Talk:Scotland/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What I personally think is the single most embarrassing "consensus" I've seen been told about on Wikipedia: "Scotland is a nation". A cursory glance shows this is still objected to by others fairly frequently ([1] [2]). And so, as it also annoys the hell out of me, I'm raising it again: A nation is a community or group of people (like the Nation of Islam - ugly example I know), not a division of land. Scotland is a country (or constituent country - whatever's the preference).

I know the Scottish psyke ensures that Scotland is promoted to be nothing less than a country (even Britannica - sorry - reports on this), which is what I think, but can't prove, is part of the issue here. But really, that an odd few bad literaturists said Scotland was/is a nation and then asserting it here as somehow being "verifiable" is... well... not good.

Also, if the Scottish people are a nation (have a look), then how is Scotland a nation too? Seems to be double standards here.... in good faith, of course.

I suppose the question is, where exactly is this consensus? What is it based on? Has it ever been codified? Are there any alternatives we might want to consider? I don't think that the use of "nation" is in the article's best interests. Just my 2p worth. -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"I suppose the question is, where exactly is this consensus?" - I'll just quote directly from the Archive Summary:

Please also AGF - a line like "What I personally think is the single most embarrassing "consensus" I've been told about on Wikipedia" is bordering on an attack, and is definitely bad faith, implying that the consensus doesn't exist and people are lying - the full consensus is here, and has been discussed in great detail if you would look for it. SFC9394 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No it's not bad faith, it's

consensus can easily change

. I standby that it is embarrassing, as its very bad English. There are also problems with the counterpoints you've raised, namely:

• “Scotland is a nation, by accordance to most modern definitions of a nation, here is one such example "Nations are essentially cohesive cultural communities with a strong self-identity. Many states contain several nations and, consequently, many nations do not have their own state."

Erm, well, re-read that. "Most" definitions? So not all of them then? And doesn't the example say that it refers to, quote, "communities" (i.e. groups of people, not territories), and uses the term "state" in its proper form. This does more for my point against the use of "nation", not for it!

• “Although nation, country and state are often used as synonyms, they do in fact all have different meanings: nation is a cultural designation; country is geographical; and state is political (and not necessarily a fully sovereign entity either, eg Idaho).”

They do in fact??? But it's not fact! It's not what a nation is. And "nation is a cultural designation"... right, so, how does that verify Scotland is a nation? It's refering to communities there. It then also makes it explicit that "country is geographical". Is Scotland not a geographical territory? Again, adds more to my point and diminishes the inclusion of "Scotland is a nation".

If a consensus has been formed around these factors then I don't think its advocates have considered the evidence and alternatives well. I think it ought to be changed. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a poor consensus and I consider it factually inaccurate for reasons discussed above. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it a fact that Scotland is a nation? As Ovid put it, Quid frustra simulacra fugacia captas? Quod petis est nusquam, "Why do you vainly try to capture fleeting shadows? What you seek is nowhere". It is not a matter of fact whether a nation exists or not; nations are abstractions (only in people's heads), and everything beyond that comes down to

Scottish national football team Scottish National Portrait Gallery, Scottish National Opera, etc, exist with so little comment about their titles. Having said that, I don't really think "nation" is necessary in the opening lines of this article if it produces significant opposition (the kind of opposition describing UK as a "nation" might produce). I'm sick of the fact that the time of so many good wikipedians is wasted on such matters. This may always be an issue, so let the anons fight this one out! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 23:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland itself is not a nation (the people of Scotland arguable are). Scotland itself is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. Gee wheez, you'd think after 300+ years, Unification would've been accepted. GoodDay (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the debates for its inclusion are still weak here. Things like "

Scottish national football team

" don't assert that Scotland (the territory) is a nation at all. The national team is for the Scottish nation - the people! Simillarly, nobody is saying the UK as a "nation". So how does that make Scotland a group of people? The UK is a country, it is not a sentitent community. The "nation of Scotland" and the "Scottish nation" does not mean the territory, it means the people.

I'm a Scot who finds the "label" nation applied to my "country" an embarrassment. What does it mean? What official sources use this? This is not a political matter or somehow a point-of-view matter, it's using proper English. Even the SNP don't use this - they say country.

I'm enthused to see others have also shared their view about this. It's certainly not as clear and strong a consensus as first asserted. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Jza84, I don't recognize the distinction you're making as being widely used, and the "people" and the "territory" are linked almost by necessity in common usage. I think it's highly flawed intellectually to regard or to try to make out that the term "nation" has any meaning as fixed as you're supposing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, of course. Nation does have a clear meaning. Indeed, the Scottish people are not a country. I really don't know why anybody (particularly Deacon who is an exceptionally articulate contributor - although who have said that he/she has no strong feelings about it) would stick up for this wording. It's one of the projects biggest curiousities to me. That people misinterpret the word "nation" is rather irrelevant; the argument presented here is "well the confusion exists so its OK". What does this term "nation" add to the article? What does it mean? What official sources use it? Is Scotland not a country?

The rest of the article and templates invariably use the terms "country" and "constituent country", so why have nation in the lead? I just don't see the logic in using nation, when it is such bad practice. Is "country" or "constituent country" somehow wrong? -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Deacon the landmass and the people are linked [3] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 01:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Is anybody going to answer my points? If I may respond to you Barry, I agree nation and country are linked (of course, nations are usually tied to a territory), but they are not one-and-the-same, otherwise we'd have just one word. Just look at the search results you've produced:

• "monarchs continued to rule over the nation of Scotland" - yes the people. Monarchs don't rule land, land can't move, fight or pay taxes.
• "the flag, which is symbolic of the Nation of Scotland" - yes the people. But even so it's from a Wikipedia talk page, not an official source.
• "He also controls the fate of the nation of Scotland" - yes the people.
• It was the foundation not only of the Kingdom of Scotland, but of the nation of Scotland" - an interesting one that distinguishes the two.

They're just the top four. I think the comparrison between this search against this search is a little more decisive! Come on guys, this is a chance to overturn bad practice. Its not a point-of-view or political issue! This is something we should be able to say in the lead. -- Jza84 · (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(responding to Jza84, edit-conflict with Barryob) User:Derek Ross above stated ... it is important to separate the concepts of "country" (which is geographical), "nation" (which is ethnic) and "state" (which is political/legal) even though most people confuse them. The critical part is the last, "most people confuse them". If that's true, that means that they aren't distinct, as words and particularly words denoting abstractions have no meaning other than that which people use. Recognizing this and recognizing this discussion as "tension within the Discourse community" will save us all getting locked in conversational dead ends. The only really wrong thing that can be said about the meaning of the word "nation", is to say that its meaning is fixed (though if God comes down from heaven and gives a fixed meaning I will of course change my mind on this). The reason it's there in the opening line of this article is that many editors do think of Scotland as a nation and/or wish other people to think of it as such; the reason many oppose it is because, well, presumably they don't. And that's really as substantial as this conversation can ever get. I'm not really defending the current wording, really just responding to what's being said. My experience on wiki has taught me the best way to judge "consensus" is to see if the edit "sticks". That's the bottom-line for the concept's usefulness in practice! I think you'll know well enough the chances of that happening, but things perhaps have changed now so you never know. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You make an interesting point - "The reason it's there in the opening line of this article is that many editors... wish other people to think of it as such". Exactly another reason why this is bad practice; It's not based on any official term or source, it's a word being used to assert Scotland is something that it is not. It's the Scottish psyche issue coming into play. All language is fluid and flexible, but the English language is fairly standardised. Even in local dialects and off-shoots (which we shouldn't use because this is an international project on the .en version of Wiki), "nation" is still defined as a community, not a division of land. This wording has stuck because a core of users oppose amending this, and haven't considered the alternatives.

Consensus can change with a little critical thinking and change of heart. I still don't see any strong counter arguments, I have to say, sorry. I do think this change would improve the article. -- Jza84 · (talk

) 01:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Meanings of words can never be standardized by anything short some futuristic

WP:NPOV. I don't though want this conversation to produce a distorted account of the reality ... that's all! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 02:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A defence of the use of the term 'nation' to describe Scotland is that Scotland is often described as one of the 'Home Nations'. Having said that, I would have no objection to Scotland being described as 'a country in North West Europe that has been part of the United Kingdom for over 300 years'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We have discussed this to death over the years. The consensus that we came to was not so much that "nation" is the right word to use. It was more that either "country" or "nation" will do (and the Deacon gives some excellent reasons why we shouldn't care too much which we use, in the above discussion). Personally I like "country" better, but not enough to waste any more time discussing it. If Jza wants to change the wording to "country", I for one won't mind but I will get annoyed if a revert war breaks out as a result, so let's make sure that everyone is happy about this before we do it. Maybe its time for a straw poll to gauge opinion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I recently took a break from watching this page and I am now reminded why. The fact is that there are two different views and it is highly unlikely that both will ever be satisfied. The discussion then goes round and round in circles because the minority don't get their way. Is there no protocol we can use to time bar re-iterations to say six-monthly intervals? This is the fourth discussion on this topic since August. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My tuppence worth: I prefer: "Scotland is a country in north west Europe... ", but then I just know that some ip twats are just going to come along and add "constituent" and "of the YooKay" and the anon idiots will disrupt this otherwise excellent article ad infinitum as any browse through the History will show. But "country" is definitely better than "nation". "Nation" was agreed upon as a compromise. It is even preferred by Unionists in many circumstances, so it is a bit of a mystery to me why the two biggest British nationalist campaigners here at Wikipedia want to get rid of it. Actually, it is not much of a mystery at all. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the reasons above for the inclusion of nation in the opening sentence. Nation is inextricably linked with territory and this article details so much about Scotland's people and its culture that it chimes with the Wikipedia definition of nation - "A nation is a form of self-defined cultural and social community." Yup, Scotland is all of that, as this article makes abundantly clear. However I would be happy with "country" along the lines of the suggestion from User:Fishiehelper2 above ("Scotland is a country in north-west Europe which has been part of the United Kingdom for 300 years") in place of this totally ridiculous "Constituent Country" nonsense, which is something I have a great deal more trouble with as it represents nothing more than a Wikipedia invention. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"A nation is a form of self-defined cultural and social community.".... from Wikipedia you say? Right, well... "A community is a social group of organisms sharing an environment". Is Scotland a social group of organisms sharing an environment, or is it the environment itself? -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And from the same article: "Possibly the most common usage of the word "community" indicates a large group living in close proximity."

Again there is reference to space, place and to territory.

But this is just going round and round in circles and isn't getting anyone far at all. The reasons for "nation" being included in the article have been set out, by others, above. It is absolutely crystal clear. I'm sorry you might not like that, but that is the way it is and has been for a long time. I have absolutely no problem with Scotland being referred to as a nation (palpably it is) but I am entirely agnostic on its use in the article and in the first sentence in particular. My strict preference would be to switch "nation" to "country" (and get rid of this "constituent country" term), but am happy to go with the status quo - for the durability of the term on article, if nothing else. And that, as others have said is a good indication of "worth". Globaltraveller (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is nor more a 'naton' then Quebec is. It's not the 'constituent country' that's a nation, it's the Scottish people. For goodness sake, we can add nation in the lead when/if Scotland becomes independant again. PS: Rightly or wrongly, the addition of 'nation' in the lead? gives the impression of Scottish nationalism pushing. I'm sure we all agree, that's an impression we don't want on this article. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you may wish to read what has been written by many contributors above on the nation, country, state distinction. You may also wish to take a look at the vast talk archives on this very subject. More importantly please don't revert the article again, on what has been a long standing part of the Lead until a consensus of editors determines a way forward. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Ironic, considering that it was actually "pushed" by people who thought that using "country" gave the impression that Scotland was independent... -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, that's confusing. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW my edit changing 'country' back to 'nation' was not taking a position; the previous edit had changed it as a side effect of another change, ignoring the discussion here, which looked like an honest mistake to me; so I reverted and explained my actions to the editor. I'll keep clear now. Bazzargh (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. "Scotland is no more a nation than Quebec" you said - Can I assume that you were unaware that on October 30, 2003, the National Assembly of Quebec voted unanimously to affirm "that the Quebecers form a nation"?

Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Quebecers (the people), not Quebec (the province). Also, the Canadian House of Commons passed a Quebecois motion in 2006. Quebec itself isn't a nation, the people (Quebecers) are. PS: see current discussion at Quebec. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: If we're gonna have nation in this article's lead? we may aswell add the same to Wales, England and Northern Ireland article's lead. It's either all four or none. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. What the editors of those articles determine on is up to them. I wasn't aware Wikipedia was in the process of creating identikit, paint-by-numbers articles, that have an exact formula to hold to. Globaltraveller (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend none, by the way. Afterall, the Nation of Islam, Leafs Nation, various Aboriginal Nations aren't countries. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Quebec with Scotland is not really adding anything to this debate. Frankly I couldn't really care less about Quebec or Canada, or how the arguments there relate to those here (for very distinct reasons, I don't think they are comparable). What editors on those articles determine is up to them. Globaltraveller (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't compare? I'm cool with that. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Special Treatment

Why does the article deserve special treatment, concerning the usage of nation? Why can't those who want 'nation' included, see that it's problematic? PS: I'm not trying to be a party pooper, I just want to understand why it's so important to have nation in the lead. Please note - I'm not going to revert. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"deserve special treatment" The content of this article is decided upon by the editors of the article set out by the policies that guide editing here at wikipedia, with consensus reached via discussion on this page. The lines you are taking GD, are particularly worrying, and show a complete lack of understanding. "Special treatment" - what on earth is all that about? The rationale for the inclusion of the word has been exhaustively laid out, and has the support of the majority of others who edit this article - if you want a start then look at my 300 word para 5 chapters up dated 13:29, 29 January 2008 - I am not wasting all my time retyping it, along with all the other clear and conclusive reasons that have been laid out time and again - it is not only a waste because I have better things to be doing, but it is a waste because those who want the word removed have no interest in reading it, just holding some incredibly narrow dictionary definition then claiming anyone who disagrees with them is POV ultra nationalist and so should be ignored. Anyway, the 6 nations is on the TV at the moment. Just some more wood for the fire - but completely ignored, as per usual. SFC9394 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

By saying special treatment? I was wondering why England, Wales & Northern Ireland don't have nation in there articles. Also, I've not accused anyone of being Scottish nationalist or British nationalist or any political profile. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the editors of those articles have come to an agreement amongst themselves as to what the content should be - the entire point of wikipedia. Other than vandalism reverts I haven't edited those articles and have no real interest in doing so, hence I have made no comments on the inclusion on their talk pages. My third point from my referenced 300 word para deals with this specifically - "The end goal of wikipedia is not a series of identikit articles mostly comprised of "fill in the blanks" for that particular subject.". As for the accusations of nationalism, your own words on the subject from October 2007 in relation to the inclusion of the word were: "I thought the edit was made by a Scottish nationalist anon-editor". SFC9394 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree with treating such articles like these, differently from their 'related' articles. I'm trying to help ya'll out here, by pointing out having nation in this article's opening lines & not in the other three articles opening lines; will cause editors to suspect 'Scottish nationalism' (as I erroneusly did, back in October 2007). I'd recommend putting nation lower down in the intro somewhere. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You can disagree if you want, but the policies of wikipedia make it quite clear that the editors of the other articles don't have "jurisdiction" (which is exactly what you are suggesting) over the content of this article. I am very very very strong on this - and for a golden reason that was played out 6 months ago, when a cabal of 3 or 4 editors attempted to push through a guideline that made it mandatory that everyone born in the UK after 1707 was to be forcefully described as British, irrespective of anything else (including Michael Collins), the guideline failed. It was a proposed guideline not built on the ideas of communicating knowledge that wikipedia was founded upon, but instead based on the "completionst" view that "everything must be the same", and "must all fit into nice neat square boxes". Real life is not square, is not neat and is not simple - and we must not misrepresent reality to simply placate such a view. It was activities like that failed guideline that made me very well aware of this "they should be the same" issue, and made me ensure that path does not become well worn. For that to be the case opens up every article with a Scottish connection to be written with a 10:1 English view, and would repeat the exact failures of history that wikipedia is supposed to be correcting, the same reason historically subjects like Scotland have been portrayed through the eyes of people who had no understanding, popularising the "jocks and kilts who were "civilised" after 1707" image that is utterly false. In the context of this discussion it is very telling that the very widely accepted definitive accounts of Scotland in the modern age are "Scotland: The Story of a Nation" by Magnus Magnusson, and the story from 1707-2000 (given praise by many including the current PM) is called "The Scottish Nation: 1700-2000". The usage of the word nation in both titles is not an accident - this is *exactly why* I am maintaining on this issue. These are definitive books, widely accepted and independent of any POV - they use the word, and they use it for very very good reasons. If the inclusion of the word "will cause editors to suspect 'Scottish nationalism'" then that is those editors problems - we explicitly state that it is a constituent part of the UK in the lead, and explicitly state that Scotland is not a sovereign state. SFC9394 (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, Scotland is not a nation; the Scottish are. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this encyclopedia is so perfect that there's nothing else for users to do than argue whether or not a word with multiple meanings has only one meaning, or try to invent some weird distinction between "nation" and "nation" that exist only in some

Platonic universe. The biggest prob, and it's perennial on wikipedia, is that new comers come again and again, aren't familiar with all the arguments, etc, and people lose more patience repeating themselves. I'm sorry GoodDay that following my contribs as you do brought you here! Glad I'm an interesting guy to you though! ;) Anyways, if Scottish National Opera don't think "nation" is controversial, then I think that whatever it means to any individual or whatever any individual would like it to mean, we are pretty safe here on wiki ... but each to their own! Can I remind you all of Category:Scotland stubs, if anyone is seeking something productive to do. Otherwise we should program a bot to automate responses to each other. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't come here via your contribs. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's certainly a remarkable coincidence that you came here for the first time as with so many pages (20-odd mins in this case) just after I post. I guess bigger coincidences happen though! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I took part in the 'nation' discussion last autumn. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I withdraw my apology! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I also fail to see what NI ENG & WAL has to do with this to imply that they should all be treated the same is preposterous they have never been equal with each other. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Chalk it up to 'personal preference', on my part. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've requested that this article have full protection, until this discussion has been resolved. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The page has been 'fully' protected. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking there needs to be a new UK MOS that deals with these issues. Personally, the 4 constituents of the UK should all have the same opening sentence in my opinion, that's really the only way for this to work. With all respect to Scottish editors here, do you think that perhaps there's just a wee bit of nationalistic pride here (I don't mean the SNP kind)? Ultimately at the end of the day we're writing an encyclopaedia here, and our main concern should be the readers. To that end standardising the UK articles is the most logical choice. -MichiganCharms (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely all the articles of all the EU countries should thus be standardised, and from that the logical assumption is the world? A blanket MOS has been proven time and again to be an unacceptable outcome, and is very strongly opposed (you are welcome to find the discussion on the attempted MOS guideline on forcing British as the nationality, the comments left by a wide and diverse group of editors made it crystal clear how bad an idea it was). Content decisions for an article should be made on the discussion pages of that article - entire lead paragraphs should not be defined by some MOS that is unaccountable to the article itself, end of story. SFC9394 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A UK blancket MOS?. Oh but to dream, to dream. Alas, but only a dream. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the UK to the EU shows the exact kind of bias that we're dealing with here. The UK is clearly not the same thing, the UK is a sovereign state. The reason this is needed is because otherwise we run a major risk of POV taking over these articles, and we can't have that. If the consensus here was to say 'Scotland is a soon to be independent nation in north-western Europe' would that make it right? Sometimes content needs to be dictated, and I don't favour a blanket MOS for everything, just for referring to how the 4 constituents are referred to, because there has been a lot of controversy here and on the other articles. -MichiganCharms (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sometimes content needs to be dictated" That is not even remotely what wikipedia is about. SFC9394 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is a soon to be independent nation in north-western Europe

Behind the idea of WP:Consensus lies the (naive?) belief that most people wouldn't think something like that to be encyclopedic. Most people wouldn't want to write The Dog is a large sexpedal humanoid, invertebrate, native to the forests along the Upper Zambezi, which will be extinct in four years. as the opening line of Dog article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And why should Scotland have the same into as Northern Ireland one is a country that has a history spanning over a thousand years the other an administrative division created less than a hundred years ago. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dare I say again (I dare)? Northern Ireland, England, Scotland & Wales are currently constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Their respective peoples are 'nations'. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can all the Scottish editors please try to look at this objectively? Why should Virginia have the same intro as Alaska? Because legally they hold the same status. -MichiganCharms (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

For the little that it's worth, the "constituent countries" don't all have the same "legal status". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Objectively eh, how about logically ? the constituent countries of the UK are no way comparlable to the US states come on Scotland and NI do not hold the same staus thier is no law making them constituent countries, even devolution wise all the areas of the UK have vastly different powers --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. There are a lot more important issues then what word is used in the opening, why doesn't one of Scottish editors write to their MSP and ask for an official opinion? The editors on the Wales article did it. -MichiganCharms (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An MSP's opinon? sure, why not? PS- I still like the idea of shaking up the UK MOS. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What an MSP says has the same value as what you or I say - I don't know why at every stage you want the content to be dictated to us rather than operating the way not only wikipedia should work, but the way wikipedia does work. SFC9394 (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's us? GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The editors of this article - the same us that you advocate being overruled by what editors on other articles decide. SFC9394 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

But I would also defend your (plural) wanting to edit on other articles, such as Canada, Japan, Russia etc. Or if you will country components Ontario, Quebec, Calvados, Arizona etc. My point is, there's no us or them. GoodDay (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this type of discussion, belong at the MOS in question? GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. Let's get everyone involved and try to reach a consensus that way, it's obvious that we've reached an impasse here. -MichiganCharms (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by building consensus. Nobody owns any articles here, and the goal is to build consensus. There's no consensus here, is there? Every few months someone brings it up and it goes back and forth from country to nation because neither quite appease everyone. I personally don't see why this article has to be different from England, Wales and NI except for the editors here are strongly against it. I think, like in virtually all things, it's impossible for people close to the situation to make rational judgements. In situations like this it's best to appeal to someone from the outside, an admin with no ties to Scotland or the UK and let them comment. However, I'm sure this solution will also be objected to. The point remains you can't reach consensus so something needs to be done, and yes that means having a solution dictated to you here. -MichiganCharms (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I can edit them, but if I bulldoze into Quebec and remove delicate content I am moving into a complex situation that editors who have built the article have worked hard over a long period of time. Our own policies recognise that. I would respect the complexity and history of the article - I would not expect & demand that what I say should be acted upon - because what I say will be no different from other views that were represented multiple multiple times over. Sorry, GD, but I think you feel you have stumbled upon some vast issue here - and that links into your own views - by your own admission - that you want everything to fit neatly into clean "MOS" boxes. The truth is this has all been heard before, and you are not saying anything new - it is not so much "us and them" as "those of us who have dealt with it all before" and "those who haven't". I will finish this all up by referring back to my very original post in this chapter - we have a Archive Summary that goes through it all. I thought by referencing it all I would elucidate the history a bit more. And no offence is intended, but the suggestions (and problems with the word nation) have been more substantive and detailed in the past - the comments here seem to revolve around your desire for all 4 articles to say the same thing (which is your own hold up) and some incredibly tight dictionary definition of a word that completely ignores all other definitions and uses. SFC9394 (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess everybody knows my views (by now). I hope editors here, will follow my lead & work things out on this disucssion page, before editing in or out the word 'nation' from the lead (after the 'protection' expires). Hope things get straigtened out by tommorow. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am an outsider to this issue. (I came here to disamb Celtic.) I know you all want the article to be what you feel is right, but please know the harm by keeping out editors. If the edit war is so bad maybe the editors should be the ones under review. Also the text on an attempt to edit is semi not full which is apparently the reality. Dimitrii (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

