Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

While there is no doubt that Flower of Scotland is probably the most popular national anthem in Scotland, it is not the only one, nor even the longest established. Scottish organisations also use or have used Scotland the Brave, or Scots Wha Hae at sporting events and on other occasions where national anthems are played. Scotland the Brave is the one that you will generally hear played by a pipe band. None of them are official, but at least two of them deserve a mention, Flower of Scotland, and Scotland the Brave. There is no need to simplify the situation in order to end up with a single national anthem. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:44, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

I think, though, it is misleading not also to mention that the current First Minister's view on the national anthem question is that the Scottish National Anthem is "God save the Queen".--Doric Loon 15:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Well I quote this from the the page on wikipedia about the anthem. God Save The Queen actually had a verse that was derogatory about the Scots (saying to crush them) so how could it have possibly been their national anthem at any point?

Traditionally, the first performance was thought to have been in 1745, when it was sung in support of George II after the defeat of his army at the Battle of Prestonpans by the Jacobite claimant to the British throne, Bonnie Prince Charlie, whose forces were mostly Scottish. To express this support verse 6 was added, but as its call to crush the rebels now suggests an anti-Scottish sentiment it is rarely (if ever) sung nowadays."

The apparent 6th verse (or whatever) of GSTQ is nonsense. The national anthem has never had official words and only two verses are ever played anywhere. If it was tacked on, it was tacked on as part of a marching song. 'Rebellious Scots' refers only to Jacobites anyway. God Save the Queen is undebatably the National Anthem of the UK, Scotland included.

I've statred an article on crofting to tie in with a collective effort to work on the subject of land reform. I'm sure someone who knows about Scotland and crofting would be better qualified to talk about the subject than me, so please take a look and help expand the article--nixie 01:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't actually like the new map as it adds very little information to the article and the information that it does add is misleading. In detail the problems are

• The labelling is much too large.
• The texture gives the impression that Scotland is nothing but mountains.
• It labels the northeast Lowlands as the "Grampian Highlands". The Grampian Highlands are actually further to the south and inland a bit.
• It labels the Western Isles as "Islands" and the south of Scotland as the "South of Scotland" which is similar to labelling the land, "Land" and the sea, "Sea" -- true but not exactly informative.
• It uses a label "Heart of Scotland" (a vague term which I haven't heard before) to refer to something unclear in the southwest Highlands or eastern Lowlands. The Trossachs perhaps ?
• It only shows Glasgow and Edinburgh, ignoring the other Scottish cities.
• It doesn't show the Shetland Isles at all.
• Arran is so obscured by labelling that it is impossible to tell whether it's an island or part of the mainland.
• It's in the GIF format whereas we prefer the PNG format.

In short it's pretty flawed. I'm inclined to remove it if it isn't improved fairly soon. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:00, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

- In Gaelic culture there is a place, in Perth and Kinross I believe, which is traditionally considered the center of Scotland (like Tara in Ireland I believe). I think it is near the yew of Fortingall and is called Taigh na Teud. Perhaps that is what the "Heart of Scotland" thing is supposed to be about?--172.149.119.220 08:13, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could be. The Yew is pretty close to the centre of Scotland in one sense. But the map won't help you find anything so geographically specific since the "Heart of Scotland" label stretches across the whole width of Scotland. I'm inclined to think that it refers to the "Central Belt" but who knows. It may just be a reference to the central part of Scotland in the same way that the "South of Scotland" label seems to be a reference to southern Scotland

If I recall correctly, the place you are looking for is Schiehallion --Colin Angus Mackay 23:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why no mention of the patron saint? Bovlb 04:32, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

No reason. Why didn't you add a mention ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:42, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I've added something under 'Other facets of Scottish culture' Berek 09:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good man. -- Derek Ross | Talk

No offence to anyone but l want to know why the English call the Scottish "jocks"?

It was at one time a common nickname, presumably for Jack, still used in the saying "we're all Jock Tamson's bairns" (international multiracial egalitarian sentiment: we all have common ancestry). Burns' poem Halloween mentions Jock amongst other nicknames like Rab, and "stop your ticklin' Jock" was a music hall song, I think by Harry Lauder. These usages develop: in '60s Leith it became common for people to shout "hey, Jimmy!" to attract the attention of anyone they didn't know the name of..(p.s. why not get yourself a user name?)..dave souza 02:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) (edited dave souza 10:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC))

See Talk:Scots language.

My sympathies

US Homeland Security update

Someone has taken Lowland Scots out of the Languages section of the info box giving the reason "it is not recognised by the Scottish Parliament", it is however recognised by the European Union's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, therefore it could be included in this list perhaps MementoVivere could have just added a "de facto" note on it?

This is actually the right thing to do given that the infobox is supposed to contain official languages rather than officially recognized languages. However Gaelic should also be removed since it is not an official language either (although it is officially recognised). -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Derek. Astrotrain 15:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy about changing "Official languages" to "Main languages". It makes more sense for the Scottish situation. Of course it also means that Scots should now be added back since, although it's not official, it's certainly one of the main languages of Scotland. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The article states that she is descended from James VI of Scotland....James was a Stuart whereas Bess is a Windsor/Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Whilst I realise that pretty much every royal family in Europe is related to each other on some level, and indeed there is a distant relation bewteen Bess and Jimmy, the statement as it stands gives the inacurate impression that there has been no breaks in the line of inheritance from James VI to Elizabeth II. Not being an "official" Wikiuser I am loath to simply change the statement, but I really think that someone should point out the above. What do you lot think?

• She is directly descended from James. Elizabeth II is the great great great great great great great great great great granddaughter of James VI of Scotland. She is descended from James VI through his daughter, Elizabeth Stuart, whose daughter was Sophia of Hanover, named by the Act of Setttlement, as the person to whom the English throne would go to on the event of the death of Queen Anne (James VI's great grandaughter). Sophia's son, George I became King as the House of Hanover. The house name only changed to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha on Queen Victoria's marriage to Prince Albert, and then changed to Windsor in 1917. So, the statement is correct.

It is not a nation it is not recognized by any nation as seperate It is as silly as saying that Washington DC is a country pages like wales and other kingdoms should become part of the UK page I took the term country out and replaced it with kingdom since it is more correct Dudtz 7/20/05 6:46 Pm est

Well kingdom isn't correct either, particularly not for Wales which has never had a king! At least within the UK they are known as the nations and should remain as such. -- Francs2000 | 23:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Scotland, Wales, England (and I think Northern Ireland) are referred to within the the contexts of the UK as the Home Nations --Colin Angus Mackay 06:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

<sigh>, Please refer to the descriptions of nation, country, kingdom and state before making any more changes of this type. A country and a nation are very different things. Make sure that you know the difference. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Principalities and kingdoms are so simmilar so let's not get too techinchal about it. England, Scotland ,Northern Ireland, and Wales all ceased to exist as nations when they Joined the UK. Dudtz 7/21/05 12:32

Come on, Dudtz, this is an encyclopaedia. We're supposed to get technical about it, real technical. People use Wikipedia to settle bets, so there's money riding on this sort of information. The four countries ceased to exist as states when they joined the UK but they still exist as nations and as countries. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That is absolute rubbish. You are mixing up nation, state and country. Scotland and Wales are both nations and countries. Since they joined in larger geopolitical entities they simply aren't states. In some places, you have nation-states — places where the state and nation cover the same landmass. But it is not automatic. France is a nation-state; Spain isn't, because it has a number of nations, for example the Basques, in it. The very term national determination refers to nations that are not self-governing but who are part of large states, but who want to see their nation self-governing. England, Scotland and Wales are both countries and nations, but part of a larger state, the United Kingdom. I'm afraid you have a hazy grasp of political science terminology. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

And a hazy grasp of British useage. Admittedly, this IS difficult for non-Brits, since we use the word in a dual-level sort of way: four nations = one nation. Until you get used to it, it seems like a problem, but once you understand the sense of identity, you realise that it is absolutely right. --Doric Loon 17:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

And we don't simplify it by having one national anthem... smoddy 14:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Scotland is very much a country, although its sovereign power is interlinked with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Astrotrain 18:00, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, a Scotland-England football match is known as a "home international" - perhaps one of the neatest examples of the way these terms are used in the British context. Should this stuff be in an article somewhere? --Doric Loon 10:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but why do Americans have to define out countries in relation to theirs? Washington DC or an American State had nothing in common with Scotland. Scotland has had a common culture, language(s), currency etc long before the USA was even considered. The US is nothing but a state full of very modern immigrants. You cannot tell us that we are not a country just because it doesn't fit into an American definition of things. If Americans can create numerous different "races" in order to better pigeon hole themeselves we can call ourselves a country. -- Anon user.

Please remember that this page is for suggesting how the article could be improved -- not for stating your personal opinion about what "Americans" may or may not think. If you want to do that, contribute to Usenet or start a blog. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Scotland (Alba in Scottish Gaelic) is a country in northwest Europe and a constituent nation of the United Kingdom.

