Talk:Scotland/Archive 10

message: I went ahead and made my suggested edit, visible in the template, and tried my hand at writing the article linked in the box,Multiple unofficial anthems. I know it probably needs work, and if it's unacceptable then I apologise for overstepping my authority or allowance, but thought it was worth a go to see if it was a possible option. 
-- Thanks.
Kaenei 07:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the national anthem

message: "Although no longer used for the purposes of local government, the traditional counties of Scotland are still used as geographical areas; as are the regions and districts of Scotland."
There are articles on older subdivisions still in use in Scotland which a user has deleted with the comments- "rv- POV", but without any real explanation of why it is POV to link to these pages. Astrotrain 20:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't, are they ? Traditional I mean; that's not what the linked article is called. Anyway, if we are going to edit war over this, counties of Scotland and regions and districts of Scotland work fine without piping. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine by me. I don't really have an opinion on the traditional counties debate, but I thought the context appropiate in relation to the offical subdivisions currently in use. Astrotrain 20:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are still counties such as Lanarkshire etc, used for valuation, health board purposes etc. There are articles on these subdivisions, so they should be linked here. There are regions of Scotland, such as Strathclyde (used for police and fire services). This too should be linked here. Whether you want to describe them as traditional or not is not important. These articles exist and should be linked here. Astrotrain 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The counties of Scotland article starts by saying that the counties have many and varied origins (hmm, doesn't say "kingdoms" among them, which it should) and have I have removed two instances of the ABC/CW favourite "traditional counties", the one that's left is qualified as so-called. Should be less objectionable now I hope. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. It seems silly to delete valid links. I will add back tomorrow, or someone else can. Astrotrain 21:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it very interesting indeed to see "revert POV, per talk" in the article history by User:Mais oui! when removing the links again, when infact the consensus here is to have the links. /wangi 03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subdivisions

message: It is perhaps a bit harsh to totally remove this bit: "pronounced , approximately "ALA-puh"". Can we put is as a footnote or something. I tried to do it but it looked silly. Is there a std Wikipedia method of putting footnotes?
(While I am here: this article, esp the history section, is still far too long. Can one of you history buffs please, please take some sensible secateurs to that section... please!!! We have absolutely tons of history articles for readers to (hopefully easily) find. We do not need everything at this main gateway article.) --Mais oui! 08:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaelic pronounciation 

message: When the article discusses the current devolution system, could it state that the it was endorsed in a Scottish referendum in 1997?  It's interesting to point out that the Scottish people chose this system in preference to the then status quo, or outright independance. (New member, never edited a page before! Want to run this past you all first)
: That's wrong. Independence was not and has never been put before the people of Scotland in any referendum. Small point, I know. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you could add something about devolution, but Calgacus is right. The independence question was not put on the referendum ballot papers. The choice given to the Scottish electorate was between the status quo and devolution. Viewfinder 18:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Devolution referendum 

message: As I understand it, Scottish defense is the responsibility of Westminster, but the article makes no mention of the word Defense, even. Most other national articles I've read through (Germany) make a mention of their Defense forces. I figure it should be mentioned here, somewhere. HellaNorCal 00:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Germany is a nation state whereas Scotland is a region within a nation state so the topics covered by the articles dont necessarily have to be the same. That said perhaps a short section on the Scottish contribution to the British military might be good to insert. siarach 09:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I know that Scotland doesn't have control of its military, I just thought it should be mentioned. While Scotland is not a sovereign nation state, it is a Nation, one constituent nation of the UK. There is a difference, between a nation and a state. HellaNorCal 05:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is a difference between a nation and a state but it is one which is, particularly within the UK, hugely overblown and often misunderstood as many of us seem to believe that the UK is somehow different to other nations in being made up of various regions which were formerly sovereign states or as, they are often euphemistically described, 'constituent nations' . When people generally refer to a 'nation' they usually mean a nation-state. Scotland (or England) is no more (or less) a nation than Catalonia, Aragon, Prussia, Brittany, Naples or any formerly sovereign region within an existing nation-state and i doubt very much you would find any reference to 'their' defence forces in their articles. siarach 08:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not, but that's not the point. When you're dealing with a Nation such as Scotland, where the most widely-recognized folk instrument is one of war (the pipes, and where folks expect to see kilted warriors running rampant, there should be some mention. Scotland has a strong military tradition, which should not be ignored.  Canæn  07:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To mention the Clyde submarine base and Trident, and only these aspects of 'defence' (sic) in the opening paragraphs looks a bit too politically biased.   Perhaps a separate section could be devoted to Scotland's role and contribution to the UK Armed Services, now and in the past?--RDT2 09:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be a good idea indeed, Mais Oui. I'll actually look into it the nou.  Canæn  07:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense??