way! The characterization here is clearly one-sided and subjective. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On the otherhand, this is a primer for UK nationalism, lol.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole quote was from 2.3 saying Puritanism was strongly resisted and Oliver Cromwell had to employ oppressive measures to impose it. In the eighteenth century, Wales turned rapidly from the established church to embrace dissent with strong Calvinist leanings. In 1735, the church gathered large numbers of followers from the Church of England. This also helped contribute to the rise of an incipient Welsh nationalism, particularly as the desire to protect Welsh native culture from progressive Anglicisation rose in the eighteenth century.
define:incipient
reference.com = beginning to exist or appear. in an initial stage
askoxford.com = beginning to happen or develop.
I must ask, do you think its wrong or factually incorrect? Don't forget that this is an accredited university with accredited text. Doesn't meant its unbiased but it seams pretty accurate to the history of our nation. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole paragraph reeks with portraying and characterizing the Welsh expierence as derogority: "embracing dessent from"... the (established) Chruch of England, incipient Welsh nationalism (as though the Welsh nation only began that century!) as contrasted with "progressive Anglicisation", the juxtoposition of the wordings in the paragraph are designed in such a way as to subtly illicit negitive connotations in the reader towards the progress of or preservation of the Welsh identity, no matter if it is religous in nature or linguistic.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness I never gathered such thoughts from the text. Don't forget that nationalism and self rule are rather new ideas only gaining a hold in the psykie of Europe after the French Revolution and Napoleons expansion of Liberty during his conquests. Before then it was a Feudal mindset and the people were surfs. Even in Calais the last Norman territory held by the English, they had little idea about what it was to be French since that idea didn't really exist at the time. They were servants of the king who was Gods appointed ruler, nothing to joke about in those days or that society.
Saying that the efforts to force religious views on people that didn't fully accept them led to a resurgence of the idea of being something other than English, actually is a quite accurate description of what happened. Just like the Protestant/Catholic divide that happened in Ireland led to the idea of Irish home rule and eventually independence. Even thought Ireland had never been united under one ruler aside from the English and had only known English rule since the 1100's, this all came around because of religions, dare I say oppression. So religion is a very powerful force in the UK's History (see Wars of the Three Kingdoms). -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly is two different prespectives we have here. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah so is life. But real life calls, ciao. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth

With respects towards the good efforts and good intent ongoing and already made, it is suggested that the effort towards consensus drop further mention of rationales such as the proper definition of nation, country, and similar such. These are appropriate to debating societies, or are appropriate when someone truly does not understand the meaning of a word, but that does not apply here. All that results are different versions, and no one has produced a version that conflicts with their own opinion.

Looking for a workable solution in its own right ... perhaps everyone else might withdraw from this discussion for a short while and allow a plan to be offered by only those who have made substantial contributions to this article, not to include edits to the lead paragraph. Perhaps also they will offer a plan that bends a little, without breaking, and will be conscious of the interests of all those whom they regard as having a good-faith objection to certain past plans.

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

May I make the humble suggestion that we just make the simple removal of country/nation making the intro.
Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a constituent country of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England. It is bounded by...
We all want Scotland to become a FA and the only way this can happen is if its:
  • 1(c) "Factually accurate"
  • 1(d) "Neutral"
  • 1(e) "Stable"
  • 2(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
  • 4 It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail
from what I can tell it goes against all 5 criteria listed above; but I believe that we can all agree that having either term included in the introduction makes it unstable, violating 1e. So instead of arguing et nauseum, with both sides bringing contradicting sourced material can't we just stop the argument by removing that sentence that is actually in the long run unnecessary, since it would probably be cut in accordance with 2(a) anyway? - UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As it has been pointed out before this article is not Scotland (UK subdivision) referring to Scotland as a constituent country (a term which is not set in stone) is not factually accurate, just ignores Scotland history and status before the Union hardly natural, would almost immediately be reverts so not stable either. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 10:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
<edit conflict>Your right because Scotland IS a subdivision of the UK! So the point you are trying to make is well... pointless. If you are trying to reference the old Kingdom of Scotland then go to the Kingdom of Scotland article, if you are trying to talk about the Scottish people then go to the Scottish people article. This article is about Scotland a major and vital part of the United Kingdom. Every article that I have found on Wikipedia, when a country was once an independent nation, even if the people themselves are distinct from others in the country; the introduction talks as if they were a part of a larger country.... because... well... they are! It is a truly undeniable fact that Scotland is indeed a part of a larger country and for this article to gain FA status, that I believe we all want it to have, we must make this page stable & factual. By removing those lines this is one step in a major reworking needed to get this page moving and back on track. Because if this continues I cannot see how this article can keep its good article status :-( -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What would be the reaction to a judicious insertion of "now" in front of "constituent country", together with an addition at the end of the sentence (after a "though") to the effect that it has a long and distinguished history of being an independent country that still maintains a pride in its history, legal, cultural and national independence from the rest of the United Kingdom. All these can, I am sure, be adequately referenced in bucketloads. Would that go anyway to resolving the differences and move towards meeting the quite legitimate needs of the article to adequately reflect current disquiet on both sides?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we actually need the word constituent? We've gone from the daft "constituent country of the United Kingdom" to the much better "part of the United Kingdom" and now to "constituent part of the United Kingdom" with "constituent" piped to "constituent country". What is the purpose or need for the word constituent here? Constituent is superfluous. If anything is a part of something, then it is bound to be a constituent of it, its use is inessential and dispensable. -Bill Reid | Talk 10:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(Restoring my reply which was deleted for some unknown reason by another editor - I hope accidentally!) Ok, so if you removed "constituent country" and put in its place a suitable other term to your liking, like "country", what would your reaction be to my suggestion now?  DDStretch  (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry DDStretch I don't know how that happened. How about Home Nation? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Home Nation is possibly the worst term to refer to Scotland, and I know it is a part of the UK the point is it hasnt always been, if you are trying to talk about the Scottish people who was talking about the Scottish people ? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Scotland IS a part of the UK
California IS a part of the US
Saying otherwise is incorrect. If you wish to talk about its history there is a history section as there has to be. If you want more detail go to articles specifying to that need hence the references. Also the reason I scratched out Home nation since its not really apt. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible you give me your reaction to the suggestion I made in direct response to your previous message? The reason I ask is that I tried to take in to account what you said, and have repeated here.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer it read is a country and part of the United Kingdom, constituent country is a sloppy term. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
A Country is an an independent entity that governs over a specific territory and people. No one believes that Scotland is independent and it has no UN membership or international treaties not a part of the UK so that term would not be viable in a Good Article/Featured Article. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
A Country is an an independent entity that governs over a specific territory and people. you are confusing a country with an independent country I would say thats an easy mistake to make but lets face it its not. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 11:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) However, if quibbles were brought to bear at GA or FA review, the addition of a reference which states: "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." could go some way to allaying their fears. Of course, I imagine that some would say this source was biased due to politics getting in the way, but then the burden falls upon them to propose a suitable form of words in place of "country", "constituent country", and so on.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely that the sourced is flawed. Scotland, England, Wales and NI are not countries as said here http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm. I fear all these mentions of country are some act in accordance of Scottish Independence. The UK is the only country. This source here http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/country_definition.html actually mentions the prime minister's website and how it is wrong. These two websites are respected geograpical websites and not politically based like the source that is given. This two pages are entire articles on why Scotland is not a country; a one line sentence should definitely not take precendence over these two sources and many others that declare its not a country.

But what do we use instead? Scotland is by definition a nation but not much else. It can be classified as a 'constituent country' of the UK, however this term has no legal meaning and is just bandied about. I would suggest using the term nation and constituent part in the first sentence and avoiding incorrect terms such as country and nation which can only be applied to the UK.Wikipéire (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed sub-division has been mentioned in the discussion; so howabout this? Scotland is a sub-division of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
There's an idea, but #REDIRECT [[United Kingdom]] {{R from former name}} would be simpler still. Then we can down to the hard work of creating Wikipedia's first ever featured redirect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Re-direct this article to the UK article? GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Please do not attempt humour on the Talk:Scotland page Angus. We do not like light relief, especially irony, which is below the radar dignity of the massive intellects who newly stride across the virgin prairie of modern Scottish national provincial identity, society and politics, imparting their civilising wisdom upon us ignorant, bedraggled, tartan-clad masses as they go. It is also not entirely outwith the bounds of possibility, given the eye-boggling standard of a lot of recent Talk page opining, that some enlightened ip sock soul may bring sweet relief to us all and put the beseiged article out of its misery by implementing the big R ;) --Mais oui! (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Reposting the lead paragraphs to this section:

With respects towards the good efforts and good intent ongoing and already made, it is suggested that the effort towards consensus drop further mention of rationales such as the proper definition of nation, country, and similar such. These are appropriate to debating societies, or are appropriate when someone truly does not understand the meaning of a word, but that does not apply here. All that results are different versions, and no one has produced a version that conflicts with their own opinion.

