Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

The Scotland, England and Wales articles all currently display the Coat of Arms of the respective countries: lion rampant, three lions and dragon shield. Someone is trying to apply the UK Coat of Arms to the Scotland page. Why? Surely the correct place for the UK Coat of Arms is the UK page, or the UK Coat of Arms page?--Mais oui! 21:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• One version is the The Royal Arms of Scotland, and the other version is the The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland. Someone should go to Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland and make clear what the difference is, because the article is not clear on that subject. --JW1805 22:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The correct arms to is: File:Scottish royal coat of arms.png- this is the version used by the queen in scotland; the version displayed at all Scottish courts, royal warrants granted to scottish firms. A modified version is used by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Office. This version: File:Scotland royal coa.jpg, I presume, is the arms of the Kings of Scotland prior to 1603. They are not use now. Astrotrain 19:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

We need to be consistent. The England article has the Coat of arms of England, which technically, are the arms of the "King of England", an office that no longer exists (just like the "King of Scotland" no longer exists). Some information about how "official" these various arms are should be included on those pages, since it isn't clear (to me, at least).--JW1805 20:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I've improved the Scottish Coat of Arms page. Scotland is differnet from England in that it has its own offical coat of arms as stated in the Act of Union, while England does not. The English 3 lions is only used by the FA and Cricket Board, while the Scottish arms are used offically on Scottish documents and in the courts. Astrotrain 20:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The sv:Skottland article was vandalised today. The vandal started by removing the Arms of Scotland, but clearly decided to vent their wrath by further removing maps and other information from the page and removing all formatting. It strikes me as a tad coincidental that that should happen just as User:Astrotrain decided to remove the Scottish Arms from en: wiki. If any administrator is reading this, the vandal at sv: used IP 194.103.228.51 This page is about Scotland, not just about Scotland as a constituent country of the UK, but about the country from its unification in the 9th century, and before that. Before trying to censure out of existence the Arms of Scotland, I would like User:Astrotrain to visit the England page and try to remove their national coat of arms: the three lions. Please come back afterwards and tell us how you got on.--Mais oui! 21:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

These are the offical Coat of Arms of Queen Elizabeth II in Scotland, and are displayed in the Scottish Courts, on Scottish Acts of Parliament. A modified version without the helm is used by the Scottish Executive, the national government of Scotland. The Coat of Arms you propose are no longer in use by anyone.. It is best to use the offical coat of arms of Scotland, since these are the arms actually used in the country, rather than an historical version. People can look at the Coat of Arms article to see previous versions.

I will not be removing the English 3 lions, since this is the only avaliable coat of arms to represent the country of England in a solitary capacity. The Coat of Arms of England have not been used since the 14th century for offical state purposes, although some national English sporting organisations use them in leiu of an offical English Coat of Arms being avaliable Astrotrain 22:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Why then remove the Scottish Lion Rampant, which is the only avaliable coat of arms to represent the country of Scotland in a solitary capacity? If anything, the lion rampant is a far more common and well-known device to represent Scotland than the English three lions are (or were until recently). This should be taken up with the UK wikipedians noticeboard, or whatever it is called. Scotland, England and Wales are all shown with their own flags, so why should only Scotland be shown without its own Arms but the Arms of the UK instead? By all means standardise them, eg. by simply showing a simple shield with the lion rampant, rather than the full Royal Arms of Scotland. Ages ago, a lion rampant flag used to be shown where the Arms now stand. I would contend that that is by far the most familiar symbol using the lion rampant to the Scottish public. Who took down the lion rampant flag, and why?--Mais oui! 04:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I also suggest that you withdraw your insinuation that I vandalised the Sweddish language page. Astrotrain 22:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Very, very amusing Astrotrain! So, let me get this right: it is perfectly OK for England to be allowed to display her national arms, but not Scotland. Right, I think we have the measure of you now.--Mais oui! 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• There is no seperate English government, therefore the UK coat of arms is used in England. The 3 lions are only used by the English sporting insitutions as the national shield of England. The last offical English coat of arms would be that of Queen Elizabeth I, see [1]. In Scotland, we can clearly see a coat of arms used to represent the country in current use, the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. The version you prefer is clearly not used by any instituion in Scotland, either offically or unofficaly. The Lion Rampant shield is used by the Scottish Football Association, as this is a Scottish symbol, but it is their personal shield, not the country as a whole. Astrotrain 19:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Mais Oui is wrong and Astrotrain is correct. See the official site at royal.gov.uk to confirm this if you want Mais Oui. --Grcampbell 22:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

