Talk:Scotland/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Scotland (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 > 19 >>
Archive 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.

Contents

Music and Spam

I am concerned about the ever lengthening list of pop groups in the Scotland#Music section, and that the article may be being improperly used by editors to advertise groups who do not merit listing. I propose that some of the groups listed should be transferred to more specialist Music of Scotland. Any comments? Viewfinder 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. --Mais oui! 09:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
We should avoid original research - this list should not be a list of acts we deem worthy, it should a list of acts that a quoted reference have listed. Compare the list of universities in the UK article: United Kingdom#Education and science, discussion: Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 4#Universities. Thanks/wangi 11:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the unstructured list from the article. I was intending to transfer them to Music of Scotland#Revival but when I read this section I discovered many of them were already there, in a much more structured manner. So I decided not to paste the text that I cut. If a subsequent editor creates a list from a reliable source, then that is, of course, OK by me.

A recent source is the List's "Best Scottish Band Of All Time" top 50... Problem is it was very obviously skewed by eager fans! So it's not very representative to be honest. It's top ten is:
  1. Belle & Sebastian
  2. Travis
  3. Idlewild
  4. Wet Wet Wet
  5. Sensational Alex Harvey Band
  6. Simple Minds
  7. Teenage Fanclub
  8. Bay City Rollers
  9. Primal Scream
  10. The Proclaimers
Thanks/wangi 14:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Another reason that list shouldn't be used is that Number 14 is Snow Patrol, they are from Northern Ireland, sure they have members from Scotland and formed while at university in Scotland but they aren't Scottish. ≈ Seraph 31 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not a reason at all - if an external source treats them as Scottish then that's fair enough. We're not here to do original research after all. It's perfectly valid to consider Snow Patrol as a Scottish band - formed in Dundee and based in Glasgow, very much part of the Scottish music scene (consider The Reindeer Section). Thanks/wangi 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, wangi, wiki users are perfectly entitled to question the soundness of external sources; not sure why you try to work WP:OR in there. But if they have Scottish members, then of course the band as a whole can be considered Scottish. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
By that logic Stereophonics are from Argentina or Venezuela coz Javier Weyler (the drummer) was born in Argentina but lived most of his life in Venezuela but everyone knows that the band is Welsh. ≈ Seraph 31 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that the same trend is starting to happen with the list of authors: people seem to be adding their own favourites. I have no problem with a list of the acknowledged greats of Scottish literature (preferably including the great medieval writers), but I do start to wonder when "middle-ranking" and popular authors start to creep in. Snobbery? --Mais oui! 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Best of All Time ? Where does Jimmy Shand appear on this list ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Get rid of JK Rowling; she is not Scottish, and claiming her as Scottish just because she is famous and lived in Edinburgh for a while is absolutely pathetic. I lived in Athens, doesn't make me Greek. It makes it look like Scotland has no literature so therefore has to claim non-Scots, which is just false. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review?

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Nominations are just about to go live. If we want this article to be considered then is now the time to do a Wikipedia:Peer review? --Mais oui! 09:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've requested peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland. Would be good to get this article to featured article status too. thanks/wangi 14:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Following my grumpy complaint yeaterday, we have actually received some (very detailed) critique. This is an excellent development, and we should follow up the advice given in reply to my Talk page moan, and advertise this peer review more widely. Apparently 2 weeks is a typical duration for peer review, so patience is required (not one of my prime qualities). --Mais oui! 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
<grin>, you don't say... -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Country

"a constituent country... The country..." is just bad style, an explanation of why I was reverted would be nice. Thanks. --Lo2u (T • C) 16:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mais oui. Of course they're not necessarilly the same thing but the article hasn't (at least at this point) specified in what sense, other than as a constituent country of the UK, Scotland might be called a country. Do you not think that, regardless of whether these words are technically different, the opening lines of an article that you want to give featured status should not sound awkward because of repition? Also there's no real need to use the term "country" here - it's fairly ill-defined (and country wasn't even linked) so it adds relatively little to readers' understanding of the political status of Scotland, especially when "nation" and "constituent country" are being used. The next few lines explain exactly in what sense Scotland might be considered a country so nothing is lost by this word's omission. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That makes sense - the lead should not go into such level of complexity, it's all explained fully later on. I'd go for that. /wangi 17:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It has to be said however...

I reverted the following addition:

It has to be said however, that tensions between the two groups have waned in recent years, and both Rangers and Celtic are making substantial efforts to curb sectarianism.

The language just isn't right - far too conversational and without this addition the section stands fine... and who says? References? Thanks/wangi 22:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


International law

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. The following doesn't seem correct:

Scotland continues to constitute a separate jurisdiction in public international law and private international law.

What the associated reference actually says is that for the purposes of English law, Scotland is regarded as a foreign legal jurisdiction. However the paragraph seems to imply that the UN and foreign countries regard it as a separate country - at least for legal matters which is a slightly bolder statement that needs to be sourced. The paragraph may only need a small alteration/ clarification but I don't think it's quite right as it is now. --Lo2u (T • C) 16:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is that Scotland treats England as a foreign jurisdiction, and England does the same to Scotland. The implication for countries outside the UK is minimal because they generally deal with the British government for extradition etc. rather than directly with the Scottish or English legal system. However if there are cases where an overseas legal system has to deal with a UK one, it had better deal with the appropriate one if it wants a satisfactory outcome. There would be no point, say, in applying to an English court to enforce a childcare order on someone living in Aberdeen. This was most recently seen at the Lockerbie trial where the trial was held by Scottish judges under Scots law on Dutch territory. In this case the overseas country involved, Libya, certainly regarded Scotland as a separate entity from England. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I thought. I suppose the problem is that the paragraph is slightly ambiguous - the first time I read this I didn't think it meant that Scotland constitutes a de facto separate international legal jurisdiction from England but that international law applies to the two separately, as if Scotland could make its own treaties with France for example. I think it needs to be clarified even if it's not entirely wrong. --Lo2u (T • C) 17:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just been reverted again. I'm aware the UK has three legal systems but my edit was perfectly accurate - Scotland's legal system is separate from the rest of the UK and my edit resolved an ambiguity that existed in the old version. --Lo2u (T • C) 11:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I strongly disagree. Your edit implied that thereare two legal systems in the UK: Scotland and everyone else. That is not the case. There is no ambiguity in the current version. --Mais oui! 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I really don't understand. All my edit said is that Scotland maintains a separate legal system from the rest of the country. It didn't say anything about England, Wales and Northern Ireland having a single legal system. Nevertheless if you really think it's important that an article about Scotland should explain that Northern Ireland has a distinct legal sytem from England, let's refer to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland separately. But it's important to stress some causal relationship between this and Scotland's constituting a separate legal jurisdiction - firstly because the source we're quoting does and secondly because Scotland's legal system is the reason. It's a little misleading to write about these things as if they're separate matters. Judicial and legal mean something slightly different and legal in this sense is a bit ambiguous as I have said above so "judicial" is important here.--Lo2u (T • C) 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lists

Why is there such a preponderance of lists in this article. One such instance is the huge list of authors in the subsection of literature. Surely such a subsection should use summary style to state briefly what is in the subarticle Scottish literature instead of just trying to escape an inferiority complex? --Bob 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Summary style much, much better than lists. We are too afraid of prose. --Mais oui! 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Scottish military

I am aware that the military is the responsibility of the UK, but still, there is virtually no mention of the military in this article apart from the trident in the introduction (which is also misplaced and should not appear so prominently in the intro). --Bob 16:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... why should it not be so prominent? It is one of those raw, bare facts that actually makes Scotland significant in the modern world. Most of our other 'claims to fame' lay way in our past. --Mais oui! 16:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I feel that Wikipedia:Notability is important here. We have to ask ouselves, especially when drafting the introduction, what is really, really important about Scotland, in an international, worldwide context? And one of the very few facts about Scotland which really marks it out in the modern world is the fact that it is the base for the nuclear weapons of one of the 'big 5'. --Mais oui! 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability is irrelevant in this instance. We have to ask ouselves, especially when drafting the introduction, what is really, really important about Scotland, in an international, worldwide context? If this was the most important aspect of Scotland, its history and people, then it really would be in a very sorry state. However, this is not the case. A quick glance at the United Kingdom, France, USA and other articles show that the info on nuclear arms is considerably less in the intro and is discussed elsewhere. Indeed, nowhere in the England article introduction does it state that the Vanguards are built at Barrow-in-Furness. Even the article on Barrow-in-Furness doesn't state that in its intro. If we want the article to come up to FA status, maybe we need to address this type of thing. See India for a WP:FA article. --Bob 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the 'Military' section a bit. Also added the word 'only' to '25 miles west of Glasgow' in the 'Trident' section - perhaps a wee bit naughty but Westminster tends to regard all of Scotland as remote.--RDT2 11:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Also added a bit on HMS Vulcan - but I'm not sure if it's still operational--RDT2 11:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor point: 'military' specifically refers to land forces as distinct to naval or air. Perhaps the section should be headed 'Armed Services'.--RDT2 11:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. Germany uses the phrase "Armed forces". I like the term "Defence," but it doesn't really apply when Westminster is still in control. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 19:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened the sentence about the Vanguard submarines - the info is readily avilable in the links.RDT2 11:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Article length

This is really getting way, way beyond a joke. After last nights' extensive additions the article is now at a ridiculous 63kB. This is approximately double the recommended size of 32 kB. Something has to give. And I do not intend this as a criticism of the User who added all the material yesterday, because some of it is certainly better/more worthy of a place in the article than what was already there.

Can someone please respond to this, because every time I have raised this issue I have been very pointedly ignored. We need to act on this if we are ever to get anywhere near WP:FA. Suggestions please. --Mais oui! 11:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Now at 64 kB, after the expansion of the military bit. Again, no personal criticism intended, but c'mon guys and girls: what are we going to cut to radically reduce the legth of this article? Suggestions please. --Mais oui! 11:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out a small section of the 'military' that's readily available on the British Armed Forces link. Not much, but every little...?--130.209.6.40 12:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article length is irrelevant when it comes to WP:FA. Libya is 52kb, AIDS is 97kb, Australia is 45kb, South Africa is 57kb. If you want to reduce the article length, perhaps you could reduce the listcruft which is still very extensive within the article. Silly details like the smoking ban could also be removed. --Bob 15:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that "silly details like the smoking ban could also be removed." Unless there is going to be an entire list of laws, or banned/illegal habits, this should be removed not just from here, but from all Wikipedia except relevant tobacco and smoking articles. --Lorraine LeBeau 14:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


I wouldn't say article length is wholly irrelevant. Raul, the Wikipedian who makes the final decision on granting FA status, has gone on record as saying that there are articles whose substantial length would not be a problem. However, there are three important factors:
  • Some FA reviewers will object to an article that is too long (50KB seems to be the breaking point). Raul can choose not to overlook their concerns, but the fewer unresolved objections, the better.
  • This article needs to be copy-edited. Shortening sentences, simplifying language, and removing redundant words will help shorten the article. -> Simpler, cleaner prose will shorten the article. :?)
  • Most importantly, the article must obey rule #5: "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles." Make a daughter article on the military/armed forces in Scotland. Leave details like "25 miles west of Glasgow" for the daughter article.
  • Bottom line: as my choral director says, the brain can only absorb what the butt can endure. Can you read through the entire article, lede to references, without losing focus? Does the article tell a coherent story? If not, it's too long. Chop away. Peirigill 00:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for this detailed contribution, yet again. --Mais oui! 00:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking years

Hmm, MoS says:

There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text.

These are events that had international ramifications beyond the Scotland article, an article about what happened in 1005 is useful for contextual purposes. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support the recent edits delinking years and centuries. The links add nothing to the article. By the way, you have also reverted (I presume accidentally) other minor, but good, changes, like changing "per cent" to "%". --Mais oui! 22:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I didn't realise my reverts went beyond the first paragraph or I would have relinked more selectively. (Sorry, I'll be more careful next time.) I generally don't like date linking unless it really does put events into a wider historic context (and I believe the first one did). By the way, all of this original delinking was done on the grounds that MoS said something it didn't say. I made precisely one revert that wasn't a date relink and that was the per cent thing you mention. In that case I agree I was probably wrong but it's not as if there's much in MoS to support either version. By the way, you may have done this already, I haven't checked yet, but if you like I'll go through the links I relinked and delink a few. Best. --Lo2u (T • C) 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, it's done. Check this diff to see what I left in. Hope it's not too much of a problem. Best --Lo2u (T • C) 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The country/ nation thing

I've been watching this going on for a while now and I haven't actually done anything. The thing is, although I disagree with 129's definition of nation, I don't quite understand why the word "nation" is used here. I'm not denying it's correct or anything, it just seems a little polemical - Scotland isn't normally called that. Other reference sources steer clear of the term:

Hutchinson: "The northernmost part of Great Britain"

1911 Britannica: "... that portion of Great Britain which lies north of the English border"

Oxford paperback dictionary: "The country forming the northern part of Great Britain"

Encarta (my favourite): "One of the four national units that make up the United Kingdom"

I haven't been through the above discussions yet but was there a reason that nation was chosen above country, region or part? My own preference would be for some sort of rewrite of the first paragraph - there's also a need to group the jumbled political/ geographical information. Something like: Scotland (Scottish Gaelic: Alba) is one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain in northwest Europe and shares a land border to the south with England. 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. Apart from the mainland, Scotland consists of over 790 islands.

I think the terms "country", "nation" and "region of the United Kingdom" are all a little controversial as they are likely to annoy people with certain points of view, and although they're perfectly correct, the first two without being qualified might be assumed by non-British readers to mean "sovereign nation state". "Constituent country" and "northernmost part of Great Britain" are probably a little less controversial and so might be more suitable. Please tell me what you think. There may be good reasons why my version won't work but I'd like to find some sort of consensus that will satisfy everyone, including unregistered users, as well as being correct. Best--Lo2u (T • C) 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We Scots certainly think of ourselves as a nation, we talk about the national church, the national gallery, etc etc., and I think that is important to most of us. I think that in Britain (perhaps less in England, but certainly in the other three constituents) the word nation is regarded as a dual level word, so I have no problem in seeing Scotland as a nation, then seeing the UK as a nation, and defining my national identity in terms of both. It's mostly outsiders who can't square that circle who try to find alternative terminologies. But I think the terminology used in Scotland should be respected here, and I don't really see why it should be controversial. However, I have no difficulty with Encarta's "national unit" if that will help anyone. --Doric Loon 20:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I have to say I like "national unit". I'm sceptical of this definition of nation to mean people - the word I would use for that is "nationality". Country on its own is controversial: the fact that Britain chooses to call its largest political divisions countries makes it correct but outside Britain the word usually means something else. There's definitely room for the word to be used but after it's been qualified. I don't suppose there's much wrong with nation - I didn't like it because it's a bit vague and abstract - it isn't really defining what Scotland is very clearly: the opening sentence should say what Scotland is politically in identifiable terms rather than reflecting what a lot of Scottish people choose to refer to their country as. I agree it should be said in the introduction though. I suppose the other reason I didn't like nation is that it has what for some people are negative connotations (nationalism, Nation of Islam &c). Anyway I'll read the introduction again. My changes might have been changed by now... Best --Lo2u (T • C) 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Doric Loon says, as far as Nations go (though I'd never consider the UK to be a nation). To me, a nation is usually made up of a people, sharing a common culture, identity, and usually land. Well, we've got heritage (albeit Gael, Teutonic, and Norse), culture, and a Scottish national identity, plus countless folks songs calling for "A nation once again," so why not use the word? Another thought here: How does a nation/country occupy part of a country? Will our nation simply move over to New Jersey one day? I'd prefer "makes up" there. With both of these in mind, how about this?:

Scotland (Scottish Gaelic: Alba) is a nation in northwest Europe, one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. It [occupies | makes up] the northern third of the island of Great Britain, and shares a land border to the south with England.

Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above two contributions. I can't at all see what is controversial with the use of the word "nation" as a description of Scotland. It is, as said before, seen that way by most Scots and fulfils all the criteria of nation. What is more troubling are the terms "country" and "constituent country" in describing Scotland. Indeed the BBC - the "glue that holds the United Kingdom together" often refers to the "Home Nations" that comprise the UK. Thanks Globaltraveller 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nation and country are not only acceptable but would be correct. Scots and Scotland are/is a nation, because they/it form[s] a distinct cultural unit. It is a country because it is also a distinct legal unit, internally and externally. These are technical and legal definitions- albeit reduced by me. That is what Wikipedia should also strive to do. If the general public is unclear, we are here to make sure that they no longer are when they come here.Gary Joseph 21:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I'm very busy at the moment and this is possibly my last Wikipedia contribution until the end of the month - unless responses come very quickly. I imagine any continuing discussion will be long over when I come to read this and I hope the introduction's wording will have been changed by then (though I'm not exactly holding my breath). Anway, as you won't have to read any more posts from me for a while please forgive the length of this.
Firstly I don't see the problem with constituent unit/ country/ part - or why it's "troubling". It's the normal term and it's what's used for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. "Home nation" is a highly British- (or even Anglo-)centric term - and one mostly used by the BBC. I still say that nation on its own will seem to some to imply that Scotland is a sovereign unit. Of course that's not the definition. It's just that nations' borders do normally coincide with what are commonly called "national borders". I put the word "nation" into the second paragraph partly because I thought it was nevertheless a valid word and wanted to take Doric Loon's comments into account but also because I thought the paragraph was missing a noun - "The capital is Edinburgh" at least ought to have read "Its capital..." but "The nation's..." worked even better. The current version doesn't look like an improvement to me:
Edinburgh the capital and second largest city is one of Europe's largest financial centres.
- at the very least it needs a couple of commas. However the subordinate clause in the middle could easily be eliminated, leading to a much more natural construction.
Lastly, I'm sorry but I really do object to "Scotland is a nation in northwest Europe" being the opening phrase. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this but the placement of European above national information seems to me to be an attempt suppress or down-play Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK. Starting small and working out seems to be the practice throughout Wikipedia and is what comes naturally to most people in most situations (thus, for example, "Huntingdon is a town in the county of Cambridgeshire in East Anglia, England"). If someone changed the opening lines of the London article to say it is a city in Europe I hope you'd agree it was a POV edit and the current wording looks forced as if it's promoting an agenda.
Anyway, please reconsider the opening lines - even if they're not simply reverted to my version. The previous version didn't seem to be objected to by several of the people (I wasn't one of them although I don't criticise them) who had been reverting backwards and forwards and I thought it was a nice compromise. Also nobody's actually said what was wrong with that wording, just what's ok with other wordings. Is the European nation thing the only version that's acceptable to some people because I really don't think it's a NPOV? Best. --Lo2u (T • C) 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point and I would agree with you. It is interesting that the two articles referring to units of the UK, Scotland and Northern Ireland are the two that have nomenclature sensitivity issues. I think that " one of the four contituent countries of the United Kingdom" should be the opening line for this article, as well as the one for Wales, Northern Ireland, and England. Enough people think that they are seperate states, similar to the US, that the current opening line would reinforce or add to that confusion.Gary Joseph 22:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't see how "Scotland (Scottish Gaelic: Alba) is a nation in northwest Europe and one of the constituent countries[1] of the United Kingdom." compromises anything. Both statements are entirely correct and it isn't downplaying Scotland's relationship with anybody. It isn't belying sovereignty or anything. Of course Scotland is part of the UK, but it isn't quite as simple as that Scotland has been a nation in Europe for a considerably longer amount of time than it has been a constituent country of the UK? Globaltraveller 22:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Gary