Talk:Scotland/Archive 1

message: The article's first paragraph reference to Roman usage of Caledonia seems a bit anachronistic. That Roman period predates the emergence of the state, nation or country now called Scotland. Caledonia may be considered now to be a name for Scotland, but it was not so during the period of Roman rule in Britain, because Scotland had then no more real existence than did England. Also, the Roman Caledonia did not include territory south of the Forth-Clyde line. Laurel Bush 12:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I note that Caledonia is already listed in see also, although the corresponding entry does not have as much detail as your paragraph above. Perhaps that entry could be expanded, and the mention here removed? Berek 16:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Caledonia

message: Hi, we are having a little dispute in the German Wikipedia whether Scots is really an official language (Amtssprache in German) in Scotland, i.e. the language that by law administrative documents can be written in. Can someone clarify 1. what exactly is meant by official language in this context and 2. confirm that Scots is one in Scotland? Or is it just an acknowledged minority language? Thanks in advance! --131.111.99.102 13:40, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Update -- there now is a Scots Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 22:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: As it stands today, the article is at odds with itself.  The info box says scots is, the languages section says it isn't.  They can't both be right. --  John Fader (talk | contribs) 14:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case one of them should be changed. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 22:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether Scots is an official language

message: A few minor edits. I thought "the best of both worlds argument" about scottish law could be argued to infringe upon the NPOV principles, and if you're going to refer to other parties by their proper names then you should refer to the Conservatives like this as well rather than using diminutives. Chrism 19:06, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Showing my age, I preferred the distinctive name "The Conservative and Unionist Party", fortunately much diminished of late..dave souza 00:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Whether Scottish law can be said to be "the best of both worlds"

message: Removed There is a little ambiguity when speaking of Queen Elizabeth II: Scotland has never had a monarch called Elizabeth before her, and many think that she should adopt the style "Queen Elizabeth II of England and I of Scotland".
This is getting a little silly. There is no "ambiguity" in her title - England and Scotland no longer exist as kingdoms and so can't have separate numbering systems for their monarchs because they don't have separate thrones. The United Kingdom has one monarch ruling over one kingdom, and she is "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom". She isn't "Queen Elizabeth II of England and Scotland" or "Queen Elizabeth II of England and II of Scotland", which would indeed create ambiguity. What "many think" is a result of ignorance, not any ambiguity in her title. Scotland indeed hasn't had a monarch called Elizabeth before, but she isn't monarch of Scotland, she's monarch of the United Kingdom (which, incidentally, also hasn't had a monarch called Elizabeth before), and even if she were monarch of Scotland she'd still be Elizabeth II as she is in all her realms, like Canada and Australia, none of which have had a Queen Elizabeth before. This whole confusion seems to stem from the belief that the Queen is separately Queen of England and Scotland, which simply isn't the case, and hasn't been the case for any monarch since 1707. Proteus 10:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If Scotland and England no longer exist as kingdoms and can't have separate numbering systems then surely she is Queen Elizabeth I of both.  But no, she has been called Queen Elizabeth II.  Since that applies to England, I maintain that she is Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland and II of England. --AileanMacRaith 21:07, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For God's sake, this is ridiculous. The Queen isn't anything "of England" or "of Scotland", because those kingdoms don't exist anymore. (I really don't see how that is too hard to understand...) She is the monarch "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and her numeral for that kingdom is "II", as is shown in numerous official and legal documents, including her own Accession Proclamation. You can "maintain" that she's "Elizabeth I of Scotland" or "Elizabeth, Queen of Scots" all you like but it won't make it so. That's not just my opinion, it's a legal fact, and is completely incontestable. Proteus 22:31, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: 1. There has never been an Elizabeth I of the United Kingdom. What's your point? 2. Presumably VIII, though I think it's likely he'd be allowed to call himself whatever he wished. Marnanel 15:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, for crivens sake, there's a 'Queen Elizabeth II of Papua New Guinea'.  Royal numerals don't have to make sense.  Morwen - Talk 15:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's simple.
If Charles renamed himself Zog he would ascend the throne as King Zog I. He couldn't be King Zog II as there has never been a King Zog I. The "legal" position is not what we're discussing here. Parliament could legislate that the Queen is Elibazeth 21st and that would then be legal. What we are talking about is a percieved insensitivity to Scottish feelings at the time of the Queen's ascension. It may be trivial and I suppose most people nowadays don't give it a second thought. But AT THE TIME it caused a lot of angst - hence the exploding post boxes.
Exile
Fine. The "perceived insensitivity" already has its own mention in the article (While some controversy has simmered amongst the Scottish public over her official title since her coronation...); we all agree that there is a difference between the logical position and the legal position (also mentioned in the article); and those who have read the discussion so far already know about the post boxes. So what is the point in this discussion ?  -- Derek Ross |  Talk 06:38, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth is not the first monarch to have this problem. Edward I reigned in the late 13th/early 14th century - so where does this leave Edward (11th century king just before the Norman Conquest)?--Cap 12:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The second time

message: I note that an NPOV dispute notice has been added to this article. Fine, but we need a description of the POV problem so that we can fix it or at the least discuss it.  I will leave the notice until the 29th of March, 2004 and if no discussion of the POV problems has started by that time I intend to remove it. -- Derek Ross 04:43, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the NPOV.  I'm still not sure I agree, but I see that the majority on this board do. --AileanMacRaith 09:44, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: But perhaps we are wrong or just haven't noticed something that you have.  Why do you think that the article is not neutral ? -- Derek Ross 17:25, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The NPOV dispute