However, the arms situated at the English page are wrong... These depict the coat of arms as used by the Richard I in 1198, and then by John, Henry III, Edward I, and Edward II, but it then changed. The last "English" coat of arms depicted the "Azure three fleurs-de-lis or" in the first and fourth quadrants and the three lions in the second and third quadrants. This was used by Henry IV to Elizabeth I. then the crowns merged with James I and VI, and the arms changed. --Grcampbell 22:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

No, for heaven's sake. If you asked a student of heraldry to blazon the arms of Elizabeth I, he/she could very well say "quarterly I & IV France modern II & III England" and only go into more detail if you asked. Azure three fleurs-de-lis or is still called "France modern" ("France ancient" was azure seme-de-lis or) even though there is no longer a king of France entitled to use it; more generally, a coat of arms doesn't stop existing just because there's nobody alive to use it. So it is with Scotland; we can still call it "Scotland" even though there's no longer a king/queen of Scotland (or a "King/Queen of Scots" but that's another matter). Doops | talk 19:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the current Queen uses the title "Queen Elizabeth I of Scots" in Scotland (and official stuff, including the seal used on postboxes, reflects this). - SoM 20:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course she doesn't use Elizabeth I; even Elizabeth I didn't use a "I" since that would be anachronistic. The Elizabeth II article suggests that lawsuits in Scotland attempting to force her to use "of Scots" have failed. And I've always understood that the "II" was removed from postboxes to prevent vandalism by radical nationalists. The official policy (stated during the current queen's reign) is that future monarachs will have only one number throughout the UK, but that in case of discrepency they'll use the higher of the two possibilities (rather than just assuming the English version). Doops | talk 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest that a solution might be to put the historic arms of Scotland, which have been disused since 1606 on the History of Scotland page, and put the current 'Royal Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland' here, since they are in current use. --Doc (?) 22:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that "194.103.228.51" is an IP address registered to sv:Lerums kommun in Sweden. Perhaps the inhabitants have declared war on Scotland and this is their first salvo, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have initiated a section on the UK wikipedian's page for this issue, as its outcome affects the England page and the Wales page too: Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#England_page.2C_Scotland_page.2C_Wales_page:_National_Arms_or_UK_Arms

Picking up the discussion on this talk page (its natural home) — of course Mais oui! is right; the arms should be the lion rampant in the tressure flory-counterflory; and the caption below should read "royal arms" or "arms of Scotland." And as he/she suggested, it would be simpler and more appropriate if somebody found a better image focused on the arms alone (without all the apparatus of a full achievement). Astrotrain's proposed arms aren't the royal arms of Scotland; they're the royal arms of the UK for use in Scotland and they could certainly appear further down the page somewhere, if properly captioned. But it's just sensible that the infobox for x contain symbols of x, not of X. Doops | talk 07:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Look at [2], a copy of the Breastfeeding etc. (Scotland) Act 2005. It uses the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. Look at this document for the High Court [3], clearly showing the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. Variants of the Lion Rampant are used by some Scottish institutions such as the SFA or the Scottish Rugby Association, as a recognisable symbol of Scotland. The Royal Coat of Arms are the only offical arms. England does not have its own offical arms, that is why the 3 lions symbol has been used. Astrotrain 22:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Au contraire. Please have a wee keek at the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Oooooo... what is that nice symbol at the top of the document? Wow! It is the Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom, on an English act of parliament! Shock, horror. You had better skip off straight away and remove those naughty little "unofficial" (sic) three lions from the England page. I am sure that your intervention on that page, removing the national symbols of England, will be very warmly welcomed. Once you have successfully installed the UK Coat of Arms on the England page, please come back and tell us how you got on. If you suceed in applying the UK Arms to the England page then I will be the first to support your attempt to apply the UK Arms to the Scotland page. I await with bated breath. PS. If you were wondering: no, my choice of Act to cite was not purely coincidental. I did like your choice of the Breastfeeding etc. (Scotland) Act 2005. What does etc involve?--Mais oui! 22:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And compare and contrast the Arms on the Breastfeeding Act and the Incapacity Act - they're different. - SoM 22:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Mais Oui, there is no legislation for England, as England has no parliament. The legislation is actually for the United Kingdom, even though Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland may not be affected by the legislation taking place in Westminster. The legislation is NOT carried out by an English parliament, but a Scottish one. The official coat of arms for Scotland is that posted by Astrotrain. --Grcampbell 22:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is the official coat of arms FOR Scotland. Not of. For. Doops | talk 23:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Use of the lion rampant by the Scottish Rugby Association & of the three lions passant by the English Cricket Board are exactly analogous — a technically illegal usurpation of the respective kingdoms' ancient royal arms (no longer used alone) which is tolerated partly through indifference and partly through pragmatism: they are national teams and those symbols, although technically "royal", are useful substitutes for the "national" coats of arms of more modern countries. (As is technically also the Union Flag, although of course nobody bothers about that either.) Doops | talk 23:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The Scottish Rugby Union don't use the Lion Rampant, the football side does though... --Grcampbell 23:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

