Talk:Scotland
|
|
| Contents |
Caledonia
The article's first paragraph reference to Roman usage of Caledonia seems a bit anachronistic. That Roman period predates the emergence of the state, nation or country now called Scotland. Caledonia may be considered now to be a name for Scotland, but it was not so during the period of Roman rule in Britain, because Scotland had then no more real existence than did England. Also, the Roman Caledonia did not include territory south of the Forth-Clyde line. Laurel Bush 12:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC).
- I agree, and I note that Caledonia is already listed in see also, although the corresponding entry does not have as much detail as your paragraph above. Perhaps that entry could be expanded, and the mention here removed? Berek 16:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have just done a little edit on Caledonia. I hesitate over Scotland. Laurel Bush 17:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC).
"four nations" of the UK
From LaurelBush 12:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC):
- Is Northern Ireland a nation? Does this part of the UK have any real history as an independent country or nation?
- The UK has four constituent parts. Three of these parts, England, Wales and Scotland, are often considered countries or nations in their own right. The border between the fourth part, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland is the current limit of UK sovereignty in the island of Ireland.
Ceilidh dancing
I agree that there may well be dancing at a ceilidh (although there doesn't have to be) but there's nothing special about it, as far as I'm concerned. Can you give an example of "ceilidh dancing" which is not Disco, Old Tyme or Scottish Country Dance? -- Derek Ross
Ceilí dancing (as it is spelt in Ireland) is a specific form of dancing, in which various styles of dancing (I'm can't remember the correct terms. I haven't done Irish dancing since I was 9 years old!) are performed. It is most definitely distinctive, in the form, rhythm, movement and structure used. And it has a unique origins that bare little relationship to disco, old tyme or Scottish County Dance, though the latter may have evolved from it in its Scottish form. If there isn't a formal page on it on Wiki, there should be. Unfortunately I don't know enough (or remember enough) about the steps, music, etc to write a page. (It is a long way from my specialities, history & politics. JTD 01:56 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
Fair enough JTD. The Irish experience may be different. However at the many Scottish ceilidhs that I've attended, the above types predominate, particularly Old Tyme and SCD. The only other kind of dancing that I've ever seen at a ceilidh was Step dancing and I've only seen that on one occasion. That may be the type of dance that you're thinking of. Of course, most people are familiar with that through Riverdance, etc. rather than ceilidhs. -- Derek Ross 02:46 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
Step dancing is I think a descendant of it, but there are many form of ceilí dancing, just indeed as there are many variations on ceilí music. In the twentieth century in particular, all forms of Irish dancing became overly rigid and formulised. The Riverdance phenomenon (which it is said made Irish dancing, or a form of it, sexy) led to an increasing liberalisation in form, and that has been reflected in modern day ceilí dancing, but it still is a distinct form that is different from anything else I've seen. JTD 02:52 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
Interesting. It would be good to have an article on that. Even if you just do a small stub, it might grow. You know how it goes. -- Derek Ross 02:57 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
Analogy with American Indians
Anyone know why the analogy with American Indians is drawn with Highland Clans? I can't see that this analogy is good, certainly my (probably ill informed) view says some of the differences are: The clans were non-nomadic, had a loose hierarchical system of tribute, tithe and alegiance culminating with the Chieftain, through a series of sub-Chieftains. Shared a common religion (atleast upto the reformation), and a common language and written and oral culture. They owned land, and would carry out long distance commercial trading (highland droves to London). The Clan system seems a pretty direct descendant of the european Celtic culture as described by the Romans. -- Anonymous reader
I've never seen why the analogy with the Americans was made. The only resemblance that I could see was the importance laid on honour and honourable behaviour in both social systems. -- Derek Ross
Queen elizabeth 2 is a descendant of the Hanoverian royal dynasty which was a small german principality. They were the enemies of the Stuarts. It was largely Hanoverian troops from Germany that defeated and slaughtered the clans at Culloden. -- Anonymous reader
Right. That's all been said on the Jacobite page. Now tell us something we don't know. -- Derek Ross
Number of Gaelic speakers
I changed the "very few in the western isles still speak Gaelic" to approximately fifty five thousand; Fifty five thousand isn't very few, and only 40% of Gaels live in the areas people would like to cede as Gaelic; the Gaidhealtachd is much larger than the Isles and the current conception of the Highlands, Glasgow and even Edinburgh (which have about 20% of Scots Gaelic speakers together) could be considered in the Gaidhealtachd since they've had a continuous Gaelic population since they were founded.
Would perhaps be better as "very few still speak Gaelic outside the Western Isles". Gaelic speakers now make up 1-2% of the Scottish population when it may have been as much as 50% 500 years ago and still 20% 200 years ago.
Whether Scots is an official language
Hi, we are having a little dispute in the German Wikipedia whether Scots is really an official language (Amtssprache in German) in Scotland, i.e. the language that by law administrative documents can be written in. Can someone clarify 1. what exactly is meant by official language in this context and 2. confirm that Scots is one in Scotland? Or is it just an acknowledged minority language? Thanks in advance! --131.111.99.102 13:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
P.S.: My "opponent" says that in the more strict sense there are only two official languages, English and Scottish Gaelic. --131.111.99.102 13:44, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
In Scotland, like the rest of the UK, there is no official language in the strict legal sense. However you will be expected to use English when dealing with the courts or the Government, so to that extent, it is the de facto official language. Gaelic receives some support from the Government, both financial and in the form of broadcasting time on all Scottish television channels but it cannot be used in the courts or for filling in Government forms, etc. (whereas I believe that Hindi, Punjabi and Cantonese can in some cases) so although it is recognised by the Government, it is not official either.