I see that every post in this section opposes the suggestion. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I missed it too. It is fine by me. Removing all potentially confusing terms is a good idea. However the only thing I would suggest is removing the words 'land border' and just say it is bordered by England to the South. Its a bit unnecessary. Other than that its grand.Wikipéire (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
What we need is something "good enough" that, although it won't entirely please everyone (or perhaps even anybody), it will be good enough to allow the whole article to start. The fact that there are so many different viewpoints is sufficient to justify a section all to itself dealing with the problems, fairly early on in the article, and it is in there that all the arguments for and against each proposed version should be cooly and neutrally laid out, leaving it totally up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. As far as I am concerned, if that section is present, almost any of the proposed versions so far will be "good enough". One could even have a direction to a later section to draw attention to the disagreements in the very first sentence of the lead. It may not be the standard way to do things, and it may even be ruled out in various policies, but in this case, it is one of those very rare occasions when I really do think that the position is so unclear, taken in the broader point of view, that one can legitimately Ignore All Rules to structure the start of the article in this way. If it is handled well and carefully, it should pose no particular problems to any GA or FA status reviewer who is sensitive to the needs of the specific topic and thus the inadvisability of applying a set of rules robotically. Of course, verifying that the situation is unclear should be given a fairly good amount of space to add weight and justification to ignoring all rules in this instance. Any comments?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello DDStretch, yes, I have a comment. Perhaps someone will consider an endorsement of the as-yet ignored second paragraph of this section, as it attempts to get us where you rightly say we should be:
Looking for a workable solution in its own right ... perhaps everyone else might withdraw from this discussion for a short while and allow a plan to be offered by only those who have made substantial contributions to this article, not to include edits to the lead paragraph. Perhaps also they will offer a plan that bends a little, without breaking, and will be conscious of the interests of all those whom they regard as having a good-faith objection to certain past plans.
Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, can people stop saying that Scotland can't be a nation, a country and such like. Frankly, it reflects nothing more than a very naive understanding of how language works and how these words are used. These words don't have "proper" definitions, and the idea that they could have is childish. Sorry to be harsh, but reading this over and over and over is very tiresome. Please stop wasting time on this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Whilst despairing at the process I am not unduly dismayed by the current version of the opening sentence or two. However, if the 'N' word is not to be there I think it is going to be very helpful to have a note (either invisible comment or footnote or both), explaining the logic. Perhaps likewise for 'constituent country', although I doubt too many of us wake up in the morning pledging allegiance to this particular concept. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 11:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, I'm not too dismayed by the opening sentence or two.(Although in my own head I will always think nation, but that's my problem!). As for pledging allegiance, If the nation....oops, I mean country, start all that nonsense I may consider emigrating.--Jack forbes (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to allow racists to 'plough their fields' or 'sow their oats' or get what they want when it suits them. Language usage is precise when it matters and this is clearly a case of wikipedia's being vulnerable to persistent racists who do not let up on their pet spites. (Witness ukphoenix now claiming that Scotland IS a nation). Such editors of Scotland pages should be scrapped when their edits are not in line with the rest of the uk. No one seriously thinks of Scotland as a nation, or of a nation as a land and the only people claiming to do so are only they who are hoping to deal with nationless people AS nationless people i.e. those amongst whom one might 'sow ones oats' or 'plough ones trough'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boromean (talk • contribs) 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Does Carstairs allow internet access now? Good to know they treat you well! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
From my perspective "Scotland is a nation and consitituent country of the United Kingdom" answers all of the issues inherent with regards to nationhood and constitutional circumstance Scotland today finds itself. If someone wishes further defination of those terms, they should be linked to the respective articals on nation and on constituent country of the UK. It really shouldnt be this difficult, lol. Satisfy both "camps" with this one statement, please. Because if you do not then reverts will continue over and over and over and over. Compromise, and be happy.:) ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
That is absolutely perfect. It is accurate and solves the issues that we are having. I will certainly back your proposal. Hopefully for the benefit of the article everyone else will follow suit.Wikipéire (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Scotland isn't a group of people, as has been established. "Nation" isn't supported by any official, governmental sources and the definition you allude to doesn't appear in British English. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Except that it a a nation (there's a million others too). http://www.great-britain.co.uk/history/scotland.htm If you can find a source that says its not a nation let us know. The "official" source saying its a country is just one sentence and is plainly wrong. It is biased and bordering on propoganda to stop Scottish independence claims. What about the numerous articles that are solely about why its not a country. They are neutral and much more substantial than a throw away line on an "official site". Get a grip. Constituent country isn't ideal (I'm pretty sure its a word if we're using it) but its the only thing that could possibly gain a consensus.Wikipéire (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that source is, well, very good, to say the least. Simillarly, do you have evidence that that source is biased propaganda? Even the SNP call Scotland a country! Also, there are many sources that say Scotland is not a nation ([5], [6], + dictionary defintions and even Wikipedia itself). Another good one is "Scotland is not a nation in the eye of international law, but Scotsmen constitute a nation" --Jza84 |  Talk  10:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We can agree that Scotland is not a nation-state, which is what you speak about. But it is a nation, not soverign, but it is a nation. ts crazy! lol. A landless nation! Its a circle. The second most important aspect of nation is a national homeland! Scotland doesnt qualify as the national homeland for Scots? Wow! Has anyone told them yet?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of a nation please Drachenfyre? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the New Grolier Webster Interntaitonal Dictionary of the English Language:

Nation: A people inhabiting a certin territory and united by common political institutions; the country or territory itself, an aggregation of persons speaking the same or a cognate language, ususally sharing a common ethnic origion; an Indian tribe beloning to a confederation of tribes.

By denying nationhood to Scotland, is like denying nationhood to the Kurds of Kurdistan, or the Kosavar's of Kosovo, or the Basques of the Basque country, these are nations of people with a national homeland... like Scotland for the Scots! Like England for the English! It is a fundamental component of Nationhood, weather that nation is soverign or not, can excercise authority or not, ..... or weather that nation is one of four (or more) other nations (Here of corse I speak of Uganda :) is a completly different argument.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Your logic never fails to amaze me! Right, well, firstly this Scotland article uses Scottish or British English, not American or International English. Secondly, a "nation is a social community" yes? Right, what's the defintion of a community? Also, why does your dictionary take preference over scholarly citation and other dictionary defintions? You have a total of Zero governmental source that uses the term nation, whilst I've provided several sources that Scotland is not a group of people. Whilst your at it, tell us what the defintion of Country is? Also, since you have a good grasp on the English language, I'll remember not to edit any more "articals", and I'll ask the "Kerds of Kerdistan" if they are related to the Kurds of Kurdistan. Perhaps also, we can remove the citation in the artical, and the Scottish people can become a country because I have one source in 100 that says this? I'm jesting to illustrate a point, but I suspect however, I'm falling on deaf ears anyway. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Prehaps it is on deaf ears, on both sides. However, I guarentee to you that if you presue in your own point of view, there will never be concensus, as people will continue to rever back and forth over and over, arguments like this will presist, and where will you be? Arguing this over and over and over. The defination above is precise and answers both camps issues about 'nationhood' and 'constituent country', both in the same sentence. Your arguing for more of the same, instead of finding common ground, it is language sure to promote divisiveness. It is such a small compromise too, really. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "country" exactly? Perhaps that doesn't meet your dictionary's standards or the term isn't verifiable for Scotland? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe anyone is still arguing about this. "constituent country" is a term sanctioned by 10 Downing Street and by the United Nations. The references are there in constituent country, but I'll give the main one here [7]. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are quite wrong. The source you provide makes no mention whatsoever of the word 'constituent':
  • "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
--Mais oui! (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
With Mais oui! here. If anything the article Constituent country should be deleted for OR, but these days WP:NOR is more the archaeology of past good encyclopedic intentions by a minority of editors than policy practically enforced. O tempora o mores!. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree! (Did I just say that?) The citation is quite clear. I'd love to see this saction by the UN though still! :) --Jza84 |  Talk  15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The United Nations reference is here. Ninth conference on standardization of names.
As for the "constituent country", the references make clear that Scotland is a country, and it's clearly a constituent of the UK. Unless you are one of these people who like to argue "Man Utd play football, and they're a team, but it doesn't say anywhere that they are a football team." DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's one of those things where a real-life fallacy, the Slippery slope, coincides with wiki policy violation, namely WP:NOR and particularly the much violated WP:SYNTH. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Not quite sure of your point there, Deacon. I'll assume you are agreeing with me unless you say otherwise. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Early history