(Sorry. I was going by what Astrotrain said above. Doops | talk 04:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC))

To quote myself: it's just sensible that the infobox for x contain symbols of x, not of X. Doops | talk 21:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This revert war is getting silly and Astrotrain is periously close to breaking the 3RR. Personally, I don't much care which arms go here (what about both?) but we need to broaden this discussion out. I'm going to list this debate for an RfC - I suggest all those involved sit back and wait to see if the wider community is in support. --Doc (?) 22:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Any new voices please state your opinion under this:

• RFC response - why can the article not have both the Royal Standard of Scotland and the Coat of Arms of Scotland? David | Talk 11:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine, although it would make Scotland the only country with three symbols in the infobox, rather than the standard two. But you perhaps have not quite understood User:Astrotrains actions: he is not trying to insert the Coat of Arms of Scotland in the infobox, he is trying to insert the Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom there. It is actually the Coat of Arms of Scotland that he keeps deleting.--Mais oui! 15:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Lets get some facts straight. The Scotland article always had the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland as its coat of arms in the infobox section. Someone changed it to the Coat of Arms used by the Kings of Scotland prior to 1603. I changed the article back, reinserting the correct coat of arms, as used by the Queen in Scotland, and the Scottish Executive. Mais oui seems to think I have inserted the UK Coat of Arms, which I clearly have not, see the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom article. Although the England and Wales pages use their historical coat of arms, Scotland is different in that it has its own coat of arms that is in current use, and is widely recognisable as such. Astrotrain 17:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, before anybody gets their knickers in a twist regarding Personal Attacks, I will try to be as diplomatic as feasible in the trying circumstances (this is a great strain for me).

The above statement by Astrotrain is not true; it is a perversion of the truth; it is false; it is an untruth; it knows not the truth; it deviates very, very far from the righteous path of truth.

He is not trying to insert the "Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland" (sic) on the Scotland page, he is in fact persisently tring to insert the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom on the Scotland page, while simultaneously deleting the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. (He has been fiddling about with the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland page too, but life is far too short, so someone else can monitor that page because I have better things to do.)

If you are in any doubt whatsoever, have a good, close look at the Coat of Arms he is tring to insert: it contains the Scottish lion rampant, the English three lions passant guardant and the Irish harp on the shield; plus the two animals (a lion and a unicorn) are holding a flag of Scotland and a flag of England. Then nip over to the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom page. What have we here? That very same coat of arms, but sacre bleu!, it does not say "Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland" (as User:Astrotrain would have you believe); it in fact states the true, accurate, honest, not-telling-untruths fact: it is the (sound effect: royal fanfare) Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom, as used in Scotland. It is the Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom. The proper place for the Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom is, sigh, raised eyebrows, the United Kingdom page. For some reason, Astrotrain point blank refuses to insert the Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom on the United Kingdom page. He also refuses to attempt to insert the Coat of Arms of the United Kingom on the England page. I think we know why: he would be sent packing with a ¨flea in his ear. For, lo and behold, there on the England page, is the Arms of England, not the Arms of the United Kingdom. And so it should be.--Mais oui! 17:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Since we're dealing with coats of arms, we have to take a (or an, if you're British) heraldic point of view; and by it, Mais Oui is perfectly right. Every heraldic manual I've ever seen has referred to the arms Astrotrain keeps adding as something along the lines of "the royal arms for Scotland" or even "the royal arms as used in Scotland." It is perfectly clear that they are actually the exact same coat of arms as the ones to be found at Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.