Scots is very much the poor relation, despite the fact that it is spoken by far more of the population than Gaelic. It is not used for legal nor for government documents and it receives neither funding nor compulsory broadcasting support. Although dramas in Scots have been broadcast, the last that I can remember was about 10 years ago. Scots on the television is definitely rare (to put it mildly). Radio is slightly more supportive. Robbie Shepherd generally uses a good deal of Scots on his traditional music programmes. However this is more down to his personal style than to official policy on Radio Scotland which is, by and large, an English language radio station.
The last time Scots can be said to have been an official language (in a de facto sense) would be 1706 when it was still in use as the language of the Scottish Government. For some years thereafter it remained in use in the courts but as time went by English came more and more to the fore. Nowadays it is rarely if ever used by lawyers or judges. Perhaps the new Scots Parliament will or has decided to change this but I am not aware of any moves on its part to do so.
Sadly there is not even a Scots language Wikipedia although there are now two devoted to English. -- Derek Ross 06:31, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- As it stands today, the article is at odds with itself. The info box says scots is, the languages section says it isn't. They can't both be right. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 14:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the info! --131.111.99.66 14:30, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Scottish banknotes and legal tender
The article says that Scottish notes aren't legal tender in England. That's true, but it's misleading as Scottish notes aren't legal tender in Scotland either: Scotland doesn't have any concept of legal tender. I wrote to the Bank of England some years ago about this. Dduck 17:43, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Sorry for being a moron. I realise now that I misread the text. I've taken the bold step of rewriting that section, for those brain-impaired like myself. Dduck 18:06, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Economy of Scotland
Country articles tend to have some information about the economy, could somebody add that information for Scotland?
I was listening to the radio, BBC Scotland, on the way to work, they said Scotch was the 2nd biggest export, I thought I'd check wikipedia to see which is the biggest, but the information is not here.
- I've added a brief paragraph on the diversity of the Scottish economy, but it still needs fleshing out, and doesn't yet answer the above question or anything approaching the detail suggested there. Berek 20:47, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Whether Scottish law can be said to be "the best of both worlds"
A few minor edits. I thought "the best of both worlds argument" about scottish law could be argued to infringe upon the NPOV principles, and if you're going to refer to other parties by their proper names then you should refer to the Conservatives like this as well rather than using diminutives. Chrism 19:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"The best of both worlds argument" only really infringes on the NPOV if people seriously disagree with it. Just because something could be argued doesn't mean that anyone does argue it. NPOV allows you to state that "Sleep is wonderful." provided that everybody agrees with that statement. The fact that it could be argued that "Sleep is awful." is neither here nor there unless there exists a Group B which does argue that. In that case only would the statement need to be change to "Group A believes that sleep is wonderful but Group B does not." to retain the NPOV.
As far as I'm aware, the major comparative studies of Scots, Common and Civil law have come to the conclusion that Scots law does gain "the best of both worlds", so the bald statement is NPOV in this case.
As for the diminutive point, I suppose that you are talking about Tory. This is not a diminutive: it is the original name for the Party and has been in use for much longer than the modern name, Conservative. It is a name with a proud heritage and I am sorry to see that you have removed it from the article. -- Derek Ross
Derek, I think that your point about the "Tories" is an interesting one, but these days it's (perhaps, incorrectly) regarded as a nickname more than anything else. So, I think it's better, these days, to refer to the Conservatives. Dduck 12:35, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I suppose you're right, Iain, but even so I think that it's only marginally better. It's just that the original change seemed a bit pointless in the first place, so even though I didn't bother changing it back (which would have been just as pointless) I couldn't let it go without comment. -- Derek Ross
- Showing my age, I preferred the distinctive name "The Conservative and Unionist Party", fortunately much diminished of late..dave souza 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whether she's Elizabeth I of Scotland, Elizabeth II of Scotland, Elizabeth II of the UK, or what
The first time
"(Note that for Scotland, she is the first monarch to reign with this name, and signs all documents "Elizabeth".)"
This seems to imply that she isn't "Elizabeth II" in Scotland, when she is.
