Talk:Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scotland article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	To-do list for Scotland:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Current Main Task: Ensure 'Good Article' status is maintained. Shorten Medieval History, Education. Watch this page and help revert vandalism. Contribute to the Talk page where suggested improvements are discussed. Avoid making significant additions or changes without attempting to get support from other editors first. Read the Archive Summary. Use Scottish English spellings. Verify: History, Politics, Geographical sub-divisions, Military, Education, Religion, National Symbols.
Priority 1 (top)

	Scotland has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Article Milestones Date Process Result April 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 29, 2006 Good article review Kept Current Status: Good article (countries)

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click on [show] for further details
This article is part of WikiProject Countries, an attempt to formulate a template for country articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Scotland is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Template:Scotland opentask

Archives Previous discussions from this Talk page are archived here: Archive Summary Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Geography.

Scotland is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Contents 1 "A-Class" and delisting GA 2 Scotland article: Proposed Policy WDMWU1 3 £1 bank notes 4 This article being reviewed for delisting from Good Article status 5 Continuing Improvements? 6 Continuing Improvements II - The Culture Section 7 Country? 8 To Do Box 9 Sections 10 FA Status 11 Rockall 12 Fact Box Map 13 Military of Scotland 14 Map redux 15 Devolution 16 Category:Germanic culture 17 Etymology 18 Official language 19 Article Protection 20 Roman forts 21 "Fir Alban" and the "men of Scotland". 22 "Scots" language 23 Third paragraph 24 Infobox flag straw poll 25 Removal of 'Etymology' section

[edit] "A-Class" and delisting GA

I'm sorry, this article is not an A class. The citations are diabolical. "The North British Review. By Allan Freer: Page 119. Scotland Under Her Early Kings: a history of the kingdom to the close of the thirteenth century. By Eben William Robertson: Page 286." Is this some new citation system I haven't heard about? What am I supposed to look up? The history section too is completely beyond help. The funniest thing is, someone cited "The Spottiswoode Miscellany: a collection of original papers and tracts, illustrative chiefly of the Civic and Ecclesiastical history of Scotland. By James Maidment - 1844: Page 444 to 445." What I find hard to believe is not so much that someone would cite a 17th century clerical source reprinted in the early 19th century about the obscure events of the 10th century, but that such a work was apparently easier to get hold of than a modern recent modern historiographical monograph. That aside, almost every sentence of the first two paragraphs of the medieval section constitutes complete nonsense. The second and fourth sentences of paragraph three are likewise highly dubious. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, on GA, the article fails abysmally with regard to Wikipedia:What is a good article?, 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c), and 5. In particular, the history and etymology sections are full of nonsense. The article has a lot in it which is good otherwise, so I'm not going to delist it immediately. However, if its other problems aren't fixed, it has to be delisted as a GA. One might even suggest that the article's inherent lack of stability should keep it away from GA categorization entirely. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree. My specific comments on the geography section are available at the above-mentioned location. I am not an historian, but the imbalances in this section are surely obvious to the most casual of readers. I can see that attempting to steward a busy page which attracts unhelpful attention is likely to be a wearisome task, but surly other such pages must have similar problems without the same end result - or are we simply a nation of anarchists? Forgive me if I am being naive, but is it impossible to imagine a general consensus around the number and size of headings and having a few committed volunteers who would patrol the sections? Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been raised before (see above) and the history and etymology sections were shown to let the article down, even then. I agree they are worse now, than they were. Could we not go back to the original situation such as here a few months ago when the history and etymology sections were at the stage they had been for some considerable time up to that point - and work from there? That I think removes this unnecessary tagging nonsense that we now have. There was a drive to try and improve this article, but there was absolutely no interest, which is ashame because the article seems to have regressed. It needs people to look into specific sections to try and improve them. We need people to look at the history section to try and make it more concise, probably the same with the National Symbols section and politics section. I've been trying to do the same with the Economy section (see User:Globaltraveller/Economy_of_Scotland. Any improvement in an article of such varied scope like this needs a structure and it needs volunteers. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that both the history and etymology sections were completely rewritten (badly) by a newbie about a month ago. Like a lot of other recent (within last month) changes to this article they ought to be comprehensively restored. Sorry, but I have had real life commitments and Wikipedia has been on the backburner. We should just comprehensively restore the long-standing pre-newbified versions. --Mais oui! 20:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK – encouraged by Angus McLellan’s boldness I will attempt to upload the new geography section asap (not tonight). I might attempt to incorporate Climate in it and call it “Geography and Natural History” or something along those lines. This will lose a little, but not much text in terms of size (excluding references). I’d be happy to have a go at patrolling this section and preventing it getting larger. If Globaltraveller can do the same for Economy, then that is at least a start. Suggestion for some rules of engagement:

• edits which do not provide references or edit comments zapped on sight.

• edits which make the text significantly larger removed with a request to discuss the matter on the Talk page, indicating which text the editor would like to be replaced to allow the new text.

If anyone can provide an estimate of how much text should ideally go as a gross percentage for each section I’d be happy to see what adjustments can be made (to the Geography section).

However if there are going to be systematic reversions I will wait a few days before doing so. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm all in favour. Incremental changes aren't getting anywhere, and the drafts you and Globaltraveller have prepared are already a huge improvement. I know Mais oui! has some ideas on size, perhaps a bit too ambitious as slimming programmes go, but it's not as if large articles can't be featured. Featured articles don't need to be perfect, there's a chance to fix things during the review. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The geography etc. re-draft is complete. Apologies if language and religion are uncomfortable sharing with shinty and haggis, but I suspect the only way to keep coherence is to have fewer larger sections patrolled by volunteers. More asap on this front. The changes added 2kb, although I suspect a fair chunk of that was references. Nonetheless I will resist the the temptation to add a picture of a golden eagle or similar. I will also resist the urge to start 'fixing' elsewhere. I am neglecting the islands. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a slimmed down economy section. I'm a bit concerned about image placing, so I got rid of one of the two images in the Education section, and one in the Economy section. But I'm not really sure. There's lots still to do. Help!!! Anyone? Thanks Globaltraveller 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It's now 73kb and falling. Is there any reason not to go with Mais Oui!'s suggestion re the history section revert? Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely none from me, but reverting back probably will raise the article size back up again, which is not a problem, if it is :something that is going to be worked on and reduced. Another problem I have is the Culture section, it's too big, far too big. The :culture section on the Australia article includes sport and is tiny in comparison. Do we really need a section on cuisine and :media? Do we really need a section on Transport? The India, Australia, Canada and Libya are featured, and are the :best country articles on Wikipedia, their size and scope is something we should be using as a template? Globaltraveller 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Canada has a wonderful 'See also' section which I lack the skill to create but this might solve a lot of problems. I was considering creating a simple 'See also' heading and moving Transport there. However, I now see Transport in Scotland has such a 'see also' section based on Template:Scottish topics. Is there any reason not to use this? Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

History reverted per Mais oui!'s suggestion. 72kb and falling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben MacDui (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Continues below:- Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland article: Proposed Policy WDMWU1

I will attempt to keep the geography section clear of additions and vandalism per the above discussion – embellished below – and I encourage volunteers to come forward to do likewise elsewhere and/or to assist with one or more geography sub-sections.

Proposed Policy

Many Scottish Wikipedians believe that this article has become too long and unwieldy. Minor edits which improve punctuation, syntax, accuracy and references are welcome in this section/article. If you wish to add new material please refer the matter to the Talk page.

Edits which increase the length of the article may be reverted unless suitable discussion of the proposed new content has taken place on the Talk page that reaches agreement as to which text is to be replaced to allow the new text.

Edits which do not provide references or edit comments are likely to be reverted without warning or explanation. <ends>.