"How can that be?" you ask; "those arms are visibly different." The answer is that they are different versions of the same arms. Let me give you an example. Suppose that my father has a coat of arms and so does my mother (either she was granted it in her own right or she had no brothers to pop in before her). I then inherit both of their arms on their deaths. Now I can easily quarter their arms (in the same way that England, Scotland, and Ireland are quartered on the UK arms); but what do I do with the fact that they each had a crest sitting up on top? (Well, unless she was really modern, my mother didn't use hers; but her father did and I inherited it through her.) [Edit: I find, on consulting Fox-Davies, that, a century ago when he was writing, it was considerd impossible to inherit a crst through a woman, since she had no way of displaying it (Fox-Davies criticizes this reasoning). However, he writes that it was certainly possible in England before the Stuart era; and even thereafter often occurred de facto when the son of an heiress got a Royal License to adopt her surname and was accorded rights to her father's crest as part of the deal. Plus of course nowadays women may be granted crests. Certainly there are plenty of people entitled to more than one crest. Doops | talk 19:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)] Some people entitled to multiple crests include them all when displaying their arms. Others think this looks silly and just choose one. Let's say that I like my mother's crest better and choose it. Then I die; and my son prefers my father's old crest. Is it available for him to use? Yes! Just because I didn't use it doesn't mean it stopped existing; it was still there, invisibly. Likewise with my parents' supporters (if they were so lucky as to have these rare honors). Say my dad's are an aardvark and a beaver while my mother's are a yak and a zebra. I'm free to choose any two I want; and if I use the aardvark and the yak, my son is free to choose the beaver & zebra instead if he prefers. The point of all this: a person's arms include all those symbols to which he/she is heraldically entitled; the visual display of them is entirely up to that person. The queen has one coat of arms, which she chooses to display differently in Scotland than she does elsewhere; in Scotland the Scottish elements have pride of place.

Until devolution, it's clear why the Scottish Office in Westminster used the queen's arms for Scotland: they are a ministry of her UK government. Now I admit that their use by the new Scottish parliament is a little confusing; if they're a national Scottish institution, what are they doing with English and Irish symbols on their arms? Well, first, it's not their arms — it's the queen's, which they're using by permission and as her delegates. And secondly, I'd guess that the possibility of using the plain lion rampant, if it even occurred to them at all, was rejected because it could be interpreted as a sign of Scottish independence.

Could it be so interpreted here? No, we're not an official government institution displaying it as our symbol; we're reporting in the third person on somebody else's symbol. Whose? Not the parliament's but the country's. A country is more than its government; and so while the lion rampant is obviously not used by the Scottish parliament, it is a national symbol of Scotland. And, in fact, to a herald, it is Scotland. It is absolutely & 100% analogous to the three lions in England — the old royal arms of the kingdom, now never used because the kingdom has acceeded to a United Kingdom. Doops | talk 18:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• The question is not "What is the national symbol of Scotland", but "what is the coat of arms". Clearly the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland is the coat of arms used in Scotland. Look in any Scottish courtroom and you will see the Royal Arms on the wall, look at any Scottish Act of Parliament, and the same arms will appear. Look at Royal Warrant issued to Jenners Dept Store in Edinburgh, it is the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. Receive a letter from the Scottish Executive, it will be headed by their personal arms, which is a modified version of the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland. The Lion Rampant is not a coat of arms, it is a banner of the shield used in the Coat of Arms of the King of Scotland prior to 1603. It may well be used as a national symbol of Scotland, but it is not the Coat of Arms. (BTW you are completely wrong in the "example" you give above, a person cannot chose their own arms, they can only be granted) Astrotrain 19:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you even read my post above? I have explained quite clearly why those arms are used in the Scottish Parliament, in Scottish courtrooms, in royal warrants granted in Scotland — they are Her Majesty's arms as used in Scotland. Nobody is denying this. But you continue, misguidedly, to call them the "arms of Scotland." Do you see the distinction? The Scottish Executive do not have "personal arms" (by which I presume you mean "corporate arms"); the arms on their letterhead is not a modification of the Royal Arms — it is the Royal Arms. It's a different artistic portrayal of them than the ones used by others; but that doesn't make them different arms. Finally, with respect to the laws of arms — no, only the original grantee needs to be "granted" arms. From there they can be inherited, needing (depending on circumstances) no or only minimal ("matriculation") intervention by the heralds. Now obviously I can't just change my coat of arms on a whim. But I can make aesthetic judgements within the arms I've been granted or inherited. This includes both trivial things (like deciding to use a lighter shade of blue than my father did) and, sometimes, quite remarkable things (in England, mottos aren't an official part of a grant of arms and can be changed entirely at my whim). I can't blindly pick and choose among all my ancestors' arms; but in the example I'm describing I am, as the oldest (or only) son, the legitimate heraldic heir of my mother and father. Doops | talk 19:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• The Arms of the Scottish Executive can be seen on their article. They are a modification of the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland, in that they do not have a helm or crest. Look at [4] (a random SE circular). You will see the Executive's coat of arms. Compare these to the Royal Arms to see the difference. The Royal Arms (with helm and crest) are only used by the Crown (ie the Queen, Courts etc). Astrotrain 20:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