The 'country in northwest Europe' part is clearly redundant as that is covered by the United Kingdom and Great Britain articles. My rationale for removing it is that it is akin to saying Vaucluse is a department in western Europe, and a constituent part of France. It is clearly irrelevant and possibly not nPoV. Neither of the articles on England or Wales have a similar statement. I would like to hear a valid argument for keeping it. Owain 15:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Because Scotland is a country! So is Wales and England. They are also nations. They are also part of a large state made up of a number of countries. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the country and nation bit. What I do object to is the 'northern Europe' bit. It seems PoV and is covered by higher-level articles. My wording (which was reverted) was 'Scotland (Alba in Scottish Gaelic) is a country and a constituent nation of the United Kingdom.'. What's wrong with that? Owain 19:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you take a map of europe and draw a quadrant through it you will see that it is in the North West quadrant, so the terms Northern Europe, Western Europe, or North-Western Europe are all correct. --Colin Angus Mackay 10:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, obviously it's techincally correct, that is indisputable. The problem with the wording is that it implies soverignty. The United Kingdom and Great Britain articles describe the position of the island/country wrt. Europe, so its inclusion here is irrelevant and has a degree of soveriegnty PoVness to it. Owain 12:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it implys nothing of the sort, you've inferred it all by yourself. Since, as you've admitted, it is "technically", and I might add geographically, correct, I'm suggest leaving the statement in. You might also want to read the arguments in the section above titled "Scotland is not a country" --Colin Angus Mackay 12:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"has not been worn since the early 1650's" then how was Parliment opened the statement under the picture contradicts it self Dudtz 7/30/05 1:45 PM EST

It hasn't been worn since the 1650s. It was present at the opening of the Scottish parliament, however. It was its presence, not its wearing, that was significant in the old Scottish parliament. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have just created a stub on the Scottish Education Department, really just a place-marker as I was adding something to the article on Scotch and a link seemed sensible. Perhaps those of you with up-to-date info can expand it. Years ago I received an SED grant, but the system has changed several times since then! BTW, I was thinking that the history of education in Scotland would be worth comment, seeing as how it was so far ahead of the rest of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. Where would be the best place for that? --Doric Loon 11:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think you will have to look at it again. Firstly there is no Scottish Education Department. It is called the Education and Training Department. The body who gives student grants etc in Scotland is the Student's Awards Agency for Scotland. Astrotrain 14:15, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• • Sounds like a good idea, but titling it simply Scottish education would cover all name changes as well as the ancient history. So the dear old SED has went the way of Edinburgh Corporation!.... dave souza 19:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

We often hear that the Scots Law is distinct from English Law, and sometimes mention is made of the strange education system we have north of the border.

On further inspection it becomes clear that almost all Scottish institutions (such as Churches, Health Services, or even Boy Scouts), exist as completely distinct entities.

So- which institution does scotland SHARE with England? (The army?)--Fergie 19:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, Armed forces, Westminster parliament, the monarchy, parts of the Civil Service. Also both legal systems are joined at the top by the House of Lords which is the supreme court for both of them.

Also the Privy Council and Cabinet. john k 04:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• The House of Lords is not the supreme court in Scotland for criminal cases- the Court of Session is the supreme court in this instance- civil cases can go to the House of Lords. Astrotrain 10:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Scots law is indeed different, predating the 1707 union. It follows that Scottish legislation has come under the Scottish Office and then the Scottish Parliament, and anything under these institutions such as Education is separate in England and Wales from Scotland, as are many bodies where clarity of legal status is important. Similarly, the Church of Scotland (the kirk) and the Scottish Episcopal Church both predate the union, so are separate, and offshoots of the kirk like the wee frees are unique to Scotland as far as I know. Without detailed checking, denominations like the Baptists and Methodists appear to be on a UK basis, shared with England, while presumably the Roman Catholics aspire to be international. Another example is that the ARB (Architects Registration Board) and the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) are shared with England and the rest of the UK, while the RIAS (Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland) is a Scottish equivalent to the RIBA, now linked to it (architects must be registered with the ARB, while RIBA and/or RIAS membership is optional).... ain't simple....dave souza 23:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Baptist Union of Scotland IS organised separately from England. Coming back to law, the Lord Chancellor is relevant for both Scots an English law, though we are waiting to see what Tony and co will do with him! --Doric Loon 08:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You are reiterating the point! All international entities that you are familiar with are not UK wide, they all apply to either Scotland or England (I am excluding the church organisations that as you said might or might not be). So I ask the qustion again- can we specify in detail which international entities apply to the whole of the UK and not just Scotland? --Fergie 10:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"It is estimated that up to 30% of the population are also fluent in Lowland Scots, a Germanic language which differs markedly from standard English." >This is a silly sentence: either Scots is a seperate language or a dialect of English, but if it is a seperate "language" it seems absurd to claim that it it differs markedly from standard English (what, more markedly than the difference between German or Dutch and English? or between many other languages that are sometimes said to be similar like Spanish and Portuguese?). Any English speaker can understand a text in Scots whereas you need lots of knowledge of German vocabulary and grammar to understand German or any other language. I could ask whether Scots (a "language") is really more intelligably different to English than say Cumbrian (a dialect), but that might start some sort of debate...

