Talk:Historic Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Historic Scotland is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Template:Scotland opentask

I'm not an expert on such things, but is it correct to say that Historic Scotland are under the rule of the Scottish Parliament? I thought they were under the rule of the Scottish Executive, which can barely be said to be under the rule of the legislature (or can it?)

Well, the Parliament elects the First Minister who appoints the rest of the executive, so anything under the rule of the Executive is under the rule of the First Minister, who is under the rule of the Parliament. Morwen - Talk 19:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds different from the UK parliament. But I'm still not convinced that talking of "rule" is right in this case. After all, the citizens of Scotland elect the scottish parliament, who elect etc. etc. but to say that Historic Scotland are under the rule of the scottish citizens doesn't reflect most people's view of the world. "Rule" to me implies a management or at least regulatory structure, rather than just electing a free agent and setting them free to make their own decisions... it seems more to me as if the author was trying to avoid repeating Scottish Executive or Scottish Ministers but chose a non-equivalent alternative... I may change it as it is at least no more wrong. Notinasnaid 08:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The comment regarding remit re: rural communities is legally incorrect. If HS is imply an executive agency of the Executive (and thus Ministers) then the Rose Theatre case in England applies, and Ministers are permitted to take account of other factors.

The comments also fail to take account of other controversial cases included Rowallan.

[edit] POV?

I have removed this section, which followed the Castle Tioram info, as borderline POV:

It has been implied that this dispute has led to a review of the operations of the organisation. Such disputes on the proper way to conserve a building are common, but are normally resolved within an academic context. Historic Scotland seems to have had trouble dealing with a dispute spilling over into a major public argument, and has been seen as autocratic and out of touch with the economic needs of rural Scotland (which are, after all, not within its remit).

Perhaps a more rounded look at disputes on the proper way to conserve a building would be appropriate. This seems unduly negative towards HS. ::Supergolden:: 11:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Intersting. When I added this text, it did have a source, which a later editor seems to have removed. What I will do is restore the text and the source to give a level playing field. In particular ''It has been implied that this dispute has led to a review of the operations of the organisation was a direct reflection of the source. With it all in place, people can decide whether it remains POV (from an editorial point of view, I was bending over backwards not to be negative in my presentation of the facts, but others may disagree). Notinasnaid 11:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC) (Update: I found the source had in fact been moved to another section so I put it back and used new style references tags so it is more clearly identified). Notinasnaid 11:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a little more background: the Castle Tioram saga led to significant amounts of very public, very angry criticism, in the press and even in parliament. It's certainly open to debate how to present this, but I think failing to cover it shouldn't be an option. The new paragraph as it was edited didn't really say anything at all to suggest it was anything other than a minor planning dispute. I was unable to find any attempt from Historic Scotland to defend itself, or I should have quoted it. Notinasnaid 12:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy with that. As long as it can be backed up I don't see it as unbalanced, it just seemed a bit off without any references. I notice you also reverted my other edits. Thanks, ::Supergolden:: 14:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, reverting the other edits was an accident. I think it is all reinstated. Notinasnaid 14:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)