Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:26, 22 November 2009

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Introduction Issues relating to the geography and politics of the United Kingdom and nearby territories can be surprisingly complex and controversial, and the subjects raised in this FAQ regarding the Scotland article are best understood in this context. We aim to be enyclopaedic and neutral. We also recognise that reconciling diverse views can be hard work as common phrases are sometimes interpreted in different ways in different cultures. We ask that editors new to this page read the following with an open mind. Where necessary, please research the facts rather than simply jumping to conclusions based on what you "know to be true". Lead section Q1: Is Scotland a "country"? A1: Numerous reliable sources support the view that Scotland is a country—see for example the article entitled Countries of the United Kingdom, and a table of references at Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. This view is shared with other reputable encyclopedias. There has been a long-standing consensus to describe Scotland in this way. This is one of the most frequent questions raised by visitors to this talk page. However, in the absence of a formal British constitution, and owing to a convoluted history of the formation of the United Kingdom, a variety of terms exist which are used to refer to Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, Wales and the UK itself. Reliable and official sources support use of the word "countries", and this term has broadly won preference amongst the editing community. Note however, that a country is not the same as a "sovereign state", and that "constituent country" is also used in other parts of Misplaced Pages. The community endeavours to achieve an atmosphere of neutrality, compromise, and camaraderie on this issue. Q2: Why don't we refer to Scotland as a "nation"? A2: Widespread confusion surrounds the use of the word "nation". In standard British English, and in academic language, a nation is defined as a social group and not a division of land. This is also the approach taken in the article entitled nation, across Misplaced Pages and in other major encyclopedias (for example, the Scottish people and the Québécois are described as "nations"). The term Home Nations is generally used only in sporting contexts. It is not used in major reputable sources outside of sport. Infobox-related issues Q3: Why are two flags used? A3: There have been extremely complex discussion about these matters. The Royal Standard of Scotland (commonly referred to as the "Lion Rampant") was used by the King of Scots until 1603. Today, its correct use is restricted to official representatives of The Monarch. The blue and white Saltire is the flag of Scotland and is widely used by national and local government offices and in numerous other less official capacities. As with other issues described here this outcome is to some extent a compromise solution that seems to suit all parties in that it identifies symbols of Scotland as an entity in its own right, whilst also emphasising the importance of the relationship with the United Kingdom. Q4: Isn't Flower of Scotland the national anthem? A4: There is no official Scottish national anthem. Although there is no doubt that Flower of Scotland is currently amongst the most popular unofficial national anthems in Scotland, it is not the only one, nor even the longest established. Q5: What is the reference to the "Scots language" about? A5: Scots is spoken by 30% of the Scottish population (approximately 1.5 million individuals) according to the 1996 estimate of the General Register Office for Scotland. It is recognised by the European Union's European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. By contrast, Scottish English is a variation of standard British English. Whilst the distinction is by no means clear cut, Misplaced Pages policy permits the use of Scottish English words and phrases where appropriate. Scots, on the other hand, has its own site: see the Scots Misplaced Pages. Q6: Wasn't Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom the first Queen Elizabeth to reign over Scotland? A6: Yes, but "Elizabeth II" is her legal title, as resolved in Scots law in the legal action entitled MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. Related issues Q7: What is the difference between "Great Britain" and the "United Kingdom"? A7: See the article entitled "Terminology of the British Isles". Great Britain is the name of the largest island that the UK encompasses, and is not generally used in source material as the name of the sovereign state. Q8: Isn't Northern Ireland a province, and Wales a principality? A8: This view is supported by some sources, but the current consensus amongst the editing community is aligned to a greater body of work which describes both Northern Ireland and Wales as countries. However, the terms are not all mutually exclusive: a country can also be a principality or a province, and these terms are mentioned throughout Misplaced Pages as alternative names in afternotes. References Scottish Parliament. "Your Scotland questions; Is Scotland a country?". Scottish Parliament. Retrieved 2008-08-01. As the UK has no written constitution in the usual sense, constitutional terminology is fraught with difficulties of interpretation and it is common usage nowadays to describe the four constituent parts of the UK (Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) as 'countries'. The "Lion Rampant" Flag The Court of the Lord Lyon. Retrieved on 10 October 2008. "Scotland's Languages" University of Glasgow. Retrieved 7 December 2008. The proportion is said to rise to 90% in the North East. Both Scots and Scottish Gaelic are officially recognised as autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. See "European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages" Scottish Government. Retrieved 27 September 2007.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

	Scotland has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 12, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 29, 2006 Good article reassessment Kept May 12, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 2, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept January 25, 2008 Peer review Reviewed January 13, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scotland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Europe High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Misplaced Pages.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. UK geography Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Celts Scotland is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Please observe official Misplaced Pages policy on No personal attacks. In particular, please note the clear instruction: "... some types of comments are never acceptable: racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets directed against another contributor... or using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Any such personal attacks will be immediately removed from this talk page (see Misplaced Pages:Remove personal attacks). Using ip sockpuppet or meatpuppet addresses, or edit summaries, to make personal attacks is particularly frowned upon. Please log in to your account.

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2023-04-12 Current Main Task: Improve to 'Good Article' status Watch this page and help revert vandalism. Contribute to the Talk page where suggested improvements are discussed. Avoid making significant additions or changes without attempting to get support from other editors first. Read the Archive Summary. Priority 1 (top)

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33

References

RFC: calling Northern Ireland a "country"

An RFC has been opened inviting comment on how to describe Northern Ireland in that article. All comments are welcome. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Stirling Gold Hoard

A significant gold hord here ], ] at least 2000 years old was discovered in Stirling consisting at the moment of four gold torcs, the find is worth over 1million pounds. More gold may be discovered and is a significant find like the Staffordshire Hoard and several pieces. Should we create a page called the Stirling Hoard as it is a significant find. Also as the find was in Stirling, would the artifacts be classified as Pictish and of the Caledonii Tabhara. (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

More info would be needed to make a page worthwhile and to provide a reasonable name. Info to date says "in Stirlingshire",, "near Stirling" etc., which could cover a wide range of locations. Similar for speculation about original ownership - the Maeatae might be in with a shout if it is really near Stirling. AllyD (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Testing the water

A discussion is taking place over the lede of Northern Ireland with some editors objecting to the current wording which is consistent over Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. One possible change which appears acceptable to some of the objectors is to replace "X is a country which is a part of the UK" to "X is one of the four countries of the UK". My purpose here is to test the water and ask what would be the reaction to such a change if it was made consistently on all four articles. --Snowded 05:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Horses for courses. Northern Ireland clearly has a different status from Eng, Sco and Wal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Just out of curiosity, I wonder if there are other examples of articles where a small group of editors with no other apparent interest in the subject attempt to enforce this kind of rigidity of wording? Ben MacDui 10:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would object to such a change on the basis that Scotland is much more than being just 'one of four countries of the United Kingdom': Scotland was an independent country for far longer than it has been in Union with the rest of the United Kingdom, and the only way to fully reflect this is to state that Scotland is a country and then state that it is part of the United Kingdom. The fact that such a description may work for Northern Ireland, which has no history as a country outwith being part of the United Kingdom, is no reason for the Scotland article to adopt it. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is that while searching for "England is a" or "Scotland is a" on Google books produces "nation" and "country" as the next word fairly often, the same is less true of Northern Ireland. It could be that political scientists and sociologists writing about NI seem to have other things to focus their attention on - how odd is that? - so that the countryness or nationness or otherwise of the place is not much considered. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, those who "objecting to the current wording", "object" it in relation to Northern Ireland only (and want a more nuanced and topic-appropriate approach in relation to that article). A matter was raised that the lede must be consistent across all four articles. That is not necessary in the opinion of those who "object" to it on the Northern Ireland article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"A matter was raised that the lede must be consistent across all four articles." - whoever said that should point the rest of us in the direction of the policy (or even the accepted MOS) that states that. Each article can contain what the editors who wish to participate in building it decide it should contain, subject to following the policies of WP. SFC9394 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one increasingly frustrated with those editors, apparently suffering from a mild form of OCD, who periodically and persistantly attempt to force through a one-size-fits-all approach to the various 'parts' which constitute the UK? E, NI, S & W did not come to form what is now the UK of GB & NI via the same path, nor were they the same entities prior to the UK of GB & NI taking the form we see today. (The only possible exceptions to this being England and Scotland, who despite each kingdom's parliament entering into a joint agreement in the form of the 1707 Act of Union did not walk up the aisle as equals in terms of economic or military might). To deny the separate status and origins of E, NI, S & W and portray them as being equivalent to the States of the USA, Provinces of Canada or Flächenländer of Germany is to attempt to re-write or distort history for the sake of 'neatness'. IMHO, the current lede of this article describes Scotland accurately. If the size which fits Scotland (and England) is not seen to fit Wales or Northern Ireland then the editors of those articles are free to do as they please, and any attempt to force an alternative adjective upon this article without concensus will be resisted. Endrick Shellycoat 20:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting any changes for this article. Just Northern Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings GoodDay. Were your ears burning whilst I typed the above? Given your input at Talk:Northern Ireland#"Country" (no doubt discussed before); "We've already compromised to use 'country' for all 4 articles. There must be consistancy among them. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)" - perhaps you should've added the word "yet" to the end of your first sentence... Although your personal view on the subject of one-size-fits-all may have softened towards becoming "neutral", those of others have not. Endrick Shellycoat 09:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've become less rigid on the matter, as I've grown older. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

recent addition to lead

I removed a recent addition because I felt it was out of place and not sufficiently significant to be in the lead. (It added info about Scotland being a euro-constituency after a sentence describing the geography of Scotland.) I also don't like the phrase 'elective region' - if point is worth making, why not merely state that the whole of Scotland is also a European Constituency? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is in the Wales lead. 2nd sentence. I'm not bothered where it goes or what you call it. I copied it wholesale because there are those who believe the UK country leads should share an element of consistency. Personally I really don't care, but I get annoyed about pointy ownership revert edit summaries like the one here . Leaky Caldron 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See comment in section above - until there is policy on transported consensus you can't insist that something is in place because other articles say it. Discuss it here - that is, after all the point of article talk pages. Your point about OWN is actually mirrored back, because cabals on other talk pages can decide things and then try to "implement" them across a number of articles, with any discussion suppressed with a quick "as per XYZ". This has been attempted on this article in the past and led to nothing but problems. Changes to an article are discussed on the article's talk page, not parachuted in with untouchable status. If it had been "bold, revert, discuss" then I would have done nothing, but it was reverted back, and that is the beginnings of a revert war, hence bud and nip. SFC9394 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Each article can contain what the editors who wish to participate in building it decide it should contain, subject to following the policies of WP. SFC9394 (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)" Agreed. The handful of words I copied are so innocuous I'm suprised anyone is bothered and as I've already said I'm not bothered where it goes or what you call it. That it will be included somewhere is a fact - I'll let the article experts agree where. Leaky Caldron 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In case someone wants a better wording, I would suggest "Scotland is one of the electoral regions for the European Parliament". The word "elective" as far as I know means voluntary, discretionary. Sussexonian (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right about "elective". It should be changed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Added to the Country Info Box footnote 3. Leaky Caldron 14:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

God Save The Queen

What is the status of God Save The Queen in Scotland? I ask because the infobox currently states that there is no Scottish national anthem. When I was in school and university in Scotland, and the "national anthem" was called for on the order of ceremony for an assembly or whatever, we all rose for God Save The Queen. Has that changed? If so, when? Irvine22 (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GSTQ doesn't belong in this article's infobox (nor those of England, Northern Ireland & Wales). Besides, there's no consensus to add it, so don't add it. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

GStQ is the UKoGB&NI anthem, our very own Kaiserlied, but this is an article about Scotland. Scotland, unlike the UKoGB&NI, does not have an official anthem. See the footnotery at National anthem of Scotland and others such as Times, STV, BBC and Times again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So would the Isle of Man infobox provide us with a workable solution? Is God Save The Queen in fact the "Royal Anthem" of Scotland? Irvine22 (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If GSTQ has the same status in England than in Wales/Scotland/NI then why is it in the England infobox GoodDay? --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in there. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It should Goodday, if people look at this article they will think God Save the Queen has no role in Scotland at all but it is used often. Its only really in sporting events where the UK fields its own teams that there is a need for the Scottish anthem Flower of Scotland.BritishWatcher (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of GSTQ on those 4 articles. I also disagree with the inclusion of the UK Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of God save the Queen on this articles infobox. It is true that GSTQ is the anthem of the United Kingdom, however the Prime Minister and Queen are "of the United Kingdom" and are rightly listed in the infobox.

The national anthem is played in Scotland for example at the Edinburgh Tattoo

It is important that we mention God save the Queen in the infobox or at the very least in the notes of the infobox so people can clearly see it. God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland just the way the Stars and stripes is the national anthem in Texas. Its true that American states do not need to mention the US anthem, but we are dealing with what we describe as countries, it is there for very important. Canada mentions their Royal anthem of God save the Queen in the information box. Why can we not do the same just put UK Anthem: God save the Queen? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada's infobox uses it, but Nova Scotia, Yukon, Ontario etc, don't. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for GStQ being the anthem for Scotland as opposed to the UK? If not I say leave it out. Our personal preferences have no place in this debate. --John (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for there being a Scotland "as opposed to the UK"? All the sources I've seen say Scotland is an integral part of the U.K. (And for that matter is there a reliable source for the various other wee ditties that are currently refered to in the article as "de facto" national anthems?)Irvine22 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Scotland exists as an entity that can be differentiated from the UK. As does Essex. Neither have anthems, as they are sub-national entities. References for "de facto" anthems is another issue, and I haven't had a chance to have a look at it yet. Fribbler (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the comparison to Essex is spurious. England would the better analog to the situation of Scotland as a constituent country of the U.K. Besides, Essex doesn't have "de facto" anthems. Apparently Scotland does. Lacking reliable sources for the status of these ditties I think we need either to 1) remove all reference to "de facto" anthems from the article or 2) add God Save The Queen as a "de facto" anthem. Irvine22 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Or Wales for that matter. I don't think the comparison with Essex is spurious. County or "constituent country", they are still administrative sub-divisions of the UK. That said, I wouldn't personally object to removing the folk-anthems, but that would best be done by first tackling:National anthem of Scotland. Fribbler (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Canada's provinces are not described as country's there for the anthem does not need to be listed. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland, Nova Scotia, England, Ontario etc, are all 'not independant'. GSTQ should be listed in infoboxes of 'independents'. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are treated a different way to provinces and states. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

