Talk:Scotland/Archive 31

'In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, with much of Scotland under the control of a single ruler and united by the Gaelic language, a modern nation-state first emerged, as did Scottish national consciousness' ... and yet 'The domination of Gaelic was diminished during the reign of David I (1124–53), during which many English-speaking colonists settled in Scotland.'

How does this make sense? This would mean that Gaelic began its decline in the very beginning of the period when it was supposed to be a 'uniting' and 'national language'. The article on Scottish Gaelic confirms that the decline started during the twelfth century or, taking into account the earlier displacement by Norman French, even the eleventh century, and was completed by the fourteenth century, when Scots had become official.

From the article 'Scottish Gaelic': 'However, during the reigns of Malcolm Canmore's sons, Edgar, Alexander I and David I (their successive reigns lasting 1097–1153), Anglo-Norman names and practices spread throughout Scotland south of the Forth–Clyde line and along the northeastern coastal plain as far north as Moray. Norman French completely displaced Gaelic at court. The establishment of royal burghs throughout the same area, particularly under David I, attracted large numbers of foreigners speaking Old English. This was the beginning of Gaelic's status as a predominantly rural language in Scotland. ... By the mid-14th century what eventually came to be called Scots (at that time termed Inglis) emerged as the official language of government and law.'

--178.249.169.67 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Also from that article: 'In 1018, after the conquest of the Lothians by the Kingdom of Scotland, Gaelic reached its social, cultural, political, and geographic zenith. ... In south-eastern Scotland, there is no evidence that Gaelic was ever widely spoken.'--178.249.169.67 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, so it is better to quote them, rather than other Wikipedia articles.

User:Buidhe, I believe that you added the phrase "and united by the Gaelic language" here in 2019, is it supported by RS? TSventon (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it should be supported by the cited source which is Stringer, Keith (2005). "The Emergence of a Nation-State, 1100–1300". In

ISBN 9780199601646. (t · c) buidhe

12:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Buidhe, I have checked page 38 in Scotland: A History on Google books and it doesn't mention Gaelic. Page 39 mentions "major shifts in Scotland's predominantly Gaelic culture and norms" in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. TSventon (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Page 37 says "Everywhere except Lothian (and even there it was still expanding) Gaelic was the language, not only of everyday life but of the royal court, of learning, and of law" And on page 39 it says that this began to change under the reign of David I (1124–53). However, not all of Scotland was unified at this point. (t · c) buidhe 13:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading the cited source, I don't see any justification for the words "united by the Gaelic language". This suggests that the language had some special role in creating a sense of national identity. Perhaps one could detune the concept by saying "speaking Gaelic as a common language", but that only seems relevant if you put it in the context of the 5 languages spoken in the 9th century within what is now Scotland. The fact that the origins of the national identity of Scotland is a subject of ongoing research is mentioned in the introduction to the cited source. Wrapping this up in one sentence with the existence of a nation-state seems to go too far – see for instance, in the same source "The kingdom of Scotland and the Scots as it existed in the 1280s was undeniably a recent creation; national consciousness had yet to be tempered in the furnace of sustained English aggression....". So that puts significant national consciousness firmly in the future from the 1280s. It is generally accepted that most mediaeval societies did not have a sense of national identity – if there is something uniquely different about Scotland, it needs to be clearly stated in the sources used. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at a quote from a different source: "the idea that the Scots were a distinct race rather than being a people of Irish origin was first fully articulated only during the crisis of the Wars of Independence." (A. D. M. Barrell. Medieval Scotland (Cambridge Medieval Textbooks)) This (and other discussion on this theme in the same source) further dilutes any justification for the article's current assertion that Scottish national consciousness arose in the 12th and 13th centuries. One might just get away with saying that it started in the last 4 years of the 13th. I suggest this part of the article needs to be thoroughly re-appraised. There is no mention on Gaelic's role in national consciousness in this source, but some discussion of multi-cultural input into the origins of mediaeval Scotland. In passing, it may be worth adding another quote from Barrell: [in discussing the way the wars of independence altered Scots' attitude to themselves] "Paradoxically, increasing animosity towards England was matched by a greater consciousness of the distinction between Highlands and Lowlands and antipathy to the Gaelic language." ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The quote given above Page 37 says "Everywhere except Lothian (and even there it was still expanding) Gaelic was the language, not only of everyday life but of the royal court, of learning, and of law" comes from a section titled "Scotland in 1100". It is in a paragraph that starts:
"From the reign of Mac-bethad, and to a greater extent that of Máel-Coluim, incomers from the south, loyal to the king, were being settled in areas where his authority was weak, especially in the south-west and north-east. The full impact of the immigrants’ newly international culture was not felt until the twelfth century, though the ground was laid in the political developments of the second half of the eleventh."
So the source is introducing the idea that this is a time of cultural change. This is balanced by the next sentence that says:
"Yet this was still a profoundly Gaelic society."
It then goes on to say the piece relied upon by User:buidhe, starting "Everywhere except Lothian...."

I don't think the article, as it stands, truly represents the source, since it relies on just one piece cut out of some counterbalanced arguments. Just picking one of those arguments destroys the balance that the article should have. Furthermore, the source talks about "Gaelic society" as well as the language. This is about culture as well as language - and I suggest (from wider reading) with culture being the most important.

Combining the two sources mentioned in this thread, it seems a better distillation of their content would be something like:
"In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, much of Scotland was under the control of a single ruler. Initially, Gaelic culture predominated, but immigrants from France, England and Flanders steadily created a more diverse society, with the Gaelic language starting to be replaced by Scots. Altogether, a modern nation-state emerged from this. At the end of this period, war against England introduced a Scottish national consciousness."
This may need some fine-tuning, but I feel it is a better representation of what the sources say. My preference would be to omit any mention of language – just sticking with "Gaelic culture" – but I get the impression some editors feel the mention of the language spoken is important. It is, of course, particularly difficult to strike the right note within the confines of a high-level article. There is a lot more in the main source about the impact of non-Gaelic speaking clergy in the 12th century – but there is no room for that.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In absence of comment from the participants in this thread, I have proceeded with the suggested change, with a bit of a tweak to the language. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The article currently states:
"The Scottish kings rejected English demands to subjugate themselves; and England invaded Scotland several times to prevent Scotland's expansion into northern England."
The cited reference is page 45 of Stringer, Keith (2005). "The Emergence of a Nation-State, 1100–1300". In Wormald, Jenny (ed.). Scotland: A History. OUP

Going to the cited ref, we find:
"...another diplomatic weapon was the earldom of Huntingdon. Acquired in 1113, it secured their dependence as the English crown’s vassals; conversely, however, it enabled them to rebut the claims of English high-kingship by insisting that homage was due for English lands alone. English armies did invade Lothian (1138, 1173, 1216), but actually to check Scottish expansion into England—a very different story from that of Wales and Ireland."
This is in a section the explores the relationship between Scotland and England, or perhaps more between their respective monarchs.

The issue in the quote is about homage in respect of the lands of the Earl of Huntingdon. Homage has a very precise meaning in the context of mediaeval feudalism. It is the acknowledgement of the person from whom one holds land. With it may come various duties, such as service. It is a fundamental part of the process of feudal landholding. The meaning of the word is substantially different from "subjugate", which has implications of being conquered. To confuse the two is a bit like, in the modern world, equating paying your rent to the landlord with having your house repossessed (or even stolen).

What appears to have happened is that an editor has tried to paraphrase "homage" with "subjugate". It's not even as if the replacement word has been picked from a thesaurus, because I cannot find one that makes this error.

Then putting the topic of English invasions in the same sentence rather implies (even though it does not say) that invasion is related to an English ambition to subjugate (i.e. conquer) Scotland. Reading the whole section of the source, it is clear that such an implication is, at best, a serious over-simplification – it would probably be safer to say that it is downright wrong. The reader would take away no understanding that David used Carlisle and Newcastle as his de facto capitals. The source goes on to state: "The final outcome was unbroken peace between the crowns from 1217 to 1296—the longest period of Anglo-Scottish harmony in the entire Middle Ages." This last quote is probably the most relevant thing to be included in the article. It is hard to understand why it is not there.

Any thoughts on sorting this out? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

In absence of any comment, I have replaced the problem text with something that better reflects the cited source. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not see why Elizabeth II's ordinal needs be explained here, in a general article about Scotland. Her choice of name hardly defined or shaped Scotland or, indeed, its politics and government. Surtsicna (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It could be said to be a significant indicator of Scotland's place within the political structure of the UK. Some people thought so rather strongly. As noted, I'd agree the material could be trimmed though. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that could be said without a source due to

WP:OR. Surtsicna (talk

) 00:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a shame that the pertinent elements of the cited examples aren't highlighted or quoted but this section indicates and discusses part of the constitutional significance. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Scotland isn't a country, this is a historical hangover from 1707. Scotland is a regional administration area of the United Kingdom

It should be updated to show as such and the additional lines regarding politics and the debate around it's status, be added, just like in the first few paragraphs of the entry for the United Kingdom BobbyBlobby101 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• See also Q1 in the Frequently asked questions (FAQ) at the top of this page. AllyD (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

This ref states that they are but do we have such a thing as official languages and, if so, does it apply to all listed? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is “White” listed as an ethnic group when it is not one?

“White” is not an ethnic group in Scotland, and would be an absurd one which would include Italians, Poles, English, and Estonians.

It should be “Scottish” 96%.

This is of course a problem common in nations where the name of the country is taken from the name of the ethnicity.

Here’s an article about the ethnicity in question, taken from Wikipedia itself of course: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_people 74.120.55.6 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your wisdom. Those absurd stats are taken from the census, so you'll 'of course' probably want to take your observations to them. Crowsus (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon, US President Joe Biden and President of Malawi Lazarus Chakwera.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Scotland

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist Givin the size, scope and number of issues outstanding I feel the best way forward is to delist and allow interested editors to address the concerns without the added pressure of a reassessment. I will add a few comments in this close regarding the identified issues and how they relate to the GA criteria. I would say page numbers in books are required for verifiable. Reviewers and readers should be given all the information they need to find where the information comes from and having a short statement sourced to a large book does not usually meet the spirit of criteria 2. I would also say that going over 78 KB prose is not a reason to cut information in an article this broad. The other points hold and there are a number of outstanding maintenance tags on the article that will need to be dealt with before renominating. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delist: This is a poorly maintained GA article that no longer meets the criteria. Many statements lack an inline citation, which might be acceptable if there was a "General References" section where readers could verify the information. There isn't, so it fails WP:V. In addition, a partial search of the references identified the following issues (see talk page):

• Potentially unreliable sources:

• Catholic.org: a
  WP:SPS. See this RSN discussion
  . Refs 2–5. Removed
• Orkneyjar.com: looks like a
  WP:SPS
  . Ref 44 Removed
• Kinneil Estate: a wordpress blog. Ref 45 Removed
• Rampant Scotland: looks like a
  WP:SPS
  . Refs 176 and 352.

• Partial citation without enough information to identify the source: 43 (Bryson), 121 (Evans), 122 (Sereny) Fixed this
• Many of the book citations are missing page numbers. This isn't necessarily an issue with the GA criteria, but in some cases these references are supporting direct quotes or controversial information, such as "the one internationally recognised Scottish landmark". How are readers supposed to verify that without a page number?
• Some citations do not support the content that they purport to, for example the citation in "Scottish Music" supports very little of the content in that section; the paragraph beginning with "Scotland's universities are complemented" is not supported by the ref.
• There is
  overcite
  in some cases, see cleanup tags on the article.
• The coverage in some areas is inadequate: for example, the section on Scottish literature does not mention any Gaelic writers, such as Nobel Prize nominee Sorley MacLean. Added content on MacLean. (Goodreg3 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC))
• Also, some areas are too detailed for
  WP:SUMMARY
  : an entire paragraph (!) about what titles British monarchs are allowed to use in Scotland. Fixed this, at least.
• "Other currently less popular candidates for the National Anthem of Scotland include Scotland the Brave, Highland Cathedral, Scots Wha Hae and A Man's A Man for A' That"—potentially controversial information without a citation. This has been fixed

I have sourced those "candidates" to a couple of newspaper articles and rewritten that sentence. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Direct quote with no source or citation: "largest electrified rail network outside London" Removed
• Some of the prose is not NPOV: for example, "unrivalled anywhere in Britain", "Thoughtful Scots pondered their declension, as the main social indicators such as poor health, bad housing, and long-term mass unemployment, pointed to terminal social and economic stagnation at best, or even a downward spiral. Service abroad on behalf of the Empire lost its allure to ambitious young people, who left Scotland permanently." Removed
• Another POV issue is the paragraph beginning: "During the Second World War", which omits the fact that German bombers targeted England more because it was closer and therefore easier to get to.

I have rewritten the sentence regarding the Blitz. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Some parts of the article do not meet
  MOS:IMAGELOC
  : sandwiching in the "Demographics" section Improved.

I could go on. There's been a little bit of progress in the last week towards resolving these issues, but not nearly enough to bring it up to GA quality. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 17:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The copyvio report found some close paraphrasing that needs to be fixed. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 20:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Removed copyvio. buidhe 21:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

• We've made some progress, but there are still no sections for art or architecture. At 78k prose after significant cuts, the article will have to be trimmed to make room for the additions. I suggest that the history and government sections could be cut somewhat. buidhe 21:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• The verifiability problems are extensive. I just checked more than a dozen references and found that a majority did not support the content. Furthermore, the excessive use of official sources is evident; a close look proves that they are used to support opinion-based statements such as "The MOU lays emphasis on the principles of good communication, consultation and co-operation". Removed. This article is very far from passing the verifiability criterion of the Good Article criteria. buidhe 01:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"#REDIRECT [[]]" within the infobox for nominal GDP does not seem to serve any purpose and can presumably be deleted(?) Zbaker33 (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Terasail^[✉️] 20:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Does Scotland have multiple official languages? If so, "Non-sovereign countries with multiple offical languages" category would apply.

According to: https://www.gov.scot/policies/languages/ , Gaelic is an official language in Scotland. Here: https://www.scotland.org/about-scotland/facts/scotlands-languages , English, Gaelic, Scots and British Sign Language classed as official languages of Scotland.Titus Gold (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No mention is made of “The Proclaimers” ( Charlie and Craig Reid) 47.12.184.217 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The scottish anthem is oh flower of scotland 84.64.79.138 (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "[...]Sturgeon stated clthat is it[...]" to "[...]Sturgeon stated that it is[...]" ErwonArChelm (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Since his appointment as First Minister, there has been a number of new images uploaded of Yousaf which are contenders for usage in the article. Below are some, and perhaps we can reach a consensus on which one is best.

I believe Image 1 is best, as Yousaf is actually looking at the camera and is captured during his nomination for the office of First Minister, notwithstanding the fact that Image 1 appears to be used as his official First Ministerial portrait as used by the Scottish Government on their website : https://www.gov.scot/about/who-runs-government/first-minister/ Goodreg3 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Image 3 is the best of the three in my opinion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It dawned on me as soon as I posed the question, having previous experience of your idiosyncratic preferences for perceived neatness and symmetry in photos and in article layouts: it's that he's not square on to the camera that you don't like. That's your thing, not one particularly shared by others and something that may actively make the shot more mundane. For what it's worth, and it's neither a requirement nor necessarily preferable, he is looking at the camera in photie 3. Official does not indicate better, evidently. Stick with 3, for me. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

As ever, Mutt, you come across as rude and passive aggressive with your insults and, for what it's worth, is unappreciated. Wikipedia is a community built on common understanding and respect for everyone, yes, we may not always get it right and agree, but try and show some respect as you are not the only one around here with a point of view. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to be warned off from commenting on your customary needless foutering with images and layouts by your repeated excessive touchiness. If I'm in disagreement, I'm going to lay it out plainly. My wording was quite diplomatic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not the fact you are disagreeing with my edits that is the problem, rather it is your choice of words and the perceived attitude you portray that is. Therefore, I disagree that your wording was diplomatic and consider it a personal attack (as you have done countless times in other edits, may I add). Once again, your reply above is directly personal in your usage of words such as "excessive touchiness". I am sure you are aware of the policy on this and would ask you to reflect. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

My 2p's worth: Image 3 is preferable because it has better lighting and exposure, and also benefits from showing Mr Yousaf sporting culturally appropriate attire, rather than the standard issue politician's 3-piece suit. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Image 3 is a much better photograph. Image 2 presents him in a somewhat unkempt shirt with a "curly" collar, so is hardly fair. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally I really like #3; it has the feel of an official portrait even though it wasn't one, and it's definitely one of the nicer pictures I've seen of him. There is a more tightly cropped head-and-shoulders version as well, but it starts feeling a bit noisy at that size.

Of the others, #2 is a bit untidy but to my eye better than #1, where the lighting is a bit off.

Oddly there is a similar-but-different discussion on Talk:Humza Yousaf which doesn't include our #3, but brings in a different third option - his 2021 official portrait, which isn't bad either. It feels a little odd to have a photo from when he wasn't FM, but it was only a couple of years ago. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there was some common ground between the recent mass change of headings with an attempt of a few months ago, this being the reversion but there was certainly a commonality in style. Many or most of the new headings were inaccurate, made reference to matters covered in other sections (partly or in whole) or no longer characterised the full contents of that section. Per above, criticism of editing is not a personal criticism, let alone an attack, so don't pull that one again. Per

The Scotland article used to be listed as a

Good articles, and it's any wonder why it's no longer included. Sections are everywhere when really they could be condensed. A separate economy section with a section for infrastructure and transportation further down the page when the latter two subjects are closely linked with economy so why not have them together? Also, I'm not pulling anything here, but it seems we disagree on the definition of a "personal attack". I stand by my view that some of your previous comments relating to other edits were more personal than professional and relating to edits. Goodreg3 (talk

) 22:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Section headings should be dictated by how historians name these periods specifically for this country. Somthing like "Roman influence" "Middle Ages" " Norman rule" .... I'm just guessing here the real example is histography references? As for what sections where Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Sections ...FA examples Canada or Japan.Moxy- 23:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The first thing to bear in mind when aiming to improve something is not to make it worse. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how it could get much worse if I am honest with you! The article was everywhere. Surely you must agree that it is better to have areas consolidated together with relevant sub-headings for easier navigation, rather than having separate sections for Health and Education when they could be grouped together within a demographics section? See articles such as the United States and even the United Kingdom. To try and avoid information overload on the main article, I have included links to main articles and related articles of further information too. This should hopefully make it easier for users to find the information they wish to seek either within the article or other relevant articles. Goodreg3 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Scotland is a nation part of the United Kingdom, therefore, it should be changed Nation and not Country Tentecalles (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Officially a country within a union, according to the way the UK defines these things! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Scotland is a country. A county within a country, as with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The countries of the UK are not commonly referred to as "nations" except in the example of sport (such as "Home Nations"). Goodreg3 (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:RFC, and if so please could you link it. ChefBear01 (talk

) 12:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The first two sentences of our article, Country, run as follows: A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. It may be a sovereign state or make up one part of a larger state. That definition is cited to an apparently reliable source, albeit an old one - if more recent scholariship defines countries differently, please let us know, but going from that definition, Scotland seems a good fit, so one could accurately describe it as a country, a nation, or a kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:RFC. ChefBear01 (talk

) 14:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Has it been changed recently? I don't know whether there has been an RfC in the past, but if it's longstanding text then it would have silent consensus. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk:United Kingdom/FAQ Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Matt - should have thought to look there. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Scottish Nation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 12 § Scottish Nation until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The redirect The Scottish Nation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 12 § The Scottish Nation until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I recently tried to change the lead to make the phrasing more eloquent, but the edit was reverted with a note to look through the talk page and archives. I've done that, and I've come across the FAQ, which notes that "constituent country" is also used in other parts of Wikipedia as a phrase that indicates that country X is a constituent part of another (sovereign) country. I'm not exactly sure why the edit was reverted; it doesn't appear to change the meaning at all, but it makes the flow better. I'm bringing it here for further discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I've failed to to find that quote in Talk:United Kingdom/FAQ but it may be an interpretation or paraphrase of A4. If that is the intention, salient points are that "the term (country) has broadly won preference amongst the editing community" and "This phrase (constituent country), however, is not an actual term".

Even if it did "make the phrasing more eloquent" or "(make) the flow better" (not seeing it myself), as it detracts from both neutrality and clarity and it does indeed appear to change the meaning, we're better without it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The quote is from Talk:Scotland/FAQ, which is the FAQ for this page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I'd assumed you were referring to coming across my mention of the (as applicable) UK/FAQ at the tail end of the related thread immediately above in your "look through the talk page" (this page). The two FAQs are in accordance, as one would expect. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Ref in the first sentence of the lead

This can't seriously be the best source we have, right? [3] It's an opinion article in a Scottish nationalist newspaper, in which the author seems to refer to himself as an "independence campaigner" and the article itself as part of that job.

A newspaper opinion piece is a poor source and, per

MOS:LEADCITE, moot as to whether it should be present. This one not least because of the impression it may give that usage is polarised between supporters of independence and unionists, not to mention those that are neither. Usage of the unqualified term is widespread and normal, across the board.^[1][2][3]

Not something that can be said of the claimed "proper term".

There is a consensus reflected in the FAQs mentioned above and the talk pages of this and related articles. If people are under misapprehensions about a matter, including the normal use of a term, the active purpose of an encyclopedia is to enlighten them. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the ref. It definitely gave me the impression that usage was polarized in the way you described when I saw it in the article. HappyWith (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

At over 16k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read comfortably. It would be beneficial to condense and/or migrate content to subarticles to make this one more readable. See

Agree. Moxy- 01:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

There are certainly chunks of lengthy text which could do with being devolved to subsidiary articles, and also an amount of recentism. Some suggested candidates for pruning:

• The stuff about politicians' inclusions in various occasional Councils from the introduction;
• The Kilmarnock Academy paragraph under Education
• The two paragraphs on average hourly rates under Economy|Income_and_poverty
• Sections which do have subsidiary articles, especially those on Transportation, Music, TV and Sport, tend to over-emphasise the recent; it is debatable how much of a summary vs detail should exist in this article rather than the related articles.

AllyD (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I have attempted to make significant trims in areas on the article. Can the inclusion of this tag be re-examined please? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for making a start on this! Looks like we've got a way to go yet, but heading in the right direction. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Additional trimming has taken place. Where are we now with this do you think? Goodreg3 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Additional trimming has taken place this evening. I am now of the view that any further trimming of the article would lead to content either being obsolete or not flowing well. Perhaps now is the time for a review into the length of the article and removal of the tag? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I was going to suggest some areas for pruning. Some are gone now, thanks to Goodreg3's intense pruning effort, and I see Nikkimaria has removed the tag, but other possibilities are still worth wider discussion. Taking the Scottish music section as an example, I have nothing against Cocteau Twins, Garbage or Annie Lennox, but struggle to see their relevance to an article on the entirety of the geo-politico-economic-cultural history of Scotland. Each of these is clearly from Scotland, but I would suggest a relevant distinction for inclusion in this article is something like whether they can be said to have transformed the topic area itself? In this respect, the Literature and media section does better in discussing impact and trajectories (though Conan Doyle and Barrie may fail the test I propose here). AllyD (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Without commenting on the need or otherwise for such a prune, I'm concerned that some of the deletions seem to have been rather blunt ("Removing... less relevant aspects of history such as ... conditions in Highlands") with the time between successive edits often indicating little pause for consideration before the excision of the next sizeable passage. I'm also concerned as to how many additions there have been inserted alongside the removals, difficult to spot in such a wholesale editing and, as far as I can see, not noted in edit summaries. Per AllyD, I have nothing against the Red Hot Chilli Pipers but in an edit noted as a significant "Trim" of the music section, the addition of special mention for them seems unnecessary (and rather recentist and partial as supposed pioneers). Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It escapes me how [4] this edit has a basis in the suggestions above, particularly as to whether the inclusions have transformed the topic area. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

That link is to the entire edit history. Which specific edit are you concerned about? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, corrected now. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I struggle to see how the problem arises on this article about modern Scottish music and its contributions. Articles such as the United States, England and Germany mention at least a paragraph about modern music in the wider world and the success of native artists in international markets. With that in mind, I struggle to see why a small paragraph about modern Scottish music and it's standing internationally is a problem here. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You stated in your edit summary that your revision of that section was "Based on suggestions". I was pointing out that, whatever the merits or demerits of your text, it is not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The suggestions were about the vastness of information on Scottish artists and whether it warranted such length in the article. Such suggestions, from what I took from them, was about perhaps to re-examine the amount of context which was added about individual artists and providing a shorter summary about modern Scottish music and it's standing internationally. There were no suggestions, from what I could see, about its entire removal. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If you cherry-pick one aspect only of the suggestions made and, in so doing, actively go against others, to claim your edit is based on those suggestions claims support for the edit that you do not have. That is, at best, sloppy. What you say you have taken from those suggestions has no sound basis in them. As, indeed, nobody has suggested its entire removal, it would seem somewhat loaded to raise the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Could not verify Scottish Gaelic as an official language. Would edit at citation 6 myself, but editing is locked 167.98.153.21 (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

How about Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005? AllyD (talk) 10:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I see the national motto of Scotland had recently been removed. I wanted to gain some consensus on here as I seem baffled by the removal of the motto. It is pretty much still in use today on arms and still widely regarded as a national symbol of Scotland and it's culture. I have reinstated the motto on the page with the following references to support its current use:

^[1][2]

Let's get some consensus here before reverting.

Thanks, everyone.

Goodreg3 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC) Goodreg3 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, your sources are eminently supportive of the reason for my removal of the entry. The issue is not current usage but usage as what. Both refs state clearly that this is the motto of the royal coat arms. "the Royal arms are borne only by the Sovereign". Scotland is not the royal coat of arms. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

A number of reliable sources, notably from books dating after the Treaty of Union in 1707, which refer to the "Scottish motto" or "motto of Scotland" (and not the Kingdom of Scotland) have been included as references, yet the motto had again been removed. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"The motto" has not "again been removed" because you are now promoting a different one to that previously disputed (you presumably now agree the previous one should have been removed). What's more you warred to restore your bold new contention after it was reverted it, without enagaing to gain consensus, per

WP:BRD. It's still there so please revert until this is resolved. Mutt Lunker (talk

) 20:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There does seem to be some confusion about the motto as two appear to exist, the former had long been on this article as the motto and that is where the confusion lay. However, after extensive research and browsing through online books and academic sources, the Nemo... motto appears to still be is usage and associated with modern day Scotland. Some sources provided date to the 1800s and 1900s, long after the Treaty of Union and the abolition of the former independent Kingdom of Scotland, refer to the motto as "Scotland's motto" or the "Scottish motto" and not the Kingdom of Scotland's motto, therefore, suggesting that modern day Scotland's motto is indeed that. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, please be advised that I did not remove the sources above from the initial discussion posted a few weeks ago because they were "inconvenient to me", but rather because they were in the way and from a debate and discussion on this talk page that no one had engaged with. Just thought I would clarify that one for you. Thanks. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"they were in the way"! By removing them the context of the discussion, not least my response to you, is misrepresented. Never refactor your talk page comments like this, particularly after they have been responded to. See

WP:REDACTED. Mutt Lunker (talk

) 20:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, a quick search of books on academic websites or even Google Books will provide you with a number of extracts from books or academic papers which refer to the motto and it's association with Scotland. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Re the refs: The Scotsman "Nemo me impune lacessit’ is the national motto of the Kingdom of Scotland". As above Scotland is neither the royal coat of arms, nor the Kingdom of Scotland. The Literature of Scotland link refers to it being the motto of the thistle itself. Otherwise there are passing refs to it being a Scottish motto, which it is but if it were so clearly, actively the motto of modern Scotland, it would surely be possible to find refs, and contemporary ones, which lay out the fact definitively. From what you present it seems moot at best. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The motto doesn't appear to be as well-sourced as might be expected, but it is referred to as the 'Scottish motto' in Merriam Webster and Collins dictionaries, and in the odd newspaper article. It's referred to as the motto of the Order of the Thistle at least as often, it seems. A.D.Hope (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of various sources, albeit not many, that would suggest that the motto of Scotland is indeed the one that has been included in the article. However, Mutt Lunker appears to have some obsession over the claim that "Scotland is not the royal coat of arms" which in my opinion is somewhat confusing and does not make much sense. There are a number of valid and reliable sources, why the constant reversal? Goodreg3 (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Your behaviour on this matter and others is chronically disruptive. If there is a dispute about your edits, particularly one that has been discussed on a talk page with no consensus for your change, lurking about until some time has passed to restore your edit is disruptive, not to say sleekit. To restore it when reverted again, without discussion, is downright inflammatory. At the very least, if something has transpired to move the debate on, re-engage in the discussion to gain consensus first. Do you really struggle to tell that the emblem of an individual is not the same as a country? A.D.Hope introduced some sources that may indicate support for the notion, contradictory as they may be to others, but you return in typical slapdash fashion to reintroduce a source that does no such thing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

With these brief refs in Collins and Merriam-Webster to "motto of Scotland"/"motto of Scotland and of the Order of the Thistle", it would may seem likely their intention that NMIL is "the..." rather than "a..." motto of Scotland and that they would spot the ambiguity and clarify if it were the latter. That said, per above and per further investigation, we have to ask ourselves why more specific and expansive sources covering the matter refer to it being the motto of the Order of the Thistle, the royal coat of arms, all Scottish regiments but evade the most obvious opportunity to state it is the motto of the country itself, were that the case. This must cast the matter in grave doubt. (The only mention I can find in Britannica is in the entry for the Order "The motto of the order, “Nemo me impune lacessit” (“No one provokes me with impunity”), is also the motto of all Scottish regiments, although more popularly rendered as “Wha daur meddle wi’ me?”". In the Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland at THISTLE "the motto nemo impune lacessit (loosely translated...) is usually associated with the Scottish thistle badge", then at the article for the Order, that it is their motto. Not a mention of being the motto of the country itself.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Minor, but the official record for Scotland is 34.8°C in Charterhall, Scottish Borders on 19 July 2022 2001:BB6:128D:A300:38F8:2F7:5244:1099 (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• commons:File:Painted portrait of Donald Dewar (19372000).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:C7C:CA09:8300:6405:45DA:1171:6A42 (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The driving side shoud be right hand side.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Incorrect things. Bodiefa (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk

) 04:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I think its a bit inaccurate to say that Highland Scots are descended from Celtic peoples while Lowlanders are germanic. This is very black and white and it isnt binary like this. In fact, the fact that at one point most of Scotland was Gaelic speaking should totally put this false notion to rest. Language doesn't equal ancestry and languages have shifted over time. There is no genetic proof that the two populations are markedly different. I think this should be examined and possibly removed as it is inaccurate 2001:FB1:11A:E21:9509:BCCB:28A6:38E7 (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

To which passage in the article are you referring? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

As @Mutt Lunker reverted my edit, I had a question, which arises from the Coat of arms of Scotland and the National symbols of Scotland articles.

On the Union of the crowns heading under the History heading of Coat of arms of Scotland, there is an infobox that shows the primary version of the coat of arms to have the Lion Rampant on the shield, with unicorns on both the sides. The one currently in the infobox of this article is the mentioned as an alternate version.

Under the Heraldry heading of National symbols of Scotland, it says that the Lion Rampant itself is the coat of arms of both Scotland and the Scottish monarcies.

Can someone explain which one will be correct to be displayed here, and what significance should the other two hold? And if possible, can the explanation somehow be accomodated on the article itself too? Pur 0 0 (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

My reversion regarded your replacement of the current arms of dominion of Scotland by that of the Kingdom of Scotland, an entity which ceased in 1707. Likewise and per your links, the variant with the two unicorns, in use until the Union of the Crowns in 1603, is also not appropriate for this article on contemporary Scotland. I hope that clarifies the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

As a general note for other confused editors, the Royal Banner of Scotland, which is the coat of arms of the Kingdom of Scotland in flag form, is a current Scottish flag. Its official use is restricted to certain high-ranking Scottish officials and the royal palaces when the monarch isn't there, but it's widely used unofficially and is often seen at events like football matches and on souvenirs.

In other words, the coat of arms has been superseded but the flag derived from it hasn't. Isn't symbolism fun? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Why does Scotland have a Military section, when England or Wales don't. 86.170.181.173 (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Scotland has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

i think its wrong Reallytrustfulperson (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a

"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk

) 19:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)