In other words, they only use a part of the royal arms. Perhaps it was an aesthetic decision, or perhaps you're right, and it was considered inappropriate for them to use the whole panoply. Either way, though, it's not their own arms: it's still the queen's arms, which they're using as her agents. Doops | talk 20:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Astrotrain. If you persist in referring to the Arms of the United Kingdom as the "Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland" (sic), we will have to conclude that you are deliberately trying to mislead other users. The arms you keep trying to insert are not the arms of Scotland, they are the arms of the United Kingdom. It is the Arms of Scotland that you keep deleting, from the Scotland page! (raised eyebrows)--Mais oui! 20:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I want to respond to an earlier point made by Astrotrain: "the Lion Rampant is not a coat of arms, it is a banner of the shield used in the Coat of Arms of the King of Scotland prior to 1603." I realize that some people use the words "the lion rampant" as a nickname for that particular flag. However, there's nothing wrong in also using that phrase as a nickname for the old coat of arms. Banners and coats-of-arms are directly related to one another; the one doesn't exist without the other. Both banner and arms are equally, today, the property of the queen (but of course she doesn't use them on their own, joining them instead to English and Irish equivalents to get UK arms/standard). Doops | talk 22:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have created Kingdom of Scotland as a separate article (currently, just a stub). I think some of the information in the Scotland article would be better located there. --JW1805 18:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• That is a good idea, with the correct coat of arms for the Kingdom of Scotland displayed as appropiately I see. Astrotrain 19:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I have created a "National Symbols of Scotland" page that allows discussion of the symbols such as the Lion Rampant that are used to represent Scotland. This allows the distinct Scottish symbols to be discussed, while allowing the coat of arms as used in Scotland to be shown, in line with the other country pages. Hopefully this will be an accepted compromise Astrotrain 20:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to create other pages, but on the Scotland page it is the Arms of Scotland that should be shown. If you want to insert the Arms of the United Kingdom on the UK page, feel free, but the correct symbol for the Scotland page is the arms of Scotland. You are not proposing a compromise, you are persistently and deliberately lying to other users. Why?