In the early history section it says "Groups of Settlers began building the first permanent houses on Scottish soil around 9500 years ago. Should this not read, the first known permanent houses? The previous paragraph mentions that glaciations detroyed any traces of human habitation before the mesolithic period, meaning we have no evidence for or against permanent houses before this period. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally, "first x" should always be "first known x" unless the records in question are exhaustive. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It should probably say "have destroyed any traces of human habitation that may have existed before the Mesolithic period" as although it possible there were some, there is no evidence for it and the existing wording: "have destroyed any traces of human habitation before the Mesolithic period" implies that there were some that have been lost. See also Timeline of prehistoric Scotland (currently at FLC). Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree, the wording as it is does'nt make sense. Inserting "may have existed" into the sentence clears things up. --Jack forbes (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First or second?

Something that has always puzzled me is the fact that the Queen is referred to as Queen Elizabeth II of the united kingdom. Should it not be the first of Scotland, just as James was the I of England and VI of Scotland? I don't profess to have expertise in this field but it does seem rather odd. --Jack forbes (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The numbers are used according to the previous monarchs of England or Scotland. So it would be, for example, Alexander IV of the United Kingdom, rather than Alexander I. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So JamesVI of Scotland should be known as James VI of the united kingdom rather than James I of England? Or am I confusing myself even more? --Jack forbes (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Confusing yourself yes! James was King of England and Scotland via personal union, due to the Union of the Crowns. It was the Acts of Union that created the Kingdom of Great Britain, rather than the Union of Crowns, hence Anne of Great Britain. Does that help? --Jza84 |  Talk  10:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As I said I was no expert, but you have cleared it up for me, Thanks. --Jack forbes (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, since the ordinals are part of the Royal Prerogative a monarch can choose which ever they want. Charles could choose to call himself Günther-Heinz-Friedrich-Alexander the 26th if he so wishes!--Cameron (t|p|c) 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. EIIR is EIIR of Canada, Australia, Jamaica, etc. despite the fact that there never was an EIR of any of those countries. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mmm.. well, there was an EIR of Newfoundland, but it didn't become a part of Canada until 1949. --G2bambino (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Depends you just agreed with = ). The rule jza mentioned only applies between England and Scotland. The "Royal Prerogative" bit I mentioned is used in every Commonwealth realm. --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

("National") anthem of Scotland

I recently added "No official anthem specific to Scotland – the anthem of the United Kingdom is "God Save the Queen". See also National anthem of Scotland." A formula also used by the England page. Another user reverted my edits to "Multiple unofficial anthems". I have already reverted once so I decided to bring it here. I personally find my version more informative. I find it very sad that mentions of the UK (the sovereign state after all) are becoming ever fewer. What are your opinions!? --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's wrong. Scotland is not the United Kingdom, and GSTQ/K is not the UK's official anthem anyways (doesn't have one). So your additions are just about as wrong as you can get. Can we find articles to create rather than just POV-pushing with a British nationalist agenda? Forgive me for not assuming good faith, but I'm losing patience with this and I cannot seriously believe you thought that edit would not encounter opposition. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought God Save the Queen (king), covered the entire UK. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Breaking the mould a little, (although I can't agree with the "British nationalist" agenda card being raised again), but I'm inclined to agree with Mais and Deacon here. Afterall, the Anthem of the EU isn't included on the UK article, and in this capacity, don't think GSTQ should be added here (besides, Rule, Britannia! is far better anyway, and written by a Scotsman!). --Jza84 |  Talk  15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It is sung on UK national and English national occasions, but has no more official status than Flower of Scotland. But that's no your point, I don't think. Look at it this way, Ode to Joy is the EU's anthem but is not the anthem of the UK just because the UK is a component member. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Im actually rather offended by your not assuming good faith, accusations of POV-pushing and British nationalism. I merely sought to include a more informative sentence to the article. My edit did not state that Scotland = UK. It merely stated that Scotland is also covered by the UK anthem. H M's webpage] seems to think GSTQ/K is the national anthem. I can assure you I didnt mean to disrupt the article on purpose! --Cameron (t|p|c) 15:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting more confused with this article. GSTQ doesn't cover Scotland? Huh? GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't be that confusing. It is not the official anthem of Canada either. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Scotland is a part of the UK; Canada is not. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
What's hard to follow here, GoodDay? It is a anthem of both the UK and England, but because it is the former doesn't mean that it is the anthem of component parts. Likewise, Star Spangled Banner is a/the anthem of the USA, doesn't mean it is also the anthem of Puetro Rico or even New York state, and Ode to Joy isn't the anthem of the UK either. This is actually quite simple. Canada btw has the queen as head of state, same as Scotland, England, etc. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it's not Scotland anthem? Then it's not England's anthem (as England is alos a UK component, like Scotland). GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
England and UK are in practice interchangable, as anyone more familiar with Realityville than Shouldbeland will know. It is used to represent England in football matches, such as England v Scotland, where England use "God Save the Queen" and Scotland "Flower of Scotland". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny how its okay to say that England and the UK are interchangeable only when it suits. Anyway, the EU isn't a sovereign state, nor indeed any kind of state. Its anthem is irrelevent. The UK is a sovereign state of which Scotland is a part. GSTQ is played in Scotland. It's true that GSTQ isn't the official UK national anthem, but it is the official royal anthem and is the national anthem by centuries of convention. Therefore, it is correct to put it here in the article. TharkunColl (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You will know Tharkie that I don't have a cloud over my face, and don't deny the two to be interchangable. That is others. Anyways, as was stated multiple times, even if GSTQ were an official anthem of the UK (which it isn't), it would not be Scotland's national anthem by default as Scotland is a part of the UK not the UK itself. This article is about Scotland, not the United Kingdom, which is a different article (as should be obvious). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it wrong to list GSTQ under England then, instead of say Jerusalem? TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As an independent question, GSTQ is a de facto anthem of England, in my experience (OR) more than Jerusalem. As far as I'm aware the international football team that plays GSTQ as its own national anthem at Wembley Stadium and international tournaments (even playing other "Home Nations"!) is England, so given that's the most prominent occasion for displays of English national symbols (like music), one has to have one's head in the sand to deny that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
We should remove GSTQ from England, so that all 4 components match. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In practice though, all four components don't match. I think the sporting use is a fair point. Is GSTQ ever used in Scotland for this purpose? After all, Flower of Scotland was only written in the 1970s. TharkunColl (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we ought to leave it out completely. I have sources stating "Scotland does not have a national anthem". Even the Scottish national anthem page states so. So I suppose we are arguing about something that doesn exist! --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I doesnt look like this fact is about to change in the near future. I just read that someone requested an anthem be decided (to Scottish parliament) and parliament replied that they did not have the power to do so and that it would be up to westminster to do something about it. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick look at the Talk:Scotland/Archive Summary#National Anthem would have saved you this trouble. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"I find it very sad that mentions of the UK (the sovereign state after all) are becoming ever fewer". LOL!!! Why not scrub the Scotland, sorry, shouldn't that be 'North Britain', article completely? If we can convince readers that there are no differences at all between ANY part of the UK, and that the UK has existed for at least a milenium, we can forget about those insignificant "countries" and their time-consuming articles and discussion pages, where everybody has a POV that apparently seeks to portray such "countries" as something other than the quaint back-waters and mere political sub-divisions of the UK that we all know and love. (With the exception of England of course). In the absence of all this trivia, we could instead just have an enlarged United Kingdom article, with a paragraph or two on each "country" in a subsection entitled "Minor Regional Variations"! I think I'll run a Straw Poll to this end. All those in favour... 80.41.255.137 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, please do not attempt humour on the Talk:Scotland page. It is very well known that Scots, and people interested in Scotland-related topics, do not possess a sense of humour, and we all have irony bypasses. If required I can reference that, probably in a hundred blog postings. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
How thoughtless of me. Please accept my most humble apologies. I shall remove my somewhat ignorant self to a discussion elsewhere, thereby releasing this page to those who would seek to put the world, or more specifically that small tartan corner of it, to rights. Yours aye 80.41.255.137 (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I attempted to "improve" the Intro with some 'neutral additions' in order to make it flow a little better. My change was immediately reverted and I was told to take it to talk. (Given the speed it was reverted I doubt anyone had a chance to see it). I have, and here it is...