Dan 84.9.113.90 22:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"Actually most Spanish speakers can read Portuguese, as well as Norwegians with Danish and Germans with Dutch and ... well the list goes on"

I am not sure that the ability of a speaker of one language to understand another language (without being trained in that language) means that the two languages are not seperate. As a fluent speaker of Norwegian, I can safely say that the differences between the Scandinavian languages (Norwegian, Swedish and Danish) are less, or at least the same as the difference between Recieved Pronunciation (posh English to you and me) and Inverurie doric, which is still spoken by your average Inverurie resident. I believe that there are also such similarities between the slavic languages (such as Polish and Russian among others). So given that there are so many language pairs with comparable similarities that are nonetheless deemed seperate languages, it seems unreasonable that Scots should not be recognised as a language distinct from English on this basis.--Fergie 10:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Which all rather begs the question, doesn't it? There are strong arguments for saying that Scots is a dialect, or rather a series of dialects, of English. It is high time this article stated frankly that that is a contentious issue and gave the reasoning on both sides.--Doric Loon 08:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

-To you sir I say: Fit an affa chav fir a haulf chavved bap!--Fergie 10:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well now, I can't argue with that. Baps! Now you're getting me homesick! Actually though I was getting confused - that argument belongs on Scots language - not here. See you in Auchtermuchtie, Fergie! --Doric Loon 12:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I, as a Central Belt Scot could, like most, speak in that fashion and understand it. To most, however, it is just that, a way of speaking, not a language. It has no standards at all and varies with region. All speakers of the "language" can speak or understand Standard English, but need not due to how they put their day in: one does not speak like that in offices, with elders or to teachers, if one is being respectful. No one speaks like Burns wrote, though.

Am no gonnae say that its ony mare than a leid o' speakin'. Zhengfu 10:08:45, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

With respect, that is because you are a Central Belt Scot. If you lived in Buchan where people's daily speech is much closer to Burn's writing, your experience and therefore your opinion might well be rather different. Although many people can "vary their speech register" in the manner that you describe, I have met people in that part of Scotland who can't (or at any rate don't). -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I yield to the gentleman! Honestly, I am sure you are right. I don't spend much time in Buchan; I trust you, therefore. Zhengfu 10:22:15, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

Doc Glasgow's remarks (inserted in to the text as an invisible comment) are quite correct. The paragraph which speaks of sectarianism and the Orange Order is of course accurate in the sense that each point is correct in itself, but the overall effect is to suggest that sectarianism in Scotland is stronger than it is. Of course, there are idiots in Scotland, but on the whole Protestants and Catholics live together harmoniously and neither know nor care that their neighbours have the other prayer book. Except at Old Firm matches, that is. There is of course a minority view that things are worse than they seem. I don't want to debunk that, but it is not good enough to leave the impression that, as DG says, things are like in NI. They're not. Possibly this issue would be worth discussing in a separate article, which could be entitled Scotland's Shame? and focus on the debate resulting from the book of that title. Anyone feel like pursuing that? --Doric Loon 21:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There is an article Religious rivalry in Glasgow, maybe add a link there and expand it as necessary? --Vclaw 22:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there is an article here, although I can't offer much assistance. I think it would need a clear title, like 'Sectarianism in Scotland'. It could trace the history of the problem, contextualise it, cover folk like James MacMillan, Donald Finlay, relationships between the churches (from the CoS's poor stance in the 1920's to the possitive denominational relationships today), and perhaps get some indications of the strength (or weakness) of Scottish orangism. But, as I say this isn't really my interest area. For now, let's just keep a balance and proportion in this article. --Doc (?) 22:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The genesis of such an article already exists. See Unionists (Scotland).--Mais oui! 19:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)