They shouldn't be, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

God save the Queen is the national anthem in the United Kingdom, Scotland is part of the United Kingdom. The principle behind listing the Prime Minister and Queen of the United Kingdom applies in the same way to listing the anthem. What is the harm in putting "UK Anthem: God save the Queen"? To leave it out is more problematic. God save the Queen use to be used when a Scottish team competed in certain sports until it was changed, so it has been used "for" Scotland and that deserves recognition. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree & will continue to do so as long as Scotland remains a part of the UK. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you oppose the suggestion if we tried "God save the Queen (UK Anthem)" Goodday? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose, as it's an acceptable solution (IMHO). GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me also. Irvine22 (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent/ec) Agree with Goodday. Sub-national entities don't have national anthems in their infoboxes. Including the anthem of the state is redundant, whatever about the "country" terminology debate. (i.e. Vojvodina, Catalonia, or even better Socialist Republic of Croatia, a constituent country of SFRY) In addition, including anthems and such can look pointy, as if we were trying to add extra "Britishness" to the articles for the sole reason of pissing some people off rather than informing readers. Fribbler (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So do you favor removing the references to "de facto" anthems from the article? I agree their inclusion is a bit pointy, especially when God Save The Queen seems pointedly excluded. Irvine22 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not about annoying people its about informing the reader. The only real reason not to include it is to avoid annoying a few people, but those same people would be unhappy with the Prime Minister / Queen being listed, yet the majority agreed they do need to remain in the infobox despite being "of the UK". If its clearly labelled as (UK anthem) Where is the harm? Its a bit like Canada listing the royal anthem despite it almost never being used. Whilst at sporting events theres clearly different Scottish anthems, God save the Queen is used as the anthem in Scotland, like at the Edinburgh tattoo as i linked above. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The Canada issue is that the Royal anthem is an anomaly and is added out of interest therein. Of course GSTQ is the national anthem in Scotland, but it is not the national anthem of Scotland, therefore inclusion in this article is a redundancy. The article says Scotland is part of the UK straight off the bat, so that is where people will go looking for anthems, currencies, heads of state, foreign relations, defence and so on. It would be like going to the Oregon article and presuming that because no anthem is included that the US anthem is somehow not used there. The infobox is needlessly long as it is and adding more is overkill. Fribbler (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you accept that in the past at some sporting events God save the Queen was used for the national anthem for Scotland?

"The Flower of Scotland has been used since 1990 as Scotland's unofficial national anthem. It was written by Roy Williamson of the Corries in 1967, and adopted by the SRU to replace God Save the Queen."

The fact these anthems have popped up to "replace" GSTQ suggests it worthy of being in the infobox, especially as there are examples maybe not in sport where God save the Queen is used as the anthem. It should be listed to inform the reader. The fact Scotland is a country within a country means we are in a different situation here in the UK than in an American state. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that GSTQ was used at sporting events doesn't make it the national anthem of Scotland, which is the issue here. Scotland=part of the UK, Anthem of the UK=GSTQ is not in dispute. What we have to decide is whether a sub-national entity requires information inherited from the state entity be in it's infobox. I believe it's redundant, but I'm open to persuasion if it can be shown that a) The inclusion of the anthem is an essential piece of Scotland-specific information and b) Readers would require this information to be presented here rather than the main UK article lest they become misinformed. The "country within a country" terminology is why I cited pre-1990 Croatia above, as it was a similar situation. Fribbler (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The absence of several of the regular editors of this article is noteworthy. Possibly because this has been discussed and resolved before. The existence of Flower of Scotland as a de facto anthem is reasonably well established. There is nothing to say that GSTQ is the anthem of Scotland. The proposed addition of GSTQ with a note that it is the anthem of the UK adds no value to the article and is not relevant. It is clearly not the national anthem of Scotland. --Snowded 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the "regulars" just feel they need to step back and let some fresh perspective flow over the question?Irvine22 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A fresh perspective would obviously be welcome. So far I haven't seen one. --Snowded 01:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Has there ever been a formal Request for Comment on this issue? --Elonka 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that if you look over the past discussions and the FAQ section above you will find that there are a range of issues, including this one, that have been resolved. Of course anything is open to change, anything can have an RFC but it just drives good editors away when petty issues such as this are raised yet again and with no new argument. --Snowded 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to a Request for Comment, it might be helpful but i think its too soon yet we should wait a couple of days and get more feedback here. Snowded the fact this has come up before highlights this is an issue. What harm does listing God save the Queen (UK anthem) underneath the other Scottish anthems do? The fact we have the Queen and Prime Minister in the infobox shows this is not unprecedented, its important that as we call Scotland a country which is part of the UK we treat it in a different way to common states or provinces in other countries. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Until 20 years ago at Scottish national rugby games God save the Queen was used. It was still that national anthem "of the United Kingdom" then, just used for Scotland as well. So back then would it have been suitable to list God save the Queen in the infobox? If that is the case, why is it only sports that decide this matter? as i have pointed out above, the national anthem is played at the Edinburgh Tattoo and that is God save the Queen. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It was, and it was also booed and whistled in the main by the home fans - however at that time it was de facto the national anthem (note de facto) as it still is in England. That has now changed and its Flower of Scotland. The Edinburgh Tattoo is an international event and I would expect the UK national anthem to be played. We have seen the same thing in Wales when the Queen is present, although the national anthem there is established - Land of my Fathers to use the English title. Mentioning the Queen in the information box is appropriate as she is the Head of State. I have never seen the argument for including the British Prime Minister but some things are simply not worth arguing about. Adding in GSTQ simply adds nothing, it is not (despite the early edit wars and insertion by Irvine) the national anthem of Scotland. Why there is a need to add in the anthem of the UK to a constituent country article I simply can't see. Also its not really an issue. From time to time it comes up, often as a provocation (as happened this time), sometimes for other reasons. We also have de facto changed to official form time to time as the nationalist side counters the unionist one. The majority of editors have taken the view that the current version is fine. I think it is beholden on any editor to look at that prior history and see if they have any new evidence or argument to offer. If not my opinion (for what it is worth) is that they should leave well along and go on to more important matters. --Snowded 02:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok so God save the Queen until recently would have been considered one of the de facto anthems of Scotland like it is in England. How come this is not mentioned in this article at all? Sure God save the Queen may have been boooed by some, id expect nothing less however did all the people of Scotland agree with such a change? Is it unreasonable to think that some people in Scotland continue to just think of God save the Queen as their anthem, not what some rugby or Football organisation decides?

You say that adding it adds nothing, but surely providing more information to the reader which is valid is a good thing? It is a national anthem in Scotland and it should be listed as well. Whats wrong with having the De Jure: none, De facto: Flower of Scotland, Scotland the brave and then (UK anthem): God save the Queen" just listed as a 3rd type. This would atleast mention an anthem which you yourself just said was until recently the de facto anthem of Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Scotland not the UK, yes Scotland is an integral part of the UK but it is also its own distinct country, GSTQ is the national anthem of the UK not Scotland it would just be like putting London as the capital in the infobox.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't give them ideas ...

BW, You might want to add more information in the body of the article - if you can find citations. As it is the information box is not appropriate. The de facto use was prior to devolution and that is significant. --Snowded 02:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Until recently God save the Queen was used as an anthem for Scotland at certain sporting events like it is used for England and Northern Ireland today. Surely it would make sense to atleast mention that anthem, at the moment it is not mentioned at all. God save the Queen remains the national anthem in Scotland in the same way that the Star spangled banner is the national anthem in Texas. States and Provinces do not need to list the country's national anthem for obvious reasons (although they could), perhaps they have STATE anthems but they do not have their own national anthems. The situation with the Countries of the United Kingdom is different though because they are called countries. If i am in Scotland and it is announced the national anthem will be played, Outside of sporting events God save the Queen would not be out of place and yet it is not mentioned at all at the moment. BritishWatcher (talk)

I agree there is certainly a need for adding some information about the national anthem to the body of the article. However God save the Queen remains a national anthem in Scotland and it does need a mention in the infobox, listing it just as the UK anthem seemed like a good compromise. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, please provide a citation that it is a national anthem in Scotland. The fact that the UK national anthem is played in Scotland is one thing, that does not make it a national anthem in Scotland. --Snowded 03:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is more of an issue for the Scotland article than the Wales article because atleast in the case of Wales there is an official national anthem of Wales. This is not the case in Scotland, it just comes down to usage and whilst i accept Flower of Scotland is the most used "anthem of Scotland" because of sports what right do such sporting bodies have to determine Scotlands anthems? God save the Queen is a national anthem in Scotland as well. If you accept that the star spangled banner is the national anthem in Texas, or that O Canada is the national anthem in British Columbia then God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland.

I gave you an example earlier of God save the Queen being used in Scotland at the Edinburgh Tattoo. Would they have to introduce that as the "UK national anthem" or could they just say it was the national anthem despite being in Scotland? BritishWatcher (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the programme for the Edinburgh Tattoo i notice it just says National Anthem. Not British National anthem, or UK national anthem. The national anthem thats played in Scotland at that event every year is God save the Queen, we have the videos to prove it. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tattoo is an international event. Scotland is a part of the UK so it is no great surprise if GSTQ is played there on occasion and if it is played then its name is the National Anthem if played within the UK. Also the Tattoo is a military event, and the army is not the army of Scotland, it is the UK army so the identity is the UK. The Star Spangled Banner is sung in Texas on a regular basis. I heard a rather good rendition at West Point last week, but its not the national anthem of West Point, or Texas for that matter. It is the national anthem of the USA which is also played in parts of the USA. Similarily the Canadian national anthem will be played in the provinces of canada. No national anthems are listed in their information boxes. An anthem is a matter of identity, if its sung in Scotland then it is a part of the UK identity, in a specifically Scottish context it would not be sung --Snowded 03:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is there are occasions where the national anthem in Scotland is God save the Queen there for why do we avoid mentioning it at all in the article? It would not be incorrect to list the national anthem of the United States in every US state article, there is just no point because its stating the obvious. The relationship between the Countries of the United Kingdom is not so simple. If i looked at that programme guide i linked before, id see Scotland the brave listed so id presume the national anthem it lists would be Flower of Scotland, but it isnt. Its God save the Queen. If its sung in Scotland as a national anthem it should be listed as such. Putting it in the infobox with "God save the Queen (UK anthem)" would solve this problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

⬅No, there are occasions when the national anthem of the United Kingdom is played in its various parts including Scotland. As I pointed out the Tattoo is a military event, they are the UK's military, they swear loyalty to HM so its entirely appropriate for them to sing GSTQ. It does not make it in an sense of the world a national anthem of Scotland. You need a citation, aside from the fact that your argument is wrong its form is also OR. --Snowded 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland just as it is throughout the United Kingdom, there for it can accurately be listed with the "God save the Queen (UK Anthem)" in the infobox. You said yourself until recently God save the Queen was a de facto anthem of Scotland, it seems crazy that now we do not even mention it at all. You accept the need for the head of state to be listed despite the Queen being "Of the UK" not "Of Scotland or "Of Wales". The exact same principle applies to the Prime Minister and whilst i view this as less important than those two issues the national anthem is the same. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will repeat the point once more. The national anthem of the UK is obviously sung throughout the UK, that does not make it the national anthem of the constituent countries. In a section on government it is appropriate to include the Queen as that is the ultimate source of constitution authority. In order to justify this you have to find a citation and you can't use OR. --Snowded 04:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland  (English / Scots) Alba  (Scottish Gaelic)
Flag Royal Standard
Motto: In My Defens God Me Defend (Scots) (often shown abbreviated as IN DEFENS)
Anthem: None (de jure) Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave (de facto) God save the Queen (UK anthem)
Location of Scotland (inset — orange) in the United Kingdom (camel) in the European continent (white)
ISO 3166 code	GB-SCT

Why is a source needed for us to have the infobox show something like this? We know that God save the Queen is used as a national anthem IN Scotland. We know in the past it was the de facto anthem for Scotland as it was used in sporting events, you said that yourself. What harm does this little addition to the infobox do except provide more information to the reader which addresses the fact God save the Queen is a national anthem in Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Cause its not the national anthem of Scotland, de facto or de jure. it is sung in Scotland in a UK context not a Scottish one. Find a citation or drop it. --Snowded 04:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The example i gave above showed "National anthem" on the programme at the Edinburgh Tattoo in Scotland which was God save the Queen. There is no dispute that God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland as it is throughout the United Kingdom. There for why can we not list the national anthem? It would not be incorrect. The example infobox i showed here does not label it as a De facto or De Jure anthem of Scotland, it describes it as the UK anthem. Its useful to mention there because God save the Queen is played in Scotland as a national anthem. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher I think your example infobox represents the ideal compromise on this issue and - more importantly - conveys the maximum amount of accurate information to the reader. Thanks for that. Let's put it in the article! Irvine22 (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; there is a long-term consensus not to use this and I don't see evidence this has changed. --John (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change and in this case i think a moderate change like the one highlighted in the box above would be a good compromise. There can be no dispute the change is accurate, the point is we need to highlight that God save the Queen is a national anthem in Scotland. As i have shown in the example, in Scotland if the national anthem is played it can be God save the Queen. They do not describe it as the British national anthem or the UK one.. it was just the national anthem. The last time the issue of the Queen / PM being in the infobox was raised the majority supported it, despite those listed being "of the UK" rather than "of Scotland". The same principle applies here. Aslong as we clearly state its (UK anthem) there is no problem, why not provide a little more information for people so they dont have to read the UK article as well? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest finding a good source that GStQ is the national anthem of Scotland (as opposed to the UK). Failing that, we can't use it. --John (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with John for the reasons he states and the many reasons stated above. --Snowded 14:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland, this is undisputed fact and has been show in the links i posted above with the programme / video footage. There is nothing incorrect about saying God save the Queen (UK anthem). The Infobox does not have to contain only things "Of Scotland" the fact the PM / Queen are in the infobox highlights this.