(It is also meaningless. Monarchs don't sign with their numerals no matter how many previous monarchs of the same name there have been.) Proteus 00:12 GMT, 12th January 2004
- My understanding (being Scottish) is that she is not Elizabeth II in Scotland. Bovlb 14:00, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
- Well she is. Scotland ceased to have its own numbering system in 1707 when it ceased to be an independent kingdom. The Queen is "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" throughout the UK. See Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom for information on the Scottish numbering issue. Proteus 14:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting. It's a pity that no reference is given for the Queen's announcement, as that might disambiguate the meaning of "in future" with respect to herself. I attest that this issue remains controversial in Scotland. On a historical note, in addition to blowing up one postbox, I believe that many had porridge poured into them. Bovlb 17:22, 2004 Mar 16 (UTC)
- You might be interested in reading up on the 1953 case of MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate (there's certainly an article in there), the result of which was to rule that Brenda could call herself whatever she liked and that no pleb had any "title or interest to challenge the legality of the royal numeral". It was in the aftermath of that that HMQ, as a concession, made the "highest regnal number of either line" promise. Either that, or she wasn't very happy with having her pillar boxes dynamited or oatmealed. –Hajor 18:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've now written a rather basic attempt at MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate. I'd appreciate it if someone could look over it. BTW, while looking for articles linking to it, I found that Fundamental Laws of England is using the case to argue that the separate legal systems of the two countries have been abolished! Maybe someone more knowledgable than I am could have a look at that, too... Marnanel 00:46, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I think that the Police forces of the two countries would be glad to hear that the separate legal systems had been abolished since a police force from the one country currently has to treat the other country as if it was a separate sovereign foreign state when following criminals who cross the border -- that means a lot of paperwork. On the civil side I believe that there is more of a merger since the ultimate civil court of appeal in both cases is the House of Lords. -- Derek Ross 06:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting that she is Elizabeth II of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. despite these countries never having had any previous queen called Elizabeth, so Scotland's situation is not unusual nor out of line with other Commonwealth monarchies. -- Derek Ross 15:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Good point! –Hajor
The second time
Removed There is a little ambiguity when speaking of Queen Elizabeth II: Scotland has never had a monarch called Elizabeth before her, and many think that she should adopt the style "Queen Elizabeth II of England and I of Scotland".
This is getting a little silly. There is no "ambiguity" in her title - England and Scotland no longer exist as kingdoms and so can't have separate numbering systems for their monarchs because they don't have separate thrones. The United Kingdom has one monarch ruling over one kingdom, and she is "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". She isn't "Queen Elizabeth II of England and Scotland" or "Queen Elizabeth II of England and II of Scotland", which would indeed create ambiguity. What "many think" is a result of ignorance, not any ambiguity in her title. Scotland indeed hasn't had a monarch called Elizabeth before, but she isn't monarch of Scotland, she's monarch of the United Kingdom (which, incidentally, also hasn't had a monarch called Elizabeth before), and even if she were monarch of Scotland she'd still be Elizabeth II as she is in all her realms, like Canada and Australia, none of which have had a Queen Elizabeth before. This whole confusion seems to stem from the belief that the Queen is separately Queen of England and Scotland, which simply isn't the case, and hasn't been the case for any monarch since 1707. Proteus 10:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In that case, who was Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom?
- If Scotland and England no longer exist as kingdoms and can't have separate numbering systems then surely she is Queen Elizabeth I of both. But no, she has been called Queen Elizabeth II. Since that applies to England, I maintain that she is Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland and II of England. --AileanMacRaith 21:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- For God's sake, this is ridiculous. The Queen isn't anything "of England" or "of Scotland", because those kingdoms don't exist anymore. (I really don't see how that is too hard to understand...) She is the monarch "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and her numeral for that kingdom is "II", as is shown in numerous official and legal documents, including her own Accession Proclamation. You can "maintain" that she's "Elizabeth I of Scotland" or "Elizabeth, Queen of Scots" all you like but it won't make it so. That's not just my opinion, it's a legal fact, and is completely incontestable. Proteus 22:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The suggestions made by Ailean MacRaith are rather absurd. The Queen is not Elizabeth I of Scotland. Rather, she is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Perhaps it will be good to read the Proclamation of the Accession Council, as advised by Mr Tilman (emphasis added below):
Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to his mercy our late Sovereign Lord King George VI, of blessed and glorious memory, by whose Decease the Crown is solely and rightfully come to the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary:
We, therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm, being assisted with these His late Majesty's Privy Council, with representatives of other Members of the Commonwealth, with other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, do now hereby with one Voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart publish and proclaim, That the High and Mighty Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become Queen Elizabeth II by the Grace of God, Queen of the Realm, and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to whom Her Lieges do acknowledge all Faith, and constant Obedience with hearty and humble Affection, beseeching God by whom Kings and Queens do reign, to bless the Royal Princess, Elizabeth II, with long and happy Years to reign over us.
Would you also care to explain her official style: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Notice that she is not "of England ... Queen;" she is "of the United Kingdom ... Queen." The numbering, though it may seem incorrect to you, is indisputably correct. -- Lord Emsworth
In that case
1. Who WAS Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom (nb the United Kingdom did not exist prior to 1603) 2. If a James ascended the throne would he be James III or VIII?
- 1. There has never been an Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. What's your point? 2. Presumably VIII, though I think it's likely he'd be allowed to call himself whatever he wished. Marnanel 15:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's simple.
If Charles renamed himself Zog he would ascend the throne as King Zog I. He couldn't be King Zog II as there has never been a King Zog I. The "legal" position is not what we're discussing here. Parliament could legislate that the Queen is Elibazeth 21st and that would then be legal. What we are talking about is a percieved insensitivity to Scottish feelings at the time of the Queen's ascension. It may be trivial and I suppose most people nowadays don't give it a second thought. But AT THE TIME it caused a lot of angst - hence the exploding post boxes.
Fine. The "perceived insensitivity" already has its own mention in the article (While some controversy has simmered amongst the Scottish public over her official title since her coronation...); we all agree that there is a difference between the logical position and the legal position (also mentioned in the article); and those who have read the discussion so far already know about the post boxes. So what is the point in this discussion ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth is not the first monarch to have this problem. Edward I reigned in the late 13th/early 14th century - so where does this leave Edward (11th century king just before the Norman Conquest)?--Cap 12:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
AFAIK the Normans restarted the numbering sequence, as part of their campaign of airbrushing pre-conquest English history.
I think the current state of the section on head of state is OK. I fail to understand why some posters don't see what the "anti-II" protesters were on about though. The clear indication of the "II" is that the United Kingdom crown is a continuation of the English crown, which is emphatically not the case. The Queen has stated that the numbering for future monarchs will be the higher of the English and Scottish sequence. If adhered to, that is a satisfactory resolution. It doesn't mean there wasn't a genuine dispute to be settled.
138.253.102.162 11:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The NPOV dispute
I note that an NPOV dispute notice has been added to this article. Fine, but we need a description of the POV problem so that we can fix it or at the least discuss it. I will leave the notice until the 29th of March, 2004 and if no discussion of the POV problems has started by that time I intend to remove it. -- Derek Ross 04:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've just dropped into this page for the first time in ages, and given the amount of activity on the talk page, was expecting to find it littered with the carcases of dead histrionics. But it seems to me to be in very good shape - and I can't think what it's doing with a "disputed" notice. It's an excellent article - well done all who've been editing it. seglea 07:00, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I have removed the NPOV. I'm still not sure I agree, but I see that the majority on this board do. --AileanMacRaith 09:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- But perhaps we are wrong or just haven't noticed something that you have. Why do you think that the article is not neutral ? -- Derek Ross 17:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Heraldry and Lyon
Should discuss Scottish heraldry (here or in separate article)? --Daniel C. Boyer 20:59, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There should be a link in this article, either to the Heraldry article or to the Lord Lyon King of Arms article since the Scots have the oldest fully operational heraldic system in the world. However there's no need for a full discussion in this article. A mention and a link would be enough. -- Derek Ross
I note this article includes the "Royal arms of the United Kingdom as used in Scotland" (i.e., L.R. 1&4), rather than "Scottish Arms Classic". Shouldn't this article use the latter, for consistency with the article on England, and for football-stand flag-waving familiarity? (Perhaps with a link to Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland for the sake of memorialising said trivia.) Alai 08:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I presume by "Scottish Arms Classic" you mean the arms known familiarly as the 'Lion Rampant'. Personally I enjoy the complexity of the royal arms, and Scotland has never been known for following an English lead! Berek 12:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Brutal repression" and NPOV
"which made a comeback through immigration after it was brutally repressed in the 16th to late 18th centuries" doesn't read like NPOV to me. Can anyone who knows the history comment or recast? Marnanel 18:00, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
NPOV means writing in such a way that no arguable statements are used -- not so that no offence is caused (that would be writing in a PC manner rather than an NPOV manner). Looking at the above phrase in this light, the correct question to ask is "Who disagrees with the truth of the above phrase and why ?". If the answer is that no one disagrees then the phrase is NPOV. If someone disagrees because they believe that no repression took place then the phrase is POV (or they are wrong). Likewise if someone disagrees because they believe that repression took place but it was gentle then the phrase is POV (or they are wrong). On the other hand if someone believes that severe repression took place but dislikes the use of the word brutal rather than severe, stern or robust, that's more of a PC issue than an NPOV one. Certainly most criminal acts were dealt with in a pretty brutal manner during this time period and membership of the RC church was very much seen as a criminal act or actually was a criminal act in Scotland at that time so I personally feel that the phrase is justified. -- Derek Ross 18:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There was still a substantial Catholic population in the Western Isles in the 18th century (see the Statistical Accounts). Certainly Catholics were martyred in the 16th C but toleration became the norm from the mid-17th C onwards. Catholics (and other non-conformists (not to mention atheists, Jews, Muslims etc)) suffered discrimination of course until well into the 19th C. This hardly marks out Scotland as unique at the time.
Understood. -- Derek Ross | Talk
Don't give up so easily - if you can find evidence that catholicism was repressed brutally I'd be interested to see it!
Anti-catholic feeling did build up in the 19th C and still has an influence on Scottish politics - I remember some controversy over local politics in Coatbridge not long ago but details have slipped my mind. Orangeism is stronger in Scotland than it is in England (outside Liverpool anyway).
1650s & 1660s -- Oliver Cromwell's government, 1680s -- replacement of the Catholic King by a Protestant, 1690s until 1740s -- Jacobites (Catholic) v Hanoverians (Protestant). During this whole time period, the Government saw Catholics as potentially subversive and acted accordingly. If you can find evidence that Catholicism was tolerated benignly I'd be interested to see it! From what I can see, toleration didn't begin to appear until the end of the eighteenth century. And even when it began to appear in legal form via measures like The Catholic Relief Act of 1780, it could still cause major riots. The nineteenth century is very much the time when anti-Catholic feeling dropped in most of the country compared with what it had been in the previous two. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:10, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
Not quite as simple as that - Episcopalians were subject to similar disabilities to Catholics in the 18th C.
- Of course. -- Derek Ross | Talk
In the 19th C, whilst OFFICIALLY tolerated, catholicism came to be identified with Irish immigration and thus a target for bigotry amongst "ordinary" protestants. The Orange movement only really got going in the 19th C.