This is my proposal to fix the situation, hopefully it's satisfactory. User:MichiganCharms/Sandbox -MichiganCharms (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I must object to the usage country. The United Kingdom is a country, its four components are constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is a country. It constitutes part of the United Kingdom, which is a state. The UK is not a country: it is a legal entity. At a pinch the Kingdom of Great Britain (1707-1800) perhaps was a country (although that is highly debateable), but the UK never has been. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the United Kingdom article?, it's a country. According to England, Northern Ireland and Wales articles? they're constituent countries. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't cite Wikipedia articles as proof of anything. Scotland is a country and Scotland is a nation too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is ridiculous AM, we are citing not only scholarly works, but absolutely definitive works of a generation. We cite academics, we cite formal usage, we cite public usage, we cite colloquial usage - it is all ignored - there are just 2 editors on here attempting to ignore everyone else. Article making some news on BBC today (the "British" broadcasting corp. as well) [4] littered with the word nation. Never mind eh? Who gives a about cited evidence when you can base an argument about the fact that "they must all be the same". This is absolutely ridiculous. SFC9394 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, the Scottish (the people) are a 'nation'. Scotland 'itself' is a constituent country. My point is, these five articles (UK, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & England) are interlocked with each other. You change 'one'? you change them all. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"IMHO"?!? Err, yes, exactly our point: that is your opinion. We use respected external sources here at Wikipedia, not the opinions of passers-by. Please see:

term of art. --Mais oui! (talk

) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Clicking on country in my proposal links to constituent country, thus killing the possible confusion. I think we have broad consesnus. I think it might be best to standardise them all under 'country'-MichiganCharms (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that one! I will watch with great interest your efforts at the Northern Ireland page. It is downright misleading to pipe the link from country to the constituent country article: this article is about Scotland, it is not called Scotland (1707 - present). Scotland, the country, had existed for over a millenium before the UK was invented.--Mais oui! (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In agreement with Mais. There was a fight over the inclusion of country at Northern Ireland months ago. Again people, the four interlocked articles should use the same terminology. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's misleading to refer to Scotland as a country because you know as well as I do 99% of the pople coming to this page don't care about the various meanings of the word and will assume it denotes independence. Constituent country is the only proper term, it's been embraced by the other 3 articles. The absolute insanity of maintaining that it somehow doesn't apply to Scotland is beyond me. At the end of the day, this is an encyclopedia not a tool for some to project what they think of Scotland as, we need to reflect the reality of the situation. -MichiganCharms (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Constituent country is the only proper term". Indeed? Says who? This is just preposterous. We cite proper academic external refs, and you cite... what exactly? --Mais oui! (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The same source that is already cited in the article from the Downing Street website. Why does Scotland have to have special status over the other three? -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeating myself: If we add 'nation' to the lead 'here'? we add 'nation' to the leads of Wales, England and Northern Ireland, there's no other acceptable way. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest again a phrase that avoids 'constituent country' but also makes clear that Scotland is not independent - "Scotland is a country in north-west Europe which has been part of the United Kingdom for 300 years". Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think that will satisfy it. To be clear Scotland is the same as England or Wales or Northern Ireland. They all have the same status. The people objecting to constituent country have no valid point, there's no reason not to use that term. -MichiganCharms (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when have they had the same staus please

cite your sources --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk)

17:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"They all have the same status." You have now got to be kidding!!! The UK is utterly assymetrical, from Scotland, which has full control of its criminal justice, police and prisons, through NI (which lacks justice, at present), to England, which does not even have a legislature. This is just getting bizarre now. Please, please do some research before making any more contributions to this topic. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Since they've all been sending MPs to the UK Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow send MPs to the UK parliament is glasgow on the same par as Northern Ireland I take it. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They're MPs & Lords/Ladies representing Scotland, Wales, England & Northern Ireland in the UK Parliament. Equal Status. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You have still failed to answer my question what makes them equal ? the North East England is represented in Parliament is it on the same standing as Scotland. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you comparing 'regions' with 'constituent countries'? One is within the other. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An MP from NEE? is equal to an MP from Glasgow. Why? They're all within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes Scotland more of a country then England? Why is constituent country acceptable for three quarters of the the UK but not Scotland? -MichiganCharms (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Downing street ref says nothing about constituent countries and the reason I brought up the English region is that GD said that they should be treated the same because the where all represented at westminster go figure, also the former First Minister also knew that Scotland is a nation [5] --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This country – constituent country – nation thing is verging on the ridiculous. Scotland is a country, a constituent country, a nation – all three are verifiably correct. There is nothing set in stone that says the UK country articles must use the same description. If a consensus was to be developed for simply country without the constituent, what's the problem? The article itself describes its relationship within the UK. Bill Reid | Talk 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. Firstly, "constituent country" is wiki-ization. Such a term has no formal validity, and it is certainly not a proper noun. We need to stop presenting it as some important legal concept in the UK ... it isn't. Secondly, the political structure of the UK is virtually anarchic ... it isn't formalized like the states and provinces of Canada, Australia or the US. England exists as "England and Wales" and as "England", and all three devolved parliamentary bodies have different powers from each other, while England and the UK are governed as the same. And Northern Ireland isn't a commonly described as a country or a nation, whereas Scotland, England and Wales are. Stop with all this square pegs for round holes stuff. Wiki cannot be any more formalized on this that the hodge-podge of customs and statutes misleadingly called "UK law" ... and certainly it is humorously ironic to invoke the latter by implication as a means of standardizing wiki treatment of these four articles! Humorously ironic! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you type "constituent country" Scotland in to Google you will get over 24,000 hits from a variety of reputable sources, so how can you claim that it is "Wiki-ization"? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Not interested in google hits. Try searching "constituent country" in google books ... not one use as a proper noun, and mostly nothing to do with the UK. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that because they are published online rather than in print, the likes of British Council aren't reliable sources? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The source you're using certainly has no usefulness. 99% chance there the guy writing in that webpage was using wikipedia as a source. A google search will almost always tell you more about textual replication than usage. Book search shows how people in the non-internet world write about things. Anyway, the point is that the way "constituent country" is being used on this talk page tells you more about the reliance of the people using it on wikipedia than about anything more general or worthwhile! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What some staffer for the BC has decided to say is not even in the same league as a edited, published, scholarly work. And actually having looked at the page (ignoring the standard stereotype of kilts fags and monster picture - surprised they didn't add in a "see you jimmy" wig and a flying haggis - how wonderful) the text you quote is a carbon copy of our opening lead - so they should actually be contacted and made aware they are breaking the terms of the GFDL for not attributing wikipedia. SFC9394 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha ... indeedie. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so that was a bad example. However, just because your sources do not refer to Scotland as a constituent country it does not mean that it is not a valid description. I have an atlas published in 2007 which describes Scotland as a constituent country, a country and a nation, but primiarily as a "constituent country of the United Kingdom". The three terms are not mutually exclusive. For example, just because Edinburgh can be described as a city does not mean that it cannot be described as a capital city. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like 'Brits' versus 'nats' again. Either way you are all going around in circles. Scotland is NOT A STATE. We are all agreed on that score. However, as for the rest, none of you are right, and more to the point, none of you are wrong.

Scotland is a Country, albeit a 'Constituent Country'

Scotland is a Nation, albeit a 'Home Nation'

Scotland is a Kingdom, albeit within a unified realm

Without a written constitution which specifies what Scotland is, short of a State, it can be whatever we see fit to call it. Nobody would be breaking ANY rules if any of the three styles above were used.

What seems to be the basic problem here is that the Scotland article editors have sought to do something which the England, Wales and Northern Ireland editors have not, namely adopt a style of title which has not been adopted on any of these other articles. (Cries of "impudent Scots" and "why should they be different" are heard throughout the realms of Wikiworld).

As the Scotland article is supposedly superior in terms of layout and content to all the others, if the the England article adopted "England is a nation in northwest Europe and one of the four Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom", and the Wales article adopted "Wales is a Principality in northwest Europe and one of the four Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom", and the Northern Ireland article adopted "Northern Ireland is a Province in northwest Europe and one of the four Constituent Countries of the United Kingdom", then there would be no need for any of this nonsense.

The problem here is not what Scotland is styled in the article, but that the article fails to mirror those of the remaining UK constituent countries. Therefore the desire by certain editors to insist upon uniformity is what lies behind this - nothing more. Each to there own I say and leave well alone. Devolution if not outright Independence is alive and well in Wikiworld and nobody should have the right to stifle it. Vive La Différence! and lets concern ourselves with improving the quality of the article instead of sitting around picking flea crap out of pepper! Rab-k (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting & accurate. It is a consistancy vs indiviual article dispute. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Rab, If I got you right, I said more or less what you said in 2½ lines instead of 17! GoodDay, as I said before, I don't see any need for consistency in the lead. Are there any wiki-rules that says in the UK country articles you will have have the term "constituent country" or "country" or "nation". Its purely the way editors develop the article and how other editors amend it. The article was stable under the term nation until this hoo-ha. Bill Reid | Talk 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay Bill, I have a tendency to be verbose, but we are indeed in agreement. Rab-k (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• What should we do about the use of "nation" in the intro, and of the other options which do you prefer?

• Please select from the following options and
  sign your comments
  :

• • A Keep "nation" and leave as it is.
  • B Use the term "country".
  • C Use the term "constituent country".
  • D Use something else (please state what)
  • E Use option A or B with a greater explanation of its place in the UK
  • F Don't think it matters that much

Please sign below: —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichiganCharms (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

E - Traditional unionist (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
E - Eddie6705 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please be reminded that Wikipedia works by consensus building through discussion, not through votes. If you favour A, B, C, D, E or F, please explain why. Such explanations give us a better chance to assess the consensus in the discussion. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

D - "Scotland is a country in North West Europe that has been part of the United Kingdom for over 300 years". Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC):

B or A I would also love to see how E would work something along the lines of Scotland is part of the United Kingdom and also a nation --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment – C is the most accurate term although A or B could also legitimately be used, however A is ambiguous and may be confused for nation state. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 18:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
C, Because the other 'three' related article use it. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Snowball the vote - As per
  Wikipedia is Not a democracy. MichiganCharms has posted around all the talks drumming up support - stacking. We already have two votes from people who have not posted anything in this discussion. The activities here have become a farce. SFC9394 (talk
  ) 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hardly see how

friendly notices to individual users. Dan1980 (talk | stalk

) 18:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read this discussion then you will see entirely how it is stacking. I will quote directly from

WP:VOTE "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions" - yet you have not participated in this discussion at all. MichiganCharms has been adament that the content decisions on this article should not be made by editors here, but by others. SFC9394 (talk

) 18:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all I would like to point out that I have not voted, simply added a comment. Secondly, I really don't see what the problem is with inviting editors of the other UK and constituent countries' articles to this discussion. Your comments seem to go against the spirit of

WP:OWN. As far as I can see the only thing that MichiganCharms has done wrong is starting a vote (and incidentally straw polls are not banned, however the results are not binding). Dan1980 (talk | stalk

) 19:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"I really don't see what the problem is with inviting editors of the other UK and constituent countries' articles to this discussion" They weren't invited to a discussion, they were invited to a vote. If OWN is in place then the invite should have been to RFC, not attempting to shape the audiance coming here. Again, I would urge you to read the discussion above - if you do you will see exactly why that selective invite was given - all to facilitate an outcome that all 4 articles must be the same. SFC9394 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already read the discussion, but do not see what relevance that bears to your claim that the invite was selective. If you look at the talk pages of the articles that MichiganCharms posted on you will see that editors from various countries around the world edit these articles and have varying viewpoints, as is clear from the numerous discussions on those pages. I don't see how that fits in with the definition of votestacking:

"Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote." Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Voteshaping would be a far better term. RFC was the place. SFC9394 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that RfC would have been a better option and that

assumed good faith rather than jumping in and making accusations of votestacking. If you feel that RfC is the best way to deal with the matter, then why not go ahead and take it there? Anyway, I've added by view on the debate and I'm not going to get in to an arguement, so good luck coming to a consensus. Dan1980 (talk | stalk

) 19:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"no reasonable consensus can be reached". A perfectly reasonable consensus has existed for the last 2 years, you just don't like it because you don't agree with it. And the only reason it comes up every 6 months is because "one time use" SPA accounts keep wading in, just like our 3RR banned editor who started off this version of it. SFC9394 (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a consensus if every few months it's challenged, and besides that, it's been country at various points in the past few years so how strong are you committed to nation? I have no opinion on the issue, I just want to best represent reality which nation certainly doesn't do and I also believe the intros should be standardised. -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's not a consensus if every few months it's challenged". That represents a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia. Inclusion of drawings of

Mohammed has been and is challenged every single day - however it is the consensus that they stay. The usage of the word nation has been spelt out with perfect clarity - you just don't want to hear it - we are citing not only scholarly works, but absolutely definitive works of a generation. We cite academics, we cite formal usage, we cite public usage, we cite colloquial usage - it is all ignored. SFC9394 (talk

) 19:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed is a poor example, because that's about censorship. Nation just doesn't describe Scotland, that is it. It describes the Scottish people, but not Scotland itself. I think there's a broad consensus to use country, are you ok witht hat? -MichiganCharms (talk

) 19:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That assertion, that nation describes the Scottish people, but not Scotland has been debunked on this page about seven times! Seriously! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Nation just doesn't describe Scotland" Yet the vast, lengthy, definitive, scholarly, colloquial and diverse set of citations we provide show it does. Why can't you accept that? Can you tell me why the two most well respected books about Scotland produced in the last half century are called "Scotland: The Story of a Nation" & "The Scottish Nation: 1700-2000"? It is not an accident. SFC9394 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, we need to automate some bots! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a total farce. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - as indeed I am with Bill Reid's helpful comments above. Perhaps we could request the protection of the talk page as well? I am sure those of us interested in creating a decent encylopaedia could wait a few weeks to continue our duties and allow those of us interested in the practice of exploring the near and far shores of circumlocutory on-line debate to discover pastures new. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason we can't use country? It's worlds less objectionable then nation and it was agreed to when this whole thing was initially started. I don't have a horse in this race, I don't care what word you put in there as long as it's accurate and agreeable and won't cause this same mess to be repeated every few months. Is there any objection to using country? -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the word nation is just as correct, outlined in my post above where I point out that a vast, lengthy, definitive, scholarly, colloquial and diverse set of citations we provide to show it is correct. SFC9394 (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I don't mind if 'nation' is used in the lead. I don't mind if 'country' is used in the lead. As long as they're used in Northern Ireland, Wales and England. PS- If they're used? we'll have to make changes to the United Kingdom article's lead, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't have the same status. I'll let Deacon-bot come in here: the political structure of the UK is virtually anarchic ... it isn't formalized like the states and provinces of Canada, Australia or the US. England exists as "England and Wales" and as "England", and all three devolved parliamentary bodies have different powers from each other, while England and the UK are governed as the same. And Northern Ireland isn't a commonly described as a country or a nation, whereas Scotland, England and Wales are. Stop with all this square pegs for round holes stuff. Wiki cannot be any more formalized on this that the hodge-podge of customs and statutes misleadingly called "UK law" ... etc. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the forementioned books? Those books are about the people of Scotland, they're not soley geography books. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The books are about Scotland; its history, geography, people, places, activities, industries, war, peace - and having read them I know. This article is on Scotland; its history, geography, people, places, activities, industries, war, peace. This article is not solely on geography - your point completely and utterly falls to bits. SFC9394 (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, Besides the fact that I see no signs that you have comprehended all the above responses made to this very same point, Scotland: The Story of a Nation for instance seems to be about ... erm ... Scotland! Yes, the same title as the article we're all talking about. Unless the author isn't writing in English that is. Assuming he is reasonably fluent in English and writes in that language, his title is the same as this article's! Need more be said, or do I have to let Deacon-bot do its thing again? ;) All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why am I being picked on (just joking)? Again (in case I didn't say it loudly enough) - I'm not against using 'nation' or 'country' in the lead. I'm against the 'four' articles having different leads. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You wanting to see Deacon-bot again? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What & where's this Deacon-bot thing? I've haven't seen it 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

the political structure of the UK is virtually anarchic ... it isn't formalized like the states and provinces of Canada, Australia or the US. England exists as "England and Wales" and as "England", and all three devolved parliamentary bodies have different powers from each other, while England and the UK are governed as the same. And Northern Ireland isn't a commonly described as a country or a nation, whereas Scotland, England and Wales are. Stop with all this square pegs for round holes stuff. Wiki cannot be any more formalized on this that the hodge-podge of customs and statutes misleadingly called "UK law" ... etc. Deacon-bot 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

See my response below. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The objection to country here seems to be because of a massive case of

You keep bringing

WP:OWN up. I haven't seen anyone claim sole write to edit this article. Best to stick to arguments please, and keep suspicions of WP:Own to yourself for now! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a blatant sense of "us vs them" here, as though someone is trying to take something away from you. It's pretty bizarre, truth be told that you cant accept changing one line of a description to another equally valid description. Country is less confusing then nation, it's probably better then nation. Why is this such a massive issue? -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less what the line says. If perceptions of "us and them" are being created, then statements such as objection to country here seems to be because of a massive case of

WP:OWN hardly do anything to detract from that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• E Scotland fits the criteria of a nation; a people who identify themselves as one, with their own history, culture and laws. London recognises (to an extent) that it has a right to self-determination. Compare it with another (former) subject of the British government, Ireland. Even under British rule there was little doubt they considered themselves a nation.--Gazzster (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

E For the plain and simple reason that it is a country - be it a "constituent country" or otherwise - and that nation can be applied - be that in a more loose sense, although it doesn't matter in the context as the "Scotland" article describes the history, culture, economy, etc. of the Scottish people just as much as (more than?) the "land" itself. The confusion arises over the way "state", "country" and "nation" are commonly conflated. Either of the latter two can be applied to Scotland (without prejudice to the United Kingdom as a whole). Only the former cannot. As a preference, I would side with "nation" as it at least is not used interchangeably with "state", though either are fine.

There is no necessity to "harmonise" the SCO/ENG/WAL/NI articles (as has been suggested above). It would not only be impractical, but also untrue to try to pass the three off as being mirrors of each other (if it's causing trouble here of all places, just imagine trying to describe Northern Ireland as a "country" or "nation"!) --sony-youth^pléigh 20:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my concerns at Talk: United Kingdom, if nation or country is adopted by this article. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My response to the Deacon bot: You've raised an interesting point, concerning Wales. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

E- prefer nation Astrotrain (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible?

People, is it possible to have nation (or country) in this article's lead, without disrupting the article leads of England, Wales, Northern Ireland & above all United Kingdom? GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, since we've never had anything other than those two choices over the last seven years, I would have to say, "Yes, of course. Experience proves it." -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that was the situation before you asked for the article to be protected --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I accept nation or country in the lead here. PS- Deacon's got my attention about Wales, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A or B. It can hardly be seriously suggested that Scotland isn't both (for 'country, see this anthology). I see no reason why the opening sentence should blindly follow the style of other European countries, although i note the overwhelming majority use 'country'(and I don't think any of them go on to state that they are constituent countries of the EU). The opening paragraph as written at present seems to harmonise different threads of opinion as to the degree to which its status as a part of the United Kingdom should be emphasised.

But in any event, can't this discussion be given a rest? It comes up every few months. ariwara (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"... can't this discussion be given a rest?" Agreed. We have gone over this many, many, many times before. How on earth do we stop disruptive passers-by from getting this page blocked, and splattering totally unsourced opinion all over the talk page, just because they cannot be arsed reading through the pages upon pages of archived Talk on this subject? Even if they did just a little research before writing here, they would realise what an immense resource of rich external references exist. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Where is the official source that Scotland is a nation? I have several for "country" and "part" but nothing for nation. Statements not supported by a

You'll find it between the official real definition of the word nation and the official decryption of the Book of Revelation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"official source" - ? Is this a new Wikipedia policy? Until then,

verifiable sources for "nation" are dime a dozen: see any number of published books

, for example. Browsing through those, this on jumps out at me as being particularly clear:

"Although unquestionably a nation, however, Scotland does not possess the full trappings of a modern nation state. Specifically, it can be described as a stateless nation ..." - Bairner, A., 2001, Sport, Nationalism, and Globalization: European and North American Perspectives, SUNY Press: New York

--sony-youth^pléigh 11:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to this point, there are plenty of excellent sources that will inform you that a nation is defined in the way contended and that only the Scottish people, rather than Scotland, can be given this label. For me, what swings the matter is that a country is often used as convenient shorthand for its people. Thus a source saying that 'Scotland is a nation' need not be any more persuasive on this matter than a statement that 'yesterday, the United States voted on X' suggests that somehow a government was awarded the franchise and dutifully popped down to the polling station to tick a ballot paper.

At very least, this this is not a matter in which unambiguous judgements can be rendered. If it is to be inserted, it should at the very least be given the counterweight of the opposing argument. This would make the statement in the introduction unsuitable--Breadandcheese (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A notable and very much in point quote, handed down in a judgement regarding whether discrimination against a Scottish person in England could satisfy the provisions of the Race Relations Act:

"Scotland is not a nation in the eye of international law, but Scotsmen constitute a nation by reason of those most powerful elements in the creation of national spirit: tradition, folk memory and a sentiment of community. The Scots are a nation because of Bannockburn and Flodden, Culloden and the pipes at Lucknow, because of Jenny Geddes and Flora Macdonald, because of frugal living and respect for learning, because of Robert Burns and Walter Scott. So, too, the English are a nation - because Norman, Angevin and Tudor monarchs forged them together, because their land is mostly sea-girt, because of the common law and of gifts for poetry and parliamentary government, because, despite the Wars of the Roses and Old Trafford and Headingley, Yorkshireman and Lancastrian feel more in common than in difference and are even prepared at a pinch to extend their sense of community to southern folk" Per Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Ealing LBC v. Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342 at 364--Breadandcheese (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Errr... Scotland is a nation (and a state) in international law. Have a look at the

Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi articles and their external refs; among many other Scots law articles. In fact Scotland is unique in the world in this respect: having a totally autonomous criminal justice system, but not being a sovereign state. --Mais oui! (talk

) 13:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Domicile (law) topic and ext refs are also highly relevant here. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How can Scotland be unique in that respect? If Scotland has an autonomous criminal justice system, doesn't

talk

) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

David McCrone's Understanding Scotland, pp. 47-53, seems relevant. "Whether or not Scotland is a nation evokes strong responses. [explanation for this state of affairs removed] ... it is quite proper to treat Scotland as a nation without implying that it should be a state." (McCrone, p. 47) Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

D - "country" and "nation" Laurel Bush (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

B or C is acceptable. Scotland is clearly a country; whether it is also a nation depends on the exact meaning you attach to the word nation. There's a tendency to use the term nation to mean something different from sovereign state; Canada recently acknowledge Quebec as a nation, but that doesn't mean its a sovereign country. Let's call it a country, which is undeniably true, and leave arguing about nation to the rest of the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Quebec. Canada did not recognize Quebec as a 'nation'. It recognized the Quebecers as a nation. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies you are right. I hoped to clear this up without getting into whether it is the Quebecois/Scottish rather than Quebec/Scotland that is a nation. Frankly it is beyond me why anyone would want to be classed as a nation (group of people who may or may not have a homeland to call their own) rather than a country. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

C or at least B. This article should follow the norm of similar articles. So far the arguments for C and D are much more convincing.Inge (talk) 11:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

C - Regardless of what many on wikipedia would like to have us believe people tend understand "nation" to refer to a sovereign state. Scotland, England, Wales etc are not nations. They are regions of the United Kingdom. "Constituent country" is the term which carries the least amount of nationalistic wishful thinking and is thus the best piece of nomenclature for this article. siarach (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The alternative meaning of nation, which is also widely understood, is that of a group of related people. Thus the Quebecois, the

Acadians, and the pre-state Palestinians can/could all refer to themselves as 'nations'. In this sense Scotland (or more technically the Scottish) can refer to themselves as a nation. But they can also refer to Scotland as a country, which implies a good deal more autonomy and ownership of some territory. DJ Clayworth (talk

) 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are the Scottish people a nation? -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are. But Scotland itself isn't. However, the pro-nation pushers, won't accept that. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Scotland is a nation, and needs the responsibility of governing itself." (The Times, 2007-02-13); "I am quite certain that Scotland is a nation ... What is Britain? Where is Britain? There is no such place. There never was a nation of Britain; there never was a King of Britain; unless perhaps Vortigern or Uther Pendragon had a taste for the title." (G. K. Chesterton, "Edward VII. and Scotland" in All Things Considered); "In short, Scotland is a nation that is, not a state, and Edinburgh, where it often seems that the clocks stopped in 1707, is no romantic town." (The Nation, 1982-01-23). Plenty more out there, more that enough to show that is in no way unusual to say that Scotland is a nation. I'd say "Scotland is a country", but I am unduly concerned one way or the other. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal redux

I'm willing to admit that having now read 'Scotland: The Story of a Nation' I formally agree that in this case it fits. My desire to make the four pieces of the puzzle that is the UK harmonized will either have to be abandoned or make Scotland the example. I'm leaning toward the former. The proposal: Can we please have the protection removed? -MichiganCharms (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"My desire to make the four pieces of the puzzle that is the UK harmonized... ". Well, that little bit of revealing honesty pretty much sums up this whole wild goose chase! You, and lots and lots of other people over the centuries (mostly politicians), have had a strong desire to harmonise the unharmonious, and create a uniform union from the dis-united. While that desire should be properly documented (and externally referenced) by Wikipedia, it should be made crystal clear that the desire to harmonise the constituent parts of the United Kingdom was never satisfied (in fact its death-knell was written into the very document which founded the Union: the Articles of Union of 1707, when the continued independence of the College of Justice and the Court of Session were guaranteed).

In order to clarify for readers that the UK is not a federation or confederation, and that its constituent parts have dramatically different, assymetrical powers/status, I propose that we explicitly list at the Constituent countries article which powers each country has, eg:

• Scotland: Executive body: SG; Legislature: SP; Brief summary of powers, esp. separate legal system; education system etc.
• NI: Executive body: NIE; Legislature: NIA; Brief summary of powers, esp. separate legal system but which is currently reserved (although devolution of justice is imminent I understand).
• Wales: Executive body: WAG; Legislature (very limited legislative powers): NAW; Brief summary of powers, esp. fact that legal system is shared with England.
• England: Executive body: none (directly governed by HMG); Legislature: none (directly governed by UKP); Brief summary of powers, esp. fact that legal system is shared with Wales.

--Mais oui! (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That does seem like a good idea, many misunderstand this relationship, so I'd fully support clarification on that article as long as it is properly sourced, of course. Though I'd add that federalising the UK has been a goal of most governments -MichiganCharms (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Though I'd add that federalising the UK has been a goal of most governments." Errr... and your source for that is.... ?

No UK government or major political party (Tory, Whig, Liberal, Conservative, Labour or coaltion) has ever even discussed "federalising the UK", let alone had it in a manifesto or introduced legislation. The only people who have ever even mooted somesuch are very marginal figures like Tony Benn, George Foulkes or the Liberal Democrats, and even then that is only very recently.

You really, really must do some very basic homework before even considering editing on UK constitutional topics! --Mais oui! (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you think because it hasn't been written in a manifesto or openly discussed in Parliament that it hasn't been a goal? Devolution is almost certainly a part of it, in fact the UK has been in a process of becoming federalised for years... this makes a rather minor source [6] It's just the natural progression of the state. I don't need to do any additional homework on the subject, we have differing opinions on the state of federalism in the UK. In my general area of expertise (which is British law as it relates to Northern Ireland, as well as the British Empire) I'm quite well read and researched. Either way, my knowledge on a topic completely unrelated to this article is not relevant especially since in my entire edit history I haven't made an incorrect edit nor one on a British constitutional matter. -MichiganCharms (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not the

property of it's editors. I object to the statement that only seasoned editors of this particular article have "jurisdiction" over it. All editors of wikipedia have the right to decide what happens to this article. A core of editors on scottish articles are protecting their version of several articles using "consensus" as a stick to fend off "outsiders". Particularily here this has happened again and again. It seems clear to me that some editors feel ownership to the article and are too passionate about this issue. Those editors should take a step back and let new forces in.Inge (talk

) 11:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is this "statement that only seasoned editors of this particular article have "jurisdiction" over it"? I can find no such statement anywhere on this Talk page. If new editors wish to gain respect from fellow editors then they should refrain from making wildly inaccurate statements about the topic at hand, which simply reveals that they do not have the slightest scoobie. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he is refering to the fact that new editors find it difficult to edit this article as they will always be reverted by the more established editors, and any attempt to discuss anything is dimissed with a reference to a discussion made several years ago in the talk page. Astrotrain (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about this one example off the top of my head:

"If you read this discussion then you will see entirely how it is stacking. I will quote directly from

WP:VOTE "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions" - yet you have not participated in this discussion at all. MichiganCharms has been adament that the content decisions on this article should not be made by editors here, but by others. SFC9394 (talk

) 18:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)"

This was made in response to a comment I made that inviting neutral editors who have edited other UK related articles should not be considered votestacking and was made after I had already participated in the discussion, therefore making the statement "you have not participated in this discussion at all" absolute nonsense. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This has always been a problem on articles which attract editors from nationalist backgrounds, particuarly Scotland and Ireland. One editor will automatically remove any addition or change made to the Scotland article stating it is either "unsourced" or has not been discussed. Astrotrain (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And as you well know, editors with a British nationalist background are as pure as the driven snow ;) If you want to add (or remove) anything to Wikipedia, especially anything likely to be contested, you really ought to have rock solid external refs. Only then can we all progress articles from a solid base. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

All nationalistic groups are guilty of page protectionism. However, Scottish articles are particuarly bad. Astrotrain (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the possibility (on one of the editor's pages) that there could be charges of group ownership on this article. It seems my fears have been confirmed. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

To use an American expression; "you guys crack me up". The McCarthyist paranoia of Astrotrain re. nationalist conspirators is laughable. It may disappoint you that the Kingdom of Scotland didn't sink without trace into Magnæ Angliæ, but the distinctions between Scotland, England and the remainder of the UK exist, despite all that has gone on over the past four centuries. To be labelled a "nationalist" simply for pointing out such differences as referenced facts is ludicrous.

There is nothing contentious in the Scotland article as far as I and others are concerned. The drive for uniformity amongst the UK Constituent Country articles is the problem here, with some editors using this as an excuse to attack editors who appear to raise the status of Scotland to something above its supposed rightful place of mere Constituent Country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. Scotland is not a State but a UK Constituent Country, however it is one whose status, enshrined in the Acts of Union 1707 and Government of Scotland Act 1998, has no equivalent. Even the Monarchy since 1603 has distinguished between Scotland and the remainder by using arms and other heraldic devices and titles specific to Scotland. These differences, in all their many forms, should be celebrated as part of the rich tapestry that makes up the UK and all it's parts - not crammed into a one-size-fits-all for the sake of uniformity.

Whether someone regards themselves as British first, last and always, or alternatively as a Scot whose only British aspect is the Passport which they have been issued, is irrelevant. The UK Constituent Country articles need not, should not and must not be driven by the misplaced need for uniformity for, as the facts outlined in each individual article will confirm, such a thing is in very short supply even within the UK itself. All the UK Constituent Countries differ from each other in their own way, why shouldn't this fact be reflected in the articles themselves? Rab-k (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've no problem with nation being in the lead; no problem with province being in Northern Ireland's lead; no problem with Wales and/or England having something unique in their respective leads. As long as those differances are shown in the United Kingdom's lead. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then would it not be fair to say that you have a problem with the United Kingdom article rather than anything else? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a fair assessment. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There's surely no need for that kind of detail in the lead of the UK article, and it would make the lead overly complicated. Simply stating that the UK is made up of four constituent countries is both accurate and concise. I don't think anyone disputes that constituent country is accurate. It may not be complete, but there's the whole rest of the article to talk a little about what the four countries are and the differences between them, not to mention links (in the lead) to the articles on those countries themselves.

Hobson (talk

) 21:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just picked up on all of this and I haven't really anything to add to what has been so eloquently said by others previously other than to stress my opposition to anything that would be done to shoehorn all of the Wiki articles on England, NI, Scotland and Wales into the same constitutional framework. Scotland was, after all, one of the founding kingdoms of the political union which evolved into the present UK, and that should be reflected. Regardless of which option is chosen, the four constituent partners in the UK are on a different footing and it would seem simply wrong-headed if the appropriate Wiki-articles did not reflect that disparity.Jaygtee (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would any patriotic Scotsman want to refer to themselves as a mere nation (which may be a group of people who may or may not have any kind of territorial autonomy - see Quebecois,

Editors who want to have 'nation' or 'country' in the lead? IMHO, need to first proove that Scotland is an independant Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The point is that without a written constitution you can't prove or disprove any of it. The only thing you can prove is that Scotland is not a State, the rest, my friend, is open to interpretation. Rab-k (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You can proove or dis-proove. Does Gord Brown's prime-ministerhsip cover Scotland? Is Elizabeth II seperately 'Queen of Scotland' from her position in England, Wales & Northern Ireland? Again, where's the beef? GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither of those affects the position of Scotland as a Country, Nation or Kingdom within the Sovereign State of the UK of GB & NI. Nobody disputes that Scotland is 'part' of the UK of GB & NI. What that 'part' is styled is what seems to get people's backs up. Those in N.America have it easy: USA=State. Canada=Province (How's the weather in PEI BTW?) Here, things aint that simple. Rab-k (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, nation or country don't apply unless Scotland is independant. Also, it's mild on PEI. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Never heard the term "Stateless nation"? Not a term I just invented. (14,000+ hits on Google). Rab-k (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Noted, but I think the most NPOV term for this article? is constituent country. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You may think that, but as a phrase it's so unusual (books; scholar; news archive) as to constitute a hapax legomenon. Even on raw ghits, it's an extremely unusual form of words compared to the alternatives. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression that some contributors, principally to earlier debates, couldn't give a fig whether Scotland was termed a "Country", "Nation" or "Kingdom", just so long as the word "Constituent" appears in front of it as a rider to indicate a lack of sovereignty, or lack of independence, or lack of right to exist as anything other than a political sub-division of the UK. Personally, I call it "home". What's in a name... Rab-k (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I cant help but think some people will not be happy until the intro goes something along the lines of Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In these last 'two days', I've gone from rejecting the usage of nation and/or 'country' to conditional supporting of the nation/country & who know about tommorow. Honestly, I considering departing this discussion for fear of loosing what little sanity I've got. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I can't help but think if some people bothered to read the full intro, (as opposed to just the first sentence), including down to and including the para beginning "The Kingdom of Scotland...", there would be no apparent confusion and no need for discussion. Rab-k (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

With no 'sources' to back my views (I'm not very good at finding & linking sources) & what little sanity I've got, eroding? I'm departing this discussion. PS- I've invited a couple of my friends to give their opinons on these issues. See ya'll. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal Three

Could this settle all disputes? -MichiganCharms (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the bizarre omission of Scotland's geographical location in the world: north west Europe; the most serious problem is that the external reference provided to support the "constituent country" term does not actually call Scotland a "constituent country": the Prime Minister's website actually refers to Scotland as simply a "country":

... and one of the [[constituent countries]]<ref> The website of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom states that "The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland". {{cite web|url=http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp|title=Countries within a country|accessdate=2007-09-10|work=10 Downing Street}}</ref> that make up the [[United Kingdom]].

Many other official UK sources also refer to Scotland as a country, not as a constituent country:

Although the term 'constituent countries' is sometimes used by official government bodies in the UK, such as the [[Office for National Statistics]], it is rarely used otherwise. Far more frequently, they are simply referred to as countries; thus the 2001 British Census asked residents of the UK their "country of birth" with tick box options of: Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland; England; Republic of Ireland and Elsewhere;<ref>[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp 2001 British Census.]</ref> and the [[Office for National Statistics]] states authoritatively in its glossary that "In the context of the UK, each of the four main subdivisions (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) is referred to as a country".<ref>[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/glossary/c.asp Office for National Statistics.]</ref> The British Embassy in the [[United States]] uses the word 'countries' on its website, rather than constituent countries: "The United Kingdom is made up of the countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."<ref>[http://www.britainusa.com/sections/index_nt1.asp?i=41131&L1=41127&L2=41131&L3=41011&d=4 British Embassy in the United States of America.]</ref>

--Mais oui! (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to insert that it's located in north west Europe, there's a map directly to the side of it. The reference is not mine, it's been on the article since before this debate began and is used on the other UK articles to source constituent country. -MichiganCharms (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind everyone here of Category:Scotland stubs. This talk page has become a gigantic hole in wikipedia's human resource tank. That category is full of useful things everyone can do. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy

But this article -

the Kingdom of England & the Kingdom of Scotland became the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. Great Britain & Ireland became the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland in 1801 & the 5/6th of Ireland broke away in 1927, leaving the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not conduct this discussion here. Take it here:

• Talk:List of countries by formation dates

... or here:

• Talk:United Kingdom

And please, please, please note: "Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs... " --Mais oui! (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm rather displeased that this issue is still taking up the time of good editors. As I've said above, I don't think it really is controversial to call Scotland a "nation", not least in Scotland where it is pretty standard, people or land irrespectively. Being Scottish myself, and knowing the spectra of the ideological atmosphere, I know that an objection to this status has a good chance of coming across as mildly offensive, even to Scots who aren't particularly "nationalistic". Among non-Scots and more particularly among people living outside the British Isles, this usage can fall out of line to some extent with what many often expect the term "nation" to mean, i.e. a "sovereign state". This I think is a fair summary of the arguments by GoodDay and others. I think I was right earlier when I perhaps pretentiously described this as tension within the "Discourse community", and this I think rather than "British nationalist" v "Scottish nationalist" accounts for as much if not most of the argumentation here. I think this can be worked out though, and it'd certainly help if we avoided all mention of nationalism, accurate or not, as it is unlikely to do any good beyond polarizing the discussion. I thereby forward an alternative wording. The main concern is to find a line between stating "nation" or "country" as fact and stating it as opinion too strongly, thereby making it appear spurious and thus offensive and perhaps misrepresentative of the majority of usage:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is commonly thought of as a nation and as a country, though it is also a constituent country in the United Kingdom. It is bounded by the North Sea to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the north and west, and the North Channel and Irish Sea to the southwest, and shares a land border to the south with England. Apart from the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands.[6]

If everyone can tell me what they think of this suggestion, I'd be interested to know. If you see problems, I'd be interested to know too, so I can maybe try again. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your informed contribution. However, may I respectfully suggest that we are never going to get a stable, consensual introductory sentence/paragraph unless we re-inforce consensus with rock solid external references, per official Wikipedia policy

Northern Irish

, or any other, domicile. Indeed it is Scotland's ongoing independent legal system which makes it truly notable in international law and politics.

Thus, in line with the generally accepted Wikipedia standard -

WP:NOTABILITY - I think that the introduction really must make the unique status of Scots law

in the world crystal clear. (Again, backed-up by rock solid ext refs, per WP:VERIFY.)

Exactly which respected external references are you going to cite to back up the statement that Scotland "is commonly thought of as a nation and as a country"? They'd better be bloody good, cos you just know that this page will become ip troll-central if we don't present a proper case. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

References are the least of the problem, just pull a bunch of books off google books that speak of Scotland as a country and nation. Many may dispute that Scotland is a nation, but none can dispute that it is called such. "Commonly" too strong in some way? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea, Deacon. That's subtle enough that perhaps we can defend it without an external reference. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it too. It doesn't need a reference either. Astrotrain (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would we want to have to defend it without good ext refs, when it is so straightforward to provide them? We should not expect every reader to have to refer to Google Books every time they doubt a statement in Wikipedia! (Deacon: "commonly" is absolutely fine - that cannot possibly be contested by any reasonable observer.) --Mais oui! (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont think we need a reference for the most obvious of statements. Astrotrain (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"I dont think we need a reference for the most obvious of statements". Oh, if only that were true!! I am afraid that long experience here at Wikipedia shows that there is an endless supply of ip sockpuppets and meatpuppets who will gleefully revert the most obvious of statements without a second thought. (That is assuming that these cretins have the ability to think.) If we agree the wording here at Talk, then back it up per

WP:VERIFY, then the mass hordes of ip socks can be blocked as soon as they rear their ugly, edit-warring heads. --Mais oui! (talk

) 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, or they will find some other "policy" or "guideline" to back up a revert. Astrotrain (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine! I do not mind having a sincere discussion based on official Wikipedia policies or widely accepted Wikipedia guidelines. What I do object to is the hordes of ip socks and meats being left to target this article over the years, and then when our long-established editors revert the twats they get blocked (eg. Deacon last year) or the whole bloody page gets locked while hilariously ill/under-informed newbies spout a load of totally unsourced opinion as if it were God's Honest Truth handed down from Mount flippin Sinai. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that mistaken block was regarding the national anthem. I'm not sure I ever touched the opening line bit! So, we looks like my suggestion may go somewhere. We've still got a we bit until the page is unprotected, so everyone else here as plenty of time to add their voice. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW gets my vote. Rab-k (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I support Deacon's proposal. Quite a good compromise. -MichiganCharms (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sensible proposal - let's just get it done so we can move on! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is commonly thought of as a nation and as a country, though it is also a constituent country in the United Kingdom. seems to be generally accepted, however, a minor amendment, at least to me, could be considered:

Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is commonly regarded to be a nation and a country, though it is also a constituent country in the United Kingdom.

To my way of thinking thought of is slightly vague term whereas regarded to be i.e. is held to be could be a firmer way of expressing the same compromise. However, if we've got the best way forward with Deacon's suggestion then let's go with it. Bill Reid | Talk 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'though' in this sounds like a 'however', when in reality there is no contradiction between being holding these statuses. An appropriate alteration may be:

::: Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is commonly regarded to be a nation and a country, and is a constituent country of the United Kingdom. --Breadandcheese (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, FWIW, I consider the suggestion put forward by Breadandcheese to be an ideal compromise. Rab-k (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Minor grammar tweak though. "Regarded as" would be better than "regarded to be". Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a fair compromise. However, I've a gripe about the sentence construction. The repetition of the word "country" in the second sentence ("country" followed by "constituent country") troubles me a lot. It just doesn't sound right and isn't terribly great sentence construction, especially when read aloud. These are the first sentences of the article and really do need to have a tight prose. I understand we need to have all elements included, but can it be worded a different way, without sounding like an attack of the stutters? Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

After following this from the sidelines for some time I'd like to weigh in in favour of the proposal put forward by Breadandcheese which strikes me as pretty much an ideally neutral compromise, with a nod to the same stylistic reservations already made above. As an opening sentence it does need to be a little tighter... I'm not sure if substituting a 'one' for the repeated 'a' in the second clause softens the repetition enough to achieve this or not, but what about:

::: Scotland (Gaelic: Alba) occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain. It is commonly regarded as a nation and a country, and is one constituent country of the United Kingdom. Splateagle (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I support Deacon's proposal. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just updated the archive summary for A15. The discussion that continues here was raised no fewer than five times in that archive. I applaud the ongoing efforts of all who continue to contribute to the debate and attempt to reach a consensus. Nonetheless, to me, the most remarkable feature of the discussion is that whilst many new facts and references were presented, few truly new ideas emerged. In the same vein, it is to be hoped that some form of wording will be found that appeals to most if not all, and I don't want to discourage that process. However, I feel compelled to suggest that whilst one or other of the variants above may be marginally better than the existing phraseology they are all, to my mind, minor re-workings. For example, Globaltraveller queries the use of 'country' twice in quick succession, and he has a point. Presumably one of the reasons the existing phrase lasted so long is that it avoids this problem. There is further small problem with the use of "occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain" in this context. The existing wording cleverly avoids the implication that mainland Scotland is all and the whole, but the variants above suggest that it is by moving the phrase forward. I am not particularly attached, but in all honesty I can't see anything above that I believe to be a significant improvement to the current version (and nor are any significantly worse). Perhaps as a penance for being unhelpful I will try and develop the existing archive summary, which does not do justice the length and complexity of this dialogue. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ben MacDui. I think that the word "occupies" is a bit problematic too (is this some form of temporary stalemate during a period of warfare?) And Scotland is not just mainland Scotland (which is the bit "occupying" the northern third of the island of Great Britain) - we also have hundreds of islands, which are not part of the island of GB at all. And the "country" "country" repeat is just lazy English. All in all, I am not really convinced with the proposed wording. it is hard to see how it is better than what we have. And still unsourced... --Mais oui! (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Other intro issues

Scotland still constitutes a distinct jurisdiction in public and in private law

Not needed in the intro, unnecessarily complicated

The continued independence of Scots law, the Scottish education system, and the Church of Scotland have all contributed to the continuation of Scottish culture and Scottish national identity since the Union.

Strong statement without much foundation, most people in Scotland are not even members of that Church.

However, Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state and does not have independent membership of either the United Nations or the European Union.

Again not needed, why would you expect a non sovereign body to have EU or UN membership? Astrotrain (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine had membership of the UN when it was part of the Soviet Union. At one stage Plaid Cymru, in one of their "we don't seek independence" periods, advocated a similar state of affairs for Wales. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is funny that Timrollpickering should mention Plaid Cymru, because it was actually User:Normalmouth (a fierce opponent of that political party) that added that sentence: "However, Scotland is no longer a separate sovereign state and does not have independent membership of either the United Nations or the European Union." many moons ago. It is actually about the only edit by that particular User with which I have no dispute. I think his/her point being that it would be very easy to mistake Scotland for a sovereign state, but it ain't! And that must be made crystal clear and explicit for the reader.

As far as Scots law is concerned, that must stay, per

WP:NOTABILITY (I go into that in my arguments above, as I am sure you are aware). Same with the education system and the Kirk. It is impossible to understand modern Scottish identity without knowing why Scots retained their sense of belonging, after the Union. --Mais oui! (talk

) 15:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it very important that we mention Scotland's lack of sovereignty and distinct culture as much as we can. I know from personal experience that if you sent 10 Americans to Glasgow, at least 5 would be shocked to see the BBC on their TV, as the perception amongst some here is of an independent Scotland (due to a verity of factors ranging from stupidity to assuming the UK is just England) S I think for the sake of the American public the lines must be drawn. -MichiganCharms (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"I find it very important that we mention Scotland's lack of sovereignty and (lack of) distinct culture as much as we can.". This seems to be turning into an incredibly disturbing witch hunt here. "as much as we can" - really? What on earth place can a statement like that have in an encyclopaedia built upon the

5 pillars - it just about breaks all five of them. I find the levels of ignorance amazing - I'm surprised you haven't just suggested that the content of the article read [[Redirect:United Kingdom]], and state that any other decision is inherently "nationalistic" and that other editors are trying to "Own" the article. SFC9394 (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC), See below. SFC9394 (talk

) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I said or are you just projecting onto me? I never intended it to read as (lack of) distinct culture, quite the opposite. I think the article needs to make very clear that Scotland, while not a sovereign nation, is still very much autonomous and unique in an effort to help people who don't understand Scotland's political situation as several myself included have demonstrated in the previous debate. -MichiganCharms (talk) 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I apologise and retract - the lack of a comma in the statement led me to read it as I quoted above - which led me to wonder what on earth was going on! SFC9394 (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure some americans think we all wear kilts and eat haggis should we put in the intro that we dont, the fact that the first sentance says one of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom is all the clarification that a misinformed american needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryob (talk • contribs) 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, haggis is available in any Scottish supermarket, butcher or chipshop you care to mention so someone must be buying it and I somehow doubt that mnny of them are Americans. All I'll say about kilts is "seen any Scottish wedding photos lately?". So I wouldn't support any statement saying that Scots don't. I am sure that there are Scots who will never eat haggis or wear a kilt. But most of us do from time to time. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you concerning haggis,I love the taste(although their damn difficult to catch),but let's be honest,other than some weddings how many people do you see walking about Glasgow,Dundee or Edinburgh wearing the kilt?--Jack forbes (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

On a completely different note the sentence in the article which readsThe deposed Jacobite Stuart claimants had remained popular in the highlands and north-east,particularly non-Presbyterians.Were they Roman Catholics or other denominations?I just find it would be more informative to the reader if this was explained in a little more detail?--Jack forbes (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Kilts, that's why I said "from time to time". I'm not denying that for most people they're formal wear. Re non-Presbyterians, in the North-east at any rate they tended to be Episcopalians. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's my understanding that some Presbyterians took the side of the Jacobites as well as Episcopalians and catholics,so there was a wide range of different beliefs fighting for the same cause!--Jack forbes (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote the helpful text above this edit box, this page is 135 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance. I'm not well-versed on the question of which label best introduces Scotland to the layman, but I think that the sheer volume of verbiage on this talk page doesn't do much to achieve consensus on the issues. --SSBohio 03:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My point for removing the quote that edinburgh is a major Financial center in Europe is that it is an exgeration, the article it cites as reference is in relation to the use of Edinburgh for in managing funds, there are number of reasons I felt uncomfortable with this.

i. The line is leaping to a conclusion drawn from one statement, the website referenced cites Edinburgh as 'Europe's 6th Largest Fund Management Center', Fair enough, it however says nowhere however that Edinburgh is 'one of Europe's largest financial centres' as the article says, this is in my view very misleading given that you simply cannot saying that edinburgh is a leading center from that one line.

ii. The main article sites an article from a clearly promotionary website 'www.edinburghbrand.com' that I feel would be biased and so not in the spirit of an independent encyclopedic entry

iii. A center for managing funds, and placement only in 6th in Europe does not, and im speaking as a proffesional economist employed within Funds here, qualify the city to have recognition as a 'Leading' financial center, simply because of the global, fluid nature of funds, of the money they (funds) make, very little of it would be brought back to Edinburgh itself where it can be argued it is simply a domicile, most likely due to tax incentives, for the fund rather than the actual 'home' if you will of the fund, as for example the substantial number of Funds managed out of Dublin, Ireland does not in anyones mind make it a leading financial center. If nothing else a city 'which ranks as sixth amongst European centres of managing funds, europe initself an over all very distant second to the United States and has no other claims to be in any way influential in finance through perhaps a stock exchange, banking (except for RBC being based there little else of global importance) center or comodities exchange.

iv. If nothing else, in terms of aesthetics, the comment seemed out of place within the opening paragraph and should of at least have been moved to perhaps a paragraph about Edinburgh itself, not in the opening paragraph. Also oddly, despite Edinburgh's supposed prominence as a financial center in Europe I was surprised to see it was not mentioned in the paragraph about Scotland's Economy on the main page, and in the Article about Scotland's economy the statement that Edinburgh is sixth largest financial center in Europe is not referenced at all.

I apologise for not leaving a reason as to why I removed the comment, I haven't edited a page on Wikipedia before i was simply unaware! I hope this justifies the removal of the comment from the page, until at least some stronger evidence is produced to back the statment up. But upon reading the comment it seemed very misleading overly promotional and not at all in keeping with what a great resource like wikipedia should be, unbiased and honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.174.127 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have copied this across from my talk page, regarding this edit. I think it is worthy of further discussion. I am split on it - if you went to 100 financiers and asked them what the top EU financial centres are then they would be unlikely to name Edinburgh. But at the same time the city does have a substantive financial industry, concentrating in fund management, insurance and banking, including being the headquarters of RBS (2nd largest bank in EU, 5th largest in the world) and HBOS. I think it is worthy of further discussion, perhaps with a view to better defining what we are saying in the text (I certainly don't agree with just removing it as the anon did). SFC9394 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I agree Perhaps outright Removal of the reference was rash, but I still feel uncomfortable with the comment as is, especially as it has a paper-thin reference, If more honesty were applied to the comment, something along the lines of 'a regionally important financial center'? or maybe remove the comment from its current location to somewhere Edinburgh specific leaving it out of the introductory paragraphs? where it seems somewhat out of place to my eye even if it were true, because as it is now, as has been pointed out the statement rings untrue, seems overtly promotional (and not educational) and likely to attract further disagreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.174.127 (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Edinburgh is a major financial center as described in Economy of Edinburgh and the following external links: [7], [8], [9] and [10]. A google check gives many more authoritative links. Bill Reid | Talk 09:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A country is eather a soverine state or a nation.It's not a soverien state because it's not independent, and its not a nation because not everyone there would share the same identity. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite a reference for the claim that "a country is either a sovereign state or a nation'? I think the case of Scotland proves that a country can also be a former sovereign state that agreed to join in political union with another country to form a new sovereign state. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a country does not have to be about one or the other. And a nation may not be a sovereign state, just as a sovereign state might not be a nation. But moving away from that a little: if Scotland is not a country, neither is England.--Gazzster (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fishiehelper, my refference is the country article. And Gazzster, england is not a country. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read official Wikipedia policy:

WP:OR. We are not allowed, under any circumstances whatsoever, to refer to Wikipedia itself as a reference. This may sound tremendously odd to newcomers, but it is an absolute pillar of the entire Wikipedia project. You MUST always, always, always base articles, and Talk page discussions, on reliable, respected external sources, per WP:VERIFY. --Mais oui! (talk

) 10:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument put forward by user 122.105.217.71 has been repeated on the talk pages of the other constituent countries of the UK. Argue the case against, with cites, on the talk page for Constituent Countries and if successful there, delete the link here

talk

) 11:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland, is a constituent country. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. I'm sure we,ve been over this ground before, but I'd appreciate if you could cite some external source that describes Scotland as a 'constituent country'. Any source I have come across describe Scotland as 'one of the countries that make up the United Kingdom'. I had never seen the phrase 'constituent country' until I read it in Wikipedia! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I take that back! - I've just googled 'constituent country' and it appears all over the place - you, are those who share your views, have been busy!!! Seriously, it appears that Scotland is commonly referred to BOTH as a 'country' and as a 'constituent country'...often in the same article! However, if even the UK government calls Scotland a country, I think you have to accept that as a valid description. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just anxious to see all four UK components described the same. Wheiter it's country, constituent country, nation etc. Speaking of 'nation'? whatabout England, Northern Ireland & Wales? Aren't they 'nations' too? GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by your desire to have things described the same that are clearly not the same. I think, for example, that most people would accept that England and Wales are also nations, but Northern Ireland...? I have never seen Northern Ireland described as a nation, and it has never been a country. The truth is that the United Kingdom is a complex state - a country that was created by the coming together of previously independent countries. I suppose, in the future we will face similar difficulties with the EU - at which point will it start being described as a country, and when it does will the constituent countries of the EU stop being countries? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The EU doesn't have a Head of state nor a Head of government. What's your point. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The government of the UK is biased to wether Scotland is a country. It says what the Scotish want to think. And I've got 2 refferences for Scotland not being a country: Phillip's Great World Atlas and Colin's World Atlas. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay. My point is that the EU is following a path that will result in it becoming a country just like the UK is now a country. The UN had a Treaty of Union in 1707 to get it started - the EU had a Treaty of European Union in 1992. If the EU does take steps that will lead to it being viewed as a country, will that mean that France and Germany will cease to be countries at that time? My view is 'no' on the basis that it is possible to be a country as well as part of a larger country. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your view is wrong; if France and Germany become dependent on the EU they will no longer be countries. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Why not simply avoid the word country or nation in respect to Scotland or England before 1707, without prejudice?--Gazzster (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Your view is wrong; if France and Germany become dependent on the EU they will no longer be countries. 122.105.217.71 (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)" - if your definition of a country is based on 'not being dependent', I think we need to have a radical look at our list of countries in the world! Many countries are 'dependent' on others, be it economically or militarily. That makes them no longer countries does it? In an increasingly interdependent world, I think basing a definition on 'dependency' is inviting even more disagreement. (I'm afraid this is probably my last comment on this topic - it is not achieving anything constructive and I have plans to do other things!) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Map

The article's map (at the top) should be fixed. It currently doesn't have the rest of the UK shaded (like the maps at England, Wales and Northern Ireland) articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We have been through this before GD - the content on other articles does not define what should be here. I specifically use the word content, because that is a very important distinction. This is not punctuation, grammar, spellings or units - this is a content decision - and it should not be "enforced" on an article based on criterion absolutely remote to that article - it is the antithesis of what wikipedia is about. The map that is in use was settled upon based on previous discussions - it was chosen specifically to be as free of political bias as possible - this article is on Scotland, it is a map of the location of Scotland. This article deals with Scotland as it has exsisted throughout all of recorded history, not just the last 300 years, and so to be as clear as possible all "highlighted" structures have been removed - that isn't just "the UK", but also "the EU". SFC9394 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland is a part of the UK, and that should be reflected in the European map. The current 'lack of shading of the rest of the UK', gives the erroneous impression that Scotland is independant. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"gives the erroneous impression that Scotland is independant(sic)". When the first sentence of the article states categorically that it isn't. Give me a break. Shall we have another 20,000 words of wasted time like the "nation" farce above? SFC9394 (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've recently grown concerned about this article. While AGF, I can't help but get the impression that there's an eagerness to seperate Scotland from the rest of the UK, as much as it's possible. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have conceded multiple times in the past that your only desire is that all the UK articles have the same opening. It has nothing to do with independence, and everything to do with the fact that this article uses differing content. Now the attempt is to assume bad faith and claim that a desire for any content different from the rest of the UK articles is nationalism? Do you know much about Scotland and its similarities and differences from the rest of the UK? They aren't the same - and to present them as if they are is completely false. SFC9394 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The map contradicts the article. As of 2008, Scotland is not independant; a fact that should be reflected in the map. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"The map contradicts the article.". No it doesn't, the article is about Scotland, the map highlights Scotland - there is no political information contained within the map. If you can't separate political information from geographical information then you are very wide of the mark. I'll ask again, do you know much about Scotland and its similarities and differences from the rest of the UK? SFC9394 (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Scottish & I've never been there. But, I do know that Scotland isn't independant (hasn't been since 1707). Also, anybody can edit this article - so please, don't suggest your knowledge of Scotland give you authority of any kind over this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"so please, don't suggest your knowledge of Scotland give you authority of any kind over this article" I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth - that is unacceptable. SFC9394 (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK SFC, It just seemed as though you were belittling me; I don't want this to become personal. Back to the topic - I'm just not convinced of Scotland's special status. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay - do you think Alaska has special status? If not, you better get across to the Alaska page and fix their map - anyone who doesn't read the article may get the impression that Alaska is an independent country! (Just joking - I don't really think the map needs fixed!) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy bumper stickers. I see that, they've got Canada shaded grey with the rest of the USA (thanks for letting me know). GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Now back to this article. Why can't we have the same type of map for all the UK constituent countries? GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not Scotland that has any special status - all four articles should be able to find their own way, not held together through some editing corset that prevents any changes to the proforma. The UK is a political structure - on wikipedia that (very much mistakenly) seems to have come to mean that everything should be brushed together and given a suit of templates. Political status has become the only way something is categorised now. Any mention of Scotland as anything other than "the northern third of the UK" is very bizarrely defined as nationalism - because the UK is the only way it can be categorised, so any mention of anything else implies that this is POV. It is frankly nuts. And was the very reason I brought up experiences of Scotland, as essentially (as a guestimate) 95% of domestic decisions affecting Scotland & Scottish people are taken by a devolved parliament (and local councils). Coupled with separate health, legal, education, sporting and cultural institutions and structures and you are left with "the UK" only really effectively representing Scotland on foreign policy issues. Yet the desire is that "the UK" should enforce defining content on this page. I find it bizarre. SFC9394 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have boldly made the change, for consistency with other articles, which I hope nobody disputes the importance of. The original map (now replaced) is part of the series at commons:Category:Locator maps of countries of Europe, before the POV fork was made and installed here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is ansering the big question yet. Is Scotland independant? GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that question is irrelevant to the infobox map, and only distracts this discussion into a political debate. What I want to see are some cogent reasons why this article ought to have a different infobox map and caption than the articles on England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Why is this article different? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean I don't believe this. Here we go again. This is about a map showing the location of Scotland (yes, just Scotland, not the UK) in Europe. It infers absolutely nothing about the constitutional status of Scotland. It has nothing to do with whether Scotland is independent or not. That is totally irrelevant to a map. Globaltraveller (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And this nonsense about pseudo identikit articles, following the one formula, has been eloquently dispensed with above, by SFC9394, and others, above. Globaltraveller (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me directly to the relevant comments? I fail to see any such eloquence. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read, the nation section directly above this one. The same arguments are just being rehashed here. Globaltraveller (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just see tedious, irrelevant discussion on "nation" and "country" in the previous sections; nothing specifically about the map. I fail to see why a version of the map at the same scale, but with less information, is preferred. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So you don't see the discussions of consensus, how that was arrived at, how Wikipedia isn't about standardizing things, how the content of an article is arrived at? I do. Certainly it may be about country/nation, the principle is exactly the same. Globaltraveller (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I hardly need lecturing on consensus, and it's a bit of a reach to think that the result of all that discussion of "nation" and "country" implied that there was fierce opposition to restoring the original map image! I'm still looking for a sound, objective reason why the map that only shows the location of Scotland within Europe is preferable to the one that also shows the location within the UK. In this case, less information is available to anybody browsing this article, for no apparent encyclopedic reason. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Put quite simply and as has been stated above, the map is for purely identifying where Scotland is located. It is not above showing whether it is in Europe or the UK. It is not about showing whether Scotland is part of the UK or Europe. It is above showing where Scotland (and not Scotland-UK, or Scotland-EU) is located. The principle would be exactly the same whether the larger map was of the Northern Hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere or purely the island of Great Britain alone. It is not about locating Scotland in concert with its constitutional arrangements. Globaltraveller (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Editors parachuting in or those with an axe to grind are strongly advised to look before they leap and at least read up on what has been said before. SFC is quite correct in his assertion and GoodDay should take his obsession with uniformity elsewhere. If you want all the UK constituent countries to have the same map, then go off and make one! I altered the Liuzzo original, with his permission I might add, and very few (can count on one hand) editors have had a problem with that. LEAVE THE THING ALONE WILL YA!!! Rab-k (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that the map be fixed to show Scotland is a part of the rest of the United Kingdom (which it is). Why is that such a explosive request? A simple shading of orange on England, Wales & Northern Ireland, that's all. I'm not asking for the Moon. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This is really getting tedious now

WP:POINT clears things up - specifically this part [11]. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk

) 20:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, inflexiability & anti-UK attiutudes continue to plague this article. There's a 'group ownership' issue with this article, which needs to be addressed. Somehow, I was given the impression that editing articles was free on Wikipedia - but seeing as editors like Rab-k, want me to leave, fine then. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"anti-UK attiutudes". I really do take issue with a statement like that - and am getting mighty fed-up of it. I just stated it above, but I will repeat it for clarity; "Any mention of Scotland as anything other than "the northern third of the UK" is very bizarrely defined as nationalism". It is wrong - it is bad faith and it is showing a POV on your part to infer it. You aren't even consistent; you claim that the consensus here represents "anti-UK attiutudes", yet you then browse over to the talk pages of the other home nations and propose that they should use the consensus defined here - a consensus you claim is POV! It has been stated above, but your hangup on "total uniformity" on articles really needs to be resolved by yourself - it is not policy, and it never will be. If you get a feel-good factor from making things uniform then there are thousands of articles that would benefit from your input - thousands of settlements without infoboxes, articles without categories, paragraphs with inconsistent spellings - those are things that the wikipedia community do say should be standardised - the policies make it clear content is not one of them. SFC9394 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

While being accused of wanting people to leave, I was in fact elsewhere, writing on GoodDay's (talk) page. Just to clarify, I don't want anyone to leave, on the contrary, I want to influence and to be be influenced. My earlier comment, (edited), was more frustration at the one-size-must-fit-all mentality exhibited by some who insist that this article must conform to others. GoodDay has advised me that he has left the discussion, but for what its worth, here is my tuppenceworth which forms part of my reply to GoodDay:

The Scotland map showing just Scotland is deliberately done to exclude any factor other than the geographic location of that part of the globe called Scotland. If you're going to introduce anything else other than simple geography, why stop at the UK? You might as well go on to include the EU while you're at it. In my opinion, neither is relevant to showing the reader what part of the globe is occupied by that place called Scotland. It has nothing to do with politics, which is why your assertion that it does is wholly misplaced

Regards Rab-k (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention this: The maps on the England, Wales and N.I. pages have the UK shaded in camel as does the California article have the rest of the US shaded. I think this article ought to reflect that. Scotland is not (yet) an independ. state. If nothing can be agreed I am fully prepared to take this to Wikiproject; Uk Geography...--Camaeron (t/c) 15:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Should your comment above not read "if you don't agree with me, I'm fully prepared to take this to Wikiproject; Uk Geography"...? FYI there is agreement on this subject, it may not be to your liking and you and one or two others may not agree with it, but notwithstanding such, the agreement is that the map should concern itself simply with the geographic rather than the geo-political. Simple. Nothing controvertial. No POV pushing. But simply a means of locating visually that with which the article is concerned, i.e. Scotland. Please feel free to take that to whatever wiki-forum you wish... The current map, (approved by the original designer David Liuzzo), is consistent with 40+ other maps in the 'David Liuzzo Europe Location' series which appear on articles elsewhere. The fact that three of the 40+ articles which use these maps have editors who prefer to use a different version taken from the Liuzzo series, is neither here nor there. No article on wikipedia is bound by the contents/format of another. If that is problematic for some, take it to a higher level. I think you'll find global as well as 'local' resistance to any move to enforce conformity in article content/structure. If anyone can show me in black-and-white a passage stating that "articles concerned with the United Kingdom, in any and all its present and former manifestations, including constituent parts, must conform to a standard format" then I'll be the first to change the map. Until then, the concensus here is that the map which deals simply with the geographic aspect is prefered over that dealing with the geo-political aspect. Rab-k (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC) PS Should anyone be interested, have a read at Camaeron (t), GoodDay (talk), Andrwsc (talk) and the talk pages Talk:England, Talk:Wales, Talk:Northern Ireland. Most enlightening...

Why dont you enlighten me...I would sincerly like to know what is enlightening about my Userpage/talk page...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing is disturbing. And to think the accusation of group ownership is flung about - edits like this are just pure bad faith, "if they fail to comply" - are you even aware of how much of a breach of the 5 pillars a statement like that is? Do you know how wikipedia works? And you are keen to be an admin? Deary me. SFC9394 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)