We have stated why we think GSTQ should be displayed (considering its not even mentioned in the article at all at the moment). There is no reason not to display GSTQ if its labelled as (UK anthem) the way we label the PM (of the UK). BritishWatcher (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an undisputed fact that it is the national anthem of the United Kingdom. It is not the national anthem of Scotland and your links only show that it is played in Scotland in the context of the United Kingdom which is really not surprising or notable. --Snowded 15:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just butting in here! There seem to me to be two different concepts. The Scottish national anthem (in the sense of "self-identifying musical symbol of a nation") is X. The official national anthem of the sovereign state of which Scotland is a part is Y. Anthem X is used for some purposes on some occasions in Scotland, and anthem Y on others. As this article is predominantly about Scotland as a nation, rather than as a part of a sovereign state, it makes sense to give priority to X over Y. But it seems to me that the outside reader would gain value from both being mentioned, with a clear explanation of the respective roles of each. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Ghmyrtle, it's all about the most value to the reader. Which is why BritishWatcher's common sense proposal seems the most sensible way to proceed on this.Irvine22 (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There can't be a "clear explanation of the respective roles" in an infobox. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So, AngusMcLellan, in that case do you favor removing all references to "de facto" anthems from the infobox, as there can't be a clear explanation of their role? Irvine22 (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed I do. I also support the removal of infoboxes altogether. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesnt the infobox shown here explain the roles? No de jure anthem, 2 de facto anthems and one UK anthem. All 3 have a role in Scotland. We could always add a note to the infobox about it aswell and expand the section on anthem in the body of the article. But at the moment God save the Queen is not mentioned at all, thats clearly a problem. Considering use of Flower of Scotland is a recent thing, replacing God save the Queen at sporting events like the rugby. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I had considered the -UK anthem- compromise as acceptable (last night). But have reverted back to my previous stance; GSTQ doesn't belong in the infobox (nor does 'Gordon Brown' or 'Elizabeth II', IMHO). England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Scotland are not independant. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay it is the fact they are not Independent countries that we should include such information. This all comes down to "of Scotland" and "In Scotland". The National Anthem in Scotland is God Save the Queen, yet it is not mentioned anywhere in this article at all. I do not see why its wrong to provide more information to the reader if its clearly presented.

We here may all understand this matter, but[REDACTED] is meant to provide information to people from all over the world. We should not expect that people will read the UK article as well, there for some of the basics like anthem, prime minister and Queen do need to be mentioned here. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

GSTQ can be added somewhere within the content, but not in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

We might all want to remember that this started with a deliberately provocative edit to try and state that GSTQ was the national anthem of Scotland. An action which may end up with this article coming under restrictions appropriate to the Troubles. That type if intervention needs to be discouraged. I think that position has now been dropped, however there are continuing confusions. Ghmyrtle has provided an accurate summary. I don't agree with the solution as it clutters the inbox, adds no value overall and there is no confusion to any third party reader. Putting something in the main body of the article per GoodDay makes more sense It is a terribly minor issue and really needs to be put to bed. Why not just let other editors comment and see what comes out of it? --Snowded 15:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but i do not see it as provocative. God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland. The infobox does not clearly state that it is to only list the anthem "OF" Scotland. The Countries of the United Kingdom are a special case. Ofcourse the states of America do not need to list the US anthem, but it is still the national anthem in those states. The problem is here we are listing national anthems to do with Scotland but we do not list God save the Queen which is indeed a national anthem in Scotland.

Adding one line saying God save the Queen (UK anthem) does not clutter up the infobox, it provides more information to the reader. As for the bit about the Troubles restrictions applying here, if that happens then it will prove the failure of the admin and the arbcom rulings. This article and the matter we are debating in no way falls within their original rulings. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

BW, the original edit (not by you) was provocative. I think your statement above makes things more difficult to be honest. Saying that GSTQ is the UK national anthem and placing a line to that effect in the information box is an issue of style and relevance - not a big issue, I would keep it out. Saying that GSTQ is the national anthem of Scotland is simply incorrect and a confusion would result. You really have to provide a citation to support that and you haven't. --Snowded 15:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Ghmyrtle's summary, and with BritishWatcher's elegant proposed solution. If, as Angus McLellan suggests, the status of these various ditties - Flower of Scotland, Scotland The Brave, God Save The Queen etc -cannot be properly explained in an infobox, then they all should come out and the entire question should be addressed in the body of the article. That should also address Snowded's concern about clutter.Irvine22 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It all comes down to this "of" and "in" God save the Queen is without doubt the national anthem in Scotland. In the recent past when God save the Queen was used at rugby for Scotland it could have been described as a de facto anthem of Scotland and the example of the Edinburgh Tattoo, shows the national anthem in Scotland is still God save the Queen, yet they see no need to describe it as the British one.

What harm does it do telling someone who knows nothing of the UK and Scotland that the UK anthem is God save the Queen. This anthem is used in Scotland to not even mention it seems unhelpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

So far you have not answered the arguments put to you. (i) the tattoo is military and that means UK bot Scotland (ii) de facto use preceded devolution and is no longer the case (iii) you have no citations to support your position. The tattoo point even if valid would be OR. --Snowded 16:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's OK to note the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the infobox, why is it not OK to note the National Anthem of the United Kingdom in the infobox? Both relate to the sovereign state to which Scotland belongs, rather than to Scotland itself. We should be consistent. Daicaregos (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I might be more inclined to a compromise if we didn't have the false and unsupported claim that it is the national anthem. Get that out of the way and the discussion on inclusion of information about the Sovereign State in the info box can take place. --Snowded 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Neat sidestep, Snowded. Daicaregos (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That is why i suggested the "God save the Queen (UK anthem) so its clear we are not describing it as the de jure or de facto anthem "of Scotland". BritishWatcher (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Because this article is about Scotland as it has been repeatably pointed out, the Union Flag is used in Scotland so why not put that in the infobox no seriously I am honestly waiting on that suggestion, its getting ridiculous and the consensus is not to include it.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is about Scotland, but God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland just like the star spangled banner is the anthem in Texas. Because we are talking about countries within a country we do have to be more clear on these matters and thats why theres the PM / Queen in the infobox despite them not being "of Scotland". I would not propose the inclusion of the union flag, the trouble with the anthems is we list them yet we are clearly missing out a national anthem used in Scotland (GSTQ). BritishWatcher (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

GTSQ is the de facto anthem of Scotland, there is no argument against this. Whether or not you think it belongs in the article is irrelevant. Why? Because that’s your personal POV. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Its no the de-facto its not even de-jure anthem where on earth did you dream that up?--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And no argument? What have so many pixels given their lives for on this page then? ;-) Fribbler (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Even more reason why we should clearly and neatly present the information in the infobox to avoid confusion. Without doubt the national anthem in Scotland is God save the Queen yet it is currently not listed at all or even mentioned in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If instead of "(de facto)" the infobox said "(Scottish anthem)" or "(anthem of Scotland)"- while retaining "GSTQ (UK anthem)" - would that be better, or worse? There would also need to be an explanatory sentence or two in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Again its the anthem of the United Kingdom not Scotland there is no Union Flag in the infobox so why should the UK anthem get included? --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The infobox shows the flag of Scotland and the royal standard of Scotland. The problem is we are listing anthems but missing out GSTQ which is a national anthem in Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support a change along those lines Ghmyrtle, if we got rid of the De jure bit saying none which is pretty pointless and perhaps had a note at the bottom of the infobox as well as a more detailed explanation in the article itself we could address all of these matters. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

May I remind you to remain Civil in these discussions Barryob and to not let your nationalist agenda fuel your arguments.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Misortie, that comment went over the line. Everyone, please keep comments focused on the content, not on the contributors. Also, it is my strong recommendation that future discussions be source-based, and not idea-based. Instead of "it's obvious that" or "I saw such and such on TV", does anyone have any actual reliable sources that discuss this anthem issue? If so, let's see them. Then, if there's a dispute as to whether or not the source is reliable or not, please bring it up at the reliable source noticeboard. --Elonka 17:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is part of the problem Elonka, there is no single national anthem in Scotland. Some sports may use Flower of Scotland as the Scottish national anthem, other things may use Scotland the brave. But God save the Queen is also the national anthem in Scotland because Scotland is part of the UK. We list the Queen and Prime Minister in the infobox on this article even though they are of the United Kingdom rather than just Scotland. The same principle applies to the national anthem.