- I'm not disagreeing with that but during the 16th-18th centuries it was worse because not only did ordinary Protestants hate Catholics (from the Perth riot of 1559 until the Gordon riot of 1782), the Government also hated them and legislated accordingly. It did not do this to nearly the same extent during the 19th and 20th centuries, so the life of a Catholic, while still relatively unpleasant was much easier than it had been. Repression was "brutal" and offficially sanctioned before the nineteenth century. The fact that it was not so during and after the 19th century is one big reason why the Orange movement gained momentum during that time. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:47, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
National anthem
Someone's changed the old part where it said "Unofficial: Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave, Scots Wha Hae and others" to "Flower of Scotland". (They've also made similar changes on cy:.) Is this just random vandalism, or has there been any move, say by the Scottish Executive, to make this the official anthem? Marnanel 23:29, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
Neither the UK nor any part of the UK has an "official" national anthem. The Scottish executive hasn't change that so the text should be put back the way it was. I'm inclined to believe that it's not so much vandalism as misplaced enthusiasm on the part of fans of the excellent Corries. -- Derek Ross 07:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Great, that's what I thought. I didn't want to revert before asking, though, in case I'd missed any interesting constitutional developments. Marnanel 14:38, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
Despite being a patriotic (adopted) Scot I can't help feeling FoS is a mournful dirge, set as it is around the battle of Flodden.
<sigh>, It isn't my first choice for anthem either but as an adopted Scot, you should be aware that it is about the battle of Bannockburn (a major Scottish victory), not the battle of Flodden (a major Scottish defeat). The song about the aftermath of the Flodden battle is not Flower of Scotland but rather The Floo'ers o' the Forest. It is a dirge (a mourning song) not an anthem (a triumphal song) and can be haunting when sung properly. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:02, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
Flag graphics
I'm not entirely sure where to ask this question, but since Talk:Scotland seems quite active: there are several pages in the Malt Whisky wikiproject which link to the image 
which does not exist. Could someone maybe whip up a medium sized version of the Image:Flag_of_Scotland.png graphic being used on this page for them to use? Stormie 01:08, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Better to ask the wiki to do it for you with something like [[Image:Flag of Scotland.png|150px]], I think. Marnanel 01:16, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I see that the magic of the wiki has produced an actual new version of the image, it's not just sending the full-size one down and expecting your browser to resize it. You learn something new every day! Thanks! Stormie 01:19, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
Unfortunately the colour is still pretty far out (at least on my screen). It's supposed to be a dark "navy" blue to represent the colour of the evening sky. It's a much darker blue than the "royal" blue background of the Union flag. The current colour on the image seems nearer to light blue though. -- Derek Ross 07:32, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The question of whether it's navy blue or sky blue is at Flag of Scotland, where we also have the navy blue Image:Flag of Scotland Pantone300.png. Which of these to use in more general articles (like this one, and all the whisky ones which use the flag) is an interesting question. Why do you think the navy blue is more correct? Marnanel 14:38, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
Because that's the one that I see flying from flagpoles in Scotland. I have never seen one as light as the one here. The Pantone 300 looks much closer to the mark. -- Derek Ross 22:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Heraldically azure is any colour as long as its blue, and because the flag is blazoned azure a saltire argent neither the reigning nor immediate past Lords Lyon have made any ruling on the shade.
- In 1998 the Flag Institute recommended Pantone © 300, but Pantone © 299 is nearest to the bleu celeste often used in making the flag. United Nations blue (Pantone © 279) is also widely used in manufacture.
- Now that the Scottish Executive have spent over £300,000 on consultants to discover that the saltire is a well known symbol of Scotland they will pronounce officially on the shade. --garryq 16:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The Parliament urged them last year to adopt Pantone 300 (petition 512) (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/petitions/public/petit-child/PE512.htm) (BBC news) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2778189.stm). Marnanel 16:45, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Education, Art, Mackie
Removed the following from the Education section:
One of the most widely-known Scottish historians, Dr. David Alexander Thomson Mackie, is best known for his treatment of 18th Century Scottish portaiture, especially that of Raeburn.