:"in line with the other country pages" is a total perversion of the truth: both the England page and Wales page show their own national symbols, not the symbols of the UK.--Mais oui! 20:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Grcampbell has the true compromise: show the Scottish Standard in the infobox, but include the Arms of the United Kingdom under the Head of State section. I liked it, but Astrotrain didn't. He has deleted the arms of Scotland and inserted the arms of the United Kingdom for about the tenth time!--Mais oui! 20:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Including the Scottish version of the UK arms in the "head of state" section is a great idea and I'm all for it. Personally, though, I would prefer a shield-shaped coat of arms in the infobox rather than a flag-shaped one. The two are, of course, exactly heraldically equivalent — you can't have the one without the other, theoretically, existing — but a shield is more in line with every other article out there. Two flags, on the other hand, could actually confuse some readers. Doops | talk 21:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"Personally, though, I would prefer a shield-shaped coat of arms... " Agreed. That is actually the very first compromise that I proposed, a few days ago: that we insert a simple shield with the Scottish lion rampant, to complement the clean, simple three lions shield shown on the England page. The lion rampant flag (the "Scottish Standard" or "Royal Standard of Scotland") is however actually by far the most common and popular use of the Arms of Scotland today among the Scottish public: you see it used all over the place.--Mais oui! 21:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes you do — although properly, of course, it's the "old royal standard of Scotland" :) Doops | talk 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of this "true compromise". On shields vs. flags; on the one hand, my inner herald would prefer ye olde eschuteon (and that anyone referring to it as a "crest" be pounded with one), but on the other, the prevalent actual use of it is as a flag. But at any rate, here's a couple of them [5] [6], if anyone wants to swipe one, and assert fair use (or that Scots criminal law trumps US civil law in this case). Alai 01:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Been swiped and added - and this, for me, is the best option, and falls into line with what we see in the English article, the eschuteon of the lion rampant is a good quality one, and the presence of the two coat of arms, Scottish, and the UK version for Scotland in the article is a good compromise.

Votes for this version? --Grcampbell 20:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I support this compromise position. It was User:JW1805 who appears to have swiped the nice, clean, high-quality, simple Arms of Scotland from the website of Balliol College, University of Oxford. It perfectly complements the nice three-lions Arms of England at the England page, without the pretence of being a "full achievement" (the full royal coat of arms of Scotland with escutcheon, collar, supporters etc, etc.) The Royal Arms of the United Kingdom (version for use in Scotland) (ie. Astrotrain's Arms) have been given pride of place at the very top of the very first chapter of the Scotland article: Head of State. Surely this, long-yearned-for, compromise will satisfy you-know-who.--Mais oui! 20:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm (as I've said before) happy with it. Doops | talk 20:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

No, not that kind of bullet! I assure you, my intentions are entirely amicable. I just want to try to figure out where Astrotrain and I are misunderstanding each other; and I thought the best way would be to make a bulleted list of short, specific questions so I can get Astrotrain's short, specific answers to them. Thanks. Doops | talk 21:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, I want to make it quite clear that, as best as I can tell, nobody disagrees with you that the quartered Scotland/England/Ireland/Scotland arms are used officially in Scotland. You keep making this point as if we don't believe you; of course we do. Let's focus on the actual disagreement. OK?
• You and I do call these arms by different names, however. You call them "the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland" while I call them "the Royal Arms of the UK for use in Scotland" or "HM Arms for Scotland" or "the Royal Arms for Scotland." I have tried to explain why the latter versions are better but you have persisted in using the former. Is the problem that you do not understand me (i.e. I have no been clear enough), or that you do understand me, but disagree?
• If you disagree, why? On what basis do you consider it correct to call them the "royal arms of Scotland"?
• Do you understand the point I am trying to make when I say that these arms and the Royal Arms as used outside of Scotland are really just two versions of the same arms?
• If you understand this point but disagree with it, on what basis? (Please make a heraldic argument since this is a heraldic question.)
• One more point from me, although you don't need to respond since it's not a question: I have nothing against the Scot/Eng/Irl/Scot arms used by the Queen or her courts or her govt in Scotland. I am not a Scottish nationalist, and I do not froth with anger at the sight of them. (Probably most Scottish nationalists don't either.) These are perfectly fine arms which I actually rather like. So my opposition to their use in the infobox is not ideological; I'm just a stickler for logic and their use there is illogical. By all means, say I, include them further down in the article. Doops | talk 21:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In response to your patronising questions, why should we use a coat of arms no longer in use, when we have a coat of arms that is in use, and only used in Scotland, that serves the purpose far better? The terms "of" vs "for" is irrelavent. The Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland (term used since this is the name of the Wikiepdia article on the matter) is the logical choice since these are the ones actually used. The Lion Rampant is used unoffically as a flag at football matches (technically illegal), not in any offical capacity. In any case it is not a coat of arms.
  • I also do not have any ideological opposition to the Lion Rampant, but it does not make sense to use an historical banner, when an existing and uniquely Scottish coat of arms exists. Astrotrain 21:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• I am sorry that my questions came across as patronizing; that was not my intention. I was simply hoping that we could address each other head-on instead of constantly slipping past one another. Since you haven't answered me directly, I can only guess at your views; so I'm sorry if in what I'm about to say I misrepresent you. You say that "the terms "of" vs "for" is irrelevant"; this suggests to me that I have not been clear about the vital difference I see. Whenever I say "Royal Arms FOR Scotland" this is really a shorthand: my claim is that the arms in question are the Royal Arms OF the United Kingdom FOR USE IN Scotland. Every coat of arms is a coat of arms "of" something or somebody; so my claim is that you are incorrect in viewing these arms as arms "of" Scotland. They are really the Scottish version of the arms "of" the UK. Hence the distinction between "of" and "for". Once again, 1) do you understand; 2) do you disagree? I'm sorry if this sounds patronizing; but understanding and acquiescence are two separate things and I don't want to misinterpret your answer. Thanks. Doops | talk 21:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Doops, I am not really interested in your interpretations. The question is this, the infobox template has a space for a coat of arms. Should we use: the coat of arms currently used in Scotland (termed by some as either the Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland, or the Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland); or an historical coat of arms, the arms of the King of Scotland prior to 1603; or a banner of the arms of the King of Scotland prior to 1603, known as the Lion Rampant?