I am tempted to put part of this as hidden text in the Geography section. This is possibly in breach of umpteen well-meaning policies and guidelines, but may not be necessary. We shall see. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is not for you to decide who can edit unprotected articles. Your proposed policy goes against the whole idea of Wikipedia. Astrotrain 20:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but edits which don't improve the article (like the anon user(s) who like(s) to add the perhaps-true-but-not-very-worthy-of-inclusion claim that there are more redheads in Scotland than anywhere else) can be removed. Most edits are just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Only bold editing is going to get this article to featured quality. That includes being bold in reverting unhelpful additions. Economy doesn't look like there's much fat in it, so do you fancy taking a chainsaw to Education ? It paints a rather flattering picture of early education, perhaps best dealt with by spending less time on it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between reverting an anon who has added something irrelevant, to reverting an established user and leaving a rather rude message on their talk page saying they can only add things to the article if they discuss it here first! Perhaps I could see his point if I made a major edit, but not the adding of one link and a small sentence! Astrotrain 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I understood the idea of Wikipedia was to produce a quality encyclopedia. This requires colloboration rather than anarchy. I am sorry if you, (Astrotrain) felt the message was rude. It was my intention to be clear. If edits are unhelpful they should be removed. There are tens of thousands of facts about Scotland not on this page, and the key question is - what is relevant? Ben MacDui (Talk) 23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. And please read the Manual of Style to see how your section should be correctly formatted. --82.26.178.54 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN is irrelevant here; the issue is the article as a whole and no one editor's contributions. There is a consensus that the article should be revised to reach the feature article criteria (as all articles should, ideally). If you feel any part of the article is need of tender loving care, please feel free to change it to meet the MoS guidelines. Anyone can edit, just so long as the edits are for the better. In this case, significantly adding to the length would hardly be an improvement. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that declaring some kind of single-article policy is a good idea. The concept of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not create a store of information which is controlled by a few editors. Yes, some things may be irrelevant to this article, but it is quite short-sighted of us to declare that our Geography section could do with no improvement, even to call it perfect. I think that rather wasting our time trying to stop people from adding new material, we should work on what actually needs working on to get this article up to FA status. Yes, it requires more work, but construction is always better than destruction. Well, in most cases, anyway. Canæn 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is suggesting there should be no changes or improvements. The implication is simply that if anyone can suggest any that they would ideally receive some sort of support for making them first. Higher up the page, we have a suggestion that Transport should be removed. It sat there for several days without disapproval, so I removed it. This was then reverted. Is the only way to resolve the situation a childish edit war? If not what? I am suggesting some sort of collective resolve to improve the article which is still little better than a dodgy undergraduate essay at present. This requires a level of committment and a consistency of approach that may be difficult, but surely not impossible to achieve. I notice other articles with signs on the Talk page stating 'please help improve these sections'. Personally, I very much doubt I'd start adding other 'improvements' without having a clear understanding of what the regular editors are trying to achieve. (Continues below.) Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] £1 bank notes

Jersey also issues its own £1 bank notes. Scotland is not unique in this regard -Jon 07/12/2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.183.58 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

• Jersey is not a part of the UK and does not use sterling, rather using the Jersey pound Astrotrain 15:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • the Jersey pound is not a separate currency but is an issue of banknotes and coins by the States of Jersey denominated in pound sterling, in a similar way to the banknotes issued in Scotland and Northern Ireland --Bob 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • except that Jersey is not required to maintain parity with the British £ Astrotrain 15:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It has the same official ISO 4217 currency code: GBP; they also use sterling banknotes and there exists no difference in the value of a JEP (the unofficial code) to a GBP [1] --Bob 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article being reviewed for delisting from Good Article status

Saw some talk above about delisting this article, but didn't see a clear notification of listing.

SEE Good article Review] this article being reviewed for delisting from Good Article status.

--Ling.Nut 01:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

GA status was ‘kept’ (GA Disputes) earlier this morning. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing Improvements?

A friend recommended some spectacles and I now see that there is of course a cunningly concealed 'Topics in Scotland' box (see above). I added 'Transport' to it and deleted the article section. 69kb and falling. Does anyone think the 'References' section in its current guise contributes anything of value? If not it is next for the chop. Ben MacDui (Talk) 12:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored Transport section as it is common for this to be in a country section. I would suggest cutting Military as it serves no purpose for a non sovereign entity. Astrotrain 15:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Arguably the military section is too wordy, but with the best will in the world Astrotrain, it is hard to interpret the above as anything other than either an extraordinary lack of knowledge of modern Scotland, or a calculated insult. I am beginning to suspect you are a covert SNP activist trying to whip us all into a lather of self-righteous nationalism. Views anyone? - on transport and military I mean, not political affiliations. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Time for a nice cup of tea and a Tunnocks Tea Cake. I'm not any sort of covert activist, but I'm perfectly capable of seeing there's a case to be made for not having a military section. On balance, seeing as Scotland has most of Britian's nuclear bombs, I'd argue for keeping it, but I don't need to accuse people of things in order to make the case. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 16:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm for keeping both but only with as short an intro paragraph as possible and let the Main article: pointer do its job — Bill Reid | Talk 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I have a Caramel Wafer instead, please ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Broadly I would be in favour of keeping the military and transport sections (less so the Transport section). What needs the most work is the Culture section and all its subsections - it is HUGE, and a major drawback. I would say the media and cuisine sub-sections definitely need the chop, and the rest of the subsections put into one. Globaltraveller 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on Culture needing more improvement than other sections. There's not much there. Canæn 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey boys, guess what? Deleting valid content does not equal improvement. Instead of simply removing good content, why do we not focus our talents on improving our article's content? When was the last time anyone put the article up for FA status? Do we actually need to be cutting down our article? I believe we've all become too focused on how many KB our article is in length. Guess what? Low KB does not equal FA status. Get over it, and lets make the article decent. Canæn 03:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the problem is that over a few weeks or months up until about the beginning of December the quality of the article had been dropping. It was a Good Article and it is now up for deletion as such. In its state at the time I have no dispute with that. I am not in favour of cutting out information purely for the sake of FA status but in my view there is still a good deal of information in it that is extraneous and I am very happy to support proposed quality improvements. (See for example below). I note that no-one has queried the idea of removing the rump of the 'References', so off with its head. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is still some irrelevant stuff in some of the sections, that doesn't focus on the main points, and the text could be rationalised in a lot of areas, and all of that will help cut the size. Globaltraveller 10:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing Improvements II - The Culture Section

I've made an attempt at trying to reduce the unwieldy culture section into one, along the lines of similar sections on other articles, here: User:Globaltraveller/Sandbox/Culture I did however chop the Cuisine section in my attempts to amalgamate all the other sections. Could people take a look and see what they think? Also in doing that I laid to the side the Religion and Language section. Perhaps they could be fitted in elsewhere in the article? I'd be grateful if people could take a look and see what they think and/or edit bits if they want. Thanks Globaltraveller 22:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think it looks good- although I would suggest continuing to use subheaders to break up the text. Astrotrain 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Hmmm, that's the problem, I don't. I think the subheaders (a) take up too much space and are unsightly in such a short space. I've tried to provide links to the relevant links, in the text, to the sub-articles where possible. I notice most other country articles do this, as opposed to having subheaders. Adding in this Culture section as is, cuts the article down to below 70kB as well Globaltraveller 10:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • It think its a huge improvement. I have a couple of suggestions re the opening sentence or two and one or two other tweaks, but I won't get a chance to be more specific until the weekend. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit away. Basically all I've done is remove the list of the different sections rewrote a few sentences and added a few references. The problem is the Language and Religion sections, which are not there. My own opinion is they belong alongside population/demographics rather than culture? Globaltraveller 21:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've added some tweaks. Re the structure, without sub-headings there is no link to the main articles which may not be crucial. However my preference would be to have the sub-headers of Religion, Language, Media and the Arts, and Sport. I presume the absence of Cuisine is intended. Fine by me as it says nothing of international note although perhaps the poor old haggis deserves a mention somewhere. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • There are links to the main articles in the text. The "Sport" link goes to the Sport in Scotland article, similarly "Scottish music" is linked and directs to the Music in Scotland main article, "Scottish Literature" links to the Scottish Literature article and so on. This I think does away with the need for sub-headers which would look unsightly in such a small piece of prose. The absence of cuisine was intended, as there wasn't much in it. Haggis could be mentioned as the "national food" perhaps in the introduction?? Thanks Globaltraveller 22:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • Or we could put the main articles in their own "See also" header like here: User:Globaltraveller/Sandbox/Culture. Globaltraveller 09:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Yes, I think that works. Religion & Language definitely seem more 'cultural' than geographical to me, but maybe they are separate sections for now at least. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we not bring back the demographics section with population info, language and religion in it, as per WP Country? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries#Sections. Globaltraveller 10:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is a good point, but it raises complex issues. In the context of say Canada or Belgium, language, religion and culture are all clearly geographical issues too. For Scotland this is much less straightforward. Geology, geomorphology and demographics follow from one another. Currently, gaelic-speaking is largely confined to a relatively small geographical area, but by-and-large religious affiliations are not and nor are they tied to language or even to other aspects of local culture. I am not really qualified to attempt any kind of geographical discussion of Scots and its variants. Furthermore the whole approach of the existing sections on language and religion does not lend itself to incorporation into demographics. Although both these section are of value I wonder if they place too much emphasis on history (as elsewhere)? Three options:

1) Keep ‘em in Culture. 2) Have them as separate sections. 3) Move them to demographics but have them hugely reduced e.g.:

Scotland has three officially recognised languages: English, Scots and Scottish Gaelic. Almost all Scots speak Scottish Standard English, and it is estimated ^{[citation needed]} that 30% of the population are fluent inScots. Gaelic is mostly spoken in the Western Isles, where its use is confined to just 1% of the population.^[1]

The Church of Scotland, also sometimes popularly known as The Kirk, is the national church and has a Presbyterian system of church government. Other Christian denominations in Scotland include the Free Church of Scotland, the Scottish Episcopal Church, and Roman Catholicism. The latter survived the Reformation, on islands like Uist and Barra, and was strengthened, particularly in the west of Scotland, during the 19th century by immigration from Ireland. Islam is the largest non-Christian religion in Scotland (estimated population, 50,000).^[2] There are also significant Jewish and Sikh communities, especially in Glasgow. 28% of the population regard themselves as belonging to 'no religion'. ^[2]

A quid pro quo would be to reduce the Subdivisions section by eliminating everything from “including education, social work,” to “For the Scottish Parliament, there are 8 regions”. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with Option 3. It just seems the more sensible way to handle the subject. That way, the improved culture section can be added. Globaltraveller 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country?

According to this, Scotland isn't actually a country, but it's only "common usage" that causes it to be described as such. So which site do we believe - that of No.10, or that of the Scottish Parliament? Marks87 17:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I have the feeling that these issues have been discussed ad nauseam in the past, but that the conclusions are buried in the archive. Perhaps a useful task would be to collate such issues and add it to a 'To do' Template - see below. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How right you are: Talk:Scotland/Archive6. Me, I'd believe the Census forms rather than the spin from Jack and Tony. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor is Scotland a nation. Wikipedia defines a nation as "A nation is a group of humans who are assumed to share a common identity, and to share a common language, religion, ideology, culture, and/or history. They are usually assumed to have a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent." Scotland is not this. It a constituent country of the UK and nothing more: it can not be described as a "group of humans" but is an area of land within the UK. Tphh 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't deal with original research. It's readily verifiable that Scotland is referred to as a nation, and that Scottish national identity is discussed in print. Can you suggest a source that agrees with your interpretation? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Scottish national identity would be the identity of the Scottish people, not of the Scotland itself. I am yet to find a source denying Scotland's nationhood but sources referring to Scotland only as a constituent country or part of the United Kingdom are readily available: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scotland, http://www.britainusa.com/sections/index_nt1.asp?i=41010&d=12. Besides, this is a matter of accurate use of language and consistency within the encyclopaedia. Would you refer to other formerly independent states that are now part of a larger union, such as Bavaria, Burgundy, Texas or Venice as nations? Tphh 13:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A nation is a group of people and so it is wrong to describe Scotland as such. Have updated page accordingly.--Mgillie 09:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Constituent country is completely uncontroversial with no political overtones: it, therefore, complies with the POV policy. Country, whilst technically correct, when used to describe an area of land, implies, in general use, political sovereignty, which Scotland does not have, and the use of country could, therefore, lead to confusion. Nation means a group of people and Scotland is not this either. Furthermore, nation can also imply sovereignty and also lead to confusion. "In modern times the word Scot is applied equally to all inhabitants regardless of their ancestral ethnicity, as the nation has had a civic, rather than an ethnic or linguistic, orientation for most of the last millennium" is, therefore, also nonsensical, as nation implies a single ethinic group. Angus McLellan says that Scotland being referred to as a nation is readily verifiable, but this does not make it correct. Constituent country is, therefore, the only appropriate term. AlexOUK 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Re my above comments of 17.12.06, the Archive summary was created and there are numerous references to this topic. See Talk Archives 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 and 13. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Having read through the archive, I am still not convinced of the case for calling Scotland a nation. To reiterate, my understanding is that country would be correct but ambiguous and controversial but constituent country is correct, unambiguous and uncontroversial. AlexOUK 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a nation to clear things up?--Rcseng2005 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, tricky. The Québécois have recently been recognised as a nation by the Canadian federal government. Québécois specifically refers to the French speaking group of people in Quebec, and their relatives elsewhere, whilst the word Quebeckers refers to all the people of Quebec, including the Québécois. This recognition affirms the Québécois' distinct culture. However, the province of Quebec itself is not a nation: it is an area of land. It is the Québécois who make up the nation. In my opinion, all the Quebeckers together could also be considered a nation, since they also belong to a group of people with some sort of connection. The Scottish people are also a nation, but Scotland itself is not. This is an article about the area of land. Whilst the article may include sections which are really about the people living in Scotland, what is important is that it refers to whatever is happening in Scotland. The Scottish nation is much more difficult to define than the land, and is probably much broader than just the people who happen to be currently living in Scotland. Does it include all people living in Scotland? Does it exclude people who used to live in Scotland, but moved elsewhere? Is it exclusively ethnic Scots? If so, how do you define that? Only people descended from the Picts? The history of Scotland is exclusively the history of the land and the various peoples that have lived there. Once a people leave Scotland, they are not generally relevant to the history of Scotland that follows their departure. For example, people moved from Scotland to Northern Ireland during the plantations. Whilst some may consider them to being part of the broader Scottish nation, after they left, these individuals were no longer creating the history of Scotland, but were now shaping the history of Ireland. The important factor is the location, not the people. You could create an article about the Scots and their history, politics etc. However, this article is primarily about the land – the location, with whoever happens to be living there a side issue. AlexOUK 08:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Do Box

A device (at the top of the page) which may or may not lead to further improvements and worthwhile collaborations. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

Have added in the new Culture section and Demographics as per the suggestions above from Ben MacDui. Is anyone unhappy with this? Globaltraveller 13:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent and thanks for finding the reference and fixing the typo. My only quibble is that the image refers to an issue not mentioned in the text and I believe should be amended to something like "People on Buchanan Street in Glasgow, Scotland's largest city." This is possibly fatal, but I am almost beginning to think we are making progress. Geographical sub-divisions is reduced per the above too. It could now be a sub-division of ‘demographics’ as an alternative. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the changes are excellent too. I've updated some of the images- agree that the Buchanan St image was not very good- replaced with a better quality one representing religion. Astrotrain 22:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thinking aloud my current intention is to try to be methodical and keep going down the page, which brings us back to Transport. A quick glance at the 12 countries with featured status suggests that only 2 have a transport section. In my view the section says next to nothing that an intelligent person would not surmise knowing Scotland to have a 'western' economy. It has but two citations to its name (which is two more than some I admit). On the other hand it says nothing that is inaccurate that I can see. As discussions above resulted in no especially clear consensus I'd say, let's leave it for the time being as I feel confident it is adequate for GA status. If that is saved (still a moot point) it can we worked on further if Featured status remains a goal. Which brings us on to National symbols.