It could go in a separate article(s) on Mackie, and/or Scottish historiography and/or Scottish art history, but I feel it does not belong in a generalised overview of Education in Scotland. Pedant17 01:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Map
Any way that the map from England (which shows England highlighted in a map of the UK) could be modified so as to be used here instead of the one highlighting Scotland on a map of all of Europe? john 05:49, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you go back far enough in the edit history you will see it was like that originally. Image:UKScotland.png Morwen 06:44, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Pronunciation of Alba
The reason for the SAMPA was that it is not obvious to most English readers that Alba has three syllables nor that the b denotes a sound similar to English p. English speakers are often misled by Gaelic spelling and SAMPA is useful to keep them on the right lines. The alternative is to put up with grating mispronunciations like Kate-lynn for Caitlin instead of the correct Kathleen as English speakers automatically apply English pronunciation rules to Gaelic spelling and come up with the wrong sounds. -- Derek Ross
Two points:
1) this is not the article on Alba - I see no particular reason for providing the pronunciation in SAMPA here. 2) The Alba page already provided a pronunciation before the SAMPA was added there. 3) SAMPA is not a particularly well known pronunciation system. I'd certainly never seen or heard of it before coming across it in this article. I think we can provide a pronunciation guide without using such a weird looking pronunciation system - how many people really have any idea what those symbols mean? john k 03:47, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I accept the first and second of your two points (although on further reflection this is the article on Alba, and on Scotia, and on Caledonia, and on Ecosse, and on Schottland, etc. since these are all just different names for the same thing). As for the third <?>, we use SAMPA on the Wikipedia because the better-known alternative, the IPA, cannot be displayed unless appropriate fonts have been downloaded. Even if they have been, people are no more likely to know the exact pronunciations of the IPA symbols than they are to know the exact pronunciations of the SAMPA symbols. So in either case an interested reader will need to refer to the appropriate pronunciation definitions. English "phonetic" spelling is ruled out because it is so dependent on accent (many English-speakers believe that Bach rhymes with Bark, for instance). That being so we decided to use the SAMPA system rather than IPA because SAMPA can be displayed on most PC's without installing a new font and gives an exact pronunciation guide. -- Derek Ross
- I think it should be here. Alba is a redirect page in denial. SAMPA and IPA are, for the layman (i.e. me) entirely useless, and indeed the gaelic spelling is worse than useless for pronunciation. I wouldn't, however, be at all averse to a link to a wav/ogg of someone saying the word in question. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
Outwith!
OK, my apologies for removing what is apparently valid British English... but that word isn't in my dictionary. Can you tell me what it means? </feels very ignorant> -Lethe
- from the oed: Without; outside of, out from Lethe
- Sorry if I seemed harsh. "outside" isn't quite it - it kinda means "outside the confines of", or "outside the domain of", at least in this context. I hesitate to put "outside of", as two prepositions in a row seems kinda grating. "without" would be technically correct, but the resulting sentence doesn't seem quite right to me. Maybe we need a venn diagram :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- As does outwith. Many Scots live outwith Scotland and we use outwith without hesitation, so it is used outwith Scotland. I've never had anybody query me on its meaning and that meaning is pretty clear in this sentence. I see no reason to change it. If you want to change Wikipedia to Standard English, there are plenty of Americanisms to take up your time but I'd suggest that you accept minor national variants in English spelling, vocabulary and grammar. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:25, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
- I think it's a fine thing to expect to be allowed to use "Scottishisms" in the Scotland article. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to whom fell the task of replacing all Americanisms with Standard English. However, I was a little confused by this word, and it wasn't in my (American) dictionary, although you're right, I guess i can get the meaning from context right? The Catholic Church is the largest Church after, or outside of the Kirk. What if we made the word a link to its definition in en.wiktionary? Perhaps that would be a bad precedent, linking every word that isn't grammar school vocab to a dictionary... -Lethe 00:40, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
- I think either outwith or without would be fine; two consecutive prepostions would, indeed, grate rather.
- James F. (talk) 19:35, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, how much better it would be if the rest of the world had "outwith" - places like St. Paul-without-the-Walls (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13369a.htm) wouldn't sound so dilapidated :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- St Paul furth the Walls surely, although we may need to wait for Parliament's Act anent church names to make the change :)
- DSL (http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/) is one of several Scots language dictionaries online in case any more perfectly sensible "Scottishisms" creat problems. --garryq 01:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, how much better it would be if the rest of the world had "outwith" - places like St. Paul-without-the-Walls (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13369a.htm) wouldn't sound so dilapidated :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:21, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Geography
Fair enough for the edit immediately after mine (11-July-2004 by Derek Ross) removing Dundee from the list of Central Belt cities. I kind of though that if it was in the Central Belt then it was only just in the Central Belt. However, I am left wondering what the original 3 of 5 cities were, assuming Stirling isn't one of them as it was the most recent town in Scotland to become a city. Does anyone have any ideas? --Colin Angus Mackay 01:17, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, Colin. It's arguable whether Dundee is Central Belt or not and so perhaps the original writer was thinking of it as one of the three. But I think that what we have now is more accurate. Whatever the original writer meant, I would say that Dundee is really in the south of the Northeast. As an Angus resident for over twenty years, I always thought that you had to cross the Tay to get into Central Belt territory. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:47, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
And, by the way, it's good to see another Scot editing the Wikipedia. There aren't enough of us. Cheers -- Derek Ross
Scots law and legal tender
I'm sure I remember seeing something to the effect that Bank of England pound notes, when such things existed, were legal tender in Scotland, and that pound and two pound coins still are. Yet this page says that Scots law has no concept of legal tender. Do we have any references for that? Marnanel 01:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- quoth the Bank of England:
The current series of Bank of England notes are legal tender in England and Wales, although not in Scotland or Northern Ireland, where the only currency carrying legal tender status for unlimited amounts is the one pound and two pound coins.