Scotland is a Country of the United Kingdom, it is there for not as simple as dealing with American states or Canadian provinces. Ive shown above the national anthem (god save the Queen) being played in Scotland at the Edinburgh Tattoo. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the Queen & PM Brown should also be 'excluded' from the infobox. But, that's a discussion for another time. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Misortie you unfounded attack against me is laughable and is itself a breach of WP:CIVIL, please do not lower yourself because you can't win an argument. And BritishWatcher it has been pointed out that is a military event.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

BW et al, I am still waiting for a reply to the arguments here and to any citation which says that GSTQ is the national anthem of Scotland. --Snowded 18:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have said that God save the Queen is the national anthem IN Scotland in the same way the national anthem in Texas is the star spangled banner. However as we mentioned about the rugby anthem last night, it was not that long ago when God save the Queen was used as a de facto anthem for Scotland the same way it is used by Northern Ireland.

I am asking for us to list God save the Queen in the infobox as the UK anthem in the same way we have listed the Prime Minister as of the UK. If the national anthem is played in Scotland, it can be God save the Queen but we do not even mention it once in the entire article. If it should be mentioned in the article then it highlights why its reasonable to place it in the infobox. American states do not need to mention the US anthem in their articles at all but because both Scotland the UK are countries we need to be more clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you are not asserting that GSTQ is the national anthem of Scotland, it would help if you would make that clear as it would distinguish your position from other editors. I'm inclined to say that if its like Texas then follow the Texas precedent. Overall my view is that info boxes should not be cluttered. The article makes it clear that Scotland is a part of the UK so relevant information is at that location. Anthems tend not be discussed in the body of an article but have their own pages so there is no real need to mention it in the article. There might be a curiosity piece on the changes over time but that is it. Personally I would remove the Prime-Minister so I have no inclination to add other material about the UK to an information box on Scotland. Its not done on US States or other non-soverign areas so I can't see any precedent or reason to create one. I'll go with the flow on this one, but my vote goes to keep it out. --Snowded 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is it depends on the wording which i think is the reason we do need to highlight this in the infobox to avoid confusion and it certainly needs more detail in the article itself. God save the Queen is the national anthem throughout the United Kingdom, that would include Scotland. God save the Queen is the people of Scotlands national anthem in exactly the same way a Texans national anthem is still the US anthem. I am not saying God save the Queen is used today specifically for Scotland, although that was certainly the case in the recent past when it was used in rugby for example. So if it was used by the Scottish rugby still today it would have to be defined as a de facto anthem, why is it only a few sports that define these de facto anthems? Atleast in the case of Wales there is an official anthem and not different de facto ones.

The reason we have to treat the UK countries different to US states is because the infobox is not claiming that Texas has a national anthem. If it did list an anthem it would clearly be seen as just the state anthem. But in the case of Scotland, if we do not list God save the Queen then its like it has no use in Scotland at all which is not the case as highlighted by the military tattoo and im sure there other occasions where the national anthem is played and it turns out to be God save the Queen, Irvine mentioned about it being used in ceremonies in the past i do not know if thats changed. The fact some may consider it the de facto national anthem of Scotland shows exactly why we need to address this matter in the infobox, something that wouldnt happen in Canada / USA. I would say God save the Queen is motr of a "default anthem", and in some cases like sports organisations have chosen to use different ones. To include the UK anthem in the way i suggested before certainly would not lead to confusion, it would clarify the issue especially if its backed up with more notes in the infobox notes section or the body of the article BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note there is deabate about which anthem with be played at the Commonwealth games to represent Scotland, GSTQ is not even shortlisted --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

God save the Queen would not be an option for the Commonwealth Games, even England does not use the anthem there.. thats the whole point because God save the Queen is used as royal anthems in many commonwealth countries.

I notice that in this Scottish TV list of possible Scottish anthems they do include the National Anthem of God save the Queen. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see evidence coming into play. So why don;t we sit back and wait and see what comes out of those polls? The article has been fine for over a year, it can wait a little longer. --Snowded 18:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I want God save the Queen added as the (UK anthem) not as the de jure or de facto Scottish anthem which such a poll is aimed at trying to decide. The fact there is an ongoing debate and no legal national anthem would suggest it may be better to have nothing listed in the infobox and just link to a detailed explanation of the different anthems and their uses but if we just included God save the Queen (UK anthem) then it would resolve the problem also. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with BritishWatcher. The ongoing debate renders the current information in the infobox inaccurate and prone to mislead the reader. Irvine22 (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems you folks are out of step with consensus here and with policy. If you can find a reliable source which backs you up, we could look at it again. But the arguments you are making (such as they are) seem to belong more properly on Talk:United Kingdom. --John (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure you're right about that, John. By my count, most editors commenting here favor either adding God Save The Queen to the infobox, or removing all references to "de facto" anthems from the infobox, or removing the infobox entirely. The misleading and inaccurate status quo is supported only by three editors, if we count yourself. Irvine22 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see previous discussions in Archives 3, 8, 9, 10, 15 (twice), and 20. It would be helpful if those who wish to overturn this long-standing consensus could provide new arguments and citations rather than simply repeating the old ones.