Joseph. " one of the four contituent countries of the United Kingdom" is what Scotland is, and while it may be a nation, lots of people think that a nation means a seperate government, which Scotland, Wales and England do not have. Both versions are right, but Gary's is less confusing. HawkerTyphoon 22:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think what it is Lo2u objects to is the placing of Europe over the UK, rather than the use of nation? FWIW I entirely disagree with the concept that most people "think that a nation means a separate government". I think people are much more likely to be confused by "constituent country" than nation as a description of Scotland. Constituent country? Is it a country, or not? Does that country have a government or not? That seems to me to be much messier than using nation, nation of the UK or whatever to describe Scotland's status (although I entirely accept that constituent country should at least be alluded to in the opening sentence due to previous agreements on UK nomenclature. Globaltraveller 22:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Globaltraveller. This really is my last post now. You're right I do object to the placement of Europe over UK. I think it's designed to reflect the Scottish nationalist belief that a closer relationship between nations and regions of the EU should eventually come to supercede the union between the constituent countries of the UK. It hasn't yet and the current order just seems forced. However I do also object to the word nation - it's vague and abstract, having more to do with what people like call themselves than what Scotland is officially called, and to most people it means independent country. That doesn't mean that I object to Scotland being repeatedly referred to as "the/a nation" in the text as long as its position is clarified in the opening lines. "Constituent country" is what Scotland is officially called, and I don't think anyone would assume with the word "constituent" that this means independent state. If you object to the word "country", do you also object to "constituent unit"? How about "One of the national units that make up the United Kingdom" - would you find that acceptable? Or is there something other than nation in Europe? I also think, as I've said, that the opening sentence of the paragraph about Edinburgh is a bit of a mouthful and I don't understand why it was changed. I've avoided being very clear in my arguments assuming I'd be labelled an English nationalist, which I'm not by the way. I'm Welsh by birth and have little English ancestry. I use the England user box because it was the only one I could find that didn't say "This user is proud to be...". --Lo2u (T • C) 11:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "one of the nations of the United Kingdom" or "Scotland is a nation and constituent country of the United Kingdom" or something similar and the purging of the reference to Europe if it made some people happier, although I do think you are perhaps reading a bit too much into the nature of edits and the placing of words. I'm not particularly interested in what people see themselves as, what their political beliefs or motivations are as opposed to the wording of the article. Even though, as I said before, I see why the phrase "constituent country" has to be included as a definition I strongly dislike what is a fuzzy concept, which is far more confusing for the reader than the use of nation. It seems to be a wikipedia "invention" with little or no basis in accepted wisdom let alone conventional definition. Mali is a "constituent country" of Africa, but it is a sovereign independent state. Scotland is a constituent country of the United Kingdom but isn't a sovereign independent state. This then leads to more confusion and fuzziness when the bottom of the introductory section clarifies that Scotland is indeed not independent or sovereign - but it is a "constituent country"! Nation or national is far more widely utilised as a method of describing Scotland - the National Trust for Scotland, the Scottish national football team, the National Library of Scotland etc. I also agre with one of the above points, this is how a great many people in Scotland view where they live and the projection of that, and it should be at least respected as a definition (at the outset) of Scotland. And no that isn't a purely nationalist viewpoint. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Consensus knock* to Globaltraveller. Until I started reading Wikipedia, I'd never heard the term "Constituent nation." Scotland is a nation, it is a state, I might even say it's a nation state, though it is not sovereign. It is part of a union of states. It's really not all to hard for one to grasp, and I'm from the West Coast of the U.S., so this is indeed an outside veiwpoint. Scotland is a nation, and that's just the way it is. Lying is not the solution for dealing with ignorant folks. Explanation, or Education, tends to do much better. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Constituent country is quite clearly in the opening lines. It's in the first sentence. What is wrong with that? Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)