[1] (http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/banknotes/legaltender.htm) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:20, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, that sounds like what I remembered reading. So the article's wrong to say that "Scots law lacks the concept" [of legal tender]? Marnanel 01:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Subtly wrong, but in a complicated way that I defy anyone to succinctly explain. It gets more complex still here (http://www.siliconglen.com/Scotland/1_7.html). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1603
Scotland was not united with England in 1603. What happened was that the king of Scotland inherited the English throne (because the English Royal family had died out) James VI was now king of Scotland (James VI) and King of England (James I) They were still totally separate kingdoms with their own parliaments, it is just that they happened to be ruled by the same person (2 kingdoms but only 1 king). James VI/I also ruled them as separate kingdoms and had to make individual decisions about the governance of each country, for example he would not have been able to make a law which applied to both countries he would have had to make them separately using each country's respective parliaments. I think the issue of kings ruling over more than one country was quite common in Europe (eg. Spanish princes/kings ruling over the Netherlands) but this does not mean that they are united. Scotland was united with England in 1707, when England and Scotland ceased to become separate kingdoms and were replaced by the United Kingdom of 'Great Britain'--Cap 12:22, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- You have a point. The current opening paragraph is a little confusing. The use of the word united was intended to indicate that the two countries were part of a personal union (Union of the Crowns) rather than a political union, (Union of the Parliaments) but I can see that it should be reworded to make this clearer. -- Derek Ross | Talk
Country or Nation
I personally don't mind whether the word "nation" or "country" is used to describe Scotland since I don't think that either implies sovereignty particularly. The distinction is more "country of Scotland" as opposed to "nation of Scots" -- ie territory or people. The word "state" is the sovereignty implier to my mind as in the "Scottish state" or the "modern nation-state". However I don't like the pointless switching that's currently going on. Please discuss the pros and cons of this change before endlessly remaking it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:44, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
- It's a nation and a country, but not a state. This article is about the country, not the Scottish nation, so it should be 'country'. That's how I've always heard it referred to. --Randwicked 13:00, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Standard usage on Wikipedia seems to be that "country" implies sovereingty, "nation" implies ethnic cohesiveness, and "state" is rarely used due to ambiguity with non-sovereign states in federations.
- James F. (talk) 13:40, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is bizarre usage, though, since "country" doesn't imply sovereignty in actual English usage. State is the word which implies sovereignty, and non-sovereign states (as in the US, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, perhaps Germany and Austria, depending on how Land is translated) are clearly special cases (and fairly infrequent ones - do any countries besides the ones I listed even have states?) The term "sovereign state", at any rate, leaves no ambiguity. We certainly should try to change this oddness of using "country" to imply sovereignty, which is purely idiosyncratic. john k 19:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Very sensible comments, John. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:46, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. The present Wikipedia article country uses the the "sovereign state" definition, and according to Merriam-Webster, this is valid, and not a "bizarre usage". Regardless of whether the word "country" should refer to a sovereign state or not, it is at the very least an ambiguous word, and should therefor be avoided in this context. In my entire life I have never heard anyone refering to a non-sovereign territory as a "country" (outside this article's introduction paragraph), that usage is an idiosyncrasy to me. But why should we "try to change" things here by using the word in what you see as its proper context, when we could just as easily choose to use a word that is totally unambiguous instead?
- I think we should remove the word "country" from the introduction. Saying that Scotland is one of the four current Home Nations of the United Kingdom, as well as noting it was formerly a completely sovereign kingdom, will suffice. —Gabbe 13:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
- I think this whole area of nomenclature needs clarifying. It's not only within the UK that it causes controversy. Is Ireland a country, a nation, or one country and part of another, two nations or what?
What is the Souix nation? Is it part of the American nation? Is there a Jewish nation, an Israeli nation, a Palestinian nation, a Roma (gypsy) nation? Is the Palestinian territory a country? What is Taiwan - a country, nation, state or none of these?
How about this
- A country is a geographical division. It generally describes an area governed by a recognised state. It is sometimes used to describe subdivisions of a terrirory governed by a state, particularly where two or more former states merged to form a new state. So, a country can contain other countries. Disputed territories may be regarded by the disputants as parts of different countries.
- A nation describes a group of people united by a common ethnicity or history, or a grouping of smaller units such as tribes or clans for a common purpose. However the term is sometimes used as a synonym for "country". Therefore a nation may contain all or part of another nation.
- A state is a government exercising sovereignty over a geographical area. Generally, a state must achieve diplomatic recognition by the international community before being generally regarded as a state.
Where does that leave us:
British Isles : geographical term. Controversial in Ireland. United Kingdom of GB and NI: country. state. kingdom. Great Britain : two senses (1) geographical term - the island of Great Britian (2) country - constituent of the United Kingdom of GB and Northern Ireland = Island of GB and offshore Islands, but not Ireland. Britain/British : nation - status disputed. Ulster Unionists self-describe as "British". "British" often used to describe inhabitants and instutions of the UK generally, eg "British Passport", "British Government", though many Irish Nationalists in Northern Ireland do not accept the designation, and many English, Scottish and Welsh people don't either, preferring their own national labels, either instead of or in addition. Some immigrants accept the designation "British", "British Jews", "British Asians" etc: others reject the "British" label. England: country (former Kingdom). widely regarded as a nation. Some English people prefer to be seen as "British": others use both terms interchangably. Foreigners often use England and English in place of the UK and British. has own established church. England and Wales: administrative entity. UK Parliament legislation refers to "E and W". E and W share a legal system and are administered in a similar way, but are regarded as separate for many purposes. Wales: country and principality. however, when there is no living Prince of Wales (eldest son of the sovereign) Wales is without a Prince. nation. not part of England for ecclesiastical purposes (no established church) Monmouthshire: county. In ACt of Union (England and Wales) 1536 counted as part of England. Recently redesignated as part of Wales. Scotland: country, former Kingdom. nation. own established church and legal system. Berwick upon Tweed: on English/Scottish border. Part of England but for some purposes was regarded as a separate territory. Ireland: geographical term (island of Ireland). Former Kingdom. nation (but Ulster Unionists consider themselves part of the British nation, not the Irish). one state (Republic of Ireland) plus part of another (UK). Republic of Ireland: state Northern Ireland: territory (possibly country?), sometimes known as a "province" but actually Ulster is a province and NI consists of 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster. The status of NI was in dispute for a period when the R of I claimed sovereignty over it. Now the R of I seeks a united Ireland as an aspiration. Some Irish nationalists refuse to recognise NI as part of the UK and see it in a similar light to the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Sometimes seen as a nation????? Ulster, Connacht, Leinster, Munster: provinces of Ireland Isle of Man. geographical term. UK territory, but not part of the UK (no seats in Parliament). nation. Channel Islands: like Isle of Man Cornwall: county (not country). duchy (not coterminous with county). some see Cornwall as a nation.