I completely agree with Angus MacL above that "There can't be a 'clear explanation of the respective roles' in an infobox." There is however the option of using a "Note" system to provide a space at the end of the article for a brief introduction to the subject, which would allow for an explanation of GStQ's role relative to the other ditties. See Orkney for an example of this style where the "footnotes" (as opposed to citations) commence as the first sub-section of Orkney#References. The advantages of this system is that it provides space for these asides without cluttering up the article or infobox with sidetracks. I realise that the disadvantage for some us may be that it does not lead to an emphasis of the British POV in the immediately visible sections of the article, but I don't think an infobox is an appropriate place for attempting to disentangle the complex politics of "these islands". Ben MacDui 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I would go with removing all the so-called anthems, de facto, de jure, de mented from the infobox and handling them all and the entire issue in a "Note" as you propose. Irvine22 (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That approach sounds workable to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact this has come up quite a few times in the past it appears highlights this is an issue which must be dealt with. I partly agree that we can not clearly explain everything about the anthems in the infobox, as there is no single legally defined national anthem of Scotland it should left blank and explained in detail within the article itself. We should not restrict this to a small note at the bottom of the article. I would still favour just adding God save the Queen (UK anthem) to the infobox, but if that is not possible then lets removal them all in the way we remove images of the flag of Northern Ireland because theres not an agreed single flag. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please explain why editors have been happy to include the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the infobox, but will not agree to including the National Anthem of the United Kingdom in the infobox? Both relate to the sovereign state to which Scotland belongs, rather than to Scotland itself. Daicaregos (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why this discussion is being treated as part of the above discussion as a whole, if that makes any sense. Wasn't New section used?--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken in assuming editors who do not scream and shout and throw their toys out of the pram are necessarily happy. I certainly amn't especially happy that Brown appears; Van Rompuy doesn't appear in the Wallonia or Flanders or Brussels infoboxes. Neither was I pleased that nation disappeared as a result of some original research by dictionary. And I can surely come up with more things I'm not enthused by given a little time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have put this into a new section as it was causing me problems. Hope you don't mind.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, the consensus appears to be to note facts that are related to the sovereign state to which Scotland belongs, rather than to Scotland itself. Shouldn't we be consistent? Daicaregos (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We might want to open the wider question. I'm with Angus in thinking that Brown should not be in the information box. Maybe raise it on the other pages as well and reach a general agreement, --Snowded 08:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Two points. Firstly, if that debate is reopened, can we take it as read that all contributors have read the earlier discussions here a few months ago, further up this page - starting at Talk:Scotland#Prime Minister. Secondly, though consistency is desirable it is not a requirement, and given that the four UK countries have very different histories and current administrative arrangements it is not necessarily beneficial to impose it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear from previous discussions that the editors of this article want the content to be decided here. What happens on other articles is irrelevant to this discussion. When I mentioned consistency I was referring to being consistent on this article. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is included in the infobox, but the National Anthem of the United Kingdom is not. Both relate to the sovereign state to which Scotland belongs, rather than to Scotland itself, the subject of this article - that is inconsistent. Please advise if that is still unclear. Daicaregos (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My comment on consistency related to Snowded's point, not yours. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. Daicaregos (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly clear other than the first sentence. Changes on one article also create precedents for others. There are other things that relate to the Sovereign State that do not apply to Scotland so its a question of what is included and what is not. --Snowded 14:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree but, as that is your view, if changes here are likely to create precedent elsewhere, the articles that are likely to be effected should be notified. Daicaregos (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well we had disagree one day! Lets see what happens here, its a mixed bag on change at the moment. --Snowded 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, part of the issue here is the question of resolving these sort of issues. Like most thing in[REDACTED] where there is no right answer any final solution will be a compromise. The current one has the UK PM in, but the UK anthem out and the discussions are recorded. However the PM's presence is now been used as a precedent to argue for the anthem. Every now and then we get either a good faith or a provocative edit to change one and these are normally quickly corrected. Stable situations (well over a year) on both this issue and the country one have been destabilised in the last month. The Northern Ireland country debate and now this. It can be argued that the PM position applies to all three, while the anthem is different. Wales does have an official one, Scotland may get one or at least a single de facto one, Northern Ireland probably never will. I would leave the current stable position in place, but if its been challenged then having one subject picked off at a time is a recipe for disruptive editors to play games. --Snowded 13:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the suggestion we should mislead people into thinking that the only people responsible for the governing of Scotland is the first minister. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is responsible for many matters relating to Scotland including its internal security. We must treat the PM / Queen in the same way, so if we did remove them both that would just leave the first minister. Totally unacceptable and grossly misleading to the realities of the situation in the Countries of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No one wants to mislead people BW, or to disguise Westminster's role in the government of Scotland. However having the PMs name in the box is only one option and not (some of us think) the best. No one is challenging the Queen here. Personally the sooner the whole of the UK becomes a republic the happier I would be. However the[REDACTED] needs to reflect what is the case, not what should be.  :-) --Snowded 13:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As a piece of information intrinsically related to the broader political setting into which Scotland fits I cannot see why reference to the UK PM should be avoided. It is an indisputable fact and necessary for complete understanding of the political fabric of Scotland as a nation. But it doesn’t need to be overstated. I would draw the line at that and not, for example, include the eventual President of the European Council. Leaky Caldron 13:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Prince Edward Island (for example), doesn't have Canadian PM Stephen Harper in its infobox. Therefore, Scotland shouldn't have British PM Gordon Brown. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

GD, you know by now that Canada and the UK are constitutionally different. No "therefore", therefore. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland & PEI are both 'not independant'. Scots has a 'first minister', PEI has a 'premier'. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And the similarity between a remote island province in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Scotland is what? Despite it’s interesting history, surely it is now simply a Canadian Province, not unlike Northumberland is a County in England? The issues with Scotland are more complex. Leaky Caldron 16:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

They're both 'not independant'. Stephen Harper is not PM of PEI & Gordon Brown is not PM of Scotland. Harper is PM 'over' PEI, Brown is PM 'over' Scotland. 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not including the indisputable accountability of the PM of the UK does nothing for the thoroughness and accuracy of the article. Leaving comparisons with PEI aside, what good comes of leaving out factually correct information? When the PM represents the UK at the EU, UN, climate change or anywhere else, he represents the whole of the UK & NI. Until there is a border control north of Berwick that’s the way it will be. Leaky Caldron 17:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec, how did we get into the PM stuff? Weren't we discussing the 'national anthem'? GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

They are linked people are trying to justify the inclusion of the UK anthem because the UK PM is there, and looking at some of the above arguments why not put the President of the European Commission in the UK infobox or the Scotland one for that matter seeing as he represents them both at various events. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I still say this Infobox is for Scotland 'only'. Elizabeth II & Gordon Brown should be 'excluded'. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the anthem and UK PM as separate issues. One is certain the other is arguable. Leaky Caldron 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is a big difference although the basic principle about "of the UK" or "Of Scotland" does apply to all 3. I certainly feel far more strongly that the PM / Queen belong in this infobox. Otherwise that would just leave the first minister which would miss out major roles in the governing of Scotland. The fact God save the Queen has no mention at all ia a problem that needs to be solved but its less of a problem than leaving the PM / Queen out would be.