I say (again), use the Royal Coat of Arms of/for Scotland, since this is the coat of arms actually used in the country. Astrotrain 22:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Put it this way: if the UK split up tomorrow, would Scotland continue to display the English and Irish arms? No, of course not; they'd revert to the plain old lion rampant. The conjoined arms are a symbol of the conjoined crown. Now, I've got nothing against this; I'm all for the union. (Mais oui!, I suspect, is more skeptical.) But union symbols should belong on the union page.

You're right to say that the Scottish arms aren't used by themselves in any official governmental capacity. But you must see how that argument would logically lead to replacing the three lions on the England page. If official governmental use is your critereon, that's the only position you can take. Neither the lion rampant nor the three lions is in official governmental use on their own.

Now you're right when you say that England doesn't have a parliament or an executive while Scotland does. Again, I think that is unnecessarily-govt-focused; but let's look at it that way for a sec. Scotland has only had a local govt for less than a decade. Is your argument dependent on this government? What would you have argued a decade ago?

By the way, I want to contest the notion that the Scottish arms are somehow defunct: they are still in official governmental use, every day, in the conjoint UK arms. Those UK arms aren't meaningless: each quarter represents something. And to a herald, each quarter has a name: England, Scotland, Ireland. Every time the UK arms are used, it affirms the fact that those arms are still alive and kicking.

Finally, why aren't you interested in my interpretations? I'm interested in yours. I've tried to reply in detail to your points, and if you want to give me bullets I'll do a bulleted reply. The only way to argue is with an open mind, ready to be persuaded by the other arguments. And that's what the wikipedia is about. Doops | talk 23:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, four reverts in the space of 24 hours... is in violation of the three revert rule... watch it, or the sysops may suspend your account. --Grcampbell 22:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that there is room for both of these coats of arms in the article, and in fact the explanation of how they differ makes very interesting reading. I think you need a separate article. Deb 17:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

There already exist separate articles on Royal Coat of Arms of Scotland and Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom for use in Scotland. Read away. :) You're right that there's room for both arms in this article; and, indeed, so far as I know, everybody who wants to put the former in the infobox is happy with including the latter in the "head of state" section. But astrotrain, if I understand correctly, does not consider that enough of a compromise. Doops | talk 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to request that the parties involved refrain from their revert war on the Arms of Scotland issue until they reach a decision here. One of you has already violated the 3RR (by a few minutes) and the other has come within a few minutes of doing the same. The revert war makes you both look childish, even though the passionate discussions here seems to indicate that you are both mature and eloquent. Please focus on resolving the issue here (or through mediation) rather than fighting it out with reverts. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

On the whole, I think that the use of the lion rampant seems more reasonable. The Arms of Dominion as used in Scotland do not represent Scotland; they are only the arms of HM The Queen, the monarch of the United Kingdom. By analogy, I expect that we would use the three lions passant guardant for England, not the Arms of Dominion. -- Emsworth 00:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

At no point did I break the "3 revert rule". Since this dispute is getting really ugly, I will not be wasting my time on this article. Let the abusive arrogance of Mais Oui and the amateur heralidic authority of Doops decide what is the coat of arms. Astrotrain 23:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)