I do see a pattern. A country is a noun. A nation is an adjective. If I can describe myself as part of the "x" nation - Scottish, British, Irish, English, Manx, Cornish - then such a nation exists. However nations are not mutually exclusive. I may regard myself as British as well as Scottish. Others may describe me as British, English, Scottish or whatever depending on various criteria.
Well, that was difficult. I've tried to make it NPOV but no doubt I've failed. I haven't even gone into the various claims monarchs made to France!
138.253.102.162 11:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
National anthem
While there is no doubt that Flower of Scotland is probably the most popular national anthem in Scotland, it is not the only one, nor even the longest established. Scottish organisations also use or have used Scotland the Brave, or Scots Wha Hae at sporting events and on other occasions where national anthems are played. Scotland the Brave is the one that you will generally hear played by a pipe band. None of them are official, but at least two of them deserve a mention, Flower of Scotland, and Scotland the Brave. There is no need to simplify the situation in order to end up with a single national anthem. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:44, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
- I think, though, it is misleading not also to mention that the current First Minister's view on the national anthem question is that the Scottish National Anthem is "God save the Queen".--Doric Loon 15:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Crofting
I've statred an article on crofting to tie in with a collective effort to work on the subject of land reform. I'm sure someone who knows about Scotland and crofting would be better qualified to talk about the subject than me, so please take a look and help expand the article--nixie 01:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The New Map
I don't actually like the new map as it adds very little information to the article and the information that it does add is misleading. In detail the problems are
- The labelling is much too large.
- The texture gives the impression that Scotland is nothing but mountains.
- It labels the northeast Lowlands as the "Grampian Highlands". The Grampian Highlands are actually further to the south and inland a bit.
- It labels the Western Isles as "Islands" and the south of Scotland as the "South of Scotland" which is similar to labelling the land, "Land" and the sea, "Sea" -- true but not exactly informative.
- It uses a label "Heart of Scotland" (a vague term which I haven't heard before) to refer to something unclear in the southwest Highlands or eastern Lowlands. The Trossachs perhaps ?
- It only shows Glasgow and Edinburgh, ignoring the other Scottish cities.
- It doesn't show the Shetland Isles at all.
- Arran is so obscured by labelling that it is impossible to tell whether it's an island or part of the mainland.
- It's in the GIF format whereas we prefer the PNG format.
In short it's pretty flawed. I'm inclined to remove it if it isn't improved fairly soon. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:00, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)
- In Gaelic culture there is a place, in Perth and Kinross I believe, which is traditionally considered the center of Scotland (like Tara in Ireland I believe). I think it is near the yew of Fortingall and is called Taigh na Teud. Perhaps that is what the "Heart of Scotland" thing is supposed to be about?--172.149.119.220 08:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Could be. The Yew is pretty close to the centre of Scotland in one sense. But the map won't help you find anything so geographically specific since the "Heart of Scotland" label stretches across the whole width of Scotland. I'm inclined to think that it refers to the "Central Belt" but who knows. It may just be a reference to the central part of Scotland in the same way that the "South of Scotland" label seems to be a reference to southern Scotland
- If I recall correctly, the place you are looking for is Schiehallion --Colin Angus Mackay 23:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
St Andrew
Why no mention of the patron saint? Bovlb 04:32, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
- No reason. Why didn't you add a mention ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:42, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
I've added something under 'Other facets of Scottish culture' Berek 09:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Good man. -- Derek Ross | Talk
jocks?
No offence to anyone but l want to know why the English call the Scottish "jocks"?
- It was at one time a common nickname, presumably for Jack, still used in the saying "we're all Jock Tamson's bairns" (international multiracial egalitarian sentiment: we all have common ancestry). Burns' poem Halloween mentions Jock amongst other nicknames like Rab, and "stop your ticklin' Jock" was a music hall song, I think by Harry Lauder. These usages develop: in '60s Leith it became common for people to shout "hey, Jimmy!" to attract the attention of anyone they didn't know the name of..(p.s. why not get yourself a user name?)..dave souza 02:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (edited dave souza 10:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC))
History: language
See Talk:Scots language.