Talk:Scottish Parliament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 9, 2007.
A summary of this article appears in Scotland.
WikiProject Scotland
 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.
Scotland Portal
Featured article 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:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)
WikiProject Scotland To-do:
Politics Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.

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As the building is now complete the paragraph on the building is clearly out of date.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.


[edit] 2007 Election

I was looking for the date of the next Holyrood election, but article doesn't carry anything on forthcoming election at all. Should there be a small section on this? I think the date will be the first Thurs in May, so that would be the 3rd, but can't locate the date here or elsewhere. Perhaps I'm just not looking hard enough! carena 12:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm... how odd! I hadn't noticed that before. Yes, of course we should have a small section, or at least a mention, of the next election. Here is the relevant article:
--Mais oui! 13:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There is, in the "Scrutiny of government" section, a bit of detail about elections plus links to the elections in 1999 and 2003, as well as 2007. Globaltraveller 14:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

I'd just like to give a big Congratulations to the users who've been working to bring this article to Featured Status. Goo Job! Keep it up! Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone added a line saying that MSP are "a lot of nob heads", I can't edit the page, could some admin edit this?

[edit] West Lothian Question

Someone has just tried to add a rather weakly-formed para on the West Lothian Question to the "Criticisms" section. While I thoroughly support referring to the WLQ in this article, the addition was well below WP:FA standards (eg. it said that MSPs have voting rights in the UK Parliament!!??!!).

I am actually really surprised that the WLQ was totally absent from this article: it being a potent, and topical, consequence of the re-establishment of the SP. --Mais oui! 12:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The WLQ is nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament, so I'm not entirely sure what relevance it has here other than POV. It has a lot to do with the UK Parliament - as it is a procedural consequence there and it has a lot to do with the process of devolution as opposed to the physical Scottish Parliament and MSPs. Globaltraveller 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The WLQ has a lot to do with the Scottish Parliament, since it would not be an issue if it was not for Scottish devolution and the establishment of the Scottish parliament and part of the issue is that English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish Parliament. I consider it a form of censorship to keep removing this cited criticism from the criticism section. I note that both editors removing this content are Scottish, and I would raise questions of bias and lack of NPOV in considering this criticism. For this to be an FA article and not even mention this issue is laughable. - PocklingtonDan 17:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I note above that the WLQ DID used to be mentioned in this article but was removed by an anon editor. I feelt his strengthens my case for its inclusion - PocklingtonDan 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat again, the WLQ has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament, it is a procedural consequence of devolution in the House of Commons - it doesn't (unlike your initial assertion) affect MSPs. I've put in small section regarding the procedural consequences of the Scottish Parliament in the British House of Commons - although in reality, the WLQ is lessened by the use of the Legislative Consent Motion. Oh, and regarding your criticism that it is Scottish contributors that are censoring your addition - you'll see that Mais oui! supported the inclusion of this, whilst I didn't (and still don't see any merit in it). Globaltraveller 18:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the nationality of Wikipedia editors is utterly irrelevant, and using it as a tool/weapon in Talk page discussions is a disgraceful breach of WP:NPA. --Mais oui! 18:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. If I see a professed Jew or Muslim removing criticism on a page on Jewish-Muslim relations, I am going to questions their NPOV. Ditto a Scot removing an item from the section of criticism of the Scottish Parliament. This is not a personal attack, this is common sense - PocklingtonDan 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You had better read WP:NPA for the first time (because you clearly have not done so), and fully digest it, before threatening to use that method of attack against other editors in the future. It is arguably even less appropriate to use it against a Jew or Muslim than it is against a Scot. I fully support a mention of WLQ here, and I strongly sympathise with the predicament it places the English electorate in, however that has nothing to do with my nationality, religion, ethnicity etc. And how on earth do you know that I am Scottish anyway? Quite frankly, my nationality is none of your business. --Mais oui! 19:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not "threatened to attack" anybody, so you need to tone your language down from hysteria. On the other hand, political correctness holds no interest to me. If someone has obvious leanings for any minority viewpoint or faction, then they are bound to be biased on those issues. It violates no wikipedia policy for me to believe this or state this. Your user page makes it abundantly clear that you have Scottish sympathies, and I therefore have a natural suspicion about any edits you make removing criticism from an article on Scottish topics. Perhaps you are not even aware of your own potential for bias. I'm not looking for a fight but I still feel that my (cited) addition to the article was incorrectly removed. - PocklingtonDan 21:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite the implied carbon emissions his name suggests I'm with Globaltraveller on this one. I'm not sure what the WLQ has to do with the functioning of the Parliament per se. Has it been raised as an issue at Holyrood? Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I can assure Ben MacDui that I am strictly carbon neutral ;-). But I agree with the point about the little relevance of the WLQ to the Scottish Parliament, as it does not concern the Parliament, its MSPs or legislative functions. Some commentators may wish to blame the WLQ on the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, but I think that comes from not fully appreciating they way devolution works in the UK, or the way the UK's democracy works. After all there is absolutely nothing automatic about establishing a devolved Scottish Parliament and allowing Scottish Westminster MPs to continue voting on domestic issues relating to the rest of the UK. Suffice to say, the POV has been taken out of the case, and it has been worded as openly and factually as possible. Thanks Globaltraveller 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

On first reading of this controversy I was initially inclined to agree with Mais oui! that it is absurd to argue that the WLQ has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, with respect, Globaltraveller surely goes too far in claiming (infra) that the WLQ "does not concern the Scottish Parliament." The very provenance of the issue belies that proposition. However, after further consideration it does seem to me that the WLQ is not entirely salient to the subject matter of this particular article; if one construes that narrowly. I think the difficulty here stems from the fact that the article has become overly broad, or at least is in danger of becoming so. I therefore propose the creation of an autonomous Scottish devolution article. Such an overview article would be better placed to pull together the various historical elements (replacing the current reference to the questionable Devolution article and incorporating the presently somewhat adrift Scottish Assembly article). It could then also cover associated political and constitutional context and controversies (inter alia WLQ, LCMs, &c.). The Criticism section of this article could also thereby be reduced to a few short sentences referring to the apposite main articles - incidentally I think it presently gives too much coverage to criticism of the building given that this is covered in the Scottish Parliament Building article and is not really criticism of the Parliament as an institution. Apologies for the rather prolix response, but given that this article so recently attained Featured Article Status I thought it best to consult prior to instigating amendment. Antisthenes 14:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

My tuppence worth. As long as it doesn't mean major changes or significant deletions to this article, then I think that might be a fair enough proposal. I still think the point, that the WLQ is nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament is entirely true. I don't this article is too broad, however, but certainly some of the criticism section could be removed. We need a section on history, to understand how we've got to this point (but there is probably a great deal relevant that is missing and more than described there), but if the criticism section can be slimmed down and remove the entirely questionable WLQ from it, I think a separate Scottish Devolution article would be an excellent complement to the different issues on the Politics of Scotland series. Thanks Globaltraveller 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Globaltraveller the West Lothian Question is an annomoly in the British Parliament not the Scottish one. --Barry talk 22:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish people gave consent?

The following phrase in the first section seems wrong to me: "Following a referendum in 1997 in which the Scottish people gave their consent, the current Parliament was established..." - I suppose it is debatable in terms of Scottish constitutional theory but my understanding is that there was no requirement for the Scottish people to consent, and indeed they could not consent to the creation of the Scottish Parliament. Only the UK Parliament had (and has) the authority to create the Scottish Parliament. I therefore propose to change to something along the lines of "Following a referendum in 1997 in which a majority of Scottish people expressed their approval for the creation of the Scottish Parliament, the current Parliament was established..." --Ali@gwc.org.uk 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem here, both statements are equivalent. Clearly the people gave their consent in a referendum, as the vote was for the Parliament. There may not be any requirement for consent - the UK Parliament in 1997 could have legislated for a Scottish Parliament without asking the people in a referendum, but clearly that is not how it was done - and as this is an encyclopaedic article we need to stick to the facts - ie the way it was done, not some conjecture, possiblity or "what if" scenario. A referendum was held, the Scottish electorate voted yes (ie gave their consent), if they had voted no they wouldn't have given their consent and the Parliament would not have gone ahead. Globaltraveller 14:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

But I think the wording "gave their consent" does imply that their consent was needed, whereas, in theory at least, it wasn't as Westminster can do what it likes. "with approval of" is a much clearer phrasing I think. Balfron 10:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Gprb1 lrg.jpg

This image is not free. It would be possible to create a free alternative thus we should not use it.Geni 17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You have looked at the copyright information, I take it?. I'm not sure how a free alternative can be created - unless you mean by plagiarizing copyright (ie by copying the format of this image) and passing it off as one's own creation. If you wish to question the validity of the image, then please go through the normal procedure of tagging the image to get responses and rationale on the image's talk page, not just simply removing it from the article. Thanks Globaltraveller 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The process wil be defined by legislation it is possible to work from that. FAs should not contian images that do not meet our image use policy.Geni 19:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Creating a new diagram with the same info on this one isn't plagiarism. --Abu badali (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Again and at the risk of repeating myself, have we looked at the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate body licencing information (it is contained in the image and linked to) - all of it, not selected parts of it. Can I see this new policy about the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and Wikipedia Free Use, even though SPCB Copyright is allowed to be reproduced by "bona fide media outlets" and such? Globaltraveller 19:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And also again, and at the risk of repeating myself - tag the image in the usual procedure and we'll progress from there. Globaltraveller 19:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Their licensing is worse than fair use, wikipedia doesn't allow restricted licenses at all any more. You're best off going with a fair use claim on those, although it may still not meet FU. Besides this image, there are multiple others that aren't free images and they should have the same scrutiny (and potentially be removed). The "free alternative" is unfortunately pretty ill-defined, different editors interpret it different ways ranging from the theoretical possibility to replace the picture to only considering it replacable if it can be done and without too much difficulty. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You mean relicencing it as FU? I'm not sure. I know there is no category or licence that this fits into. I'll see what I can do about seeing where it fit in, or replacing. Some of the other images on this page are definitely not replaceable eg the "Jack Chamber one" - simply because "free" photography is forbidden in the Chamber during Question Time etc. I understand about the different interpretations of FU by different editors (there are as many interpretations as there are editors). Thanks for your comment Globaltraveller 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland Act 1998

I don't see the importance of the Scotland Act 1998. The article essentially said that the Act, excepting specific powers reserved by the UK Parlimant, gives all other powers to the Scottish Parliament. But, the "UK Parliament retains the ability to amend the terms of reference of the Scottish Parliament, and can extend or reduce the areas in which it can make laws." So, the UK Parliament apparently can still act in any area, in any way that it wants. If it so desires, it simply extends its reach into a given area then could later reduce its reach to return to the current state, albeit having altered a portion of law that isn't "reserved" for it. It's like a parent telling a child, "You can choose to do whatever you like, unless I don't agree with it in which case you'll be doing something different." Why is this Scotland Act 1998 which allows the UK Parliament to extend its reach at any time over any matter regarded so highly? Banaticus 21:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your comment is a criticism of the article or a criticism of the governance of Scotland, in general but:
The Scotland Act is important because it virtually is the "founding document" of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish government:
  • It established the Scottish Parliament - the conventions of the Parliament, the structure of the Parliament, the elections to the Parliament, the rules of the Parliament, the MSPs elected to the Parliament and a whole lot else. It also established the parallel Scottish Executive (the Scottish Government - the Executive Branch of our government)
  • It enshrined and put into law the powers of the Scottish Parliament
  • It asserted ultimate sovereignty of Westminster over the Scottish Parliament - your parent and child analogy (that's pretty important isn't it?)
Yes the UK Parliament can do whatever it pleases with regard to Scotland, in spite of the existence of the Parliament - although it hasn't exercised that power - and would be very stupid to do so, IMO.
I'm not sure if that answers your query or not. Globaltraveller 21:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
In theory the UK Parliament retains sovereignty, and can legislate on any matter regarding Scotland, but in practice its room for manoeuvre is limited to certain key areas (foreign affairs, defence, macroeconomics, broadcasting). It would have to take leave of its collective senses to unilaterally grab powers back from the SP - it would cause a serious constitutional crisis, probably leading to the dissolution of the Union.
That is not merely my personal opinion, it has been stated many, many times by prominent journalists, academics and politicians from throughout the entire political spectrum. If anyone has the necessary time to research the point, it should be added to the article, properly cited, per WP:RS and WP:CITE. Wikipedia should not just report pedantic de jure legal niceties, but present the actual de facto situation. --Mais oui! 08:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading

I find the first paragraph highly misleading. It makes Scotland sound like an independent nation. The Scottish Parliament isn't the national legislature, it's a legislature subordinate to Westminster. This should be made clear in the first sentence. --Auximines 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the national legislature of Scotland and it is unicameral and it is of Scotland - all true. I'm not sure whether if it is devolved or not, makes any difference to it being a national legislature. It certainly is subordinate to Westminster and that is made abundantly clear at the end of the lead and is gone into considerable detail in the rest of the article. t doesn't need to be made clearer in the first sentence, when it is abundantly clear in the article as a whole. If that wasn't the case, then perhaps you'd have a point, as it stands, I don't see that you do. Hope that helps Globaltraveller 10:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the first paragraph was untrue, I said it was misleading. I just feel the subordination to Westminster should be more prominent, particularly as the difference between Scotland, England and the UK is so little understood by many outside the UK. Something more like the first line of Parliaments_of_the_Australian_states_and_territories. --Auximines 11:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
As I stated before the position via Westminster is made abundantly clear in many sections in the article, it is very detailed, for example at the end of the lead, in the history section and the Legislation functions. For example

"The UK Parliament retains the ability to amend the terms of reference of the Scottish Parliament, and can extend or reduce the areas in which it can make laws"

Leaves one without little doubt about the constitutional situation, I think. The first sentence is no more misleading than it is untrue. Globaltraveller 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There could be some room for doubt but not necessarily as a result of the article. Things such as: "all foreign policy, remains at present with the UK Parliament in Westminster" together with "European and External Relations" being under the remit of the Scottish Parliament. Plus, Alex Salmond being due to visit the Republic of Ireland to "strengthen ties between Scotland and the Republic of Ireland" as if Scotland was an equal to the sovereign state. Though admittedly, Northern Ireland's regional legislature also has such pretensions.

Perhaps, the phrase, "one of the national legislatures of Scotland (or the UK)". With Westminister being the other national legislature of Scotland. After all, Scotland is not exactly under-represented at Westminister. Then the Welsh Assembly and Stormont could be listed as the other national legislatures of the UK; for purposes of disambiguation for foreign visitors like myself who are often bemused by the UK's esoteric make up.

194.46.187.127 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scots

Recent edit history seems to indicate a dispute as to the name of the Scottish Parliament in Scots.

It is certainly true the following use Scottish Pairlament.

The following uses Scots Pairlament

According to the SND Scots is the traditional Scots for English Scottish.

"SCOTS, adj., n. ... Sc. forms of Eng. Scottish, Scotch.
... This form of the adj. is the historical descendant of the O.Sc. Scottis."

The use of Scottish in the Scots parts of the Parliament website has been questioned in the press:

“Scottish” itself is questionable. ... The better form here would be “Scots” or “Scottis”. But I have the impression that whoever wrote this booklet knows very little about the history of the language. ... Sometimes the poor author more or less gives up, being unable to find, or concoct, any Scots equivalent for the English he or she would naturally use. The result is a hotch–potch. ... It does nothing for the Scots language, other than expose it to ridicule and bring it into contempt. It is frankly embarrassing. Allan Massie in The Scotsman 31.01.2004
... poorly–written documents in some ill–thought–out linguistic mixter–maxter offered as “Scots”, far from doing any service to the language, merely expose it to ridicule, and undercut both the real case for developing Scots and the efforts of those who have been engaged for years in credible attempts at doing so. Language development is not a task for amateurs; nor can it be achieved by slapdash, undirected efforts, however well intentioned. Why, then, is it being left to them? Derrick McClure in The Scotsman 07.02.2004

The Scots idiom as in "old Scots parliament" even finds it way into the Daily Record. Perhaps the journalists there are more likely to be habitual Scots speakers?

The questions is: Did the bureaucrats at the Scottish Parliament get it wrong, and if so, does that make it right? Nogger 14:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Election time - WikiProject Scotland discussion

Please comment/contribute at:

While you are there, please feel free to sign up as a member of the WikiProject, or just give it a "Watch". Ta. --Mais oui! 09:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate statement

", however given that the Scottish Executive is controlled by a minority government, such an election could be held at any time if the ruling party, (the Scottish National Party), were subject to a vote of no confidence by the majority opposition parties."

I removed this statement, as Section 3(1)(a) [1] of the Scotland Act 1998 states that for an extraordinary general election to be held (ie a dissolution of parliament) two thirds of MSPs must vote for dissolution. The SNP, at the current time, have more than one third of the seats in Parliament. As a result, if such a motion were brought forward, it would require the SNP to vote for it, in order for it to be effective. Ergo, the opposition cannot bring down the minority SNP government in this way. Cheers Globaltraveller 18:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kirking

I have just added a short section to the article Kirk on the "Kirking of the Parliament", but I don't have much to go on. If anyone has more information, they can put it there, or link it here, or make a new article, whatever seems best. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I've ever heard of "Kirking of the Parliament". I'm presuming it's a religious ceremony?--86.147.38.250 (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)