Oh dear. Only one citation and one or two rather dubious claims. Is anyone aware of a useable definition or of any useful conclusions on archived Talk? Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently no one is. wangi suggested (Archive 12) moving the National Symbols section to a separate page. I note that Canada and Pakistan, both featured articles, do so. My suspicion is that most of the emblems are ‘unofficial’ and essentially part of folk history rather than anything than can be easily referenced. Were FA status still desired, I am fairly sure this section would have to go. Retaining the section in its current form did not seem to impinge on Good Article status. The retention of GA was (I imagine) a main purpose of this self-imposed romp through the article, which now ends happily as I notice that without much fanfare this status was ‘kept’ (GA Disputes) earlier this morning. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving National Symbols sounds good. I remember that at the last Peer Review it was criticised for being listy and that it needed to be coverted into prose, and I'm not sure how one would go about that with any degree of success, let alone reference the thing. Another worry is the references section. At the FA review (if this is the general direction we are heading), they are increasingly particular about the way references are laid out, handled, cited and consistent as I have cause to know. The history and politics sections need references too. Globaltraveller 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA Status

Happy New Year to all - I think a general congratulation is in order. Firstly, I am aware that there are numerous folk who are quietly doing a fine job in keeping this article free of vandals, uncited edits and heavily POV contributions. Secondly, it has been fairly stable since about 19th December, during which time GA status was maintained.

The idea that Featured Article status should be pursued has been raised several times (see Archives 5, 11, 12). In principle, we are no doubt all in favour, but perhaps it is not so easy. It seems to me that unless an individual is willing to take lead responsibility, the key to a successful effort is likely to be having an agreed strategy. Otherwise we all end up nibbling away at different bits and potentially acting at cross purposes, plus confusing those who are trying to hold the bounds. I think it would be helpful to have comments at this stage on general idea and the 'To Do' list plus the idea of moving national symbols. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rockall

Apparently "if you find you have reverted a page even once in a day it may be a sign there is a problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting always with the article's talk page." (WP:3RR) I confess to having done so and seek the advice of experienced editors. I refer to the addition: "Rockall, a small rocky islet in the North Atlantic which was annexed by the UK in the 1950s and later declared part of Scotland by the Island of Rockall Act 1972." As noted in my first revert this is an apparently unsourced statement. It is also contentious as can be seen from the lengthy entry on the Rockall page itself and indeed on the Talk page. How can this best be resolved without recourse to unseemly squabbling? --Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief. I never said that it was untrue. However, the facts as presented may now be verifiable but they are only a small part of the truth as a quick glance at the Rockall table of contents and lead para suggest e.g. "In 1997, the UK abandoned any claim to an extended EEZ around and beyond it. The remaining issue is that the status of the continental shelf rights of surrounding ocean floor is disputed with the United Kingdom by the Republic of Ireland, Denmark (for the Faroe Islands), and Iceland." Thus, in order to justify any reference to Rockall at all, I would suggest that said reference needs to be at least as long as the entire rest of the discussion of the 'territorial extent of Scotland' as it currently stands. Indeed to do it justice it probably needs to be rather longer. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. That is the beauty of internal wikilinks: you do not need to dot every i and cross every t - the reader can follow any link that interests them and more fully enlighten themselves. --Mais oui! 11:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

However, I believe the the wording is misleading, and in fact what is notable about the issue is not that the UK claims a rock, but that the claim is disputed. I will amend accordingly. I am not an authority on these matters, but from what I can gather the claim has no de jure validity whatever. I note Fraser MacDonald's (see citation) concluding remarks: "At this point in the argument, lawyers have blamed geographers and geologists for the wealth of ambiguity that resides in the hitherto uncomplicated term ‘rocks’." In this case the geographer's blame the transport fans. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

PS I notice that Rockall does not feature on the ma.... oh never mind. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They only dispute the continental shelf rights around Rockall, and do not claim Rockall itself. The fact that the UK has annexed Rockall and declared it part of Scotland is indisputable. Astrotrain 20:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A rare event indeed: I agree with Astrotrain! There is no longer any dispute about the actual rock called Rockall, the dispute is about the waters and seabed around it. --Mais oui! 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's ensure this exciting outbreak of agreement is recorded in the archive summary, when the time comes! I am not in a position to strongly disagree, indeed you may well be right. However my understanding of WP:V is that 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth'. All I can say is that a source or two available suggests the claims are not accepted. If you can come up with credible sources that confirm this I will gladly concede the point. However, comments on the Rockall Talk page imply that the reason there is so little concern about the UK's claim is that it is so absurd, not because the claim is accepted. Waveland, on the other hand, may have a genuine claim. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So, Scotland's claim is "absurd". Tory Island (WGS 84, 55 Degrees 16' 29.9" N, 8 Degrees 15' 03.3" W) is 423.3km/ 263.0 statute miles/228.6 nautical miles from Rockall. Aird An Runair, North Uist (57 Degrees 36' 09.7" N, 7 Degrees 32' 56.4" W) is 367.0km/228.0 statute miles/198.1 nautical miles from Rockall. Within 200 nautical miles. Sulasgeir 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact Box Map

A version of the Fact Box map not displaying the other UK countries in a paler shade of green was being used previously before I changed it to display other UK countries in a paler shade of green too, which is inline with the style of map used in the Fact Boxes of all other UK countries. Can it please be seen to that the Fact Box map style stays inline with all the other UK country Fact Boxes and isn't reverting back to the misleading map which differs from all other UK country Fact Box maps and misguides readers into thinking Scotland isn't in the UK. Somethingoranother 23:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue has come up in the past, indeed the map was changed by K851jg2 from this to the current version purposefully, with the reason "Lightened grey of rest of UK as it was almost indistinguishable from Scotland's green colour". The map you are attempting to replace the current one with makes it very difficult to even see that Scotland isn't the whole of the UK. This article is about Scotland - that is what the end reader is wanting to find out about - for the end reader to have to squint at a map to try and work out a very small difference in two shades of colour is hindering them not helping. The United Kingdom is mentioned in the second line of the article, and countless times in the body - I doubt very much that a reader is ever going to be in any doubt that Scotland is not part of the UK. Ultimately the aim of the infobox map is to graphically say where the country is, not widely detail it's political and cultural relationships. Frankly I would support the other UK info boxes being changed as well, but that is up to the regularly contributing editors on those articles to decide. SFC9394 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the map style used by all other UK countries. If there were they would have changed it too. The map you keep reverting to has purposefully doesn't highlight other UK countries because it is a map intended on representing Scotland as outside of the UK. The map style used by all other UK countries is undisputably more accurate as it displays the country is an area of the UK. Aswell as now that maps of all EU countries show them all as part of the EU it is ridiculous for the map not to show Scotland as part of the UK. The map style not showing Scotland as part of the UK has purposefully been drawn in that way to present Scotland as not being part of the UK. If or when that day happens the map will be correct, until then the map style used by all other UK countries is correct. Somethingoranother 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No, SFC9394 has a valid concern regarding the colours being hard to distinguish between on certain monitors / display settings. Remember not everyone sees the image exactly the same as you do - computer monitors are notoriously badly calibrated. Please think about improving the image by making the contrast between the colours used for Scotland and the rest of the UK higher. This is not a political issue, it is to do with understanding the function of this image on this article - and that is to accurately pick out Scotland. Thanks/wangi 23:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK how about if the colours are changed then? Then I can't see a problem anymore unless there's a political one for some reason Somethingoranother 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and then post it here so folk can check if it's better. Thanks/wangi 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Location-Scotland.png Somethingoranother 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Any clearer? Somethingoranother 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're not doing yourself any help by messing around with the original image too - what do you expect people to use for comparison? If you can sort it out so the original is back to the original (what you've just done could be seen as an attempt to get round 3RR) then I'll give it a look tomorrow. Thanks/wangi 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK here you go:

red

The one being used

the one I think is more correct

Somethingoranother 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC) / Somethingoranother 00:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Messing around with the original? You know what the previous one looked like. And how on earth do you mean I'm trying to get around the 3RR? Seems to me and most likely is certain people are trying to keep the map of Scotland showing it as a separate country and so are simply refusing anything which shows Scotland as part of the UK. I would like to remind those that this is Wikipedia and people must abide by NPOV which is not happening on this article so I'm going to report this article and all those who are trying to keep their bias on here by stopping the changes to the Administrators Board unless political bias is removed and the map is changed to display Scotland as part of the UK Somethingoranother 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the map used should be the one which shows the rest of the UK in a lighter colour Lucy Locket 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to revert your edit to use that image, until have have a chance to achieve consensus here? Thanks/wangi 00:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Somethingoranother, Calm down. I'm unsure why you feel the need to brew up conspiracy theories and tartan clad nationalism. Rather instead please try and take the concerns of others in good faith. I am planning to compare the images tomorrow from another system I use that has much less contrast on the display to see how your new image looks on it. I have reverted your edit to the current image, play fair while discussing the matter (you made three reverts on this article to use the new image, and then changed the image itself to use the colours). Thanks/wangi 00:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why will the location map of Scotland in the same style as all other UK location maps simply not be accepted and keeps being reverted to a less easy to understand map which is out of line with all other UK location maps? Somethingoranother 22:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Scotland should be coloured a dark blue- the offical royal colour of Scotland. Astrotrain 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Scotland should perhaps be coloured blue in line with its cultural history as well as the rest of the UK being highlighted to outline the UK. Somethingoranother 22:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks may wish to consider the situation with Kosova (or Kosovo), in which various editors argued that neighbouring (or parent-state) Serbia should be shown on the map in a pale green, just as some people want the non-Scottish parts of the UK to be shown. The two countries are in different situations, but for what it is worth, the consensus from editors was that the pale colour was useful. You may wish to delve into the archived talk pages to see the arguments presented, some of which are relevant here. Sorry for the lack of internal link - it appears in several archives, so if you're interested, please just have a browse from the Kosova talk page. – Kieran T ^(talk) 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this article's map used to show the rest of the UK in a pale colour but now it shows the rest of the UK in just grey the same as all the other countries shown in the map. I think someone deliberately coloured the rest of the UK grey to make Scotland appear a separate country from the UK. 88.110.171.198 01:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we change this to one similar to that used on France and Germany. The image is bigger and Scotland will be easier to see, rather than some little speck that is hardly distinguishable unless we use a magnifying apparatus. --Bob 06:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking Bob. This is also used by the United Kingdom and is much clearer in my view. It is also more consistent with the Europe and Continental Europe maps which link from the lead paras. I like the dark blue idea too, although it might work less well with a coloured map and a light blue sea. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Those maps seem to get more flak than the style currently used, for some reason... Anyone know why? I have observed over a number of months new accounts (or IP users) coming in and changing all countries to those style of maps which are then always reverted back... /wangi 09:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going along with Bob and Ben MacDui here, on the much clearer and more detailed maps being used. I can't see why not. As for the three choices above, the originial is still the clearest. Globaltraveller 15:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, as wangi said, there are a significant number of editors who really don't like the France/Germany style of map. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I do like the Euro map - since context was what was initially requested it makes perfect sense given Scotland and the UK are part of the EU. Also, the resolution is far higher, which is a plus for any potential redistribution projects people may undertake with the content (print form resolutions etc. etc.). If POV is argued on the EU being highlighted then the exact same argument can be made for the rest of the UK not being highlighted on the Scotland map - food for thought - people can't have it both ways. SFC9394 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the Euro map should be used with the rest of the UK coloured a dark shade and the EU coloured in a lighter shade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.100.23 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Anyone agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.100.23 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

No. Either you have both the UK and the EU shaded or neither. You can't have it both ways. Kanaye 20:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I said shading BOTH of them in if you didn't read it properly. The rest of UK a dark shade and the rest of the EU a lighter shade. After all Scotland is more united with the UK than it is with the EU.

We shouldn't have the EU shaded- Scotland is not a member of the EU, and if it were to become independent, it is said that it would not automatically become a member and would have to apply for membership. Astrotrain 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I used the map

Image:ScotlandLocation.PNG

and yet someone reverted it. It's the best map by far so why get rid of it? Lucy Locket 21:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You also changed Image:LocationScotland.png for no apparent reason. Basically people are not going to respect your views if all you do is consistently attempt to change things without discussion. In short few editors will Assume good Faith when all it appears you are trying to do is implement your view of events without any consensus being reached. I would additionally point out for the record the wikipedia policy on Sockpuppetry. SFC9394 22:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I modified Lucy's version by adding in the world map and making Scotland and the rest of the UK stand out more. This map is used in most European country articles, has better resolution and is easier to make out Scotland. What so people think? --Bob 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that is a better looking map and is the best so far and is definitely the one we should use. Lucy Locket 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The map of Scotland currently being used is old style of map which is not very detailed and just looks a lot worse and makes the article not look as good. The new Europe style of map looks so much better and detailed and really gives the article a good look. Lucy Locket 23:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob could you please change the map from the old crappy style to the one you posted. I think you, me and others will appreciate it. Lucy Locket 23:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the old one is fine. --Guinnog 00:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

NO the old one is NOT fine:

(1) It's out dated and most countries aren't using that sort anymore

(2) It's biased against the rest of the UK for not highlighting the rest of the UK to try and make Scotland seem like a separate country outside the UK.

(3) It looks crappy compared to the Europe one and is far less detailed or informative.

The Europe one outshines the one you're bent on 100 fold over. Get over your Scottish nationalist fixation and allow editors to contribute and improve the Scotland article. Lucy Locket 00:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If users don't like the EU thing, then here is an image without the EU listed. --Bob 01:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Which one do people like?

1	2	3	4
5	6	7

I think 5 myself, seems much better —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.101.120 (talk • contribs).

Thanks for creating such a smorgasbord. It seems to me that the issue is striking an appropriate balance between clarity and information provision. On balance I prefer the style of 4-7 on the latter grounds as it is more detailed. 7 provides greatest clarity, (it is crystal clear where Scotland begins and ends). 4 provides the most information, but at the risk of confusing a visiting Martian who would need to read the text to understand the relationships of Asia and Africa to Europe, Europe to the EU, the EU to the UK and the UK to Scotland. I like 5 & 6 least - they draw they eye to the UK rather than to Scotland. If this idea was being promoted on the England page, a critique could certainly be that it was an attempt to conflate 'England' and the 'UK' and re-inforce rather than eliminate that confusion that already exists in many people's minds on the subject. To put it another way, an intelligent but uninformed reader from a country where European geography is not well understood might easily assume from these maps that 'Scotland' was an island off the coast of Europe (sub-divided into two or three parts) and that the lower half of the second island must therefore be 'England' or Ireland'. Furthermore Scotland is 'part of' the UK, and the EU and Europe, not just the UK and I can't see any obvious reason, other than to emphasise a particular political point of view, to use 5 or 6. On balance I'd prefer to assume Wikipedia is read by humans rather than Martians and go for 4, and if we are using STV my second vote would be for 7. --Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Y'all: Get over the accusations. Get over yourselves. Let's assume good faith here. I say we use 4 for now. It presents the most information, and it's in line with all the other EU articles. It promotes continuity, and gives the reader a sense that the articles are related somehow. That's good. I also say, however, that we figure out a way to make Scotland either a Deep Blue or a Deep Green, because coloring Scotland red is just wrong. Canæn 09:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys, hopefully you're all aware of a similar discussion going on just now at Talk:United Kingdom#New map: Let's have some open debate. Some interesting points from that discussion that are equally valid here (and some of my own):

1. The maps purpose is to identify the subject geographically (be that the UK or Scotland), not its position within another body. Additionally, for the UK example it is very strange to have the EU coloured on the map when the EU isn't mentioned in the lead.
2. There is no key to the maps - what do the colours mean? With one colour it is obvious that it is depicting the article subject, but with other things highlighted you would not know what was being highlighted unless you already knew...
3. The new map has a very poor projection, with Scandinavia and Iberia vastly disproportionately sized.

Some food for thought. Thanks/wangi 09:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The current map is fine it is suppose to show Scotland's position in the world and that is what it does, most countries still use the old maps only some european maps use the new ones. --Barry^talk 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

7 is the best and clearest, and I think that is what we should be aiming for. Of the original maps I agree with Barry abovem that the current one is fine, even if the map itself is more distorted. You do realise though that if we did use #7 it would leave us open to accusations of pro-Labour and anti-Africa bias in this hyper-sensitive political environment that seems to go alongside these simple things. Pro-labour because red is used, and anti-Africa because Africa is not shaded in the same way Europe is ;-) Globaltraveller 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed there is an aversion towards any map showing Scotland as part of the UK. Why is this? It is both silly and dangerous to the future of the UK to display maps on Wikipedia showing either Scotland, England, Wales, or Northern Ireland as being outside the UK. Many other European countries are made up of unions between other countries yet articles about those countries don't seem to push a separatist POV. With Wikipedia becoming so popular on the internet now I think unless people want to see the future of Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland become like that of the Balkans they should stick to the facts on articles relating to the UK and leave separatist POV behind for the sake of all those who live in the UK.

I myself would like to see a map of Scotland using the Europe style map used on other European countries so people can see where Scotland is in Europe and Scotland coloured blue as a sign of Scottish heritage and the UK shaded a light blue with maybe the EU shaded a light colour too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.215.171 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The map being red isn't meant to have anything to do with the Labour party and Africa isn't coloured the same colour as Europe because Africa isn't in Europe and the different colouring distinguishes between Europe and Africa.

How can many of you here seriously make a NPOV about this subject when many of you have "I support independence for Scotland" on your user pages? Your POV is a danger to the UK itself what with how popular Wikipedia is now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.189.183 (talk • contribs).

This is becoming ridiculous. Hover your mouse over the map for a moment, what does it say? On my computer it reads “Location of Scotland” not “Political situation of Scotland”. The map is designed to display Scotland’s geographic location and nothing more. If you’re worried about Scotland’s position within the UK being unclear, then why don’t you try improving the actual article? In any case, please stop meddling with a perfectly suitable map. Kanaye 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing to do with the map - simply pointing out that in the Facts Box HM is listed as Elizabeth-II; Incorrect of course. The current monarch is Elizabeth-I of Scotland, albeit QE-II of England. Yours aye, exiled Scot (Australia)

Except that there hasn't been a Queen of Scotland (or of England for that matter) since 1707 when both positions were replaced by Queen of the UK, Australia, etc, etc. This is an old chestnut which has been discussed many times before and which the Scottish courts have ruled on. Wikipedia agrees with the court decision. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few facts.

All 27 EU member states use a map in the style of 7, except the UK, which currently resembles 5 without the two tones.

Versions 4&7 have been deleted.

Votes so far (registered users only): No Four, 2 (plus one 2nd vote); No Seven, 1; No change, 2 (plus one 2nd vote).

Ad hominen remarks; numerous. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to vote for 1, 3 or 5. i.e. not 2, which I think is misleading. AlexOUK 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Or how about something along the lines of the maps used by the German Bundeländer? (See Bavaria) AlexOUK 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military of Scotland

Why does this article have a section talking about a military of Scotland? Scotland doesn't have a military of its own as it's not a sovereign state. No other UK article has a military section. Scotland uses the United Kingdom's military for its defence. It's like the article on Florida saying 'The Military of Florida'.

While The U.S. does constitute a Federation of states, very few of the states have ever been sovereign (California, Texas, and Vermont being the exceptions I know of). Scotland, on the other hand is a Nation-State, as well as a constituent country of the UK. The UK is currently responsible for the Defense of all of the home nations/constituent countries, but Scotland has in the past had it's own military, and their are distinctively Scottish units in the British Army. Canæn 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map redux

Somebody tried replacing the map again, this time with the reasoning that it is "outdated because of Serbia and Montenegro". I reverted until that claim can be investigated. If there is a problem with the way the Balkan countries are depicted, it would be better, IMHO, to just crop eastern Europe out of the current map than to replace it altogether.--WilliamThweatt 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The current one can just be cropped if that is a problem. No consensus was reached on using the other map - mainly due to the fact that it was, I personally believe, uploaded for reasons of POV rather than making the article better. SFC9394 19:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Devolution

I have made an edit to tidy up the first paragraph of the politics section: [2]. This clarifies that Scottish devolution was based on the referendum in Scotland, not a purely a parcel of changes UK wide (i.e. it's the Scotland Act which is important here); links to the related devolution article; and removes general posturing/weaselling/unsourced that "However, it is thought unlikely that any British parliament would unilaterally abolish a home rule parliament and government without consultation via a referendum with the voters of the constituent country.". Thanks/wangi 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Germanic culture

Scotland has been add to the new Category:Germanic culture by an editor (not by me by the way, I'm querying this). Please discuss this to ascertain whether this is appropriate or not - and act accordingly.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

The discussion of the etymology seems incomplete and I was curious about the omission. The original Roman name for Ireland was Scotia (Hibernia too, of course). I believe the name Scotia only came to be associated with northern Britain in the Middle Ages and, even then, only as Scotia Minor. This seems an important point. Was that omitted for a reason (i.e. do I have something wrong about the history)? --Mcorazao 22:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is long enough, and the etymology is full of don't knows and maybes. We articles on Scotia and Alba which could more easily be expanded with etymoncruft. So far as I'm aware, Scoti are attested in surviving Roman sources, along with the mysterious Attacotti, but Scotia is not. On the subject of dubious etymologies and origin legends, we do have an article on Scota, but not on Goídel Glas, Simón Brecc, or Cruithne (legendary king). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for the etymology section:

==Etymology==

The [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] first uses the [[Old English]] word ''Scotland'' in the 10th century. This was derived from the [[Latin]] ''[[Scoti]]'', of uncertain origin, applied to [[Gaels]]. The [[Late Latin]] word ''[[Scotia]]''—land of the Gaels—was eventually used only of Gaelic-speaking Scotland. This name was employed alongside ''Albania'', from the Gaelic ''[[Alba]]''. This had originally meant Britain, but was later restricted to the same Gaelic-speaking regions as ''Scotia''. The use of the words Scots and Scotland to encompass all of modern Scotland became common only in the [[Scotland in the Late Middle Ages|Late Middle Ages]]. Medieval [[origin myths]] derived Scotland's name from the [[Egypt]]ian princess [[Scota]], mother of [[Goídel Glas]], [[eponym]]ous ancestor of the Gaels.

But is this section necessary? It could be merged into the over-long Medieval bit, if and when that ever gets rewritten. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you've not gotten any feedback on this. That is a much better etymology section than the current one, plus it is concise. You should add it, optionally retaining "In modern times the word Scot is applied equally to all inhabitants regardless of their ancestral ethnicity". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No doubt this is a much better version, but a reference or two would also be useful. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You may find it of interest that Snyder's The Britons p. 69 (See Notes section for book info) says "the Irish were involved in both trading with and raiding late Roman Britain. Though usually called Hibernii by Greek and Latin authors, the Irish who began raiding Britain in the fourth century were called Scoti (also Scotti).... Scoti may derive from an Irish verb "to raid", and of course raiding (of cattle and slaves) was endemic in early Irish society. But the Irish also came to Britain as colonists. Their most lasting settlement, in Argyll, came to be known as Scotia, or 'Scot-land.' For some reason, medieval Latin scholars continued to use the term Scoti to describe Irish living in both Ireland and Scotland." .. dave souza, talk 09:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC) amended 10:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Etymology section could be very complicated, esp. if one were to have a line or two about every theory involved. I mean, what does "etymology of Scotland" mean? Etymology of the word Scotland, or the concept itself? If the emerging belief that Alba itself is just the Gaelic and/or Pictish word for Pictland is correct, then how relevant is the term Scotland itself, or even Scotia, since these are exonyms only employed in translation, then by this mechanism taken into English? Discussion of the origin of the latin stem Scot- is best avoided; it could come from the Old Irish world for boatmen, or from some obscure British word, or from some Roman slang word if it was first actually employed by Roman soldiers on the northern frontier. No-one knows; and when no-one knows, theories are just theories; just let it be is my advice. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 09:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While the origin is vague, the usage of Scoti for both Irish and Dalriadans appears well attested. Either way, the section should cite sources. .. dave souza, talk 10:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official language

Actually, how many offical languages are there in Scotland? From this article, it states English, Gaelic and Scots are all official languages. However, when I check its notes, it seems that only English and Gaelic are the official languages. Which one is true? Is Scots an official language in Scotland? From the information I found, it seems that it is not. Salt 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Scotland/Archive Summary#Scots Language for some background to this. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. However, as there is no any official language as such in Scotland, should we mention it clearly in the article? For me, the article seems to imply that there is an authourity stating that English, Gaelic and Scots are all official languages. Salt 03:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Protection

Ladies and gentlemen,

Everyone is doing a great job of keeping the recent vandalism under control on this article. Thanks! Even so, I'm inclined to semi-protect it so as to stop editing by anonymous or newly created editors. This will have no effect on any editor whose account is more than a few days old but should cut out a lot of the "drive-by" vandalism which the article has been suffering from lately. Does anybody have any objections ? If so let's hear them. I can still be persuaded to change my mind if I hear something that I haven't already considered or if there's a lot of support for an unprotected article, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly bothered by all the blatant, drive-by vandalism by IPs. As you say, we all have that nonsense well under control.

However, what does piss me off somewhat is when brand-new Users suddenly start making mega-changes to the article, usually (for some reason) the History section. A bad example occurred near the end of last year (Oct/Nov?) when a newbie, who couldn't even spell or write cogently, suddenly rewrote nearly the whole History section. It was not "vandalism" because the edits were pretty obviously in good faith, but it was, over a 2-3 week period, highly disruptive, and I think that the History section is still a bit of a mess since then.

I do not think that that is grounds for semi-protection, but I just wanted to have a wee moan ;)

How do you go about telling newbies that their writing skills are truly appalling, without hurting their feelings? -- Mais oui! 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the semi-protection goes, I don't think things are that bad either. As for Mais oui!'s other point, perhaps candid criticism is kindest in the long run. If you can't stand criticism, Wikipedia is not for you. New editors may as well find that out sooner rather than later. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Derek Ross. The work being done to keep the article vandal-free is fantastic - and perhaps for some of us is even enjoyable. However of the hundreds of anon IP edits over the past few months, the 1 or 2% that have not been reverted have been minor tweaks. Perhaps the advantages of this situation is that anyone familiar with the page will know that weak edits are likely to be a waste of time and that because the page is so vulnerable lots of people watch it, and that this in turn creates a sense of common purpose. I have to say I have no previous experience of the difference, but I'd certainly support it as an experiment - it might even result in greater enthusiasm for improving the article! Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There can certainly be a case for semi-protection for a while to give defendants a rest, though Wikipedia:Protection policy doesn't seem to encourage it except for very heavy vandalism. From the history of the last couple of days this page seems to be getting a bit less vandalism than Charles Darwin which has been semi-protected at times, but not for a while now. However, it seems to work pretty well if the effort is put in to put WP:VAND tags on user pages of the culprits, and check their User contributions link to see if they've been up to other mischief – the more vandalism, the sooner they get blocked. Taking the point Mais makes, Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates/Table has a couple of templates for problem users, and there may be other templates or these could be adapted to suit. .. dave souza, talk 11:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman forts

A small query about the statement that "No Roman forts are known to have been constructed beyond the Highland Line" – does the Gask Ridge lie to the south of that line, as defined by the Highland Boundary Fault? .. dave souza, talk 12:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea. The original statement (Ben MacDui's?) said "Despite various claims to the contrary no Roman forts are known to have been constructed to the north of the Highland Line"; I only changed that to "No Roman forts are known to have been constructed beyond the Highland Line"; the statement was referenced by the person who made it (or afterwards), but I don't have that book to check the reference. The author posibly meant "beyond the Gask Ridge". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely sure, but from reading our article, it would appear that the Gask Ridge pretty much sits on the Boundary Fault, or perhaps slightly to the south? (Dunkeld is south of the fault, just, isn't it?)-- Mais oui! 13:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have visited the sites of a few of them and can confirm that they are in the rolling strathland just south of the hills proper. I doubt that any of them are north of the Highland Line. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's informative. For folks like me who are rather vague about where the line is, would it be possible to rephrase the sentence something like this:

While Roman forts were briefly set along the Gask Ridge close to the Highland Line, none are known to have been constructed beyond that line.

It could perhaps be moved to come directly after the battle of Mons Graupius, with phrasing modified to suit. ... dave souza, talk 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The above sentence is fine as an alternative. Not sure why Calgacus removed "never extended to more than half the land mass". Hanson concludes: "For many years it has been almost axiomatic... that the Roman conquest must have had some major... impact on Scotland. On present evidence this cannot be substantiated, either in terms of environment, economy , or indeed society." It's only one source of course. Just noticed that one of my original sources has been removed in this medley of edits. Will return to fix later. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ta, have tried to incorporate it into historical context. .. dave souza, talk 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hanson's arguments are not historical consensus I should let you know. Most historians think the Romans had a great impact on Scotland. Read Peter Heather, for instance. Northern Britain clearly follows Heather's model; that is, of a series of small buffer states on the immediate frontier liable to constant military and political intervention, and one or many large states beyond them. The Romans are thus the most likely reason the Picts developed a large state, both as a response to their aggression and also their unification of Britain, which created plundering opportunities most readily exploited by larger scale organization. This is why there is a Pictland, but not an Ireland. The Romans, thus, can be argued to have created Scotland. PS, I removed that statement (don't know anything 'bout your source) because it was unnecessarily and dangerously specific. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Snyder suggests the Romans created a British identity in what had previously been tribes without a shared identity, though with related dialects of a more or less common language. It's possible that this identity then created the perception of the (probably) similarly Brythonic Picts as outsiders. .. dave souza, talk 22:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. See my comments on your talk page. :) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that Hanson's position is a re-interpretation - his remarks quoted above highlight this. However, I think his views are interesting. The Romans may well 'have created Scotland' indirectly although their influence over most of what is now Scotland was probably less than is sometimes supposed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC) PS 'Dangerously specific'? Surely 'commendably specific, if somewhat controversial'?

[edit] "Fir Alban" and the "men of Scotland".

As a translation of Fir Alban, men of Scotland seems very retrospective. For the time of the Picts, men of Britain or men of Alba might be more accurate and less misleading. Laurel Bush 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I kinda agree with you, though I'm personally sceptical about how relevant "men of britain" (as opposed to a part of Britain) was in the 9th or 10th century. The idea that Alba is simply Pictland is kinda new, and may end up being controversial (though I've seen enough literary and placename evidence to be certain). Best to translate as "men of Alba". The problem lies in the Braflung Scoine tale, Cináed mac Ailpín's (entirely "Pictish" name note) legendary annihilation of the Picts, which means "Scotland" and "Pictland" are wrongly seen as different concepts (which they are I supppose in a retrospective sense); hence our language is burdened with mutually exclusive terminology that renders it almost impossible to do justice to the true nature of historic Scottish identity. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Scots" language

There are several references to the "Scots" language in the article, most notable the claim that the Latin motto:
Nemo me impune lacessit
translates into Scots as:
Wha daur meddle wi me?.

Is this meant to be a joke? Besides the fact that these so-called "translations" only loosely follow the original text, there is the fact that Scots is not a proper language. Scots, or Inglis, is a term used to describe the mixture of English and Gaelic spoken by people in medieval Scotland (pure Gaelic was also widely spoken, and a variant of French was common amongst the nobility). In modern times, the term "Scots" is used to refer to the various dialects of Scottish English speakers. There are many different dialects in Scotland, and these vary vastly from one another. The phrase:
Wha daur meddle wi me?
appears to be written in a way that was common in Medieval Scotland, and is no longer spoken in any part of Scotland. And although Scots is spoken, it is extremely rarely written. Even Scots who speak with very strong accents write in Standard English. Most "Scots" words are simply different pronounciations of English words. There are some words, for example "aye" (meaning "yes") which are uniquely Scottish, but these words cannot be considered as belonging to another language because they only exist as a part of a dialect of English. The promotion of "Scots" as a language is part of a desire to strengthen Scotland's identity which has taken off post-devolution (especially amongst those who wish to see a fully independant Scotland). But the "Scots" language is NOT a proper language, and most of the "Scots translations" appear jesting, if not mildly derogatory to Scotland and its population. I feel that these Scots translations should be removed from the page. Please reply with your comments. - R160K 23:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

All very interesting, however it does leave the question of what the compilers of the Dictionary of the Scots Language and the like are up to, and what it was the Christopher Murray Grieve, William Laughton Lorimer, and Alexander Gray, among others, were writing in. Any language is an essentially arbitrary construct, represented in reality by a whole continuum of dialects, and deciding whether Scots is a language or a dialect is largely a matter of taste. As for the claim that the Scots language movement is in some way related to modern political developments, it would a stretch to see the 1930s, when the dictionaries were begun, and the three gentlemen in question were alive and well, as being an era when devolution or independence were significant political questions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear R160K - if you have not already done so please take a look at the Archive Summary and Archive #13 where this subject was covered in detail. Whether or not it is appropriate here, the phrase 'Wha daur meddle wi me?' is commonly used. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with R160K. Scots is not considered a language in the same way as Gaelic and it is never used officially. Astrotrain 09:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does nation [[nation]] render chicken? Scotland is clearly not a chicken. 71.236.139.67 03:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third paragraph

The third paragraph of the lead section appears to be asserting unreferenced claims and using weasel words....

... when the Acts of Union (despite widespread protest across Scotland)... (source please)

...The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have been the three cornerstones contributing to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union.... (have they? who says? how much so? was this their intention? why do they? - sources please).

Also, Scotland is country not a nation - a nation is a group of people, a country is a division of land. Jhamez84 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

First one is no problem - Magnussons History of Scotland happily covers it, thought I will not be able to get a page number ref for a couple of weeks (though I am sure plenty of other books cover it in detail as well) - there were full scale riots in Edinburgh, the signing of the act was a shambles, undertaken by MP's, if my memory serves, in a small room in what is now Edinburgh University buildings as they fled a baying mob. Protests across the rest of Scotland were also happening - the act of union wasn't popular.

The second one is even less of a problem, Tam Devines book, which I am currently reading, covers this in plenty of detail and ref's are not a problem. As for the country/nation - plenty of sources, including governmental ones, refer to it as such - the past debates on this exist in the talk page archives. SFC9394 09:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is very good to hear! I'm sure these comments are true, but attributation of sources needs to be satisfied, which would only improve the integrity of article anyway. I would ask if it is necessary to include the riots in the lead as it seems to be quite a new addition to the article? - Yes I know it was (is) contentious, but if it was that contentious it wouldn't have happened surely. This kind of stuff against Unionism needs to be spot on to stop accusations coming up again and again from other editors; a point of interest is the United States had two wars regarding Unionism, but doesn't mention this in the lead.

As for nation/country, England approaches the status issue well, fully referenced of course. Jhamez84 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re endless nation/country debate - as suggested above see also Talk Archive: "After considerable discussion there is an informal consensus amongst Scottish Wikipedians that Scotland is a nation and a country, although clearly not a sovreign nation state. See Archives 1, 2 (twice) 3, 6, 11 (twice), and 13." I have added a couple of refs re the Act of Union. Citations in the article are improved over the past few months but by no means up-to-scratch as the To Do list suggests. Etymologists, historians etc., please take note. (A pertinent question might be why issues raised in the lead are not mentioned in the corresponding section of the article - another history 'to do'.) The three cornerstones issue is a 'well known fact' - I have put in a rather weak website reference as I don't have a better one to hand. Perhaps SFC9394 might oblige? Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall scan through the last 100 or so pages that I have read (where it came up numerous times) and provide a couple of quotes and references at some point this weekend. SFC9394 20:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources added - for point 1 a more extensive quote is provided below from the source:

“

In Edinburgh, The Duke of Hamilton, the recognized leader of the parliamentary opposition against the union, was cheered to the echo by the crowds who then attacked the house of Sir Patrick Johnstone, a strong union supporter. The Duke of Queensbury, the Queens Commissioner, needed a military escort to Parliamentary House. From that point on anti-union demonstrations were common in the capital. In November rioting spread to the south west, that stranglehold of strict Calvinism and covenanting tradition. The Glasgow mob rose against union sympathisers in disturbances which lasted intermittently for over a month, while in the burgh of Dumfries the proposed articles of union were ritually burnt before an angry gathering of several thousand townspeople. It was also rumoured that plans were being laid for an armed uprising.

”

For point 2, fuller quote reads as:

“

The Scottish Board of Supervision ran the Poor Law from 1845 and the Prison Board was set up in 1838. These two were followed in due course by others, for public health, lunatic asylums (1857) and education (1872). Scots lawyers staffed this new bureaucracy and its inspectors were Scots doctors, surveyors and architects. The Scottish Burgh reform act of 1833 vested the management of the towns in the broad middle class. It was a crucial piece of legislation which, taken together with the administrative revolution mentioned above created a new and powerful local state run by the Scottish bourgeoisie and reflecting their political and religious values. It was this local state, rather than a distant and usually indifferent Westminster authority, that in effect routinely governed Scotland.

”

I have added only a cut version of these quotes to the article ref.s as I don't know what the sensible limit on an extract is before it becomes too much. To take an ironic run on point three;, the book is called "The Scottish Nation 1700-2000", and it isn't a nationalists guide book either, having recommendation quotes on it from Gordon Brown and the late Donald Dewar. SFC9394 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox flag straw poll

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of 'Etymology' section

Angus removed the etymology section. We have had it for quite a long time now, although it was rewritten very recently. I just wondered why, and if other countries' articles have such a section? Can we benchmark and see what other articles are doing? I have long thought that the etmology of the words Scot and Scotland deserve their own article, together with the numerous other names that Scotland has, or has had. --Mais oui! 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. We tried to do something like that with Britain, but there were so many people with hidden (or not-so-hidden) agendas trying to see "British Isles" etc defined according to their political views that ultimately the thing was scrapped. Shame! But for Scotland it should work - the names are not controversial, just interesting. --Doric Loon 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But also quite long, and adding references will make it longer. Or have we given up on the idea of slimming the article down? Is 2-3k of etymology a good use of limited space? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a short etymology section is fine, and would enjoy an article on the subject, but sections without references are a hindrance to any serious attempt to improve the Scotland article. Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support a small section also. Thunderwing 21:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think too that there should be a small etymology section, although the original one seemed fair enough as it was. If we want to cut down on size, getting rid of, or slimming down National Symbols would be good. Certainly it should be converted to prose, rather than just being a list - but I wouldn't know where to start with that. Globaltraveller 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)