Talk:Scotland/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: National anthem

message: 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)
thread_title: Crofting

message: 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)
thread_title:  jocks? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lowland Scots 

message: 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 | Talk  23:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Scotland is not a country 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Remove 'a country in northwest Europe'

message: "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)
thread_title:  Scottish Crown 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 20:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SED

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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