"Scotland (Gaelic: Alba), formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, is a country in Northern Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. Since 1707, Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and it's successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Scotland's only land border is with England. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest. In addition to the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands including the Northern Isles and the Hebrides.
Edinburgh, the country's capital and second largest city, is one of Europe's largest financial centres. It was the hub of the Scottish Enlightenment of the 18th century, which saw Scotland become one of the commercial, intellectual and industrial powerhouses of Europe. Scotland's largest city is Glasgow, what was once one of the world's leading industrial metropolises, and now lies at the centre of the Greater Glasgow conurbation which dominates the Scottish Lowlands. Scottish waters consist of a large sector of the North Atlantic and the North Sea, containing the largest oil reserves in the European Union.
The Kingdom of Scotland was an independent state until May 1 1707, when the Acts of Union, despite widespread protest across Scotland, resulted in a union with the Kingdom of England to create the Kingdom of Great Britain. Scotland's legal system continues to be separate from those of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland; Scotland still constitutes a distinct jurisdiction in public and in private law. The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union. Despite Scotland no longer being a separate sovereign state, the place of Scotland within the UK continues to give rise to debate, with the incumbent Scottish Government, (albeit a minority administration), promoting independence, while a majority in the Scottish Parliament itself promote alternatives to such; principally the status quo."

The above included wiki-links and references, as per and in addition to those of the original. Thoughts? 80.41.255.137 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. "It's" shouldn't have an apostrophe though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't like it. The first paragraph is way too detailed for me, and is nothing like anything else used on Wikipedia. Ironically, to me, it actually breaks up the flow. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Please excuse the apostrophe. Too much detail in the first para? Could you be specific? How about para 3? (The other I changed) 80.41.255.137 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd maintain the existing first paragraph. In the third, I'd prefer to see something about the devolved government and its roles and responsibilities rather than pick a single topic and conjecuralise. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


My first para was inspired by that of Norway:

Norway (Norwegian: Norge (bokmål) or Noreg (nynorsk)), officially the Kingdom of Norway, is a country and constitutional monarchy in Northern Europe that occupies the western portion of the Scandinavian Peninsula. It is bordered by Sweden, Finland, and Russia.
Scotland (Gaelic: Alba), formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, is a country in Northern Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. Scotland's only land border is with England.

Therefore, as you can see, the style is indeed used elsewhere.

My addition of "Since 1707, Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and it's successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" will not be found elsewhere in Wikipedia for it could only be unique to two articles, and I haven't been on the England article recently, therefore you won't find used anywhere else on Wikipedia.

The part in Para 3 about the politics was a version of the article which is no longer current - it was mererly an attempt to improve that which was, but is no longer. I shall therefore dispence with alterations to Para 3 as I appreciate that those with Unionist persuations may wish to avoid the subject of Independence. I couldn't find "conjecuralise" defined anywhere but I fail to see how "Despite Scotland no longer being a separate sovereign state, the place of Scotland within the UK continues to give rise to debate, with the incumbent Scottish Government, (albeit a minority administration), promoting independence, while a majority in the Scottish Parliament itself promote alternatives to such; principally the status quo" could be a statement based on incomplete or inconclusive information. It is entirely factual and I'm sure others here would agree.

Again, what is the difficulty with Para 1? 80.41.255.137 (talk)

Norway is different to Scotland. In the Norway article, "Kingdom of Norway" is needed to assert the official country name. That Scotland was a former Kingdom goes first isn't best editoral practice. (e.g. Essex, a former Kingdom, is a county in Northern Europe, occupying southern England). Also, the Kingdom of Scotland is listed elsewhere, and by some definations, Scotland is in Western Europe. In this capacity, your preference isn't the right way forwards in my view and we should keep the existing lead. Cheers, --Jza84 |  Talk  21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, "formerly the Kingdom of Scotland" gives context to the fact that the "country", "Since 1707, - has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and it's successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". This gives the reader an insight into how a "country", i.e the Scotland, can exist within a country, i.e. the UK. A fact which confuses many whose knowledge of UK history is less than comprehensive. Unlike Essex, Scotland is not a county within a country. (I see little confusion as to the status of Essex, and plenty on these pages concerning the status of Scotland). Leaving geography to one side, this sentence, setting Scotland into the context of the UK, is something you have yet to comment upon. Care to? 80.41.255.137 (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC) (Sorry to jump in there Wikipéire)
How does this improve things? The whole point of the argument is that Scotland isn't a country. The word is still there. We need to find a suitable accurate word to replace it.It is currently factually incorrect.Wikipéire (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There are those who would disagree and I had hoped that using "country" while in the clearest context of that now within the UK would be a form of compromise..."Scotland (Gaelic: Alba), formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, is a country in Western Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. Since 1707, Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"... Does this not cover all the bases? 80.41.255.137 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipeir what you think does not have any bearing on what is correct --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
And what, if I may ask, do you think Barryob  ? 80.41.255.137 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
What I and the UN and the EU and every other organization 'think' is that Scotland is not a country but merely a part of the UK. Scotland does not fit the geographical or political defintions of a country. (see many many sources above). Scotland was a country before 1707 but now is a merely a nation. The UK is a country. Scotland is not. I want this to be accurate.Wikipéire (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I know Scotland is a country and there are plenty of sources to back it up here and here and wikipeire where are your definations of a country. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't say I've ever heard/read the EU, UN or even UK refer to Scotland as "merely" anything. Your own POV perhaps? 80.41.255.137 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are the worst sources ever Barrob. How about a whole article devoted to the cause? http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm . How about the UN list of countries? http://www.un.org/members/list.shtml Ok so the word merely was badly chosen but you still get my point. It is not recognized as a country by organizations. Its only people who offhandley refer to it as one because it used to be one.Wikipéire (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, re-read your source please ([8]): Scotland does... "not meet the definition of independent country status" and continues, "Thus, as you can plainly see, Scotland is not an independent country nor is it a State." Who said Scotland was an independent country? The UN list is of sovereign states, not countries; there is a difference. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you believe there is a difference;then explain it. Bear in mind this source - http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/countries/country_definition.html a British geography website which also says Scotland isn't a country.Wikipéire (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You are confusing "country" and "independent country". Scotland is called both "country" and "nation" by news media, government-sponsored literature, countless organizations, academic literature, and most importantly, the common person. The only people who would deny that are linguistic prescriptivists and/or fanatical British nationalists who like to cover up the realities of usage in the English language by pretending these words only have one meaning, and that something has to be a sovereign state to be described as either. Whether this is cynical or childish, I hope good editors here on both sides will ignore it and get on with whatever adult discussions are necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspect you could all throw quotes and sources at each other until the cows come home. Might my compromise not satisfy all concerned? I've read the arguments for/against Nation, Country and Constituent Country, with Kingdom even being mentioned, however a compromise might not be so difficult in order to achive a concensus. What say you? 80.41.255.137 (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I say it's not good. We have four paragraphs to use; you've crammed everything into one. It just doesn't work and I don't know how to say that candidly. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You did not answer my question. Since when there a difference and since when was the term "independent country" used? People use the word state of which country has the same meaning. Since when does what the media say the right thing? Whats wrong with the word nation you say its used just as much. You use it there and you say you want to get on with it. How about we use the word nation in order to gain consensus?Wikipéire (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm kind of lost now. Wikipéire says Scotland isn't a country. Does anyone else? Mr Stephen (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Two things Wikipéire. Words don't have any "real meanings", and the closest thing you can get to this is when authoritative figures agree among themselves that one meaning is the "true one", which demonstrably isn't the case here. It is a fact that "country" is used to refer to sovereign states; it is not a fact that it is used only for such. You can't prescribe your way out of this. Secondly, neither nation, country nor constituent country will gain consensus here beyond one side agreeing to back down. With so many users, this won't ever happen completely. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

???"you've crammed everything into one"??? - Forgive me, Jza84, but are we referring to the same paragraph here?

Current edit:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border to the south with England.

My edit:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba), formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, is a country in Western Europe that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. Since 1707, Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Scotland's only land border is with England.

Frankly, yours is a bizarre assertion. How can the inclusion of such additonal detail be described as having "crammed everything into one"? This ranks alongside your previous assertion that by stating that "the place of Scotland within the UK continues to give rise to debate, with the incumbent Scottish Government, (albeit a minority administration), promoting independence, while a majority in the Scottish Parliament itself promote alternatives to such; principally the status quo" was to "conjecuralise". (Whatever that means!).

I am truly at a loss for words if this is indicative of the standard of debate here. Your advice on my talk page to, in effect, stay away from Scotland and edit elsewhere was sound advice indeed, but I shall go elsewhere for very different reasons than those you suggested. 80.41.255.137 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro Comparisons

Here are introductions from subsections of other countries from around the world. Please remember I personally want Scotland to get FA status but I have not worked on the page fearing that I will not be able to get anything passed without a commity vote:

These are only a few examples. Hopefully they will give us an idea of how other subdivisions have done this before and help lead us out of the darkness. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It seams the general rule of thumb is this
Name (pronounced:****) is a territory name in/of country. geographic location of territory. Bordering places. The Capital is capital name. Brief history.
hope that helps. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Only one of those, Brittany ("Bretagne"), is even a quarter as commonly called a country or nation as Scotland is, so none of those are gonna be useful parallels. Scotland can never be called a "region" or a "province" as it will be taken as offensive, the latter reminding of Burn's Parcel o' Rogues song, "Now Sark runs o'er the Solway sands/ Tweed runs to the ocean/ To mark where England's province stands/Such a parcel of rogues in a nation". It's not a state either, as the UK isn't organized like the US or one of its imitators. No, we're a hodgepodge of informality, and usually all the better for it. Scotland and Wales really don't have many parallels in the way they are referred to in English, and that's just the way of it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldnt be so sure. Bavaria was once an independent state and they are also a nation. Quebecs own article states Quebec is considered by many to be a nation and California was also once a state if not a nation. --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
California is just a made up set of lines on a map made up little more than a century ago, and is never seriously referred to as such. Bavaria is almost never called a "country" or "nation" [in English anyway]. I can't testify as to whether Quebec is, certainly it isn't in the UK or the US. Parallels such as New South Wales and California just look like an attempt to offer demean Scotland's national identity, rather like the "Yorkshire" one British nationalists usually offer. The above points stand though. These regions have formal descriptions which Scotland doesn't have. The people of the British Empire didn't see any problem with a state having lots of nations in it, and the continental European fad to make the two equivalent were just foreign to British tradition until such a way of thinking was recently imported. Square pegs for square holes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, does the following comply with the "general rule of thumb"?

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country in the United Kingdom. Located in Western Europe, Scotland occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. Scotland's only land border is with England. The capital is Edinburgh. Formerly the Kingdom of Scotland, since 1707 Scotland has been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Great Britain and its successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Not sure if I like it, but if it conforms with the others... 80.41.252.104 (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the introduction as it stands is strong enough. What we need is something about Scottish tourism, its celtic heritage, the reformation and so on. The current lead is more verifiable than it's ever been. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Modern Bavaria has had a parliament longer than modern Scotland! You may want to look on the page Bavaria to double check that it is a country. You may also wish to view this. --Cameron (t|p|c) 12:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Why? Is it called a "nation" and "country" so many times there that it makes up for lack of usage elsewhere in the language? Must be a big page. :p Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that it is the people of Quebec that is called a nation. Sorry, couldn't help myself, :D --Jza84 |  Talk  12:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I know you always say that, but I don't recognize that, nor to the boffins at the OED. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Have you told the Canadian Parliament this? The motion pretty clearly refers to the Québécois the people rather than Quebec the place. See Wikinews coverage. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I could email them telling them you'd missed the point, but they prolly wouldn't be very interested! :p Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I recapitulate: Whenever there is an official source employing the word nation, it is used according to the rational that Jza84 tirelessly repeats: It is a group of people that can form nation. That does of course not exclude the use of the word nation, but in its proper way, please. Btw, that is also my personal understanding of this word. Tomeasy (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your take on the matter; in the example of Quebec, it was the Québécois that were deemed a nation - the people - but note that Québécois does not necessarily mean someone from Quebec! The motion was drafted in such a way as to be purposefully vague; both nation and Québécois have fuzzy definitions. So, it is hardly a precedent to base any assertions of Scotland's nation status on. --G2bambino (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Parallels such as New South Wales and California just look like an attempt to offer demean Scotland's national identity so this what this is all about? Sounds like you are on some agenda to glorify the nation that is Scotland. You seem to be refusing the facts and proposals that are different to yours but are factually correct just because it doesn't portray Scotland in as good a light as you want it to be. Scotland is a subdivision of the state and country called the United Kingdom so obviously parrallels should be made to other articles of similar status. Scotland does not deserve some special treatment because you want it too. The most factual and correct opening should be used. Therefore for the many, many reasons above, like all the other articles the word country should be avoided.Wikipéire (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No really, fanatical POV pushers like yourself though are apparently fond of imputing their own base motivations to others. To me, nations, all nations, are the heartworm of the human race. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It strikes me that the Scotland article is currently being attacked by a small, but very determined band of editors with a very obvious and extremely partisan agenda ... that is to demote Scotland to a "sub-national region" akin to Bavaria or Flanders. The home countries of the UK are international anomalies which have no direct parallel elsewhere. The majority of the people in each of the home nations consider their "parts" to be countries; they are considered and referred to as "countries" at local, national devolved and sovereign state level, and on many occasions, internationally. Is the terminology used in government literature and common parlance wrong? Are other dictionaries and encyclopaedias wrong? Of course not! Aside from the technicalities of the argument, what worries me more is that a small band of POV-pushers continuously see fit to disrupt the integrity and general flow of the article by "rail-roading" their views in the face of the countless editors over many years who have debated and ultimately reached gentlemenly consensuses. Suddenly, (the suspiciously and previously-unknown) Wikipéire, UKphoenix79, Jza84 and GoodDay come out of the woodwork and slowly and systematically, any reference to Scotland being anything other than a geopolitical entity starts to disappear ... the Scottish map is changed (as we're not allowed to show Scotland's location within Europe or the wider world), the introductory paragraph suddenly omits that we are in northern or western Europe, the word "nation" is omitted as a "dubious reference", and now we are to remove the word "country". GoodDay suggests "subdivision" as a suitable alternative. I very much admire his sense of humour, if not his audacity.
Wake up, Scottish editors, and see what is going on here!! Wikipéire's dubious claims of Scottish nationalism aside, this article has been hijacked by blatant single-topic agenda-holders who claim that anyone who favours a subjective, neutral, informative, descriptive and accurate article is a "raving Scottish nationalist"! Could it just be that most of us (whether Scots or not, whether nationalists or not) just want the article to read accurately and with a good level of linguistic flow, and do not want its integrity to be compromised by a small group of consensus-ignoring (and basic fact-ignoring) "bullies", who wish to force their "Scotland is not a country" agenda on the rest of us. Scotland is not an "independent country", therefore it is not listed by the United Nations as such, but a country it is, none-the-less ... and no amount of reverts and "rail-roading" by the likes of Wikipéire, UKphoenix79, GoodDay and their like-minded minority of associates is going to change that fact. So, enough of your "sub-country" examples and parallels, UKphoenix, they're unwelcome, simplistic and patronising. And might I add that just because there seem only to be a few "protagonists" on either side of this debate, the usual contributors (most of whom do not want to get tangled up in edit wars with children) are watching with interest and incredulity. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
--WHAT?! I think you'll find it was me who asserted Scotland is a country (not a region), and that the UK's anthem shouldn't be included here. I also find much of that a personal attack upon other editors, and would hope you apologise to them. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The intro version proposed by User:80.41.252.104 is the best one I see. We need to make the (factual) statement that Scotland is part of the UK as soon as possible. You would be surprised how many people in North America (and probably elsewhere outside the UK) don't know what the terms England, Scotland, United Kingdom and Great Britain mean, and aren't clear whether Scotland is an independent sovereign state or not. It should of course also include the fact that it is a country. We need to present the current facts (Scotland is part of the UK) before we go into historical facts (Scotland used to be an independent state). Anything less is a disservice to our readers. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --G2bambino (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody watch The Weakest Link ever? Regularly Anne Robinson will ask one of the contestants, "In which country of the UK are there towns called... (etc.)." This, surely, is enough to end all further debate. (Added: bloody hell, I've just had a look at its article, and had no idea we had exported that crock of shit to more or less the whole world!). TharkunColl (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I watch it but only to see Anne Robinson! ; p. But seriously I think people doubting scotland as a country ought to read the article on countries!

The way I see it:

  • Scotland is a country
  • Scotland is a home nation
  • Scotland is a former kingdom
  • Scotland is a constituent country (of the UK)
  • The Scottish people are a nation

I still unsure as to whether Scotland (the place) can be a nation but am open to being convinced but some learned wikipedian?--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cameron, I share this perspective. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Jza, bullet point 2 you agree to? - Bill Reid | Talk 17:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
--yes. Scotland is one of the Home nations. It's a weird phrase, but it is verifiably attributable to the 4 countries, (i.e. territories) of the UK. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The word nation is often used in English to mean a geographical country rather than a people. The very phrase "home nation" shows this to be the case. TharkunColl (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. But it technical geographer's terminology "nation" and "country" are distinct. Also, if nation is being used to assert "country", why not just use country? :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think its possible for something to be a country but not a nation (or to have more than one nation in it). Such as the UK for example. TharkunColl (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If nation can be applied to geographical places then I think Scotland must be a nation (though I also believe the UK is a nation too then). --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite... and Canada and the United States! Although none are supported by proper citations, and if "nation" is being used to imply "country", again, it's surely best practice to use the latter. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Go with sub-division, for the 4 constituent countries articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jza. We have to see this from a readers perspective...--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The countries in question are the basic building blocks of the UK rather than sub-divisions. TharkunColl (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just one of my many ideas I threw against the wall, it didn't stick. No harm done. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we must be careful to make it clear that the UK is pretty odd as states go. TharkunColl (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia should be as correct and as precise as possible. Country is correct and more precise than subdivision and so should be used. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Subdivisions is actually a good idea, but only in theory. It pratice everything is totally different: You'd be hard pressed to find a source stating "Scotland is a subdivision of the UK". Nobody say it, that is the problem. And because the term is never used it is probably best not to use it...--Cameron (t|p|c) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The true subdivisions are the local authorities. TharkunColl (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The UK is certainly a complex state, country, union etc. Multiple identities. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It sounds complex on paper, but in practice I feel no split identity between being English and British. TharkunColl (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Brits enjoy being difficult (different) hadn't you noticed? ; p --Cameron (t|p|c) 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Union still functions though; 301 yrs & counting. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
300 and yes the glue that binds us together is stronger than ever. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
An interesting UN paper (cited by another user on here, and writed by the UK) asserts that the four home nations should never be considered as first-level subdivisions of the UK ([9]). --Jza84 |  Talk  17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipeire Those are the worst sources ever Barrob LOL this coming from a person who's source is [10] and even then is does not back up what your saying LOL again --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we do the explanation like we do everything else here - with links. So (for example) "Scotland is a country which is a part of the United Kingdom". That way anybody saying (understandably) "how can a country be part of another country?" has a link to follow which explains the facts in more detail. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A very rational suggestion. How about something rather like on the shared monarchy articles. We could add Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. For more information about this constitutional arrangement see United Kingdom or something like that. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Right consensus time. I have given up trying to show all the Scottish nationalists on here the error of their ways. But hey if you want it to be inaccurate so be it. For agreement here I will suggest that any sentence at the start saying Scotland is a part of the UK must include the fact that the UK is a sovereign state for clarity's sake. For example. Scotland is a country which is a part of the sovereign state that is the United Kingdom". Thats not phrased brilliantly, but you get the idea. That way you get to keep the word country. Feedback?Wikipéire (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I prefer Wikipeire's version. Saying what the UK is will reduce the level of confusion. There will still be some who say "how can a country be part of a sovereign state" and they can follow the links. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Too many people here are not interested in contributing content, just using wikipedia as a platform for political, ideological or linguistic campaigning. Many are saying useful things or making good faith suggestions, but it is getting lost in the drivel and intellectual childishness. This is an encyclopedia, go join a political party or debating society for that stuff. Scotland is verifiably called both a "nation" and "country", if you don't like it ... go form the society for Semantic Prescription and issue press releases. Again, this is an encyclopedia! You'd think this kinda thing wouldn't need to be said, but apparently it does for some ... repeatedly. :( Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the few postings immediately prior to yours were on-topic, relevant to the content, and useful. The discussion was pretty civil until you made your posting. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree to a certain extent, but the issue is important to a great many people, and understandably so. However, I'd like to try this from a different angle now in an attempt to bring closure. My question is, who can "live with" the introduction as it stands? That's not to say it can never be changed again, I just think that we've all made some element of compromise in the last couple of weeks. I'd be interested to know who's happy... --Jza84 |  Talk  21:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Before all the drivel made me lose sympathy for the Scotlandshire side, I had made this suggestion for a compromise:
Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is commonly thought of as a nation and as a country, though it is also part of the United Kingdom. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest, and shares a land border to the south with England. Apart from the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands.[6]
My thinking was that stating views as views and not as facts would appease everyone, but no luck. This convo isn't getting anywhere. My suggestion to good editors is just pick something and steamroller the opposition. If you don't wanna do that, don't complain that this keeps coming up. That's just the way of it, and the way it's gonna be. This was explained by vets like Mais oui! months ago when this was first raised, but few were interested. Please though, guys, there are other articles out there to actually improve or write. So much better use of all your time than this pointless roundabout. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That looks like the perfect compromise to me Deacon. It solves the problems raised by everyone.Wikipéire (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not for me (although the current lead is based upon this version I should note); it has a few weasel words and some grammatical redundancy (albeit innocently). The current lead is intended to be a compromise between those who want to up-play Scotland as a division of the UK, and those who want to up-play Scotland as a distinct national homeland in Europe. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating conversations above that seams to miss the trees for the Forrest. I have added a section to list called Just the facts Ma'am which contains ONLY FACTS. People seam to be missing the glaring facts and are only talking about their personal views. The facts get lost. No one has asked my opinions all they have done is assume them because of my user name. People would be surprised that my position is actually a mix of both sides. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal:
or
This is a mix of my findings above, the definitions found in Acts of Union 1707, the current version, and the version created by 80.41.252.104 What do you think? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The second one is almost acceptable to me; I would suggest "part of the United Kingdom" rather than "in the United Kingdom" to make it clear that it is a constituent part and not just surrounded by. It is I think clear from the discussion below that "kingdom" is wrong. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Just the facts Ma'am

Rules for this section

  1. Only facts are to be included, No dialogs or pleads or explanations, FACTS only.
  2. There is the caveat to this section, if you do not produce a fact or want to chat you must put them into the Passionate factless comments section
    • If you do not they will be placed there for you.
  3. Try to link your views to relevant articles and cite as much as you can. Use the following format for the link <ref>place link here</ref>
  4. If a fact is already given do not list it again, it is a fact not a repetition. You can add citations to a poorly sourced fact
  5. Facts can be opposed but place the rebuttal fact below the original one. (eg # * )
  6. You CAN group these into sections if the list becomes unwieldy
  7. Facts can be removed if they have no supporting evidence or are vandalism
  8. You cannot remove a true and cited fact from a verifiable source Remember Facts CAN oppose each other; Facts can be given that seam to oppose each other but are talking about minute differences. If agreed by most in play only <s></s> strike out that fact.

Just the facts

FACTS:

  1. Scotland is a part of the UK
  2. The UK has no single written constitution. So unlike the United States Constitution the names of the subdivisions of the UK are left constitutionally undefined.
  3. Scotland is a former independent kingdom
  4. Scotland is called a home nation
  5. Scotland is called a constituent country of the UK[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]
  6. Scotland is called a country[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
  7. Scotland is called a nation[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
  8. Scotland is not a Nation state.
  9. Scotland is not an independent country[30]
  10. The word country has been known to be misinterpreted to signify an independent state[30][11]
  11. The word nation has been known to be misinterpreted to signify an independent state[31][32]
  12. Scotland is not a nation in the eye of international law, but Scotsmen form a nation.[33]
  13. Scotland is a kingdom within the UK[34]

References

  1. ^ Office for National Statistics (2004-09-17). "Beginners' Guide to UK Geography: Administrative Geography". statistics.gov.uk. Retrieved 2008-04-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Vickers, Dan; Rees, Phil. "Creating the UK National Statistics 2001 output area classification". Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society). 170 (2): 379(25).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Bramley, Glen. "The Sudden Rediscovery of Housing Supply as a Key Policy Challenge". Housing Studies. 22 (2): 221(21).
  4. ^ Haubrich, Dirk; McLean, Iain. "EVALUATING THE PERFORMANCE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT". Policy Studies. 27 (4): 271(23).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Dixon, Tim. "Integrating Sustainability into Brownfield Regeneration: Rhetoric or Reality? – An Analysis of the UK Development Industry". Journal of Property Research. 23 (3): 237(31).
  6. ^ Turner, Karen. "Additional precision provided by region-specific data: The identification of fuel-use and pollution-generation coefficients in the Jersey economy". Regional Studies. 40 (4): 347(18).
  7. ^ Cole, Stuart. "Devolved Government and Transport—Relationships, Process and Policy". Public Money & Management. 25 (3): 179(7).
  8. ^ Wells, Alan. "United Kingdom". European Environmental Law Review. 14 (6): 150(7).
  9. ^ Hartley, Jean. "Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present". Public Money & Management. 25 (1): 27(8).
  10. ^ Hodges, Ron; Macniven, Louise; Mellett, Howard. "Annual General Meetings of NHS Trusts: Devolving Power or Ritualising Accountability?". Financial Accountability & Management. 20 (4): 377(23).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ a b Country, State, and Nation
  12. ^ A publication submitted by the UK to the United Nations Economic and Social Council states Scotland is a "constituent part" and "country", but "should not be considered as a first-order administrative division".United Nations Economic and Social Council (August 2007). "Ninth United Nations Conference on the standardization of Geographical Names" (PDF). unstats.un.org. Retrieved 2008-04-14.
  13. ^ countries within a country
  14. ^ Explanatory Notes to Waste And Emissions Trading Act 2003
  15. ^ Census 2001 - Ethnicity and religion in England and Wales
  16. ^ the Office for National Statistics states authoritatively in its glossary that "In the context of the UK, each of the four main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country". see statistics.gov.uk
  17. ^ British Embassy in the United States of America
  18. ^ House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 28 Feb 2000 (pt 35)
  19. ^ Alex Salmond MP MSP, (nationalist) First Minister of Scotland calls Scotland a "country". First Minister Alex Salmond at openscotland.gov.uk
  20. ^ Britannica describes Scotland as "the most northerly of the four parts of the United Kingdom" and later as a "country" four times in its introduction to the topic (nation or subdivision is not used).Scotland at www.britannica.com
  21. ^ Encarta describes Scotland as "one of the four national units that make up the United Kingdom" and later as a "country" two times in its introduction to the topic (nation or subdivision is not used).Scotland at encarta.msn.com
  22. ^ G. K. Chesterton, "Edward VII. and Scotland" -- I am quite certain that Scotland is a nation; I am quite certain that nationality is the key of Scotland; I am quite certain that all our success with Scotland has been due to the fact that we have in spirit treated it as a nation.
  23. ^ David McCrone, Scotland, Small? -- Scotland is a nation which has lived quite happily within a loose confederation, a union, and now finds itself within a bigger union - of Europe.
  24. ^ Heald, Geaughan & Robb, "Financial Arrangements for UK Devolution" in Elcock & Keating Remaking the Union -- ... from the recognition that Scotland is a nation within the United Kingdom.
  25. ^ Davidson, The Origins of Scottish Nationhood -- Because Scotland is a nation, and not a region or an urban district, opposition took a form which was impossible in most other parts of Britain.
  26. ^ Anderson, "Fernand Braudel & National Identity" in Clark, The Annales School -- ... Scotland is a nation that is something like a quasi-state, Britain a state that is at least a quasi-nation.
  27. ^ Von Beyme, "Fischer's move towards a European Constitution" in Joerges, Mény & Weiler, What kind of Constitution for what kind of Polity -- In this age of football, one whimsical definition defines the nation by the very existence of a national football team. On this definition Scotland is a nation and Bavaria not.
  28. ^ Haesly, "Identifying Scotland and Wales" in Nations and Nationalism, vol. 11, no. 2 -- As they argue, 'Scotland is a nation; therefore, Scotland should become an independent nation state' ...
  29. ^ Bultmann, Scottish Rights Vindicated: Identity and Nationalism in Mid-Nineteenth Century Scotland (unpub PhD [?] thesis), quotes one of William Burns' NAVSR tracts of 1854 -- so long as Scotland is a nation - by contract merely forming part of the united Empire - so long the Scottish people have a basis upon which, with consistency, they may rest such things as national demands.
  30. ^ a b Scotland Is Not a Country
  31. ^ When 'nation' is given five meanings with inconsistent use, that's confusion
  32. ^ A State of Confusion: Building a State in Somalia
  33. ^ Discrimination Law: Text, Cases and Materials
  34. ^ XIX. THAT the Court of Session, or Colledge of Justice, do after the Union, and notwithstanding thereof, remain in all time coming within Scotland, as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom, and with the same Authority and Privileges as before the Union... text from the Act of Union, 1707