I still do not see the harm in just adding God save the Queen (UK anthem). It clearly presents the information which can be expanded in more detail in the article itself. If that option is so impossible then we should just leave the anthems blank and refer to a note where it can be explained in detail. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind another Welsh editor weighing in, why not add a sentence such as the following in the article, whilst omitting any mention in the infobox: Scotland qua Scotland has no official national anthem; however God Save the Queen, being the national anthem of the United Kingdom, is sung in Scotland. Ham 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly needs a mention in the article text although one extra line just listing the UK anthem would not take up alot of space or clutter the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland  (English / Scots) Alba  (Scottish Gaelic)
Flag Royal Standard
Motto: In My Defens God Me Defend (Scots) (often shown abbreviated as IN DEFENS)
Anthem: None (de jure) Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave (de facto) God save the Queen (UK anthem)
ISO 3166 code	GB-SCT

Well there has been no comments over the past 48 hours. Are there people still strongly against adding the mention of God Save the Queen to the infobox?, clearly showing it just as the (UK anthem) to avoid any possible confusion. If there is no further debate on this i will add it in the next few days. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

GSTQ shouldn't be included. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

And that, was the end of that. He hopes. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it will be safe to assume that those who disagreed only a few days ago still disagree unless you hear otherwise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

They went silent and several people agreed there is a need for some form of change, be it adding the UK anthem, removing all the anthems, adding notes etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher's proposal at this juncture - seems the fairest, quickest fix of what is clearly a problem with the article. The current infobox is simply misleading. Irvine22 (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the sake of making some progress I'll presume that you're right in thinking that editors who disagreed with you earlier in a discussion need to post their continuing disagreement every day or two and that they can be assumed to have changed their minds if they don't do so. Out of the choices listed you decided that adding the UKoGB&NI anthem was the right solution, even when it isn't mentioned at all in the article text? I think this is the wrong answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Angus --Snowded 01:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Angus and Snowded. I could live with no mention of the de facto anthems though as they are a little unencyclopedic too, just leaving it as None. That seems the most descriptive. Infoboxes should be minimalist, that's their whole point. --John (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

My proposal (as suggested a few days ago) is to say in the infobox: Anthems: Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave (anthems of Scotland), God save the Queen (UK national anthem) - with no mention of "de facto" or "de jure", and an explanatory sentence re GSTQ in the text (para 9.2), such as "GSTQ, the official UK national anthem, is used on some formal occasions". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin here, I have no preference on what the Scottish anthem is or isn't. I am neutral on this matter. However, I am concerned with what seems to be a circular discussion in this thread, and difficulty finding an acceptable compromise. Over a dozen editors have commented now, so it might be best to have an uninvolved administrator review the discussion, and then make an official determination of "consensus", much as an administrator may review some other discussion on Misplaced Pages, such as an AfD. Or, the parties here may choose to follow another step in Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, such as to file a Request for comment, or request mediation. The only unacceptable path here is for everyone to continue repeating their same positions over and over. So, which shall it be? Administrator consensus determination, or another step in WP:DR? If the latter, someone needs to file an RfC or RfM request. If no one does that reasonably soon, then we'll try the administrator consensus path instead. --Elonka 05:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've seen this come up many times before so if someone is going to review it, maybe they can also review the prior discussions which were referenced above. --Snowded 06:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Angus, my position was and remains that GtSQ has no place in the infobox any more than the Anthem of Europe does. However, I can't agree that its reasonable to presume that "editors who disagreed ... earlier in a discussion need to post their continuing disagreement every day or two and that they can be assumed to have changed their minds if they don't do so". This simply plays into the hands of those whose strategy it is to bore everyone into submission by raising the same issues at tiresome length over and over again. This page has a large number of watchers but very few who actually contribute the article's development, which has been much reduced since this pattern of behaviour first emerged in March 2008.

I have no difficulty at all with an uninvolved admin attempting to create "consensus" (or perhaps more likely, a temporary cessation of hostilities before yet another attempt to UK-ify the lead/infobox is made). I do wonder Elonka, as I know you have experience of these national issues elsewhere, if these discussions are typical or not. If this were an ongoing war of attrition between editors who cared passionately about Scotland and Scottish subjects I could understand it, but rather almost all of the dialogue seems to be created by editors whose interest in this seems to be confined to the lead/infobox of this article. (Compare the edit history stats of the article and this talk page for a snapshot.) I fully understand that we are free to act as we see fit, but the end result seems to be that few with a genuine interest in "Scotland" participate any more. Perhaps, who knows?, that is the intention. Ben MacDui 10:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact this has come up several times in the past highlights that this is a genuine issue that needs to be addressed. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but to compare the national anthem of the United Kingdom to the anthem of Europe is not a fair comparison even if that is what some people would like the situation to be. The United Kingdom's national anthem is God save the Queen, Scotland is part of the UK and there for God save the Queen is the people of Scotlands national anthem in the same way a Texans national anthem is still the Star Spangled Banner. It was only 2 decades ago that God save the Queen was used to represent Scotland at the rugby in the way its used for England still today. Yet for some reason years after this article was created there is no mention of GSTQ.

I never said that just because everyone fell silent it meant they suddenly agreed with change, that is why i posted a comment saying i will add it in a few days time if theres no further debate, rather than just adding it last night. Its true some people disagreed with adding GSTQ to the infobox, but there is clearly support for some form of change. Removing the anthems from the infobox and explaining the situation in detail in the article or notes, adding the UK anthem to the infobox are all options and id support either. God Save the Queen certainly needs to be mentioned in the article text but the issue with the infobox needs addressing to avoid confusing people or leaving out information.

I would also support an uninvolved admin taking a look at the problem, aslong as we can continue to engage to put our points of view rather than just an external ruling saying "do this and end of story". It may also be helpful if the univolved editor was not from the United Kingdom, so they can decide what would be the most useful option to those less aware of the setup of Scotland / UK and their anthems. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we also include the fact that London is the capital and the largest city in the UK? Shouldn't the Union flag be added to the infobox as well, as Scotland is part of the UK. I also propose the name of the article be changed to Scotland (UK). There must be many other instances in this article where it could be pointed out to the reader (in case they haven't yet picked up on it) that Scotland is only a region of the United Kingdom. I reckon that's the way to go. We could also include the Anthem of Europe in the infobox. Shall we do that? I propose having a straw poll on my suggestions. Jack forbes (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No-one here is suggesting that Scotland "is only a region of the United Kingdom." But it is a country that is part of the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The national anthem for people in the United Kingdom which includes Scotland is God save the Queen. The anthem of Europe has never been used to represent Scotland or described as "the national anthem" in Scotland. God save the Queen, without any question of doubt has and still is, i gave an example previously showing the Edinburgh Tattoo Programme saying "National anthem" and the anthem played was God save the Queen. Now us Brits may understand our setup (UK anthem always used for military etc) although not all do, but people from outside the United Kingdom could do with extra information.

We are listing the anthems, but leave out a very important one which is still the national anthem in Scotland. We do not list the flags in and of Scotland, we just display the flag of Scotland and the Royal Standard... theres a difference.

It is because Scotland is a country and described as one in the article that we have to be more clear about these sorts of things. Thats why mentioning the Queen and Prime Minister "Of" the United Kingdom in the infobox is important, where as for a state or region or province of a country like America or Canada it is not required. Scotland is a country, the infobox currently says there are two de facto anthems of Scotland yet fails to mention that God save the Queen is the national anthem in Scotland like it is throughout the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this national anthem in Scotland you keep referring to? I've heard of a national anthem of Scotland, but this in Scotland thing is a term I'm not familiar with. Could you give me a reference for this? LOL, you gave an example of God Save The Queen being played in Scotland. Well done! Who would have thought it. As has been pointed out, it is the national anthem of the UK, not Scotland. These discussions get sillier every time and this person won't be drawn into it any further. Jack forbes (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• GA-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• GA-Class Scotland articles
• Top-importance Scotland articles
• All WikiProject Scotland pages
• GA-Class Europe articles
• High-importance Europe articles
• WikiProject Europe articles
• GA-Class UK geography articles
• Top-importance UK geography articles
• GA-Class Celts articles
• Unknown-importance Celts articles
• WikiProject Celts articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists