Talk:Scottish Parliament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Scottish Parliament is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do. |
 |
Scottish Parliament has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
Scottish Parliament 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. | ||
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Building
I've consolidated the existing material- some of it was clearly wrong (cost overruns dated before the choice of architect, for example), so I took it out. It might be worth replacing if we can find the correct info. Markalexander100 04:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've outlined some of the objections to the parliament. Could someone balance the article by adding some of the arguments in its favour? - Man with No Name
I understand why some might feel that "Criticism" may not have NPOV, but notice that I only point out that those arguments are made. If someone were to balance it as I suggested above (I don't really feel up to that), where would the problem be?
- Most of the criticisms were already mentioned elsewhere in the page. We don't need to bundle things off if we can address is in the text. 20:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. MWNN
As the building is now complete the paragraph on the building is clearly out of date. I don't have enough knowledge to edit it myself though i'm afraid. Grunners 07:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] History
Should this really be included here? The current Scottish Parliament is essentially different from the old one - MWNN
<- I don't think so, and besides, the proper title of the pre-1707 body was really the Scots parliament, rather than the Scottish Parliament. Also noted no mention of the Lib Dem coalition in the previous two terms. - Passerby
-
- This is a good point. What title though? ~~R Bell
-
- Anyone else feel this way? MacRusgail 20:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- As long as the information is kept and linked to under some title I think it'd be fine... so do what is correct, but don't just scrap the section. gren 21:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- My preference would be for something like SP (historic) and SP (Holyrood). What do you think? The historic parliament was more often referred to as the Scots parliament. I think there's two articles in here, at least MacRusgail 21:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It would certainly make sense to have a different entry for the older parliament. There's a more general need also to include details of the scottish constitutional convention and also how Scotland was goverened in the period between the two parliaments - perhaps on a seperate page regarding the history of the governance of scotland. nutty 17:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
I think the Parliament which last met on March 25, 1707 should be at Parliament of Scotland. This is becoming the accepted way of distinguishing between the two. To state that the Parliament which first met in 1999 is the same body is somewhat ahistorical and misleading to those not familiar; perhaps a word of explanation should be added? David | Talk 15:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Anyway, more importantly, does anyone disagree? Otherwise me might as well change it, and stop talking about it. Maccoinnich 16:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Make sure there is a clear disamb note at the top of each page that distinguishes the two.--JW1805 16:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I was suprised to read in the History section that there somebody wrote about a sharp rise in nationalism in the 1960s and that as a response to that politician started debating about a possible scottish parliament. However, the Declaration of Perth came as a complete surprise to many Scots. It was more an initiative from worried party leaders from London who, as they saw the SNP have more electoral success (mainly by-elections though), feared they might lose the Scottish voters’ support. To counter this Nationalist electoral success Edward Heath looked at ‘the most immediate interpretation’ of the SNP success: a call for greater autonomy. This might not have been the right interpretation. Fact is that Heath was not the only one to take this view; Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson was of the same mind and, not wanting to be outbid by the Conservatives, started supporting Home Rule.
Importantly, this idea that the Scots wanted Home Rule originated from the top, there was no Home Rule movement then like there was in the 1980s and 90s. It is significant that until the London politicians proposed the idea of devolution there had been little ‘clamour’ (as Heath put it) for such an idea. In fact, the Scottish branches of the Labour and Conservative parties were hostile to the plan of their Westminster bosses. The Labour Party in Scotland Conference voted against devolution with a large majority and told the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which was set up in 1969 to investigate the need for an Assembly, that there was no need for one. Similarly, the Conservatives were reluctant to support devolution. In the end, both were brought to heel by their London leadership but it was an important sign.
I support changing this part of the history. Anybody in agreement of disagreement?
For more information see: Andrew Marr, The Battle for Scotland (London: Penguin Books, 1992), pp. 122-129, p. 163; Vernon Bogdanor, Devolution in the United Kingdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 124-5, p 141; Alice Brown, David McCrone and Lindsay Paterson, Politics and Society in Scotland, 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998), p. 20; Royal Commission on the Constitution 1969-1973 Report (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1973), p. vi Henk van Klaveren 16:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Reading the history section, I don't think it says a sharp rise in nationalism in Scotland in the 1960's (which there undoubtedly was) lead to politicians starting to debate about a Scottish Parliament. The sharp rise in nationalism (and the election and rise in support for the SNP) did indeed prompt increasing public demands for Home Rule ('Home Rule or Rome Rule' was a common phrase of the time) and that alongside the election of Plaid Cyrmu at Carmarthen in 1966 was a contributory factor to the Labour Government of Harold Wilson (as the article clearly states - note "Government" not "party") setting up the Kilbrandon Commission. Further on it indicates that Prime Minister Harold Wilson committed his Government to some form of devolution in 1974 - again true, and very much in sync with what you say.
-
- What you say on the internal party machinations may be true - but the article makes clear that there was a rise in public support for such (undeniably true), at the time, and there was a sharp rise in support for the SNP as well (again, true) and that the government of the UK of the time, committed itself to Home Rule again, true.
-
- I don't see anything wrong with the article as stands, but if you want to expand on such areas feel free, maybe, perhaps this would be better in the Scottish section of the devolution article, which tends to give a broader historical view? Thanks Globaltraveller 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Date of first meeting
The article seems to have two dates for the first meeting of the new parliament, May 1999 and July 1999. Which (if either) is correct? Laurel Bush 12:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC).
Perhaps the first date is that of the first meeting and the second is that of an official, ceremonial opening? Laurel Bush 15:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC).
The Parliament met for the first time on 12 May 1999, when members took the oath. It met a further 11 times during May and June, electing a Presiding Officer and deputies, nominating a First Minister and other ministers, dealing with a number of pieces of devolution-related secondary legislation and internal procedural matters, as well as several subject debates. On 1 July 1999, the Parliament acquired its powers to legislate and Ministerial powers were transferred from the UK Government to the Scottish Ministers--George Burgess 12:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism
I added the third paragraph, briefly outlining one of the criticisms of the Parliament based on the 'West Lothian question', that it creates a democratic deficit in England. Any suggestions for further improvement are welcome. - Terraxos, 22:58, 25 January 2006
[edit] West Lothian question
The mention of the WLQ had been removed, yet it was an important point in the debates about the creation of the Scottish Parliament, and an on-going item of interest. The fact that it is dealt with in depth elsewhere is not a reason to remove a pointer to it from this article... otherwise how will a reader know that the issue exists or where to find the detail? 136.2.1.101 10:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- The West Lothian Question has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament. It has a lot to do with devolution, or even the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but not with the Scottish Parliament and its workings. Cheers.
81.157.119.254 00:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Current members
Why refer back to 1999, but not to 2003, the date of the last 'general' election? Laurel Bush 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Photo Not Sitting Correctly
The photo of the building's chamber in section 1.5 seems to be sitting on top of text. Maybe this is just my display. I tried to fix it but didn't work. I hope someone else can fix it.
The building is ugly. I've been there, and I must say that it looks worse than a warzone. Why you would ever go there is beyond me. You should put something in about how ugly it is.