Passionate factless comments

All except 5 I would agree with. I'm sure you can find a few non-wiki related sources calling it that, but we shouldn't contemplate violating WP:UNDUE. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. Some people hold semantic prescription to be intellectually childish
  2. Some people are fond of prescribing the meaning of words either because they are misled about the nature of language or because it is convenient[citation needed]
Please dont call people intellectually childish, an established editor such as yourself knows that its uncivil and wont help anyone here. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Simillarly, although it is a fact that Scotland is called a nation, it is a fact that it is not a nation by a) the overwhelming majority of definitions b) governmental sources c) any reputable atlas, gazetteer and encyclopedia. They others are fine. :D --Jza84 |  Talk  22:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Can you produce facts and add them to Nation then?? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I've started. I'm on to some more. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with 5 and 10 --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Barryob, you can't just say "I disagree" with a well-sourced statement any more than you can tell Einstein that you "disagree" with his theory of relativity. If the government office of statistics says Scotland is a constituent country then, unless you can find more authoritative sources on your side (whoever that might be) then (sorry to be blunt) your disagreement is irrelevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If something is called a nation, then it is. That's how language works. There is no such thing as an official definition of words. TharkunColl (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly. If I call Scotland a balloon, it doesn't make it a balloon. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It does actually make it a balloon (though not balloon) if it's called that, though not if you decide to call it that randomly and no-one else ever understands. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you understand the point I'm making though, that is to say regarding Standard English. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's just misconceived. Of the tens of thousands of sources writing in Standard English that call Scotland a "nation" and "country", you can be sure that almost all of them know Scotland is not a sovereign state with a seat in the UN. So clearly they don't think that's what those terms necessarily mean. Therefore, to assert that these terms are being misused is absurd. It's just as arguable that those using those words to mean sovereign state are misled. In reality, the only faulty position is to argue that either is wrong. That's different from going to the Amazon and confusing the Indian words for two kinds of palm fruit because your memory's jumbled, which appears to be where you were going with the balloon example. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you've never had the opportunity to explain to an American how its call a country but not in the independent way... very confusing for people who dont live in the UK, at least the other countries have a subarticle that is linked within the first few words talking about their internal subdivisions. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You'll see from my profile that I went to college in the US. Most educated Americans have no problem, and for those still working through this aspect of life examples such as this should teach them deeper understanding of the English language. Incidentally, most Americans I've met will think of Scotland as a nation, and usually think of Britain as a synonym for England (or England for Britain). In fact, for all the claims about the obscurity of this, most Americans [and maybe most people around the western world] share the UK's tendency to think of English Scottish Welsh and Irish rather than "British", as you will see from the ancestry census. There's virutally no such thing as a "British American" except as a synonym for English Americans. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Your not the only one to be educated in the states, and I must say that you have actually proved my point. People believe that they are independent, and we don't help when we call each part a country. The US has the benefit of a single written constitution that clearly defines what is called what. We on the other hand aren't so lucky. We should not try to perpetuate confusion here but make this encyclopedia informative while keeping the lead section as brief as possible. We can get into the complexities of the definitions later in the article but in the lead we have to be as brief as we can so that we can grant this article FA status. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I have already provided you with dictionary definitions that describe a nation as a geographical territory. What you are trying to do is restrict the definition in a way that is not supported by usage. TharkunColl (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You provided a link to dictionary.com I seem to remember, which listed 10 defintions; ONE American English defintion stated "nation" is a territory, the others did not. You preference of American English from an online source doesn't trump Standard English and proper scholarly terminology. That said, you're only wanting to use nation to either assert the term "country", in which case that should be used, or, for sake of arguement to discredit me as an editor for no reason at all. Look at the wealth of evidence for country over nation above anyway; not convinced? -- try a Google search. Still not convinced? -- look at governmental sources. Still not convinced? -- look at Wikipedia's own article. -- Still not convinced? -- look at the most reputable dictionaries around. Don't shoot the messenger here guys, I'm just here telling it like it is and trying to help the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Jza, really, do we need to go through this? You are a fluent speaker of the English language and don't need to consult dictionaries on such basic points. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Clearly we do. The wealth of evidence is so great it can't simply be overturned as "a basic point". What's wrong with "country"? Surely you see there is a case not to use "nation"?..surely? --Jza84 |  Talk  23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't care what one is used. But seriously, all the sources you can easily find for yourself on google books calling Scotland a nation aren't writing in Swahili, are they? ;)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You didn't answer my query. :D I don't deny that Scotland is sometimes called a nation, however, most instances of this are in self published works, or use the phrase(s) "the Scottish nation" or "the nation of Scotland" which itself usually means "the society/community of Scotland", i.e. Scots. If there's no problem with "country", then why have me tear my hair out over this? There's no need for any further debate if you're satisfied with the source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just search "Scotland is a nation" on google books and you'll see this isn't the case. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Still doesn't answer my queries. However, "Scotland is a country" returns more than double the number of entries at Google Books. Even the quality's better ("nation" returns self-published, nationalistic and sociological books, "country" returns things like Hansard, parliamentary papers and gazetteers). That's not spin to favour my perspective, that's actually just the way it is. Again, Scotland is a country wins hands down. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I believe that people call them countries much the same that people call California a state. But they dont link the term to State but to U.S. state also all the other subdivisions I listed above link their territory to States of Germany Regions of Italy States of Austria Regions of France States and territories of Australia and Provinces and territories of Canada. Anyone else seeing a theme here? I propose that we create a page called Countries of the UK which each part would be linked too since that is the correct term in my opinion, wont be confused with an independent state and will be in line with every other country on the planet that even the Italians & French can agree on???? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be wandering far into the territory of WP:OR the above places all have constitutions the UK does not and besides Subdivisions of the United Kingdom already exists. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I forgot about that link, but if the facts support it would it be wise to rename that page to a suggestion similar to the above? It would not be OR especially with facts supporting this. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
UKphoenix you should read your sources [11] read the second header Definining an Independent Country so the source is irrelevent to Scotland. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Examples of entities that are not countries include: Hong Kong, Bermuda, Greenland, Puerto Rico, and most notably the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. (Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England are not countries.) [12] Stating that in the Country section shows that special exclusions needed to be made for other territories also called countries. Even Simpler if there is a List of countries article and Scotland is called a country then it should be listed by its own right, correct? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
That about.com page is just as confused about this as some people here. It does verify point 10 though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically we are trying to place a modern day name on a union that pre-dates modern states. In the Acts of Union 1707 and Act of Union 1800 the former independent countries were actually to be called Kingdoms & Princedoms, hence the name United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So this is actually what it should be

Would these be more constitutionally correct or just create more anguish for this page? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else think this conversation getting a little stale. Let's be honest, no matter what is written it won't change what Scotland or for that matter England is. It is what people living there believe it is, whether thats nation, country or whatever. for the record I am happy enough with the present version and I get the impression most editors would agree, don't you think? --Jack forbes (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My personal preference is to link the word country to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom much like other countries have (e.g. States of Germany, Regions of Italy, States of Austria, Regions of France, etc.) or call them the closest to the constitutional version we have being either kingdom or princedom. Personally I believe that using country and linking it to the correct UK article about them would be best. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with country, or consistuent country. Perhaps pipe country to constituent country? I don't know, but per Jack's request, I'm happy with the present version. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well the intro does need a lot of work per WP:LEAD but I agree if the term can be piped to a UK specific article like what other countries do then I'd be happy. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No constituent country, please, wikization. Please remember WP:UNDUE and the reader who'll think this is some important term when it's not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hence my suggestion of Subdivisions of the United Kingdom -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
These things lead to strong feelings. Describing the six counties as the "Successor to the Kingdom of Ireland" is likely to cause even more debate than the "Scotland is / is not a country" kerfuffle. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Lets not forget that the Windsors became kings of the Irish Free State until it became a republic in 1949, and N.Ireland is the only entity that is left of that former kingdom. But your reasons are why I doubt that Kingdoms/Princedoms would work out even though considering the age of the union it is most likely the correct definition. So the modern definition would probably be the best linking to the correct page. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) is a country that occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is part of the United Kingdom, and shares a land border with England. Now this is it as far as it stands. With the chance of being slapped down here I think it might be an idea to ask everyone if they are happy with this, bearing in mind this argument/discussion may be never ending with the article never improving. I would ask people to not forget their own strong opinions but to set them aside for the good of the article. I believe that most would go with country because it is such a good compromise(I also believe it is a country). So I am going to ask people if they would go along with this withought being sidetracked. What I am hoping for is a simple yes or no, if that's possible. Yours hopefully, --Jack forbes (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No. There's a reason for the talk on here.Melvo (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The cited reference does not back up statement 13. "Scotland, as it is now constituted by the Laws of that Kingdom" only calls Scotland a Kingdom at the time of the act (i.e. before it is passed). I'm not saying Scotland definitely isn't a Kingdom, but the reference doesn't say it is. The status could also have changed since 1707. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, Scotland and England ceased to be kingdoms when the merged...--Cameron (t|p|c) 14:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DJ Clayworth...As DJ Clayworth correctly said the Act does not state that Scotland remained a kingdom after the union. The reference even contradicts this statment. Allow me to quote (and bold the main bit):

"§ I : THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN; And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint,, and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land." If the had remained separate after the merger why is the state called United Kingdom and not United Kingdoms? --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than point 13, as I mentioned above I believe that all of these statements are true and should be given coverage in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I placed it there so I'll strike it out. As for myself it made the most sense especially since the Royals use different flags depending on the country their in. But I cant seam to find anything else to back me up and its a rather contentious name so never mind :0) -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Me too DJ C. I just had the one bone to pick! = ) --Cameron (t|p|c) 11:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Full name

I want to separate this out from the rest of the discussion: can I suggest that we use the full name United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland the first time the term is used. I think it would make it doubly clear what it is that Scotland is part of. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad edit as such, I just think it's somewhat unnecessary. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with this. I think this is something that would add value to the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree New York for example shows the United States not the United States of America and plus the aritile is called the United Kingdom
I think the edit presented in the section below is an excellent compromise. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scotland/Archive_19&oldid=1190118963"